Smoking Ban - New Product Line for Drug Dealers?
Discussion
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
StevieBee said:
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
It means the government get to look like they're solving a problem when the problem was actually already solving itself.That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
If they really mean business they should do the same with vaping - another habit almost as disgusting as smoking to be frank.
StevieBee said:
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
The idiocy of the approach laid out in your first paragraph.That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
It’s all well and good banning it for sub sixteen yr olds.
Now forward wind 15 years as 30 year olds attempt to buy cigs which 31 year olds are not prohibited from. Compulsory age checks at newsagents across the country because telling the difference between a 16 yr old and an adult male is relatively simple. From men in their 30s and 40s? Dum. Dum. Dum.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic a demonstration of stupid policy. Why tobacco? Booze? High fat foods? All of the above? And this from a conservative government. Adopting a policy from f
king Jacinda Ahern. Jeez.Absolute effing idiocy.
StevieBee said:
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
It's utterly dumb in terms of implementation, and having this as a flagship policy is fiddling while Rome burns.That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
Full and direct prohibition doesn't really work as has been tried in various places.
If this really is the no1 priority in the country, raise the age limit properly (make it 25 overnight. Or 30), raise the amount of tax on fags, change rules on importation and ensure the policing is there to make it stick.
And while we're at it, put the same limitations on vaping.
But as it is, typical of our modern politicians. Piss arsing about around the edges with policy that will make f
k all difference to anyone.irc said:
Why ban it? Smokers pay a fortune in tax then die young saving the govt a fortune in pension payments.
If they wish to do that let them.
As a middle aged smoker, I totally agree.If they wish to do that let them.
I read somewhere I'll die 13 years younger than you lot - I can't afford to retire anyway, so I suspect I make a nett contribution to the Treasury. What's not to like??
As for prohibition: it won't work, will be impossible to police & is just a political gesture ahead of an election. Strange policy cooked up in NZ.....
Ridgemont said:
StevieBee said:
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
The idiocy of the approach laid out in your first paragraph.That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
It’s all well and good banning it for sub sixteen yr olds.
Now forward wind 15 years as 30 year olds attempt to buy cigs which 31 year olds are not prohibited from. Compulsory age checks at newsagents across the country because telling the difference between a 16 yr old and an adult male is relatively simple. From men in their 30s and 40s? Dum. Dum. Dum.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic a demonstration of stupid policy. Why tobacco? Booze? High fat foods? All of the above? And this from a conservative government. Adopting a policy from f
king Jacinda Ahern. Jeez.Absolute effing idiocy.
fiatpower said:
Do they have to go to the trouble of banning it? It seems to me that smoking will naturally die out in the next 100 years or so anyway. I'm 33 and can only think of a few people from within my family, friends and colleagues circles who smoke, all of whom are 60+.
Yep, it was being discussed on the radio yesterday morning, a guest said similar, rates of smoking have dropped and still are amongst the young at a decent rate that smoking will die out naturally, this policy just isn't needed. irc said:
Why ban it? Smokers pay a fortune in tax then die young saving the govt a fortune in pension payments.
If they wish to do that let them.
Because the experts have worked out that the tax take is lower than the burden on Nhs and despite what people think of the govt. they do also try to help people - often the ones who are not equipped to help themselves.If they wish to do that let them.
J6542 said:
Weed is basically legal now, so what is the point of banning fags? Pointless interference.
That seems odd logic to me. I think people smoke crack but that doesn’t have anything to do with smoking cigarettes. Smoking weed is a whole other thing and doesn’t have a lot to do with people being addicted to nicotine.Caddyshack said:
J6542 said:
Weed is basically legal now, so what is the point of banning fags? Pointless interference.
That seems odd logic to me. I think people smoke crack but that doesn’t have anything to do with smoking cigarettes. Smoking weed is a whole other thing and doesn’t have a lot to do with people being addicted to nicotine.Prohibition is almost always a failure whether of drink or drugs. Personally, with the side-effects of all the different substances being well-known (e.g. cirrhosis; psychosis; cancer) I feel we should just legalise the lot and take the tax. That's the easiest way to put drug dealers out of business and free up resources. Given the impact if you perform certain activities while under the influence of the drugs, better to treat the outcome than the input.
Ridgemont said:
StevieBee said:
The other oddity with the ruling is that in years to come someone who's, say, 41 will be able to but them but someone who's 40 won't.
That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
The idiocy of the approach laid out in your first paragraph.That's not the point though. If you make it to 25 without ever having smoked, there's something like less than a 1% chance you'll take it up. So the theory is that smoking will eventually disappear without the need to make it totally illegal. Therefore, no market for drug dealers. (in theory).
It’s all well and good banning it for sub sixteen yr olds.
Now forward wind 15 years as 30 year olds attempt to buy cigs which 31 year olds are not prohibited from. Compulsory age checks at newsagents across the country because telling the difference between a 16 yr old and an adult male is relatively simple. From men in their 30s and 40s? Dum. Dum. Dum.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic a demonstration of stupid policy. Why tobacco? Booze? High fat foods? All of the above? And this from a conservative government. Adopting a policy from f
king Jacinda Ahern. Jeez.Absolute effing idiocy.
- Create a problem (Implement a policy that requires grown adults to carry an identity card)
- Trigger a reaction ("I have to carry around extra I.D. with me now, how inconvenient!")
- Deliver the 'solution' you wanted to roll out in the first place but were struggling to do because of pushback ('Look at this shiny new Digital ID you can just have on your phone - sign up now or suffer!')
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff