A smoke-free country? New Zealand taxes aim for it

May 24, 2012 Full story: SavannahNow 42

In this Jan. 18, 2012 photo, a smoker puffs on a cigarette in the central business district in Auckland, New Zealand.

Read more
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#1 May 24, 2012
Smoke free? What a joke. They're just working on the fact that some people will still keep smoking, so they can rape us for more taxes.

I can't remember the exact figures, but if you raise the price of something by 10% you can lose far more than 10% of your sales and still increase your profit. I actually seem to think the figure was close to 25% loss of sales before your profit is negatively affected.

They're only trying to appear socially responsible. The government will not let the tax take on tobacco fall. If they were truly concerned for our well being, tobacco would have been made illegal years ago.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#2 May 24, 2012
Gutsfull wrote:
Smoke free? What a joke. They're just working on the fact that some people will still keep smoking, so they can rape us for more taxes.
I can't remember the exact figures, but if you raise the price of something by 10% you can lose far more than 10% of your sales and still increase your profit. I actually seem to think the figure was close to 25% loss of sales before your profit is negatively affected.
They're only trying to appear socially responsible. The government will not let the tax take on tobacco fall. If they were truly concerned for our well being, tobacco would have been made illegal years ago.
Politicians won't readily address an issue where the true benefits come several election cycles down the road. Addressing the problems caused by smoking directly by seeking to make it illegal invites retaliation (if only at the voting booths) from every addict in the voting area as well as everyone in a position to take part in the enormous profits that addicted market brings in to the industry. Then, of course, there are also the people who are actually persuaded by the PR campaigns the industry and its lackeys promulgate.

One problem with taking this approach, apart from the fact that politicians will begin to regard the tax base as something they can count on to avoid having to be responsible with spending, is that smoking seems to be more prevalent among the poor. Making a cigarette more expensive increases the value of even that last inch. When a smoker is getting on a bus, for instance, instead of dropping the butt (a litter issue which was, and remains, problematic and not a behavior I support) when the board, in a growing number of cases the smoker will knock the burning tip off (releasing a burst of smoke right by the door of the bus as the tip receives an influx of oxygen and burns faster) and carry the fuming butt onto the bus. I frequently see them tucked behind the ears of people sitting on buses here in the US.

The figures showing a reduction in cigarette sales exceeding the reduction in smokers should take into account that more of each cigarette is, on average, likely to be smoked when the price makes it more valuable. Health officials looking at this should bear in mind that the closer to the filter you smoke the heavier the load of toxins coming through.

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#3 May 24, 2012
Smokefree? Ouch! Luckily I do not smoke.

I do not see this happening, otherwise it would make sense that the next thing they will ban will be alcohol, then fast food, if the purpose for prohibition "lies" in the best interests of acting in a socially responsible manner.. my a55!

One of the major reasons for govt tax hikes on cigarettes instead of instant prohibition is simply PROFIT!! its just damn profitable! They i think are more than happy to "milk" it for what they can, not for what its worth.

Chris Hobman said the cost is "horrendous" and could drive some low-income people to commit crimes to support their habit- this guy is onto something. to the guy above me i think in NZ excessive alcohol and drug use is prevalent among the poor and smoking. I can say this however that the poor are still less likely to kick the habit despite tax/price hikes. I think they would get roll your own tobacco and roll up butts to really stretch out their packet of smokes (major assumption) or find some way of supporting their habit beg, "borrow" steal.

Michael Calhoun, a spokesman for the anti-smoking lobby group ASH, said the fact that a higher percentage of low-income people smoke will mean the tax increases will force many to cut back or quit entirely because they simply won't be able to afford their habit- this guy is clearly... STUPID!! the poor still smoke "p" here they go to criminal extents to support their habit. women go into prostitution or gang affiliation just to get a "hit" I mean surely there is the likelyhood of that result but it is an unrealistic statement. Anti smoking lobbyist? why doesnt he look into the consequences of his statements and associate himself with people who actually smoke? as these people will be the most affected? The anti smoking campaign is a narrowly driven agenda by complainy pants- who simply hate the smell of smoke, do they really care about your health or your spending? please.

They have now made prisons such as turangi smokefree. does this mean that since they have little or no money and no retail vendors to provide their habit theyre automatically going to kick the habit? NO! I mean this is one extreme a NZ smoker can be presented with:

No money to buy it
No shop to buy it from
No freedom to find a retail source
A Prohibited area to smoke it in (which means no smoking)

so how do they respond?

first is obvious get the "hook ups" from fellow inmates or "screws" get it snuck in from visitors etc.

a group in my course found this out as follows. first they get a nicotine patch, then they get a tea bag with hot water. they put the nicotine patch in the water with the tea bag and leave both to soak. they then dry the tea bag out and roll it using the "bible" rice paper. then they create a spark using the light switches in their rooms to light their cigarettes- quite a distance just to get that "hit" isnt it?

Ahh then theres the "empty" statistics "i'll just state some numbers here and there without interpreting any conclusion to their findings, its just putting it out there.
ItsAFact

New Market, MD

#4 May 24, 2012
Michael Calhoun is an ASH HOLE.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#5 May 24, 2012
I tried the patches once. I ended up on 40 patches a day, so I figured that smoking was a better option :)
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#7 May 25, 2012
Erana Monika wrote:
Smokefree? Ouch! Luckily I do not smoke.
I do not see this happening, otherwise it would make sense that the next thing they will ban will be alcohol, then fast food,
That is actually a predictable response/reasoning from a smokers' apologist or 'baccy lackey. "Slippery slope" is, I think, what they call the reasoning fallacy, but that's not my issue. Putting "fast food" in the same category as smoking and alcohol consumption is a bit much. Tobacco and alcohol both put people in the hospital who don't indulge in them. Emergency room doctors know the term "bar rush" as well as restaurant workers.
Erana Monika wrote:
One of the major reasons for govt tax hikes on cigarettes instead of instant prohibition is simply PROFIT!! its just damn profitable! They i think are more than happy to "milk" it for what they can, not for what its worth.
Short term thinking. As noted above, the payoff from taking it out of the system is not an immediate result, but the backlash from addicts in withdrawals is, as is the loss of the income you cite. Election cycles in action, because the eventual result is most likely going to be economically positive if only because of the reduction in cost. Again, this relates to alcohol as well.
Erana Monika wrote:
to the guy above me i think in NZ excessive alcohol and drug use is prevalent among the poor and smoking. I can say this however that the poor are still less likely to kick the habit despite tax/price hikes. I think they would get roll your own tobacco and roll up butts to really stretch out their packet of smokes (major assumption) or find some way of supporting their habit beg, "borrow" steal.
The poor generally tend to be less educated as well. Both demographics are associated with higher smoking rates. I suspect the same is true of alcohol consumption and drugs, without looking for the proper cause/effect relationship. It is possible that raiding ashtrays for butts to re-roll will increase spread of some diseases as well.
Erana Monika wrote:
The anti smoking campaign is a narrowly driven agenda by complainy pants- who simply hate the smell of smoke, do they really care about your health or your spending?
I can't speak to the folks in NZ, but personally I support smoking regulation because of the impact of smoking on my OWN health as much as for any other reason. I've had to move out of apartments because of the breathing difficulties caused IN MY OWN LIVING ROOM by smokers in other apartments on the hallway.
Beyond that, though, I oppose the tobacco industry and its totally parasitic profiteering. Most of the major tobacco producers in the US have been convicted of racketeering and fraud, with both the judges and people within the industry saying that the conviction and the resulting restrictions won't change anything but the level of deception. The fact that a criminal organization can LEGALLY be taking that kind of profit from the pockets of people who became addicted before they could legally purchase the products is simply and completely unacceptable.

As to the teabag thing, anyone doing that is smoking out of boredom or spite. The tedium of the process is not going to lead to a high enough rate of consumption to sustain the addiction.
If you are talking about the situation where the COUNTRY is smoke-free, rather than still on about the prisons, then it is even less realistic. First because you are no longer talking about people whose lives are defined by their law-breaking and second because a country where tobacco is illegal is a country where even patches would be black-market items and the cost would be even higher than the current tax schemes make it.
On the back end of it, too, you're still talking about producing a huge amount of smoke several (as in dozens of) times a day--when it is illegal to do that. There is no way that goes undetected to an extent where it supports the market.
Unrealistic, at best.

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#8 May 25, 2012
Hugh a good debate you are putting up here I must ask you this- what is the REAL reason for smoking prohibition or a smoke free country? It does not illustrate this in the article.

this is my real debate

http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/s...

current agendas are far too imposing such as "bras for africa" i'm a non smoker, but i dont enforce my idea on smokers by petitioning for a smokefree country.

tell me something you love to do and i will oppose, impose and petition for prohibition for that too- that is my stance on this argument.. how would you feel? despite ME and my other followers opposing it?

>.<
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#9 May 26, 2012
Erana Monika wrote:
Hugh a good debate you are putting up here I must ask you this- what is the REAL reason for smoking prohibition or a smoke free country? It does not illustrate this in the article.
this is my real debate
First of all, you have to address the definition of "real", since you are addressing an element that differs slightly from one individual to another. As I've said, my OWN "real" reasons regard the impact that public smoking by OTHERS has on ME (and my ability to choose what to do and where) and my personal disgust with the predatory criminal conspiracy that is the tobacco industry.
For others, the main focus may be the extremely prolific pollution generated by the use of tobacco.
Others still may be most moved by the strain on the health care system caused by the need to treat diseases caused by tobacco smoking, and making it more difficult for people with less preventable problems to get help that would greatly benefit them--and possibly make them better able to be productive citizens.
Some, too, may just see the extraordinary amount of money that is tied up in so destructive an endeavor as creating and servicing addiction and imagine what all that investment and research could do if put to a useful purpose.
Others, it seems, regard smoking as something that sucks up the time and energy of people who are ostensibly working.
Then, there are people who don't want to have to spend as much cleaning a rental unit between tenants as they have to when the tenant moving out was a smoker.
And, of course, there are some who are genuinely moved to activism by the plight of their fellow man, knowing that most smokers wish that they could stop and have been unable to beat the addiction. They see cutting off the legal supply as a means of lending a hand.
Then you have those who see the upside of the economics of cutting off the industry and saving the government money on health care, on cleaning up litter, and on an end to all the fires started by careless smokers. Some of them are thinking about all the people--smokers and not--who lose their lives every year in residential fires caused by smokers, or just the loss of property and of forest to those fires.

So, you see, there are a long list of very real reasons. The impact on public health is the most widespread and readily recognized as significant, and so that is the one most likely to be voiced. That one has, in fact, become so much a part of the awareness of every individual in the civilized world that perhaps the author(s) of this and other articles can be forgiven for believing that anyone reading would already know that there is reason.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#10 May 26, 2012
Erana Monika wrote:
i'm a non smoker, but i dont enforce my idea on smokers by petitioning for a smokefree country.
If there are active smokers anywhere you go, then you are NOT a nonsmoker, you are a PASSIVE smoker. Active smokers deny you the right to choose not to smoke--or at least they force you to regulate your whereabouts at their whim if you wish to make that choice. They don't HAVE to petition to take away your rights. They just DO it.
Erana Monika wrote:
tell me something you love to do and i will oppose, impose and petition for prohibition for that too- that is my stance on this argument.
No, you don't get off that easy. Ask me to tell you something I love to do that is ranked as the #1 preventable cause of death globally, that is--in America, anyway--ranked as the #1 source of significant radiation exposure, that has an effect on others that is (when considered as an isolated element rather than a part of the activity in general) ranked as the #3 preventable cause of death IN THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO INDULGE,is the #1 cause of apartment fires that cause fatalities year after year, that puts each individual indulging in a wooded area at risk of becoming the cause of a fire that destroys thousands of acres of forest and every home within that forest through simple carelessness related to indulgence, that results in the highest (numerical) amount of littered articles in virtually every cleanup campaign undertaken year after year, destroys the resale value of the home, car, and furniture of anyone who indulges in it, and is produced by companies who ADMIT internally that what they are selling is ADDICTION and that if they don't get and keep their market share of the CHILDREN becoming addicted to it they can't survive.
If I find I have anything I can name, THEN you can go ahead and talk about taking it away from me.

Clear?

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#11 May 26, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you have to address the definition of "real", since you are addressing an element that differs slightly from one individual to another. As I've said, my OWN "real" reasons regard the impact that public smoking by OTHERS has on ME (and my ability to choose what to do and where) and my personal disgust with the predatory criminal conspiracy that is the tobacco industry.

For others, the main focus may be the extremely prolific pollution generated by the use of tobacco.
Others still may be most moved by the strain on the health care system caused by the need to treat diseases caused by tobacco smoking, and making it more difficult for people with less preventable problems to get help that would greatly benefit them--and possibly make them better able to be productive citizens.

Some, too, may just see the extraordinary amount of money that is tied up in so destructive an endeavor as creating and servicing addiction and imagine what all that investment and research could do if put to a useful purpose.

Others, it seems, regard smoking as something that sucks up the time and energy of people who are ostensibly working.

Then, there are people who don't want to have to spend as much cleaning a rental unit between tenants as they have to when the tenant moving out was a smoker.

And, of course, there are some who are genuinely moved to activism by the plight of their fellow man, knowing that most smokers wish that they could stop and have been unable to beat the addiction. They see cutting off the legal supply as a means of lending a hand.

Then you have those who see the upside of the economics of cutting off the industry and saving the government money on health care, on cleaning up litter, and on an end to all the fires started by careless smokers. Some of them are thinking about all the people--smokers and not--who lose their lives every year in residential fires caused by smokers, or just the loss of property and of forest to those fires.
So, you see, there are a long list of very real reasons. The impact on public health is the most widespread and readily recognized as significant, and so that is the one most likely to be voiced. That one has, in fact, become so much a part of the awareness of every individual in the civilized world that perhaps the author(s) of this and other articles can be forgiven for believing that anyone reading would already know that there is reason.

The first impressions i read from the article are in this order, smokefree new zealand, govt, tax, price hike, health official "price hike strategy",points of views, then empty statistics. it is just the "idea" of a smokefree country.

I can only add a somewhat weak argument to this debate and although "snuffing" out smoking has a likely outcome of more productivity,safety,resources allocated in more important areas in a country, to keep this country smokefree, will it become a prohibition, a crime perhaps?

New zealand has a "well" established tourism industry, will a smokefree country still attract tourism, yet again another "almost" spurious relationship between smoking and tourism.. but the exact opposite is one of the attractions in amsterdam? not only smoking.. but the sort of smoking which is legal in most other countries around the world.

Well guys, i fought and i am going to admit i have no fight left in me, i guess i am still abit naive about how passionate people can be in their stances. I aimed at playing the devils advocate.. when it was quite unnecessary and am now back on my own side of the fence. Hugh you have contributed to my learning and i thank you for that, i hope to see you in our forums in the future to shed light where it has been darkened.

do you happen to be TMG? another account on topix?

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#12 May 26, 2012
So, you see, there are a long list of very real reasons. The impact on public health is the most widespread and readily recognized as significant, and so that is the one most likely to be voiced. That one has, in fact, become so much a part of the awareness of every individual in the civilized world that perhaps the author(s) of this and other articles can be forgiven for believing that anyone reading would already know that there is reason.

The first impressions i read from the article are in this order, smokefree new zealand, govt, tax, price hike, health official "price hike strategy",points of views, then empty statistics. it is just the "idea" of a smokefree country.

I can only add a somewhat weak argument to this debate and although "snuffing" out smoking has a likely outcome of more productivity,safety,resources allocated in more important areas in a country, to keep this country smokefree, will it become a prohibition, a crime perhaps?

New zealand has a "well" established tourism industry, will a smokefree country still attract tourism, yet again another "almost" spurious relationship between smoking and tourism.. but the exact opposite is one of the attractions in amsterdam? not only smoking.. but the sort of smoking which is legal in most other countries around the world.

Well guys, i fought and i am going to admit i have no fight left in me, i guess i am still abit naive about how passionate people can be in their stances. I aimed at playing the devils advocate.. when it was quite unnecessary and am now back on my own side of the fence. Hugh you have contributed to my learning and i thank you for that, i hope to see you in our forums in the future to shed light where it has been darkened.

do you happen to be TMG? another account on topix?

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#13 May 26, 2012
*illegal
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#14 May 26, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
So, you see, there are a long list of very real reasons. The impact on public health is the most widespread and readily recognized as significant, and so that is the one most likely to be voiced. That one has, in fact, become so much a part of the awareness of every individual in the civilized world that perhaps the author(s) of this and other articles can be forgiven for believing that anyone reading would already know that there is reason.
Erana Monika wrote:
The first impressions i read from the article are in this order, smokefree new zealand, govt, tax, price hike, health official "price hike strategy",points of views, then empty statistics. it is just the "idea" of a smokefree country.
At this point, yes, it IS just the "idea" of a smokefree country. The article was about NZ's avowed INTENTION to make that idea a reality in a bit over a dozen years from now, and that is seen through the lens of the current effort to further the plan--which involves using taxation and the potential to reduce the smoking rate by raising economic cost. It really doesn't have much reason to go into other elements of the effort. I don't know how many other angles the NZ government is pursuing in order to make it easier to take tobacco use out of the social picture. I am opposed to taxation as a stand-alone ploy for a number of reasons, but I tend to assume that, just as the author didn't detail the reasons for wanting tobacco gone, he also left out any other approach being taken for that purpose. I understand how looking at JUST this article might raise hackles.
Erana Monika wrote:
I can only add a somewhat weak argument to this debate and although "snuffing" out smoking has a likely outcome of more productivity,safety,resources allocated in more important areas in a country, to keep this country smokefree, will it become a prohibition, a crime perhaps?
The way things are going, a law against smoking is the probable approach, but in an ideal world that would become irrelevant and the law would be against marketing tobacco. If the smoking rate falls low enough, I believe that the industry will collapse from within. The industry is dependent on maintaining a level of addiction that makes the production an easy way to rake in huge amounts of money. If the smoking rate (prevalence of addiction) falls so low that even the most hardcore smokers are unwilling to cough up enough money per unit to sustain the profit level, the industry will leave the market place.

In the US, the smoking rate has dropped a lot over the last three decades and, while it hasn't budged much over the last half decade or so ("coincidentally" since the major drop in funding and support for anti-smoking efforts), the quantity of cigarettes sold has continued to drop. The tobacco companies have simply raised the price per unit and continued to turn an insulting amount of profit. Smokers tend to associate rising cost per unit with taxation and most don't seem to think about the industry's role.

There has to be a point of "critical mass" where the loss of volume in sales can't go any higher and still be offset by increasing per unit price. There has to be some amount that too few people will pay and the companies will move on to some other endeavor, however much more like work it is.

People mostly smoke because they are addicted to nicotine. The amount and frequency of smoking that it takes to sustain addiction is not something that can be hidden for very long, so a "black market" for smokers when tobacco is illegal is unlikely. Lozenges, sticks, inhalers, all of those things are the tobacco industry's last ditch effort to salvage their market for addiction. RJR has even bought up a line of nicotine replacement therapies (NicoNovum).
Those products lend themselves to clandestine use, if they can only switch people over in time. That's the black market of tobacco's future. Dang, I used up my characters.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#15 May 27, 2012
Erana Monika wrote:
New zealand has a "well" established tourism industry, will a smokefree country still attract tourism, yet again another "almost" spurious relationship between smoking and tourism.. but the exact opposite is one of the attractions in amsterdam? not only smoking.. but the sort of smoking which is illegal in most other countries around the world.
If NZ were interested in becoming the only place where smoking was legal, there might be a comparison. There is a dwindling portion of the world's population that would be put off by the idea of going someplace where smoking wasn't allowed, and an increasing portion that is likely to be drawn to such a place, when the rest of the world DOES allow it. My image of New Zealand tourism centers on nature rather than on sophistication and technology. Am I in error there? I think of the Tuatara and those huge insects (don't recall the name for them just now), and spectacular weather changes, with fog shrouding the land much of the time.
Erana Monika wrote:
Well guys, i fought and i am going to admit i have no fight left in me, i guess i am still abit naive about how passionate people can be in their stances. I aimed at playing the devils advocate.. when it was quite unnecessary and am now back on my own side of the fence. Hugh you have contributed to my learning and i thank you for that, i hope to see you in our forums in the future to shed light where it has been darkened.
do you happen to be TMG? another account on topix?
I am not familiar with TMG. I have posted occasionally with other user names, but have not registered for an account. I may show up as "Amused", "PU4U", or a couple of others I have forgotten, but switched only when I felt the content was better suited to one of those. I'm never obsessive enough about it, though, to keep adequate track of which user name preserves continuity and I forget to change user name when I switch discussions.
I should probably get some sleep. It's pretty late up here.
Hypocrisy

Auckland, New Zealand

#16 Jun 10, 2012
New Zealand, and the citizens can be truly naive sometimes.
Take this smoking campaign for instance.
First of all, the smoking minority became addicted to the bad habit.
Next, the NZ government and taxpayer became addicted to an easy taxes from which they are make hundreds of millions.
Now, the NZ government is saying that they will try and kick their easy tax addiction by 2025 - and then they will outlaw smoking altogether because, in all honesty, then they just may be able to make more out of the illegal tobacco trade.
Surely the drug trade taught us that, making a law against a product does not do much to curb the use of such a product.

On the one hand they are telling us that it is the poor that is addicted to smoking.
On the other hand, it is the taxes from those poor that enrich the coffers with 100's of millions - and as such, save every taxpayer in NZ from helping to pay for those millions.
What a hypocrisy this is.
The least the average NZ citizen (AND government) can do is to thank the smoking community for saving their asses during these difficult financial times - instead of constantly making life even more difficult for all those smokers.

Just remember - today they are coming for the smoking minority.
Tomorrow, it may be some restaurant group - people eating those terrible burgers deserve to pay.
The day after - who knows where they will find a new culprit.
One day soon, they may target some group or organization to which you belong.

In Germany during the second world war they also came for the Jewish minority first...

Since: Jun 12

London, Canada

#17 Jun 10, 2012
ItsAFact wrote:
Michael Calhoun is an ASH HOLE.
It's A Fact !!!

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#19 Jun 10, 2012
Smoking Mental illness wrote:
<quoted text> You're not supposed to smoke patches dickwad!
Was that last word really necessary? It WAS a joke after all. Crikey.

Lighten up matey.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#20 Jun 10, 2012
Hypocrisy wrote:
New Zealand, and the citizens can be truly naive sometimes.
Take this smoking campaign for instance.
First of all, the smoking minority became addicted to the bad habit.
Next, the NZ government and taxpayer became addicted to an easy taxes from which they are make hundreds of millions.
I'm inclined to agree that it is not good for a government to become dependent on revenue from a product that--used AS INTENDED by the manufacturer--destroys the citizens. Increased taxation is NOT a valid stand-alone approach to undoing the damage done by the industry.
Hypocrisy wrote:
Now, the NZ government is saying that they will try and kick their easy tax addiction by 2025 - and then they will outlaw smoking altogether because, in all honesty, then they just may be able to make more out of the illegal tobacco trade
What a ludicrous idea. Do you realize how much tobacco has to be consumed in order to establish and sustain nicotine addiction? Are enough people going to be able to hide a large enough amount of smoking to create enough addiction to create a sufficient demand to make it profitable to manufacture and distribute a large enough quantity of tobacco to create and service that level of addiction?
Hypocrisy wrote:
Surely the drug trade taught us that, making a law against a product does not do much to curb the use of such a product.
Ah, you don't think heroin use would be much more widespread if it were legal and readily available? Interesting.
Hypocrisy wrote:
On the one hand they are telling us that it is the poor that is addicted to smoking.
On the other hand, it is the taxes from those poor that enrich the coffers with 100's of millions - and as such, save every taxpayer in NZ from helping to pay for those millions.
Nicotine addiction does seem to be more common among lower economic classes. This is one reason why enforcement of litter laws is not a reasonable approach to curbing smoking. The fines would not be collectible. The taxation approach has built-in programmed obsolescence. Discouraging potential payers of the tax from consuming an addiction-sustaining level of the taxed product will, over time, reduce the number of times the tax is paid.
Hypocrisy wrote:
The least the average NZ citizen (AND government) can do is to thank the smoking community for saving their asses during these difficult financial times - instead of constantly making life even more difficult for all those smokers.
If increased difficulty brings fewer people experiencing the difficulty, with an end goal of zero people experiencing that difficulty, what's your difficulty?

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

#21 Jun 10, 2012
Hypocrisy wrote:
In Germany during the second world war they also came for the Jewish minority first...
Interesting thought which i think can be applied to more than one area which i am looking at right now
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22 Jun 11, 2012
Erana Monika wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting thought which i think can be applied to more than one area which i am looking at right now
Actually, it is completely bogus knee-jerk stuff, partaking heavily of the common fallacy they teach you to avoid in a first semester logic or composition course: slippery slope.

I mean, if you start letting people pull that kind of thing, pretty soon they'll just be lying through their teeth and you'll be sucking it all in, right?

More importantly, though, it is nonsense to suggest that a behavior is somehow the equivalent of a genetic heritage, that opposing a (self-destructive) behavior that heavily/negatively impacts others is somehow the equivalent of racism, or that supporting an effort to reduce the frequency of such a behavior is somehow equivalent to calling for the annihilation of everyone with a particular genetic heritage.

Now, if that sort of utterly contemptible nonsense strikes you as "interesting thought", then I suspect you have serious problems.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Auckland, New Zealand Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wesley College hostel slammed by report (Oct '08) Mar 25 tongangodz 38
News Thousands protest plans to extend Auckland wharf Mar 22 yachtie 1
what do NZ women think about asian men? (Oct '12) Mar 21 TonganGurl 28
Think-tank, Community and Worldwide Intelligence Mar 15 bretthutton 1
Weed / Ganja - delivered in AKL (Aug '14) Mar 12 Atam 4
m2m sex Mar 4 gand kasi ha 5
News Connie Radar Defends the Moon from Apollo 11 in... Mar 2 scifi fan 1
More from around the web