New Zealand bans smoking for birth years 2009 and up

[AimlessWanderer]

I think that if this works get ready to see it everywhere that has a public health system. The governments will justify banning tobacco products due to the healthcare costs associated with its use. It’s either ban the tobacco that 8% of the population uses or raise taxes on the entire population to help pay for the 8% healthcare.

The best figures I can currently lay my hands on:

2021/22 UK tobacco duty revenue = £10.277bn

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-u...

Worth noting that the duty doesn’t include the VAT on top of the retail price, so you can bump that up considerably for total revenues received.

Now, I can’t find more recent figures, but in comparison, the cost to the National Health Service from smoking related disease in 2015 was £2.6bn (and the number of smokers is likely to have decreased slightly since then)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smokin...

So by my reckoning, they take in at least £5 in assorted taxes, for every £1 it costs the NHS.

 

[Columbo]

I'm in favour. And what makes this different from the other examples in the thread is that eating red meat doesn't have the potential to kill the people around you.

Note: I was a pack a day smoker for twenty odd years, so am now a sanctimonious non-smoker.

I disagree. There are sufficient restrictions, regulations, penalties and punishments available to restrain the potential second-hand and collateral effects of these activities, at least in the US. And the substantial taxes imposed on them provide ample compensation to society for any further effects.

Go light a cigarette in most office buildings, and they toss you outside and/or call the police. Get too drunk in public, and you get arrested. Get caught driving while intoxicated, and they suspend your license, and imprison you in many jurisdictions.

The beginning age for these activities are already prescribed to at least majority age in most US jurisdictions.

And in consequence, only a minuscule percentage of the participants in these activities ever run afoul of these restraints. The vast majority of adults quietly indulge in these habits peaceably, and with a minimum of impact on others.

The use of alcohol and tobacco in the US is, to quote a phrase from the meeting of the heads of the five families, “permitted, but controlled”.

I do not believe in the criminalization of historically traditional and institutionalized leisure activities. For the least of which reason that criminalizing it won’t stop it, but it will make it more perilous and uncontrolled to the society at large. Because now it will continue, with criminals running the show (and I won’t get into whether that is already the case )

But more saliently, it causes one to finally cross the rubicon, and address the question of whether these are matters best monitored and guided by the family unit and the immediate community, or whether we are now ceding the proper upbringing of our children and future generations to the government. The latter IMO already has a big enough opening into our childrens’ minds via the schools.

As I mentioned above, once a person is old enough to make informed fundamental life decisions, they can decide for themselves whether to indulge in these activities, and a litany of other adult decisions and activities, and to enjoy, or suffer, the personal consequences for them.

If a family has done a good job in raising that young adult, then the choice will typically be one in restraint and moderation, and mindful of the risks and restrictions that may apply. And if not, at least here in the US, that person will inevitably suffer the public consequences.

I don’t think it is the government’s place to make those core decisions. And that’s exactly what NZ is doing here. At the end of the rope, it winds up weakening people and inevitably eroding their fundamental free will to make life choices. We were put here in part to make those choices.

At heart, this entire thread is about who is better equipped to raise our children: the family, or the government. Despite my resistance to devolve into politics here, my vote is for the former. And it is counseled by the disasters of history where the latter has prevailed.
….

I will just add after the fact that there are other private offsetting consequences for these activities. It is a fact that most life insurers charge a significant additional premium for smokers vs. non smokers, and many have established guidelines as to where the consumption line is between the two. Many assess risk similarly for alcohol consumption.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Thus cementing my resolve not to visit Australia or New Zealand in this lifetime.

 

[GeronimoWSB]

Anyone remember this report. Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the healthcare providers. It's all a scam for power either way. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/...found that from,healthy people lived 84 years.

 

[alex1921]

My previous employer simply would not hire tobacco users. End of chapter.

A friend spent a year at the Cleveland Clinic and he had to take a urine test for nicotine. If positive, no contract.

 

[Whisky]

Anyone remember this report. Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the healthcare providers. It's all a scam for power either way. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html#:~:text=The researchers found that from,healthy people lived 84 years.

Yes, because healthy people live longer.

 

[Jack Goossen]

Social engineering leeds to totalitarianism.
Mankind does not learn.

 

[Columbo]

Anyone remember this report. Smokers and the obese are actually cheaper for the healthcare providers. It's all a scam for power either way. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html#:~:text=The researchers found that from,healthy people lived 84 years.

Let's take this insanity to its illogical conclusion.

It's a documented conclusion that pipe smokers live longer than non-smokers. See, 1964 Surgeon General's Report.

The New Zealand government should therefore mandate that all persons born after 2009 must smoke a pipe.

Trust the science, the science is settled, etc., etc.

 

[Lockback]

New Zealand passes world-first tobacco law to ban smoking for next generation

The country is believed to be the first to implement an annually rising legal smoking age

www.theguardian.com

I still believe in freedom of choice for responsible adults. This is a development and mode of thinking that is wrong in so many ways aside from the matter at hand and general political left/right standpoints. It makes for a bleak future for whatever controversial topic you can think off in todays society.

I couldn't agree more.
I'm glad I won't be around forever because I think there are very dark days ahead.

 

[cleanshaved]

It is not so much the ban itself as I said above, but the total exclusion of a part of society pro futuro. If this kind of law making takes hold then it opens a real Pandora's box.

Lets turn the argument but stick with the same logic:

THC is illegal in my jurisdiction (feel free to insert your vice/pain point of choice).

There are currently discussions to legalize it for recreational purposes as some/many other countries did in the last couple of years. There might even be consenus among the people on how to tackle this matter.

GOVERNMENT:

So lets legalize it, but ONLY for people who turn 21 AFTER December 31st 2022!

How would you feel as an Adult, Voter, Tax payer to be excluded from a right only because of AGE?

Ah but you ignored the logic of the intent of the law in turning the argument. That is to stop new young smokers while not taking it away from those who already smoke. What's the alternative, ban it altogether. Now that would get a few people up excited.


I don't think your fear of reproducing this law in other situations is anything to worry about.

 

[Whisky]

It's a documented conclusion that pipe smokers live longer than non-smokers. See, 1964 Surgeon General's Report.

While I wish this were true this was changed in the 1973 Surgeon Generals report to pipe and cigar smokers live shorter lives than non-smokers but longer lives than cigarette smokers. Scroll down to the 1973 synopsis.

Table 3.1, Surgeon General's reports on smoking and health, 1964–2012 - The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[PintoPlain]

The best figures I can currently lay my hands on:

2021/22 UK tobacco duty revenue = £10.277bn

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-u...

Worth noting that the duty doesn’t include the VAT on top of the retail price, so you can bump that up considerably for total revenues received.

Now, I can’t find more recent figures, but in comparison, the cost to the National Health Service from smoking related disease in 2015 was £2.6bn (and the number of smokers is likely to have decreased slightly since then)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smokin...

So by my reckoning, they take in at least £5 in assorted taxes, for every £1 it costs the NHS.

And as has already been stated by @GeronimoWSB and @Whisky above, smokers typically die younger than nonsmokers. This alone saves a fortune on pension payments. I have seen several actuarial reports which prove a pack a day smoker will typically pay more in sin taxes than they will take from the system in the form of healthcare and pension payments. These were based on social healthcare such as the Irish HSE and the NHS in the UK. I think it is a safe assumption to extrapolate to similar jurisdictions.

Having just visited NZ, I noticed very few smokers compared to Europe. Considerably fewer than the last few times I visited too.

I was also shocked at the price of cigarettes there. Made the most expensive European cigarettes look cheap in comparison.

 

[Columbo]

While I wish this were true this was changed in the 1973 Surgeon Generals report to pipe and cigar smokers live shorter lives than non-smokers but longer lives than cigarette smokers. Scroll down to the 1973 synopsis.

Table 3.1, Surgeon General's reports on smoking and health, 1964–2012 - The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I read that '73 report a while back. Casual readers tend to latch on the executive summaries and chapter conclusion statement quotes, which are frankly misleading and assume a bit of scientific license. And are in a word, politicized.

Despite the executive summary and the chapter conclusion statement, which tends to be restated in every synopsis of the report, the underlying studies cited in the body of the report arrived at statistically insignificant, and conflicting, results. And most relied on unusually small sample sizes.

In fact, drilling down into the several specific studies involving pipe smokers, one study showed no difference between pipe smokers smoking from 10 to 20+ bowls a day and non-smokers (Best). And another (Kahn) found that pipe smokers over age 65 had a mortality rate of 0.91, significantly longer than non-smokers. And in another (Hammond), it was found that non-inhaling pipe smokers had lower mortality rates than non-smokers (.98, ages 45-64; .87 ages 65+). And most pipe smokers don't inhale, something even the chapter conclusion statement was forced to concede.

Despite these inconsistencies, and some study results actually affirming the '64 Report, the chapter conclusion baldly stated, in a obvious lump-together statement, that "cigar and pipe" smokers experience overall mortality rates "slightly higher". Except we aren't talking about cigar smokers here, just pipe smokers.

Politics.

Of course, we could also use the '73 Report to argue that no science is ever really settled.

I think I'm going to go have another bowl.

 

[Multum in parvo]

Ah but you ignored the logic of the intent of the law in turning the argument. That is to stop new young smokers while not taking it away from those who already smoke. What's the alternative, ban it altogether. Now that would get a few people up excited.


I don't think your fear of reproducing this law in other situations is anything to worry about.

The proof will be the youngster’s once the reach their adulthood and if they feel treated unfairly…

 

[Hirsute]

I'll just add, this discussion is part of why the Brown Leaf is a special corner of the internet. This is a topic folks feel passionately about and it runs into all sorts of political beliefs that has a danger to run off the rails, but the conversation has been very open, respectful, and measured. Just the kind of discussion I hope people can have about this type of topic, but this type of discourse is becoming rarer in lots of places.

 

[snowman]

What will Gandalf do? A wizards gotta have a pipe once in a while.

 

[OkieStubble]

In the UK, Public Health England, who were endorsed in their findings by the NHS, estimates that vaping is 95% safer than smoking.

It's not nicotine that kills. In fact it's fairly harmless in of itself. The issue with smoking is that there are about 100+ very carcenogenic chemicals that you have to ingest to get to the nicotine.

My partner is in a very senior position in the UK Public Health system, and the policy here is to encourage smokers to transfer to vaping.

I am a very keen vaper myself. It's a good way to get your nicotine in a vastly more risk-free way. I enjoy nicotine. It's pretty similar to caffeine in my life. It's insane for countries to limit vaping on a spurious health basis. It seems actually that countries going down that path just want to banish any lingering 'memory' of cigarettes or smoking. Pure social engineering zealotry.

It will be amusing to see how the legacy media of those countries, when screening classic films from pre 1990 will explain the cigarettes vastly shown being smoked by the characters. Maybe a government 5 minute pre-film lecture on the evils of the past? Rather Orwellian.

This is an interesting paper from Cancer Research Yorkshire, which gives a fairly good picture of the current thinking in the UK.

https://yorkshirecancerresearch.org...min/vaping-productsposition-statement2021.pdf

I’m curious about the research of the safety/dangers of the inhalation of propylene glycol in vape juice? I have heard studies are finding it to be as concerning as cigarette smoking?

 

[Alum Ladd]

I’m curious about the research of the safety/dangers of the inhalation of propylene glycol in vape juice? I have heard studies are finding it to be as concerning as cigarette smoking?

I will get back to you on that OS, need to check with the LOTH who is the public health pro.

I think it is the mix. a 50-50 PG/VG mix seems ok. There are some rare issues with a higher PG/VG mix, like 80-20. Vapers use that to make dense 'clouds'. It can cause a lung issue, but it appears rare and non fatal except in a very few recorded cases. Cotton candy lung I think it's called.

Will check.

 

[OkieStubble]

I will get back to you on that OS, need to check with the LOTH who is the public health pro.

I think it is the mix. a 50-50 PG/VG mix seems ok. There are some rare issues with a higher PG/VG mix, like 80-20. Vapers use that to make dense 'clouds'. It can cause a lung issue, but it appears rare and non fatal except in a very few recorded cases. Cotton candy lung I think it's called.

Will check.

Yes, please check; I’m very curious and interested.

 

[Invicta]

No no, the minimum age will be increased every year. A today 13 year old will never be able to legally buy tobacco products in the future. So in 40 years time you will have to proof that your are at least 54 years old…

Should include vaping otherwise the teenagers will move towards vaping.
Purchase of tobacco products for under 18s have been illegal in the UK since 2007 but i see far too many under 18s smoking.