- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence
New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.
The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.
The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.
I still don’t understand why Lemmy likes these sort of laws. There are plenty of vices that people have. Who cares? What’s the harm in letting adults make their own decisions so long as it affects just them?
Like ban smoking in public thoroughfares and such where one couldn’t avoid secondhand smoke, etc but what does anyone need to be concerned with if an adult smokes a cigarettee otherwise?
Smokers do not live in vacuum with their own healthcare that is only paid by them.
Smoking has huge impacts on our healthcare system, the high is shit and they only exist to make rich people richer and keep poor people poor.
I say this as someone that recently restarted, I wish it was banned when I first started. It’s easily the thing that I’ve wasted the most money on uselessly and has caused the most damage to my health.
Cannabis was illegal when I started smoking it. We tried banning alcohol, and look how that turned out.
I think there’s a huge difference between them. Alcohol and weed is used occasionally by most and is more of a social activity(“lets go for drinks, lets smoke a J”). Smoking affects all it’s users negatively while the others really only do so for a small subset of the population.
No one only smokes occasionally, it is much more addicting then the others for the general population and isn’t done in a social context neither. No one invites their friends for a cigarette on a Friday night.
There is just nothing positive about cigarettes. I don’t think it’s at all comparable.
Yeah but we could ban all sorts of things by that logic. Alcohol, obviously. Sports. Any foods that a lot of people are allergic to. Suntanning. It’s holding smoking to a standard that we don’t hold any other vices or hobbies to.
Most of those are social activities. A lot of places did ban tanning booths because of their link to skin cancer.
Alcohol and smoking is not at all comparable. No one invites each other for a pack of smokes on a Friday night. There aren’t any casual smokers because it’s much more addicting than anything you mentioned.
Imagine if alcohol was brutally addicting for 98% of the population and then ask yourself if you would ban it.
Addiction alone is no reason to ban something. And what does being a social activity have to do with anything?
Solo weightlifting alone causes 450,000 major injuries a year. Why no ban on that?
A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.
I’m bringing up social activities to highlight that alcohol and weed, while also being much less addictive and damaging, are also part of our social culture.
It’s a false comparison same with weight lifting.
Well, since you’ve just declared it a false comparison, now I’m convinced. Thanks for clearing that up.
I cannot disagree strongly enough. The State should not tell me how to live my life. My body, my choice.
New Zealand has publically funded health care. If the government can force me to pay for your medical treatment (via tax), why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?
In any democracy, the voting public should choose how tax money is spent. If the majority don’t want to pay to manage smoking related illness, or pay to enforce a two tiered medical system, a democratic system would restrict or ban smoking.
We’ve been over this. It’s a standard that other activities are not held to.
What are the health benefits of weight lifting when compared to cigarettes? Whats the impact monetarily of both on the health system?
Whats the cost on the users for partaking in it. Where do they sit relative to each other and different substances/activities in terms of addiction. How many weightlifters end up having real health complications because of their addiction compared to smokers? How many of them die? How many weightlifters regret doing it compared to smokers?
This is why its a false comparison and rhetoric. If you want to live in a world where every activity that has health complication is comparable to cigarettes in the present context, then stop responding to my comments and pretend.
“You wouldn’t ban weightlifting” is not an argument.
So we’re weighing health effects good vs bad and choosing, on behalf of society, how bad is too bad?
It’s like a theocracy, but without the religion.
Clearly there’s no hard criteria, like “has the potential to cause personal injury on a wide scale”. Which means inevitably it gains a moralistic/tribalistic quality, something that has no place in government, especially when talking about government restrictions.
It’s possible to consume alcohol responsibly and a small amount doesn’t appear to be harmful.
Why do you want to legislate people away from harming themselves and only themselves?
Smoking doesn’t just effect the smoker
Yeah it does.
There is also the impact on our healthcare system and our economy. Another albeit minor consequence compared to the other two is littering.
There are already laws against littering. And lots of things affecting our healthcare system and economy. Sports, processed food, alcohol
I think I remember reading that smokers, paradoxically, cost less to the social security net systems including healthcare because they die so young. So I guess don’t feel so bad? Other than the money and health problems.
For real, I’m sorry that you have this addiction that forces you to take part in an activity it sounds like you don’t enjoy (or at least the enjoyment does not even out the downsides for you.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533014/
Canada did a separate study in 2017 which includes lost productivity for shorter years of life and that obviously was a huge cost to the system.
I will quit again but I ultimately wish I had never started, and I’m fairly certain that sentiment is found in practically all smokers.
I understand the importance of having choice, even bad ones. But if 99% seriously regret one of the choice and are affected negatively with no gain by it, why even offer it?
And society can easily shrug off the negative effects but it’s just not healthy imo. A solid percentage of our population is a slave to this stuff and it’s just bad form.
The 99% might be an exaggeration, I’m clearly not impartial about it.
So your bad choices dictate life for everyone else?
Sorry for your struggles but what’s next? Ban alcohol, ban soda, ban fast food, ban ANYTHING at all harmful? People also get in crashes so let’s ban cars. After all, that’s paid for by healthcare.
I never said any of those things. It’s also worth noting that it doesn’t take anything away from current users but stops new ones from starting.
I’m advocating this because of my bad choice, something that came about mostly because I was a stupid kid that got caught in their propoganda. Back when I started it was still “cool”. I don’t want other kids to make those same mistakes and there isn’t a situation where it isn’t a mistake.
But sure, keep licking malboros boots lol
Wanting to make personal choices? Sure. That’s " licking boots."
Do you realize how utterly stupid that sounds? And i don’t even smoke.
And you’re doing exactly what i said- wanting to limit others because of your poor choices. At least own it.
I did own it.
If you spent your time making home made explosives as a kid and one blew up in your face, should your first hand experience be ignored because it turned out badly?
And it’s not so crazy when the personal choice can only harm the person and it’s only being given to line the pockets of Marlboro and co. You’re acting like if this is abortion we are talking about.
If your so confident, go out and buy a pack, and then buy one a day for the next two years and then try to quit. You don’t know what you are defending.
I’ve smoked for months while on a trip then stopped as son as i got back. So yeah, I do know.
So yeah, stop putting your poor choices on everyone else. Thanks.
I agree.
Raise the age to 21 so high schoolers have less access, educate all children/teens on the dangers of tobacco use, restrict smokers to designated areas in public that allow sufficient ventilation from the non smoking population, let adults make their own health choices. Prohibition just isn’t effective and tobacco is a plant, educate and regulate.
Smokers are members of the public too, and have a right to public thoroughfares as well.
If a non-smoker wants to forbid tobacco in their own house that’s one thing but banning it in public affects everybody.
I’m more talking like right by the door and such of places. Not like everywhere in public it being banned.
That’s fair if it harms no one else and costs true societal cost to do. Two giant ifs that are never true. Yesterday I inadvertently walked through a vape cloud at the entrance to my gym because you can’t vape inside so they took a yuge puff just outside the door otw in. Secondhand happens and many smokers are totally indifferent about it.
The tax on cigarettes should cover the amortized lifetime health care cost added by taking on the added risk. If it’s a million bucks to take care of a lung cancer victim at 65, add that cost less interest divided by the # of cigarettes smokes to the price of each one.