Jump to content

No smoke here no more


Recommended Posts

New Zealand has decreed a lifetime ban on tobacco and that there will be no more tobacco sales by 2025 to people 14 and under by that date.
 

About time someone stood up for the next generation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds nice in theory, but if I were a betting man, I would bet most of my money on this failing as it would needlessly criminalise people and give organised crime a HUGE source of revenue and will probably contribute to even more dangerous fags because who the fuck is going to regulate what proper crims' put in their 'marlboro' ciggies. 

I wish New Zealand the best with this endeavour though. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea.....

 Gonna be harder than enforcing "No alcohol" rules though.

If you want to make some serious money, take a risk, and wait a few years. Buy a ship load of shrink wrapped tobacco now. Bring it into EnZed under cover of night (or earthquake, that'll work too), and keep it in a refrigerated underground locker until....

 Then start raking in the cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

By 2025 , people aged 14 by the time the law will be enacted will never be able to purchase tobacco in NZ

Good smuggling opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am not generally in favor of nanny government deciding personal habits - think prohibition or legislating away red meat…..I have to say this strikes me as a good idea. Since the consequences of smoking is such a huge impact to health care costs it might be worth the intrusion. It does beg the question…..where does government stop when choosing which harmful habits to outlaw?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Point Break said:

Since the consequences of smoking is such a huge impact to health care costs

What is that impact?

Smoking can give you cancer and kill you prematurely.

How does it cost more if you die prematurely? I would have thought getting very old and dying of various ailments over a number of years would cost a lot more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monkey said:

Good on NZ. As a smoker in the US, it’d make quitting so much easier if they just banned this shit. I’ve quit about five times, but it never stuck. 

Quitting is for Quitters

 

Never works

as once they prove they can quit

they Quit Quitting

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

What is that impact?

Smoking can give you cancer and kill you prematurely.

How does it cost more if you die prematurely? I would have thought getting very old and dying of various ailments over a number of years would cost a lot more.

If you died immediately that might be true. Think emphysema, COPD, cancer….you don’t die quickly or inexpensively. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

The smart answer to these types of things is legalize and tax the shit out of it - the price will then narrow the field. Sin tax is effective, from what I’ve seen

Started smoking when they were 75 cents. I quit smoking when the price hit $2. Quit cold Turkey. I was working in promotional marketing for our client Phillip Morris at the time and had a garage full of cigarettes to distribute at bars and nightclubs. Now they are $10 a pack with most of it tax today cover smoker’s futures health care (yeah right) and people still buy their daily pack of death nails. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Point Break said:

While I am not generally in favor of nanny government deciding personal habits - think prohibition or legislating away red meat…..I have to say this strikes me as a good idea. Since the consequences of smoking is such a huge impact to health care costs it might be worth the intrusion. It does beg the question…..where does government stop when choosing which harmful habits to outlaw?

It stops where the voters tell it to stop. "Government" is us, at least in a democracy. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tybee said:

keep quitting until it finally works.

I started smoking in boot camp. Got out of the service still smoking despite countless attempts to quit.  Got a GF who wouldn't have anything to do with smokers. If I wanted to get laid, I had to quit. Haven't smoked since.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 2:35 PM, IStream said:

It stops where the voters tell it to stop. "Government" is us, at least in a democracy. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

What are you smoking dude????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so naïve as to think that "democracy" is a silver bullet and nobody in their right mind would argue that the US is currently a well-functioning democracy: gerrymandering, voter suppression, Citizens United campaign financing, etc, etc. By the same token, I don't accept the demonizing "government is inherently evil" narrative. Government is necessary and, dare I say, helpful in many, many ways and of the bureaucrats I've interacted with directly, the vast majority were knowledgeable, pleasant, and helpful. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2021 at 2:09 AM, Sail4beer said:

Started smoking when they were 75 cents. I quit smoking when the price hit $2. Quit cold Turkey. I was working in promotional marketing for our client Phillip Morris at the time and had a garage full of cigarettes to distribute at bars and nightclubs. Now they are $10 a pack with most of it tax today cover smoker’s futures health care (yeah right) and people still buy their daily pack of death nails. 

Currently NZD$40 (USD$27) a pack in NZ - mostly tax. People keep buying them…

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2021 at 8:25 PM, Point Break said:

While I am not generally in favor of nanny government deciding personal habits - think prohibition or legislating away red meat…..I have to say this strikes me as a good idea. Since the consequences of smoking is such a huge impact to health care costs it might be worth the intrusion. It does beg the question…..where does government stop when choosing which harmful habits to outlaw?

I say we only let legislators who are not fat vote on those kinds of questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's a bit early to make make such pronouncements.

 

But time may well prove you correct.

Only my opinion of course, based on my life experience and the fact that I am an atheist.  Obviously YMMV .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 7:53 AM, Grrr... said:

They sell tobacco to people under 14 in New Zealand? 

Nope, legal age is 18.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/new-zealand-to-ban-tobacco-sale-to-people-born-after-2008

Ban doesn't start until 2025, effectively meaning that those age 14 now, will never be able to legally buy tobacco. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 8:25 AM, Raptorsailor said:

Sounds nice in theory, but if I were a betting man, I would bet most of my money on this failing as it would needlessly criminalise people and give organised crime a HUGE source of revenue and will probably contribute to even more dangerous fags because who the fuck is going to regulate what proper crims' put in their 'marlboro' ciggies. 

I wish New Zealand the best with this endeavour though. 

I think it will work for most.

I'm a failed quitter.

I don't think I'd actually break the law to get a nicotine fix.

Nicotine may be as addictive as heroin but hardly gives one the same high, for as long and withdrawal is annoying and grumpy rather than vomit pain and shakes for days.

I can't see kids lurking on street corners furtively checking the street for narks only to be  approached by a 

 

Only to be handed a pack of fags or their $26.

Doesn't have quite the thrill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

Nope, legal age is 18.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/new-zealand-to-ban-tobacco-sale-to-people-born-after-2008

Ban doesn't start until 2025, effectively meaning that those age 14 now, will never be able to legally buy tobacco. 

So those too young to vote are having their choice made for them by the old people whose healthcare he is expected to someday fund.   Ironic.  Will he someday return the favor by voting to outlaw TV for those over 60, improving the lifestyle of fat old people?    

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lark said:

So those too young to vote are having their choice made for them by the old people whose healthcare he is expected to someday fund.   Ironic.  Will he someday return the favor by voting to outlaw TV for those over 60, improving the lifestyle of fat old people?    

Um, shame the old people decided to abolish conscription eh? Outrageous, we were too young to vote on it!!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RedTuna said:

smoker kid.jpeg

= Same people who will ride around in a car alone wearing a mask

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lark said:

So those too young to vote are having their choice made for them by the old people whose healthcare he is expected to someday fund.   Ironic.  Will he someday return the favor by voting to outlaw TV for those over 60, improving the lifestyle of fat old people?    

So you're a hands off parent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So you're a hands off parent?

Not a parent.   That was my contribution to the planet, a token protest against climate change with great dividend after just a few generations, or a Darwinian attempt to sabotage my species, depending on your point of view.   

I hate smoking, so I'm not too mad at the attempt.  I do find it entertaining in a hypocritical libertarian way.    Smoking is verboten for people currently 14 until the law changes.   Like the draft, life long choice is taken away from the protohumans prior to their reaching the age of self determination.    From the article:   

The government plans to introduce a law that, starting in 2027, will lift the smoking age by a year every year.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

Not a parent.   That was my contribution to the planet, a token protest against climate change with great dividend after just a few generations, or a Darwinian attempt to sabotage my species, depending on your point of view.   

I hate smoking, so I'm not too mad at the attempt.  I do find it entertaining in a hypocritical libertarian way.    Smoking is verboten for people currently 14 until the law changes.   Like the draft, life long choice is taken away from the protohumans prior to their reaching the age of self determination.    From the article:   

The government plans to introduce a law that, starting in 2027, will lift the smoking age by a year every year.

 

 

You say that like self determination is a good thing.

I don't accept that humans have the capacity to always make good choices.

With that as a guiding principle, I comfortable with making sure humans can walk before they run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You say that like self determination is a good thing.

I don't accept that humans have the capacity to always make good choices.

With that as a guiding principle, I comfortable with making sure humans can walk before they run.

Should alcohol be banned as well?   Processed foods seem obvious, especially donuts and chips should be felony possession if found on a  diabetic.   Eliminating these would theoretically decrease healthcare costs and increase lifelong productivity.   It’s easier to force others to eliminate them then to quit yourself, so make the next generation do it like New Zealand.
 

Unfortunately alcohol prohibition made criminals a lot of money last time.    As somebody mentioned earlier, tobacco taxes provide a lot of revenue.   British customs spends a great deal of effort maintaining the crown’s rights by controlling smuggling by tourists.   As much as I want to see all cigars banned, I’m not sure how much jail space I want to devote to violators.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Donuts don't cause cancer. 

Macular degeneration and high glycemic index.    Diabetes retinopathy and macular degeneration plus diabetic strokes are an expensive burden for the taxpayer and force the victim into disability.

As long as we’re legislating lifelong health benefits for others, why stop with tobacco?    I won’t give them up yet, but I can force my neighbor before he even gets the right to vote.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lark said:

Should alcohol be banned as well?   Processed foods seem obvious, especially donuts and chips should be felony possession if found on a  diabetic.   Eliminating these would theoretically decrease healthcare costs and increase lifelong productivity.   It’s easier to force others to eliminate them then to quit yourself, so make the next generation do it like New Zealand.
 

Unfortunately alcohol prohibition made criminals a lot of money last time.    As somebody mentioned earlier, tobacco taxes provide a lot of revenue.   British customs spends a great deal of effort maintaining the crown’s rights by controlling smuggling by tourists.   As much as I want to see all cigars banned, I’m not sure how much jail space I want to devote to violators.

To expect an action to create immediate behaviour change is ludicrous.

 

Having a black market industry pop up and supply illegal contraband is a certainty.

 

Who'd of thought doing stuff, like not drinking and driving, was hard?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

Macular degeneration and high glycemic index.    Diabetes retinopathy and macular degeneration plus diabetic strokes are an expensive burden for the taxpayer and force the victim into disability.

As long as we’re legislating lifelong health benefits for others, why stop with tobacco?    I won’t give them up yet, but I can force my neighbor before he even gets the right to vote.  

Maybe kids should get car license's at 10?

Of maybe ban licence's altogether?

 

And I'd miss donuts, but I recognise the advantages of them not being around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lark said:

So those too young to vote are having their choice made for them by the old people whose healthcare he is expected to someday fund.   Ironic.  Will he someday return the favor by voting to outlaw TV for those over 60, improving the lifestyle of fat old people?    

Well of course it was. Shall we ask 6 year olds to vote about it? That’s why there is a minimum age to vote. It is supposedly an age where persons are mature enough to intellectually consider the merits of a person or proposal and vote. So……all votes…..always…..will impact the lives of those too young to vote, not just immediately but in the future as well. ALWAYS. Further, when those 14 and under….and those who follow reach the voting age…..if they disagree…..they can change it. 

As an aside….not sure what your definition of old people is………but in New Zealand 52% of the population is under 54. Only 27% are older than that. Only 15% are over 65. The median age is 37 and the life expectancy at birth is 82. Does not seem to me a bunch of old people drove this vote. Oh….and the adult obesity rate is 30%.

https://www.indexmundi.com/new_zealand/demographics_profile.html

Age structure 0-14 years: 19.63% (male 496,802/female 469,853)

15-24 years: 12.92% (male 328,327/female 308,132)

25-54 years: 39.98% (male 996,857/female 972,566)

55-64 years: 11.93% (male 285,989/female 301,692)

65 years and over: 15.54% (male 358,228/female 407,031) (2020 est.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Point Break said:

Well of course it was. Shall we ask 6 year olds to vote about it? That’s why there is a minimum age to vote. It is supposedly an age where persons are mature enough to intellectually consider the merits of a person or proposal and vote. So……all votes…..always…..will impact the lives of those too young to vote, not just immediately but in the future as well. ALWAYS. Further, when those 14 and under….and those who follow reach the voting age…..if they disagree…..they can change it. 

As an aside….not sure what your definition of old people is………but in New Zealand 52% of the population is under 54. Only 27% are older than that. Only 15% are over 65. The median age is 37 and the life expectancy at birth is 82. Does not seem to me a bunch of old people drove this vote. Oh….and the adult obesity rate is 30%.

https://www.indexmundi.com/new_zealand/demographics_profile.html

Age structure 0-14 years: 19.63% (male 496,802/female 469,853)

15-24 years: 12.92% (male 328,327/female 308,132)

25-54 years: 39.98% (male 996,857/female 972,566)

55-64 years: 11.93% (male 285,989/female 301,692)

65 years and over: 15.54% (male 358,228/female 407,031) (2020 est.)

If I were the emperor I would make a maximum age for voting, I think 70 would be a good age.  

Older people tend to vote regularly.  Like anyone, they want to vote in their interest.  Well at that age, they aren't going to be around to enjoy/suffer the consequences of their vote whereas younger people will be.  Look at the bulge in the US population demographics as the boomers are aging out and the newer generations are a smaller percent of the population.  Why are us old farts making decisions that will affect the younger generations for years to come as we pass on to our eternal reward?   Because we know what's best for them?  Hah, how has that worked out so far?  My work here is done, my daughter can carry on the struggle, she's quite intelligent.

The other thing I would change is that there should be a maximum age if you want to be president.  That would include incumbents as well.  The law would say you can't run for president if you will turn 70 at some point in your term of office, be it the 1st or 2nd.  The world is too complex to entrust huge decisions to people that might not be at their intellectual prime anymore.  Look at Reagan, well into the depths of Alzheimer's in his 2nd term.  We don't need anymore addled, amiable dunces in office with the nuclear launch codes.  Of course there are some folks that still have a sharp mind into their 80s but they are in the minority, and we just can't afford to take a chances in such an important position.  

Radical times call for radical solutions.  Soylent Green anyone?   

So the obvious solution is to say no, you can't vote anymore for your own selfish interest.  Let the people who have to bear most of the consequences decide.  I wouldn't object to losing my right to vote at 70.  Think of the kids FFS, I had my chance, it's their world now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

 

So the obvious solution is to say no, you can't vote anymore for your own selfish interest.  Let the people who have to bear most of the consequences decide.  I wouldn't object to losing my right to vote at 70.  Think of the kids FFS, I had my chance, it's their world now!

Agree with max age for elected office. Max voting age? Nope. First of all….who doesn’t vote in their own “selfish” interest? It’s pretty rare when someone advocates against their own interests for community interests. Just doesn’t happen. The reality of age distribution is only about 15% of the population is over 65…..less over 70. Not exactly a powerful voting block unless you are talking about some very narrowly contested issue. The over 50% of the population under 55 already command the outcome…..if they bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Point Break said:

First of all….who doesn’t vote in their own “selfish” interest?

Of course people vote in their own interest.  But when they are very old, they won't suffer the consequences for near the amount of time that young people will.  The 16% of the population over 65 is enough to make a difference on many issues, especially if the younger people don't vote as much.  It's difficult to make people vote but you can easily keep them from voting (see below).  

But since I am the type who is willing to compromise, I'll make a proposal that if you are 65 to 75 you only get 1/2 of a vote.  Over that, you don't get to vote at all.  That's better than black people of any age got for a few hundred years, and women for quite some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Of course people vote in their own interest.  But when they are very old, they won't suffer the consequences for near the amount of time that young people will.  The 16% of the population over 65 is enough to make a difference on many issues, especially if the younger people don't vote as much.  It's difficult to make people vote but you can easily keep them from voting (see below).  

But since I am the type who is willing to compromise, I'll make a proposal that if you are 65 to 75 you only get 1/2 of a vote.  Over that, you don't get to vote at all.  That's better than black people of any age got for a few hundred years, and women for quite some time.

We’ll simply disagree and remain GA “friends”. Good holiday to you. B)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Point Break said:

We’ll simply disagree and remain GA “friends”. Good holiday to you. B)

Thanks and a very happy holiday to you and the Mrs.

You do realize that I'll never be in any kind of position of power to implement my idea.  My wife won't even listen to me! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Point Break said:

Agree with max age for elected office. Max voting age? Nope. First of all….who doesn’t vote in their own “selfish” interest? It’s pretty rare when someone advocates against their own interests for community interests. Just doesn’t happen. The reality of age distribution is only about 15% of the population is over 65…..less over 70. Not exactly a powerful voting block unless you are talking about some very narrowly contested issue. The over 50% of the population under 55 already command the outcome…..if they bother.

I'd vote for higher taxes for better paid teachers, nurses and other essential service people.

You might argue that that is in my own self interest but I do hope to never see a nurse or essential service person again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2021 at 12:14 AM, Ease the sheet. said:

Maybe kids should get car license's at 10?

Of maybe ban licence's altogether?

 

And I'd miss donuts, but I recognise the advantages of them not being around.

My argument is based on the novelty of this approach,   Sure there is benefit to society. I’ve seen what smoking does to a body, quite close and personal.   What is interesting here is they are telling the next generation they can’t, ever, even when they reach legal adulthood.   Yet the New Zealanders are making a giant exception for everybody that voted against smoking,   Those people get to smoke until they die, legally.   The hypocrisy is rank.   You aren’t banning donuts for everybody, just for other people.   You still voted to keep yours.   
 

Maybe the slow decline in demand will minimize the black market?    Old hooked adults that buy duty free cigarettes elsewhere can keep getting their nicotine fixes without effort in New Zealand, so for the first several years the customer base for illegal cancer sticks will be very small.     
 

edit, I guess it isn’t so novel.    Ohio did something similar for boating,   The old folks decided years back that new adults had to take the online boating test if they had 10 h.p. or more.   Current boaters were exempt.    That seemed less hypocritical, presumably at least some of the current boaters weren’t unsafe and new 18 year olds had a cheap and easy work around with boatus classes.    

the US did something similar for doctors over a hundred years ago, requiring new doctors get a college degree but letting the old herbalists, healing preachers and apprenticed doctors keep practicing.    Gradually licensing boards put limits on those grandfathered in, so they did face some restrictions too.   This was done to avoid a shortage of current doctors and the current doctors didn’t vote the restrictions on their future colleagues, so it wasn’t really the same either.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...