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

New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#111

Post by dredmorbius »

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #61
Synaesthesia wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit. But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement. Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place…

Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.

Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance."

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#112

Post by mitigating »

standardUser wrote: post #32
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Here’s the problem with tobacco." Funny how that is the exact same problem as with exercise, diet, driving, and just generally existing in a society.

Smoking is addictive. This makes it more difficult for a person to change their behavior compared to exercising more, eating healthy, and driving better (I'm assuming you meant people who drive poorly?)

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#113

Post by yissp »

zdragnar wrote: post #99
foxrider wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While both alcohol and weed can give you altered reality experience, tobacco can not. Tobacco smokers are a major annoyance and a nuisance to the public, on top of killing themselves slowly, so if the tobacco cigarrets would've been strictly illegal and you coldn't smoke in public I can't imagine people willing to organize into small secret clubs to smoke a few cigs a day in a place you have to go to.

> I can't imagine people willing to organize into small secret clubs to smoke a few cigs You mean like what underage kids already do?

smokin' in the boys' room

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#114

Post by jjgreen »

Angostura wrote: post #66
xboxnolifes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this was incorrect information, but I was under the impression that smokers were generally less of a cost on healthcare, as they tended to die earlier and use less medical resources.

They die earlier, but I'm no sure if this outweighs the substantial treatments many need before they die.

A smoker's heart attack at 57 is cheap, it's the non-smoker's 15 years of Alzheimer's that costs.

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#115

Post by thriftwy »

cynusx wrote: post #62

Surely kids below the age threshold will love to break the rules and try it out. There is one upside though, which is that enforcement becomes progressively easier. At some point every young person that smokes is breaking the law. I think they could just make the product worse (e.g. banning filters; adding supplements to make it more bitter) and then individuals will naturally opt to avoid smoking.

I don't think that people will ever break the law by smoking. It's selling which is usually made illegal, not buying.

Going after a person is much harder than going after business making money.

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#116

Post by thriftwy »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #72
hourislate wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will have you know our corporate overlords own a good chunk of New Zealand also and any resistance is futile! But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely?

>But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely? Kind of side line question. Jacinda got a huge result in the election. Their majority and nearly majority popular vote effectively authorizes them do whatever they please. So why not go all the way on all their efforts?

Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way.

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#117

Post by NoSorryCannot »

dredmorbius wrote: post #111
NoSorryCannot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.

Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic

That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics".

Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#118

Post by NoSorryCannot »

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #117
dredmorbius wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic

That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics". Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".

But also to add, drug law enforcement's tendency to refer to something as a narcotic whenever it's politically expedient is obvious FUD.

I allege that FUD was the intended effect when the word was used by OP.

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#119

Post by wepple »

benmmurphy wrote: post #76
wepple wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One consideration here that many folks (US in particular) may not consider is that smokers put a very substantial burden on the NZ healthcare system which is taxpayer funded. Of course, there are plenty of counter examples to this such as obesity (NZ is #2 in obesity only to US at #1) where the costs don’t result in any substantial regulation or prohibition. Alcohol is a ginormous topic too, NZ has an extremely unhea…

I remember looking at the figures ages ago for a different country and if you netted everything out smoking saved the government money. For example here is something from the UK from the IEA: https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-dri... The Smoking and the Public Purse report argues that the government spends £3.6bn treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS and up to £1bn collecting cigarette bu…

Wow, fascinating. I’m not entirely surprised that the taxes cover the healthcare costs (probably similar in NZ where taxes on smoking are very high), but I was startled by the idea of early mortality being a saving.

I would point out that healthcare isn’t an entirely financial game; struggles to get nurses and doctors still mean that smokers will pull resources away from other areas

Re: New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

#120

Post by dredmorbius »

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #117
dredmorbius wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic

That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics". Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".

Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word.

You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists.

Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now.

(Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)

Post reply on HN