New Zealand smoking ban: Health experts criticise new government's shock reversal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67540190
To fund tax cuts 😳
How else are they going to get kids to help fund tax cuts to hard working families if it isn't through a tax on their addiction?
It is obviously the patriotic duty of all teenagers in New Zealand to take up smoking.
FFS.
Jeez 🙄
Hmmm, I'm all for doing everything that we can to reduce smoking.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
I can't help thinking that there are better ways to approach this.
and this, boys and girls is the downside of mmp and the resulting general need for coalition governments. This is the fourth time that the odious Winston Peter's gigantic ego and his NZ First party has held the balance of power, and in order to meet each parties electioneering promises something has to give- in this case it's the smoking ban.
Hmmm, I’m all for doing everything that we can to reduce smoking.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
I can’t help thinking that there are better ways to approach this.
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption. As regards encouraging crime- by the same logic, surely the high tax rates on tobacco encourage crime- reducing the tax would therefore reduce crime.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
True you can't completely eliminate something through a ban, but banning a commercial product like cigarettes will significantly reduce their use, especially somewhere like NZ, be more difficult to ban them in Germany if they were still legally on sale in France.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
Ummm, this is a sliding type of prohibition - so the people who were never able to buy it would be entirely prohibited. And people who can already legally buy it can happily continue to carry on forever. It sounds to me like a fantastic way of going about it.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
And yet the OP's link doesn't mention that at all. Apparently:
New Zealand's new government says it plans to scrap the nation's world-leading smoking ban to fund tax cuts.
You would have thought that the claim it encourages crime would be a better excuse than the current one they are giving.
Presumably the evidence that it will fund tax cuts is better than the "encourages crime" argument.
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption.
Does it? And at what cost?
banning a commercial product like cigarettes will significantly reduce their use,
Will it, compared to other potential measures (taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)?
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it's criminalising all sorts of young people.
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it’s criminalising all sorts of young people.
It's not really though, is it. I'm sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it’s criminalising all sorts of young people.
And you think making it legally available to teenagers at the local newsagents is the solution?
It’s not really though, is it.
I think you'd be surprised.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Is anyone suggesting that we do that?
And you think making it legally available to teenagers at the local newsagents is the solution?
Wow. Talk about a straw man.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Is anyone suggesting that we do that?
So, which part of the Meal deal would it replace?
Pasta salad, bag of Square crisps and a line of Coke instead of the giant can of Redbull sounds good.
Or maybe swap out the salad, tough choices.
Wow. Talk about a straw man.
Go on then, talk to me about a straw man. What was the purpose of you comparing cigarettes with cocaine?
What was the purpose of you comparing cigarettes with cocaine?
As something that is prohibited, and yet usage is increasing despite the prohibition.
I didn't suggest that it should be freely available to teenagers at the local newsagent, and in my previous comment:
(taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)
I suggested that there were other measures short of an outright ban that could also be used for cigarettes, which may also include moving them from newsagents (medicalisation).
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption.
It really does not at all. Heroin usage ( and other drugs) retain a certain rebellious glamour. Prohibition enhances that. Prohibition also is responsible for many deaths from impure drugs and folk not getting help
The best way to reduce heroin consumption is to make it really dull ( and allow some less damaging drugs). worked for the Netherlands and Switzerland. If you are an addict you can get register and get a clean supply of injectable heroin - but you take it in a dingy government office and have to fill forms in and stuff. The result? the netherlands has very little issue with heroin addiction, the black market in it dies as there are few customers and people do not die of ODing. the average age of heroin addicts in the netherlands gets older each year and less of them. Here we have more each year and the average age is decreasing ( last time I looked at numbers)
Prohibition does not only not work - it kills people.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Again - not the experience with the Netherlands with cannabis. Freely available cannabis has not really increased consumption and as above reduced consumption of other more damaging drugs
Evidence based practice. Drugs should be a medical / healthcare issue not a criminal justice one. thats what all the evidence says.
Compared to cocaine, heroin, THC, MDMA, and LSD, nicotine is a really really shit drug.
If it was made illegal would anyone even bother taking it up?
I guess we'll never know now.
More addictive than heroin
I just think it's crazy that most people who work in addiction services and the criminal justice system are working to change the conversation away from prohibition and criminalization and towards treatment and management, and yet here we are trying to add one more thing to the list of prohibited substances.
I just think it’s crazy that most people who work in addiction services and the criminal justice system are working to change the conversation away from prohibition and criminalization and towards treatment and management, and yet here we are trying to add one more thing to the list of prohibited substances.
It's not really the same thing though, is it? You don't get fired if you're found to have nicotine in your system during work hours.
There's addiction and then there's addiction. Trying to treat everything exactly the same way seems a bit daft.
It’s not really the same thing though, is it? You don’t get fired if you’re found to have nicotine in your system during work hours.
At the moment you don't. If it's illegal then why wouldn't that change?
There’s addiction and then there’s addiction. Trying to treat everything exactly the same way seems a bit daft.
That argument works against prohibition too though?
At the moment you don’t. If it’s illegal then why wouldn’t that change?
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don't automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
That argument works against prohibition too though?
Tobacco is one of those weird drugs where it doesn't really get you high and yet it's incredibly addictive. And it kills you or at least gives you serious long term health issues, statistically speaking.
With harmful drugs you have to ask yourself if it's possible to put up barriers that create enough of a disincentive to make this particular drug not worth it for people to use. With many drugs such as heroin, cocaine, hash, MDMA, etc it's simply not possible to create enough of a legal barrier to stop people using them.
We don't know if it's possible to create enough of a legal barrier to stop people taking up smoking yet. It hasn't been tried.
I actually think the idea of a graduated ever increasing age to buy tobacco would have a significant effect - simply because as pointed out above its a crap drug, very addictive and easy availablity makes it harder to stop
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don’t automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
Not so - you can be fired for cannabis delectable in your system for weeks long after it has ceased to have any effect. This also pushes people to cocaine as its undetectable after a day or two. Many jobs you would also be fired for a cannabis possession conviction even if it never effected your job, Nursing you would also be struck offthe register ie never work as a nurse again
It's weird how this conversation concerning the effectiveness of banning tabacco is rambling on when the New Zealand government appear to have made clear that this is about tax cuts.
In other words they need young people to become addicted to nicotine to provide them with a new source of revenue.
No one interested in that angle?
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don’t automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
If I took speed at work I would be promoted.
Source: I used to take a lot of speed and Dexadrine - 6 Dexys a day or a quarter ounce of speed. I got promoted.
Very sensible reversal, completely unenforceable and unneeded law, vaping is largely replacing smoking among the young so the number of new smokers is falling off a cliff. The worst bit of the legislation was the nicotine reduction provisions which would really drive a black market, no mention of those in the BBC article.
completely unenforceable and unneeded law,
I cannot recall the last time that I saw you totally oppose a Tory government policy mefty.
It seems strange that of all the issues to put your foot down over and rebel against you should choose the proposed rolling minimum age for smoking.
mefty - vaping is creating a whole new variety of addicts and its damaging to the health.
tobacco kills millions worldwide each year
I cannot recall the last time that I saw you totally oppose a Tory government policy mefty.
Fair few policies I don't agree with just don't bother posting much on here - I prefer washing my hair - but I am very liberal on these sorts of policies.
vaping is creating a whole new variety of addicts and its damaging to the health
The growth in vaping is driven almost entirely by ex smokers or people who would have smoked causing a significant net health benefit - it is by far the most significant advance in smoking reduction - the guy who invented it should win the Nobel prize.
The growth in vaping is driven almost entirely by ex smokers or people who would have smoked causing a significant net health benefit
thats really not so.
If you think the growth of vaping is driven by ex smokers you clearly don’t have any contact with teenagers.
Mefty, I am afraid you are massively out of touch with regard to who is vaping. As above, it is rampant amongst Secondary school age young people who have never smoked a cigarette. I am not saying "all", but significantly more than those who smoked cigarettes.
Vaping delivers more nicotine, more quickly and more often. Kids cannot make it through a lesson, let alone a day, without NEEDING to vape. They are severely addicted to nicotine.
It messes with sleep patterns - I know kids who wake up to vape in the night - and it is having a significant negative impact on educational attainment.
Not so – you can be fired for cannabis delectable in your system for weeks long after it has ceased to have any effect. This also pushes people to cocaine as its undetectable after a day or two. Many jobs you would also be fired for a cannabis possession conviction even if it never effected your job, Nursing you would also be struck offthe register ie never work as a nurse again
OK, but you don't automatically get fired if you do anything illegal (depending on the job, I guess).
If this legislation was passed and a 21 year old doctor or nurse was found to be smoking when the cut off was 22 I'd be very surprised if they were struck off. You don't get struck off for speeding convictions, do you?
You don’t get struck off for speeding convictions, do you?
Speeding doesn’t potentially impair your professional competence to care for ill people.
Speeding doesn’t potentially impair your professional competence to care for ill people.
Yes, and neither does nicotine.
Like I said, there's prohibition and then there's prohibition. Lumping all prohibition together and saying it will all have the same consequences is wrong, imo.
I've never really smoked, just the odd ciggy when drunk and a brief rebellious teenager phase but to me smoking is more a lifestyle choice you fall into (mates etc.) and get addicted to rather than something you start for a buzz or other effect (e.g. coke or weed) so I'd have thought prohibition (via an annually increasing age restriction) would probably be more effective than with other drugs. Not sure how it would be practically enforceable though, I guess it probably wouldn't be other than by putting the responsibility on retailers and the penalties only for supply rather than consumption.
I guess it probably wouldn’t be other than by putting the responsibility on retailers and the penalties only for supply rather than consumption.
Wasn't the NZ plan to end the traditional supply chain and have licensed tobacconists with a stricter checking procedure. I think that it was basically the "traditional" retailers that were the ones driving the campaign against the restrictions.
In other words they need young people to become addicted to nicotine to provide them with a new source of revenue.
That does seem to be the rather sad basis for this.
