Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence
New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.
The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.
The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.
Yeah but we could ban all sorts of things by that logic. Alcohol, obviously. Sports. Any foods that a lot of people are allergic to. Suntanning. It’s holding smoking to a standard that we don’t hold any other vices or hobbies to.
Most of those are social activities. A lot of places did ban tanning booths because of their link to skin cancer.
Alcohol and smoking is not at all comparable. No one invites each other for a pack of smokes on a Friday night. There aren’t any casual smokers because it’s much more addicting than anything you mentioned.
Imagine if alcohol was brutally addicting for 98% of the population and then ask yourself if you would ban it.
Addiction alone is no reason to ban something. And what does being a social activity have to do with anything?
Solo weightlifting alone causes 450,000 major injuries a year. Why no ban on that?
A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.
I’m bringing up social activities to highlight that alcohol and weed, while also being much less addictive and damaging, are also part of our social culture.
It’s a false comparison same with weight lifting.
Well, since you’ve just declared it a false comparison, now I’m convinced. Thanks for clearing that up.
I cannot disagree strongly enough. The State should not tell me how to live my life. My body, my choice.
New Zealand has publically funded health care. If the government can force me to pay for your medical treatment (via tax), why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?
In any democracy, the voting public should choose how tax money is spent. If the majority don’t want to pay to manage smoking related illness, or pay to enforce a two tiered medical system, a democratic system would restrict or ban smoking.
We’ve been over this. It’s a standard that other activities are not held to.
It’s a democracy, the people have the right to value different things differently if they choose. The previous administration ran for office with the cigarette restrictions as part of their policy package and people voted for that. They didn’t vote for alcohol or fast food or whatever else your claiming is the same, if people wanted to ban other things they have the right to vote accordingly.
We’re not mob rule here. There are (or should be) checks against the tyranny of the majority. Just because most voters want a thing doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the right thing.
What are the health benefits of weight lifting when compared to cigarettes? Whats the impact monetarily of both on the health system?
Whats the cost on the users for partaking in it. Where do they sit relative to each other and different substances/activities in terms of addiction. How many weightlifters end up having real health complications because of their addiction compared to smokers? How many of them die? How many weightlifters regret doing it compared to smokers?
This is why its a false comparison and rhetoric. If you want to live in a world where every activity that has health complication is comparable to cigarettes in the present context, then stop responding to my comments and pretend.
“You wouldn’t ban weightlifting” is not an argument.
So we’re weighing health effects good vs bad and choosing, on behalf of society, how bad is too bad?
It’s like a theocracy, but without the religion.
Clearly there’s no hard criteria, like “has the potential to cause personal injury on a wide scale”. Which means inevitably it gains a moralistic/tribalistic quality, something that has no place in government, especially when talking about government restrictions.
There is a hard criteria, “Causes serious health issues to all it’s users with no benefit and is highly addicting”. There is literally nothing else in our society currently legal that crosses that line except smoking.
The rest of your argument doesn’t make much sense to me, you will have to explain. Most of our laws fall under that umbrella. The potential for damages is weighed against the benefits and the liberties it restricts. Lots of things are outlawed that really aren’t as clear cut as cigarettes.
Smoking has social benefits. Same as alcohol.
It’s possible to consume alcohol responsibly and a small amount doesn’t appear to be harmful.
Why do you want to legislate people away from harming themselves and only themselves?
Smoking doesn’t just effect the smoker
Yeah it does.
There is also the impact on our healthcare system and our economy. Another albeit minor consequence compared to the other two is littering.
There are already laws against littering. And lots of things affecting our healthcare system and economy. Sports, processed food, alcohol
Comparing sports, processed food and alcohol is a false equivalence.
In any case, it’s not because problems exist elsewhere that we can’t solve this one. It’s also much easier to stop the damage by banning cigs like it was done in New Zealand (where thee age limit rises as the population ages) then to fix any of your other examples.
Sure, it’s much easier to force people to be healthy, if your goal is a healthier population. But it’s morally wrong. People should have the right to make unhealthy decisions.