New Zealand will phase in a near-total tobacco ban from next year.

Legislation passed by parliament on Tuesday means that anyone born after 2008 will never be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products.

It will mean the number of people able to buy tobacco will shrink each year. By 2050, for example, 40-year-olds will be too young to buy cigarettes.

Health Minister Ayesha Verrall, who introduced the bill, said it was a step "towards a smoke-free future".

[www.bbc.com]

well, well...soon thou shall obey your master.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-13 16:23 by skytrench.

I’m not sure what to think of this. I suppose, by the time this ruling truly affects the citizens of New Zealand, the concept of buying and smoking cigarettes will appeal to so few. Less and less people are taking-up the habit. I almost feel as if I see more - especially younger people – vaping.

In a way I'm happy for the kids and the passive smokers, but also worried about the erosion of personal choice and the shadowy life that comes from prohibitions. Are we to be kept on rails through a hard working life ?

Quote
skytrench
In a way I'm happy for the kids and the passive smokers, but also worried about the erosion of personal choice and the shadowy life that comes from prohibitions. Are we to be kept on rails through a hard working life ?

I think the Government is trying to be clever by attempting to phase out the habit over a length of time. I suppose they’re hoping younger generations will be put-off starting.
Look, smoking is a killer and nobody should do it, but like you, it’s freedom of choice. Prohibition doesn’t work, obviously.

good idea very clever

and in the very unlikely scenario where young people in 2050 actually want to smoke in very large numbers i assume the law could be changed

but i'm not from new zealand so i'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of how the goverment works and how a law like this would be altered of gotten rid of

But will tobacco possession be made illegal? If it remains legal to possess then they shouldn't have some the same problems caused by making other drugs illegal.

The drug cartels won't miss a business opportunity and with black market involvement comes the elimination of quality control and the absence of age controls.

I gave up 15yrs ago and I would strongly discourage anyone from starting. The UK has massively reduced tobacco consumption via health education and heavy taxes. Eliminating tobacco use completely sounds like unachievable political rhetoric.

Fifty rears ago more than 50% of the population in Norway were smoking. They smoked in airplanes (!), in restaurants, in meeting rooms, elevators (!) and in TV studio. Even our health minister smoked!

Then Norway were one of the first to ban smoking in restaurants. All the restaurants said they would go bankrupt, but the result was more business. These days very few countries and cultures do allow smoking in restaurants.

Today less than 7% smoke in Norway. People who smoke are not that many. Making it more difficult to smoke is a smart and easy way to reduce smoking.

Mind you, it is -10 C or so in the Oslo area now (14 F). Standing outside a building among rubbish cans to get your ten minutes nicotine kick is quite a stubborn and addictive habit.

Finally, I have seen smokers in hospitalbeds with oxygen tubes, it does not look good. Smoking is not a political thing, it is not a personal thing. I get sick (really) if people smoke next to me. So smoking is not something you do on your own, you also smoke into the face of others.

Bjornulf

New Zealand does have one advantage in implementing this. No land borders. There will always be a black market but by making it difficult (expensive) will reduce consumption. Will tobacco consumption go to zero? No more likely than heroin, cocaine or other drugs but it will be reduced.

Will this work in US, Europe or ANY other country with land borders? Not a chance. No different than preventing a gun purchased in Texas making it to New York City or a kilo of heroin purchased in Italy making it to Zurich.

As BV said, what works is the regulation and economic approach. I won't eat in a restaurant or sit in a bar where people are smoking.

I read somewhere that Italy (where I live) was supposed to be the first.

Nothing to really get excited, the market is going there anywhere.


[www.pmi.com]

Just wonder what kind of device will Bill Wyman have to invent this time to fit an e-cig on his bass' headstock

Personally, I don't smoke, never did, but smoke - as it is currently regulated (no in public closed environments, yes in open air or private environments) - doesn't bother me. I put it in the same category as alcohol. Both are not healthy, but can provide pleasure. If consumed with moderation, why not?

And, to be fair, our government rips off smokers, while is not so tough with drinkers.

I once calculated (from official data) that our government collects more money from taxes on smoke products than it spends to cure smoke related diseases.

The same can't be said with alcohol products: taxes on alcohol are very low compared to other places (the UK for example). But whine is one of Italy's main businesses, so, once again, no surprise!

C

Why stop there? Why not phase out alcohol which increases car crashes and violence, while smoking does not?

Yes, regulation does reduce smoking, thanks, bjornulf.

As a former heavy smoker in the US, at my workplace, first it was prohibited in public indoor areas, then in our offices, and finally near the outside doors. I lived in a cold winter climate and decided that I didn't want to put on my coat and go outside during the break to smoke. So I quit. (Another story.)

The US used to have over 60% of the population hooked on ciggies at one point and now we're about down to 25%, last I read.

~"Love is Strong"~

I have mixed feelings on this as well.

Like many of us, I grew up in smoky bars and restaurants. hardly noticed it then but on the rare occasion I'm in a situation now where there's a lot of smoke it sure is noticeable (or vaping for that matter which could be just as if not worse).

Later when I had a very premature kid of my own with asthma I learned a lot about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and smoking in general and how it may be one of the most harmful things, from a health perspective, you can do.

Not being a smoker myself (except maybe an annual celebratory cigar), I wonder about all the second-hand smoke inhaled in my youth (as well as some self-induced smoke during those years...I'll leave it at that).

However...many people do harmful things to themselves, so from a personal liberty perspective, I'm not sure I agree with these restrictions, at least from adults who should be able to make informed decisions about their wellbeing as long as they're not harming others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-14 19:26 by kovach.

I've been smoking now for more than 45 years, my physical health is near perfect but I leave my house when smoking. In the morning we had -17° but I still enjoy smoking even if it's freezing cold.
But I always said it would be clever to forbid cigs for younger generations to beat smoking one day.

But when I smoke in an Area where it's allowed and somebody next to me is "getting sick" he does have permission to f**k off and go somewhere else. The worst scum for me are those religious non-smokers - but to each it's own.

How whacko is it when you go past
a hospital and see patients on drips
standing out front on the footpath smoking ....... CRAZY



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
How whacko is it when you go past
a hospital and see patients on drips
standing out front on the footpath smoking ....... CRAZY

Right next to doctors doing the same.

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Why stop there? Why not phase out alcohol which increases car crashes and violence, while smoking does not?

Never heard of Al Capone ?

With electric driver-less cars a-comin' we should
be able to drive around druggin' & drinking again ..... hick!

And if they make the vehicles outta
rubber we can just bounce offa each other ....... hhhhaaaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

I switched from cigarettes to vaping during the December of 2014. Whilst I am happy with the choice, there's still a part of me that thinks that a cigarette and a cold pint is a match made in heaven. On a balmy summer's evening in a beer garden, I'll still gladly swipe someone's cigarette. Bliss.

Some of my best local gigs have been in smoke filled, overcrowded, run down bars...

Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just reading Wikipedia, but apparently NZ does not have a written constitution, or anything else for that matter, that would limit the government’s power to do this sort of thing. Whereas for example the US does, in the “enumerated powers” of the 10th amendment.

So yeah their government is empowered to do this sort of thing.

The Norwegian smoking ban in restaurants was never founded on banning smoking. It was made to protect people who work in restaurants. I.e. to protect the health of workers, exposed to passive smoking. There are tons of research reports documenting illness and death due to passive smoking among restaurant workers in the past.

The same could be applied based on the law in most countries. During Covid we were forced into several rules based on health law, to protect the public health. The same applies for passive smoking.

When I am at a show, and the guy next to me lit up a sigar, I am exposed to a health risk. I get sick, and the guy next to me smoking, should have been kicked out of the show. It is not a human right to smoke into the face of others.

Bjornulf

I have no issue with restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places. Lighting-up in a public house or restaurant seems like a pastime from a very bygone age, now. However, I do feel that that's where the clampdown should end. Less and less are smoking - heck, younger generations are practically teetotal - so why not just allow the habit to fizzle out of public consciousness? Governments, globally, make a fortune on the taxation from tobacco, right?

The tobacco industry is still very strong. They work hard making sure as many new customers are getting into their income stream. They do all sorts of nicotine products, pay for tobacco promotion, making "snus", vaping items, e-cigarettes, and they would love our children and grandchildren getting new vaping habits, so that they can make more money during the next hundred years.

The tobacco industry work hard to get people to say "we do not need any more rules vs smoking". Very hard. And every day they get someone to echo their propaganda, same time many many die from nicotine use.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv
The tobacco industry is still very strong. They work hard making sure as many new customers are getting into their income stream. They do all sorts of nicotine products, pay for tobacco promotion, making "snus", vaping items, e-cigarettes, and they would love our children and grandchildren getting new vaping habits, so that they can make more money during the next hundred years.

The tobacco industry work hard to get people to say "we do not need any more rules vs smoking". Very hard. And every day they get someone to echo their propaganda, same time many many die from nicotine use.

Nicotine is merely the addictive agent, no? As addictive as it may be, it's no different than caffeine. It's not the nicotine that kills an individual. At least, not directly.

working in the health care industry....you see 2 things over and over and over again....Diabetics that are self induced because they can't regulate their sugar intake...and this are vulnerable to a million other co morbidities......its a terrible thing.....and people who suffer from smoking....lost limbs, no vocal chords...need for oxygen because they can't breath....2 very avoidable choices that make sense to curb or ban. Totally avoidable through education.

It didnt work for alcohol. Didnt work for drugs.
I dont see how this will work either.

More criminals. Less tax money.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
bv
The tobacco industry is still very strong. They work hard making sure as many new customers are getting into their income stream. They do all sorts of nicotine products, pay for tobacco promotion, making "snus", vaping items, e-cigarettes, and they would love our children and grandchildren getting new vaping habits, so that they can make more money during the next hundred years.

The tobacco industry work hard to get people to say "we do not need any more rules vs smoking". Very hard. And every day they get someone to echo their propaganda, same time many many die from nicotine use.

Nicotine is merely the addictive agent, no? As addictive as it may be, it's no different than caffeine. It's not the nicotine that kills an individual. At least, not directly.

I think you're right, it's more the tar and carcinogens that enters the lungs and bloodstream.

Quote
Rip This
working in the health care industry....you see 2 things over and over and over again....Diabetics that are self induced because they can't regulate their sugar intake...and this are vulnerable to a million other co morbidities......its a terrible thing.....and people who suffer from smoking....lost limbs, no vocal chords...need for oxygen because they can't breath....2 very avoidable choices that make sense to curb or ban. Totally avoidable through education.

A very sensible post. Education is definitely the key. As I've said, also, tobacco use is on the serious wane. Each year, it's numbers are dwindling. In time, the number of smokers really will be so few. I feel as if I come across more 'vapers' That's an interesting one, actually. When are governments going to decide a clampdown, there? They were - in the U.K., at least - almost encouraging it as an alternative to smoking.

Quote
rebelhipi
It didnt work for alcohol. Didnt work for drugs.
I dont see how this will work either.

More criminals. Less tax money.

I'm not so sure about the analogy here. As a drug tobacco is not that good choice, unlike real drugs and alcohol that blow one's mind (something that seem to be natural for human mind to aim for occasionally). It is just an addictive habit, not giving you extra kicks. For future people, who have not learned to smoke by custom, it's probably not that attractive option to even try. You get so little.

I think the way they are little by little taking the whole tobacco business and culture down is pretty smart one. Not rushing things there. And especially not like the doomed prohibition policy in regard to alcohol once in places like USA and Finland that probably caused more trouble than solved. But I also think that the 'enemy' in question is not that tough one by nature.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-15 16:37 by Doxa.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
skytrench
In a way I'm happy for the kids and the passive smokers, but also worried about the erosion of personal choice and the shadowy life that comes from prohibitions. Are we to be kept on rails through a hard working life ?

I think the Government is trying to be clever by attempting to phase out the habit over a length of time. I suppose they’re hoping younger generations will be put-off starting.
Look, smoking is a killer and nobody should do it, but like you, it’s freedom of choice. Prohibition doesn’t work, obviously.

It's not about freedom of choice, it is about the duty of a government to protect the people to dangerous goods. It is the duty of the government to ban the use of asbestos, or benzene in gasoline, or thinner in paint, and whatever more, when people get sick of these. In the same reasoning any government should ban tobacco.

Alcohol is different, as there is a way to safely use alcohol, and all governments have various measures in place to control or lower abuse.

Mathijs