New Zealand to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes — for life

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

^ not dis[uting the above; however, where do you draw the line?

Does the government start forcing people to exercise?

Of course not, but higher cigarette taxes is reasonable. Although I love my Coke Zero I’d also support a sin tax on junk food.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Roger

Do nothing because some people will find a way around it? Brilliant. Never thought of that.

This is Jason Kenney's approach to anything involving real leadership.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Of course not, but higher cigarette taxes is reasonable. Although I love my Coke Zero I’d also support a sin tax on junk food.

I guess it depends.

Right now there are two primary mechanisms for directing behaviours. Taxation and Legislation. For purpose of simplicity I'll exclude costs for Education and other forms involved as they dont wield the same kind of measurable results.

Like...how effective was: "When it comes to Drugs and Alcohol....Just Say NO!" ?

I dont know how much that Campaign cost but I'd wager that if there was a method of measuring the effectiveness of it versus its actual cost we'd all be pretty disappointed but ultimately not all that surprised.

As with most things when you're using these primary tools to alter behaviour, typically a mix is most effective.

Sin Taxes are typically quite effective and lucrative, if you can price the vice to a point that a user simply decides to quit then you've achieved the desired result.

Thats not so cut and dried though. Some people are hardcore and will sacrifice elsewhere in their lives in order to maintain their vice, but if you get some to acquiesce then progress is still being made as you're reducing some negative effects while still generating revenue.

The economic element of that though is that the revenue received really has to go to the desired and correct environment.

Ie. If you tax the hell out of cigarettes, that revenue should be allocated directly to Health Care. But it wont be.

The legislative end is more murky.

This is because while the Taxation method generates revenue, the legislative method incurs costs.

Costs of enforcement, training, administration, detainment and punishment.

And of course the ancillary knock-on effects; Black Markets, loopholes, disdain from law enforcement, etc.

The tipping point is where the Sin Tax effectively just covers the cost of administration of the legislation and there is no additional funding to cover the actual Health Care costs incurred while simultaneously not materially moving the needle to solve the original concern.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I find the notion that this will create a cigarette black market completely hilarious.

When the Chretien government steeply hiked tobacco taxes in the 90s it spurred a huge black market in Canada, mostly through Mohawk territory. People I knew were buying black market smokes by the carton.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced Tuesday that Canada will slash federal taxes on cigarettes to combat widespread smuggling and organized crime.

…"Smuggling is threatening the safety of our communities and the livelihood of law-abiding merchants," Chretien argued in the House of Commons in Ottawa as he proclaimed the strategy.

A carton of cigarettes on which all taxes are paid costs upward of $44 in Canada, against as little as $15 for the contraband product. ($1.30 Canadian equals about $1 U.S.). Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illegal cigarettes enter Canada every month, chiefly through Mohawk Indian reservations that straddle the border with the U.S. in Ontario and Quebec.

"The organized crime networks that control 95 percent of the tobacco smuggling also supply and distribute smuggled liquor, firearms and drugs. It is essential that we take strong steps to dismantle these networks," Chretien said.

A decade of high taxes on cigarettes has fostered a black market boom in which tobacco smugglers recently have begun defending their shipments with assault rifles along the St. Lawrence River.

It also touched off a tax revolt by retailers in Quebec, where contraband cigarettes account for about two-thirds of all sales. Nationwide, about 2 million smokers-one-third of all tobacco users in Canada-buy bootleg smokes.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...139-story.html

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When the Chretien government steeply hiked tobacco taxes in the 90s it spurred a huge black market in Canada, mostly through Mohawk territory. People I knew were buying black market smokes by the carton.

This isn’t the same thing at all.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Another thing to consider to anyone who is on the "Let people decide for themselves" side of the coin.
How many other products are out there that the vast majority of users will actively tell you that they wish they could stop using, and that there are huge industries to help people quite using that product?
If the entire point of your product is to get people addicted, is that really allowing people a choice?

When you've got a product that has such a detrimental effect on people, that is almost impossible to use responsibly or in moderation, and that the vast majority of users became addicted to as minors, that doesn't seem like a product that we should have sitting around on shelves. Making it illegal won't keep it out of the hands of minors, as it doesn't now, but slowing reducing access eventually will.

The obvious counter would be things like Pot, junkfood, or booze.
I would argue that all of those things can be, and in most cases are used in moderation. They certainly have their problems, and cause various degrees of damage to people and society, but the addiction rate to any of them isn't near the same scale as cigarettes. They are also major industries, so who knows, maybe there is a strictly economic argument to be made for them, vs what is increasingly a niche product.

Heck, I'll even concede that I don't want to get rid of those things because I like them. That doesn't mean I can't be on board to get rid of something else that is obviously harmful.

I have no evidence for this but I think alcohol must be the most damaging legal substance we have available. We know that it causes damage in a variety of ways (drunk driving, public intoxication leading to fights/conflict - , bad judgement/decisions, addiction, family disfunction) Smoking a cigarette (while totally gross) won't cause someone to drive a truck through oncoming traffic, pick a fight at a bar, or neglect their career to stay in bed smoking. While the individual health costs of cigarettes are obvious, I would say the societal costs of alcohol are way worse. If anyone you didn't know was to cause you pain and suffering through their vice, its likely through alcohol, not a cigarette.

I think educating people about the harms and making it highly inconvenient for people to smoke in public has been enough. And we are kind of already there. I don't feel like smoking/smokers impact my life in any way these days, if they generally do it in their own space. Fine with me.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Do you think smoking won't decrease in the long run as a result of this? There's a lot more people who smoke and/or drink constantly than do illegal drugs - I assume a lot of that is just ease of acquiring the product.

The prevalence of smoking tobacco in Canada is 15 per cent. Before pot was legalized, around 15 per cent of Canadians used it. I haven’t seen any figures for Canada yet, but in other constituencies like Colorado, the rate of marijuana use went up only a couple per cent after legalization.

Black markets with a large and profitable user base are extremely efficient at getting their products into the hands of users. Prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. did little to suppress use. Neither did prohibition of pot for 50 years. I don’t see any reason to believe prohibition of cigarettes would be any more successful, especially when you consider how addictive they are.

[Azure]

I would agree that alcohol is absolutely far more damaging.

I know many, many families that have been destroyed because of alcohol abuse, but I think I only know two people that smoke, and both are great guys.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I have no evidence for this but I think alcohol must be the most damaging legal substance we have available.

In the cost in lives and health care resources, lost productivity, and contributions to violence and crime, no other drug - legal or illegal - comes close to alcohol.

[SebC]

I have mixed feelings, because I generally support harm reduction, and I don't know if this is it. I also consider cigarette smoke to be so egregiously vile that even catching a whiff of it is a substantial harm.

[The Yen Man]

It'll be interesting to see if this gets challenged in courts somehow. I'm not familiar with the nuances of NZ human rights laws, but this law basically restricts a segment of consenting adults access to something that the other section of consenting adults can still get.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I also am not familiar with NZ law, but is that really any different from the legal drinking age being 21 in the US, or 19 in some Canadian provinces?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The prevalence of smoking tobacco in Canada is 15 per cent. Before pot was legalized, around 15 per cent of Canadians used it. I haven’t seen any figures for Canada yet, but in other constituencies like Colorado, the rate of marijuana use went up only a couple per cent after legalization.

Black markets with a large and profitable user base are extremely efficient at getting their products into the hands of users. Prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. did little to suppress use. Neither did prohibition of pot for 50 years. I don’t see any reason to believe prohibition of cigarettes would be any more successful, especially when you consider how addictive they are.

Probably 99% of smokers are smoking multiple times a day. That number for pot is much less.

[Azure]

Waiting to see the 'ban it' crowd say the same for alcohol.

Come on guys, surely you don't think its less bad.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I also am not familiar with NZ law, but is that really any different from the legal drinking age being 21 in the US, or 19 in some Canadian provinces?

i feel that this ban is different, as kids who are 14 and under will never be able to smoke legally; however, they will eventually be able to drink.

i would be interesting to see a reasonable health cost summary based on vice. I feel that costs related to alcohol would be way more than smoking.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

Waiting to see the 'ban it' crowd say the same for alcohol.

Come on guys, surely you don't think its less bad.

If the goal I to protect people's health, I suggest we start with social media. Facebook, Insta, TikTok, Twitter....all terrible for mental wellbeing, especially young minds.

We can keep the Youtubes. They have cool how-to videos.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Does anyone under 25 even smoke anymore anyway? It seems that vaping has almost complete replaced it in middle schoolers through millenials.

Definitely feels that way in North America. But in Europe vaping still really hasn't caught on as expected. Normal cigarettes are still king here.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Azure

Waiting to see the 'ban it' crowd say the same for alcohol.

Come on guys, surely you don't think its less bad.

Probably a good idea. You'd have to take a similar approach to tobacco.

No advertising, no sponsorship, then reduce where you can drink, etc.

It couldn't be a flip a switch thing.

[kevman]

Can someone explain to me how we're looking at decriminalizing drugs all over the world as a effort to help users and prevent crime and yet we're celebrating criminalizing a drug?

We know prohibition didn't work but this time will be different?

I'm open to being proven wrong, and will check back in 15 years I guess, but I struggle to understand how this isn't going to fail like the criminalization of every other drug.

[transplant99]

Prohibition always goes well.