New Zealand smoking ban reversed

[Mr. Shavington]

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.

There’s no financial benefit to the country by banning smoking. On the contrary, as New Zealand shows. In my country (UK) the annual tax revenue from tobacco duty is £10.0Bn. The VAT tax on that (20% charged on both the tobacco and the duty) brings it to a bit over £12Bn. The annual cost of the entire UK National Health Service is £181.7Bn, so taxes on tobacco fund 6.6% of the entire cost of healthcare, including fixed costs and overheads.

The annual cost per patient of treating lung cancer in the UK is £9,000 (according to Cancer Research UK, although this is much higher than the £2,800 average cancer treatment cost, so perhaps they are exaggerating to make a point - but let’s assume it’s correct). Survival rates are about 30% (so the 35,000 annual deaths would indicate 50,000 total lung cancer patients - though not all are smoking related). If you assume 100% of lung cancer patients are smoking-related, then the total cost of their treatment is £450 million per year, against the total tobacco tax revenue of £12 billion per year (i.e. tobacco taxes are 27 times the cost of lung cancer treatment).

There are no other diseases that have a statistically significant link to smoking. But anyway the total UK cost of all cancer care is £5Bn per year, according to the UK government, which would still only require 40% of the tobacco tax revenue.

So that’s why governments need this revenue. Smokers subsidise everyone else’s healthcare to quite a large degree. At least that’s the UK equation, but cigarettes are about £15 for a pack of 20 here!

 

[DesertIguana]

Maybe adults should have the choice to enjoy Tobacco, or Alcohol if they are over 18, or 21.

No one in most governments seems a bit concerned about epidemic level of Diabetes, and all of the related diseases Diabetes causes. Obesity is one major cause of Diabetes, but no one is push to attack that problem.

Government in most places has become Nanny of the people, if you wish to smoke, drink, riding bicycle without helmet, then consequences of action is on you the individual.

 

[NorthernSoul]

...The annual cost per patient of treating lung cancer in the UK is £9,000 (according to Cancer Research UK, although this is much higher than the £2,800 average cancer treatment cost, so perhaps they are exaggerating to make a point - but let’s assume it’s correct). Survival rates are about 30% (so the 35,000 annual deaths would indicate 50,000 total lung cancer patients - though not all are smoking related). If you assume 100% of lung cancer patients are smoking-related, then the total cost of their treatment is £450 million per year, against the total tobacco tax revenue of £12 billion per year (i.e. tobacco taxes are 27 times the cost of lung cancer treatment).

There are no other diseases that have a statistically significant link to smoking. But anyway the total UK cost of all cancer care is £5Bn per year, according to the UK government, which would still only require 40% of the tobacco tax revenue...

Oh, boy. That is an invitation to shake a hornet's nest, isn't it? You think lung cancer is the only health consequence? I don't think I'm going to go there today.

In any case, I didn't sign up to defend New Zealand government policy. Just having a friendly discussion.

 

[DEgeezer]

If that ban is implemented in New Zealand, it will probably be as successful as prohibition was in the USA.

 

[H4nk]

The best intentions can backfire on you. The Prohibition of Drugs was designed to improve health but it ended up being simply a pipeline for putting minorities into prison. Many of these attempts at virtue end up being a War on the Poor. Like banning snake meat in China, it generally just means only the rich can do it.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

There are a few steps remaining but a ban on smoking for those born after 2009 looks like it will become law in the UK.

From the BBC:

MPs have backed a plan to ban anyone born after 2009 from buying cigarettes, effectively ensuring it will become law.

The measures, championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, survived despite opposition from several leading Tory figures - including two ex-PMs.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins told MPs "there is no liberty in addiction" as she defended the plans.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed by 383 votes to 67.

If they become law, the UK's smoking laws will be among the strictest in the world.

MPs back smoking ban for those born after 2009

The measures, championed by PM Rishi Sunak, pass despite opposition by several leading Conservative figures.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mojo88]

From the article:

The bill also aims to make vapes less appealing to children, with new restrictions on flavours and packaging.
_______________________________
Kid rarely smoke anymore from what I see. It’s all about vaping around us and it seems like every old building is a vape shop. One of the main things sold is delta 8, from my understanding it’s like weed light. Now that recreational marijuana is legal in Ohio the powers in charge want to regulate delta 8 differently and put more restrictions on it. It seems menthol and flavored cigarettes are on the hit list. They ban menthol and flavored cigarettes , then override the ban.

In the end big tobacco wins anyway. They will focus their efforts on third world countries and the governments will happily take the tax money.

One place that showed how tobacco never loses money is the repackaging industry. They companies buy/ lease a warehouse and put multiple rows of tables up. All the expired tobacco is removed from the current packs and repackaged. It’s then shipped overseas and sold there. This was a few years ago, but if I had to guess it’s still going on.

 

[DogLeg]

A major win for organized crime. The black market's best friend is prohibition.

 

[Multum in parvo]

There are a few steps remaining but a ban on smoking for those born after 2009 looks like it will become law in the UK.

From the BBC:

MPs have backed a plan to ban anyone born after 2009 from buying cigarettes, effectively ensuring it will become law.

The measures, championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, survived despite opposition from several leading Tory figures - including two ex-PMs.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins told MPs "there is no liberty in addiction" as she defended the plans.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed by 383 votes to 67.

If they become law, the UK's smoking laws will be among the strictest in the world.

MPs back smoking ban for those born after 2009

The measures, championed by PM Rishi Sunak, pass despite opposition by several leading Conservative figures.

www.bbc.co.uk

But how long will he stay PM….
Seriously I pity everyone burdened with such a government. Who was the last really elected PM, Johnson?

 

[Mr. Shavington]

There are a few steps remaining but a ban on smoking for those born after 2009 looks like it will become law in the UK.

From the BBC:

MPs have backed a plan to ban anyone born after 2009 from buying cigarettes, effectively ensuring it will become law.

The measures, championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, survived despite opposition from several leading Tory figures - including two ex-PMs.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins told MPs "there is no liberty in addiction" as she defended the plans.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed by 383 votes to 67.

If they become law, the UK's smoking laws will be among the strictest in the world.

MPs back smoking ban for those born after 2009

The measures, championed by PM Rishi Sunak, pass despite opposition by several leading Conservative figures.

www.bbc.co.uk

Right. This is clearly coming to the UK now. I’m an enthusiastic smoker but I don’t have a very strong opinion about this proposed law.

I certainly believe smokers should be allowed to smoke (and they will anyway, regardless of what the government wants), but I’m not sure it is such a bad thing if those who have never smoked do not get the opportunity to take it up. They likely won’t feel they’ve lost out, and I don’t consider cigarettes in particular to be a great boon to anyone’s life.

What I do strongly object to is that this whole thing arose purely because of a personal bugbear of the Prime Minister - a man, furthermore, who was not elected by anybody, not even the membership of his party. It was a completely random policy announcement, probably to do with Sunak being a devout Hindu. It’s nice for him that he has some opinions about things, but this is not a medieval absolute monarchy where the national policy agenda is decided by fiat and derived from one unelected man’s opinion. Makes me pretty angry, actually, regardless of whether I agree with the policy. Who does this guy think he is? And he’ll be gone and a brief footnote in history by October.

Anyway, it’s a waste of time. Nobody is going to comply with this and people who want to smoke will be able to procure tobacco if they want. You’d think the Prime Minister would spend some of his time on the millions who have fallen into dire poverty and now rely on charity to feed and clothe their children since his government came into power.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

But how long will he stay PM….
Seriously I pity everyone burdened with such a government. Who was the last really elected PM, Johnson?

The general population do not, and have never, elected the Prime Minister here in the UK. In simple terms, we vote for our local MP who represents a political party, the party with the most MPs forms a government. The MPs of each party select their party leader by a vote amongst themselves, and can change their leader by the same method. In the case of the governing party, changing the party leader has the effect of changing the Prime Minister. The bill was in fact more strongly supported by the opposition so is not likely to be overturned following any potential Labour victory in the next election; maybe the House Of Lords could block it.

It will be difficult to enforce now, but in 20 years time, any 15 year old smoker will be pretty obvious, in 50 years time almost nobody will be able to legally smoke and they probably will not be able to purchase cigarettes anyway.

 

[Mr. Shavington]

The general population do not, and have never, elected the Prime Minister here in the UK. In simple terms, we vote for our local MP who represents a political party, the party with the most MPs forms a government. The MPs of each party select their party leader by a vote amongst themselves, and can change their leader by the same method. In the case of the governing party, changing the party leader has the effect of changing the Prime Minister. The bill was in fact more strongly supported by the opposition so is not likely to be overturned following any potential Labour victory in the next election; maybe the House Of Lords could block it.

It will be difficult to enforce now, but in 20 years time, any 15 year old smoker will be pretty obvious, in 50 years time almost nobody will be able to legally smoke and they probably will not be able to purchase cigarettes anyway.

It is nevertheless customary for a political party to propose a policy manifesto to the electorate, and for it to be voted on. Changing the Prime Minister during a term should not entitle the new guy to enact completely different policies to those his party was elected on. He has no mandate and I trust that he and his party will be punished for their deceit at the next election. His predecessor, Truss also killed the Queen and crashed the economy, also with zero mandate. It’s not right.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

It is nevertheless customary for a political party to propose a policy manifesto to the electorate, and for it to be voted on. Changing the Prime Minister during a term should not entitle the new guy to enact completely different policies to those his party was elected on. He has no mandate and I trust that he and his party will be punished for their deceit at the next election. His predecessor, Truss also killed the Queen and crashed the economy, also with zero mandate. It’s not right.

You may well be right but I have no interest in discussing politics. They are all as bad as each other, it astonishes me that anyone should think or expect otherwise