Ban to stop children from ever smoking a cigarette to be introduced in Parliament
Posted by polymute@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 119 comments
Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit
I wonder if it stay enforced. NZs new conservative govt got rid of their version as soon as they got back in. I can understand it from a public health avenue, but it’s hard to enforce what many people see as an individual choice.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Are there people who genuinely don't believe it's a choice to have a cigarette?
Sure, being addicted is a different matter and there should be help for people who want to stop, but it's a choice to smoke. Prohibition doesn't work and we all know it.
serpenta@reddit
It would be an individual choice if you smoked with a bowl around your head.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Amazing. You better stop using oxygen then.
serpenta@reddit
It's not about what I am subjected to by breathing, it's about what I am subjecting others to. I can only control my own behavior and thus, I'm only responsible or accountable for what I am doing. Smoking is not an individual choice, it's a choice to harm other people.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Nah, you're using other peoples valuable oxygen. Your choice to use that impacts them by replacing it with carbon dioxide. By your logic, you should stop.
serpenta@reddit
Not breathing is pretty devastating to the health. How is it logical for me to stop breathing as a consequence of reasoning that affirms everyone's right to good health? Not to mention the relation of sparsity of oxygen versus the time a smoker is removing from the second hand smoker's life. Oxygen is a part of a resource pool that is inexhaustible by breathing of all alive organisms on the planet, while the lifespan removed cannot be recouped. So the comparison between the two is close to that between zero and infinity.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Oh no, I cost you milliseconds, whatever will you do!
serpenta@reddit
You see, the problem is you just don't care about the consequences of your actions. So no reasoning will ever convince you. You may start to care when your kids develop shortness of breath, because that would affect you. And then you will cry and ask rhetorically "why was I smoking around them, sniff". Not that I wish that on your kids.
Cheers
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Me having a smoke by the side of the roads not affecting your health bud.
Grow up. Or apply your own bad logic to your entire life and never ever do anything that could possibly cause the slightest health problem to someone else.
serpenta@reddit
We started off by talking about the phenomenon of smoking. It's not just you.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Not what I said at all lmao.
I said it's hypocritical to chuck a bitch about one but not the other.
You seem to have an issue with context.
the_jak@reddit
You exhaling smoke affects me and my kid. It’s not an individual choice if you’re smoking in public.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
You using power affects me. It's not an individual choice if you're polluting my air.
Turn your device off, go and sit in a dark room and think about how all choices affect those around us, and expecting other people to jump through your hoops is ridiculous.
thegodfather0504@reddit
dont defend public smoking,bud. Its absolutely worse than a damn device
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
No it's not.
Having a smoke has a tiny impact on a very small area. Using a device has a global impact.
I'm autistic, people wearing strong perfumes give me a headache. Do I throw a bitchfit? Nope, I move away from them.
Because I don't expect other people to jump through hoops to appease me.
thegodfather0504@reddit
My dude, perfumes are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
My dude, secondhand smoke outside is negligible. Even if it was as bad as the crappy science done decades ago that has been repeatedly debunked, smoke from a single cigarette in an outdoor area is not doing any damage to you.
Especially near any sort of road.
thegodfather0504@reddit
Give me the source.
the_jak@reddit
What’s really funny is you lot sound like the lunatics in America who complain about having to wear seatbelts.
Mind_Pirate42@reddit
So this logic applies to cars too right? We're gonna ban cars right?
Avaposter@reddit
Cats serve a purpose, and if you’ve somehow failed to notice, we have been moving to lower and lower emission vehicles for years. The same cannot be said for cigarettes
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Tobacco serves a purpose, it allows me to deal with twats on a daily basis who use crappy arguments like "I have to smell the bad smell and I'm sad".
Please, do tell me all about the terrible science that you were taught about how secondhand smoke is somehow worse than smoking.
Mind_Pirate42@reddit
So no then? So the affect it has on others isn't what matters is it?
Avaposter@reddit
Well human civilization would collapse without the ability to transport goods.
Human civilization would not collapse if your cancer causing cigarettes went away.
Do you need me to explain further why your comparison is dishonest?
Mind_Pirate42@reddit
Good luck trying prohibition again. This time your gonna pull it off.
Avaposter@reddit
Couldn’t even respond to the actual point. How pathetic.
Mind_Pirate42@reddit
Cause your point is silly.
Avaposter@reddit
Says the person claiming cigarettes and cars are of equal value…
Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit
I think the argument people would use is the health one: that your choice is a burden to the health system. Not something I really agree with though.
kero12547@reddit
So is eating sugar but they’re not gonna ban that
serpenta@reddit
Sugar is a problem of dose. People consume too much sugars. With cigarettes just like with alcohol, the right amount is zero.
BigHowski@reddit
Tbf we have introduced a tax to try and curb its consumption in young kids, although I'd argue it's not enough :
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sugar-tax-revenue-helps-tackle-childhood-obesity
And I'm not sure how you think they could even try to ban something that's naturally occurring in pretty much every food, the best you could do is maybe ban added sugar. You're really comparing apples to oranges there
Mavian23@reddit
I think the general idea is that "it's a burden to the health system" is not, by itself, a good argument, because that is extremely vague and can include a large variety of things that people probably don't think should be banned. There needs to be more to the argument than that.
CyanideTacoZ@reddit
it's also not something most people want to defend. it's just a shit arguement that can be used to persecuted anyone. The poor eat fast food so they're a burden and need consumption taxes. fast food owners are a burden, tax the rich. the disabled are a burden, enforce sterilization. every single person on this planet does something at odds with perfect doctors health.
kero12547@reddit
I’d settle for high fructose corn syrup but like you said it’s an almost impossible problem to solve
moderngamer327@reddit
HFCS isnt worse than any other sugars. It’s just that they fill everything to the brim with it
BigHowski@reddit
I'm with you there, although from my understanding it's more of an issue in the states than here
Corries_Roy_Cropper3@reddit
Lol of course this comment was made my an american 😂
Sirmalta@reddit
Canadian here:
If you think eating is just an american problem, you arent paying attention.
Yes, obviously its a much bigger issue there, but ops argument stands.
In fact you could say the same about banning netflix, or video games, or alcohol, or fatty food, or any of the other things that effect heart health since thats the leading cause of death in Europe.
kero12547@reddit
Well yea we see the worst of what sugar does. Is that a bad argument? Sugar causes a strain on our health system probably worse than cigarettes.
Reasonable-Ad4770@reddit
So is any other addiction from alcohol to holy marijuana
Yeahhh_Nahhhhh@reddit
It’s why alcohol is so expensive in Australia!
moderngamer327@reddit
Smoking actually reduces costs on a healthcare system because it results in premature death. This prevents end of life healthcare costs which are by far the most expensive
SuzQP@reddit
Smokers are doing their civic duty by dying on time.
benjaminjaminjaben@reddit
I think it screams of a lack of imagination and the desire to implement some sort of policy to "change things for the better".
13th-Hand@reddit
They will just be sold on the black market like every other illicit drug except when someone is caught with a vape they probably won't get in trouble. I think England has the third highest drug rate right behind america in first and Germany in second. Basically youll just be giving criminal organizations a new avenue of product and then it won't be regulated which makes it less safe for everyone
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Yeah I know that argument, but I agree it's not a good one.
It's weird that it's basically the only one that people agree with though. Probably just because it smells.
Sea-Cancel1263@reddit
Its a choice to start, its not a choice for the vast majority to quit without uncontrollable addiction. Its unethical to even sell it for many reasons. People dont choose for it to destroy thier lives.
kimana1651@reddit
It's not just addiction, smoking degrades your health, and if you have public services covering the costs of treatment then it's not just your problem anymore. A ban on the sales of tobacco related products is much cheaper than skin/throat/lung cancer treatments.
There has already been a decision in most countries in the world that your right to be a heroin addict does not outweigh the damage it does to society. Why should nicotine get a pass?
Hydroc777@reddit
So you're in favor of total drug prohibition, including alcohol, right? Anything at all with negative health consequences, right?
kimana1651@reddit
Medically speaking there is safe amounts of alcohol to drink. The medically allowed number of cigarettes is zero. And I'm fairly sure the medically allowed use of opium is zero as well, outside of certain medical settings.
Total prohibition of every does not seem practical but having a government service be responsive to user inputs like every other service we interact with seems logical?
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Awwww, did we fall for alcohol industry lobbying?
Not so superior to the smokers now, are you?
smallteam@reddit
Scientific consensus on is shifting
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
moderngamer327@reddit
Smoking actually reduces costs on a healthcare system because it results in premature death. This prevents end of life healthcare costs which are by far the most expensive
OkTransportation473@reddit
Should countries tax fat people more on their income taxes since they use up public services more than everyone else? Fat people cost a lot more than smokers.
kimana1651@reddit
Taxing may not be the best solution here, but why should government services not respond to inputs like every other service we have in life? You crash your car a lot your insurance goes up, you don't pay your credit card bills your credit score tanks.
OkTransportation473@reddit
How else would you offset the burden of them being fat? If the country has universal healthcare, most fat people are going to use that and not private insurance. And the hospital/doctor can’t charge a person more than another person for the same service/time. That’s discrimination.
alxwx@reddit
I certainly don’t have the answers, but I don’t see this as the same as previous iterations of prohibition - removing something people are used to having access to, is not the same as people never having access to something
In my mind at least, the two aren’t directly equivocal. FYI Sweden was the first to introduce this and they are considered the most advanced on the path to being ‘smoke free’
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Usually here in Australia the government claims we're the most advanced. And their version of that is "We made plain packaging mandatory first" and "Our taxes are the highest".
All it has amounted to is very similar reduction rates to nations who have done nothing aside from educating their population.
And yet, some of us want to smoke. And we should be allowed to. Without a huge hole in our pockets for doing so.
All the heavy taxes have done is start a beautiful gang war between rival cigarette importers who firebomb stores selling the other ones illegal cigarettes.
2fafailedme@reddit
Our gov got rid of it because one of the parties they formed a coalition with got mad kickbacks from the tobacco lobbies
ZippyDan@reddit
Children don't have a right to choose.
Avaposter@reddit
And every time I’m forced to walk by one of these assholes smoking away on the sidewalks it stops being a personal choice and starts affecting those around them…
Cigarettes shouldn’t even exist.
I-Here-555@reddit
It's like a ban on other kinds of drugs.
The gov't should certainly seek effective measures to discourage people (especially teens) from using them. However, when it comes to adults, at some point it needs to be a personal choice, even though it's harmful/addictive.
Yabrosif13@reddit
I mean lets go further. Ban artificial sugar. That would reduce healthcare costs. Or better yet have government mandated exercise as lack of exercise has been found to be as if not more unhealthy than smoking.
Debugging_Ke_Samrat@reddit
We can monitor if people are doing their daily exercises by putting telescreens in their homes!
Yabrosif13@reddit
Even better! That way their expression can be monitored as to know the intent of the noncooperation
Debugging_Ke_Samrat@reddit
We can even motivate them by adding a personal trainer who watches their every move all day every day. We can call him Big Brother!
worldDev@reddit
Don’t forget sleep. If you don’t get 8 hours, straight to jail.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Institute curfews!
thegodfather0504@reddit
i am down. It would actually give me an excuse to get time off from work.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Night shift gets daytime curfew
yogopig@reddit
Banning artificial sweeteners is absolutely fucking asinine idiocy at a level I didn’t know was real.
J_DayDay@reddit
Two of the biggies were just isolated as likely having contributed to the increase in cardiac events. My cardiologist cut off my long-standing iced-tea with Splenda habit about 6 months ago.
yogopig@reddit
Could you source this?
J_DayDay@reddit
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2024/common-sweetener-linked-potential-cardiovascular-risks#:~:text=In%20efforts%20to%20offset%20increasing,sweetened%20ice%20cream%20or%20candy.
yogopig@reddit
Thank you! This study however does not look at artificial sweeteners. Would you happen to have one that does or did you mistakenly equate sugar alcohols to artificial sweeteners?
J_DayDay@reddit
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2023/common-type-artificial-sweetener-linked-increased-risk-heart-attack-and-stroke
yogopig@reddit
This is again the exact same study using sugar alcohols, not artificial sweeteners.
Tempest_Bob@reddit
You should ban artificial sweeteners just because they taste gross. More real sugar for everyone!
Legal_Lettuce6233@reddit
You mean like PE classes?
Yabrosif13@reddit
Sure, except mandatory for adults. You could even use fitbits to monitor heart rate to ensure the mandatory exercise time was completed. Question is, whats the punishment for noncompliance?
Zipz@reddit
Jesus…
Honestly I’m shocked you don’t think that’s not a wild suggestion
Yabrosif13@reddit
Holy double negatives.
I think it’s wild for a government to micromanage an individual’s health. Period.
Do you support governments making your healthcare choices for you?
Zipz@reddit
I apologize I am dumb and read your comment wrong.
I totally agree with you
Yabrosif13@reddit
Ya, I was trying to use sarcasm to bring home a point. Seeing how close I can literally describe a 1984 scene and still get agreed with by control freaks.
Zipz@reddit
Sorry I didn’t take my coffee so I missed it.
The first thing I thought when I read your comment was like what kind of 1948 shit is this.
Otherwise_Radish7459@reddit
That’s great. If an employer was mandated to allow me an hour to exercise I would certainly do it everyday as that is the main driver of me not doing it.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Well lets get everyone a fit bit so we can monitor your heartrate and ensure compliance among everyone.
Otherwise_Radish7459@reddit
Ok. The benefits would be immeasurable, way beyond health and healthcare.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Ya, because life is all about being perfectly healthy so that you can work and pay taxes.
Otherwise_Radish7459@reddit
No, people who are healthier are more likely to be happy and that would impact how everyone treats each other which would make this a better world to live in. This will never happen so it’s pointless to get worked up about.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Correct, what you described is a fantasy.
A huge portion of humans seem to want a touch of sleeze in their life. Who are we to dictate what makes them feel fulfilled?
Otherwise_Radish7459@reddit
You draw a line somewhere. Someone might be fulfilled by killing people, but we’ve obviously made that illegal. Cost benefit analysis. How much does your fulfillment activity negatively impact people around you?
Yabrosif13@reddit
Ok, how much does smoking alone on a street corner negatively impact people?
XipingVonHozzendorf@reddit
Let's ban lead paint and make seatbelts mandatory while we are at it.
Yabrosif13@reddit
Lead paint is an environmental concern.
Seatbelt laws are pointless
hannabarberaisawhore@reddit
They could try restricting advertising for sugar like they did for smoking. They could put candy bars behind the counter because kids shouldn’t be exposed to something so unhealthy and addictive.
Yabrosif13@reddit
No no no, thats not enough cause people still make the wrong choice. We HAVE to ban things all together to control people
Corries_Roy_Cropper3@reddit
Id certainly go for some government funded exercise
Yabrosif13@reddit
Not just funded, mandated.
Nahcep@reddit
Welcome to the gulag
joevarny@reddit
Giant inflatable bubbles can be mandated to ensure that no one trips and hurts themselves.
debasing_the_coinage@reddit
Just take it to the logical conclusion
abw@reddit
I imagine that this new law will stop children from ever smoking a cigarette in the same way that the existing laws stop children from ever taking other drugs.
Sirmalta@reddit
This right here.
Smoking is down so hard now anyway. Vaping has replaced it pretty much across the board.
whichbitchstolemyacc@reddit
If I haven't misread, the law despite talking about smoking, focuses on prohibiting advertisements of e-cigarettes, non-rechargeable vapes and similar.
Sirmalta@reddit
So basically the same shit they've always done.
No one is smoking cuz they saw a convincing ad.
whichbitchstolemyacc@reddit
Yeah. Actually a good point, everyone who's started smoking I know did it through friends or family, like watching your dad smoke and think it's adult shit and therefore cool or something
Missed a word there - also banning the single use ones. Those 1000 inhales smoke and throw away ones.
To be frank it feels weak. In my country we've got questionable restrictions on the smoking liquids for e-cigs like no bottles bigger than 10ml and same van on the single use ones, which was pushed for same reasons
Swimming-Bite-4184@reddit
Exactly, it's the Niccotine, not the delivery method. Ban the nicotine.
If smoking is so fun and cool and part of the cultural tapestry then these companies wouldn't need to add the addictive chemicals to sell it.
Sirmalta@reddit
Yeeah its pretty wild that theyre allowed to sell a product designed to be addictive.
Maxxxmax@reddit
Can't wait for Keir to use all of his experience to take down the County lines tobacco smuggling groups which he accidentally creates as a direct result of his policies.
I love it when crime gets funded by pushing things into the black market. Who wants tax revenue on legal products to pay for our services anyway?
Maj0r-DeCoverley@reddit
I'm a smoker myself and that's the one proposal I support the most. Want to end tobacco smoking? Then make it illegal for the new adults to come. Simple. Then you can continue to pressure the addicts like me, go ahead, but at least you won't get new addicts like in a disturbing whack-a-mole game
Swimming-Bite-4184@reddit
They just need to ban the addition of nicotine and addictive chemicals into cigarettes. Exponentially, fewer people will continue smoking after trying it. But they don't want to go after the Corpos, so they go after the little guy.
You are never going to stop kids from doing things. They will be more encouraged if they are specifically targeted to do the bad thing.
Eliminate the addictive chemical and heavily fine / go after the tobacco companies, not the citizens. In a sane world, people who try to sell poison by making it addictive would all be exhiled as monsters.
Icy-Media7448@reddit
You’d also need a solid rehabilitation program if you’re gonna cut out all the addictive stuff. Otherwise there’s just gonna be a huge black market cause addiction makes you psychologically addicted and even physiologically dependant on the drug
Swimming-Bite-4184@reddit
Well I meant banning it from these inhaleable products.
The lozenges, gum, and patches should still be available. Nicotine on its own isn't super detrimental, but when combined with a carcinogenic areosal that you inhale into your lungs it is a major issue.
ShittyCatLover@reddit
yeah like banning things ever worked
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
Hi empleadoEstatalBot,
We've found 1 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:
So far, there hasn't been any coverage from the RIGHT.
Of all the sources reporting on this story, 0% are right-leaning, 100% are left-leaning, and 0% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 1+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.