Health experts say axing plan to block sales of tobacco products to next generation will cost thousands of lives
Why benefit society when you can just fuck it over whilst profiting from short term gains.
God I hate how this planet functions. Tax the fucking rich already.
Planet? Don’t include the mice and dolphins in the way the homo sapiens do their shit.
Dolphins can be dicks sometimes too lol
Boomers are having a temper tantrum in their death throes by elections these Conservatives.
extinction burst
There is a massive drive to legalize weed. How is banning this any different than banning marijuana?
Do not like smoking myself but not sure how to justify the hypocrisy of thinking we should ban this vice over the other.
i dont think anybody is being forced to go buy cigarettes
This headline SCREAMS ‘conservative’:
- bad for people
- bad for healthcare
- generate tax cuts … for the wealthy
But think of the savings. Early death means budget surplus from hospice saved. /s
Can someone that still has a twitter ask Dan Patrick to take one for the economy here?
No surprise that it’s from an anti woke virtue signalling bunch of reactionary conservatives, then
You know the tax cuts are for the bottom 3 tax brackets, don’t you?
@Amazinghorse that’s not really true. It won’t affect the bottom tax bracket. National have been pitching it as a tax cut for “middle income earners”.
I just went and played around with their tax calculator and low income earners get almost nothing compared to wealthier people.
From memory minimum wage earners get something like $25 per week, which I know isn’t much. Middle income earners ($120k+ combined) get $120 per fortnight back. People earning over $80k don’t get any additional cuts.
Their policy specifically states tax cuts for the bottom 3 brackets. I don’t know why the calculator isn’t showing any cuts for min wage.
No they aren’t. The poor get SFA
That’s a compelling argument 🤣
It’s a fucking fact, the amount those tax cuts provide the poor is fuck all.
But they are providing tax cuts, aren’t they?
You said they’re providing tax cuts for the bottom 3 brackets when the reality is that that don’t make a jot of difference for anyone but that rich. I don’t take an issue with your assertion that that the tax cuts exist, i take exception to you implying that it especially targets the lowest brackets
So it’s conservative to refuse to ban tobacco? Do you agree with the general consensus that it’s also conservative to ban marijuana? How do you square those two attitudes, if so?
Tobacco causes mass amounts of death and warps entire societies and economies from killing so many older people. Also, massive tobacco companies break any law they want virtually and have for the entirety of their existence as massive corporations marketed cigarettes to kids.
So yes, I consider it conservative to refuse to ban tobacco and see no conflict with marijuana because marijuana doesn’t cause mass amounts of death and suffering (and before you say it does, give me proof).
What is concerning about spliff is the tendency to facilitate descent into abnormal mental states.
I enjoy good relations with a few healthcare professionals and the general consensus is, at this point, spliff has more potential benefits to explore than bad effects, so it makes sense to explore it, never overlooking the continuous use has been linked with some serious mental inbalances and even some physical syndromes.
Just a few days ago, here, on Lemmy, there was a lemming talking about a strange condition where continuous use over decades can trigger extremer pain and discomfort episodes, due to deposit of substances on fat tissue.
Tobacco is a proven killer, yes, but who knows what weird side effets we may be yet to discover connected with mary jane.
Tobacco is a proven killer, yes, but who knows what weird side effets we may be yet to discover connected with mary jane.
I am sure there are weird effects to uncover with modern science, but it isn’t like people just started smoking weed and nobody knows what happens to people who smoke weed their whole lives… and the consequences are quite clearly a universe away from alcohol and tobacco.
I don’t know.
Not being a spliff smoker, I won’t comment.
Even tobacco can have medical use: I worked with a person that smoked to increase blood pressure, under medical advice.
Wine and even whisky have been linked with having benefitial effects on cardiac function, when drank in moderation.
In my understanding, the biggest issue is the way these substances are used and advertised. The notion of moderation is completely absent.
God. I wish the usual weed smokers did it in moderation, they fucking stink because of how constant they smoke.
Tobacco lobbyists pay shitloads of money to conservatives and their causes.
@quindraco in the New Zealand context yes it’s extremely conservative. This government is a lot more conservative than previous right-wing govts.
The “smokefree” policies were created by the Maori Party, whose constituency is disproportionately harmed by smoking.
If marijuana was killing thousands of Maori they would probably have wanted to but it isn’t.
It’s conservative to bend over and spread `em for the benefit of the owning class at the expense of everyone else - chiefly the workers those politicians claim to represent.
Others have pointed out the gaping differences in the health outcomes (including the burden that places on the healthcare system), addiction rates, etc.
Lol sounds like this increases tax revenues by increasing the number of addicted smokers buying cigarettes and then taxing the sales.
Really sound government policy there.
They have actually admitted this is going to be revenue gathering. NZ has some of the highest tobacco tax in the world.
Basically their election promise was tax cuts, which they intended to do by allowing more foriegn ownership of real estate and taxing it.
After the election they found out they could only govern with the help of a populist party and a libertarian party.
The populists won’t allow more foriegn ownership of real estate. Meanwhile the libertarians’ wet dream is stuff like more
lung cancertobacco.So we get shitty last minute law changes we didn’t see coming, like this one.
Everyone could see that the foriegn buyers tax wasn’t going to work. It wasn’t going to raise enough revenue and was also illegal. It was obvious that something was going to get cut to pay for taxes. It’s not like this wasn’t pointed out ad nauseum during the election
The populists won’t allow more foriegn ownership of real estate.
I don’t see a single problem here. Fuck, I wish Australia would get behind this.
Also good, fuck prohibition laws. Leave them in the fucking past where they belong. If I want to slowly kill myself by inhaling burning plant matter, then that’s my decision. The taxes I pay more than cover my eventual cost to the state’s healthcare system. The government does not get to dictate what I do with my own body.
It doesn’t thou. The cost of smoking to the state is fucking massive
Actually, a LOT of studies do show that no, in most countries, taxes are far from enough to cover the cost of tobacco induced diseases.
They are from Australia. The taxes on one single packet of cigarettes could fund the construction of a new hospital.
NZ taxes are higher and it doesn’t cover the costs here, either
It’s worse than that as it’s short term tax gains now but increased public health spending later from those same taxes when they start getting cancer in a decade or two.
But lower pension costs, and overall it saves money to allow people to smoke themselves to an early death. Even if you count the cost of their treatment, it’s cheaper than 20 extra years of pension payments. It’s a terrifying but sound economic policy.
Using the UK numbers, around 80k people die of smoking per year, costing the NHS alone £2.6bn, their full state pension cost is around £900m, so there is a sizeable gap between just the NHS cost and the amount on their pension as the pension saving has to be significantly more than the remaining years on their state pension as there is another set of costs next year, and the year after and so on… Total cost per year is estimates at about £12bn, but direct government cost is a bit over £4bn. This doesn’t include the fact that it ties up beds for other people who do not smoke, which means worse outcomes fro them, and this has knock on costs.
They just aren’t killing them fast enough.
When you elect the clowns of conservative/neoliberal politics, you get what you deserve — a circus.
Yes but actually most western governments do this. The Aus health minister made a comment to the same effect a couple of months back. The US even collateralises loans using payments from tobacco companies that have not yet been made, as compensation for harm to public health that has not yet been done.
Call JG Wentworth 877 Cash Now!
New Zealand is scrapping a whole lot of things right now.
10 years worth of environmental protection laws is another thing being scrapped.
Smoking is awful, disgusting, and through the diseases it causes puts a massive burden on the healthcare system… buuuut, educational campaigns to encourage people to stop and limiting it in media/banning advertisements is definitely the way to go over yet another prohibition law.
I think governments should always ban everything they don’t like. Next up: alcohol, candy and snacks. Then maybe bars, motor sports and sex for unmarried people.
educational campaigns to encourage people to stop and limiting it in media/banning advertisements is definitely the way to go
I don’t really understand why you think New Zealand hasn’t already done that. It banned all tobacco advertising decades ago. Including shops have to keep them out of sight and no signs.
Starting from the 1990s tobacco had to have gruesome pictures of diseased lungs, rotting diabetic toes, etc all over it, and health warnings.
Then they banned companies from using their own fonts, colours or logos and standardised it. Then they made the warnings take up all the pack.
Modern tobacco packs in New Zealand look like this and costs two hours’ wages for just one packet.
There are gruesome PSAs about it as well.
Unfortunately it’s highly addictive and it kills people.
deleted by creator
But, but… Tax cuts for the rich!? 😢
Education means doing nothing. It literally is the status quo which we know does not work.
deleted by creator
Y’know, I gotta admit, I would have never pegged this article as one that would make my notifications go wild. 🤣
How very evil of them. I personally don’t think smoking, or any other substances should be banned. But they just admitted they think they should be banned, but won’t ban them because they’d rather have the money. Exchanging people’s lives for profit.
In Washington State, it’s recently illegal to sell tobacco to anyone under 21. Placing it on the same level as alcohol or weed.
Shit really? I somehow completely missed this one when did this happen?
It was 2020. It’s honestly been interesting to see. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31348515/ is a study from before 2020 stating that 4% less of 18-20 year olds smoked when the age limit is increased to 21. I couldn’t find any specifics on Washington state though.
deleted by creator
It was a cowardly way to enact a law.
What exactly do you mean by this?
Ban smoking if you’re going to ban it. If it’s unhealthy and stupid (it is) then don’t just do it for the non-voters. Take a stand.
You fail to see how the ban worked.
Apparently, it’s hard to quit smoking. So we stop people smoking at a young age and keep that barrier up.
This should be trivial to understand. Who made it difficult for you?
The part you seem to be misunderstanding is that by stopping people at “a young age” you would be targeting non-voters. You are taking rights away from a future generation while protecting the current voting adults to have that same right. Even if that right is to slowly kill yourself while costing the tax payer, you are still being a coward and honestly a bit authoritarian by literally using a part of the population that has no voice instead of a full ban.
Oh, fuck off with your attitude. You don’t understand people as well as you seem to think.
New Zealand, highly conservative about drug use, driving, security and relationships, yet will also go to ridiculous lengths to show how cleaning with a wet mop could be better than with a broom, or using one extra layer of building paper is absolutely essential for the structural integrity of the very work flow process that the entire company follows and is actually part of the new management SIX SIGMA protocol.
Me: “dude, don’t do it, the last guy who touched that broom, he got lost, we haven’t seen him since, but now the brooms come back”
Lol I need a translation, I feel like I got hit with some strong dissociative before reading this comment
Nah it’s my attempt at humour really
The leading Māori public health organisation, Hāpai te Hauora, said the reversal will be “catastrophic for Māori communities”.
It’s not a good idea to tell conservatives how policies would potentially harm the vulnerable, the poor, the excluded.
-
One in six New Zealanders are Maori.
-
New Zealand electoral system is MMP
-
The Maori seats are sometimes pivotal. There is also a political party called The Maori Party which has sometimes been in government.
For these reasons it’s important to tell the voters at large when a policy affects this particular constituency.
-
Why don’t they tell the Maori to not smoke?
Why don’t they tell the Maori to not smoke?
There have been more than 10 years of targetted ads telling Maori not to smoke, appealing to specifically Maori concepts like whanau and manaaakitanga.
What the people in this thread don’t realise is that this law was part of Smokefree Aotearoa, an initiative invented by The Maori Party (a party whose main voters are Maori) to gradually phase out smoking.
It wasn’t an abrupt change.
And drug addicts not to do drugs. Good idea
deleted by creator
Why would words help?
Tell them its how the colonizers are slowly eliminating their people
This article uncovers an awful cancer of the platform: There are way too many who buy any conservative narrative if you frame it as freedom.
Awful reason, but fuck these laws. Declaring a person forever disqualified from what other people will still be allowed to do is obviously not the same thing as ‘you must be 18.’ It is infuriating how many people pretend there’s no difference.
Ban smoking for everyone or don’t ban smoking. Trying to be “clever” about equality under the law is just fresh discrimination.
You want money? Tax the companies, not the customers. Take as much as you like. The alternative is, they don’t get to exist.
It makes perfect sense. Cigarettes are cancer death machines in an addictive package. They should be banned. However, we’ve learned from hard experience that making addictive drugs harder to get just leads to addicts trying even harder to get them. So what’s a practical solution? Grandfather in the current addicts and try like hell to keep everyone else away from it.
Equality doesn’t come in to this. You do not, in fact, need to protect people’s right to addictive cancer sticks.
Motivation is irrelevant - this kind of law is intolerable.
You wanna limit it to current users? Say that. Have a national registry of whoever’s bought them before, and if they stop for six months, they’re off the list. Treat it like a progressive opioid program where the government supplies them directly by mail, if they fill out some preachy postcards.
Age limits are only legitimate because of physiological differences. A 12-year-old cannot be trusted the same way as a 22-year-old. But today’s 22-year-olds are no different from next year’s 22-year-olds. Or the next, or the next. Declaring some of them unfit is worse than baseless age discrimination. It is creating second-class citizens, forever barred from… whatever.
Allowing bad precedent for good reason would create tremendous problems later. People would propose all kinds of exclusionary bullshit, where old people get to do stuff forever and young people never will, and they’d excuse it by saying ‘well you allowed it for smoking.’
If you think that’d never happen - I will remind you this law was defeated by assholes who think more people should smoke. So they can funnel more wealth to the wealthy. Good faith and sensible governance do not need more obstacles.
As a human being with my own rule over my own body I have the right to do with it as I please.
If I want to consume addictive cancer sticks until I die a slow, painful death, I have the natural freedom to do so, and laws, taxes or fines won’t stop me until I’m really locked away.
So I support other peoples freedom to smoke. It is just inhaling smoke from burning plant matter, which may be an irrational choice, but is my choice.
Then grow your own. Your natural right of control over your own body doesn’t extend to the markets and industry of the society you live in.
That’s fine, but this is one country that didn’t even push it through.
Methadone clinics are this on a large scale, and they exist around the world.
If you do that, then you should also forfeit your right to use publicly funded hospitals that already struggle enough with people suffering of conditions they did not ask for voluntarily. Smoking is not just a cost for your body, but for society as a whole, hence the justification in a ban
While I see your point, this could be extended to people doing dangerous sports for fun, eating unhealthy foods or engaging in any activity where one could get hurt.
The high tax on the cigarettes covers the cost of treatment for the few folk who get cancer from smoking.
Banning it for existing addicts is tough and can be cruel. Stopping new addicts is easy and a gift for life
Nope. @Landsharkgun is right. Zealand already has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Tobacco is incredibly expensive here.
What happens is the addicts spend all their money on insanely expensive tobacco and their kids go hungry.
These laws came after years and years of rising prices, massive taxation, plain packs with disgusting health warnings, free nicotine patches and free gum for anyone who wants to quit.
It has been working too. Our smoking rates are way down.
I’m really disappointed that we did the hard yards on this and now these turkeys are going to dismantle over a decade’s worth of work and bring a whole new generation into lung cancer land.
deleted by creator
I’m surprised Lemmy has this take. Why is it anyone else’s right to take your right to smoking away?
Perhaps it’s not the right to harm ones self that’s the issue. Should you have the right to manufacture, sell, and profit from harm to others? Be it environmental, oral health, lung health, or heart health, cigarettes are a net negative to any citizenry. Seems in a governments best interest to try and greatly reduce and/or eliminate this leech.
I don’t mind taking away the right for my son to smoke cancer sticks. Much like I wouldn’t mind making Russian roulette illegal.
You have a very bizarre concept of what rights are
Why is it anyone else’s right to take your right to smoking away?
I have to breathe your smoke and pay for your healthcare.
