217
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
217 points (96.2% liked)
worldnews
4810 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
Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the "war on drugs" in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don't want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.
Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it's different when your country has universal healthcare.
In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??
There are unnecessarily large amounts of nicotine in cigarettes, making them very addictive.
Forced is a strong word, but many smokers aren't smoking out of free will either
Sure, and I'd support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though
I think I would. But at least I'd like to ban the practice of adding unnecessary amounts of nicotine.
Why allow companies to make their cigarettes unnecessarily addictive, and then use public funds for smoking cessation resources. That's the world upside down.
That's the function of government.
That is certainly an opinion!
It's written into most democratic countries' constitutions.
what exactly do you mean?
"Ensure liberty" and "provide for the common good" or similar language.
It's entirely within character for a good government to promote freedom of choice on the one hand (including freedom to make bad decisions) and provide resources to help people (not force people) to make healthier decisions on the other hand.
Kinda
I wouldn’t conflate democratic with good government because it gives us certain freedoms. The liberty in contemporary democratic societies is of a certain kind. Foremost it is the liberty of trade, property and production. Other liberties follow through that. The consumer side freedom of choice follows just as the freedom to theoretically take any job. The state may allow you that, but you may still be excluded by the choices of those whose liberty is guaranteed as well. I mean a government that treats everyone the same, isn’t necessarily good, if its citizens have different means to begin with.
Sure but none of that changes my point. It's not really within scope for a good democracy to force its citizens to make healthy choices.
Yeah, that’s true. I just made the point because you said good government, and that, I think, is debatable.
Fair enough.
Ensure liberty is a very broad statement, and usually not an absolute one.
In most countries you aren't free to sell, buy or consume meth, for example, because it clashes with the common good. You could make the same arguments for an abundance of nicotine in cigarettes, or even cigarettes as a whole. You could even make that argument against alcohol, speeding, wearing helmets, having guns, or eating fast food.
There's a line somewhere, and where that line is exactly is not "written in the constitution" for most countries. It's one that can be, and is argued all the time.
It's pretty well understood that meth heroin, etc cause harm to others because addicts tend to lose their jobs and turn to crime to support their addiction. It's not about their personal health, it's about the harm done to others.
For most democracies, the line is (and imo should be) "your right to swing your first stops where my face begins". Individuals have the right to make their own choices, good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, until those choices begin to harm others.
2nd hand?
a) studies don't show it's harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*
b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already
*note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke". These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they're based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you'll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I'm aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects
But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.
Seems pretty clear.