Long term plan for smoking ban

A bit slow. I think it would be better to just announce a year to ban them, maybe in three or four years time.

Vast savings to be made to the health system so the cost may not be much. Also, will save thousands of lives so I think worth a fair bit of cost.

Very very few young people smoke these days, and I always look at the very few who are, and think to myself “wtf went wrong here?”

I doubt it will really lead to 0 percent of people born afer 2009 becoming smokers. Even though New Zealand is remote, illegal cigarette trafficking does exist there and will become a growing issue. Just like in Australia where smoking tobacco is super expensive so they just get illegal tobacco from nearby Indonesia.

It might increase stigma of smoking tobacco as a bad thing but for some it could be seen as a status symbol, just like the usage of cocaine.

Had they legalized cannabis, then maybe, but they didn't do that. The people voted against that in referendum.

It's surely dwarfed by the spend on resulting health issues

Unfortunately many never smokers vape instead and get addicted to that.

Wonder what will happen once those born that year get to vote. In any case doesn't NZ have one of the world's highest per-capita weed consumption?

But think of the savings on pensions

I'd say the average cancer treatment costs the equivalent of a good few years of pensions.

I smoked my first cigarette when I was 28 and for about 5 years then but I think that is the reason I found it easier to stop. Even knowing how harmful it is, I am not sure I agree with telling adults what they can and can't do to themselves.

Pie in the sky nonsense. Resultant health costs are always given as an excuse to increase taxes on cigarettes.

People will still die of something regardless, extending their lifespan by encouraging healthier living is only going to increase the cost of their healthcare. Do you think people who've never smoked require shorter or longer healthcare towards the end of their life?

It's a complete red herring.

And those who don't die from smoking always live perfectly healthy lives until they die suddenly and cheaply?

There is no evidence to suggest that smoking causes significant additional health costs. Any study that has claimed it does has always been sponsored by vested interests (and often debunked when an analysis of the study is done*) while any attempt at an independent study has always been supressed.

*The reality is that it is very difficult to determine what impact, if any smoking has on healthcare. Studies from vested interests typically attribute the cause to smoking if the victim was a smoker, regardless of whether or not it was - e.g. if a person has a heart attack and they were a smoker - that is counted as a smoking-related issue regardless of the fact that plenty of non-smokers have heart attacks. Nobody can actually say if smoking was the cause. Likewise, many, many, many non-smokers suffer from Cancer, but if a "smoker" suffers from Cancer - it is "because of the fags". This type of false statistical study was made infamous in recent years when "every patient diagnosed with Covid" was considered "in hospital due to Covid" when the reality was most of those patients were in hospital for a different reason and picked up Covid while in there (similarly, when a patient died, if they were found to have Covid, they were included in the Covid deaths regardless of the actual cause of death). Also, you have to ask, what is a smoker? Someone who smoked heavily in their twenties but hasn't smoked a single cigarette in the last 50 years? What if they only gave up 10 years ago? What if they only had the occasional smoke on the rare night out as opposed to 2 packs a day every day for 60 years?

What about the non-smokers? We know that, statistically, they live a few years longer? But isn't a huge part of our healthcare bill spent on looking after the elderly and infirmed? The older someone becomes, the more likely they are to require treatment/surgeries for this, that and the other. Likewise, they will typically require far more expensive palliative and geriatric care in their final years, having outlived their spouse and other close relatives. Is the "hospital bed crisis" not down to the fact that there are so many elderly people using the beds because they are too old to be discharged and have nobody to look after them?

Ultimately, the anti-smoking brigade can't have it both ways. You can't say smokers die younger and smokers cost more. By dying a few years younger, the average smokers saves this (and every) country a fortune.

id be interested to see some of this 'evidence' as it sounds like absolute bolloxology of the highest order to be honest

its debatable as to whether it does no harm, id imagine any type of vapour going into your lungs is a bad idea. i would presume vaping is still less harmful overall though

easy to fix obesity, but would require pi$$ing off too many massive companies...also would have to re-educate the entire health service...

Higher tax on crappy foods would be a start, if they can do it on cigs, why not rubbish food?

Touched a nerve have I ?

an older government document but still….

Something like this , perhaps?

Pfft.

I posted before about my mother's aunt, who died in her early 80s despite being a heavy smoker (John Player Special) to the end. Not bad going, eh?

But for years before that she could hardly breathe. 3-4 spells in hospital every year - usually in the winter. Had to have oxygen installed in her home - she'd turn it off when lighting up. Still couldn't quit.

So would she have lived any longer if she'd never smoked - maybe not.

But she had absolutely shít quality of life for her last 15 years at least, gasping and spluttering and couldn't walk ten metres without stopping. All while costing the health system an absolute fortune.

If she'd been spending €100 a pack it still wouldn't have paid for the medical bills never mind the misery it caused to her.

Fúck tobacco.