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.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Smokers do not live in vacuum with their own healthcare that is only paid by them.

    Smoking has huge impacts on our healthcare system, the high is shit and they only exist to make rich people richer and keep poor people poor.

    I say this as someone that recently restarted, I wish it was banned when I first started. It’s easily the thing that I’ve wasted the most money on uselessly and has caused the most damage to my health.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          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?

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Well, since you’ve just declared it a false comparison, now I’m convinced. Thanks for clearing that up.

              A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.

              I cannot disagree strongly enough. The State should not tell me how to live my life. My body, my choice.

              • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?

                  We’ve been over this. It’s a standard that other activities are not held to.

                  • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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.