New Zealand to ban cigarettes for future generations

jcgriff2

Co-Founder / Admin
BSOD Instructor/Expert
Microsoft MVP (Ret.)
Staff member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Posts
21,541
Location
New Jersey Shore
New Zealand to ban cigarettes for future generations

I think that the US should ban cigarettes by the end of this century.

Is there really any doubt that long-term (decades) smoking of cigarettes is hazardous to your health?

I can tell you that smoking is very bad for you.

Ask the health care industry. Look at how much money is spent on health related matters for those who smoke cigarettes.

However, I don't want to see people going to jail over a cigarette.
 
I think that the US should ban cigarettes by the end of this century.
Even with 78 years to get it done, I don't see it happening - at least not while the tobacco industry is allowed to lobby (and pay-off! :mad: ) our elected "representatives" - and that won't happen until those representatives start working for those they are supposed to represent, instead of working for their own self-interests - and re-elections.
 
However, I don't want to see people going to jail over a cigarette.

I don't think they're going to send anyone to jail over it - they're just going to keep increasing the age restriction on buying them each year, so that it'll never be legally possible to buy them in a shop for people born in a certain year.
 
With all of the information available about smoking these days, combined with a total ban on cigarette advertising, I never cease to be amazed by the number of young adults I still see taking up the habit.

As a long time (now ex-smoker) myself, I try not to be judgmental and keep to my own business, but I just don't understand what draws a non-smoker to even want to try the stuff in the first place these days?
 
How successful was Prohibition in the States at getting rid of alcohol ? ............. I forget. ;) :LOL:
 
How successful was Prohibition in the States at getting rid of alcohol ? ............. I forget. ;) :LOL:

Sadly, that's my first thought, too. Also, in addition to Prohibition you can add, in the case of the USA, The War on Drugs.

I actually don't care, at all, what adults do that might be damaging to their health, though I also think they should bear the costs that go with it. There is at least some of that involved with smoking, as it is considered reasonable to charge smokers more for health insurance than non-smokers.

And as far as the young, anything that is "forbidden fruit" becomes, as the saying goes, "all the sweeter." It's not about rationality, but about rebellion and/or "what I can get away with that's naughty."
 
Yes, that's the way I see it as well Brian.
 
I don't think they're going to send anyone to jail over it - they're just going to keep increasing the age restriction on buying them each year, so that it'll never be legally possible to buy them in a shop for people born in a certain year.

Maybe so, Will (re: "I don't think they're going to send anyone to jail over it."), but we are talking about the USA, a country in which you are arrested for driving on a suspended driver's license or for not having a driver's license) or arrested for "reckless driving" - which in an ever-increasing number of states, includes driving 10 or more miles per hour over the speed limit on ANY road, including Interstate Highways. I find it to be absolutely criminal on the cop's part to actually arrest someone for driving 80 mph in a 70 mph speed limit zone on a 16 lane Interstate highway. That's petty, awful and I highly doubt a scenario that lawmakers had in mind when drafting the reckless driving legislation.

Another example of extremely overzealous police misinterpreting the spirit of a law -- arresting people for extremely petty and ridiculous reasons - like the very sad and tragic case where an older black man was selling loose cigarettes (buying a pack of 20 cigarettes for ~$14.00/pack, then selling them one at a time for $1.00 each), police observed him selling a single cigarette for $1.00, then approached the defendant to arrest him, a scuffle ensued between several cops and the 300+ pound defendant, then one of the cops placed the defendant in a chokehold, the defendant could be heard 10+ times saying "I can't breathe" as they all hit the ground, cops ignored his pleas and ended up killing murdering the man -- all over a single stupid cigarette he sold for $1.00.

The transaction was illegal primarily because the defendant was not registered to collect sales tax and did not charge and collect the ~11¢ sales tax.

[The New York City cop] D’Amico erroneously charged [defendant] Garner with a tax-avoidance felony that normally applies to people in possession of at least 10,000 cigarettes, 22,000 cigars, or more than 400 pounds of tobacco.

After his death, [defendant/victim] Garner was found to possess four sealed packs of cigarettes, and a fifth pack that was opened and contained 15 cigarettes [meaning he likely sold 5 loose cigarettes]. That quantity of cigarettes was far fewer than required by the felony statute D’Amico cited in his report. Under state law, Garner could not have been guilty of more than a misdemeanor.

“This was your job, to address untaxed cigarette conditions, and you didn’t understand the charge?” asked Oliver.

“I didn’t understand the specific charge,” replied D’Amico.

He [the cop] said he mistakenly accused Garner of the felony because he was stressed.

“That was a total mistake,” D’Amico explained of the charge. “Due to the circumstances, I wasn’t thinking clearly. I may have rushed the paperwork a bit."

The officer then admitted to another error in his paperwork. D’Amico wrote that cops had used no physical force to arrest Garner.
NYPD cop admits filing report after Eric Garner chokehold death claiming his sale of loose cigarettes was a felony was ‘total mistake’

The hell the cop made a simple mistake by stating that no physical force to arrest Garner was used. That was no mistake. That was admitted to/said after the cop learned that there was a full video/audio recording of the police first assaulting Garner, then murdering him.

So the murdering cop was 'stressed' "due to the circumstances" (what circumstances, I wonder?), the cop was not thinking clearly, and he states to superiors that he MAY HAVE rushed the paperwork a bit -- so much so that he charged the defendant with a felony instead of a misdemeanor? I can't even believe the sale of 1 loose cigarette would rise to the level of a misdemeanor. I don't even think the sale of a 'loosie' cigarette rises to the level of a traffic ticket, yet whatever breach of the law it was was good enough for him to get the death penalty as punishment. As I recall, I am reasonably certain that NYPD had outlawed the use of chokeholds by this time due to their often lethal outcome.

Obviously, the now-deceased defendant was 9,999 cigarettes short of the intended 'spirit of the law'/average/minimum for the upgrade from a misdemeanor to a felony to apply. What the hell were all of the cops present thinking that day when they individually then collectively decided to arrest this 'bad actor'?

Unfortunately, police in this country are well known to stoop to levels way and well below those of just about every other country on Earth, whether the other country has a "western style" of law enforcement or not. WHY this is the case is unknown to me, but stats tell us that the USA locks up more people than any other country on the planet, assuming level population playing fields.

That is the level at which some asinine, stupid cops stoop to - just to make an arrest, which is why I firmly believe that some cops (very, very few) would actually arrest someone caught smoking or possessing a cigarette once possessing or smoking cigarettes is someday banned.

I agree with you, Will, that an arrest would in general be very highly unlikely, but the USA's history of stupid, moronic arrests by all levels of sworn law enforcement personnel says otherwise. These cops defy logic.

NYPD cop admits filing report after Eric Garner chokehold death claiming his sale of loose cigarettes was a felony was ‘total mistake’

John
 
I think the method of making it illegal on those under 18 and continuing for them is a smart way to do it. They are legally not allowed to smoke, so continuing that doesn't take anything away from them in reality. These days in the US however, there is already a strong group who feel they should be allowed to kill themselves and others because "My Freedom!"...

A Guy
 
These days in the US however, there is already a strong group who feel they should be allowed to kill themselves and others because "My Freedom!"...

And that group does not understand the difference between freedom, which always comes with attendant responsibilities and obligations to others, and license (entry 1, defn 3).

Nor do they have even the vaguest understanding of the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my face." The idea that rights and freedoms also belong to others, and need to be balanced and weighed against those of one's own, is entirely alien.
 
If you have a country where people frequently carry firearms, it is no surprise if you have police officers who are nervous and overreact.

This in no ways excuses such overreactions, but when any petty incident an officer is attending can potentially turn lethal, it does perhaps explain part of the reason that they seem to happen so often.

As for Freedom, well whose freedom takes precedence, because that's often where things get complicated, and that's why we have laws to regulate them.
 
The problem with smoking, as I see it, is it affects so many others, not just the smoker.

Setting aside the obvious issues with "second-hand" smoke, there is the following too:

Smoking drives up health insurance costs for non-smokers.​
Smoking drives up taxes for non-smokers - when it comes to medical costs in public (taxpayer funded) hospitals,​
Many (most?) smokers do not "field dress" their butts.​
Damage, including injuries and deaths from fires caused by careless smoking, including the costs to fight such fires,​
Damage, including injuries and deaths from accidents caused by distracted drivers.​

No doubt, there are other costs that affect us all.

They say the biggest critics are ex-smokers. As an ex-smoker, I agree. The problem with smoking for those in my generation (proud Boomer), is smoking used to be promoted. I remember commercials on TV and ads in magazines and papers where doctors endorsed smoking as a way ease stress. It is amazing how addictive it is. I quit for the last time over 30 years ago. I remember even 10 years after quitting occasionally having the urge - like after a big, satisfying meal.

My dad was in the Air Force in the middle of the cold war. Those were very stressful times for those in the military. He was a heavy 2-pack a day smoker. He quit cold turkey and soon developed serious acid reflux and ulcers. The doctor told him to start smoking again.

They used to give out complimentary 4-packs of smokes on airlines (when smoking was allowed in flight).

When I was in basic training and tech school in 1971-72, we were given "smoke breaks". But also, we were told, "If you smoke, light 'em up. If you don't, pick 'em up." I started smoking so I didn't have to pick up other's butts.
 
I remember commercials on TV and ads in magazines and papers where doctors endorsed smoking as a way ease stress.

I honestly don't recall any TV commercials where doctors endorsed smoking, but I do remember the ads in print media. It's funny, but I just finished up as props master for a run of A Christmas Story: The Play, and had to acquire all sorts of vintage stuff, including publications. The Life magazine I was using onstage is full of cigarette ads with medical endorsements and it's from 1940.

I do remember the TV ads with the Marlboro Man and similar, though, and also recall when cigarette advertising was banned on TV, and later in print media.
 
The problem with smoking, as I see it, is it affects so many others, not just the smoker.

Indeed. The same problem exists (to a much worse extent) with firearms in America causing firearm-related deaths and woundings every single day of each year, even when taking yearly (and tragic) mass shootings out of the equation. That becomes understandable when you realise that 120+ firearms exist for every 100 American residents.

Smoking is most certainly a harmful habit, but in all honesty, I think America has much more serious (and urgent) problems it should deal with first, such as effective gun control legislation as well as getting all of the existing guns off the streets as well.

"If you smoke, light 'em up. If you don't, pick 'em up." I started smoking so I didn't have to pick up other's butts.

Now I've heard everything! :ROFLMAO: :D :ROFLMAO:
 
I totally agree that smoking is detrimental to health and that the long-term effects are well-documented. I gave up 3 years ago. Had some serious health issues with my lungs. Now, vape. It's a less harmful option that gives me the same amount of pleasure.
 
I totally agree that smoking is detrimental to health and that the long-term effects are well-documented. I gave up 3 years ago. Had some serious health issues with my lungs. Now, vape. It's a less harmful option that gives me the same amount of pleasure.
Less harmful, but not safe.
 

Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!

Back
Top