Nat/act/nzf 2023

[fungus pudding]

Not arguing that increases to the excise tax has not had an impact on reducing smoking rates - it has.

Just pointing out that the tax increases correspond with large decreases in smoking rates initially, but over time the 'returns' diminish with each additional increase. However, there are other societal issues that result from the increases in excise tax (a number of which I mentioned in my earlier post).

We cannot pretend that those issues don't exist, or aren't that bad.

Good policy is created when it considers all of the aspects, not just a single focus on health.

That does not mean that we should not care about health and just drop all of the taxes etc to give relief to the poor and cut off gang revenue streams. Just because the current way we are doing things is generating some undersirable results does not mean that it automatically follows that we should fix it by going to the opposite extreme.

It does, however, mean that we need to be more thoughtful and regard these issues from different perspectives. We certainly do not want to lose sight of the forest for the trees and immediately start jumping up and down when a Minister has simply asked for some advice.

Also, people do enjoy smoking cigarettes. Some habitually, others socially. And it is a legal product. You claim that it kills half of its users, and I welcome you to supply the evidence for that. The 'big one' for smokers is lung cancer, and about 15% of lifetime smokers will develop lung cancer for males and about 11% for females. That is very significant give the same rate of lung cancer for people who have never smoked is 1.8% male and 1.3% female.

However, far from saying that tobacco nails half of its users, you could also argue that 85% of the males and 89% of the females can enjoy the product over a lifetime and not get lung cancer.

You will point out that there are other risks associated with smoking such as stroke, heart disease etc. And that is fair enough, but I am just pointing out that lung cancer is by far and away the biggest risk to smokers... and the stats are at odds with your claim.

I also think your claims about sugar are not quite right. Obesity death rates have exceeded smoking death rates in a lot of places (I doubt NZ is much different to the UK).

So your effort would be better placed I think jumping up and down about why we have not cranked up the excise tax on sugar. We should lift the price of a can of coke to $10 perhaps to help people get skinny.

If smoking cigarettes is as bad as you say - kills half, and leaves the other half with missing feet, tongues and strokes - then the government should quit pissing around and just ban it immediately for everytone from tomorrow.

Yeah = bring back prohibtion at the same time! Double the fun in one fell swoop!

[Blue Skies]

Not arguing that increases to the excise tax has not had an impact on reducing smoking rates - it has.

Just pointing out that the tax increases correspond with large decreases in smoking rates initially, but over time the 'returns' diminish with each additional increase. However, there are other societal issues that result from the increases in excise tax (a number of which I mentioned in my earlier post).

We cannot pretend that those issues don't exist, or aren't that bad.

Good policy is created when it considers all of the aspects, not just a single focus on health.

That does not mean that we should not care about health and just drop all of the taxes etc to give relief to the poor and cut off gang revenue streams. Just because the current way we are doing things is generating some undersirable results does not mean that it automatically follows that we should fix it by going to the opposite extreme.

It does, however, mean that we need to be more thoughtful and regard these issues from different perspectives. We certainly do not want to lose sight of the forest for the trees and immediately start jumping up and down when a Minister has simply asked for some advice.

Also, people do enjoy smoking cigarettes. Some habitually, others socially. And it is a legal product. You claim that it kills half of its users, and I welcome you to supply the evidence for that. The 'big one' for smokers is lung cancer, and about 15% of lifetime smokers will develop lung cancer for males and about 11% for females. That is very significant give the same rate of lung cancer for people who have never smoked is 1.8% male and 1.3% female.

However, far from saying that tobacco nails half of its users, you could also argue that 85% of the males and 89% of the females can enjoy the product over a lifetime and not get lung cancer.

You will point out that there are other risks associated with smoking such as stroke, heart disease etc. And that is fair enough, but I am just pointing out that lung cancer is by far and away the biggest risk to smokers... and the stats are at odds with your claim.

I also think your claims about sugar are not quite right. Obesity death rates have exceeded smoking death rates in a lot of places (I doubt NZ is much different to the UK).

So your effort would be better placed I think jumping up and down about why we have not cranked up the excise tax on sugar. We should lift the price of a can of coke to $10 perhaps to help people get skinny.

If smoking cigarettes is as bad as you say - kills half, and leaves the other half with missing feet, tongues and strokes - then the government should quit pissing around and just ban it immediately for everytone from tomorrow.

Here is the Ministry of Health advice on tobacco harm.

Smoking kills half of all long term users from smoking related diseases such as lung cancer, stroke, heart attacks, other cancers etc, around 5,000 people each year, 13 people each day.
It damages nearly every organ & system in your body.
More than 60 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke cause cancer
Every cigarette you smoke robs your muscles brain & body of oxygen, increases your heart rate & blood pressure & narrows the blood vessels resulting in things like amputation of limbs.
It causes gum disease, oral cancers like carcinomas of the tongue which can result in the surgical removal of the tongue.
Smoking around children increases their risk of infections like pneumonia, bronchitis & croup.
It increases the risk of Cot Death in infants, middle ear infections in children & meningococcal disease.

Health should be the number 1 priority, when you lose your health you lose everything.

The simple reason death rates from obesity are now higher in the UK & Scotland than from smoking, is because of the ever increasing consumption of processed sugary fatty foods, while smoking rates in the population have decreased.
Yes sugar in excessive quantities is harmful but just about the entire population use sugar & it doesn't kill anything like the same percentage of users as tobacco.
If the entire population smoked, there would be far more deaths and illness than from sugar.
Sugar in small quantities is ok but every single cigarette smoked causes damage.

However, I would be all for a tax on sugar as we are heading for the collapse of our Health System under the strain of diabetes & obesity



https://www.health.govt.nz/your-heal...ffects-smoking

[Logen Ninefingers]

On track to be one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. He has earned the sobriquet ‘the Bravest of the Brave’ in my book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qo-gQxTUI

[mistaTea]

On track to be one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. He has earned the sobriquet ‘the Bravest of the Brave’ in my book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qo-gQxTUI

Very articulate description of what he is planning and why.

Of course, what underpins his view is his belief that TOW was not positioned as a partnership. And if his belief is proven out it becomes something that is known and his Bill is not only relevant, it is self-evident.

And so I look forward to the debate. As each participant is able to present their case with supporting evidence (I hope).

Until there is a widely accepted view that TOW was or was not a partnership between iwi and The Crown then the debate will be endless (and certainly outlive all of us posting here as davflaws has pointed out).

[Logen Ninefingers]

Very articulate description of what he is planning and why.

Of course, what underpins his view is his belief that TOW was not positioned as a partnership. And if his belief is proven out it becomes something that is known and his Bill is not only relevant, it is self-evident.

And so I look forward to the debate. As each participant is able to present their case with supporting evidence (I hope).

Until there is a widely accepted view that TOW was or was not a partnership between iwi and The Crown then the debate will be endless (and certainly outlive all of us posting here as davflaws has pointed out).

Well he is simply taking the Maori wording and acting accordingly. If you can find the words ‘partnership’ or ‘principles’ in either version of the Treaty then you will doing better then anyone else has ever done.

[Baa_Baa]

On track to be one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. He has earned the sobriquet ‘the Bravest of the Brave’ in my book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qo-gQxTUI

The comments are interesting as well.

[mistaTea]

Well he is simply taking the Maori wording and acting accordingly. If you can find the words ‘partnership’ or ‘principles’ in either version of the Treaty then you will doing better then anyone else has ever done.

Yes, it is a fair point.

I just need to understand how the view of the courts/waitangi tribunal etc ended up with the view that TOW was positioned to Iwi as a partnership.

After 50+ years of scrutiny by the courts etc, this was the view that was determined.

I have no problem changing that (and David's Bill may be just the ticket for such a change) if it can be shown that the last 50+ years of jurisprudence simply got it wrong.

Because, if it is true that it was sold to Maori as a partnership, I don't think we get to wriggle out of it so easily.

[Blue Skies]

Shows how inept this coalition govt's foreign policy is, sending defence force personal to support the US & UK bombing of Houthis in Yemen, plus Luxon & Collins adamantly denying the Houthis attacks on shipping were not linked to their support of Palestinians in Gaza when this is patently false.

Now the US & UK can't send their ships through the Red Sea forcing them to add weeks & thousands of miles around South Africa & huge extra freight costs.
Meanwhile China, unaffected by the Houthis ban is redeploying its ships to the route via the Red Sea & Suez Canal taking full advantage of the new competitive advantage they got handed to them on a plate.

Rather than rein in Israel the US is now asking China to help them curb the Houthis attacks on US, UK & Israeli registered ships.
China's response is the Red Sea attacks are a result of the Gaza conflict which should be ended, i.e. - fix your own mess.

Ships in the Red Sea now trying to declare themselves Chinese to avoid Houthis attacks.

[Baa_Baa]

Shows how inept this coalition govt's foreign policy is, sending defence force personal to support the US & UK bombing of Houthis in Yemen, plus Luxon & Collins adamantly denying the Houthis attacks on shipping were not linked to their support of Palestinians in Gaza when this is patently false.

Now the US & UK can't send their ships through the Red Sea forcing them to add weeks & thousands of miles around South Africa & huge extra freight costs.
Meanwhile China, unaffected by the Houthis ban is redeploying its ships to the route via the Red Sea & Suez Canal taking full advantage of the new competitive advantage they got handed to them on a plate.

Rather than rein in Israel the US is now asking China to help them curb the Houthis attacks on US, UK & Israeli registered ships.
China's response is the Red Sea attacks are a result of the Gaza conflict which should be ended, i.e. - fix your own mess.

Ships in the Red Sea now trying to declare themselves Chinese to avoid Houthis attacks.

Dangerous ground you stray into, pick a side, which are you on? Maybe not our side, it seems.

[Valuegrowth]

I found very interesting article on Tobacco and the Environment.

https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/to...o%20production.

"Currently, 5.3 million hectares of fertile land is used to grow tobacco.⁴⁵ There is evidence of substantial, and largely irreversible losses of trees.²³⁵ An estimated 1.5 billion hectares of forests have been lost worldwide since the 1970s, contributing to up to 20% of annual greenhouse gas increases.³²² Due to the volatility of tobacco crop this land has a limited lifespan for tobacco production"

Conclusion:

Irrespective of the issues with data disclosure from the tobacco industry, existing research demonstrates that the impacts of tobacco exist on a global scale.^{3 45} Zafeiridou, Hopkinson & Voulvoulis, (2018) have provided strong evidence of the negative environmental impact which tobacco cause.⁴⁵ Collectively when combining the environmental cost with its proven detrimental health, social and economic impacts, this makes it incompatible with the global development agenda.⁴⁵³¹ Regardless of how efficient and regulated the tobacco industry becomes, just as there is no such thing as a risk free cigarette the tobacco industry will always pose environmental risks.³⁴⁵ Tobacco products aren’t just a threat to your health, they are deeply unethical products that threaten the environment and trap those most in need in cycles of inequality.³³¹ As we face ever more critical decisions about how to preserve our planet and sustain our future, this hugely damaging industry needs to face up to its inconvenient truths.