Hacker News Reader

Comment by olivermarks | Hacker News Reader

Much as I hate smoking and cigarette smoke, this politically flies in the face of free will in a liberal democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand

Smoking costs NZ taxpayers an enormous amount for healthcare. I (and probably most people) would rather have fewer smokers so my taxes can be used for more productive things. Individual freedoms are always constrained in various ways for the good of society, and I don't see this as much different.

Sidenote: it's 1am here in NZ, so we may not get a very informed discussion here.

you should probably make it illegal to be unhealthy in any way...

Slippery slope argument, so easy.

That is close to what they are doing, for example they deport people for being fat.

https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/new-zealands-solution-ris...

The healthcare cost impact is more complicated. Smokers consume more healthcare at any given age, but die earlier and cost less in healthcare in their lifetime. At the national level the lifetime costs and aging population impact are arguably more important than single year costs.

NEJM[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506]

If the average lifetime increases noticeably there might be consequences on retirement, likely increasing of expense for pensions, and - before or later - an increase in minimum age requirements to access retirement/pension.

Right now - I believe - the set age is 65 years, which is "common" worldwide, but quite a few countries have gone in recent years or are going to 66-67-68 :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age

Agree, even more reason to discount the "taxpayers are paying for smokers choices" reaction

Interesting. I seem to recall that for some healthcare systems and tobacco tax regimes, smokers were cheaper for society because they tended not to require such long retirement and palliative care, and they contributed quite a bit more tax, but I don't remember the details or the country now, I might be mistaken. What do New Zealand's numbers look like there?

It's an interesting idea though. Would you think all recreational activities should be regulated under the lens of collectivism? Let's say recreational driving -- to the beach or to the ski slopes or to visit friends in another city, or just a good old fashioned road trip -- is there a case that be prohibited because automobile infrastructure and accidents are an enormous financial cost to society and are also one of the leading causes of death in young people?

> What do New Zealand's numbers look like there?

Also curious because this will depend a lot on how healthcare is paid for and how accessible is it. I expect NZ for example to do relatively more intervention in those cases than the US. But a quick search is not very informative.

I can’t wait for the fat person tax!

Almost anything you do( hobbies, diet, having children, etc) affects your actuarial healthcare burden, so introducing that as a justification for restrictions opens the door to regulating anything.

Processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen. Are you going to ban that next? Wait so is sunshine. Are you going to ban sunbathing?

I see this line or argumentation a lot but never a real analysis of why it should be applied in this case. The reality is that people just identify something they want to change and rummage around for a justification and healthcare burden is convenient.

I'm no fan of smoking and think the world would be a lot better without it but this type of argument is not valid in most cases without a much stronger justification.

> Processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen. Are you going to ban that next? Wait so is sunshine. Are you going to ban sunbathing?

This is exactly what the proponents of these kind of laws want. It's all about control. There is a pop appeal that gets taken up by useful idiots - "rah rah they take our take dollars" - much like the border wall folks might try and blame x,y,z on illegal immigrants to get they ideology pushed through.

Does it actually cost taxpayers?

In Europe most countries tax cigarettes so much that they actually collect more in tax than smoking costs the healthcare system.

Either way, that's not an argument to ban but rather to increase tax or more general to make smokers bear the cost of related healthcare.

In most countries, it's not clear if smokers use more health care than average. They do get sick more, but they also die sooner and more quickly. But let's assume it's true, and that smokers do cause an undue burden on the health care system, and therefore smoking should be banned. Why not apply the same argument to obesity?

Obese people definitely cause an undue burden on the health care system. Why not tax them more, or force them to diet and exercise? It would be very cost-effective, allowing taxes to be used for more productive things. And as you said, individual freedoms are always constrained in various ways for the good of society. I don't see this as much different.

Nah, this policy rocks. No one who is already addicted to smoking will suffer as they ratchet the age so that existing smokers can continue to smoke. If you really want to try/start you can bloody well learn to cultivate it yourself and no one can stop you. It was signed, sealed and delivered within a liberal democracy. Kiwi here.

New Zealand is not a liberal democracy. It restricts freedom of information. New Zealand has banned over 1,300 books, and restricted access to another 728. The country also bans certain video games, and even the second Human Centipede film. New Zealand also blocks its citizens from opening TCP connections to certain IP addresses, as they deem the sites so dangerous that visiting them for any reason (even research) could be harmful to society.

Somehow other countries do fine without these restrictions.

So you think that everyone in a liberal democracy should be able to buy Heroin?

I think the War on Drugs has devastated the US to little effect considering how many die of opiate overdose every year.

I’m trying to figure out if you’re even serious to suggest banning heroin worked when fentanyl is the leading cause of Millennials dying.

By default, adults should be allowed to buy heroin.

Every adult, certainly.

How about fentanyl and how about other theoretical substances with higher addictiveness and mortality rates?

I actually do not care about the addictiveness nor toxicity of any of those substances. My opinion comes from my stance that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. That same stance informs my thoughts on trans people, gay people, women's rights, vaccines, abortion etc etc. I see all those issues as an extension of one's right to bodily autonomy.

Humanity has done an insane amount of damage to society since everyone followed along in the "war on drugs", which stemmed from racial origins and continues to have such disproportionate impact. I'm glad we are (slowly) moving away from this atrocity :)

@DalasNoin The solution for Fentanyl and other theoretical substances with higher addictiveness and mortality rates is to make supply a very serious offense, currently a disastrous failure in the USA. The solution with cigarettes is to make them expensive and hard to buy.

Banning things does not work and lulls people into a false sense of security imo. Guns in the UK are a good example of that.

I’m from the UK and IMO the gun ban is very effective. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone that wasn’t a special armed policeman or a soldier with a gun. It’s very rare for someone to be shot here, and most criminals don’t carry guns because they know the penalties if caught are so much higher that it’s not worth it. Even if you were to held up with a gun (which isn’t common at all), you’d be much less likely to be shot as they wouldn’t have to worry about you shooting them.

Plenty of people have guns, but gun crime has certainly dropped dramatically since the days of Dunblane

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/192/total_nu...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/gun-rising-i...

Criminals using illegal guns don't adhere to laws. Same issue in US.

"London has halved its gun crime over the past decade"

Gun deaths are half what they were before the handgun ban was introduced. The UK doesn't make 5 year olds practice hiding under desks if there's an "active shooter". It doesn't need to, I don't think any country does apart from th eUS.

As far as I know, fentanyl only really became a problem because it is so potent that it's easy to smuggle. 50x stronger than heroin = you only have to smuggle 1/50th as much to make the same amount of money.

> So you think that everyone in a liberal democracy should be able to buy Heroin?

Of course not. Only the choosen ones. Is New Zeeland still a democracy ?

Politicians can decide to pass any laws they want. The ability of the state to enforce those laws is a different matter. Nothing inherent about democracy prevents it from being as restrictive on freedom as a dictatorship.

Heroin abuse is just the symptom of broader problems.

Sure you can't have the population strung out on heroin while effectively juicing them for their productivity but at the same time it's not like a junkie would be living a safe healthy productive life if it weren't for heroin.

What's the alternative? In a liberal democracy do you lock people who use Heroin in a cage instead? That's hardly anymore "liberal".

And if the use isn't illegal you might as well allow it to be legally purchased to reduce the risk of people buying something unpure while promoting criminal drug gangs.

I'm not saying it should be purchasable from a corner shop. But if it's purchasable from a place that can provide support and help for the addict? Sure.

Yes, every person of voting age.

Yes absolutely, and all other so called "hard" drugs.

Or on other hand maybe we should ban ethanol too and treat it exactly like heroine. After all the damage and costs to society are pretty similar.

Could you provide a list of liberal democracies then please?

"Liberal Democracy" is not the same as "Libertarian Paradise"

I personally like the idea of fully legalized drugs, but I don't necessarily think they should be allowed to be imported and sold, at least not directly. There's a "middle way" that frames drug use in term of health, but it shouldn't be legal to profit from people's addictions.

Just adults. Why not?

This is the right answer. Given the extreme harm of having it illegal (police costs, property theft and damage costs from thieving to pay for it, health costs of having impure illegal adulterated sources, erosion of liberty due to authoritarian ratchet up over time to try and make illegal actually work, etc) I seriously doubt selling all the drugs under a system similar to how most places treat alcohol (maybe with the added health warnings on packaging most places apply to cigarettes) would be more harmful than status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com