Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 227 posts

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#141

Post by helloworld11 »

The prohibitionist puritans never learn. Laws that reduce smoking permissiveness in public places? Sure, Laws that set rules for advertising and legal buying age or location? Okay, why not. Banning tobacco completely in a spasm of nannying, health-fanatical "for your own good" intervention in people's personal body choices? Why? Have decades of absolutely idiotic drug laws and the previous idiotic bans on alcohol not shown why this is not only a bad idea practically but also just morally wrong by basic definitions of individual's rights to autonomy over their own bodies?

Doubtless there are many people here who personally dislike tobacco and thus think it's just fine that others should be banned from using it, but remember, where one set of laws tries to ban some personal way by which a person uses their body, its guiding principle can be expanded widely to include all sorts of other things you do support being able to do.

As a basic notion, the whole idea of the state acting as if people should be treated like little children in situations where their actions don't cause non-voluntary damage to others is just plain toxic in so many ways.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#142

Post by shawnz »

gumby wrote: post #106
whatshisface wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still not as bad as ammonia and smoke. Edit: It hit me that over the next few decades they are probably going to invent some really nasty things to put in vapes, like they did with cigarettes (that were made to be a lot worse than the "mere" nicotine and smoke inhalation of tobacco smoking), so don't read this in 20 years thinking that people in the past thought whatever they're doing in the future is safer t…

Also, at least in the US, the vehicles (solvents) are unregulated, as are the heating devices (I have been told by some vaping friends that they like the "toasted" effect at the end of a long pull, which is the polymer heating, fracturing, and crosslinking. Ugh. PEG is a common vehicle; some molecular weights are so safe they aren't even regulated (called GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe") and some are quite toxic…

Surely the fix there is to improve the regulations rather than banning it?

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#143

Post by Bjartr »

b3nji wrote: post #135
urthor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand…

Or put another way, they don't take personal responsibility, and hand their decisions over to other people running the state.

Put another, another way, they recognize the limits of their own discipline and choose to remove the temptation by social agreement.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#144

Post by whatshisface »

shawnz wrote: post #142
gumby wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, at least in the US, the vehicles (solvents) are unregulated, as are the heating devices (I have been told by some vaping friends that they like the "toasted" effect at the end of a long pull, which is the polymer heating, fracturing, and crosslinking. Ugh. PEG is a common vehicle; some molecular weights are so safe they aren't even regulated (called GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe") and some are quite toxic…

Surely the fix there is to improve the regulations rather than banning it?

I have no idea if any of this is true, but an argument you might hear is that companies that make some profit can capture the agencies to make a lot of profit, while companies that don't make any profit can't exist. So, you could defend absolute bans even while admitting they are excessive if you don't have faith in the system to keep a more nuanced policy stable.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#145

Post by toss1 »

chrismat wrote: post #84

I grew up in a household with two smoking parents, and it sucked. So on a personal level, nothing would be better than the world collectively giving up the nasty habit. However, I would never, ever advocate or vote for forcing people to do that. Why? Because you could make the exact same case for every single vice. Alcohol has zero benefits for your health - don't even try to give me the "but wine has antioxidants" B…

>>o you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? And the "experts" they solicit their advice from?

Maybe not every personal decision, but certainly decisions that scale should be handled by actual experts. And yes, actual experts exist who actually know more than you and I, and can make better decisions based on the actual data they have gathered and knowledge they have gained, vs our 5minute Internet search.

And much of what you see as a "personal decision" is actually decided by corporate money. When smoking was completely unregulated, corporations advertised and distributed at will. Smoking rates declined dramatically when advertising and distribution was constrained. Yes, we can make a decision collectively to not make certain kinds of harmful activities readily available and pushed on the people by sophisticated influence campaigns.

From the article: >>"Thousands of people will live longer, healthier lives and the health system will be NZ$5 billion (US$3.2 billion) better off from not needing to treat the illnesses caused by smoking,"

Personally, I'm not thrilled to be paying into the insurance system to support the massive healthcare costs of smokers. If they can be made to pay in their FULL cost, then that is fine.

Otherwise, go make your personal decision - grow and cure some tobacco, and roll your own. Nobody is stopping you. The only thing they are stopping is every corner store selling it.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#146

Post by urthor »

beambot wrote: post #138
urthor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand…

> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. I think reasonable people could object to Australia's internet censorship laws, COVID response, climate activities, etc. There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy).

There's a margin of error in decision making.

By no means do they always get it right.

Remember, much of the fourth estate innately will be crassly negative, for commercial reasons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars. New Zealand for example has some remarkably shrill national news stories about remarkably petty crime.

> There's a big difference between being an expert & representing the will of the people (aka policy).

Yes, and the technocrats don't always get it right, at all.

Democracy works because nobody actually trusts the technocrats. Just like nobody trusts the investment bankers, politicians, real estate developers, police, lawyers.

However, Australasia has had a remarkable run of success via eventually doing what the technocrats tell them to do.

The will of the people supports the technocrats.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#147

Post by leetcrew »

bdamm wrote: post #127
lost_tourist wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are levels to it though. Smoking is across the board "fucking awful". Whereas a glass of wine a day isn't going to really stress your liver (presupposing no existing issues), whereas a pack of smokes a day absolutely will do damage to your healthy lungs. Also second hand smoke is a big deal.

Is there such a thing as "a glass of wine"? Usually it is "two" unless you happen to always dine in groups of four.

yes, you can buy a single glass of wine at many bars and restaurants. while somewhat triggering to the oenophiles, you can also buy wine packaged in 12 oz cans, which is close to a standard pour if split between two people.

I get that this was probably a tongue-in-cheek question, but like many other things, drinking follows a power law distribution. there are many more moderate drinkers than heavy ones.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#148

Post by urthor »

polemic wrote: post #126
urthor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand…

> They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. It helps to be small & pragmatic. People (mostly) follow the rules and politicians (mostly) only implement rules with broad support. Police have wide discretion to apply laws and (mostly) do this to benefit public good. That's not to say we don't have problems, of course, but this particular law is seen as a compromise approach to public…

I find the root cause is not so much size... and more so younger sibling syndrome.

Australia/New Zealand have a... very, very, very deep-seated feeling of inadequacy, comparing themselves to large Anglophile nations.

There's a genetic urge to "impress Mother England."

For Australia, also a deep seated desire to prove they're not an island of criminals.

For New Zealand... a deep seated desire not to be left off maps.

It's not so much size... there's just a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America. To stop people moving away.

Edit: root cause. Not benefit.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#149

Post by urthor »

b3nji wrote: post #135
urthor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand…

Or put another way, they don't take personal responsibility, and hand their decisions over to other people running the state.

Individual responsibility is tied to economic rationalism.

With 100% devolved individual responsibility, you create market failure.

Nicotine based addition is a pure example of market failure.

To advocate for 100% unhindered individual responsibility, is to advocate against economics.

No rule-free economic market, free of arbitrary constraints, is ever truly rational.

That's because market failure is the default state of nature. The rich take from the poor, the incentive to economically specialize is lost due to theft.

"Personal responsibility" is a gross simplification of the complexities of political and economic science.

I would never simplify the enormous complexities of human computer interaction and UX, fields I know nothing about.

Don't over-simply how difficult a decision regulating nicotine was, and how many decades of academic careers have been sacrificed to come to this consensus.

Cable news slogans can never summarize the efforts of thousands of doctorate wielding technocrats arguing endlessly over the solution to nicotine.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#150

Post by mensetmanusman »

justinclift wrote: post #76
mensetmanusman wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This man was encouraged to seek death by staff: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/chronically-ill-man-rel... We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized.

> We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized. Is that really the case though? The example you've highlighted there is indeed pretty crappy, but it's not evidence of the problem occuring "everywhere it is legalized".

How bad would the ‘war on life’ abuse have to be before one would consider that humanity probably can’t handle this responsibility.

Especially now that we see suicides line up with date specific tax penalties in the EU… (/morbid laugh)

Post reply on HN