- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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 must log in or register to comment.
Lacking evidence. Go suck your cancer sticks, you fools.
To be clear, they’re saying that repealing the ban is lacking evidence to support the decision. It’s just worded very poorly, but the article makes it clear:
“Repealing the legislation flies in the face of robust research evidence; it ignores measures strongly supported by Māori leaders and it will preserve health inequities,” co-director professor Janet Hoek of Otago University’s Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre said.
Wtf, it’s difficult to imagine a more directly harmful and scientifically evidenced habit.
absurd
Alcohol.
As someone who struggles with alcohol, ban that shit as well…
My heart goes out to you because alcohol is a cruel mistress.
But banning a substance never works, if it did we wouldn’t have people addicted to illegal substances.
lol except tabacco for some reason right?
You’re the second person to talk about cigarettes which I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned.
Am I missing something here?
I’m not for banning anything besides personal WMDs and carnies.
Because that worked so well before.
Such a shame.
The decision has sparked a huge backlash from researchers and experts saying the actions lack logic and evidence, describing it as “shameful”.
Theres a risk to indigenous people if smoking is banned?
I don’t understand
No the opposite
It’s an easy game - just think of the worst thing and that’s what the right wing conservative party is trying to do.
And it’s a global issue now
It’s been so disheartening to watch. There’s apparently a large percentage of the world’s population that is scared of every change for the better. Just absolutely driven by mind-numbing, counter-productive fear. And I don’t get it.
I mean, come on, these are fucking cigarettes. There’s no mystery, here, they kill people. They’re a poison product, and the monsters who sell them are selling gruesome death. But somehow, stopping a business from profiting off of these horrible, unnecessary deaths is scarier than the cancer sticks themselves? Why? Fucking why? Is it because literally all change is scary, no matter what its nature?
I’m starting to think we’re an evolutionary dead end. I don’t know how we survive past this madness.
The repeal would have the risk. The summary is very poorly worded.
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??
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lemmy: ban cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but not alcohol which is worse and, oh btw, legalize marijuana because it’s totally not like cigarettes.
I’ve never seen people struggle with alcohol and pot like I’ve seen (and struggled myself with) nicotine. YMMV, but perhaps getting some actual life experience around addicts might give you some perspective. I’ve known heroin addicts that had tougher times leaving tobacco behind.
You’ve never seen how people are destroyed by alcohol?
Dying is one thing; the suffering alcoholism can bring to everyone in the situation is heartbreaking, and it can take decades to play out before it finally kills the addict. And nobody can change anything except them. But of course, they don’t.
I’ve watched family kill themselves with hard drugs, it’s pretty quick comparatively. It’s ugly, but after they manage to ignore all help, they do themselves in fast when they get serious about it.
I hardly need your condescension about addictions there, buddy. I’ve seen it all too closely.
Hey New Zealand, how’s it goin’?
reads article
Oh. Right wing garbage huh. Sorry. It’s everywhere.
I really do not get why this is the current political climate.
Probably because the left doesn’t really have a vision to offer, we should be promoting a better future for all and showing how we can achieve it but instead we’ve got infighting, purity culture, self destructive idealism, and calls for making life harder on regular people in pretty much every way possible.
