New Zealand smoking ban reversed

[EclipseRedRing]

According to the news this morning there has been a reversal of the planned ban on selling cigarettes in New Zealand to anyone born after 2008 in order to fund tax cuts.

New Zealand smoking ban: Health experts criticise new government's shock reversal

Health experts are appalled as the new government plans to repeal the policy to fund tax cuts.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Toothpick]

So they like the tax money better than the lives saved.

….shocking.

 

[Kentos]

You know tobacco, for all intents and purposes, is really something the human body can do without. It can also do without sugary drinks, alcohol, fried foods, and a myriad of items that may or may not harm the body. I guess the question comes down to what should the government’s role be in regulating what an adult person of legal voting age can do to their body. I really don’t know, but in light of alcohol, sugary drinks and fried foods being freely available at the local pub it seems regulations so far in New Zealand are inconsistent.

 

[DogLeg]

Alcohol prohibition in the US is the ultimate case study in the unintentional consequences of banning a product that a significant minority of the population wants.

Aside from bolstering the profits and influence of organized crime, and undermining the rule of law, it's all upside, right? /s

Have they legalized marijuana there yet?

 

[AimlessWanderer]

So they like the tax money better than the lives saved.

….shocking.

They really like the tax money a lot more!

A 50g tin of Peterson tobacco is $160 NZD ($98 USD)

 

[EclipseRedRing]

You know tobacco, for all intents and purposes, is really something the human body can do without. It can also do without sugary drinks, alcohol, fried foods, and a myriad of items that may or may not harm the body. I guess the question comes down to what should the government’s role be in regulating what an adult person of legal voting age can do to their body. I really don’t know, but in light of alcohol, sugary drinks and fried foods being freely available at the local pub it seems regulations so far in New Zealand are inconsistent.

With respect I think personal choice, something which I am in favour of, is a different conversation. As I understand it, the New Zealand government is not claiming to reverse the regulation for reasons of personal liberty and choice, it is doing so in order that smokers, the rates of which are highest among the lowest earning indigenous Maori population, can fund tax cuts for all. The only party which campaigned to reverse the regulation in the recent election won only 6% of the vote. To be clear I have no strong feelings on a ban either way, on balance I would probably not implement a ban in the UK, but would like to see current age restriction laws properly enforced.

 

[NorthernSoul]

I thought the original idea was to save money in the long run by avoiding health care costs covered under the government funded health care plans. Benefiting the health of the population was a secondary goal, but the primary goal was economic. Anyway, outright prohibition has not worked well in other cases.

 

[gpjoe]

Yup. Tax revenue always trumps health and safety.

Like Michigan legalizing fireworks knowing that dummies would injure themselves...and our pets hate the noise.

Tax revenue is also the main reason that vaping has been attacked, because it IS a viable tool for adults trying to quit tobacco. Gotta keep selling those cigs so the state can get their $2.36 per pack revenue.

 

[Multum in parvo]

The right move for the wrong (publicly voiced) reasons. I still believe that this law wouldn’t have held up before court because of discrimination by age.

 

[Legion]

The right move for the wrong (publicly voiced) reasons. I still believe that this law wouldn’t have held up before court because of discrimination by age.

Sale of tobacco products was already allowed or prohibited, based on age.

 

[Multum in parvo]

Sale of tobacco products was already allowed or prohibited, based on age.

To protect minors but surly not for adult voters and taxpayers?

 

[Legion]

To protect minors but surly not for adult voters and taxpayers?

Everybody who is born after 2008 is a minor (and not a voter, more importantly).

It was actually a fairly clever way to get legislation through with basically zero blowback. Nobody who is currently allowed to smoke (or vote) was effected one jot. And what kind of person fights for the right for their children to one day take up smoking? Hardly anyone in NZ cared, it was a non issue.

If I had to guess, it was probably the tobacco companies, with hands deep in pockets, that got the whole idea scuttled.

 

[AimlessWanderer]

It was a bizarre concept, that would end up at some point (2045) with a 37 year old being able to buy tobacco, but not a 36 year old. Indeed if it went strictly by birth year, sales of tobacco in the middle of the year, would be legal to a 37 year old born early in one year, but not a 37 year old born towards the end of the year before. However well intentioned the concept, that's a ludicrous system to try to administer.

 

[Legion]

It was a bizarre concept, that would end up at some point (2045) with a 37 year old being able to buy tobacco, but not a 36 year old. Indeed if it went strictly by birth year, sales of tobacco in the middle of the year, would be legal to a 37 year old born early in one year, but not a 37 year old born towards the end of the year before. However well intentioned the concept, that's a ludicrous system to try to administer.

It was weird, but an interesting example of thinking outside the box. The idea was to try to make another hurdle that prevents the kids of now taking it up in the first place. Whether it would have worked, even to some degree, I guess we won't know if they have scrapped it.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

It was a bizarre concept, that would end up at some point (2045) with a 37 year old being able to buy tobacco, but not a 36 year old. Indeed if it went strictly by birth year, sales of tobacco in the middle of the year, would be legal to a 37 year old born early in one year, but not a 37 year old born towards the end of the year before. However well intentioned the concept, that's a ludicrous system to try to administer.

Correct but that principle applies to any activity with a minimum age requirement, the only difference here being that the minimum age itself increases each year. The point is that eventually nobody would be able to buy cigarettes, as nobody could possibly be old enough.

 

[Multum in parvo]

Correct but that principle applies to any activity with a minimum age requirement, the only difference here being that the minimum age itself increases each year. The point is that eventually nobody would be able to buy cigarettes, as nobody could possibly be old enough.

Which rubs me totally the wrong way regardless of the issue at hand.

 

[AimlessWanderer]

It was weird, but an interesting example of thinking outside the box. The idea was to try to make another hurdle that prevents the kids of now taking it up in the first place. Whether it would have worked, even to some degree, I guess we won't know if they have scrapped it.

Correct but that principle applies to any activity with a minimum age requirement, the only difference here being that the minimum age itself increases each year. The point is that eventually nobody would be able to buy cigarettes, as nobody could possibly be old enough.

I completely understand those points. As I said "However well intentioned the concept..."

It was an interesting thought experiment, but I can't see it ever working well in practice. Thirty and forty year olds being asked for proof of age. Two people of the same age, but born in different years, having different legal status. One of them being refused sale for not being old enough, by someone potentially fifteen or twenty years their junior. Maybe the true intention was to stop people selling tobacco (legally), because it's simply not worth the hassle.

 

[Legion]

I completely understand those points. As I said "However well intentioned the concept..."

It was an interesting thought experiment, but I can't see it ever working well in practice. Thirty and forty year olds being asked for proof of age. Two people of the same age, but born in different years, having different legal status. One of them being refused sale for not being old enough, by someone potentially fifteen or twenty years their junior. Maybe the true intention was to stop people selling tobacco (legally), because it's simply not worth the hassle.

The idea is kind of redundant anyway. NZ has almost the highest cost of tobacco in the world (only slightly behind Australia) because of the taxes. This is why they have almost the lowest rate of smoking.

The government doesn't need fancy tricks to make us quit, they just tax it until we quit by choice.

We can't all be in successful hair metal bands.

Tommy Lee rages about the shocking cost of cigarettes in Australia

Tommy Lee has slammed the high price of cigarettes in Australia in an Instagram post.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[luvmysuper]

I've no issue with taxation on tobacco products, it will eventually reach a tipping point where people stop buying it. Either by not using it, or by growing their own.
The recreational use of marijuana is on the rise around the world, and even in New Zealand, the last referendum was pretty close on whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana there with 50.7 voting no, and 48.4 voting yes.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to even have such a referendum when the tobacco ban law was on the books for implementation. Though illegal for all but "medicinal" purposes, New Zealand has the ninth highest marijuana use rate in the world. Current medical opinion is that marijuana use is worse than cigarettes with smoking a single marijuana joint being equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath.

Marijuana and Lung Health

The American Lung Association is concerned about the health impacts of marijuana use, especially on lung health. We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risk of damage to the lungs.

www.lung.org

Study Says Smoking Marijuana Worse for Lungs than Cigarettes

Smoking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke, according to researchers.

drugfree.org

Banning a currently legal product outright has bad precedent, one need look no further than the alcohol prohibition in the United States for an example of what happens when you do.
I understand the desire to reduce injury from tobacco use, but there are ways that do it without subjugating free choice.
And for those who say "What about sugary drinks, dangerous hobbies such as skydiving, or eating fatty foods? They cause deaths too!": Hey - it's Government. If you think they'll stop once they ban tobacco, you haven't been reading your history books.

 

[Shaving like a boss]

Alcohol prohibition in the US is the ultimate case study in the unintentional consequences of banning a product that a significant minority of the population wants.

Aside from bolstering the profits and influence of organized crime, and undermining the rule of law, it's all upside, right? /s

Have they legalized marijuana there yet?

Lets not forget the U.S. government intentionally poisoned untold gallons of grain alcohol without warning the public. As a result up to 10,000 are estimated to have died from ingesting methanol used to denature industrial grain alcohol that was being bootlegged. It is unknown how many thousands more were blinded or otherwise injured by the governments intentional poisoning. They could have put the word out, but they did not.