this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
6 points (60.7% liked)

NZ Politics

564 readers
1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

 

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tad hysterical, don't you think?

College of Public Health Medicine president Sir Collin Tukuitonga has said the reversal of the smokefree amendments would result in about 1000 extra deaths over the next decade, mostly Māori, and cost the health system $1.3 billion.

Calling that a "genocide" is a bit ridiculous.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The legislation being repealed was brought in by Labour though.

[–] liv 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, yeah but when SmokeFree Aotearoa was introduced I distinctly remember Tariana Turia talking about how it was a long-term plan that was going to have incremental law changes including that one.

I'm not a smoker but I have noticed it over the years because I had smokers (and lung cancer) in my family, and as far as I could see it had been ticking along and slowly ramping up its taxes, protections, and legislations under both National and Labour.

[–] Ilovethebomb -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually think if Labour had toned down a lot of their policies, they wouldn't be getting them repealed now. If they'd continued with the increased excise, and perhaps reduced the number of outlets that can sell them, the law would have stuck around.

[–] liv 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe. I'm not convinced this particular repeal was due to majority/popular demand.

The only campaign I ever saw about repealing turned out to be astroturfing by a tobacco company pretending to be a dairy owner.

It seems way more like the sort of thing Seymour and ACT would be interested in. So I think it was a coalition agreement issue. Here's my reasoning:

The average voter isn't affected by the law change personally so the only point of repealing it would be to fight for your children to smoke tobacco. Parents mostly don't especially want their own kids to risk lung cancer, and it's also not a tangible improvement to communities.

That leaves fighting for it as a matter of ideological principle. I.e ACT.

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Winnie has made some surprisingly pro smoking statements during his career, so he would likely have been on board as well.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point, it could even originate with him - I saw someone saying Winston has links with tobacco companies. Not sure how true that is.

Also Winston himself smokes. If he is using transfusions from blood boys or something to stay immortal, maybe he needs them to be able to smoke too?

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago

using transfusions from blood boys or something

That would explain a lot actually.