PDA

View Full Version : Smoking & sale of tobacco



globe
24-07-2012, 08:37 AM
Heres a good one. I don't smoke, used to but gave up about 10 years ago. I reckon the restrictions on sale of tobacco, and the ongoing tightening on the smoking laws is going too far. I believe adults are mature enough to make a decision regarding smoking without the government telling people what they can and can't do.

I understand (unconfirmed) that the tax and duty more than covers any increased health costs resulting from illnesses from smoking.

CliveM
24-07-2012, 08:59 AM
You have got that right. Informing people of the potential health risk is a legitimate task for government but it stops there. If individuals still wish to kill themselves that is their problem. I have much the same attitude to the wearing of seat belts in cars. It is stupid not to use one and criminaly stupid not make your children do so. I always had them fitted in my vehicles long before it was a legal requirement to do so. (waste of money because I never was involved in a crash).

fred_fish
24-07-2012, 09:01 AM
I don't have an issue with removing the shop displays.
Advertising them to children next to the lollies is stupid.

The lollies and fizzy drinks should be next.
Coke at $10 a litre to go with the $20 mixture would discourage all those fat little pricks on the way home from school.

dugimodo
24-07-2012, 09:17 AM
They are trying to reduce the visible appeal of it to reduce uptake or something. Who knows if it will have any effect but going too far? it has no impact on smokers, they can still buy whatever they want so who is it hurting?

@Globe I agree in principal about making our own choices, but what we forget is our choices don't just affect ourselves. I wish I could agree about adults being mature but the behaviour of many would tend to disagree. If for example someone doesn't want to wear a helmet to ride a bike it would seem fair enough, it's their life after all right? But what about the poor bastard who has to scrape your brains off the road, or the family who ends up caring for a disabled relative.

Similarly chosing to smoke has an influence on your friends and family so is it really just your choice? Don't get me wrong I'm not a smoke nazi, as long as people aren't in my face with it I really don't care, I just wanted to point out it's not as simple as making a choice for yourself.

fred_fish
24-07-2012, 09:25 AM
But what about the poor bastard who has to scrape your brains off the road, or the family who ends up caring for a disabled relative.
These things are going to happen anyway, whether you wear a helmet when you smoke or not.

The freedom to make bad choices is what makes life interesting :D

Trev
24-07-2012, 09:29 AM
I saw a 10 year old the other who was going through his pockets looking for some money and out of his pocket he pulls out half a packet of tobbaco.
:)

B.M.
24-07-2012, 09:31 AM
Itís absolute nonsense.

Whilst smoking is perfectly legal they should butt out. If some of these politicians are so paranoid about smoking, then they should make it illegal the same as marijuana.

As far as the cost of smoking being a drag on the Healthcare Budget I too have seen figures that suggest they should be encouraging smoking.

I must try and find them but from memory they were based on a packet of 20 per day and the tax collected from that smoker over the average life expectancy of a smoker opposed to the tax collected off a non-smoker (nil) and the extended life expectancy of the non-smoker where pensions etc are paid.

Anyway, from a purely financial point of view, it suggested the Government should definitely be encouraging smoking. :lol:

globe
24-07-2012, 09:36 AM
If for example someone doesn't want to wear a helmet to ride a bike it would seem fair enough, it's their life after all right? .

Main difference here is that a helmet protects you in an accident, smoking is not an accident (unless you somehow set fire to yourself of course). That's how i myself differentiate between the two.

Nick G
24-07-2012, 10:42 AM
Anyone here who is saying that what they are doing is a bad thing, should learn up about an economic term called 'negative externalities'.

Bobh
24-07-2012, 11:00 AM
I quite often see school kids smoking even in school uniform out in the open. In my day it was a big no no to be caught smoking so we always went into the bushes to have a smoke. In the movies the hero always had a smoke in his mouth, this made him look cool and helped encourage young people to smoke. I did have the odd sneaky puff when I was a kid but after I left school I did not bother to smoke as I thought that it was a sensless waste of money.

I am in favour of tobacco products not being advertised which includes having them out of sight in shops.

prefect
24-07-2012, 11:21 AM
Filthy smoking bastards I hate them.We really need a system where if they are caught smoking in public they lose any benefits, car and gun licences along with a $10, 000 fine. I had a boss in Australia who would throw spanners or anything to hand if a smoker came into our workshop with a lit fag. When I learnt to fly the chief instructor had a water pistol and would shoot at smokers ciggies. We are pussyfooting around with smokers at the moment need to up the ante with the filthy bastards.

globe
24-07-2012, 11:40 AM
Anyone here who is saying that what they are doing is a bad thing, should learn up about an economic term called 'negative externalities'.

Meaning ? What that the effect of smoking on society is negative ?

fred_fish
24-07-2012, 11:44 AM
We should also ban cars, specify a term of imprisonment for selling sugar, and sterilise the stupid.

B.M.
24-07-2012, 11:50 AM
I wonder if this could be why they just don't just ban the substance instead of all this posturing? :rolleyes:

"Responding to questions, Prime Minister John Key said the Government needed to discourage people from picking up the smoking habit.

The increase in excise will account for an extra $200 million a year in government revenue, with tobacco taxes raising about $1.3 billion annually".

Hmmm, the cynical would suggest some double standards here would they not. :D

Gobe1
24-07-2012, 12:58 PM
We should also ban cars, specify a term of imprisonment for selling sugar, and sterilise the stupid.

Pretty much where it is all heading

EDIT: trouble is if you banned smoking say tomorrow, you are still going to have 20-40 years of people getting sick, the effects are not instantaneous. where is the tax going to come to pay for that?? Beer (read alcohol) is next

lordnoddy
24-07-2012, 01:00 PM
You want to smoke? Are you of age? Can you afford it? If you answered yes to all these questions then more power to you!

I'll brb I'm going for a Ciggy.

Paul.Cov
24-07-2012, 01:52 PM
As far as the cost of smoking being a drag on the Healthcare Budget I too have seen figures that suggest they should be encouraging smoking.

I must try and find them but from memory they were based on a packet of 20 per day and the tax collected from that smoker over the average life expectancy of a smoker opposed to the tax collected off a non-smoker (nil) and the extended life expectancy of the non-smoker where pensions etc are paid.

Anyway, from a purely financial point of view, it suggested the Government should definitely be encouraging smoking. :lol:

Yeah, but by that logic the government should be encouraging all retirees and beneficiaries to get pissed out of their brains and play Russian Roulette, coz it would sure take a burden off the health and welfare systems.

Lets encourage everyone to abandon their cars and walk. It would relieve the roading burden, the polution and traffic congestion, we'd achieve better health and we'd hit our carbon reduction targets.... that's not gonna happen either, but it sure makes good sense.

1101
24-07-2012, 02:50 PM
Lets encourage everyone to abandon their cars and walk. It would relieve the roading burden, the polution and traffic congestion, we'd achieve better health and we'd hit our carbon reduction targets.... that's not gonna happen either, but it sure makes good sense.

Yes it makes perfect sense. A 4hour walk to work every morning, in the winter rain.
sterilize the stupid someone said ??
:p

prefect
24-07-2012, 02:58 PM
We should also ban cars, specify a term of imprisonment for selling sugar, and sterilise the stupid.
Now we are talking sense

prefect
24-07-2012, 02:59 PM
We should also ban cars, specify a term of imprisonment for selling sugar, and sterilise the stupid.
A couple grains of powder
A couple grams of lead
A touch against the trigger
A touch inside the head

Now we are talking sense

Nick G
24-07-2012, 03:19 PM
Meaning ? What that the effect of smoking on society is negative ?
The smoker, thinks of himself and only himself. However, when smoking in public, he is effectively forcing everyone around him to to smoke, therefore giving them the associated health risks. What he is doing by smoking in public is creating a negative externality. And, the way to correct this is by taxing the smoker, thus giving them an incentive not to smoke, and hence not to pass on the health risks to those they smoke around.

SolMiester
24-07-2012, 04:19 PM
TBF, I am struggling to see how they can enforce a full smoking ban by 2025?, doesnt that mean they will pass a law on it?. I think its a bit of a check to make a unilateral decision like that across the board for all NZers....in fact I think they will have a riot of their hands.
I smoke, but only a 30gm pack of tobacco a week. Maybe 10 a day. I dont need nor do I want someone telling me what I can do with my life in such matters. It defies belief!

Plain packets wont stop people from buying ciggies and only education will stop youth taking it up, but seriously, should the govt have such a right to stop us? I dont think so!

Edit - smoking in public, LOL, the % of passive smoke required to effect someone?, please!

dugimodo
24-07-2012, 04:43 PM
I personally never understood why anybody starts smoking. Apparently I'm a statistical anomally because out of my parents and 5 siblings I'm the only non smoker and never even tried them. I can understand getting annoyed when you are told where you can and can't smoke and not wanting to quit, it's the starting in the first place that mystifies me. I will never get it. I did have what I consider some aversion therapy as a kid though, one of my jobs was to collect all the ashtrays around the house and clean them - a truly disgusting task IMO.

If it's image then maybe hiding them away, putting them in plain packets, and forcing smokers out of public places might theoretically reduce the attraction and reduce the amount of new smokers. I seriously doubt it though, this really seems like a habit people pick up from friends and family much more than because of its' image which, lets face it, has been pretty negative for quite a long time now.

If they ever plan to make it illegal they should leave existing smokers alone and just make it illegal for anyone new to start, not sure how they'd manage that though.

Gobe1
24-07-2012, 04:46 PM
Quote "we will not tell you how to live your lives" Jon Key, pre election 2008

Richard
24-07-2012, 06:19 PM
Boy, don't I wish now I had never smoked! What an utterly stupid thing to do, to stick a paper tube of old dried plant in your mouth and set fire to it and then suck the smoke into your lungs! Thanks Benson & Hedges for the emphysema you have now given me, even though I quit your filthy product over 20 years ago. If I had the power I would blow you and your cohort of tobacco manufacturers off the face of the earth. Thank God none of my family smoke, they had more sense than I did.

Iantech
24-07-2012, 06:26 PM
I think its all directed at stopping mostly young people from starting and not so much at getting the existing smokers to stop (although that is a side benefit of a price increase).
"Smoke Free" is concidered as "Under 5%" so smoke free wont really be "smoke free".
Pollution (air pollution from fires, vehicles and industry) its already causing over 1100 deaths per year in NZ at an estimated cost of $4.28 billion, so maybe the Govt should start addressing that.

Metla
24-07-2012, 06:39 PM
If they ever plan to make it illegal they should leave existing smokers alone and just make it illegal for anyone new to start, not sure how they'd manage that though.

National register with a cut off date (a real cut off date, Not like the pretend ones for the grievance industry)and prescription purchases from a single regional outlet.

Limit purchases to a set amount of loose tobacco a month. People can grow there own if they want more. Its a win-win, They get the cancer they want and the corporations don't make any profit.

Sure it would start a black market, But if anyone was dumb enough to start smoking knowing they would have to buy off others then good job.

Give it 20 years and then outlaw smoking everywhere apart from private homes.

pctek
24-07-2012, 08:06 PM
Main difference here is that a helmet protects you in an accident,

What's an accident? Last night them going on about putting a roundabout at that Glenbrook intersection.

We went our there today, it's an excellent road. I counted 5 flower arrangements on the side of the road, 2 trucks passed u, we were doing 95kph. And one car who overtook on a bend and just missed the car coming round it from the other way.

That's why. It's not the roads fault. That intersection, a roundabout would help? Maybe a bit, idiots go through the one down the road here without even pausing.

Accidents, bad driving more likely.

globe
24-07-2012, 08:09 PM
What's an accident? Last night them going on about putting a roundabout at that Glenbrook intersection.

We went our there today, it's an excellent road. I counted 5 flower arrangements on the side of the road, 2 trucks passed u, we were doing 95kph. And one car who overtook on a bend and just missed the car coming round it from the other way.

That's why. It's not the roads fault. That intersection, a roundabout would help? Maybe a bit, idiots go through the one down the road here without even pausing.

Accidents, bad driving more likely.

"An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity". Even if it is as a result of some clown driving like an idiot it would still be an accident.

Metla
24-07-2012, 08:13 PM
"An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity". Even if it is as a result of some clown driving like an idiot it would still be an accident.

That would be an incident.

Driving like a twat is a deliberate act and the end result is almost guaranteed rather then unforeseen.

mikebartnz
25-07-2012, 11:23 AM
I am in favour of tobacco products not being advertised which includes having them out of sight in shops.
If they hadn't been a bunch of hypocrites they would have banned alcohol and gambling advertising at the same time as they did tobacco.

mikebartnz
25-07-2012, 11:23 AM
The smoker, thinks of himself and only himself. However, when smoking in public, he is effectively forcing everyone around him to to smoke, therefore giving them the associated health risks. What he is doing by smoking in public is creating a negative externality. And, the way to correct this is by taxing the smoker, thus giving them an incentive not to smoke, and hence not to pass on the health risks to those they smoke around.
Are you trying to sound intelligent?

xyz823
25-07-2012, 11:25 AM
Heres a good one. I don't smoke, used to but gave up about 10 years ago. I reckon the restrictions on sale of tobacco, and the ongoing tightening on the smoking laws is going too far. I believe adults are mature enough to make a decision regarding smoking without the government telling people what they can and can't do.

I understand (unconfirmed) that the tax and duty more than covers any increased health costs resulting from illnesses from smoking.

And they are unable to do that with other drugs? Such as marijuana?

rob_on_guitar
25-07-2012, 11:30 AM
I think the whole thing is a crock. In theory, next to is (as mentioned earlier) sweets, fizzies etc, maccas, fish and chips, alcohol, cars, busses, tractors, cows, meat, soaps...... the list is phenomenal.
Its just what happens when you give lobbyist groups a bit of political power.

Greg
25-07-2012, 12:12 PM
I understand (unconfirmed) that the tax and duty more than covers any increased health costs resulting from illnesses from smoking.
I understand that the costs to the health system far outweigh the revenue gained by the government by a ratio of ten to one. This was confirmed in a study in the USA. There's no reason to believe that this proportion is any different here in NZ.

mikebartnz
25-07-2012, 12:35 PM
I understand that the costs to the health system far outweigh the revenue gained by the government by a ratio of ten to one. This was confirmed in a study in the USA. There's no reason to believe that this proportion is any different here in NZ.
But do they take into account the fact that smokers are meant to have a shorter life span so puts less strain on the pension and that the aged also put a strain on the health system. Sorry but with the amount of tax on tobacco now I don't believe that ratio at all and it all depends on who is doing the study as to what the results will be and it doesn't impress me that a so called study in the USA confirms it.

Chilling_Silence
25-07-2012, 01:37 PM
I smoke, but only a 30gm pack of tobacco a week. Maybe 10 a day. I dont need nor do I want someone telling me what I can do with my life in such matters. It defies belief!


That sir, is the definition of "law", it tells you what you can and cannot do.

As darkstar09 already pointed out, it happens currently with a great number of things. Look at Alcohol, it's legal to consume as much as you like and even kill yourself from it, but you're not allowed to drive after consuming a certain amount in a certain space of time (BAC). Consuming certain drugs is never legal, that's somebody telling you what you can and cannot do without your life.

How is this any different?

To be frank, I'm really of two minds about the whole ordeal. I don't care if others want to smoke, it's not a mind-altering substance so clearly the effects on the community are less than, say, weed or alcohol. You don't see news articles "10 killed in crash, driver had smoked 10 cigarettes earlier that day", so in that sense it's less of a public health hazard than other mind-altering substances.
However it's a very physically altering substance. Heck I know that after smoking a single cigar, I can sometimes still taste it for up to 3 days afterwards!! Geez imagine actually inhaling the stuff...

Greg
25-07-2012, 01:57 PM
You don't see news articles "10 killed in crash, driver had smoked 10 cigarettes earlier that day"

I'm loving it Chill!!

:lol:

fred_fish
25-07-2012, 02:05 PM
That sir, is the definition of "law", it tells you what you can and cannot do.

No, it is simply a statement of the penalty to be imposed if they catch you doing it. :)

Gobe1
25-07-2012, 02:09 PM
However it's a very physically altering substance. Heck I know that after smoking a single cigar, I can sometimes still taste it for up to 3 days afterwards!! Geez imagine actually inhaling the stuff...

aww but arnt cigars awesome! i dont smoke but i love the smell and taste of cigars....
And the first whiff of a match being struck...is it sulphur???

Chilling_Silence
25-07-2012, 02:27 PM
No, it is simply a statement of the penalty to be imposed if they catch you doing it. :)

Too right :D


aww but arnt cigars awesome! i dont smoke but i love the smell and taste of cigars....
And the first whiff of a match being struck...is it sulphur???
Yeah something like that. I'm more of a fan of the softer, fragrant vanilla ones myself, but I probably have two a year if even that?

globe
25-07-2012, 03:07 PM
That would be an incident.

Driving like a twat is a deliberate act and the end result is almost guaranteed rather then unforeseen.

Incident, accident, semantics in this context. All accidents in effect are incidents, i.e. they can be traced back to a root cause blah blah blah

globe
25-07-2012, 03:09 PM
The smoker, thinks of himself and only himself. However, when smoking in public, he is effectively forcing everyone around him to to smoke, therefore giving them the associated health risks. What he is doing by smoking in public is creating a negative externality. And, the way to correct this is by taxing the smoker, thus giving them an incentive not to smoke, and hence not to pass on the health risks to those they smoke around.

I think this is quite well managed by the smoking laws that presently exist. Can't smoke inside in public places etc. There's the old arguement of walking past people in the street having a fag, but I walk past a hundred wood burners spewing out carbon particles every night when I take the dog for a walk.

rob_on_guitar
25-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Let alone car exhausts etc.... you'd survive a garage of ciggie smoke more than you would a garage of exhaust.....

Chilling_Silence
25-07-2012, 03:31 PM
Let alone car exhausts etc.... you'd survive a garage of ciggie smoke more than you would a garage of exhaust.....

Does that mean doing either is particularly clever? ;)

rob_on_guitar
25-07-2012, 03:34 PM
Shows which is more damaging. Just one example. But I do wish the tree hugger police would go back to their enlightened cancer free place that they magically came from.... lets work hard on a real issue... like murderers and stuff...

Gobe1
25-07-2012, 03:41 PM
^100%

mikebartnz
25-07-2012, 04:54 PM
Shows which is more damaging. Just one example. But I do wish the tree hugger police would go back to their enlightened cancer free place that they magically came from.... lets work hard on a real issue... like murderers and stuff...
What about suicides.

Chilling_Silence
25-07-2012, 04:58 PM
What about suicides.

Which as far as I'm aware in New Zealand has a higher death-toll than drink-driving!

mikebartnz
25-07-2012, 05:05 PM
Which as far as I'm aware in New Zealand has a higher death-toll than drink-driving!
Not only higher than drink driving but higher than all road deaths. Recently I heard that Palmerston North was having two a week.

R2x1
25-07-2012, 05:10 PM
But not quite as many multiple offenders.;)

Metla
25-07-2012, 05:55 PM
Let alone car exhausts etc.... you'd survive a garage of ciggie smoke more than you would a garage of exhaust.....

I doubt that, Once the toxic chemicals displaced the oxygen you would suffocate, pass out and die.

The difference is that if you did survive you would possibly have an urge to pay large corporations thousands of dollars to repeat the experience with the ciggie smoke due to its addictive properties.

Metla
25-07-2012, 06:10 PM
Incident, accident, semantics in this context. All accidents in effect are incidents, i.e. they can be traced back to a root cause blah blah blah

Granted I won't convince someone with your obvious level of expertise, But I will correct you, You are quite wrong.

In the context being discussed there is a clear difference, An incident is the result of a deliberate action, an accident is the result of a....wait for it.....accidental action.

An example.


A car load of tourists pass a truck with no clear line of visibility, They have a head on collision and most of them die horrible deaths. A deliberate action with a not unexpected result.This is an incident. The decision was made to place themselves in extreme danger.

A van load of tourists found drove on the gravel beside the road, lost control, crashed and most of them died horrible deaths. Clearly he did not intend to drive off the road, This is an accident. No deliberate action was taken that lead to the end result.

By calling them both accidents we ignore completely how unnecessary and easily avoidable the first crash is, and we learn nothing from it, Hence it will be repeated. If all we take from those events is lessons from the future then that is at least something.


I know, I know, You probably have another blah blah blah in you, so I'll give you another example.

A man is stacking boxes in warehouse, There is a hole in the floor, He steps into it, falls 2m, breaks his neck and dies. This is an accident, He had no intention of placing himself in danger.

6 months later, same warehouse, a man is stacking boxes, He climbs over the barricade now in place around the hole, falls in,breaks his neck and dies. This is an incident, He took a deliberate action, He did not accidentally climb over the barricade.


That concludes today's lesson, I hope you learned something, And in future when the discussion comes up you won't be so far out of your depth.

plod
25-07-2012, 06:14 PM
Granted I won't convince someone with your obvious level of expertise, But I will correct you, You are quite wrong.

In the context being discussed there is a clear difference, An incident is the result of a deliberate action, an accident is the result of a....wait for it.....accidental action.

An example.


A car load of tourists pass a truck with no clear line of visibility, They have a head on collision and most of them die horrible deaths. A deliberate action with a not unexpected result.This is an incident. The decision was made to place themselves in extreme danger.

A van load of tourists found drove on the gravel beside the road, lost control, crashed and most of them died horrible deaths. Clearly he did not intend to drive off the road, This is an accident. No deliberate action was taken that lead to the end result.

By calling them both accidents we ignore completely how unnecessary and easily avoidable the first crash is, and we learn nothing from it, Hence it will be repeated. If all we take from those events is lessons from the future then that is at least something.


I know, I know, You probably have another blah blah blah in you, so I'll give you another example.

A man is stacking boxes in warehouse, There is a hole in the floor, He steps into it, falls 2m, breaks his neck and dies. This is an accident, He had no intention of placing himself in danger.

6 months later, same warehouse, a man is stacking boxes, He climbs over the barricade now in place around the hole, falls in,breaks his neck and dies. This is an incident, He took a deliberate action, He did not accidentally climb over the barricade.


That concludes today's lesson, I hope you learned something, And in future when the discussion comes up you won't be so far out of your depth.Why this makes sense, why are you still unemployed?

globe
25-07-2012, 06:42 PM
Granted I won't convince someone with your obvious level of expertise, But I will correct you, You are quite wrong.

In the context being discussed there is a clear difference, An incident is the result of a deliberate action, an accident is the result of a....wait for it.....accidental action.

An example.


A car load of tourists pass a truck with no clear line of visibility, They have a head on collision and most of them die horrible deaths. A deliberate action with a not unexpected result.This is an incident. The decision was made to place themselves in extreme danger.

A van load of tourists found drove on the gravel beside the road, lost control, crashed and most of them died horrible deaths. Clearly he did not intend to drive off the road, This is an accident. No deliberate action was taken that lead to the end result.

By calling them both accidents we ignore completely how unnecessary and easily avoidable the first crash is, and we learn nothing from it, Hence it will be repeated. If all we take from those events is lessons from the future then that is at least something.


I know, I know, You probably have another blah blah blah in you, so I'll give you another example.

A man is stacking boxes in warehouse, There is a hole in the floor, He steps into it, falls 2m, breaks his neck and dies. This is an accident, He had no intention of placing himself in danger.

6 months later, same warehouse, a man is stacking boxes, He climbs over the barricade now in place around the hole, falls in,breaks his neck and dies. This is an incident, He took a deliberate action, He did not accidentally climb over the barricade.


That concludes today's lesson, I hope you learned something, And in future when the discussion comes up you won't be so far out of your depth.

In which case why do you never have "AFR" only "IFR" where these things are measured ?

Metla
25-07-2012, 06:42 PM
Why this makes sense, why are you still unemployed?

I'm an ********.



Muhahahahaha

plod
25-07-2012, 06:51 PM
I'm an ********.



MuhahahahahaAnd that's no accident

B.M.
26-07-2012, 12:21 PM
HERE (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7349730/Smokers-the-new-lepers-Henare) you go guys, the matter is now resolved. :banana