Long term plan for smoking ban

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998211#Comment_119998211

Can you define a "smoker". Similar to my earlier post, which of the following 75-year olds are smokers?

• Smoked 2 packs a day in their twenties, but nothing since the age of thirty
• Smoked a few a day since their late teens and continues to do so
• Occasionally smoked a few on nights out throughout their 20's-50's.
• Smoked half a pack a day starting at 21 until the age of 50
• Smoked a pack a day from 30 until 60.
• Smoked 2 packs a day from 25 until the age of 55
• Smokes 2 packs a day since their late teens and continues to do so.
• Took a few puffs at the age of 15, but didn't like it and never tried it again.

I also don't know what you mean by:

Just analyse the date of health care and the health outcomes for smokers and non-smokers.

If a smoker presents with lung cancer, is that considered a smoking-related condition? What about a non-smoker presenting with the same condition? If a smoker presents with a stroke, is that a smoking related condition? What about a non-smoker presenting with the same condition? What about if smoker presents with a broken leg - is that a smoking related condition?

mcsean2163

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998214#Comment_119998214

If covid19 lockdowns come back I think I'll be out protesting with the loonies. It was an absolute disaster and teachers are now telling us how it badly impacted our childs education.

If someone wants to smoke tobacco, let them off. Too much laws. Point out the negatives clearly and legalise everything and get rid of criminal gangs.

Jinglejangle69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998358#Comment_119998358

Not talking about lockdowns, just when things become law for the greater good.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998378#Comment_119998378

But with covid, the measures were not necessarily about "you" getting it, it was about "you" spreading it to vulnerable people (and potentially many "other" people dying in a matter of weeks because of "your" choices. With smoking, it is a personal choice that may result in an impact on just "you" decades from making that choice. Do I see the numbers of smokers declining over time? Yes. And I have no problem with that. But, as a liberal, I have massive problems with forcing people, and belittling them to "conform" to the loudest voice. I also have a massive problem with disinformation and arguments taken as gospel that have no factual foundation.

ILoveYourVibes

It will just go underground.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998300#Comment_119998300

FFS there's enough smokers / ex-smokers of one kind or another and non smokers to be able to do a stastical analysis comparing the different categories probability of having different medical conditions and age at death to be able to link frequency and extent of smoking with different conditions.

kowloonkev

I just don't understand why alcohol is getting a free pass by this leader. With bans on smoking in confined public places already in place, alcohol is a much bigger problem for most societies and affects far more innocent family members as well as random victims of anti social behaviour caused by alcohol consumption.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998605#Comment_119998605

Smoking is a much easier target.

There is a "positive" social aspect to alcohol consumption that doesn't exist with smoking.

By introducing restrictions on alcohol you can be accused of putting jobs, businesses etc at risk.

Far less so if putting restrictions on tobacco.

dotsman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119998573#Comment_119998573

You would think!

Yet, no study that gets published ever does that. The only studies that are ever published are kept very vague when it comes to defining a "smoker" and what constitutes a "smoking related condition/death". That way, it can be manipulated to say whatever the publisher of the report (always an anti-smoking lobby) wants it to say.

Typically, it is "if the person ever smoked" and "regardless of whether smoking actually caused the condition/death", we will count it as a "smoking-related condition/death".

DublinWriter

The argument regarding the cost to heathcare is moot and stupid.

Because here's the funny thing - we all die.

I spoke to an actuary many years ago and he made the following argument.

Most of us will require 90% of our total healthcare attention in the last year or two of our lives, smokers or not.

Smokers tend to die younger, typically in their late 60's, putting less of a draw on resources than say a non-smoker who lives into his/her mid-80's.

75% of the €15.80 price of a pack of 20 cigarettes is composed of tax in the form of excise duty and VAT and goes directly into the public purse.

That's a huge amount of tax to have taken out of the system.

DublinWriter

As for the NZ banning 'new' smokers - well clap clap clap - you've just created another lucrative revenue stream for criminals.

As the Aus/NZ tax on cigarettes is already high, do you think the criminals will be bothered to supply those who aren't legally allowed to smoke? Hell no, they'll create a back-fill black market for those older who already smoke once they establish their supply chains.

I see less and less kids smoking now, which is a good thing, but it always smacks of a lack of creativity when governments resort to the default 'tax or ban' position when they want to prohibit certain types of behaviour and consumption.

maik3n

The new centre-right wing NZ government, have now scrapped the proposed age limit ban.

http://www.npr.org/2023/11/27/1215374525/new-zealand-tobacco-cigarette-ban