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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to

    In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??

    • Hagdos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are unnecessarily large amounts of nicotine in cigarettes, making them very addictive.

      Forced is a strong word, but many smokers aren’t smoking out of free will either

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, and I’d support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though

        • Hagdos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think I would. But at least I’d like to ban the practice of adding unnecessary amounts of nicotine.

          Why allow companies to make their cigarettes unnecessarily addictive, and then use public funds for smoking cessation resources. That’s the world upside down.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    “Ensure liberty” and “provide for the common good” or similar language.

                    It’s entirely within character for a good government to promote freedom of choice on the one hand (including freedom to make bad decisions) and provide resources to help people (not force people) to make healthier decisions on the other hand.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        a) studies don’t show it’s harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*

        b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already

        *note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like “there is no safe level of secondhand smoke”. These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they’re based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you’ll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I’m aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects

        But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.

        • Buffaloaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Conclusions

          The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

          The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.

          Seems pretty clear.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              They’re literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data… ?

              You’ve been mixing some “whacky” in your “tobaccy”, haven’t’cha?

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.

                The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he’d do so, data be damned.

                Look for yourself. The data is right there.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It’s insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.

                  I looked myself.

                  I read the “conclusions” part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.

                  I assume you “don’t have the time” to actually explain your argument, and I’ll just have to “look myself”, to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    nonsmoking women married to smokers

                    Pooled estimates associated with secondhand smoke exposure from spouses, at the workplace, and during childhood

                    These cohort studies used questionnaires that asked about spousal smoking behaviors

                    men married to women who smoked

                    Many larger studies have since been conducted in the United States (Brownson et al. 1992; Stockwell et al. 1992; Fontham et al. 1994) and elsewhere (Wu-Williams et al. 1990; Boffetta et al. 1998; Nyberg et al. 1998a; Zaridze et al. 1998; Zhong et al. 1999; Kreuzer et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Seow et al. 2002) that expanded the assessment of the exposure to include smoking habits of other household members during childhood and adulthood, and exposure at work and in other social settings.

                    And so on. It’s all over the article. Do a ctrl+f of “outdoor” and similar terms if you like.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    It’s literally on the same page, I already linked it. This isn’t a “do your research” YouTube conspiracy video thing. The conclusions say one thing, the studies say something else.