161–170 of 227 posts
Not to worry, the (black) market always provides. It's almost like the government is abdicating their own responsibility for regulating markets and protecting public health, and instead sanctioning criminal activity to handle the issue.
What would you do differently to solve the problem?
I really like a lot of what comes out of NZ, but not this sort of nanny state action. I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. It's a high-level combination of "Won't someone think of the children?" and "Do as I say, not as I do". Definitively a political winner that doesn't impact anyone of voting age for the current crop of NZ politicians.
> I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. Can you please name some?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, those born after 2008 will have to buy their cigarettes illegally.
When I was a kid in the 80-ties parents sent me to buy cigarettes for them. It was not illegal to sell them to minors. I guess there'll be reversal of that practice in New Zealand.
Many hypocritical users here agree with the ban but defend alcohol...
It might be more comparable if NZ were banning some more dangerous way of getting drunk that also gave bystanders cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I would heavily challenge this just because the opposition is utterly incompetent in Victoria. I am as against the lockdowns as they come and think they border on criminal as an action taken by the state against citizens. A disgusting violation of human rights I never thought I would see in Australia in my lifetime and honestly changed permanently how I viewed the moral compasses of my fellow citizens.
However they were done and now I have to vote based on what is going forward and the policies put forward by the liberals in Victoria are, frankly, moronic. Matthew Guy is a buffoon who has no place in leading the party.
So I gritted my teeth and voted Labor. But using that as an endorsement of lockdowns or Victoria covid policy is absurd. I know many who feel the same as me and acted similarly.
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…
If you want to look into temperature vs productivity you should note these populations overwhelmingly have ancestry from colder weather climates
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…
Presumably even if it's illegal to sell tobacco in a store it could still be legal for someone to possess and use tobacco in a private setting.
Not just cigarettes — all tobacco products. How very appalling. Smoking is a human right. Pipes smell wonderful; tobacco generally tastes great and has a positive effect on one’s mood and attention. Sad day for New Zealanders.
That zeal. From what I heared, anti-drug laws may be construed is that selling is a different matter and possession and production are accessory. That's why possession of small amounts of cannabis for example is decriminalized while traffiking is still prossecuted where I'm from. This is arguable because addictive substances will be sold with the intention of creating dependence, not unlike the loot box topic, thus i…
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose. Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also ob…
But I wonder how many people with COPD due to smoking would say "I am really glad I have been smoking and would never give it up" ? That is the thing, people start at a young age because it is "cool", when they get old, they wish they never started. I never meet a longtime smoker who has never tried to quit. Eventually many just give up trying to quit. I wonder how enforceable this law is ? I suspect illegal markets…
The idea that he's still smoking because "he chooses to do so" and "he likes it" makes me fucking laugh.
This law doesn't even try to wean addicts off cigarettes, accepting that many of them have no hope of giving up or even just moving to vaping. It seems like a fair approach to treat this population of addicts as something to be managed as they age out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wanna smoke yourself to death? Do it at home. Most people want to smoke themselves to death in the open, around other people though. It's nobody's right to pollute our air for the sake of their bad habits, thus regulations.
And pay for all your medical bills out of your own pocket.
First, aren’t smokers paying for it through the high taxation of cigarettes?
Second, wouldn’t this argument also apply to people that drink themselves to death? Or eat themselves to obesity? Or snack on sugar to diabetes? Should we not cover someone’s medical bills if they attempt suicide or drive at high speeds and crash?
I’m saying this as a non-smokers who hates the smell of cigarettes.