They’ve outlawed the sale but not the consumption of cigarettes. Is this going to create a grow-your-own industry?
It’s going to be a get older people to buy it for you industry
But they’re all going to die early from smoking. Then what? Are they going to outlaw cigarette rolling machines and bulk tobacco?
That’s decades from now. People who are now 15 will be able to buy smokes
Altho Tobacco is not hard to grow, it is not easy to cure.
Also cigs have a lot of other stuff in them. Added nicotine, accelerators, etc.
I do not expect a grow your own industry.
It’s tricky to make cigarettes similar to commercial brands, but it’s really not difficult at all to cure tobacco to the point where you can roll your own. (Source: My tobacco-raising in-laws here in NC.)
And William Talman (Hamilton Burger) later went on TV and made public service announcements decrying smoking. He was dying of lung cancer at the time.
Yeah, I know he stopped appearing near the end of the run, because he was so sick.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think it was a smart idea to cut it off at a young age which in theory doesn’t have any addicts. That may completely kill a prohibition like scenario where people make their own.
Hey now, not so fast there:
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in New Zealand, and the policy had aimed to stop young generations from picking up the habit.
Health experts have strongly criticised the sudden reversal.
“We are appalled and disgusted… this is an incredibly retrograde step on world-leading, absolutely excellent health measures,” said Prof Richard Edwards, a tobacco control researcher and public health expert at the University of Otago.
Done because the NZ government doesn’t want to lose all those lovely tax dollars, according to the article.
The UK government had announced plans for the same sort of rolling ban that New Zealand announced back in 2021. It’ll be interesting to see what happens here now. (That’s as political as I’m going to get.)
j
I’m not sure if the cost of extra health care for smokers battling their diseases is less than the tax revenue from tobacco - I always assumed it wouldn’t be. But perhaps the Kiwis have done their maths.
Uusually these calculations weigh the short-term benefits more heavily than the long-term costs. Possibly under the assumption that gains can be invested against the eventualities, but I’d be surprised if this was anything more than a response to the groups currently profiting off of tobacco sales.
This is a case of a “moral hazard”, where the government is profiting by pushing the costs onto the populace. The government knows the impact of smoking on the populace, but is choosing more revenue instead.
Yes - obvious now you say it. This government will never reap the benefits of this policy but it will be able to spend that tax. Short termism is the biggest downside of democracy.
Evidence that Big Tobacco bankrolled the recent election campaign of the right wing parties that have done this in three, two, one…
Continued update: the repeal is going ahead.
The article doesn’t explain why it’s thought people might have died as a result of the policy. This is just a new government getting in and enacting what I assume was a campaign pledge.
It wasn’t a campaign pledge as far as I’m aware. NZ has a form of government where the party’s representation in government approximately equals the proportion of people who voted for them. This often (almost always) means that a government can only be formed by two parties forming a temporary alliance and deals are done to facilitate this. The current government had to form an alliance between three parties, which I think is a first for the country,
The no-smoking laws are being repealed to help fund tax cuts apparently, which is just stupid.
People will die as a result of the no-smoking policy being repealed because more people will be smoking.
My bad, I parsed the sentence wrongly. And obviously wrongly in hindsight!