NZ to ban smoking tobacco by '25

[innsaneink]

Im an ex smoker and while this on the face of it looks good, imo the governments are over reaching their responsibilities. Where does it end people have been smoking for hundreds of years do they ban alcohol next tell you what you're allowed to eat. Red meat isnt good for you according to the Govt so no more steak for you, a beer after work nah sorry you'll all be alcoholics. This is rubbish and not the responsibility of a government we're already in a nanny state as it is and the pandemic is being used to slip in all these laws that in any other time would be unacceptable by the public.
Im not one that's in to conspiracy theories but look at Vic in a constant state of emergency where the government can do to you what they please, we are supposed to live in a free society and it seems as time goes on we are becoming less free by the day.

No. They made seat belts law/ compulsory in cars in the 70s I think.... I remember a bit of a fuss then too
There'd be more....

 

[rustycage]

If someone today wanted to bring on a new product with all the horrendous affects that smoking causes, would it be allowed?
If you think the answer would be no, then why should smoking be allowed to continue? It's absolutely nonsensical. But we do allow the crap to be consumed, because you know, neither party wants to make big calls that might lose a few votes.

 

[tig_prmz]

If **someone today wanted to bring on a new product with all the horrendous affects that smoking causes, would it be allowed?**
If you think the answer would be no, then why should smoking be allowed to continue? It's absolutely nonsensical. But we do allow the crap to be consumed, because you know, neither party wants to make big calls that might lose a few votes.

You wouldn't know it's bad for you for a few years. The amount of people smoking and the impact it has on the society is huge. There may be deadlier products not illegalised but because they aren't produced in a high quantity, the impact to society is minimal.

I think refined sugar is something we need to take seriously.

 

[voice_of_reason]

If someone today wanted to bring on a new product with all the horrendous affects that smoking causes, would it be allowed?

No, not if it was known

No-one complained when asbestos was banned in Australia. Asbestos related deaths are around 700 deaths a year. Smoking related deaths in Australia are around 24,000 a year. It also has to be remembered smoking doesn't just affect the smoker, there's entire chains of damage through families (and previously work places).

Neither of these hold a candle to alcohol though - here's a few old figures (2010/2013) - I'm sure they'd be higher now. The assault and domestic violence figures are genuinely alarming.

**Australia**
Each week, on average, more than 100 Australians die and more than **3,000** are hospitalised as a result of excessive alcohol consumption.
Every year more than **70,000** Australians are the victims of alcohol-related assaults of which **24,000** are victims of domestic violence. In addition, almost **20,000** children across Australia experience substantiated alcohol-related child abuse.
The total cost to society of alcohol-related problems in 2010 was estimated to be **$14.352b**. The estimated cost of alcohol’s negative impacts on others was estimated at **$6.807b**. The same year, the Australian Government received an estimated **$7.075b** in total alcohol tax revenue.
More than one third (38%) of people aged 14 or older consumed alcohol at least once in 2013 at a level placing them at risk of injury, and one quarter had done so as often as monthly (26%).
**3.5 million Australians drank at levels that placed them at lifetime risk of an alcohol-related disease or injury**

 

[jirskyr]

We should banned alcohol as well! 3 million deaths per year is because of alcohol, with it as the casual factor for 200 disease and injury conditions. 5.3% of all deaths according to world health organisation.


That really worked so well in the USA and undoubtedly any government introducing it would be slaughtered at the next election.

I don't think we should ban alcohol or tobacco at all mate. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of most people because they don't care as long as it doesn't effect them. Instead of government telling you what's good for you, why don't we all decide like adults what's good for us. Btw I don't smoke or drink anymore but you should allowed to make the choice for yourself irrelevant if its good or bad...

That's fine in theory but the real world has real humans in it. Not banning or regulating potentially dangerous substances is like everyone leaving their doors unlocked in the hope that everyone makes the right choice.

lol, no it isn't. Not sure where you live but I'd suggest you start looking elsewhere if your deadbolt is the only reason you are not getting burgled.

I live in a large city in the real world.

Gotham?

Last time I checked Gotham City was fictional, so no.

 

[jirskyr]

We should banned alcohol as well! 3 million deaths per year is because of alcohol, with it as the casual factor for 200 disease and injury conditions. 5.3% of all deaths according to world health organisation.


That really worked so well in the USA and undoubtedly any government introducing it would be slaughtered at the next election.

I don't think we should ban alcohol or tobacco at all mate. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of most people because they don't care as long as it doesn't effect them. Instead of government telling you what's good for you, why don't we all decide like adults what's good for us. Btw I don't smoke or drink anymore but you should allowed to make the choice for yourself irrelevant if its good or bad...

I think it's about the cost to society (not just financial).

I've worked in the respiratory ward of a big hospital and seen first hand the effect of smoking on a wider community. Some people smoking here and there will not affect the society but it is still very prominent in the society.

Agreed. Govt intervenes when the "cost" of a drug is deemed excessive - financial, medical, social, cultural costs.

E.g. you could legalise cocaine and many people would do just fine using it recreationally, and it would remove much of the organised crime aspect of cocaine supply, and you could regulate and tax it. But there would be a very significant fringe who don't use it in a controlled manner, or who use it as a stepping point to heavier drugs, or who never would have tried it in the first place had it remained illegal. So the overall cost is not worth it to society.

As you say cigarettes are dangerous from Day 1, there isn't a safe or tolerance level. Heaven knows why anyone voluntarily puts chemicals in their lungs anyway, I'll never understand it. Take a gulp of smoke from a fire and see how horrible it is, and yet people will do it continuously in mini doses.

Govts have instead gradually wound smoking back - first heavy taxation, then banning of advertising, then the graphic warning labels on packets and advertising campaigns, then outlawing of smoking indoors. Even the idea that as a kid there would be smoking and non-smoking sections of a restaurant, and that I would wade through smog for hours every weekend as a young fellow at the pub - hard to fathom. Even the idea that they used to permit smoking in planes... crazy.

 

[innsaneink]

Always made.me.laugh as a kid...... Back Half of the bus for smokers, front half, non-smoking... Like there was an invisible shield or something

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Wonder what effect it will have on the economy

 

[jirskyr]

Wonder what effect it will have on the economy

Net positive. Tax revenues down but the long-term medical cost to Medicare is much higher.

 

[tigerbalm]

Wonder what effect it will have on the economy

Net positive. Tax revenues down but the long-term medical cost to Medicare is much higher.

Net positive lol.

I can't remember the exact number but ~ 2-3b shortfall in tax revenue last FY purely down to people giving up the ciggies. That's a big hit from a ~15b revenue stream the government relies on year in year out. Add to this, the biggest money spinners are fuel, cigs and booze excises. All of which are trending down due to a range of reasons.

Ban or don't ban smoking , I really don't care. What i do care about is if the Josh and his gang start looking at ways that are not as "user defined" to recoup the $$$. The easiest answer would be for them to hike income taxes, go harder after peoples investments, super or offshore slush funds. Who knows.

Hopefully, this could be a win win and it forces both the banning of something that will kill people plus force the government to look at new ways of taxing. I like the idea of a Sugar Tax/Processed Foods tax and probably most importantly a renewable energy / sustainability tax.

 

[hugh1954]

The socialist republic of NZ , would not be surprised what that Arden does

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Wonder what effect it will have on the economy

Net positive. Tax revenues down but the long-term medical cost to Medicare is much higher.

More money to spend on other things as well.

 

[jirskyr]

I can’t remember the exact number but ~ 2-3b shortfall in tax revenue last FY purely down to people giving up the ciggies. That’s a big hit from a ~15b revenue stream the government relies on year in year out. Add to this, the biggest money spinners are fuel, cigs and booze excises. All of which are trending down due to a range of reasons.

Seeing as you can't recall exact figures, you should have a read of this then:
https://ndri.curtin.edu.au/ndri/media/documents/publications/T273.pdf

>Net tangible costs of smoking in 2015/16 were estimated to be $19.2 billion (range $16.3 billion to $24.0 billion). The tangible costs in the calculation included the reduction in economic output due to premature mortality, hospital separation costs, other medical and social care costs including the cost of informal care provided by family and friends, costs arising from workplace absenteeism and presenteeism, and spending on tobacco by dependent smokers.

>In addition to the tangible costs of smoking, there are very significant intangible costs (e.g. the value of life lost, pain and suffering), both from premature mortality and from the lost quality of life of those experiencing smoking attributable ill-health. These intangible costs of smoking were estimated at $117.7 billion in 2015/16 (range $52.0 billion to $375.8 billion) with the total cost of smoking being $136.9 billion (range $68.3 billion to $399.7 billion) (see Summary Table 1 and Summary Figure 1).

>The most significant individual cost item within the tangible costs was the spending on tobacco by dependent smokers, which was estimated at $5.5 billion, followed by workplace costs ($5.0 billion) and the reduction in the present value of future economic output due to premature mortality ($3.4 billion). Other health costs were also estimated and these included outpatient treatment, specialist care and possible excess general practitioner visits. Further, we developed an estimate of informal carer costs, which is the unpaid care provided by family members to those with smoking-related conditions.

 

[CocaCola]

It will be enticing for syndicates to smuggle container loads. Counterfeits will also become a big issue which will cause greater harm.

A cigarette pack frequently contains 20 cigarettes.
Cartons have 10 packs (200 cigarettes).
Master cases 50 cartons (10,000 cigarettes).
A shipping container generally has 475,000 packs or almost 10 million cigarettes.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/ILL_overview_en.pdf

 

[TillLindemann]

Sitting down is very carcinogenic:

https://time.com/2884953/sitting-can-increase-your-risk-of-cancer-by-up-to-66/#:~:text=In%20a%20study%20published%20in,who%20aren't%20as%20sedentary.

Looking at your phone frequently is carcinogenic:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44226888

Health nuts who live to 150, spending decades in aged care and drawing on the aged pension for decades are a massive burden on the public purse. If anything, being unhealthy and dying young is a charitable public service.

 

[Merlot]

Sitting down is very carcinogenic:

https://time.com/2884953/sitting-can-increase-your-risk-of-cancer-by-up-to-66/#:~:text=In%20a%20study%20published%20in,who%20aren't%20as%20sedentary.

Looking at your phone frequently is carcinogenic:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44226888

Health nuts who live to 150, spending decades in aged care and drawing on the aged pension for decades are a massive burden on the public purse. If anything, being unhealthy and dying young is a charitable public service.

laughter is the best medicine