The political agenda has been dominated recently by the oversized influence of corporate interests and the seemingly unstoppable march of lobbyists shaping policy behind closed doors.
I find it obscene that we allow the sale of both Tobacco and Vapes - and it is turning out that Vaping is just as bad for you as Tobacco smoking, the next Labour Gov't must lock in the nicotine reductions and limit the number of outlets selling both vapes and tobacco and ideally ban one of them.
For me, there is far too much political effort from the Left in seeking to 'eliminate' tobacco, compared to its residual ills, and, for example, versus the need to deal with obesity and its many causes (one of several big health issues to confront head on). 'Big tobacco' has become a bogeyman for mindless recitation, where it is actually being beaten year by year. The stats of (declining) smoking for NZ are impressive, heading down, and the health ills created by past levels of smoking will head down faster as the population ages. We are far ahead of almost all countries, but seem to be hung up on, frankly, minutiae, like the whether we could try heated tobacco - not at all something that is going to shift the major down trend but which might minimise damage (to be tested ongoing) for a small core of current smokers.
I do tire of political analysis labelling things "left" or "right". In this case I think the correct terms would be "healthy" or "unhealthy". If we apply this analysis rather the constraining one applied by this writer every public health practitioner would say yes.
The light that should shine on Big Tobacco is the more than 500 OTHER INGREDIENTS in it.
All tested for carcinogens but NONE TESTED BURNED.
Tobacco, nicotine, has a long history as a useful and effective herb for health.
Investigate what Dr Bryan Ardis has been saying for many years about its use in Spike protein contamination and poisoning from vaccines, as treatments.
You dont need to worry, cos tobacco has got so expensive, that all the smokers I know get cheap black market tobacco, and all your regulation and taxes are irrelevant and in vain.
Completely agree. A tobacco transparency bill is an example of hyper specific legislation of a sort that can only add to a patchwork of complex, narrow laws instead of a coherent, scalable legal framework. Like treating a single symptom with a Band-Aid instead of addressing the underlying disease. Each new law becomes another patch, creating a messy, ineffective system—whereas a comprehensive solution would aim to achieve transparency across industries. However this is exactly the kind of manipulative controlling red tape that Labour and the left generally seem to love. The kind of country constipating crap that David Seymour is tasked with trying to eliminate. No doubt there's a continuing tobacco addiction problem but this is not the way to solve it.
I find it obscene that we allow the sale of both Tobacco and Vapes - and it is turning out that Vaping is just as bad for you as Tobacco smoking, the next Labour Gov't must lock in the nicotine reductions and limit the number of outlets selling both vapes and tobacco and ideally ban one of them.
For me, there is far too much political effort from the Left in seeking to 'eliminate' tobacco, compared to its residual ills, and, for example, versus the need to deal with obesity and its many causes (one of several big health issues to confront head on). 'Big tobacco' has become a bogeyman for mindless recitation, where it is actually being beaten year by year. The stats of (declining) smoking for NZ are impressive, heading down, and the health ills created by past levels of smoking will head down faster as the population ages. We are far ahead of almost all countries, but seem to be hung up on, frankly, minutiae, like the whether we could try heated tobacco - not at all something that is going to shift the major down trend but which might minimise damage (to be tested ongoing) for a small core of current smokers.
I do tire of political analysis labelling things "left" or "right". In this case I think the correct terms would be "healthy" or "unhealthy". If we apply this analysis rather the constraining one applied by this writer every public health practitioner would say yes.
The light that should shine on Big Tobacco is the more than 500 OTHER INGREDIENTS in it.
All tested for carcinogens but NONE TESTED BURNED.
Tobacco, nicotine, has a long history as a useful and effective herb for health.
Investigate what Dr Bryan Ardis has been saying for many years about its use in Spike protein contamination and poisoning from vaccines, as treatments.
Start here. https://rumble.com/v5a26s5--live-q-and-a-w-dr.-ardis-nicotine-ozempic-bird-flu-and-more-your-questions.html
You dont need to worry, cos tobacco has got so expensive, that all the smokers I know get cheap black market tobacco, and all your regulation and taxes are irrelevant and in vain.
Completely agree. A tobacco transparency bill is an example of hyper specific legislation of a sort that can only add to a patchwork of complex, narrow laws instead of a coherent, scalable legal framework. Like treating a single symptom with a Band-Aid instead of addressing the underlying disease. Each new law becomes another patch, creating a messy, ineffective system—whereas a comprehensive solution would aim to achieve transparency across industries. However this is exactly the kind of manipulative controlling red tape that Labour and the left generally seem to love. The kind of country constipating crap that David Seymour is tasked with trying to eliminate. No doubt there's a continuing tobacco addiction problem but this is not the way to solve it.