New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html

by krn • 4 years ago

24 28 4 years ago

nytimes.com

AliCollins• 4 years ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20221220041333/https://www.nytim...

aluminum96• 4 years ago

Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health.

It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US. The political resistance would be insurmountable ("individual freedom," etc). It's a good thing the anti-smoking policies from 1960s proved durable -- they'd be impossible to enact today.

nickff2• 4 years ago

"Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health."

That's one way of looking at it; another would be to say that it's a significant erosion of liberty effectuated against the young.

Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? Examples might include drinking alcohol, skiing, mountain climbing, ice climbing, motorcycling, and consumption of unhealthy foods (however you might define them).

bill_joy_fanboy3• 4 years ago

I would gladly give up some "liberty" if we could go ahead and cleanse some of the degeneracy from my society. I don't need the "freedom" to smoke.

Also, smoking =/= mountain climbing.

crtified• 4 years ago

Drinking alcohol and motorcycling do have some government mandated controls, including some based upon age.

In addition to alcohol, a great many chemical substances fall under government controls. Particularly where the public health risk is deemed of high cost.

In that context, how is this so significant or different?

MontyCarloHall• 4 years ago

Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold?

The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them.

The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost.

Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.)

This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*].

[*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.

genocidicbunny• 4 years ago

You'd probably need to frame it in some financial way. For example, allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to smokers, and disallow public health insurance (like Medi-Cal) from insuring smokers. Unfortunately, this would likely be a literal slippery slope back down to allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

japaneseminisub• 4 years ago

Most, if not all people have moved to vapes, which are not covered by this law. Ie kids can still buy them.

This is only shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, not any meaningful change.

matthewdgreen• 4 years ago

Are vapes as bad for kids as cigarettes?

refurb• 4 years ago

This will probably be as effective as banning underaged drinking in the US.

The only upside is that NZ is fine with vaping. So they aren't cutting people off from nicotine, they are just banning more harmful forms of it.

rufus_foreman4• 4 years ago

"It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US"

Ever is a long time. Are you familiar with Prohibition?

rolenthedeep3• 4 years ago

Prohibition is the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed, and was only on the books for 14 years. It's an absolute embarrassment. A lot of people died, as well.

Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. I really can't come up with a better illustration of why Americans won't go for a wide spread ban on tobacco. Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument.

Animatronio• 4 years ago

Sooo... section 40A says a person must not sell/deliver a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 and then section 40B says a person must not, in a public place, supply a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009. Seems pretty easy to circumvent - giving away for free, bundling with other merchandise, gifting... I don't see anything about prohibiting smoking per se.

propogandist• 4 years ago

The younger crowd prefers vaping, this will just force tobacco companies to push eCigs

New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008

Related Stories