This headline SCREAMS 'conservative':
- bad for people
- bad for healthcare
- generate tax cuts ... for the wealthy
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
254 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
29 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Lol sounds like this increases tax revenues by increasing the number of addicted smokers buying cigarettes and then taxing the sales.
Really sound government policy there.
They have actually admitted this is going to be revenue gathering. NZ has some of the highest tobacco tax in the world.
Basically their election promise was tax cuts, which they intended to do by allowing more foriegn ownership of real estate and taxing it.
After the election they found out they could only govern with the help of a populist party and a libertarian party.
The populists won't allow more foriegn ownership of real estate. Meanwhile the libertarians' wet dream is stuff like more ~~lung cancer~~ tobacco.
So we get shitty last minute law changes we didn't see coming, like this one.
Wait, they want more foreign ownership of real estate?? Are they high lol. That's going to price out every last young person there from homes that's not already priced out.
Yeah it was straight up one of their biggest election promises.
What can I say, their core base is landlords, boomers, and people who want leopards to eat faces.
The populists won't allow more foriegn ownership of real estate.
I don't see a single problem here. Fuck, I wish Australia would get behind this.
Also good, fuck prohibition laws. Leave them in the fucking past where they belong. If I want to slowly kill myself by inhaling burning plant matter, then that's my decision. The taxes I pay more than cover my eventual cost to the state's healthcare system. The government does not get to dictate what I do with my own body.
Tax revenue that you'll have to plow right back into the health care system to treat expensive lung cancers. But hey, that's only 20 years down the line, so you look good now.
I'm not sure about how accurate it is, but I read something a while back about it being the opposite in canada. You don't spend more on smokers because they don't live long enough to get to the really expensive part.
This is just a foggy memory so I'm definitely open to being corrected.
Yes but actually most western governments do this. The Aus health minister made a comment to the same effect a couple of months back. The US even collateralises loans using payments from tobacco companies that have not yet been made, as compensation for harm to public health that has not yet been done.
Yup. It's really effective. I've paid my share of lung ruining tax in my lifetime. And for most of that time I'd be happy to defend my right to soil my airways to something close to the death.
I've been clean for over a year. But that addiction is so fucking emotional that you let them squeeze you dry and you almost applaud it. The perfect capitalist drug.
Glad you've put up the fight and made it through the other side.
Cheers mate
Makes you wonder how much lobbying Big Tobacco did.
They just had an election and the government flipped from centre-left to centre-right. It could just be the classic conservative “our position is whatever is the opposite of the left!”
Winston Peters (NZ First leader) is a total alcohol, tobacco, and racing (horse, greyhound, whatever) industry shill. I doubt he exactly needed to be bought, but this is certainly part of his price for being part of the coalition government.
ACT (secular libertarian free market folk) probably mildly supported it, and National (general centre right; largest party) is probably much the same.
No I blame Seymour for this. Luxon went for it because Winston cock blocked him on foriegn ownership and he needs to fund those tax cuts.
Big tobacco doesn't really need cigarette sales anymore. They are all in on vape brands, where they can sell the liquid at ink-jet prices to customers for a huge markup at $6500 per liter. That's why you see vape shops on each street corner. The distribution is all streamlined. The website talks to the DHL warehouse about what stock is available, customers can subscribe to weekly delivery plans and the warehouse is filled by some factory in china.
I believe the ban affected vape products as well.
Just out of curiousity have you ever seen liquid sold at $65/10ml? I usually pay 50-100x less than that
Hard to say because they are very sneaky. We do know that Big tobacco ran a fake grassroots campaign with an imaginary dairy owner front man. ("Dairy" is the New Zealand name for corner shops/ drugstores)
Tagging you @AnAngryAlpaca - they may not need it but their greed didn't get the memo.
New Zealand is scrapping a whole lot of things right now.
10 years worth of environmental protection laws is another thing being scrapped.
I think it's more that pro-smoking plays better with their right wing voter base than taxes. That and the fact that ciggies can still be bought, so the younger generation will still be able to get them. I mean, it being illegal has never stopped any drug. The best way to get rid of smoking is just to ramp up the tax and wait for everyone to take up something cheaper. Even the most hardened smoker at my work now vape instead. Not amazing for you, but got to be better than inhaling all the crap in cigarettes.
Only the mega rich have a solid reason for caring about tax cuts. Everybody else should be clamouring for better services, as that is what will really be cut to give those billionaires more money to hoard.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The thing I find hilarious is that a few weeks ago, when there was talk of the UK doing the same sort of thing, everyone was pointing to this legislation as an example of how it has worked elsewhere.
It didn't even last a year! All it's done is slightly annoyed a handful of teenagers for a few months.
This article uncovers an awful cancer of the platform: There are way too many who buy any conservative narrative if you frame it as freedom.
I'm surprised Lemmy has this take. Why is it anyone else's right to take your right to smoking away?
I don't mind taking away the right for my son to smoke cancer sticks. Much like I wouldn't mind making Russian roulette illegal.
I don't like it when anyone threatens my son at all.
Perhaps it's not the right to harm ones self that's the issue. Should you have the right to manufacture, sell, and profit from harm to others? Be it environmental, oral health, lung health, or heart health, cigarettes are a net negative to any citizenry. Seems in a governments best interest to try and greatly reduce and/or eliminate this leech.
I'm sure you're fighting against marijuana legalization then to improve public health too.
Unlike cigarettes, cannabis has medical uses and is not nearly as harmful especially if you don't smoke it (vaping or edibles). It's not completely safe (hardly any drug is) but it's on a different level of safe compared to tobacco.
Why is it anyone else’s right to take your right to smoking away?
I have to breathe your smoke and pay for your healthcare.
You have a very bizarre concept of what rights are
LOL. This is funny AF.
Considering that nicotine isn't the harmful part of smoking, the amendment they had about greatly reducing how huch nicotine a cigarette was allowed to have would have been a pretty stupid move, turning people into chain smokers.
People aren't literally addicted to the habit of smoking, they're physically addicted to nicotine. It's pretty much unavoidable. Any smoker who tells you they just like the ritual, has been conditioned to think that by mentally associating the ritual with relief from the physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.
Sure, removing the nicotine isn't going to be an immediate barrier from continuing smoking. But the point is that once the person can no longer get nicotine from smoking, they will almost certainly make the decision to quit themselves. And that has the potential to be a more profound decision for them than simply having the product taken off the shelves and being told they can't have it.
They aren't removing all the nicotine. They were just cutting down how much each cigarette has. So for a smoker to get their nicotine fix, they'd have to smoke three times as many cigarettes.
It's still tobacco at the end of the day, you can't remove all of the nicotine because it occurs naturally. It occurs in many other plants too, but in levels which doesn't inspire any motivation to remove it. In the same way I think delineating between elimination and reduction of nicotine is a moot point. Smoking is not pleasant, and every smoker has overcome this unpleasantness to become nicotine addicts. There is no reason other than nicotine why it continues to propagate in all countries and cultures today. And with nicotine-reduced cigarettes, smokers must simultaneously engage with that unpleasantness more, and still come to terms with diminished returns vs. the nicotine they previously ingested from 1 cigarette.
As for the amount the nicotine can be reduced by, I've seen a wide range of estimates from 50% to 90+%. I don't think we'll ever really know what's reasonable and scalable without any such product actually on the market.
Equal to more tax money. Sadly..
GILA! GILA!
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
New Zealand’s new government will scrap the country’s world-leading law to ban smoking for future generations to help pay for tax cuts – a move that public health officials believe will cost thousands of lives and be “catastrophic” for Māori communities.
National has had to find new ways to fund its tax plan, after its coalition partner, New Zealand First, rejected a proposal to let foreign buyers back into the property market.
“Coming back to those extra sources of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to the smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books – with about $1bn there.”
But public health experts have expressed shock at the policy reversal, saying it could cost up to 5,000 lives a year, and be particularly detrimental to Māori, who have higher smoking rates.
Te Morenga highlighted recent modelling that showed the regulations would save $1.3bn in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented, and would reduce mortality rates by 22% for women, and 9% for men.
“This move suggests a disregard for the voices of the communities most affected by tobacco harm – favouring economic interests,” said chief executive Jason Alexander.
The original article contains 601 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
New Zealand, highly conservative about drug use, driving, security and relationships, yet will also go to ridiculous lengths to show how cleaning with a wet mop could be better than with a broom, or using one extra layer of building paper is absolutely essential for the structural integrity of the very work flow process that the entire company follows and is actually part of the new management SIX SIGMA protocol.
Me: "dude, don't do it, the last guy who touched that broom, he got lost, we haven't seen him since, but now the brooms come back"
Y’know, I gotta admit, I would have never pegged this article as one that would make my notifications go wild. 🤣
Good