Sensible Kiwis

[ZenAnarchi]

In NZ they are being quite sensible and removing disposables and the worst of the marketing, while still allowing vaping for adults that want to quit smoking

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...urbs-disposable-vapes-deter-young-2023-06-06/

Here in Norway, they’re so very concerned by teenage vaping, even though they have no statistics and there is no nicotine in the disposables A law is to be proposed before this summer to ban all sales of vape gear on the internet, require plain packaging for all vape products, and may (probably will) contain a flavor ban

At the same time, use of snus (pouches with tobacco and salt placed under the lips) by teenagers has skyrocketed!

Ah the joys of living in a Nanny State

 

[MHL]

Ardern was a great PM, I wish we had someone like her here in the UK. I wonder how this new guy is going to pan out.

 

[ZenAnarchi]

Ardern was a great PM, I wish we had someone like her here in the UK. I wonder how this new guy is going to pan out.

I would settle for a halfway competent government. Ardern did a good job, especially during the pandemic, but failed to do anything about the housing market which is in crisis.

May sound cynical, but the longer I live, the more I agree with de Maistre…”Every nation has the government it deserves”.

 

[Toby iVapour]

In NZ they are being quite sensible...

I don't agree with the NZ prohibitionary bill in the form of banning future generations from smoking - in this case those aged 14 and under, from ever legally buying cigarettes (the bill passed in Dec 2022).

I think it is a ridiculous that a certain section of adults will be prohibited from legally buying cigarettes just because of when they were born, extremely difficult to enforce and administer (in 20 years time, will people selling cigarettes really have to ID people who look under the age of 35?), and simply push people to the black market.

https://clivebates.com/using-models-disconnected-from-reality-to-justify-huge-endgame-interventions/

The deeper question to me is whether governments should approach public health in this way: by passing laws that force a quite intrusive change on people who may not want it – even if lawmakers think it is for their own good. This is outside the scope of our review of modelling, of course, but it is a significant political and policy question.

There are cases where compulsion in public health is justifiable – for example, to control infectious diseases (COVID-19), where one person’s actions can harm another (gun control), or where large benefits can be attained for minimal intrusion and the law functions as a “nudge” or normalisation (seatbelts).

But should a government really try to force people to stop smoking by, in practice, taking away their cigarettes? Isn’t that excessively paternalistic and infantilising? Wouldn’t it be more dignified and respectful to help people to quit or to encourage a switch to smoke-free alternatives? I’m not taking a crude anti-government or extreme libertarian perspective. But the degree of coercion in this measure seems to me to cut straight across accepted principles of adult autonomy and informed choice.

 

[MHL]

That bill came in under her watch, and I completely disagree with it. I would still take her over any of our options though.