FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > New Zealand Bans all Tobacco
New Zealand Bans all Tobacco
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank" in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit | |||
| |||
"I think its only for 14yrs going forward, so oldies will still be able to, but it is a bit nanny state, wander how many other counties follow, and how are they going to replace the lost tax income?" It's incremental each year so somebody who is 14 or under now will never be of legal age to smoke. NZ does not have a large percentage of smokers, except for in Maori and South Islander communities. I do have a feeling that the black market for tobacco is going to get quite lucrative though. | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit" Other way round. Smoking is a net loss to the UK economy. Recent report estimates £19bn per annum cost. | |||
| |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit" I'm not going to dispute your calculations, however, are you in favour of a blanket ban or not? Frank | |||
"and as to vaping, this is actually increasing the young who smoke, as they vape because its seen as cool, then move to cigs, and the jury is still out as to if vaping is safe in comparison, agree it can be a good tool for those trying to give up smoking, however have you ever walked behing someone vaping, huge clouds of smoke, alot more than a cig, cant be good for you, personaly i cant stand the smell of them, but thats very personal, yes i smoke, have for 30 odd years, did give up for a year or so a while back, just stopped, but started again during a stresfull time in life, yes its a bad habit, but you have to have some vices in life lol" Ha. Answered  | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit Other way round. Smoking is a net loss to the UK economy. Recent report estimates £19bn per annum cost." didnt realise that, it always used to be the other way round, and does that figure take into account non smokers living longer, therefor costing more in pensions and social care, im not sure it can, our aging population is one of the pigest costs on the econamy | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit I'm not going to dispute your calculations, however, are you in favour of a blanket ban or not? Frank" not in favour of banning things at all, what will be next? banning things doesnt work, just drives things underground into the hands of criminals, never a good thing, look what happened when america banned alcohol, people dont like being told what they can and cant do, i realise we need laws for the good of all, but i cant see how this is one of those. If i want to drink, smoke then let me, it doesnt really harm anyone else,banning things is a slipery slope | |||
"New Zealand will ban tobacco and phase it out completely. Is this the nanny state or restricting an individual's choice ? It's big news out there" That's up to them. It's nothing to do with us. If they tried it here I would oppose it on the grounds of it being impractical. | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit I'm not going to dispute your calculations, however, are you in favour of a blanket ban or not? Frank not in favour of banning things at all, what will be next? banning things doesnt work, just drives things underground into the hands of criminals, never a good thing, look what happened when america banned alcohol, people dont like being told what they can and cant do, i realise we need laws for the good of all, but i cant see how this is one of those. If i want to drink, smoke then let me, it doesnt really harm anyone else,banning things is a slipery slope" Drinking and smoking can and does harm other people though. I'm not in favour of banning things either, especially things that have been accepted for centuries. I am in favour of restricting their use though. It's much more pleasant in work places, pubs, clubs and restaurants now smoking isn't allowed in them. Damage to health caused by secondary smoking is well documented | |||
"New Zealand will ban tobacco and phase it out completely. Is this the nanny state or restricting an individual's choice ? It's big news out there" As usual, not even a tiny part of the policy… but misreported to sensationalise the issue. They are actually phasing out tobacco. The policy means that someone who is 14 years old today will never be legally able to purchase tobacco due to age restrictions, which will increase. Meanwhile, vaping alternatives to will be encouraged. The policy actually makes sense! It’s a losing battle trying to get older smokers to quit. If they haven’t got the “smoking is bad for you” message now, they never will. They will die off, and the problem dies with them. But preventing young people from starting, that’s sensible. | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit I'm not going to dispute your calculations, however, are you in favour of a blanket ban or not? Frank not in favour of banning things at all, what will be next? banning things doesnt work, just drives things underground into the hands of criminals, never a good thing, look what happened when america banned alcohol, people dont like being told what they can and cant do, i realise we need laws for the good of all, but i cant see how this is one of those. If i want to drink, smoke then let me, it doesnt really harm anyone else,banning things is a slipery slope Drinking and smoking can and does harm other people though. I'm not in favour of banning things either, especially things that have been accepted for centuries. I am in favour of restricting their use though. It's much more pleasant in work places, pubs, clubs and restaurants now smoking isn't allowed in them. Damage to health caused by secondary smoking is well documented" Agree totaly with this, if im in a pub etc, its not a problem to go outside for a smoke, and the venues are a much nicer place to be, im a very respectful smoker tho, never smoke near others etc | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit Other way round. Smoking is a net loss to the UK economy. Recent report estimates £19bn per annum cost. didnt realise that, it always used to be the other way round, and does that figure take into account non smokers living longer, therefor costing more in pensions and social care, im not sure it can, our aging population is one of the pigest costs on the econamy" It's a pretty exhaustive calculation, including the cost of treating long term, care intensive illnesses incurred by smokers/former smokers such as copd, emphysema, cancer, lost work hours and productivity due to smoking related illnesses, early retirement/shortened working lives and so on. Far outweighs increased pension burdens and tax revenue. Lots of the former data stating an economic benefit via tax etc was based on research that was sponsored or funded by the tobacco lobbying companies such as Phillip Morris etc. | |||
"Difficult one. There is no benefit to smoking, none whatsoever. The lost tax revenue would surely be offset by the money not spent on smoking related illnesses? Stop people damaging theirs and others health unnecessarily (nanny state) or let them potentially kill themselves and others (freedom of choice). Difficult choice. A smoker who is down to 1/2 a day and vaping called Frank in the uk at least the tax on cigs far out weighs the cost of smokers, plus alot die young, so less pensions etc to pay out, this does decrease as people stop smoking, hence the constant increase of duty every year, but still in net profit Other way round. Smoking is a net loss to the UK economy. Recent report estimates £19bn per annum cost. didnt realise that, it always used to be the other way round, and does that figure take into account non smokers living longer, therefor costing more in pensions and social care, im not sure it can, our aging population is one of the pigest costs on the econamy It's a pretty exhaustive calculation, including the cost of treating long term, care intensive illnesses incurred by smokers/former smokers such as copd, emphysema, cancer, lost work hours and productivity due to smoking related illnesses, early retirement/shortened working lives and so on. Far outweighs increased pension burdens and tax revenue. Lots of the former data stating an economic benefit via tax etc was based on research that was sponsored or funded by the tobacco lobbying companies such as Phillip Morris etc. " Fair enough, i admit that im probably out of date, lets not forget alot less people smoke now, so revanue will be down, i bow to your greater knowlage | |||
| |||
"We smoked over thirty years ago. It was acceptable to smoke everywhere even hospitals. In my parents time people used to smoke in doctors waiting rooms. That seems outrageous to us now so eventually the very act of smoking will appear outrageous to New Zealanders I guess " I supose its much the same as drink driving, in my parents day, they thought nothing of driving home after a dinner party, peoples views have changed, for the better in that respect, when things become socialy unaceptable attitudes change, im sure smoking will go the same way | |||
"We smoked over thirty years ago. It was acceptable to smoke everywhere even hospitals. In my parents time people used to smoke in doctors waiting rooms. That seems outrageous to us now so eventually the very act of smoking will appear outrageous to New Zealanders I guess I supose its much the same as drink driving, in my parents day, they thought nothing of driving home after a dinner party, peoples views have changed, for the better in that respect, when things become socialy unaceptable attitudes change, im sure smoking will go the same way" It's certainly headed in that direction.  | |||
| |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol" Nooo. Let's make drinking to excess very unacceptable but don't ban it. I enjoy a drink about twice a year  | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol" that wont happen in my life time thank god, the fun police have too much power as it is, what next ban driving to save those killed on the roads? where do you stop, i for one dont want to live in a sealed bubble, life is for fun. | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol" I like a drink in the evening to wind down, i dont drink to excess, i mainly do it at home, it hurts nobody | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol I like a drink in the evening to wind down, i dont drink to excess, i mainly do it at home, it hurts nobody" That's your experiences of it. For others the experiences has been very different. Not going into that though as I don't want to derail someone else's thread.... I stand by my comment | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol that wont happen in my life time thank god, the fun police have too much power as it is, what next ban driving to save those killed on the roads? where do you stop, i for one dont want to live in a sealed bubble, life is for fun." Agree! | |||
| |||
"I think in 100 years time people will be amazed that smoking was ever acceptable or legal. " This… if this had been invented today… there would be zero chance it would be legal…. | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol I like a drink in the evening to wind down, i dont drink to excess, i mainly do it at home, it hurts nobody That's your experiences of it. For others the experiences has been very different. Not going into that though as I don't want to derail someone else's thread.... I stand by my comment" I don’t think it’s derails the Op that much What it really comes down to is, do we want the government to have a say on what we put in our bodies Tobacco, alcohol and the covid vaccine are all aspects of this Do we ban chocolate too? It has zero nutritional values and excess sugar and calories helps fuel the obesity crisis It’s a debate that’s been going on for a long time. Your personal freedom vs it’s effects on society and how the government want to get involved It’s a complex ethical debate that has no answer really. Because on one hand you give everyone total freedom. Drink diving, addictions, it’s chaos On the other hand you have maximum nanny state where everyone eats a nutritionally dense sludge 3x a day, alcohol is illegal, music is banned and entertainment is all government approved. The answer lays somewhere in the middle, but it’s not an easy middle to find | |||
"Good, now let's ban alchohol I like a drink in the evening to wind down, i dont drink to excess, i mainly do it at home, it hurts nobody That's your experiences of it. For others the experiences has been very different. Not going into that though as I don't want to derail someone else's thread.... I stand by my comment I don’t think it’s derails the Op that much What it really comes down to is, do we want the government to have a say on what we put in our bodies Tobacco, alcohol and the covid vaccine are all aspects of this Do we ban chocolate too? It has zero nutritional values and excess sugar and calories helps fuel the obesity crisis It’s a debate that’s been going on for a long time. Your personal freedom vs it’s effects on society and how the government want to get involved It’s a complex ethical debate that has no answer really. Because on one hand you give everyone total freedom. Drink diving, addictions, it’s chaos On the other hand you have maximum nanny state where everyone eats a nutritionally dense sludge 3x a day, alcohol is illegal, music is banned and entertainment is all government approved. The answer lays somewhere in the middle, but it’s not an easy middle to find " keep your sensable answers and reasoning to yourself please, no room for it here  | |||
"I think in 100 years time people will be amazed that smoking was ever acceptable or legal. " Agree | |||
| |||
"New Zealand will ban tobacco and phase it out completely. Is this the nanny state or restricting an individual's choice ? It's big news out there" We all live in a nanny state...name one country with no laws? | |||
"What it really comes down to is, do we want the government to have a say on what we put in our bodies " They already do! When the NHS picks up the tab, it’s right that they do. For me, the crucial difference is when things you put into your body impact on others. Tobacco and alcohol consumption impact others directly and indirectly. So, your freedom to harm yourself doesn’t take primacy over others right to protect themselves. | |||
"What it really comes down to is, do we want the government to have a say on what we put in our bodies They already do! When the NHS picks up the tab, it’s right that they do. For me, the crucial difference is when things you put into your body impact on others. Tobacco and alcohol consumption impact others directly and indirectly. So, your freedom to harm yourself doesn’t take primacy over others right to protect themselves." But we all own the NHS we pay for it. So we're picking up the tab. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ban roads. Lots of people die on them." Keep death off the roads. Drive on the pavements. | |||
