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.

  • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

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

          • Hagdos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Buffaloaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Conclusions

            The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

            The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.

            Seems pretty clear.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                They’re literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data… ?

                You’ve been mixing some “whacky” in your “tobaccy”, haven’t’cha?

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.

                  The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he’d do so, data be damned.

                  Look for yourself. The data is right there.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    It’s insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.

                    I looked myself.

                    I read the “conclusions” part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.

                    I assume you “don’t have the time” to actually explain your argument, and I’ll just have to “look myself”, to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?