New Zealand to ban cigarettes for future generations

I don&#x27;t smoke yet I find this ridiculous, how much of a nanny state can New Zealand be?<p>If you want to make something disappear you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot. This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won&#x27;t magically stop smoking because they can&#x27;t buy their cigarettes at the convenience store.<p>Also purely on principle, the idea that there are things that are forbidden based on the year you were born seems like weird discrimination to me.

Those born after 2008 are forbidden from buying cigarettes<p>Those born after 2012 will be forbidden from buying spirits, only beer with less that 4% ABV<p>Those born after 2016 will not be permitted to go outside in the winter without nice warm mittens.<p>Those born after 2021 will not be allowed to cross the road without holding mummy&#x27;s hand ever so tightly.

Euthanasia is legal in NZ. Yet you can&#x27;t kill your self slowly with cigarettes?<p>We&#x27;re also likely to legalize cannabis soon... So you&#x27;ll be able to smoke just not cigarettes.

I&#x27;m kind of surprised about the negative reaction to this.<p>Keep in mind the NZ health system provides universal cover. So unlike the US for example it&#x27;s tax payers who cover the medical bill if your cancer sticks give you cancer and seek treatment.<p>Education only goes so far. People are easily fallible in the face of peer pressure, perceived societal elevation and outside market advertising.<p>Finding simple pleasure in something is not a good enough reason to keep something legal.<p>I&#x27;d welcome a similar ban here in Australi. If for no other reason than to protect others especially given the number of people I still see to this day smoking around infants and children.

The US tried banning alcohol with a constitutional amendment, and later repealed it with another amendment. In general, when the government tries to police what someone can do with their own body, it does not end well.

If the state is responsible for paying your health bills, it should also be able to give you incentives towards a healthier lifestyle. Therefore, it should ban everything that may, given some level of consumption, cause addiction &amp; physical or mental harm: cigars, drugs, alcohol, gambling, sugar &amp; sweets, some medicines, social media &amp; smartphones.

In some countries they pack cigarettes in ugly green boxes and ban imported brands. Maybe it was in NZ? Anyways those local brands were just horrible like smoking wet paper rolls. Then I just happened to ask &quot;Marlboro&quot; at a kiosk and the dude checked me out for 2 seconds and got a pack Genuine American Cancer Pacifiers from under the counter. It was not particularly expensive even. This was how these problems was handled in that country.

Inevitable considering that many more people die from smoking than from Covid-19 and it was acceptable to cancel civil rights to counteract Covid-19.

That&#x27;s ridiculous law; you can discriminate by age, because this only applies to <i>transient</i> population groups, but you cannot discriminate by year-of-birth. I doubt this will hold up in court.

Dupe: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29493740" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29493740</a>

Dumb. Prohibition never works.