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

131–140 of 227 posts

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#131

Post by mmsimanga »

Supermancho wrote: post #62
CM30 wrote: post #10

Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be…

Prohibition has worked for a very long time to control the widespread use of many materials, chemicals, and practices (ie building codes) across the world. Alcohol is relatively simple to create and store, and to hide consumption. Alcohol is effective at almost any quality, that doesn't immediately kill you. Cigarettes are a very different beast from alcohol. Unlike marijuana, given the data on second-hand smoke, man…

South Africa has high taxes on cigarettes making cigarettes relatively expensive. The result is black market of unregistered cigarette brands. A good number come across illegally from neighbouring countries. Perhaps NZ being an island nation might be able to control illegal imports better.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#132

Post by arghnoname »

Gatsky wrote: post #120
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…

Ah well sure but when the smoking rates drop low enough, smoking related healthcare costs greatly exceed the cigarette tax receipts. NZ is a small country and needs to contain the costs of its socialised healthcare. Is there a fundamental ‘right to give money to Tobacco companies’? Buying cigarettes is banned, smoking isn’t.

I'm not a utilitarian because I think there are many things that we should do that can't be justified with a straight-forward look at the bottom line. Judging things this way can end with things that are pretty ethically dubious, e.g., forced abortion for fetuses with condition X, where X may be various levels of impairment whereby the resulting human is not profitable.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#133

Post by LAC-Tech »

daemoens wrote: post #125
LAC-Tech wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime in NZ has been trending downwards for over a decade. Reported crime does not equal actual crime. With police response time in the hours range, and a lack of prosecution, people increasingly don't bother reporting crime at all. I remember once the emergency operator pretty much said "look it's going to take a couple of hours, do you really want to bother going through with this?". This was in a city about 2km fr…

Out of curiosity, what was the crime they didn't want to go through with?

Palmerston North.

Lived in Auckland in 2014 and again in 2020. The difference was massive. Suddenly every convenience store had plastic barriers protecting the workers from stabbing. Places in the CBD that used to be OK to hang out were suddenly not.

But we're constantly gas-lighted into being told we're all imagining it, as police presence has all but disappeared (lots of "community officers" though).

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#134

Post by Quillbert182 »

standardUser wrote: post #75
megatest123 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning cigarettes is protecting public health

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.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#135

Post by b3nji »

urthor wrote: post #91
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…

> 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.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#136

Post by burnished »

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #70
burnished wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absurdly addictive. And as I understand it smoking as we know it has more to do with marketing and the intentional suppression of research indicating serious harm than anything else. Hell, I might liken it to generational trauma. I’m not sure of the specifics. Does the law prevent you from growing and curing your own tobacco? There might be something important there - I don’t think folks would make their own cig…

Many countries in the world (like AUS and India) also prohibit tobacco growing. It's hard to do in the U.S. because it is a native species--literally, like cannabis, a weed.

My assumption is that if you illegalized the sale of tobacco but not the growing of it that cigarettes would not have wide spread use, whereas with alcohol I think most communities would end up producing it.

Which makes it seem different, like cigarettes are this highly addictive thing that gets pushed on you because it makes some one else wealthy but otherwise would not have much demand. Which makes comparisons to alcohol feel flat.

That is the point I was trying to make when asking about laws about growth/personal production.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#137

Post by Supermancho »

mmsimanga wrote: post #131
Supermancho wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibition has worked for a very long time to control the widespread use of many materials, chemicals, and practices (ie building codes) across the world. Alcohol is relatively simple to create and store, and to hide consumption. Alcohol is effective at almost any quality, that doesn't immediately kill you. Cigarettes are a very different beast from alcohol. Unlike marijuana, given the data on second-hand smoke, man…

South Africa has high taxes on cigarettes making cigarettes relatively expensive. The result is black market of unregistered cigarette brands. A good number come across illegally from neighbouring countries. Perhaps NZ being an island nation might be able to control illegal imports better.

> The result is black market of unregistered cigarette brands. A good number come across illegally from neighbouring countries. Perhaps NZ being an island nation might be able to control illegal imports better.

This is in the short term. This is also a slightly different situation, which is beyond the land-access. High taxes are an implicit indication it's still ok and for the wealthy, making it a status symbol. Banning cigarettes in NZ will put pressure on future generations to not start at all. This will not be 100% effective, granted for the next generation. From a cost-benefit perspective, if you are going to bring in black market products, why not get people started on meth? Meth has become quite prevalent in much of africa and partly because it's cheap.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#138

Post by beambot »

urthor wrote: post #91
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…

> 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).

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#139

Post by Gatsky »

arghnoname wrote: post #132
Gatsky wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah well sure but when the smoking rates drop low enough, smoking related healthcare costs greatly exceed the cigarette tax receipts. NZ is a small country and needs to contain the costs of its socialised healthcare. Is there a fundamental ‘right to give money to Tobacco companies’? Buying cigarettes is banned, smoking isn’t.

I'm not a utilitarian because I think there are many things that we should do that can't be justified with a straight-forward look at the bottom line. Judging things this way can end with things that are pretty ethically dubious, e.g., forced abortion for fetuses with condition X, where X may be various levels of impairment whereby the resulting human is not profitable.

Agreed, but the OP is obviously unconvinced by the moral observation that Big Tobacco hack people’s brains for profit while externalising the costs to society.

Re: New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

#140

Post by mistermann »

Eisenstein wrote: post #24
CM30 wrote: post #10

Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be…

Smoking cigarettes has always been something that was started pretty young. It is an outlier who starts smoking after the age of 18. This law will affect total smoking in the population only as much as it can affect the ability of minors to obtain cigarettes. By making it a black market, this may backfire, since it is easier for an underage person to purchase something illegally from an illegal supplier than it is fo…

Another way it can backfire is that this is yet another reason for many people who already have negative sentiments toward government overreach and government in general to be angry. I would be more than a little shocked if many of the people who participated in the January 6 hoedown didn't have a whole laundry list of grievances, imagined or otherwise, that contributed to their motivation to show up there that day.
Post reply on HN