If you want to make something disappear you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot. This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won't magically stop smoking because they can't buy their cigarettes at the convenience store.
Also purely on principle, the idea that there are things that are forbidden based on the year you were born seems like weird discrimination to me.
In all likelyhood, it will never make up for the cost to the country - I once saw a detailed study on the costs in treatment, support for families, etc.
But at some point, poeple will start phasing out smoking by themselves.
Also, the black market will less likely develop, since it will remain legal. And will not change overnight.
The opposite is true -- smokers contribute much more in taxes than the cost of smoking related illnesses [1], and more importantly, die younger so tend not to have the long lingering (very expensive) deaths of non-smokers.
See "The smoke screen" ("Yes, Prime Minister", 1986) for a comedic take on this.
[1] https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/
Will check it out.
Plus we're generally less dogmatic, more able to commit little rebellions and care less about the consequence of our naughty behaviour so we may bring something to a country of robot health nuts whose sole worries in life are self preservation and tax savings.
Now I wouldnt go so far as to encourage people to smoke, it's still an annoying daemon running permanently bothering you constantly to refill the craving.
The average price of a packet of cigarettes is now close to AUD 40 (give or take a few $$ and up from being AUD 9 back in 2008 circa). People still smoke and chain smoke.
The question remains: do sin taxes actually work to compel people to give up smoking, or they merely benefit the state treasury?
Keep in mind that the smoking industry can and will outspend almost any government on product advertisement and available information, unless laws forbid it. We had a time of "your doctor recommends smoking [brand X]" already. Let's not enable that again.
Cigarettes are awful, producing a minor buzz at best that you stop feeling after you're fully addicted (which doesn't take long). How many of us started as social smokers only to suddenly find yourself at a pack a day? Additionally, the companies that manufacture and sell cigarettes lied about their harmfulness for decades.
Other measures like education might work, except that the whole world knows smoking is harmful now and people still do it. Most people start young, at a time when it's hard to imagine ever being old and sick. My college friends used to call them "cancer sticks" as in "can I bum a cancer stick".
Taxes don't really work either, and they disproportionately affect poor people. Coincidentally poor people are more likely to smoke cigarettes. I hated paying $10 a pack, but I did it.
In exchange for feeling like a cool guy for three minutes, you get brown teeth, smelly fingers, litter everywhere... And the addiction is real. I haven't been a smoker for 8 years and I still think about them once a day or so. It's deeper than the physical addiction because when you are a smoker, you smoke often.
Why not criticize the ban on led paint? After all that's also poison.
I think if you think about it for a few seconds you realize that this law isn't so much banning cigarettes as it is removing an exception for a specific poison.
I predict they’ll back off this before long. Or won’t enforce it.
Just tax it heavily - cigarettes are almost $20/pack in NYC and the problem solved itself.
Not sure if it’s proximity to China but NZ and Australia seem to have a fetish for authoritarianism that other Western countries don’t.
read this. the tax rate on tobacco products in india is 28%+204%. so, the costing is , $100+$28+$204= $332.
has that stopped or even lowered the consumption of tobacco products in india? absolutely not.
its not about authoritarianism when it comes to such issues. alcohol is banned in many countries across the world. "muslims" are most of them. do they have to enforce drunk driving ban or sale of liquor to minors or is there alcoholic epidemic in those countries? do people get wasted on the streets ? they might have other problems but not alcohol is not one of them.
i personally want this law to succeed because while i do not smoke, people i know do and i have seen teens get "attracted" to this because "oh i have depression. lets smoke", those stuff.
there will be consequences but if i read it correctly, its not about people who are current addicts but future expected ones. they "don't" know what cigarettes are or what they do. if done properly, these people will not grow up to find their corner shop selling tobacco and in some years, many people will not see smoking a cigarette as "normal" which it currently is.
If you think making mind altering substances illegal works let me introduce the “War on Drugs” which has been a complete failure.
It’s like trying to outlaw sex. You’re fighting evolution.
i am assuming that is the long term goals of new zealand
Ok, I think we'll need a quote for that. Various sources indicate falling percentage of smokers in recent years.
"Impact on the tobacco industry is going to be largely neutral since the 5% cess declared by the Indian government was less than the expected rate by the tobacco industry. There will be an increase in the expense of smokers due to the rise in the price of a cigarette in the initial period. Although, it is expected that the tobacco industry, irrespective of the tax rate, would have a neutral effect due to the implementation of GST."
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/low-tobacco-tax-poor-...
"The lack of tax increases in post-GST years might mean that some current smokers smoke more now and some non-smokers have started smoking. This could potentially lead to a reversal of the declining trend in prevalence. This might jeopardise India’s commitment to achieving 30% tobacco use prevalence reduction by 2025 as envisaged in the National Health Policy of 2017 by the Government of India."
https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/taxation-and-impact-of-...
this one has more meat into it.
But neither one really shows that the prevalence of smokers pre- and post-tax hasn't changed.
In terms of numbers I can only find the 2016-2017 GATS numbers of 28.6% users, 10.7% smokers.