500
New Zealand scraps world-first smoking ‘generation ban’ to fund tax cuts
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
500 points (98.6% liked)
World News
32511 readers
578 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I doubt it. I think for most smokers, one cigarette does them for a while. I don't see anyone stopping at half a cigarette, so I'd guess it would only get smokers used to taking more nicotine in at a time.
So this effect only works in one direction?
Like I said. Mainly because if someone lights up, they'll smoke the whole cigarette. Not half. But if they didn't get enough nicotine from one, instead of not smoking again for a couple hours, they may smoke again after just 45 minutes or so. Or even start chain smoking.
Or they'll adjust.
Smoking more IS the adjustment. Take some nicotine away, they'll crave more nicotine.
Or they'll adjust to how much is in what they're used to smoking. Their bodies will adjust. Because cravings are driven by exposure.
And they'll smoke more in order to get the exposure they're used to.
A value immune to change in exactly one direction, apparently.
You don't really know how an addiction works, do you? Nevermind that being a question for you to answer. I suppose I already know you don't.
Do you know how quitting an addiction works? Ideally... you take less.
That's not a paradox or a gotcha. It's the only way people break the cycle. You understand that cycle can be deepened. You seem absolutely confident there's no other direction.
You seem to think the people having low nicotine cigarettes forced on them want to quit smoking.
And no. I'm not saying there is no other direction. Upping the age every year would work. Upping the prices would work, but is a ln asshole move for a government to make, banning cigarettes would work. Lowering nicotine in cigarettes is what wouldn't work. It's straight up something that would make the smoking related health issues of an entire country worse instead of better.
We're not talking about what they want. An outright ban is an option, here. The goal is to make them smoke less. To make them less addicted. Lowering how much nicotine they get, without changing their habits, would probably help immensely.
Though half at once is the wrong curve. You'd want to drop by 10% a year. Enough to grumble about... not to double how many you smoke in a day.
"Upping the age every year" is an asshole move of the highest order: inequality. You'd tell some people, this is legal, but never for you. That is fundamentally the opposite of 'you must be 18' and it cannot be tolerated, even if the motivation is positive.