world

Doctors warn of New Zealand health tragedy after smoking ban scrapped

25 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2023 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

For his part, Luxon has said a cigarette ban would have created a flourishing and untaxed black market.

Luxon is basically admitting that he has zero confidence in NZs border control and customs - that a black market of imported cheap cigarettes would be impossible to stop. That's actually quite scary for New Zealanders - even their PM believes pretty much any contraband can end up in NZ uncontrolled!

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Ban any drug and, if there is demand, it will be supplied on the black market through gangs. With a packet of 20 cigarettes costing around 4000 yen in NZ there is already ample profit motive to smuggle and supply.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

I wonder if the ban includes pipe-weed from The Hobbit.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So many people from overseas are aghast at this action, because they were looking to New Zealand to lead on this. It has global implications.

Somehow I don't think so. Some may even have been aghast that the NZ government was going interfere in people's freedom to such an extent. I mean, what next in the name of "public health"? No cream cakes? No driving? No rugby?

NZ always had an ample supply of alternative smoke-ables as well.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Ban any drug and, if there is demand, it will be supplied on the black market through gangs

But not necessarily to a degree that would make the measure ineffective. It is not like NZ has borders with multiple countries that could make contraband easy, having a tiny fraction of the current supply would still do wonders to public health, and it would make much more difficult for demand to remain high in the future.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

They were basically going to make cigarettes illegal for that age group past the 2008 year. You saw what happened with Prohibition in the US. Huge spike making $$ in bootlegging and illegal sales and saw a rise and strengthening of the mafia and gangs. (I don't know if it'll get to that extent here for tobacco though but something similar might happen).

Just keep making it more expensive, educate and make it look uncool for youngsters from a very young age. It'll dwindle dramatically over time. I just don't think illegalizing it for the newer generations is the answer.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This is an awful move.

The "black market" argument is a bit of a red herring I think. Its true that prohibitions (like alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s) often cause addicts to simply switch to buying from illegal sources, but this legislation was structured differently and had a different purpose.

The first point is that this legislation doesn't prevent anyone already addicted to cigarettes from buying them legally, they still could. It was solely targeted at people who are too young to have yet become addicts for the express purpose of trying to prevent them from becoming one in the first place.

The second point is that even if a black market for cigarettes did spring up, it would by necessity be much smaller than the current legal market, and would be much more difficult for young people to access, making it much less likely that they would become addicted.

The third point is that its not clear that a black market would even spring up given how the legislation operates. The key point is that there would still be a legal cigarette market operating for decades to come (until all smokers born before 2008 pass away), which means that the only potential market for illegal sales would by definition be to people born after 2008. While its certainly probable that some young people would get addicted to cigarettes obtained through ilicit means (much the same way teenagers today acquire cigarettes from older people), this would be a very small market at first and, given that these people would know that they would never be able to access cigarettes legally, I don't think you would see anywhere near the number of post-2008 kids becoming smokers who would purchase from a black market as the number of pre-2008 kids would. These - particularly the continued existence of the legal market - would generally probably make illegal cigarette sales way less profitable to gangs, etc.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Fact of the matter is, if you don't have a fentanyl problem in your island nation, you won't have a cigarette problem if you ban it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Christopher Luxon (L) looks on as Governor General Dame Cindy Kiro signs document..

Why not state that both NZ and Aus are UK colonies, Chris Luxon is not the final decision maker here..

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Spending more money on lung cancer and other diseases caused or complicated by smoking isn't "conservative" at all.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It is greed.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Chris Luxon is not the final decision maker here

Even if that is true, which it is not, you know very well that Australia and New Zealand can at any time change the system they live under. They just don't seem to be able to find an alternative that a majority can agree on. Whose fault is that?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

mrtinjp

Christopher Luxon (L) looks on as Governor General Dame Cindy Kiro signs document..

Why not state that both NZ and Aus are UK colonies, Chris Luxon is not the final decision maker here..

Shows how much you know.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Yeah tobacco kills. So does alcohol in excess too. It’s a slippery slope once a country starts banning something that is, come on, not illicit drugs, it’s a slippery slope. They’d be much better off taxing cigarettes through the roof so that only the wealthy can afford it everyday and the working class can afford a pack a month.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

New Zealand's new Prime Minister is off to a terrible start. Removing world leading anti smoking laws that would have seen most smoking wiped out, thus saving thousands of lives is a massive backwards step. We can only hope for the sake of the Kiwis that this is an aberration and not setting the scene for bad choices by the new government to become the norm.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

you know very well that Australia and New Zealand can at any time change the system they live under.

Apart from becoming republics in the future, why on earth would we want to change what has been two very successful democracies? You would find the vast majority would be against any alteration to the secure democracy they both enjoy.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Is what it is. Don't read into it too much, and go easy on the paternalistic instics which often backfire. People, Especially with the kiwis ( never met one that didnt smoke!) who like most people, don't like to be told what they can and cant do. On the surface you think you are doing a good thing but thats just the surface. These do gooding social engineers, we get it ( sort of but wish youd grow up a tad ) , but at the end of the the reality is its not for yuze to decide. It's up to people and quite rightedly. no, I dont work for big tobaccos, nor am rich but we all know it'll just create a cool black market that may in the end make the problem worse. Better above ground and regulated. Nice try though, but let people own their own decisions . Your beloved population control ;P.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Why not state that both NZ and Aus are UK colonies, Chris Luxon is not the final decision maker here..

LOL. It's not the 1890s any more. NZ, India, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc are not "UK Colonies".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Smoking to excess (addition level) is dumb. Everyone know it. Laws should recognize that and make smoking too much illegal.

I've only smoked tobacco once and never saw the point. Why would someone choose to become addicted and diminish their health for a costly habit like tobacco? At least smoking cannabis has a point AND it is non-addictive for all but the heaviest abusers.

Preventing new smokers is smart, but laws probably aren't the best way. Humans will go to great lengths to be stupid.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The problem here is simply a matter of "Choice". Should you be forced to not "Smoke" or should you have the choice between accepting Medical advisement.

it doesn't stop with "Smoking"... to simply ban that, raises the question of where else does this go within a supposed Democratically aligned Society....

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This new government will implode on itself within 6 months

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Never understood how you could give different rights to people depending on their age once they would turn adults...

People are as smart as they are...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Boohoo…

I think the issue here, is whether prohibition is a wise idea, versus letting people live their own lives. I have no doubt that many experts that support this view could be dug up, if there were such a will.

The other thing… is no “tragedy” going to occur. It’s going to be “life as usual”.

Yours, from an non-smoker.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Removing world leading anti smoking laws that would have seen most smoking wiped out

That’s pure supposition.

Wiser heads prevailed, unintended consequences…

New Zealand rejected its prior government - democratically. Collectively they rejected bad lolicy of the previous government.

The bad policy was well-intentioned, no doubt. But bad policy is still bad policy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Shows how much you know...

Well, deniability is your choice..

https://gg.govt.nz/governor-general

https://www.parliament.nz/mi/visit-and-learn/history-and-buildings/special-topics/the-demise-of-the-crown/new-zealand-s-new-sovereign-king-charles-iii/#:~:text=With%20the%20passing%20of%20Queen,New%20Zealand's%20Head%20of%20State.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites