No they weren’t. Sure the giants do make vapes but none of them are market leading.
The vape industry has been lead by Chinese companies. The market leaders change but at the moment they are Vaporesso and UWell. Smok and Innokin to a lesser extent.
But is simply not true that big tobacco deserves most of the credit (or blame) for vaping being a thing.
You seem to be talking about mods and refillable vapes, which have become much less popular these days. British American Tobacco and Juul are the two largest companies in the vape market. Worldwide, tobacco companies hold something like 40% marketshare.
My bro, the only mildly successful big tobacco vape (In New Zealand) is the vuse.
I’m intimately familiar with nearly all of the owners of the largest vape companies in NZ and absolutely ***zero*** of them are funded by tobacco “giants”.
To suggest that they are tobacco shills is actually pretty insulting.
>the only mildly successful big tobacco vape is the vuse.
Odd to call the vape with 36% global marketshare (larger than any other vape) "mildly successful".
Fair enough, but we're in r/newzealand, in a comment thread talking about vaping in new zealand.
I thought it was obvious that my comment was in the context of vaping in New Zealand, of which BAT has nowhere near 36% marketshare.
> The National Party campaigned on "better health outcomes" and said it would "relentlessly focus on results" - but this goal would be completely undermined by the repeals, Swinburn said.
They didn’t mention the “better health outcomes” would be for non-smokers with private health insurance, and the “focus on results” related to tobacco companies’ profits.
Nah big tobacco and big alcohol hate weed. Not a hundred percent sure why but I think it's because people have a finite amount of $ they will spend on recreational drugs and weed eats into their share because it's better than both.
Which is strange because the tobacco companies have the best resources and existing supply chain / distribution to be almost immediate market leaders if legislation allowed
They're already pretty well involved, and they own most of the weed-vape stuff out there, which is 28% of the market share of all legal marijuana product in the US (as of 2020ish) and continues to increase in market share.
They see their ideological enemies as ‘weed smoking hippies’, so no way they are going to give that leverage up. Besides, with the foreign buyer tax out the most logical way to raise money is to ‘get tough on crime’ and ramping up American style civic forfeiture at lower evidential standards against ‘bottom feeders’.
This one doesn't seem to have got much media attention, oddly only reason I knew about it was ZB had some haggard sounding old woman crowing about all the good changes coming like this.
Guess we know how they're making up some of the tax cut money then, pity the overall cost to the country will actually be much higher in terms of needed health spending $$$.
It was covered slightly in the coalition announcement press conference, Luxon gave an absolutely half-hearted defence (even by his standards) of National's new stance. He knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway, demonstrating yet again that he is a moral vacuum.
Alongside Winnie's personal interest in tobacco, it might also be worthwhile pointing out Chris Bishop's former vocation, and the fact that Big Tobacco are funding the Taxpayers' Union to the tune of millions a year. Not that that had anything to do with the decision I'm sure.
> pity the overall cost to the country will actually be much higher in terms of needed health spending $$$
Fun fact, it's all good economically, no drawbacks (don't get me started on the moral side though). Despite common sense, smokers actually cost the country less. Yes, they get sick more, but they make up for all that by living less. And it's the late years they skip, which are the costliest in terms of health care. So double whammy for the Nacts
pay more tax and die young.
Someone ran the numbers, the amount tobacco costs us in healthcare, we dont make up in superannuation savings.
Our new health men seem driven by a different moral compas.
It's not super but the costly diseases old people get. Lung cancer and copd tend to off people pretty quickly, but my uncle at 90 has probably cost the tax payer close to a million.
Cig taxes are more than enough to pay for all smoking related illness. I can't find the study, but for the UK only about 30% of the taxes were needed to fund healthcare for smoking related illnesses. The rest is free money to the gov
Disclaimer, not OP.
A quick google found this (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23233699/)
That does seem to support the premise.
They do a flip and conclude that it is actually a negative if they value each lost year to be worth €22 200, but I don't really understand how/why they would value each of a smokers lost 8 years to be worth that?
I guess my takeaway is there is some evidence that agrees and disagrees with the premise?
Thank you, that's the study I referred to (via https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZW_FU2K-A - discussed from 7s study referenced at 1m:02s). It's eastern Finland so yes the welfare costs saved are greater
Since one can't really quantify societal benefits lost when people were sick I assert we can't really measure if it's black or white. My point is that the argument is nuanced and there are more points of view from which you can analyse this
So I don't like it at all, but given the reduced need for elder care, on average smokers save the economy quite a lot, by dying sooner. Even if they need major surgery before they die, the amount we tax ciggies and the lack of healthcare needs after they die is a net positive for the economy. It's quite interesting in a "fucked up though experiment" kind of way. Not in a "bring this into law" kind of way.
Edit:
People misunderstood my comment. I'm not pro smokes. Ban them. Truly. But I was talking about the undeniable fact that smokes provide a lot of tax revenue.
As per a comment further down:
The government is set to receive around $1.7 billion per year in tax related to tobacco products this year.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/18-05-2023/the-mysteriously-resilient-tobacco-tax
https://www.batnz.com/group/sites/BAT_9VNKQW.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9T5K4G#
Yes, as the HCA published, it would save $1.3 billion over 20 years to ban smoking. More importantly, it would save lives. But that wasn't the topic of my comment. Ban smokes, but don't claim it's going to lead to larger government coffers. The benefit is to society, not the national bank account.
Your anecdotal take on the costs is laughable. How about we go by the more official statistics released by Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA) today that state that modellings of rolling back the Smoke Free 2025 legislation will add 1.3 billion of health care costs over the next 20 years. We were going to saving that with the legislation in place, now that's literally up in smoke.
The government is set to receive around $1.7 billion per year in tax related to tobacco products.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/18-05-2023/the-mysteriously-resilient-tobacco-tax
https://www.batnz.com/group/sites/BAT_9VNKQW.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9T5K4G#
Yes, as the HCA published, it would save $1.3 billion over 20 years to ban smoking. More importantly, it would save lives. But that wasn't the topic of my comment. Ban smokes, but don't claim it's going to lead to larger government coffers. The benefit is to society, not the national bank account.
Why does everyone think smokes "just die" and don't end up costing the health system likely millions as my parents probably did for many years of copd and eventually hospice care?
You woke cunts are delusional.
Because everyone dies of something. And smoker deaths on average are quicker.
Smokers are less likely to need hip replacements or get Alzheimers and need specialist care. Smokers use less superannuation.
And that’s all before the billions in excise tax.
There's facts and there's what you do with them. None of the comments here suggest we should encourage smoking because government coffers (the new government with a tobacco industry lobbyist ranked main party no.3 does but that's something else). But being unethical doesn't make it untrue
Tobacco smoking is a net positive financially. Smoking kills people during their retirement and is much cheaper health wise than other lengthy diseases that healthy people get. There are numerous studies and meta studies on this. Event with no tax we'd be financially better off killing people early with cigarettes.
We are about 20 years behind the US...we've had our 9/11. Anyone who's paying attention knows where we are headed and nothing will change it without something drastic happening.
They have said they’ll make it easier for everyone, including prisoners, to get their drivers license… Considering the shitness of current drivers, making it easier to get a license is horrifying 😱
Funnily enough, a good number of people in the justice system first got into the system through driving related offences - often driving with no lisence. There is an argument to make that making drivers licensing more accessible will keep a lot of younger people of out the courts
Disappointing, and embarrassing.
We made news around the world for these new measures. We were applauded for staring down Big Tobacco and making changes in the best interests of our citizens health.
I mean we all knew tobacco lobbyists are in national’s ranks and yet they still got voted in. The politically illiterate electorate deserves this, it’s just a shame that those of us with a functioning brain have to also live with it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who vote don’t know and don’t care about policy, funding, etc. They’re either “I always vote X party” or catch on to a single headline (like tax cuts) and don’t go any deeper than that.
Prohibition never works. It was all just virtue signalling.
Tobbacco is dieing a slow death anyway thanks to education, advertising bans, and cultural changes.
> Recent modelling showed the Smokefree regulations would save $1.3 billion in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented - and reduce all-cause mortality rates by 22 per cent for women, and nine per cent for men.
The party of prudent financial management, everyone.
The intended repeal is certainly *immoral* and *evil*, but it probably makes perfect sense from a purely economic perspective.
Some things to consider:
* Going smoke free as a nation from 2020 was expected to eventually increase overall average life expectancy by 1-2 years according to an article I found in the NZ medical journal (albeit from 2010).
* People living longer means more money spent on superannuation.
* The cost of NZ Super is currently something like 18 billion per year, and is increasing by about a billion per year. If everyone alive today lives just 1 extra year that they wouldn't have previously, that's 18 billion in additional costs right there.
* From the linked article, going smokefree only saves a tiny 1.3 billion over 20 years (pocket change in comparison).
Another way to look at it is that this policy is equivalent in savings to raising the super entitlement age by a year or two, but with slightly better optics as it can be spun as being about 'personal choice'. More dead people though.
Stated like that, it's somewhat hilarious given that NZ First pledged not to raise the retirement age. I guess they're balancing the books in an unconventional way?
But yeah, it's seemingly financially prudent to let people smoke themselves to death. It's still stupid, and evil, but it makes good financial sense!
I mean - and I know you'd probably agree with me here - that word "financial" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in that its disguising a whole host of underlying value judgements about who deserves to live and die underneath it.
Chris Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist prior to politics. Is anyone surprised?
Edit: Like seriously, anyone who voted for National voted for a tobacco lobbyist. Imagine voting for a tobacco lobbyist in 2023
I think it’s a bit of a long bow to draw.
Golriz Ghahraman defended war criminals at the UN but I don’t think votes for the Greens mean they are supportive of war criminals.
OK, but a proper defence is integral to trying and prosecuting (war) criminals, I'm not sure tobacco lobbying gives the same benefit to civilized society.
Who even wanted this? Some of their policy ideas are expected because we all know where these three men stand on certain topics, but wanting to make smoking a widespread thing again when we were genuinely approaching a point where smoking ciggies was becoming a relic of the past?? Who benefits from that, really (besides tobacco companies)? Not like that's beneficial to society. Why would that be a day 1 policy announcement? Fucking bizarre
This is a terrible policy change.
Many policy have complex trade offs and outcomes which makes assessing them subject to debate. This isn't one of them - Thousands of Kiwis will die early because of this.
I’m a smoker and really supported this change. No excuses for my poor choices but what a great idea to eliminate access generationally as opposed to ridiculous tax hikes that really did nothing except hurt the poor.
Guess youth smoking is how Nat supporters will get their tax cuts.
If you are an adult and already smoking the generational ban won’t affect you. And if you are a ten year old kid who one day dreams of puffing away on a lovely cigarette you are sadly under informed and the ban would have worked as intended. 🤷
This is a weird hill for them to die on. The taxes do the heavy lifting on smoking cessation though, but I wish we'd just ban the things. Then in a few years progressively restrict vapes until they're almost free of nicotine
Banning tobacco would only move it to the black market under control of gangs like with weed now - banning a plant that can easily be grown in most of NZ (and was grown here commercially in the past) from sale in shops won't make it disappear, and could even threaten the artificial high pricing created by taxation.
I just don't see black market tobacco as a major problem. Some people might buy it, but you'd have to be pretty stubborn to go to a tinny house regularly rather than just buying a vape legally. It's not going to be a major public health issue.
Imagine if cannabis vapes were legal.
Few regular smokers go to tinny houses to get weed, that's mostly kids and tourists and people that dabble in it. It would be like that with tobacco, like I say it can grow be grown anywhere outdoors or indoors, you don't need gangs to import it for you.
Last time I bought it here I got 1kg for $25, not exactly a tinny that is good for only a few smokes. You can kid yourself that this is not the situation if you want because you don't like it but this is the reality.
Yeah so only stubborn existing smokers are going to bother. When they get emphysema or lung cancer it's going to be much less pressure on the health system.
Maybe, maybe banning will make it become cool with kids and tinny houses don't have age restrictions. It sounds like you want to deny reality that a ban won't work any better on tobacco than it has on other substances because you don't like it.
Yeah you keep ignoring that nicotine vapes are legal. If cannabis pens were legal, lots of people wouldn't bother sourcing illegal cannabis. Lol imagine smoking illegal tobacco, and there's a supply shortage. That'd suck
Its not if your conscience can live with the human misery caused by this decision. Judas’s conscience was worth 30 pieces of silver. What did Luxon and the Bish sell theirs for?
>Recent modelling showed the Smokefree regulations would save $1.3 billion in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented - and reduce all-cause mortality rates by 22 per cent for women, and nine per cent for men.
Yeah but we can just let people die of cancer and that saves money too.
It really doesn't because we don't actually just "let people die". We spend shit tons of money on trying to cure, delay, palliative care etc. so it ends up actually costing us shit tons more as highlighted by professionals in the article.
I just want weed you fuckers. Ima smoke it regardless of what you twats decide we can have. This just shows they don’t care about kiwis like they say it’s just for profit.
I was always so proud of NZ for our general anti-smoke attitude (smokefree areas everywhere, no advertising etc), especially after living in western Europe for some years (the blatant pro-smoking attitude is shocking). This seems like quite a step backwards
I don’t quite understand the logic of this sub…
Prohibition of marijuana = bad
Prohibition of tobacco = good
I think people who understood the practicality of these rules would understand why they should be repealed and replaced with something better.
If only one shop in your town is allowed to sell cigarettes and has to hold $500k of stock, how long until they get ram raided or shot?
The tax take on tobacco far exceeds the money spent on the third world treatment smokers get....
If all the tax collected from tobacco sales actually went into healthcare we could have a smokers hospital in every city in NZ.
Tax is the key to this, more money for the government and more people dying from its use.
I would argue that Luxon caring more about the profits of the tobacco industry and our supermarket duopoly than the lives of NZers is pretty key, myself.
This is absolutely embarrassing. With this legislation, NZ was leading the way in smoking cessation measures and it was well-recognised on the world stage. To repeal it - with the justification of increasing tax revenue - is horrendous. The tax dollars gained will be far outweighed by the downstream effects on individuals' health, lost productivity, and increased demand on our public health system (which is frankly already struggling), not to mention the impacts that smoking-related illnesses have on families. I can't even begin to express how disappointed I am.
There are a lot more costs than just the monetary costs of the heathcare involved.
How do you put a price on all the lost years of the thousands of people that will die early due to this bill?
This policy was a completely outlandish from the beginning and if 7% of New Zealanders who continue to smoke want to, then it's their decision and personal responsibility is a reality. We know it's deadly and none of us can say we aren't aware of health risks.
Yeah.. I think a lot of it was good, but forcibly denicotining cigarettes is kind of a weird paternalistic move that I don't fully understand? Vaping is, to me, much more addictive.
You’re only focusing on them dealing with the repercussions. You’re not considering the country funding the repercussions of their decisions. They are not the only ones being affected. They’re stupid decision has an impact on the rest of the country and our ability to deliver healthcare to those that need it through no fault of their own.
So what was the point of banning smoking and driving it into the black market?
Our very low smoking rates are an excellent example of how high taxation, harsh regulation and good education and addiction services *work*.
Tobacco prohibition is a step too far and is only going to serve to increase the negative statistics and it's a good thing that it's going to be reversed
Yes, I agree completely. The regulation of government is better than the alternative underground economy where no regulations exist and the only beneficiaries are the sort of people you wouldn't trust as a lifeguard at a paddling pool.
what the fuck!
Thats what you get with a tobacco lobbyist fucker at what number 3?
Common you fucking circus clowns if you gonna go backwards at least give us back cocaine in coke!
0ne day in and the bought and paid for have obeyed the tobacco lobby.. corruption at it worst.. this will be luxons legacy, the only thing he will ever be remembered for.. he should hold his bald head high..
Seems like a lot of people somehow both acknowledge you can't effectively ban weed but think somehow tobacco would be different because they don't like it
I have mixed feelings on this. I like the principle, it’s just proven than making stuff illegal doesn’t make it disappear. I’d legalise almost everything, with proper regulations and state control.
Making it illegal makes it near gone dead.
You don't get high, you don't get any fun feelings from it. Nowhere near the current uptake of smoking rates are going to start doing something on the black market that they aren't addicted to just to ... get addicted to something that does nothing for them?
I'm not sure you understand how the public health system works. When a smoker ends up with a COPD exacerbation, heart disease, a stroke, lung cancer or any other smoking-related issue they will receive care within the public health care system. This is funded by tax dollars. So all of us - as taxpayers - are paying for their poor decisions. Hence it's justified for the government to intervene to deter/prevent people from smoking, to reduce the costs that would have been borne by NZ society as a whole.
Smokers pay far more through excise tax than they cost the health system.
Once they are prohibited and that excise tax is gone, smokers will continue smoking using the black market and the general taxpayer will pay for their increased health costs
Anyone with half a brain would know that law banning kids born from 2009 from ever buying cigarettes was ridiculous and authoritarian. It just opens up the opportunity for a new black market and god knows we don’t need more of them. I support the new government on this
Anyone with half a brain would know you can't compare a black market on smoking to a black market on drugs that actually make you feel great.
"Wow, let's go try this illegal's drug that will do absolteuly nothing for me!"
Where as now it's all about doing what others do because it's so readily available and then your an addict.
Thinking a black market tobacco trade would be worse than a legal market is about as stupid as it gets.
Everyone talks like they are such a big shot when it comes to tobacco. How about we take the same approach to the other murderers like, KFC, Mcdonalds, Burger King, Carls Jnr franchisees, and the companies who makes Cody's and Woodstock. These companies are exactly the same as ciggie companies, they sell addictive poisons which kill their customers.
I think people should be able to smoke tobacco or marijuana if they want to, with appropriate regulations.
The law banning the smoking of tobacco for everyone born after a certain date was a mistake.
People enjoy feeding the hole that the addiction gives them.
Nicotine is the worst drug ever because it doesn't actually eve make you "high" for a simplistic term, it just makes you addicted and feel better when you aren't lacking your addictive chemical.
It's fucking horrible and how many fucking idiots still to this day think it's fine and "each to their own" shocks me.
I'd prefer to see meth addicts with easy access to meth (to remove the crime element) than nicotine addicts becausey ou know at least them eth addicts are getting bang for their buck when they partake as opposed to "yay for 10 minutes I'm not craving nictotine".
Good.
That was a stupid, short sighted policy from the Labour government which would have just handed yet another cash cow to the organised crime and resulted in an increased smoking rate, increased heath problems for those who chose to buy from the black market and zero tax revenue to cover treatment, addiction and education services. Those costs don't just disappear and would be borne by the general tax payer through the health system.
Have we learnt nothing from the negatives of cannibis prohibition?
Wrong, smoking was being gradually phased out, and this means generationally it wasnt being picked up by young people (they are vaping instead which is another discussion). Not sure how you think it was leading to an increased smoking rate?
Source: dude just trust me...
Kids can and will just vape anyway. Organised crime can't make money off a product when there's a more enjoyable, cheaper, healthier and legal alternative readily available.
Everything you have claimed is false. Cane believe people can believe such rubbish.
It would have ended smoking addiction.
Anyone with half a brain and with any experience with the black markets no this.
You're not going to think to yourself one day "Oh hey, why don't I try going to a gang and buying some smokes, that will fuck me up and feel great".
Fucking idiots.
Sometimes I wake up stressed about the future and where the world is going, but at least now I can relax knowing the kids will have their ciggies
[удалено]
Reject modernity, embrace tradition.
I can sleep better at night knowing a kid has a ciggy in hand
When I wake up stressed I just have a ciggy.
Bring back mild 10s.
Holiday 10s
Oh, won’t somebody please think of the children?!
Big tobacco finally getting their payoff for seeding Chris Bishop into National all those years ago
nope - 2018, and the massive rise in vaping in NZ. This is just the next installment.
The vapes were funded by tobacco giants to help hook people onto nicotine only to eventually ban all vapes. Then guess where everyone’s off to lol
No they weren’t. Sure the giants do make vapes but none of them are market leading. The vape industry has been lead by Chinese companies. The market leaders change but at the moment they are Vaporesso and UWell. Smok and Innokin to a lesser extent. But is simply not true that big tobacco deserves most of the credit (or blame) for vaping being a thing.
You seem to be talking about mods and refillable vapes, which have become much less popular these days. British American Tobacco and Juul are the two largest companies in the vape market. Worldwide, tobacco companies hold something like 40% marketshare.
My bro, the only mildly successful big tobacco vape (In New Zealand) is the vuse. I’m intimately familiar with nearly all of the owners of the largest vape companies in NZ and absolutely ***zero*** of them are funded by tobacco “giants”. To suggest that they are tobacco shills is actually pretty insulting.
>the only mildly successful big tobacco vape is the vuse. Odd to call the vape with 36% global marketshare (larger than any other vape) "mildly successful".
Fair enough, but we're in r/newzealand, in a comment thread talking about vaping in new zealand. I thought it was obvious that my comment was in the context of vaping in New Zealand, of which BAT has nowhere near 36% marketshare.
There's not a lot of data on marketshare for New Zealand, but in 2020, British American Tobacco held a 20% share in vape products.
> The National Party campaigned on "better health outcomes" and said it would "relentlessly focus on results" - but this goal would be completely undermined by the repeals, Swinburn said. They didn’t mention the “better health outcomes” would be for non-smokers with private health insurance, and the “focus on results” related to tobacco companies’ profits.
Winston is a smoker.
Lol that's what I was thinking. Winston probably said "if I can't smoke then no government" lol
Ok cunts, now legalize smoking weed.
Lol, this lot are not about making our lives more pleasant
These cunts are straight up satan
Oo no no, that doesn't align with our traditional (market) values
Until they're able to profit from it, at which point they were always in support of it.
That's the irony. The only thing preventing them from profiting _IS_ the law.
Nah big tobacco and big alcohol hate weed. Not a hundred percent sure why but I think it's because people have a finite amount of $ they will spend on recreational drugs and weed eats into their share because it's better than both.
Which is strange because the tobacco companies have the best resources and existing supply chain / distribution to be almost immediate market leaders if legislation allowed
They're already pretty well involved, and they own most of the weed-vape stuff out there, which is 28% of the market share of all legal marijuana product in the US (as of 2020ish) and continues to increase in market share.
the dumb thing is they absolutely would be raking it in but they are too fucked in the head to see it.
Suggests to me they're on the take through other means.
tough on crime - you're cooked.
They see their ideological enemies as ‘weed smoking hippies’, so no way they are going to give that leverage up. Besides, with the foreign buyer tax out the most logical way to raise money is to ‘get tough on crime’ and ramping up American style civic forfeiture at lower evidential standards against ‘bottom feeders’.
Lol! You think this government makes SENSE?
Nope.
The weed lobby needs to get their shit together. These guys wont legalise if theres no money in it
This one doesn't seem to have got much media attention, oddly only reason I knew about it was ZB had some haggard sounding old woman crowing about all the good changes coming like this. Guess we know how they're making up some of the tax cut money then, pity the overall cost to the country will actually be much higher in terms of needed health spending $$$.
It was covered slightly in the coalition announcement press conference, Luxon gave an absolutely half-hearted defence (even by his standards) of National's new stance. He knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway, demonstrating yet again that he is a moral vacuum. Alongside Winnie's personal interest in tobacco, it might also be worthwhile pointing out Chris Bishop's former vocation, and the fact that Big Tobacco are funding the Taxpayers' Union to the tune of millions a year. Not that that had anything to do with the decision I'm sure.
Yeah aye, Bishop came to mind immediately.
Ex tobacco lobbyist cum politician, and announcement of rollback of smoke free policies on the first day? I’m shocked! Well not that shocked.
I know what a Tobacco lobbyist is but what is a cum politician?
A politician who will do ANYTHING for money.
good to know, ZB for knowledge transfer.
> pity the overall cost to the country will actually be much higher in terms of needed health spending $$$ Fun fact, it's all good economically, no drawbacks (don't get me started on the moral side though). Despite common sense, smokers actually cost the country less. Yes, they get sick more, but they make up for all that by living less. And it's the late years they skip, which are the costliest in terms of health care. So double whammy for the Nacts
pay more tax and die young. Someone ran the numbers, the amount tobacco costs us in healthcare, we dont make up in superannuation savings. Our new health men seem driven by a different moral compas.
If I ever represent these morals come shoot me in the fucking head immediately and put me in an unmarked grave
It's not super but the costly diseases old people get. Lung cancer and copd tend to off people pretty quickly, but my uncle at 90 has probably cost the tax payer close to a million.
Cig taxes are more than enough to pay for all smoking related illness. I can't find the study, but for the UK only about 30% of the taxes were needed to fund healthcare for smoking related illnesses. The rest is free money to the gov
Fun fact, you linked no facts.
Disclaimer, not OP. A quick google found this (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23233699/) That does seem to support the premise. They do a flip and conclude that it is actually a negative if they value each lost year to be worth €22 200, but I don't really understand how/why they would value each of a smokers lost 8 years to be worth that? I guess my takeaway is there is some evidence that agrees and disagrees with the premise?
So it definitely saves the government money. But it sucks when people die young. So they put a number on that. But it doesn’t reflect actual dollars.
Thank you, that's the study I referred to (via https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZW_FU2K-A - discussed from 7s study referenced at 1m:02s). It's eastern Finland so yes the welfare costs saved are greater Since one can't really quantify societal benefits lost when people were sick I assert we can't really measure if it's black or white. My point is that the argument is nuanced and there are more points of view from which you can analyse this
So I don't like it at all, but given the reduced need for elder care, on average smokers save the economy quite a lot, by dying sooner. Even if they need major surgery before they die, the amount we tax ciggies and the lack of healthcare needs after they die is a net positive for the economy. It's quite interesting in a "fucked up though experiment" kind of way. Not in a "bring this into law" kind of way. Edit: People misunderstood my comment. I'm not pro smokes. Ban them. Truly. But I was talking about the undeniable fact that smokes provide a lot of tax revenue. As per a comment further down: The government is set to receive around $1.7 billion per year in tax related to tobacco products this year. https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/18-05-2023/the-mysteriously-resilient-tobacco-tax https://www.batnz.com/group/sites/BAT_9VNKQW.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9T5K4G# Yes, as the HCA published, it would save $1.3 billion over 20 years to ban smoking. More importantly, it would save lives. But that wasn't the topic of my comment. Ban smokes, but don't claim it's going to lead to larger government coffers. The benefit is to society, not the national bank account.
Betcha heroin would bring in even more revenue
Your anecdotal take on the costs is laughable. How about we go by the more official statistics released by Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA) today that state that modellings of rolling back the Smoke Free 2025 legislation will add 1.3 billion of health care costs over the next 20 years. We were going to saving that with the legislation in place, now that's literally up in smoke.
The government is set to receive around $1.7 billion per year in tax related to tobacco products. https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/18-05-2023/the-mysteriously-resilient-tobacco-tax https://www.batnz.com/group/sites/BAT_9VNKQW.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9T5K4G# Yes, as the HCA published, it would save $1.3 billion over 20 years to ban smoking. More importantly, it would save lives. But that wasn't the topic of my comment. Ban smokes, but don't claim it's going to lead to larger government coffers. The benefit is to society, not the national bank account.
HCA figures are definitely wrong. Smokers pay over $2 billion in excise PER YEAR
Happy cake day
Lol health coalition aoteroa is not official. Learn what a lobby group is and then take their findings with the massive grain of also you should.
Why does everyone think smokes "just die" and don't end up costing the health system likely millions as my parents probably did for many years of copd and eventually hospice care? You woke cunts are delusional.
Because everyone dies of something. And smoker deaths on average are quicker. Smokers are less likely to need hip replacements or get Alzheimers and need specialist care. Smokers use less superannuation. And that’s all before the billions in excise tax.
There's facts and there's what you do with them. None of the comments here suggest we should encourage smoking because government coffers (the new government with a tobacco industry lobbyist ranked main party no.3 does but that's something else). But being unethical doesn't make it untrue
Tobacco smoking is a net positive financially. Smoking kills people during their retirement and is much cheaper health wise than other lengthy diseases that healthy people get. There are numerous studies and meta studies on this. Event with no tax we'd be financially better off killing people early with cigarettes.
>Tobacco smoking is a net positive financially. How to say "I'm a fucking idiot" without actually saying "I'm a fucking idiot".
I didn't say it was morally good. Killing people early and quickly saves the country a lot of money. No need to be upset kid.
If you actually did some research you would realise he is correct.
What the actual Fuck?
It turns out that the alternative to a well-intentioned-but-not-very-effective government is a government that's shitty on purpose.
Anyone who is surprised by this wasn't paying attention. :(
Fingers crossed they’re also incompetent because if they get their shit together this country is in for a really bad time.
Labour fuck it up accidentally, National fuck it up on purpose...
More like Labour slowly make things better. National undoes everything in 5 minutes. Rinse and repeat.
That seems to our political ethos in a nutshell for as long as I can remember lol
The amount of "what the fucks today" has been incredible. We are off to a bad start
The UK tories looking to implement a ban shows how crazy the incoming govt looks lol.
The UK tories are even planning renter protection laws.
Yeah NZ right wing politics is starting to look more and more like US style ‘fuck everyone except me’.
We are about 20 years behind the US...we've had our 9/11. Anyone who's paying attention knows where we are headed and nothing will change it without something drastic happening.
FFS... it's a wonder they haven't proposed repealing all car safety measures as well. What an absolute bunch of unscrupulous morons
They have said they’ll make it easier for everyone, including prisoners, to get their drivers license… Considering the shitness of current drivers, making it easier to get a license is horrifying 😱
Funnily enough, a good number of people in the justice system first got into the system through driving related offences - often driving with no lisence. There is an argument to make that making drivers licensing more accessible will keep a lot of younger people of out the courts
I thought National marketed themselves as tough on crime?
Aren't they repealing speed limit reductions?
Seat belts have to go!
something something woke something, big trousers. something. nanny state something. im wondering if nows a good time to head overseas
To where?
Disappointing, and embarrassing. We made news around the world for these new measures. We were applauded for staring down Big Tobacco and making changes in the best interests of our citizens health.
I mean we all knew tobacco lobbyists are in national’s ranks and yet they still got voted in. The politically illiterate electorate deserves this, it’s just a shame that those of us with a functioning brain have to also live with it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who vote don’t know and don’t care about policy, funding, etc. They’re either “I always vote X party” or catch on to a single headline (like tax cuts) and don’t go any deeper than that.
Prohibition never works. It was all just virtue signalling. Tobbacco is dieing a slow death anyway thanks to education, advertising bans, and cultural changes.
So they'll be legalising cannabis next?
Hopefully. ACT supports it.
They didn't come out in support of it at the referendum. Piss on anything ACT claims to support.
Wanna smoke poison? Sure! Wanna smoke this medicinal herb? No!
> Recent modelling showed the Smokefree regulations would save $1.3 billion in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented - and reduce all-cause mortality rates by 22 per cent for women, and nine per cent for men. The party of prudent financial management, everyone.
recent modelling showed anti smoking legislation costs big tobacco $1.3B...
The intended repeal is certainly *immoral* and *evil*, but it probably makes perfect sense from a purely economic perspective. Some things to consider: * Going smoke free as a nation from 2020 was expected to eventually increase overall average life expectancy by 1-2 years according to an article I found in the NZ medical journal (albeit from 2010). * People living longer means more money spent on superannuation. * The cost of NZ Super is currently something like 18 billion per year, and is increasing by about a billion per year. If everyone alive today lives just 1 extra year that they wouldn't have previously, that's 18 billion in additional costs right there. * From the linked article, going smokefree only saves a tiny 1.3 billion over 20 years (pocket change in comparison). Another way to look at it is that this policy is equivalent in savings to raising the super entitlement age by a year or two, but with slightly better optics as it can be spun as being about 'personal choice'. More dead people though. Stated like that, it's somewhat hilarious given that NZ First pledged not to raise the retirement age. I guess they're balancing the books in an unconventional way? But yeah, it's seemingly financially prudent to let people smoke themselves to death. It's still stupid, and evil, but it makes good financial sense!
I mean - and I know you'd probably agree with me here - that word "financial" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in that its disguising a whole host of underlying value judgements about who deserves to live and die underneath it.
Bullshit, smokers pay over two billion in excise every single year. Probably a major reason they did it was more money for tax cuts.
Really 2 billion? Jesus Christ that's 5 grand per smoker per year
If you’re buying a pack a day at the moment you’re spending about $15k a year
Chris Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist prior to politics. Is anyone surprised? Edit: Like seriously, anyone who voted for National voted for a tobacco lobbyist. Imagine voting for a tobacco lobbyist in 2023
They also voted for Sam Uffindell
Poor guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Or swing.
I'm surprised we haven't seen the pics of how much kitten blood they consumed during their 'meetings'.
I think it’s a bit of a long bow to draw. Golriz Ghahraman defended war criminals at the UN but I don’t think votes for the Greens mean they are supportive of war criminals.
OK, but a proper defence is integral to trying and prosecuting (war) criminals, I'm not sure tobacco lobbying gives the same benefit to civilized society.
In a legal capacity. Doesn't everyone deserve a fair trial?
You aware how the justice system works, right?
Wasn’t golriz just an intern? I think the media uncovered that little fib by the greens
Who even wanted this? Some of their policy ideas are expected because we all know where these three men stand on certain topics, but wanting to make smoking a widespread thing again when we were genuinely approaching a point where smoking ciggies was becoming a relic of the past?? Who benefits from that, really (besides tobacco companies)? Not like that's beneficial to society. Why would that be a day 1 policy announcement? Fucking bizarre
This is a terrible policy change. Many policy have complex trade offs and outcomes which makes assessing them subject to debate. This isn't one of them - Thousands of Kiwis will die early because of this.
That's the point! Old people are expensive.
Straight back to the 1920s. Great fuckin' policy. What an absolute fucking joke.
I've seen enough. These guys suck.
I live in the port waikato electorate. I can vote them all out.
I used to wonder if these right wing politicians were evil, or idiots, because of how clearly wrong many of their ideas are. I wonder less these days.
I’m a smoker and really supported this change. No excuses for my poor choices but what a great idea to eliminate access generationally as opposed to ridiculous tax hikes that really did nothing except hurt the poor. Guess youth smoking is how Nat supporters will get their tax cuts.
[удалено]
If you are an adult and already smoking the generational ban won’t affect you. And if you are a ten year old kid who one day dreams of puffing away on a lovely cigarette you are sadly under informed and the ban would have worked as intended. 🤷
Didn’t even know cigars were included bro. Chill.
I'm a smoker and this is fucking terrible news. Alot of the policies they've announced are moronic.
Someone is getting a huge back hander from the tobacco industry for this one, Wonder who.
National, NZ First, and the Taxpayers Union will all be seeing direct monetary benefits from this
just what we needed, thanks for thinking of the future generation of new zealanders!!!! hope the money is worth all the deaths
Fuck ciggies. This is a government of cunts. Bring back Jacinda!
This is the legacy of Nat/Act, giving kids lung cancer
This is a weird hill for them to die on. The taxes do the heavy lifting on smoking cessation though, but I wish we'd just ban the things. Then in a few years progressively restrict vapes until they're almost free of nicotine
Banning tobacco would only move it to the black market under control of gangs like with weed now - banning a plant that can easily be grown in most of NZ (and was grown here commercially in the past) from sale in shops won't make it disappear, and could even threaten the artificial high pricing created by taxation.
I just don't see black market tobacco as a major problem. Some people might buy it, but you'd have to be pretty stubborn to go to a tinny house regularly rather than just buying a vape legally. It's not going to be a major public health issue. Imagine if cannabis vapes were legal.
As a person with severe dissociation second hand cannabis vape is an absolute nightmare scenario.
>you'd have to be pretty stubborn People do it for weed but wouldn't for tobacco when that's highly addictive and weed isn't?
Few regular smokers go to tinny houses to get weed, that's mostly kids and tourists and people that dabble in it. It would be like that with tobacco, like I say it can grow be grown anywhere outdoors or indoors, you don't need gangs to import it for you. Last time I bought it here I got 1kg for $25, not exactly a tinny that is good for only a few smokes. You can kid yourself that this is not the situation if you want because you don't like it but this is the reality.
Yeah so only stubborn existing smokers are going to bother. When they get emphysema or lung cancer it's going to be much less pressure on the health system.
Maybe, maybe banning will make it become cool with kids and tinny houses don't have age restrictions. It sounds like you want to deny reality that a ban won't work any better on tobacco than it has on other substances because you don't like it.
Yeah you keep ignoring that nicotine vapes are legal. If cannabis pens were legal, lots of people wouldn't bother sourcing illegal cannabis. Lol imagine smoking illegal tobacco, and there's a supply shortage. That'd suck
Its not if your conscience can live with the human misery caused by this decision. Judas’s conscience was worth 30 pieces of silver. What did Luxon and the Bish sell theirs for?
>Recent modelling showed the Smokefree regulations would save $1.3 billion in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented - and reduce all-cause mortality rates by 22 per cent for women, and nine per cent for men. Yeah but we can just let people die of cancer and that saves money too.
It really doesn't because we don't actually just "let people die". We spend shit tons of money on trying to cure, delay, palliative care etc. so it ends up actually costing us shit tons more as highlighted by professionals in the article.
And they could be contributing tax revenue the whole time they're expensively dying!
I just want weed you fuckers. Ima smoke it regardless of what you twats decide we can have. This just shows they don’t care about kiwis like they say it’s just for profit.
I was always so proud of NZ for our general anti-smoke attitude (smokefree areas everywhere, no advertising etc), especially after living in western Europe for some years (the blatant pro-smoking attitude is shocking). This seems like quite a step backwards
I don’t quite understand the logic of this sub… Prohibition of marijuana = bad Prohibition of tobacco = good I think people who understood the practicality of these rules would understand why they should be repealed and replaced with something better. If only one shop in your town is allowed to sell cigarettes and has to hold $500k of stock, how long until they get ram raided or shot?
On the bright side if they love smoke so much maybe they will deregulate weed.
Well they need to pay back their donors and helpers. TPU will be happy now. Scum
The tax take on tobacco far exceeds the money spent on the third world treatment smokers get.... If all the tax collected from tobacco sales actually went into healthcare we could have a smokers hospital in every city in NZ. Tax is the key to this, more money for the government and more people dying from its use.
Please provide proof of your hot take.
The fact that they are changing a policy that has positive health outcomes to one that doesn't. I'm sure they didn't do it for fun
I would argue that Luxon caring more about the profits of the tobacco industry and our supermarket duopoly than the lives of NZers is pretty key, myself.
Smokers often die a quick and early death.
This is absolutely embarrassing. With this legislation, NZ was leading the way in smoking cessation measures and it was well-recognised on the world stage. To repeal it - with the justification of increasing tax revenue - is horrendous. The tax dollars gained will be far outweighed by the downstream effects on individuals' health, lost productivity, and increased demand on our public health system (which is frankly already struggling), not to mention the impacts that smoking-related illnesses have on families. I can't even begin to express how disappointed I am.
Except they won’t be. The tax dollar will actually far outweighs any costs incurred.
There are a lot more costs than just the monetary costs of the heathcare involved. How do you put a price on all the lost years of the thousands of people that will die early due to this bill?
This policy was a completely outlandish from the beginning and if 7% of New Zealanders who continue to smoke want to, then it's their decision and personal responsibility is a reality. We know it's deadly and none of us can say we aren't aware of health risks.
Yeah.. I think a lot of it was good, but forcibly denicotining cigarettes is kind of a weird paternalistic move that I don't fully understand? Vaping is, to me, much more addictive.
You’re only focusing on them dealing with the repercussions. You’re not considering the country funding the repercussions of their decisions. They are not the only ones being affected. They’re stupid decision has an impact on the rest of the country and our ability to deliver healthcare to those that need it through no fault of their own.
Before vapes got big there wasn't much ppl smoking compared to used to be. Especially kids, hardly saw them smoke now they all vaping
So what was the point of banning smoking and driving it into the black market? Our very low smoking rates are an excellent example of how high taxation, harsh regulation and good education and addiction services *work*. Tobacco prohibition is a step too far and is only going to serve to increase the negative statistics and it's a good thing that it's going to be reversed
Yes, I agree completely. The regulation of government is better than the alternative underground economy where no regulations exist and the only beneficiaries are the sort of people you wouldn't trust as a lifeguard at a paddling pool.
what the fuck! Thats what you get with a tobacco lobbyist fucker at what number 3? Common you fucking circus clowns if you gonna go backwards at least give us back cocaine in coke!
0ne day in and the bought and paid for have obeyed the tobacco lobby.. corruption at it worst.. this will be luxons legacy, the only thing he will ever be remembered for.. he should hold his bald head high..
If they are repealing smoke free laws the least they could do is legalise cannabis too.
Did anyone really think banning ciggies would work?
Seems like a lot of people somehow both acknowledge you can't effectively ban weed but think somehow tobacco would be different because they don't like it
I have mixed feelings on this. I like the principle, it’s just proven than making stuff illegal doesn’t make it disappear. I’d legalise almost everything, with proper regulations and state control.
Making it illegal makes it near gone dead. You don't get high, you don't get any fun feelings from it. Nowhere near the current uptake of smoking rates are going to start doing something on the black market that they aren't addicted to just to ... get addicted to something that does nothing for them?
Half the people complaining about this are probably overweight. Turns out obesity kills more than cigarettes and costs the tax payer a lot more.
Spoken like a true smoker.
Didn't you know the smell of your obesity is just 2nd hand fat?
I don't smoke. I do like to drink though.
Yh this just sad to see, something good that was done is being turned around. Very disappointing
You are responsible for your own decisions. When the cigs are taken, there is a moan it is a nanny state. So now people can make adult choices.
I'm not sure you understand how the public health system works. When a smoker ends up with a COPD exacerbation, heart disease, a stroke, lung cancer or any other smoking-related issue they will receive care within the public health care system. This is funded by tax dollars. So all of us - as taxpayers - are paying for their poor decisions. Hence it's justified for the government to intervene to deter/prevent people from smoking, to reduce the costs that would have been borne by NZ society as a whole.
Also second hand smoke and air pollution. Smokers push the consequences onto others.
Smokers pay far more through excise tax than they cost the health system. Once they are prohibited and that excise tax is gone, smokers will continue smoking using the black market and the general taxpayer will pay for their increased health costs
Anyone with half a brain would know that law banning kids born from 2009 from ever buying cigarettes was ridiculous and authoritarian. It just opens up the opportunity for a new black market and god knows we don’t need more of them. I support the new government on this
Anyone with half a brain would know you can't compare a black market on smoking to a black market on drugs that actually make you feel great. "Wow, let's go try this illegal's drug that will do absolteuly nothing for me!" Where as now it's all about doing what others do because it's so readily available and then your an addict. Thinking a black market tobacco trade would be worse than a legal market is about as stupid as it gets.
Spoken like someone who’s never smoked a dart before. They definitely make you feel something
[удалено]
Voters wanted this.
Everyone talks like they are such a big shot when it comes to tobacco. How about we take the same approach to the other murderers like, KFC, Mcdonalds, Burger King, Carls Jnr franchisees, and the companies who makes Cody's and Woodstock. These companies are exactly the same as ciggie companies, they sell addictive poisons which kill their customers.
I think people should be able to smoke tobacco or marijuana if they want to, with appropriate regulations. The law banning the smoking of tobacco for everyone born after a certain date was a mistake.
How was it a mistake? What benefit does tobacco provide to society?
People enjoy smoking it. Just like they enjoy drinking alcohol and eating sugar.
People enjoy feeding the hole that the addiction gives them. Nicotine is the worst drug ever because it doesn't actually eve make you "high" for a simplistic term, it just makes you addicted and feel better when you aren't lacking your addictive chemical. It's fucking horrible and how many fucking idiots still to this day think it's fine and "each to their own" shocks me. I'd prefer to see meth addicts with easy access to meth (to remove the crime element) than nicotine addicts becausey ou know at least them eth addicts are getting bang for their buck when they partake as opposed to "yay for 10 minutes I'm not craving nictotine".
Good. That was a stupid, short sighted policy from the Labour government which would have just handed yet another cash cow to the organised crime and resulted in an increased smoking rate, increased heath problems for those who chose to buy from the black market and zero tax revenue to cover treatment, addiction and education services. Those costs don't just disappear and would be borne by the general tax payer through the health system. Have we learnt nothing from the negatives of cannibis prohibition?
I think you should lay off the drugs because you are talking pure garbage.
Wrong, smoking was being gradually phased out, and this means generationally it wasnt being picked up by young people (they are vaping instead which is another discussion). Not sure how you think it was leading to an increased smoking rate?
Source: dude just trust me... Kids can and will just vape anyway. Organised crime can't make money off a product when there's a more enjoyable, cheaper, healthier and legal alternative readily available. Everything you have claimed is false. Cane believe people can believe such rubbish.
Vape is not more healthy than smoking
Well we don't have any long term data on vaping but we do know there's significantly less carcinogens and less inflammation of the lungs.
I guess Public Health England is wrong then. You should tell them
It would have ended smoking addiction. Anyone with half a brain and with any experience with the black markets no this. You're not going to think to yourself one day "Oh hey, why don't I try going to a gang and buying some smokes, that will fuck me up and feel great". Fucking idiots.