New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern
Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the "war on drugs" in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don't want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.
Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it's different when your country has universal healthcare.
no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to
In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??
There are unnecessarily large amounts of nicotine in cigarettes, making them very addictive.
Forced is a strong word, but many smokers aren't smoking out of free will either
Sure, and I'd support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though
I think I would. But at least I'd like to ban the practice of adding unnecessary amounts of nicotine.
Why allow companies to make their cigarettes unnecessarily addictive, and then use public funds for smoking cessation resources. That's the world upside down.
That's the function of government.
That is certainly an opinion!
It's written into most democratic countries' constitutions.
what exactly do you mean?
"Ensure liberty" and "provide for the common good" or similar language.
It's entirely within character for a good government to promote freedom of choice on the one hand (including freedom to make bad decisions) and provide resources to help people (not force people) to make healthier decisions on the other hand.
Kinda
I wouldn’t conflate democratic with good government because it gives us certain freedoms. The liberty in contemporary democratic societies is of a certain kind. Foremost it is the liberty of trade, property and production. Other liberties follow through that. The consumer side freedom of choice follows just as the freedom to theoretically take any job. The state may allow you that, but you may still be excluded by the choices of those whose liberty is guaranteed as well. I mean a government that treats everyone the same, isn’t necessarily good, if its citizens have different means to begin with.
Ensure liberty is a very broad statement, and usually not an absolute one.
In most countries you aren't free to sell, buy or consume meth, for example, because it clashes with the common good. You could make the same arguments for an abundance of nicotine in cigarettes, or even cigarettes as a whole. You could even make that argument against alcohol, speeding, wearing helmets, having guns, or eating fast food.
There's a line somewhere, and where that line is exactly is not "written in the constitution" for most countries. It's one that can be, and is argued all the time.
2nd hand?
a) studies don't show it's harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*
b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already
*note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke". These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they're based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you'll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I'm aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects
But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.
Conclusions
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.
The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.
Seems pretty clear.
Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.
They're literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data.. ?
You've been mixing some "whacky" in your "tobaccy", haven't'cha?
The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.
The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he'd do so, data be damned.
Look for yourself. The data is right there.
It's insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.
I looked myself.
I read the "conclusions" part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.
I assume you "don't have the time" to actually explain your argument, and I'll just have to "look myself", to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?
It's literally on the same page, I already linked it. This isn't a "do your research" YouTube conspiracy video thing. The conclusions say one thing, the studies say something else.
Oh, another "oh yeah, it totally says the opposite of what it concludes but I can't actually explain how". I'm shocked.
I'm gonna place a personal bet that you haven't even looked at any of it. Trying to argue "we haven't proved tobacco smoke is harmful" in 2024. You're cracking me up, man.
nonsmoking women married to smokers
Pooled estimates associated with secondhand smoke exposure from spouses, at the workplace, and during childhood
These cohort studies used questionnaires that asked about spousal smoking behaviors
men married to women who smoked
Many larger studies have since been conducted in the United States (Brownson et al. 1992; Stockwell et al. 1992; Fontham et al. 1994) and elsewhere (Wu-Williams et al. 1990; Boffetta et al. 1998; Nyberg et al. 1998a; Zaridze et al. 1998; Zhong et al. 1999; Kreuzer et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Seow et al. 2002) that expanded the assessment of the exposure to include smoking habits of other household members during childhood and adulthood, and exposure at work and in other social settings.
And so on. It's all over the article. Do a ctrl+f of "outdoor" and similar terms if you like.
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.
Yeah, seems pretty clear.
"It" being your lack of an argument against science that has a literal metric ton of evidence behind it, not to mention common sense?
"No no, smoke isn't actually harmful"
What are you, a 1950's ad company? XD