Earlier quoted context omitted.
War on drugs etc.
This is more of "Serious spanking" on drugs, hardly "war".
Total ban seems more like war than spank…
New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
151–160 of 227 posts
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#152While obviously smoking is bad, how is this approach acceptable and not discrimination? Imagine if the approach to getting rid of ICE cars was to say 'nobody born after this date will ever be permitted to drive one, but a person born one day earlier can' - there'd be massive outrage.
It is discrimination. It is an acceptance that making current generations stop is more difficult than preventing future generations from starting. >ICE cars Common narrative is smoking is bad, whereas ICE cars still bridge a gap. ICE cars also aren't an addiction. The comparison is completely off the mark.
> ICE cars also aren't an addiction.
Given how difficult it is to find places in the US where you can have a car-free lifestyle, I would say they are, at least in the US.
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#153> The new legislation does not ban vape products, which have become far more popular among younger generations than cigarettes.
Vapes will be covered in other legislation related. This isn't the only move the govt is making.
> It will be accompanied by a slew of other measures to make smoking less affordable and accessible, including dramatically reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products and forcing them to be sold only through specialty tobacco stores, rather than corner stores and supermarkets.
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#154I 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 hav…
> Smoking rates declined dramatically when advertising and distribution was constrained.
The tobacco companies agreed to have TV cigarette ads banned because there is no real reason for cigarette preference other than what you started smoking (this is why you see ads that were targeted at youth), and they couldn't not advertise when competing with so many others. They figured that if they were all forced to the same level they would save a lot of money while gaining the benefit of a PR win as well as removal of the mandated 1:1 anti-smoking ads.[1]
You can see the same kind of techniques in play with recycling and fire-retardants in corporations getting together to work to legislate things that people think are pro-public-interest but are really pro-corporate with effects on the public ranging from benign to actively harmful.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/01/congress-bans-airi...
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
Your other statements about AU/NZ culture have been extremely questionable, but this one is just complete nonsense.
The idea that there is a genetic urge to impress England is bizarre, typically about 50% of people support becoming a republic. Some recent data in [0]
Australia's original status as a penal colony seems to be held onto as trivia externally but is entirely irrelevant in modern discussion (as it should be as it stopped 150 years ago). Thinking that this is something Australians think about suggests that you have a very outside perspective.
I don't know what a culture of needing to be a better place to live than America means. I don't think being a good place to live is a culture, I think it's an objective of a society.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-republic...
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#156Not being from NZ, I don't feel it's my place to comment on this legislation or speculate on its effectiveness in that country. Too many variables for me.
But, I think this is a very intriguing way to construct a prohibition. I'm very aware that trying to regulate away vices in my country (the U.S.) has a spotty history at best. If people want it, they're going to get it, and the alternative black market and its attendant criminality is often worse than the initial problem. But, this is a new wrinkle that (I assume) is also aware of that phenomena and is trying to mitigate it. I'm very, very interested in seeing how this plays out. Obviously, hoping for the best!
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#157Earlier 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).
I’m a resident of Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, which had the longest pandemic lockdown in the world AFAIK. It certainly was at the time the lockdown ended, at least.
Victoria recently had an election wherein the government which was responsible for implementing the lockdown was re-elected. Notably, the state government’s pandemic response was dictated by facts, indeed the chief health officer responsible for informing politicians and implementing policy was a medical practitioner and undeniably an expert in public health matters.
During lockdown and even still, there continue to be protests against the government for their pandemic response, despite the re-election being a clear sign that the will of the people is that they want a government led by (or at least informed by) experts who know what they’re doing.
It’s important to note that there are examples within the Victorian government which show the opposite, though. They have aided logging of old-growth forests, despite saying they won’t allow it to continue. They’ve repeatedly and demonstrably used tax dollars to fund infrastructure projects in electorates where the ruling party has a slim majority (so-called marginal seats).
My point is the Victorian government is far from perfect. It’s been a year since the last lockdown ended, yet the lockdown is still the thing people discuss when it comes to policy. It’s the most invasive action a state government has taken, affecting so many people. It’s what people remember. And it mattered at the polling booth last month, when people voted the government back in. They even saw an increase in the seats they hold, from last election.
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is forcing people to buy unregulated products from illegal dealers. That sounds more dangerous to me.
No one is forcing people to buy cigarettes.
People are going to buy cigarettes. You can play make-believe and pretend that isn't true. Or you can grapple with the uncomfortable reality.
In reality, people will be buying illegal, possibly tainted cigarettes that are sold by organized crime groups. Same as any drug.
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
[deleted]
Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
As we'd say here: "Yeah, Nah". This is a caricature of parochial English thinking of the colonies from the 50s, and is entirely divorced of what Australia and New Zealand are like today.