215
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
215 points (96.1% liked)
worldnews
4836 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
We've been over this. It's a standard that other activities are not held to.
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.
We're not mob rule here. There are (or should be) checks against the tyranny of the majority. Just because most voters want a thing doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing.
Most new zealnders don't smoke, if most new zealanders don't want to fund smoking how is that different than any other drug being illegal? Would you describe illegal cannibas or prescription only medications as tyranny of the majority?
There are checks and balances in place to prevent actual human rights abuses. You still haven't answered why tax paying new zealanders should be forced to pay health costs for smokers when the majority don't support it. If banning smoking is tyranny of the majority, forcing taxpayers to fund smokers against their will is surely tyranny of the minority.
I didn't want to get too deep into it because it's an open question. But there have been some studies suggesting that smokers cost the healthcare system less, because they die younger.
The main point though is that we don't, and shouldn't, exclude people from the healthcare system for their personal choices. Nor should we restrict people's freedom to make personal choices because it would save the government money. That's a terrible precedent.
If you're saying it's tyranny to prevent people from taking actions, that the majority feel shouldn't be allowed, that drive up healthcare costs then that's one thing. However if your position on this is based on a liberal ideal of people being allowed to do what they want, then it should surely equally apply to the taxpayers (particularly if they are majority voters) who don't want to pay for the decisions of others. Either way that is government intervention restricting individuals freedom.
I think it's not right to say "the governments money" as if an administrative body that is beholden to the voters has true autonomy over how it's spent - that is the populations money and should be their choice on how it's spent. One can argue it's immoral to refuse migrants access to the country and healthcare but that isn't accepted as justification for open borders. I also don't understand, assuming cigarettes are some special case different than immigration where morality should trump democracy, why it's more valid to say this taxpayer control over how their money is spent should be restricted based on your moral judgement compared to someone else's moral judgement who's claim is cigarettes are immoral (for whatever their chosen reason).
The claim of smokers dying younger and therefore costing less is something I didn't consider and is an interesting point (that very well could prove true). But even if you discredit the taxpayer funded health argument, there's moral arguments around selling addictive substances, human pain caused by premature death and sickness etc. that could just as readily be made as any argument based around individual freedoms. Why should your claims on what's moral have precedence over someone else's?
Taxes have forever been an exception to the liberal idea of freedom to do whatever. They're a social and economic necessity.
Taxpayers decided to fund universal healthcare. If we start picking and choosing who is "deserving" of that care...that's a terrible precedent.
In several ways, a cigarette ban is an exception to how democracies have traditionally dealt with issues around freedom. There's really no precedent or defense for it except that cigarettes are currently unpopular.
And I think it's nearly universally acknowledged that ceding to the government the power to decide how its individual citizens should live their lives is a terrible idea. If we were talking about almost anything else, there would be an uproar. Government says religion makes no objective sense and causes a lot of fighting and mental stress, decides to ban worship. Uproar. Government decides that having children when you can't afford to offer them a good life is immoral, decides to ban children for poor people. Uproar.
A cigarette ban only feels like it makes sense because it's cigarettes. Copy the justification for the ban to anything else and you realize how bad an idea it is.
Marijuana among many other drugs are illegal in New Zealand with no uproar. How is that different than cigarettes?
I'd argue it's not, and I'm disappointed that there's no uproar. My only explanation is cognitive dissonance.
What are the health benefits of weight lifting when compared to cigarettes? Whats the impact monetarily of both on the health system?
Whats the cost on the users for partaking in it. Where do they sit relative to each other and different substances/activities in terms of addiction. How many weightlifters end up having real health complications because of their addiction compared to smokers? How many of them die? How many weightlifters regret doing it compared to smokers?
This is why its a false comparison and rhetoric. If you want to live in a world where every activity that has health complication is comparable to cigarettes in the present context, then stop responding to my comments and pretend.
"You wouldn't ban weightlifting" is not an argument.
So we're weighing health effects good vs bad and choosing, on behalf of society, how bad is too bad?
It's like a theocracy, but without the religion.
Clearly there's no hard criteria, like "has the potential to cause personal injury on a wide scale". Which means inevitably it gains a moralistic/tribalistic quality, something that has no place in government, especially when talking about government restrictions.
There is a hard criteria, "Causes serious health issues to all it's users with no benefit and is highly addicting". There is literally nothing else in our society currently legal that crosses that line except smoking.
The rest of your argument doesn't make much sense to me, you will have to explain. Most of our laws fall under that umbrella. The potential for damages is weighed against the benefits and the liberties it restricts. Lots of things are outlawed that really aren't as clear cut as cigarettes.
Smoking has social benefits. Same as alcohol.