Would I call it genocide? No.
Would I criticise a Māori person for being fucking livid that yet another government is doing something they know for sure will make Māori lives worse (and shorter)? Also no.
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
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think the thing the government is doing is far worse than any reactions to it that you think need tone policing
This isn't tone policing. This is calling out hyperbole. Tone policing is when someone disregards an argument because it's expressed with emotion.
If she'd said "this really gets on my tits" and was being criticized for language instead of having her anger acknowledged, that'd have been tone policing.
Using hysterical is a bit misogynistic though, considering the history of the word and who it's been applied to.
It's an unfortunate misuse of rhetoric, yes.
Is it my imagination or was The Maori Party literally in coalition with the National Party when the whole SmokeFree Aotearoa thing started under Tariana Turia?
I know they are eager to undo a lot of legislation but to me, wildly repealing things you yourself brought in isn't a great look.
The legislation being repealed was brought in by Labour though.
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.
I actually think if Labour had toned down a lot of their policies, they wouldn't be getting them repealed now.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.
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.
Winnie has made some surprisingly pro smoking statements during his career, so he would likely have been on board as well.
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?
using transfusions from blood boys or something
That would explain a lot actually.
No
It is ridiculous. Both reversing the amendments and calling it genocide.
I wish Te Pati and the left in general would be a little less hyperbolic.
I've said this before on here, but this is a law I never really felt comfortable with, creating a situation where one adult can legally buy cigarettes, and one can't.
I do like the idea of tobacco products only being sold at specialist retailers though.
They shouldn't be sold anywhere. It's literally a business based on addiction and harm.
How else does one end cycles of addiction, though? White it would create a black market, it works to end generational smoking. Think about the big picture here
Reintroducing smoking is so backwards, this is simply stealing from the future (the money this introduces now will create a burden on the health system by orders of magnitude, I imagine).
I get that it's classic labour nanny-stating, but there's really no good reason to smoke, it's just a problem that capitalism has created by trying to sell junk for profits
Edit: just re-read your comment - I agree with the specialist retailers for sure. Chuck it straight onto the degenerate vape shops, regulate them, etc...
Although I haven't smoked a cigar for over a decade, I do appreciate having the option to buy a genuine Cuban cigar.
Definitely in support of removing combustible tobacco products though.