Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

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.

  • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        There is a hard criteria, “Causes serious health issues to all it’s users with no benefit and is highly addicting”. There is literally nothing else in our society currently legal that crosses that line except smoking.

        The rest of your argument doesn’t make much sense to me, you will have to explain. Most of our laws fall under that umbrella. The potential for damages is weighed against the benefits and the liberties it restricts. Lots of things are outlawed that really aren’t as clear cut as cigarettes.