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.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hey New Zealand, how’s it goin’?

    reads article

    Oh. Right wing garbage huh. Sorry. It’s everywhere.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s a lot of fear and uncertainty in the world. Fear is the basis behind conservatism, as is hate.

      • Boingboing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        People are desperate for change from the status quo. The right offer simple answers for very complex questions. No critical thinking required.

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s a lot of money to be made telling people who are afraid of things new things for them to be afraid of. You could also use it to grab power.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          8 months ago

          You don’t see the irony, do you? This type of propaganda is why smoking was banned in the first place. It works for the left as well as the right. GMOs, gluten, nuclear power.

          • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The difference being that those are naive solutions to complex problems, but correctly identifying the problems. The right has no solutions, only scape goats that block them from some “perfect” past that we’ve progressed away from. There’s no irony here, just a misunderstanding, on your part, of what divides the left and right.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              8 months ago

              Sure, I get that.

              I’m just saying that the impetus can be propaganda on either side. Left gets taken in by propaganda, they want to do something (even banning something is couched as a proactove measure). Right gets taken in by propaganda, they want to stop things (even taking action is couched as a reversion to previous times).

              In this case, the right has no solutions while the left has bad solutions. The right doesn’t see smoking as a problem, therefore no solutions are required. I agree with the right on this issue.

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

                But the right is wrong as well. There need not be restrictions on who wish to purchase tobacco, that we can agree on, but there do need to be on those who would sell tobacco. Tobacco kills and is addictive, to allow it to be sold without restrictions (on advertising, or the sale to minors) would be a cruelty to those who would’ve never started smoking with those restrictions in play. Only those who can understand the decision they make, with an adult mind unswayed by propaganda (advertising), should be able to make that choice.

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

                  to allow it to be sold without restrictions

                  Is anyone arguing for that? If so, it’s new to me

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        The answer is very simple: Propaganda works. Consistently and very predictably. All those arguments we should have had in the 70’s about “television” were right, instead, cable and streaming won and here we are in the belly of the beast.

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s no other way to keep the race for the first trillionaire going other than moving towards the right.

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        8 months ago

        Probably because the left doesn’t really have a vision to offer, we should be promoting a better future for all and showing how we can achieve it but instead we’ve got infighting, purity culture, self destructive idealism, and calls for making life harder on regular people in pretty much every way possible.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The vibe I get is that the left usually points at things that need to change and offers solutions to the problems they see.

          And the right campaigns on “not that”

          • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Same. I ponder if it’s an echo chamber but then realize I consume such a variety of news…. Sad state of things.

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            If you’ve never seen leftwing infighting then you’ve never been involved in any form of left wing politics lol

              • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Ha yeah that’s a horrendously naive perspective, I’ve been involved in a lot of leftwing movements over the years especially eco and economic reform and I can tell you that if all the infighting comes from outside agents then we should thank the three letters because there would be no movement at all without them.

                Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don’t think the left has any issues? It’s all good honesty lefties working together?

                And the others, they’re not lefties or Scotsmen, they’re agents who must rightly be obliterated… hmm, I think I might have seen this one before 🤔

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m so fucking angry with my fellow citizens. Voting for these assholes was either selfish, hateful or disturbingly stupid and unthinking.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wtf, it’s difficult to imagine a more directly harmful and scientifically evidenced habit.

    absurd

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I see people on this site say all the time that all drugs should be legalized and we should allocate the money used to enforce drug laws on addiction resources instead. I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different. I totally support anti cigarette campaigns but I’m not sure bans are a good tool in general.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different

        work in the smoking section of a restaurant for a bit and the phlegm ball you cough up every morning will be your proof that smoking isn’t just an individual’s choice.

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

          Smoking in public is already very widely banned, and I do support that ban since as you say it impacts others.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There are a few good reasons.

        1. cigarettes are more harmful than any of the other harmful drugs you’re referencing, and all of those “harmful drugs” combined.

        2. cigarettes were unnecessarily designed to be more harmful and addictive than necessary

        3. bans come in many forms and have many uses

        I’ll preface this by saying I’m one of those people that think all drugs should be legally regulated and available.

        That won’t result in all drugs having equal regulations, just as the regulations for driving a bicycle versus driving a car are different, auto drivers requiring more regulations because of how much more dangerous they are.

        Drugs, even the illegal ones, are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes or kill as many people as cigarettes, and a lot of these drugs may be mixed with a few chemicals, not hundreds.

        Magic mushrooms are biologically harmless, for example: shrooms are about half as toxic as caffeine, one of the most common and addictive legal regulated chemicals in the world.

        When I talk about supporting this ban on cigarettes, I’m specifically supporting this ban in this country at this time as a good way to show cigarette corporations the consequences of continuing to market a known harmful product at the expense of society.

        If that ban had lasted for even a couple of years, the companies would be forced to adapt their manufacturing or even mission statement so that they were producing less harmful cigarettes.

        Even with the short amount of time it was active, it’s a clear shot around the bow globally to cigarette companies and other companies purposely using cheaper and more toxic ingredients for their products, telling them that they’re going to have to change what they’re doing.

        Because of worldwide lax regulations, the historical popularity of smoking plants, the enormous profit margin, corporate legal lobbying supremacy and modern mercantilism(capitalism), we have the result that at least 7 million people are directly dying every year from a product designed to addict you with toxic compounds and is scientifically, indisputably proven to violently harm you.

        We aren’t including plantation slavery, second hand smoke, manufacturing deaths, or any other processes and infrastructures that have gone into propping up the industry

        So quick math, well over a billion people in the last century, well over 10% of the Earth’s current population, has died because of cigarettes, most of them from directly known toxic substances and processes sold to people under false pretences.

        Prohibitions don’t work, but regulations do, which are simply targeted prohibitions.

        Lowering the amount of mercury and lead in the water and air of the United States has significantly lowered the amount of birth defects, chronic illnesses and cancers in the United States.

        Not using a particular red dye that was found to be carcinogenic meant m&m and cake shops had to take a decade to reformulate a non-toxic red dye, but because of that regulation requiring a safer product, cancer and illness rates dropped.

        Banning cigarettes is not going to stop people from smoking cigarettes, but a nationwide ban on an indisputably toxic substance is practically and politically important so that companies know the momentum that they’ve built up pushing their unnecessarily toxic products is losing steam.

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

          Totally agree on regulating cigarettes and I think pretty much all the additive chemicals added to cigarettes should be banned, the same way dangerous chemicals are banned in food regulations. I think it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t happened yet.

      • Nate Cox@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Alcohol is indeed bad for you, but not on the level of cigarettes. Cigarettes are intentionally filled with additive chemicals that both cause them to be hyper addictive and substantially raise the risk of cancer. They are designed to be deadly from the ground up in the name of making a few extra bucks.

        Vast sums of money have also been spent on inveigling the public into believing that cigarettes are better for you than they actually are, up to and including the purchasing of scientists to draw false conclusions in public studies in order to present cigarettes as healthy.

        The sheer maliciousness of the cigarette industry is shocking and terrible, I just don’t think there’s a real comparison here.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Also, tobacco is a lot harder to grow and process than alcohol. I’ve got everything I need in my house right now to mix up a batch of mead, and I don’t even have any specialized equipment. A quick trip to the hardware store and I’ve got a still. It’s also not like weed where you can have a plant in a closet and get a couple months worth of flower.

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          My heart goes out to you because alcohol is a cruel mistress.

          But banning a substance never works, if it did we wouldn’t have people addicted to illegal substances.

          • PaleRider@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I appreciate the sentiment but I hold down a full time job (I absolutely don’t drink on the job. I work heavy machinery) and have a normal (as it gets) family life… I should just drink less.

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              You’re the second person to talk about cigarettes which I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned.

              Am I missing something here?

              I’m not for banning anything besides personal WMDs and carnies.

  • 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.

  • jobby@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Smoking makes lots of money for the tobacco companies and for governments. Hence not wanting to ban it.

    It’s a weird drug of choice; -Super addictive. -Doesn’t really do anything except briefly offset addiction withdrawl symptoms. -Very expensive. -Makes people smell really awful.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The decision has sparked a huge backlash from researchers and experts saying the actions lack logic and evidence, describing it as “shameful”.

    • Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      To be clear, they’re saying that repealing the ban is lacking evidence to support the decision. It’s just worded very poorly, but the article makes it clear:

      “Repealing the legislation flies in the face of robust research evidence; it ignores measures strongly supported by Māori leaders and it will preserve health inequities,” co-director professor Janet Hoek of Otago University’s Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre said.

    • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No the opposite

      It’s an easy game - just think of the worst thing and that’s what the right wing conservative party is trying to do.

      And it’s a global issue now

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s been so disheartening to watch. There’s apparently a large percentage of the world’s population that is scared of every change for the better. Just absolutely driven by mind-numbing, counter-productive fear. And I don’t get it.

        I mean, come on, these are fucking cigarettes. There’s no mystery, here, they kill people. They’re a poison product, and the monsters who sell them are selling gruesome death. But somehow, stopping a business from profiting off of these horrible, unnecessary deaths is scarier than the cancer sticks themselves? Why? Fucking why? Is it because literally all change is scary, no matter what its nature?

        I’m starting to think we’re an evolutionary dead end. I don’t know how we survive past this madness.

        • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is a nonzero population of people, all across the planet, across all cultures, that just don’t like being told they cannot do something.

          You could tell them that smoking is very, very bad for you, and they’ll say “wow, no one should do that,” and then you tell them that they cannot smoke, and they’ll say “the fuck I can’t!”

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            But in this case, it was telling cancer-stick merchants that they can’t kill people, and then their victims rushed to their defense.

            • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yes, because those people don’t like being told what they can’t do. The thing they can’t do, in this case, is buy cigarettes.

              • quafeinum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                So what? If they were old enough to buy fags before the ban they could still do so. They argue that their children have a right to lung cancer.

                They are also told to wear a seatbelt and don’t rail against that.

                • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Some people do, actually. Look, I’m not trying to argue their position for them, I’m not one of those people.

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think that accurately describes the power-brokers, the ones in charge. But I think the people who actually support them are driven by - and easily manipulated with - fear.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Lemmy: ban cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but not alcohol which is worse and, oh btw, legalize marijuana because it’s totally not like cigarettes.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Cigarettes do fuck all and then kill you. As a former smoker - ban cigarettes, please. Let us have the fucking fun drugs for god’s sake, not the pointless cancer sticks!

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

      People can have a occasional drink without doing harm. There’s no non harmful level of smoking

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve never seen people struggle with alcohol and pot like I’ve seen (and struggled myself with) nicotine. YMMV, but perhaps getting some actual life experience around addicts might give you some perspective. I’ve known heroin addicts that had tougher times leaving tobacco behind.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’ve never seen how people are destroyed by alcohol?

        Dying is one thing; the suffering alcoholism can bring to everyone in the situation is heartbreaking, and it can take decades to play out before it finally kills the addict. And nobody can change anything except them. But of course, they don’t.

        I’ve watched family kill themselves with hard drugs, it’s pretty quick comparatively. It’s ugly, but after they manage to ignore all help, they do themselves in fast when they get serious about it.

        I hardly need your condescension about addictions there, buddy. I’ve seen it all too closely.

      • Kroxx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Alcohol/benzo withdrawal is the only kind of withdrawal that kills people, it can cause a seizure that literally kills you