- 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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Hey New Zealand, how’s it goin’?
reads article
Oh. Right wing garbage huh. Sorry. It’s everywhere.
I really do not get why this is the current political climate.
There’s a lot of fear and uncertainty in the world. Fear is the basis behind conservatism, as is hate.
People are desperate for change from the status quo. The right offer simple answers for very complex questions. No critical thinking required.
There’s a lot of money to be made telling people who are afraid of things new things for them to be afraid of. You could also use it to grab power.
You don’t see the irony, do you? This type of propaganda is why smoking was banned in the first place. It works for the left as well as the right. GMOs, gluten, nuclear power.
The difference being that those are naive solutions to complex problems, but correctly identifying the problems. The right has no solutions, only scape goats that block them from some “perfect” past that we’ve progressed away from. There’s no irony here, just a misunderstanding, on your part, of what divides the left and right.
Sure, I get that.
I’m just saying that the impetus can be propaganda on either side. Left gets taken in by propaganda, they want to do something (even banning something is couched as a proactove measure). Right gets taken in by propaganda, they want to stop things (even taking action is couched as a reversion to previous times).
In this case, the right has no solutions while the left has bad solutions. The right doesn’t see smoking as a problem, therefore no solutions are required. I agree with the right on this issue.
But the right is wrong as well. There need not be restrictions on who wish to purchase tobacco, that we can agree on, but there do need to be on those who would sell tobacco. Tobacco kills and is addictive, to allow it to be sold without restrictions (on advertising, or the sale to minors) would be a cruelty to those who would’ve never started smoking with those restrictions in play. Only those who can understand the decision they make, with an adult mind unswayed by propaganda (advertising), should be able to make that choice.
to allow it to be sold without restrictions
Is anyone arguing for that? If so, it’s new to me
The answer is very simple: Propaganda works. Consistently and very predictably. All those arguments we should have had in the 70’s about “television” were right, instead, cable and streaming won and here we are in the belly of the beast.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democracy_Union
There are a bunch of groups such as ^this one and they have a lot of money and influence.
There’s no other way to keep the race for the first trillionaire going other than moving towards the right.
“The free marketplace of ideas” turns out to promote emotional manipulation by fascists.
Who knew.
Probably because the left doesn’t really have a vision to offer, we should be promoting a better future for all and showing how we can achieve it but instead we’ve got infighting, purity culture, self destructive idealism, and calls for making life harder on regular people in pretty much every way possible.
The vibe I get is that the left usually points at things that need to change and offers solutions to the problems they see.
And the right campaigns on “not that”
Same. I ponder if it’s an echo chamber but then realize I consume such a variety of news…. Sad state of things.
deleted by creator
If you’ve never seen leftwing infighting then you’ve never been involved in any form of left wing politics lol
deleted by creator
Ha yeah that’s a horrendously naive perspective, I’ve been involved in a lot of leftwing movements over the years especially eco and economic reform and I can tell you that if all the infighting comes from outside agents then we should thank the three letters because there would be no movement at all without them.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don’t think the left has any issues? It’s all good honesty lefties working together?
And the others, they’re not lefties or Scotsmen, they’re agents who must rightly be obliterated… hmm, I think I might have seen this one before 🤔
deleted by creator
The only problem of the left is they are bad at marketing or consider it immoral
I’m so fucking angry with my fellow citizens. Voting for these assholes was either selfish, hateful or disturbingly stupid and unthinking.
right wing politicians are cunts. all of them.
Wtf, it’s difficult to imagine a more directly harmful and scientifically evidenced habit.
absurd
I see people on this site say all the time that all drugs should be legalized and we should allocate the money used to enforce drug laws on addiction resources instead. I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different. I totally support anti cigarette campaigns but I’m not sure bans are a good tool in general.
I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different
work in the smoking section of a restaurant for a bit and the phlegm ball you cough up every morning will be your proof that smoking isn’t just an individual’s choice.
Smoking directly harms people around you even if you just walk by.
Smoking in public is already very widely banned, and I do support that ban since as you say it impacts others.
There are a few good reasons.
-
cigarettes are more harmful than any of the other harmful drugs you’re referencing, and all of those “harmful drugs” combined.
-
cigarettes were unnecessarily designed to be more harmful and addictive than necessary
-
bans come in many forms and have many uses
I’ll preface this by saying I’m one of those people that think all drugs should be legally regulated and available.
That won’t result in all drugs having equal regulations, just as the regulations for driving a bicycle versus driving a car are different, auto drivers requiring more regulations because of how much more dangerous they are.
Drugs, even the illegal ones, are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes or kill as many people as cigarettes, and a lot of these drugs may be mixed with a few chemicals, not hundreds.
Magic mushrooms are biologically harmless, for example: shrooms are about half as toxic as caffeine, one of the most common and addictive legal regulated chemicals in the world.
When I talk about supporting this ban on cigarettes, I’m specifically supporting this ban in this country at this time as a good way to show cigarette corporations the consequences of continuing to market a known harmful product at the expense of society.
If that ban had lasted for even a couple of years, the companies would be forced to adapt their manufacturing or even mission statement so that they were producing less harmful cigarettes.
Even with the short amount of time it was active, it’s a clear shot around the bow globally to cigarette companies and other companies purposely using cheaper and more toxic ingredients for their products, telling them that they’re going to have to change what they’re doing.
Because of worldwide lax regulations, the historical popularity of smoking plants, the enormous profit margin, corporate legal lobbying supremacy and modern mercantilism(capitalism), we have the result that at least 7 million people are directly dying every year from a product designed to addict you with toxic compounds and is scientifically, indisputably proven to violently harm you.
We aren’t including plantation slavery, second hand smoke, manufacturing deaths, or any other processes and infrastructures that have gone into propping up the industry
So quick math, well over a billion people in the last century, well over 10% of the Earth’s current population, has died because of cigarettes, most of them from directly known toxic substances and processes sold to people under false pretences.
Prohibitions don’t work, but regulations do, which are simply targeted prohibitions.
Lowering the amount of mercury and lead in the water and air of the United States has significantly lowered the amount of birth defects, chronic illnesses and cancers in the United States.
Not using a particular red dye that was found to be carcinogenic meant m&m and cake shops had to take a decade to reformulate a non-toxic red dye, but because of that regulation requiring a safer product, cancer and illness rates dropped.
Banning cigarettes is not going to stop people from smoking cigarettes, but a nationwide ban on an indisputably toxic substance is practically and politically important so that companies know the momentum that they’ve built up pushing their unnecessarily toxic products is losing steam.
Totally agree on regulating cigarettes and I think pretty much all the additive chemicals added to cigarettes should be banned, the same way dangerous chemicals are banned in food regulations. I think it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t happened yet.
-
Alcohol.
Alcohol is indeed bad for you, but not on the level of cigarettes. Cigarettes are intentionally filled with additive chemicals that both cause them to be hyper addictive and substantially raise the risk of cancer. They are designed to be deadly from the ground up in the name of making a few extra bucks.
Vast sums of money have also been spent on inveigling the public into believing that cigarettes are better for you than they actually are, up to and including the purchasing of scientists to draw false conclusions in public studies in order to present cigarettes as healthy.
The sheer maliciousness of the cigarette industry is shocking and terrible, I just don’t think there’s a real comparison here.
Also, tobacco is a lot harder to grow and process than alcohol. I’ve got everything I need in my house right now to mix up a batch of mead, and I don’t even have any specialized equipment. A quick trip to the hardware store and I’ve got a still. It’s also not like weed where you can have a plant in a closet and get a couple months worth of flower.
As someone who struggles with alcohol, ban that shit as well…
My heart goes out to you because alcohol is a cruel mistress.
But banning a substance never works, if it did we wouldn’t have people addicted to illegal substances.
…unless it’s nicotine, because that’s different, for some reason
- Lemmy
I appreciate the sentiment but I hold down a full time job (I absolutely don’t drink on the job. I work heavy machinery) and have a normal (as it gets) family life… I should just drink less.
So drink less, don’t ban it for everyone else.
lol except tabacco for some reason right?
You’re the second person to talk about cigarettes which I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned.
Am I missing something here?
I’m not for banning anything besides personal WMDs and carnies.
I think it was the vibe of the thread
Because that worked so well before.
What about the fact that Nicotine improves concentration, constricts blood vessels, medicates a host of psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, eases the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, and feels good?
Seems like you’re incorrectly equating some conditionally positive effects of nicotine with cigarettes, which are wildly different substances.
Seems like you’re incorrectly equating some conditionally positive effects of nicotine with cigarettes, which are wildly different substances.
Smoking Specifically has been linked to amelioration of the effects of and protection against ulcerative colitis.
Smoking also possess quala not present in i.e. vaped glycerin suspensions or snus.
While I actually agree nicotine alternatives should be encouraged over smoking, I don’t think burning a plant and inhaling the smoke should be a crime. Someone might have a reason to want to do it and that’s not your damn business.
More false equivocation.
I don’t see anyone arguing against conditionally positive effects of nicotine or inhaling plant smoke.
This complaint is specifically about cigarettes.
People have lots of reasons for lots of things, and sometimes those reasons, like deriving profit from purchasing scientific studies and marketing demonstrably carcinogenic indulgences, affect others.
like deriving profit from purchasing scientific studies and marketing demonstrably carcinogenic indulgences
If a company engaged in untoward practice, punish that company for that practice. Don’t punish unrelated smokers by illegalizing their activities.
Alot of stuff, also, causes cancer. We gonna ban maillard reactions and The Sun now?
Can you cite the comparable artificial carcinogenic additives to the maillard reaction and the Sun that makes the maillard reaction and the Sun cancer-causing, and how the maillard reaction and the Sun have been marketed by their respective industries to addict several generations to their harmful products?
Or are you making further false equivocations?
Can you cite the comparable artificial carcinogenic additives to the maillard reaction and the Sun that makes the maillard reaction and the Sun cancer-causing, and how the maillard reaction and the Sun have been marketed by their respective industries to addict several generations to their harmful products?
Whoa now, are you arguing for additive free cigarettes or illegalizing tobacco? Keep up.
And The Sun is absolutely addictive. Block it out and see the shakes society experiences.
Did you know that you can vape nicotine as well as getting it in gum and patches? Don’t get me wrong, seeing the headline triggered an itch in the fingers to roll one and a craving in the lungs to breathe the smoke, but it’s a godawful habit to have.
Did you know that you can vape nicotine as well
I think both should be legal and vaping should be encouraged (over smoking).
A senior MP in the govt is a former tobacco industry goon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bishop
Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the “war on drugs” in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.
Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it’s different when your country has universal healthcare.
no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to
In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??
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
Sure, and I’d support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though
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.
That’s the function of government.
That is certainly an opinion!
It’s written into most democratic countries’ constitutions.
2nd hand?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Smoking makes lots of money for the tobacco companies and for governments. Hence not wanting to ban it.
It’s a weird drug of choice; -Super addictive. -Doesn’t really do anything except briefly offset addiction withdrawl symptoms. -Very expensive. -Makes people smell really awful.
And it’s potentially very harmful to the health of yourself and those around you.
When your product kills half your customers, that just makes it more important to keep finding new customers!
Oh that’s a bonus feature!
Such a shame.
The decision has sparked a huge backlash from researchers and experts saying the actions lack logic and evidence, describing it as “shameful”.
Lacking evidence. Go suck your cancer sticks, you fools.
To be clear, they’re saying that repealing the ban is lacking evidence to support the decision. It’s just worded very poorly, but the article makes it clear:
“Repealing the legislation flies in the face of robust research evidence; it ignores measures strongly supported by Māori leaders and it will preserve health inequities,” co-director professor Janet Hoek of Otago University’s Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre said.
Removed by mod
It says repeal, so the smugglers should already be there if it was the case
I don’t think it was ever implemented.
Ok but the smugglers comment makes no sense in any case
Much harder to smuggle stuff in when ypu are surrounded by water
That just makes smuggling more profitable.
Theres a risk to indigenous people if smoking is banned?
I don’t understand
No the opposite
It’s an easy game - just think of the worst thing and that’s what the right wing conservative party is trying to do.
And it’s a global issue now
It’s been so disheartening to watch. There’s apparently a large percentage of the world’s population that is scared of every change for the better. Just absolutely driven by mind-numbing, counter-productive fear. And I don’t get it.
I mean, come on, these are fucking cigarettes. There’s no mystery, here, they kill people. They’re a poison product, and the monsters who sell them are selling gruesome death. But somehow, stopping a business from profiting off of these horrible, unnecessary deaths is scarier than the cancer sticks themselves? Why? Fucking why? Is it because literally all change is scary, no matter what its nature?
I’m starting to think we’re an evolutionary dead end. I don’t know how we survive past this madness.
There is a nonzero population of people, all across the planet, across all cultures, that just don’t like being told they cannot do something.
You could tell them that smoking is very, very bad for you, and they’ll say “wow, no one should do that,” and then you tell them that they cannot smoke, and they’ll say “the fuck I can’t!”
But in this case, it was telling cancer-stick merchants that they can’t kill people, and then their victims rushed to their defense.
Yes, because those people don’t like being told what they can’t do. The thing they can’t do, in this case, is buy cigarettes.
So what? If they were old enough to buy fags before the ban they could still do so. They argue that their children have a right to lung cancer.
They are also told to wear a seatbelt and don’t rail against that.
Some people do, actually. Look, I’m not trying to argue their position for them, I’m not one of those people.
It’s simpler than that. Right wingers are just greedy capitalist scum.
I think that accurately describes the power-brokers, the ones in charge. But I think the people who actually support them are driven by - and easily manipulated with - fear.
The repeal would have the risk. The summary is very poorly worded.
Sooooooo, let’s guess who has lots of shares in the industry?
Lemmy: ban cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but not alcohol which is worse and, oh btw, legalize marijuana because it’s totally not like cigarettes.
Cigarettes do fuck all and then kill you. As a former smoker - ban cigarettes, please. Let us have the fucking fun drugs for god’s sake, not the pointless cancer sticks!
People can have a occasional drink without doing harm. There’s no non harmful level of smoking
I’ve never seen people struggle with alcohol and pot like I’ve seen (and struggled myself with) nicotine. YMMV, but perhaps getting some actual life experience around addicts might give you some perspective. I’ve known heroin addicts that had tougher times leaving tobacco behind.
You’ve never seen how people are destroyed by alcohol?
Dying is one thing; the suffering alcoholism can bring to everyone in the situation is heartbreaking, and it can take decades to play out before it finally kills the addict. And nobody can change anything except them. But of course, they don’t.
I’ve watched family kill themselves with hard drugs, it’s pretty quick comparatively. It’s ugly, but after they manage to ignore all help, they do themselves in fast when they get serious about it.
I hardly need your condescension about addictions there, buddy. I’ve seen it all too closely.
Alcohol/benzo withdrawal is the only kind of withdrawal that kills people, it can cause a seizure that literally kills you
Morons.
deleted by creator
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.
A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Like ban smoking in public thoroughfares and such where one couldn’t avoid secondhand smoke
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.
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.
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.
Cold Turkey… I mean New Zealand, cold New Zealand.
Cold kiwi?
