this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
251 points (98.8% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2592 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 97 points 11 months ago (43 children)

And this is the kind of shit that happens when the right are put in power. Fuck people yay money.

Disgusting.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 39 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I mean, trying to get rid of smoking is admirable, but completely banning a drug has historically not often ended well, because it forces those who ended up addicted underground, and creates opportunity for organized crime to profit from their production.

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

sure but this is for people that were born after 2009. If enough 14yos have smoked to justify your argument humanity is doomed anyway

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Many of the smokers I’ve known started smoking at that age or younger. When I was at school there was a playground back market for cigarettes.

Banning cigarettes for younger people now won’t stop that. Just as banning cannabis for everyone doesn’t stop those who want to smoking it.

Many of the younger people in my family now however don’t want to smoke. There has been a significant shift in cultural and health attitudes against tobacco consumption, without a ban being required.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 2 points 11 months ago

It's not a temporary measure though I imagine? If someone born after 2009 gets ahold of some illegal cigarettes a few years from now (I definitely remember some high schoolers when I went to school that smoked, despite being under the legal age at the time) and gets addicted, then the issue still arises. People end up addicted to illegal drugs all the time.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If that was their reasoning: fine, but it isn't.

They actually, out loud, said they need the tax revenue to fund top bracket tax cuts.

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, if prohibition has taught us anything it’s that it doesn’t work.

My country, the UK, is attempting to follow in New Zealand’s footsteps and recently announced its own “generation ban” on tobacco smoking. Despite the fact that tobacco usage has been declining here for many years and seems likely to all but cease naturally anyway.

I’m no fan of tobacco smoking, but prohibition does not seem the right approach to take. It doesn’t seem helpful or necessary from a public health standpoint, and is also an impediment of individual liberty.

Revoking such a ban for tax reasons isn’t a great angle either though in New Zealand’s case. However, from what I remember of USA history tax was a motivation to repeal alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, so maybe that’s an unpleasant taste we should be willing to swallow in this case.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mothattack@lemmy.ml 32 points 11 months ago

National speed running worst govt.

[–] Kiwi_fella@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Shouldn't this read, "New conservative NZ government scraps..."?

[–] Rusky_900@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's for money, so it's OK.

[–] Kiwi_fella@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago
[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

So I'm a little torn on this

In general I'm very left leaning, and I was a fan of most policies adern put in. This one I thought was a weird one and really harsh. You want to raise the smoking age to 25 or 30 sure. But banning it entirely is to me like banning weed entirely or when people tried to ban alcohol, etc.

I understand smoking isn't healthy for anyone. But it's still someone's choice to do so or not. Drinking isn't healthy either. Lots of people die every year from drinking entirely too much. You can't ban that entirely either.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago

Bans work better on tobacco because unlike alcohol or drugs, they’re used habitually but generally not recreationally. That is, the role of cigarettes in society and individually is different from those of alcohol, cannabis, and the like.

I am going to hazard a guess that tobacco industry lobbying is responsible for this. They went into Eastern European nations and pitched the idea that tobacco control was bad for the country’s economy because without smokers they’d have to deal with more people who live to retirement age, and killing them earlier makes things cheaper.

Banning cigarettes removes them from convenience stores, making them much harder to buy. The work they’ve done so far has pulled the smoking population down to 8% from over 16% ten years ago, although it’s still 20% among Māori.

I would not be surprised if the ban cut that in half or more.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I guess the difference is you have a right to smoke, the 6 people sitting next to you have 6 rights not to. Maybe that was the consideration at the time?

[–] SirVer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Then just ban it in public spaces and let businesses have private smoking areas if they want to. That's what was done here in India and it seems to have worked out okay in my state at least.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

2nd hand smoke isn’t someone’s choice and the difference between banning cigarettes and banning a full class of a drug is that people aren’t going to turn to the black market for cigarettes (barring poverty) when vaping is still legal

[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Banning in public spaces or in specific areas something would be fine

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Ex smoker here, who is very against smoking as practice. I am also against the complete ban because it makes no sense whatsoever to be for the legalization of cannabis and other drugs but to also be for banning smoking. If I support one, I cannot support the other. I support drug legalization, so I can't support a smoking ban.

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Even when you consider the differences in addiction/habit forming? Do you feel the same way about morphine and heroin and their derivatives, that we should either legalize all or nothing?

It might be useful for an inbetween period, first we legalize softdrugs and ban all extremely addictive stuff, then after a year or 5 we open all the gates.

I don't even know if I'm for a complete ban but it sounded refreshing to have a smoker free generation, is such a low quality drug as well..

[–] neptune@dmv.social 9 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Marijuana at least has medicinal use though, right? I mean, it's not 100% the same.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The article only talks about cigarettes and smoking, but doesn’t say whether that includes other uses of nicotine

Same with other drug legalization - I think we’re well past the point of knowing that intentionally inhaling burnt stuff is bad, no matter what it is. I can support legalizing cannabis while trying to ban smoking anything

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised. It should be very factual what you are getting and that's it. I think tobacco should still be available from tobacconists only, which can be state run because it's unlikely to be profitable otherwise. I'm for complete legalisation of everything but I think the smoke free generation is a great and noble idea.

It conflicts but I'm not a machine ,I see that tobacco is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and I can just thumbs up a law that removes it as an opportunity without impacting those who are addicted and don't want to quit.

[–] GR4VY@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Caffeine is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, I think.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised.

Wine snobs, beer snobs, whisky snobs, and weed snobs would really hate that. And sommeliers would be having panic attacks.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Well all those snobs are suckers for marketing, it's the process they are enjoying the fruits of not the label.

But I'd envision a world where you could buy cocaine and just have a list of the ingredients and strength, I don't need Johnny Walker White to be pushing it. Just have it available if people want it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Also, is it just cigarettes or also cigars and pipe tobacco? I know people that, after the 'flavored cigarette' ban here, switched to flavored cigarillos or whatever. Just moved someone to a worse product.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


New Zealand’s new government will scrap the country’s world-leading law to ban smoking for future generations to help pay for tax cuts – a move that public health officials believe will cost thousands of lives and be “catastrophic” for Māori communities.

National has had to find new ways to fund its tax plan, after its coalition partner, New Zealand First, rejected a proposal to let foreign buyers back into the property market.

“Coming back to those extra sources of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to the smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books – with about $1bn there.”

But public health experts have expressed shock at the policy reversal, saying it could cost up to 5,000 lives a year, and be particularly detrimental to Māori, who have higher smoking rates.

Te Morenga highlighted recent modelling that showed the regulations would save $1.3bn in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented, and would reduce mortality rates by 22% for women, and 9% for men.

“This move suggests a disregard for the voices of the communities most affected by tobacco harm – favouring economic interests,” said chief executive Jason Alexander.


The original article contains 601 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›