New Zealand set to ban smoking

originally posted by: mindpurge

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

SO smoking shouldn't be an individual choice, it should be determined by government.

How. . . . authoritarian.

Smoking reduces the quality of life of significant numbers of people. It is also absolutely unnecessary.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an internationally agreed list of things which should be considered Human Rights.

You get on a rather slippery slope if you abandon real rights for some loop-de-loop crazy thing which you then try and portray as a right.

There is no such thing as right to choose to smoke.

A safety protocol, enforced in law, as so many other laws are, is not authoritarian.

I'm sorry, but your post is so full of # that I could no longer ignore your absolute propaganda.

But instead of showing you, I'll ask you this.

What right do you have to Ban someone from choosing an unhealthy habbit?

My duty as a parent to protect my children, and other children, from harm?

Is fast food healthy? Fast food and unhealthy food is BY FAR the worst. Obesity and all factors kill more people in 1 year than smoking kills in 10.

Starvation and malnutrition also kill. The difference between foods and cigarettes is that one of them is entirely unnecessary.

So are we going to ban Milkshakes? By your definition, you applaud the Government for taking away your right to eat then. Only eat what they say you can eat.

And you are suggesting that someone is likely to ban milkshakes? Get real. An absurd argument is really weak.

Smoking isn't the real killer, your body can easily clean itself up from smoking. It's all the other things you do that inhibit your body from cleaning itself. Like alcohol (which is Poison), like fast food (which is poison), like mountain climbing (which is deadly), like riding a bicycle (which can get you killed).

I'm not defending smoking or saying it's healthy. But I smoke. It's my vice, I ENJOY smoking. EVERY OTHER factor of my life is healthy. I eat Keto, I exercise, I'm a mailman, I walk 20 km a day, 100 km a week, weighed down with parcels and mail. I do this in every kind of weather. I outrun non-smokers, my doctor just gave me a positively clean bill of health. I've been smoking for 20+ years. I'm healthy AF.

And yet, my grandfather, who smoked frequently, died of lung cancer. He attributed his cancer to the smoking, but said he couldn't give it up, and then it was too late.

No-one else among my ancestors has died of lung cancer.

So with your logic, we should what? All live in sterilized globes with feeding paste based, intake based off our body mass and protein requirement?


No, that is an absurd conclusion, not founded in any logic, let alone mine.

You seem to have lost what this topic thread is about - legislation to stop sales of cigarettes to 14 years old's and younger.

That's exactly what you're saying if you don't support ones right to chose. You're either for or against, there is no grey area. In this argument, grey area = hypocrisy. "It's OK for this, but not for this" doesn't exist. You chose. Up or Down.

So either your a hypocrite, an authoritarian or a libertarian.

Make your choice.

I think my choice has been clear.

I think this legislation is neither authoritarian, nor unnecessary, but is to protect children, 14 years old and younger, from becoming addicted to something that is likely to have fairly major health repercussions on them in later life.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is a diversion from the real problems it fills your focus, as something that you can do something about. You feel empowered as a savior "For the children" But just this piece of work has enriched the Big Pharmaceutical companies mega fold. That's why Gates and Monsanto were major funders, and any influencer that pushes gets paid well. Nothing is for the general health of the population, it is for the bottom line of big corporations, and they will use any useful idiot they can recruit.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Know what they share?

Authoritarianism. They same views you've publicly supported.

To the previous comment to me; claiming "its for the children" equally apply to the OP and to your capitulation to the same stance

Despite the spin of the OP and the headline of the article, the legislation aims to curtail the sales of an addictive drug, that causes life threatening medical conditions, to minors.

You have no moral high ground to stand on.

At most, you read the post and perhaps the headline of the article, neither of which made mention that this legislation only applies to minors, and you went off full of bluster and outrage.

Nice try but we can simply go back to the beginning and demolish your gaslighting attempt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did you read in, the liked article from the OP, about what the legislation actually is and does?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ratcals

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

Yeah, because this has worked so well when drugs were banned.

Yes but previous efforts have concentrated on trying to prosecute the drug taker. The New Zealand legislation aims to curtail the sales of cigarettes to minors.

Then I guess we should curtail the sale of drugs to minors too. Oh wait.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

It is a diversion from the real problems it fills your focus, as something that you can do something about. You feel empowered as a savior "For the children" But just this piece of work has enriched the Big Pharmaceutical companies mega fold. That's why Gates and Monsanto were major funders, and any influencer that pushes gets paid well. Nothing is for the general health of the population, it is for the bottom line of big corporations, and they will use any useful idiot they can recruit.

The 'big pharma' companies are nothing compared with food and consumables manufacture and distribution companies and definitely, the majority of those are pushing unhealthy products.

Also, I cannot find any references to Monsanto funding vaccine research. They are an agrichemicals company and recently have run into financial problems (and a number of legal losses relating to glyphosate), and were sold. From June 7 2018, Monsanto no longer exists as a US company, a year before the first cases of COVID-19 were seen.

Similarly, The Gates Foundation has contributed to medical research, that is why the foundation was set-up - as a philanthropic foundation.

Why is it that anyone who is actually doing anything positive to counter the pandemic is being falsely accused, and yet do you think that ANY of these people accusing and impugning everyone have done the slightest thing to help people, have, for example, the Bullchute liars, (like the one that edited a video and falsely attributed it to that German doctor recently, or the one that was a deepfake that appeared is it Jacinda Ardern was smoking pot/crack. Someone spent hours making up those lies) given a cent of their money for helping others?

The serial belief in relatively anonymous, and debunked, sources, as more credible than official media sites (with cross checks, and references, a byline, and other verifiable details) means that person is gullible and foolish.

originally posted by: ratcals

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ratcals

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

Yeah, because this has worked so well when drugs were banned.

Yes but previous efforts have concentrated on trying to prosecute the drug taker. The New Zealand legislation aims to curtail the sales of cigarettes to minors.

Then I guess we should curtail the sale of drugs to minors too. Oh wait.

Surely you would see that as a contrary to them being able to choose for themselves. Freedom! Liberty! Pointless death to all!

a reply to: chr0naut

You seem to have lost what this topic thread is about - legislation to stop sales of cigarettes to 14 years old's and younger.

You're clearly the one here misunderstanding this law. You really believe NZ of all places would allow a 14 year old child to buy cigarettes? Of course not, you need to be 18 years old. This law will increase the minimum smoking age from 18 by one year every year starting in 2027 from what I've read. It's obvious why they think this approach will work, because it doesn't impact people 18 or older who are already addicted to smoking. Eventually only super old people will legally be allowed to buy smokes in NZ, it's clown world stuff. If you want to prevent your children from smoking then how about raising them properly yourself instead of relying on the state to raise your kids for you.

EDIT: your location says "Mordor, Zealandia" and if that means NZ then you must know the law, suggesting you are being intentionally deceptive.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry. And starting with the youngest is a reasonable method to achieve that goal.

Cool
Corn syrup is next
Followed by going outside without sunscreen
Followed by watching television

Own it fascist!

"Followed by not watching television."

Fixed that for you.


# 1518

a reply to: IAMALLYETALLIAM

what YOU do with YOUR body.

If it was about THAT, you'd all be correct.

However, smoking has no benefit to anyone, and it harms OTHERS greatly. Ever heard of 'passive smoking'? They try to control this and that, and the end result is that innocent non-smokers have to inhale more and more smoke of those gutless addicts with no willpower, that love sucking a fake teet. How childish is that? It's like these people can't grow beyond the baby age when they just HAVE to suck on something on regular basis.

It was better when they could smoke in restaurants and bars, and when bars weren't open until evening. Now that these alcoholics and babylike sucking addicts gather around the restaurant areas in shopping centers, and smoking is banned inside, there's no square inch in almost anywhere that would not be contaminated by the smoke from the thousands of chemicals they put in those cancer rolls people suck and inhale the poisonous smoke of.

Banning smoking might be a big blow against freedom and choice, but it's one form of tyranny I wouldn't really mind seeing in reality. If we're soon going to be under 100% tyranny anyway, I would actually love if that started from exactly that - basically giving everyone clean, breathable air AT LAST.

I absolutely HATE walking through a shopping center that has almost tactically placed numerous bars for drunken smokers who of course populate every damn pathway so thoroughly, it's literally impossible to not inhale smoke when doing you everyday grocery shopping. This situation is unbearable, so if it takes a ban to stop it, I am not going to shed tears for those poor weak addicts without a backbone. Grow up and stop sucking.

It would be like that TNG episode, where the drug addicts are forced to go without their drug. Sure, the withdrawal might be difficult to go through, but after that, they can finally truly live and not waste their time, resources and money pushing cancerous poison smoke into their lungs all the time, like they're trying to catch cancer or make their lungs as sick and unhealthy as possible.

Smoking is insanity anyway, it's doing harm to yourself AND others, which is usually the definition of 'dangerous lunatic that has to be controlled'.

If you can smoke without forcing others to inhale your storebought poison, go right ahead, I don't mind. But if you change my environment from healthy, fresh air to poisonous smoke, you deserve to burn in hell.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Vaping creates the same effect. I argued with a med student over it before we agreed i was better vaping than smoking. Good enough for me.

But since vaping I've had no real respiratory issues. Obviously not smoking has helped, but i am immunosuppresed enough im having medical intervention for a stye in my eye right now.

a reply to: Shoujikina

Got to love the sanctimonious self-righteous.

Prohibition never eliminated anything and only serves to profit those who cater to the inevitable illegal trade of such prohibitions and the ego's of the 'virtuous' who seek to impose their moral code and opinions on others.

In my lifetime I've seen a massive reduction in the numbers of people who smoke.
I'll go out on a limb and say that's been down to three things; banning smoking on places like pubs - something you seem to find offensive - taxes.....and by far the biggest thing, education.

a reply to: generik

Well, if you can't buy it, you can still grow it, I guess.

Seems silly to me. They are just creating a lucrative new black market is all.

originally posted by: chr0naut

They are an agrichemicals company and recently have run into financial problems (and a number of legal losses relating to glyphosate), and were sold.

Yes Monsanto were sold to IG Farben's Bayer and there's more info here on Court documents describing how they engaged an army of internet disinfo agents so that 'no article, no comment, no social media post would be is left unanswered by these third party proxies'.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: chr0naut

You seem to have lost what this topic thread is about - legislation to stop sales of cigarettes to 14 years old's and younger.

You're clearly the one here misunderstanding this law. You really believe NZ of all places would allow a 14 year old child to buy cigarettes? Of course not, you need to be 18 years old. This law will increase the minimum smoking age from 18 by one year every year starting in 2027 from what I've read. It's obvious why they think this approach will work, because it doesn't impact people 18 or older who are already addicted to smoking. Eventually only super old people will legally be allowed to buy smokes in NZ, it's clown world stuff. If you want to prevent your children from smoking then how about raising them properly yourself instead of relying on the state to raise your kids for you.

EDIT: your location says "Mordor, Zealandia" and if that means NZ then you must know the law, suggesting you are being intentionally deceptive.

As none of my children have smoked, and they are no longer children. I must have been OK as a parent.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Shoujikina

Got to love the sanctimonious self-righteous.

Prohibition never eliminated anything and only serves to profit those who cater to the inevitable illegal trade of such prohibitions and the ego's of the 'virtuous' who seek to impose their moral code and opinions on others.

In my lifetime I've seen a massive reduction in the numbers of people who smoke.
I'll go out on a limb and say that's been down to three things; banning smoking on places like pubs - something you seem to find offensive - taxes.....and by far the biggest thing, education.

Then why would you have an avatar of someone smoking? Do you see it as something cool, making some sort of character statement? Or, could that attitude be part part of your total compliance to conditioning by the advertising that has been so prolific and pervasive in the past, that you don't evaluate smoking for what it is - Addictive, expensive, functionally useless, inconvenient, and an unnecessary risk to your health and to others in proximity to you when you smoke?

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: chr0naut

They are an agrichemicals company and recently have run into financial problems (and a number of legal losses relating to glyphosate), and were sold.

Yes Monsanto were sold to IG Farben's Bayer and there's more info here on Court documents describing how they engaged an army of internet disinfo agents so that 'no article, no comment, no social media post would be is left unanswered by these third party proxies'.

Yes, but do you have any evidence that links Monsanto to funding or investing in human vaccine research, as was claimed several posts back?

All these speculative possible links are just conspiracy theory doom-porn until someone finds proof positive.

My guess is, that if Monsanto was so powerful and controlled 1/3 of the worlds food chain, then it would be buying Bayer, and not the other way around. So, the conspiracy theory aspects have failed, debunked by the actual consequences.

a reply to: chr0naut

Then why would you have an avatar of someone smoking?

Because he was a character in a comic I used to read avidly as a kid and it brings back pleasant memories of a happy childhood.

FFS, some people just want to over analyse things - in this instance I prefer analise - and pluck imagined things out of thin air to fit their own preconceived opinions.

What a complete and utter load of bollocks your whole post is, full of assumptions and made up nonsense.

Do you see it as something cool, making some sort of character statement?

Not at all.
What on earth makes you think that from what I wrote?
Again, utter bollocks.

Or, could that attitude be part part of your total compliance to conditioning by the advertising that has been so prolific and pervasive in the past, that you don't evaluate smoking for what it is -

I know exactly what smoking is.
I don't need sanctimonious, know-it-all, condescending twats trying to second guess - and getting it so, so wrong - what I think and believe.
How you read that into what I posted defies any sort of logic and reveals far more about you than it does anything else.

....and an unnecessary risk to your health and to others in proximity to you when you smoke?

Yet none of that trumps people's right to do as they see fit and doesn't excuse people trying to impose their morals values etc on others or sanction government prohibition that will only fund the illegal trade of cigarettes etc and line the pockets of criminals.

Prohibition does not work...it never has.

Surely you don't need me or anyone else giving you a lesson on what should be blatantly obvious to anyone with even a basic, rudimentary knowledge of Prohibition era America.

Scientists, Pfizer own documents say leaky
CDC states even being vxd can still get it spread it and die.
Medicine wait it was a vax earlier so which is it "medicine" which is used to treat an illness or a vx which "protects"
tripped over your own words sad
No kids myself but my Grandpa smoked from age 13 till he passed in his 80s and could work harder than anyone.
What a pathetic defense of authoritarian edicts
Are you for forcing people into concentration camps?
Your argument seems to push this and ignorance
Quit trying to oppress and send anyone who disagrees with you to "camp"
Stalin would be proud
Anyone with a conscience is appalled and disgusted by it
Your hill, good luck defending authoritarian policies


a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry. And starting with the youngest is a reasonable method to achieve that goal.

Cool
Corn syrup is next
Followed by going outside without sunscreen
Followed by watching television

Own it fascist!

"Followed by not watching television."

Fixed that for you.


# 1518

Oh no
They have to have someone to tell them exactly what to do, how to feel, ect

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah, execrable is how I'd describe them.

Excellent!
Your mastery of the subject is in no doubt.

From a looooong line of experts no doubt.


Lol