this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

worldnews

4836 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

  2. No racism or bigotry.

  3. 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.

  4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

  5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
0
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.

The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.

The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to

In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??

[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, and I'd support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though

[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's the function of government.

[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is certainly an opinion!

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's written into most democratic countries' constitutions.

[–] tillimarleen@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

what exactly do you mean?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] tillimarleen@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tillimarleen@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

Yeah, that’s true. I just made the point because you said good government, and that, I think, is debatable.