New Zealand set to ban smoking

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah, my expertise comes from watching them disappear on a regular basis.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah, my expertise comes from watching them disappear on a regular basis.

Thats excellent!
Some of the skills people claim here are remarkable.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thank you, but I have to credit you on that one. I find it enjoyable to watch.

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.

That misses the point entirely. What about when it's something you DON'T applaud? That's what this opens the door to, and it's how they're getting away with this entire lockdown - most people are afraid of Covid, so it doesn't matter what civil liberties are taken away from them.

originally posted by: CthruU
There not banning it at all, just greatly restricting its sale to around 500 outlets.

But they should ban it outright as should all nations.

Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Most smokers say they wish they could quit anyhow- lets help them.

Did you read the full article. They want it completely banned by 2025. Why not alcohol? Talk about addiction! Talk about damage and death. Because this type of stuff only paves the way to no more alcohol, (hey it's illegal in some Middle Eastern countries). I really think people have to differentiate between their agreement about something being bad, like smoking, and the METHODS used to curb it.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
Scientists, Pfizer own documents say leaky

Sources please.

CDC states even being vxd can still get it spread it and die.

Yes, they are called breakthrough cases, and every vaccine, for every disease, has them. They are rare.

What is concerning is the drop off in immunity after about seven months. This is much the same for live infections, as with the vaccines.

And there are also issues with different strains, as it now appears people can be infected with Omicron and Delta strains simultaneously, and having had one, does not provide much immunity against the other, even in the short term.

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

A vaccine is a type of medicine. A treatment is a type of medicine.

What is a vaccine, and how do vaccines work?

The New Zealand Medicines Act 1981. Section 3(1)(a) defines a “medicine” as:

“any substance or article that is manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied wholly or principally for administering to 1 or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose; and achieves, or is likely to achieve, its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological, or metabolic means.” [emphasis added].

Vaccines overview - Australian Theraputic Goods Administration

COVID-19 vaccines: key facts | European Medicines Agency

Vaccination | definition of vaccination by Medical dictionary

Lupus and vaccines | Lupus Foundation of America

I could go on, but around the world, vaccines are considered a type of medicine - preventative medicine.

No kids myself but my Grandpa smoked from age 13 till he passed in his 80s and could work harder than anyone.

People survive being shot, electrocuted, drowned, or falling from airplanes, too. The thing is, they are quite risky. Just because a few survive, should not mean that one should recommend such activities as safe.

What a pathetic defense of authoritarian edicts

Children of a young age still are being caught smoking. This legislation is a further attempt to counter that fact, through legal administration of sales to minors. No smoker is being prosecuted for their habit by this legislation. To do nothing to try and stop children from becoming addicted to smoking is irresponsible. This legislation is not banning anyone who currently smokes from continuing their habit. It is not authoritarian. It is not contrary to any human right.

Are you for forcing people into concentration camps?

No. There are NO concentration or internment camps in New Zealand. It isn't happening here.

Similarly, my mentioning the legislation on a public forum is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Your entire overreactive premise is because you think all this stupid stuff is happening in New Zealand, due to some online lies, but we are one of the freest and least authoritarian countries in the world. Here's an official list of free countries, compiled from several international sources:

Freedom Index by Country 2021

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

No one here is being sent to any sort of internment camp. It isn't happening. The people here wouldn't allow it - we are a small country with a government that is accountable to its citizens.

originally posted by: thebtheb

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.

That misses the point entirely. What about when it's something you DON'T applaud? That's what this opens the door to, and it's how they're getting away with this entire lockdown - most people are afraid of Covid, so it doesn't matter what civil liberties are taken away from them.

The initial lockdowns are now over.

We have implemented a 'traffic light' system where regional responses relate directly to risk (measured primarily from the numbers of new cases in the region).

Nothing codified as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being taken away from anyone. Things that can self-harm (like smoking, driving drunk, or exposing oneself to a spreading prevalent disease) just aren't rights, and they never were.

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.

I want you to think about this answer before you respond - do you think that smoking, should be classed as a human right?

If not, then don't argue its case.

a reply to: chr0naut

I believe in freedom of choice and that governments should keep the hell out of people's lives as much as practically possible.
I don't believe people or governments have a right to restrict other peoples freedom of choice and/or imposing their values and beliefs on others unless absolutely necessary.

If a grown adult chooses to smoke who are you or I to deny them that right?
Smoking in public places endangers others, hence its widespread ban. Where others aren't being harmed I see no justification in it being prohibited.

Its pretty straight forward.

I'll argue whatever case I bloody feel like and you will NEVER stop me.

So, to summarise:

....do you think that smoking, should be classed as a human right?

I think the Right to choose is a human right, don't you?

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: CthruU
There not banning it at all, just greatly restricting its sale to around 500 outlets.

But they should ban it outright as should all nations.

Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Most smokers say they wish they could quit anyhow- lets help them.

Did you read the full article. They want it completely banned by 2025.

And that's a bad thing?

Why not alcohol? Talk about addiction! Talk about damage and death. Because this type of stuff only paves the way to no more alcohol, (hey it's illegal in some Middle Eastern countries).

The usual response when people want to oppose alcohol prohibition, is to point out the failure that it was in the US. However, has prohibition failed in these other countries?

Obviously, there must have been a reason and sufficient political justification, and will, for prohibition in the first place in America. Has that gone away, because the method they used failed?

The failure was of not re-trying, and of not changing the method, when the one they were doing proved ineffective. The problem had not been solved - but the government just gave up trying.

I really think people have to differentiate between their agreement about something being bad, like smoking, and the METHODS used to curb it.

Do you think that a method that does not prosecute any current smokers and only relates to sales, starting with minors, is ethically wrong?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe in freedom of choice and that governments should keep the hell out of people's lives as much as practically possible.
I don't believe people or governments have a right to restrict other peoples freedom of choice and/or imposing their values and beliefs on others unless absolutely necessary.

If a grown adult chooses to smoke who are you or I to deny them that right?
Smoking in public places endangers others, hence its widespread ban. Where others aren't being harmed I see no justification in it being prohibited.

Its pretty straight forward.

I'll argue whatever case I bloody feel like and you will NEVER stop me.

So, to summarise:

....do you think that smoking, should be classed as a human right?

I think the Right to choose is a human right, don't you?

What if people choose to open fire on kids at school?
What if people choose to enact pedophilia?
What if they choose to drive drunk, or even ram people they disagree with?
What if people choose to mix up some ricin and release it in a subway station or a shopping mall?
What if people choose to set fire to churches and historical buildings?
What if people choose to contaminate foods with toxins or dangerous objects?
What if someone chooses to put a suicide vest onto some poor person and then to detonate them in a crowded place.

Clearly, you cannot just allow something as nebulous and all encompassing as 'choosing something' to be considered as a right.

a reply to: chr0naut

Clearly you have no clue how rights and liberties work.

My shocked face.



Hint, they end where another's begin.

a reply to: chr0naut

Where others aren't being harmed I see no justification in it being prohibited.

Take it you conveniently chose to ignore this part of my post.

So, to make it perfectly clear.
I believe in people's right to chose if it doesn't unnecessarily harm others or interfere in other people's rights.

Pretty straight forward.

You seem pretty good at cherry picking and being very selective in what you reply to.
You blatantly ignore points you can't argue against.

Lots of generalisations and very few specifics.

Is your answer to anything you personally don't like or that you disagree with banning/censorship/suppression etc?
Do you believe you have a right to impose your opinions and beliefs on others?

I get the impression that like many sanctimonious and self-righteous people you arrogantly assume that you know what is best for people and that people shouldn't have the option to make decisions and choices for themselves.

I hope I'm wrong in that.

a reply to: chr0naut

You clearly have a problem in knowing what it is to be human.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also, I cannot find any references to Monsanto funding vaccine research.

So keyword I assume is vaccine, because of course RNA research is not vaccine research

A decade ago, Monsanto discovered that RNA could directly modify the expression of plant genes.

Monsanto (now Bayer) and other seed companies have started employing the extraordinary power of RNA interference (RNAi) in spray form, to knockdown a destructive insect’s genes, effectively killing them by shutting off genes that they need to survive. The RNAi spray, can directly genetically modify plants, by entering into the plant’s cells through the leaves.

They also took over a company called Beeologics, which had found a way to introduce RNA into sugar water that bees feed on in order to kill a parasitic mite that infests hives.

…

Crops that express double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules are being developed that take advantage of the endogenous RNAi machinery of target insects and can produce highly specific insecticidal oligonucleotides (siRNA) for agricultural pest control. DvSnf7 dsRNA expressed in GM maize confers protection against the western corn rootworm, a threat known as the “billion dollar pest” because of the damage it can cause.

source

No I do not think one way or the other about how life in New Zealand is occurring right now as I am not there.
I think any loss of choice in support of tyranny is bad.
Quit smoking years ago tried it again a few days ago and it tasted like garbage
Personally do not wish anyone to go thru the addiction hell I did with cigarettes
But it is not my place to tell them they cannot go there
Think of all the land New Zealand will have if the sea level drops.
You may be the next "world"
Make sure the people get it not the controllers who care not for us.
a reply to: chr0naut

Removed By Staff

originally posted by: thebtheb
While smoking would not be called a health prescription by anyone, it can also be said that banning it is none of anyone's business. Just as suspected, the current world climate and measures will continue to limit whatever they damn well please, and eventually they will link it to the vax-pass.

So you don't smoke? Good for you! What about drinking? What will happen there? Or smoking weed or anything else the powers that be deem unfit for you to do as a citizen of Prison Planet Earth?

LINK

While i am not defending anyone taking away their choice to do so or not it is a lot more honest then allowing cigarettes to be sold while 80% of it is going to taxes (in the EU anyway) and then still blame smokers for costing the healthcare system money.

The same goes on with alcohol. For decades they banned weed , which you don't need to smoke perse' to take in. While alcohol is many more times destructive to the human body then even Heroine is, Yet alcohol is legal.

a reply to: network dude

why not ban saving money? Ban days off. Ban smiling.

Looking around me the last few years that is exactly where they are heading.

So….

When are we going to outlaw children going out and having abortions without informing their parents? I mean I have smoked quite a few cigarettes in my time. I quit on February 8, 2020 on my own choice. The rest of the world had a nic fit called Covid, though. But as many as I smoked, no one died like what happened with an abortion.

NZ kids sneaking off to get Vid Vaxes? Should that be allowed? And my personal favorite part of this whole story….smoking/buying cigarettes is banned. Vaping however, is not. So vape up Johnny. Just one big happy Christmas at the Bender household.