51–60 of 162 posts
I like this. It's certainly more possible in New Zealand than in a corporate-owned country like the USA.
That's the least of the reasons it wouldn't work in the USA. It would be a civil rights issue. Age discrimination.
As an ex-smoker I would love if nobody ever smoked again and this scourge was eliminated from the face of earth. But not at this price. A few years of life more will never justify another war on drugs and this level of government control.
Prohibition doesn't work and anyone who supports "quick fix" criminalization of substances is a fool.
I'm not from New Zealand, so it's officially none of my business. But, this quote in particular seems so patronizing.
The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed. There’s no way this will result in an…
Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these kinds of things. I just think vices are something humans have pursued in general and will continue to pursue regardless of government control. It's just cost of being in a society. Education can help and has helped greatly reduce smoking along with policies restr…
I fully support this, but sadly there will be kids to whom possession and the smoking of cigarettes will be even more a sign of the utmost coolness. And, as I understand it there will be a time when a 35 year old can buy cigarettes but a 34 year old can't. That's going to be interesting.
Here’s the problem with tobacco. It becomes a public expense when the community has to pay the health bill. The same arguments that people who refuse COVID vaccines should be cut off from the community (jobs, commerce, etc) applies to tobacco. Tobacco costs lives and can inflict damage on those not personally using.
Depending on how you measure it, New Zealand may well be taking in more tax than the use of tobacco is costing.
It all gets quite murky quite fast (eg how much tax would the dead person have paid if they had lived longer?).
Don’t get me wrong though, I’m somehow supportive of more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol while keen on more liberal drug policies. It would seem that I need to think this all through.
https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releas...
The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed. There’s no way this will result in an…
Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these kinds of things. I just think vices are something humans have pursued in general and will continue to pursue regardless of government control. It's just cost of being in a society. Education can help and has helped greatly reduce smoking along with policies restr…
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
Good parents don't parent via restrictions, but by offering kids something better to do with their time. Restrictions are powerful if they are super-clear and super-limited ("do not kill", "do not steal"). Just making a pile of good-to-have "don'ts" diminishes the effect and risks brewing revolt.
If you manage society and worry that people smoke too much or drink too much, or don't do enough sports, or eat junk food, figure out a way to make a better alternative more available and more satisfying. Be a good parent who guides to a better way, not an annoying parent who simply barks "no" left and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a step in the direction of personal freedom, because addictive substances are kinda the opposite of free will.
Yeah, till the day the concept of being addicted to read the wrong books arise.
Not all freedoms are the same. Losing one doesn't equate with losing all of them. Equating the freedom to become addicted (or indebted perpetually) is not the same as the freedom to read or travel, etc.