It’s really easy to get people to vote for things that will never apply to them.
Possibly I’m missing something; wouldn’t that be 100 years?
Terrible timing? Really? Sounds more like Big Tobacco Nicotine saw an opportunity to addict a new generation and took it.
I was making a more vague point. In my very small country, there are typically 100 deaths per year. You see my car teetering on the edge of a cliff and pull me to safety thereby “saving” my life. I live 30 more years.
Without your intervention in 2021 there are 100 deaths, in 2051 there are 100 deaths. Because of your heroics, in 2021 there are 99 deaths and in 2051 there are 101. If we say that you “saved” my life, what do we call the death increase in 2051?
Stoopid math. 
Instead of this silly rule about the legal smoking age increasing by one year every year (such that people now 14 years old will never be allowed to smoke, or whatever the cut-off age was), why don’t they just make the law to forbid anyone born after the year 2007 from smoking?
I agree about the possible downsides, but I do think perhaps something like this is worth trying. Yes, some people will get stuff on the black market, but will that be fewer than smoke now? Plus will, say, stiff penalties for getting caught selling reduce the number of people willing to supply the black market?
I’d see this sort of thing as a type of experiment.
Isn’t the vaping loophole going to take care of this? People who want a nicotine fix can still get it, so why resort to illegal means?
It seems to me that the vaping thing reflects, perhaps, a desire to rid the country of the smell and pollution associated with cigarettes, perhaps, and not as much a draconian restriction on personal freedom. But I’m not sure if that has been discussed locally in New Zealand, or if I’m just misunderstanding this legislation.
We call it an increase in life expectancy. You’ve caught on to why overall deaths per year is often not all that useful a metric.
Often we’ll talk about:
YPLL: Years of potential of life lost
HRQOL: Health-related quality of life
QALE: Quality-adjusted life expectancy
QALY: Quality-adjusted life year
Tobacco-related deaths are far from the only harmful effect of smoking.
Also, passing a bit of legislation is not too much work and effort even to save one life. I’m pleased you’re not my elected representative!
That’s pretty much the same thing, isn’t it? Isn’t a law forbidding anyone born after a certain year from smoking the same as having the legal smoking age increase by one year every year?
Yeah, I think that, in effect, the law will work as, “No one born after December 31st, 2008, may legally purchase tobacco products,” and that will likely be the sort of sign one would see in stores.
Let’s see how it works with heroin too!
I realize that I am being a smart ass, but it amazes me that we have these threads where on one hand we talk about the failure and futility of the “drug war” yet propose the exact same failed experiment on tobacco. But that debate aside, this bill doesn’t outlaw tobacco. It creates a dual market–one group of people to whom it is completely legal for no apparent purpose, and another group where it is completely illegal with your proposed “stiff penalties” when selling to the second group is materially indistinguishable from selling to the first group.
Does it make sense to have a 62 year old in the county jail for X days or months, or even in prison for years when: 1) Two months ago someone his age could legally do what he did, 2) there is nothing more or less harm to society by his conduct than someone two months older than him–and he would still be punished were he two months older, and 3) there is no nexus between his behavior and the desired result?
As I said, if you want to outlaw tobacco or grandfather in current smokers, I might disagree but at least it makes some sense. This is just a bureaucratic and arbitrary boondoggle.
From a practical point of view. it’s a lot easier to enforce a law that says “this product is prohibited” than a law that says “this product is allowed for some people and prohibited to other people”. When you have the latter type of law, the products legally exist and are being distributed throughout society. This makes it a lot easier to divert some of these products to illegal usage.
I’m guessing authorities in New Zealand recognize this and accept that this law will not be fully enforceable. They may see this more as a means of discouraging smoking rather than stopping it.
From a penelogical perspective, why does it make any sense at all that someone born on December 31, 2008 can buy tobacco for the next 80 years, but someone born on January 1, 2009 can never buy it and should be criminally punished along with those who furnish it to that person?
One of the ideas of fairness in the law is that we treat like things alike. How is this dual system rational in any way? Just the idea that we have to outlaw tobacco in this ham-fisted way, fairness be damned?
- IANAL, so I have no opinion on this.
- I never commented on whether the law made sense, or was fair, or was ethical, or anything else. I was simply commenting that it would likely not be as “complex” as “the legal smoking age goes up by one ever year,” when a simple cut-off date would serve.
Often “completely outlaw” means, in practice, “send a strong message”. Smoking imposes massive costs on national health care systems. I have personally seen the great damage it does. It is not the only substance to do so. I sometimes struggle to balance my beliefs in less government with public health decisions. But I certainly favour vaccination during pandemics, making smoking expensive and minimizing access to smoking during impressionable ages.
Does it? I’ve seen studies (no cites) where this simply isn’t true. The guy that drops dead of a heart attack at age 50 does not live to be 85 and require long term care for the last five years of his life.
And if true, how far do we take it? Does the existence of health insurance or a national healthcare system permit restrictions on freedoms due to public cost savings? Can the government tell me to eat my vegetables?
It is true, but I agree that your questions are good ones.
As I see it, the whole point of this is to grandfather in current smokers. Except that, instead of having to somehow prove who is or is not a current smoker, you outlaw it for people who couldn’t be current smokers because they hadn’t been born in time to (legally) develop the habit.