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

[Knightslayer]

Great job by NZ.

This will benefit them for decades to come.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by peter12

I hate this policy. Adults should be allowed to do what they want.

So then I imagine you're staunchly against bike helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it’s a sick thing to say but if this is really about the financial cost of people, the sooner people in retirement die the better.

You are putting a darker and more cynical twist on this. My point was that "saving on health care costs!" is a straw-man. I do want people to live longer, healthier and happier lives. But I also believe we should be allowed to choose our own vices that kill us in the end (be it smoking, drinking, back-country hiking or mountain climbing). Increasing taxes on cigarettes does nothing other than increasing revenues on politically-easy targets, similar to liquor, gambling, speeding etc. This is immoral on the part of governments.

With NZ imposing a lifetime ban on a legal adult activity - there is no way this doesn't get challenged and overturned by some form of a human rights tribunal.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Here's the thing. It's NOT making smoking illegal. It's already illegal, NZ is just keeping it that way. If you can legally smoke, nothing changes. If it's illegal for you to smoke. Nothing changes.

Will there be an increase in the black market? I'd be shocked if it didn't. However, will the detriment of the black market increase be offset by the benefit of less power smoking, and having a healthier population? Probably.

Just because there's a cost, doesn't mean the cost outweighs the benefit. You need to run the analysis.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You are putting a darker and more cynical twist on this. My point was that "saving on health care costs!" is a straw-man. I do want people to live longer, healthier and happier lives. But I also believe we should be allowed to choose our own vices that kill us in the end (be it smoking, drinking, back-country hiking or mountain climbing). Increasing taxes on cigarettes does nothing other than increasing revenues on politically-easy targets, similar to liquor, gambling, speeding etc. This is immoral on the part of governments.

With NZ imposing a lifetime ban on a legal adult activity - there is no way this doesn't get challenged and overturned by some form of a human rights tribunal.

I get your point, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But if an activity is banned then it's not legal.

[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.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I get your point, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But if an activity is banned then it's not legal.

I agree. That's a different topic and a different argument though. Banning a previously legal activity is an important move, which should be a part of any party's political platform along with measures and costs of its implementation.

As others mentioned already, heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl are all illegal substances. Look how well banning them worked in Canada and US so far.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a losing argument . Heavy smokers die of heart attacks at 75. Non-smokers live to 90 suffering through general old-age incapacitation issues like cancer, dementia and lack of mobility for the last 10 years of their lives. Health care and pension costs to maintain their living is incomparably higher.

Is this based on actual statistics or is it an opinion? I honestly don't know.

Any actuaries here in CP? If there are, preemptively...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I think this is stupid. What they should do is legislate the toxicity of cigarettes and nicotine levels.

If people want to smoke, go ahead, it you have to smoke actual dried tobacco leaves. Eliminate all other chemicals and additives.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Here's the thing. It's NOT making smoking illegal. It's already illegal, NZ is just keeping it that way. If you can legally smoke, nothing changes. If it's illegal for you to smoke. Nothing changes.

Will there be an increase in the black market? I'd be shocked if it didn't. However, will the detriment of the black market increase be offset by the benefit of less power smoking, and having a healthier population? Probably.

Just because there's a cost, doesn't mean the cost outweighs the benefit. You need to run the analysis.

There has already been an increase to the black market in New Zealand from higher taxes.

Not allowing people to buy cigarettes doesn't mean people will completely stop smoking.

But it does mean the government will not be getting taxes anymore to treat the still existing cost to the health care system.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think this is stupid. What they should do is legislate the toxicity of cigarettes and nicotine levels.

If people want to smoke, go ahead, it you have to smoke actual dried tobacco leaves. Eliminate all other chemicals and additives.

Totally. Pipes and cigars - real dried leaf, no (or almost no) additives. Until very recently, people smoking pipes and cigars did not have to declare themselves "smokers" on their life insurance policy questionnaires. No longer the case unfortunately.

[Azure]

Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall says there will be a strong focus on enforcement for the new legislation, expected to come into force by 2023.

"The best way to wean people off tobacco is to allow the market to innovate and deliver products like vaping.

"By radically reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes, smokers who can least afford it will spend more on their habit and in turn do harm to those around them if the Government mandates lower nicotine in tobacco."

Verrall said vaping was part of the plan as it was "far less harmful" than tobacco.

Asked why a ban on vaping was not also introduced at the same time and if the laws would condemn a generation to vaping, Verrall said they were monitoring the impact of recent law changes closely.

"The key thing is tobacco is one of the most addictive and deadly substances there is. Vaping is far less harmful."

The ministry advice also notes the legislation will have a great impact on small businesses, including dairies that sell tobacco which is estimated to make up about 20 per cent of revenue.

The current smoking rate of New Zealand adults was 13.4 per cent in 2019/2020, which has decreased from 16.6 per cent in 2014/15 15 and from 18.2 per cent in 2011/12.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/smokin...U76YGMDOIYODM/

The number of people that smoke seems high. Was actually surprised.

Also surprising that dairies are making so much money from selling tobacco. Will be unintended consequences there as well.

As for vaping...

Is vaping bad for you? There are many unknowns about vaping, including what chemicals make up the vapor and how they affect physical health over the long term. “People need to understand that e-cigarettes are potentially dangerous to your health,” says Blaha. “Emerging data suggests links to chronic lung disease and asthma, and associations between dual use of e-cigarettes and smoking with cardiovascular disease. You’re exposing yourself to all kinds of chemicals that we don’t yet understand and that are probably not safe.”

Among youth, e-cigarettes are more popular than any traditional tobacco product. In 2015, the U.S. surgeon general reported that e-cigarette use among high school students had increased by 900%, and 40% of young e-cigarette users had never smoked regular tobacco.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...w-about-vaping

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

There has already been an increase to the black market in New Zealand from higher taxes.

Not allowing people to buy cigarettes doesn't mean people will completely stop smoking.

But it does mean the government will not be getting taxes anymore to treat the still existing cost to the health care system.

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.

[Azure]

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.

Higher taxes & overall price increases seems to be resulting in less people smoking.

However, it is also leading to more people vaping, which I'm not sure is good or bad? Seems to me we shouldn't be discouraging one behavior while encouraging another, and instead we should focus on overall education to get people to stop smoking.

Anyone remember the Tips from Former Smokers thing that was happening in schools in the early 2000s?

The Tips From Former Smokers® (Tips®) campaign shows real people living with serious long-term health effects from smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. Tips also features compelling stories from family members who take care of loved ones affected by a smoking-related disease or disability.

From 2012–2018, CDC estimates that more than 16.4 million people who smoke have attempted to quit and approximately one million have successfully quit because of the Tips campaign.

Smokers who have seen Tips ads report greater intentions to quit within the next 30 days, and smokers who have seen the ads multiple times have even greater intentions to quit.

During 2012–2018, CDC’s Tips From Former Smokers campaign helped prevent an estimated 129,000 early deaths and helped save an estimated $7.3 billion in smoking-related healthcare costs.

For every $3,800 spent on the Tips campaign between 2012-2018, we prevented an early death. A cost-effectiveness studyexternal icon on the topic factored in smoking relapse, inflation, and advertising and evaluation costs.

In each campaign, there was an immediate, sustained and dramatic spike in calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW, and in visits to the campaign website.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign...t-results.html

I remember former smokers coming into school and talking to us kids about smoking, and some very gruesome looking pictures & stories being told.

The other thing is that the health care costs for smoking are not going away for a long time, and therefore it is in our best interest to allow smoking trends to continue to drop, but at the same time collect maximum amount of tax revenue to offset the cost. Sounds wrong, but unfortunately this is a must in order to ease the burden on the health care system.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

Higher taxes & overall price increases seems to be resulting in less people smoking.

However, it is also leading to more people vaping, which I'm not sure is good or bad? Seems to me we shouldn't be discouraging one behavior while encouraging another, and instead we should focus on overall education to get people to stop smoking.

Anyone remember the Tips from Former Smokers thing that was happening in schools in the early 2000s?



https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign...t-results.html

I remember former smokers coming into school and talking to us kids about smoking, and some very gruesome looking pictures & stories being told.

The other thing is that the health care costs for smoking are not going away for a long time, and therefore it is in our best interest to allow smoking trends to continue to drop, but at the same time collect maximum amount of tax revenue to offset the cost. Sounds wrong, but unfortunately this is a must in order to ease the burden on the health care system.

Isn't this doing exactly that though? I assume the cigarettes being sold to the olds will still be taxed.

[Azure]

2025 is 4 years from now. There will still be a major drain on the health care system at that time treating smokers. Where is the money supposed to come to in order to take care of them?

Maybe we could simply tell people, 'hey you smoked, no health care for you. Go die in the corner'

That could save us $7 billion per year.

[MoneyGuy]

Double cigarette taxes and throw that revenue at health care.

[Northendzone]

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

Does the government start forcing people to exercise?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Eventually everyone allowed to buy them will be dead, and then it will be illegal for everyone to buy them.

If you're 15 in 2027 and allowed to buy cigarettes, and continue to do so until you're 90, that takes them beyond the next century.

I don't see how that's "literally exactly the same" as banning cigarettes in the next couple of decades which the post I quoted said.
75-80 years is not a couple of decades

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

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

Does the government start forcing people to exercise?

I think a sin tax will be needed in order to offset the ever increasing cost to the health care system that our fast growing obese population is creating.

Smoking is dying off. We just need to manage the tax revenue properly to protect the health care system.

And overall we need to be spending more on health care. COVID has made that painfully obvious.