just what the experts assess
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die.
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
just what the experts assess
We've had enough of media-annointed "experts", especially after they
pushed poison on to all of us, calling it "safe and effective".
Happy to hear from doctors on any "side" of the medical issuesDoctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
So only doctors on one side of the issue get to be "experts", right?
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die.
But your doctors can cure that if not for National, right?
Your partisan politics hangs like dogs' balls.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most
distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that
NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree >that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the >legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This will >cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >matter.
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years. >It is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be
elected twice in a row.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most
distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree >>>that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the >>>legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This will >>>cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
to include cigarettes.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>matter.Correct.
we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and
nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for
avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and
using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those
addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after
tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco
continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids
and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think
about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only
have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but
lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done
for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for
illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized
crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of
their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying
their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health
costs that will be much greater.
since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen.
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years. >It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had
They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in
just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a
lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the
political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>elected twice in a row.
by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for
the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short term
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about
reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease
and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
damage.
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most
distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that
NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree >>that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the >>legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This will >>cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
to include cigarettes.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>matter.Correct.
since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen.Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years. It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>elected twice in a row.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations aboutEach year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term
reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive
claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he
ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease
and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most
distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree >>>>that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the >>>>legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
to include cigarettes.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>>matter.Correct.
we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and
nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for
avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and
using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those
addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids
and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think
about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only
have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but
lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done
for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for
illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized
crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of
their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying
their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health
costs that will be much greater.
since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen.
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years. >>It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had
They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in
just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a
lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the
political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>elected twice in a row.
by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for
the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short term
in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette
sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs
comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law
changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black
market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am
sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of
smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease
and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
damage.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related. >triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smoking
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>>>matter.Correct.
we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and
nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and
using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids
and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done
for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for
illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying
their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health
costs that will be much greater.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen.
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years.
They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in
just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a
lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the
political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>elected twice in a row.
by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for
the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short term
in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs
comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am
sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback,In your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around
$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF
government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not
asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have
to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election
- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
damage.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>An opinion but stated as a fact - not unusual for you, bereft of facts but full of rhetoric.
wrote:
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most
distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree >>>that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the >>>legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This will >>>cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
to include cigarettes.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>matter.Correct.
we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and
nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for
avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and
using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those
addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after
tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco
continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids
and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think
about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only
have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but
lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done
for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for
illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized
crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of
their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying
their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health
costs that will be much greater.
since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen.
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years. >It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had
They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in
just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a
lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the
political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>elected twice in a row.
by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for
the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short term
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about
reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease
and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
damage.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well -
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>>>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>>>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>>>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>>>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>>>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>>>>matter.Correct.
we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and
using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids
and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying
their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>costs that will be much greater.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years.
just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the
political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise moneyIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>elected twice in a row.
by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short term
in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs
comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am
sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related.
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smokingIn your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback,
through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around
$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF
government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not
asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have
to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election
- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to >become educated past 5th form.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyIndeed - pique is Tony's common resort when he is out of his depth.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge >>>>in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well - >>>>>we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and >>>>>using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids >>>>>and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying >>>>>their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>>costs that will be much greater.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>>>>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>>>>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>>>>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>>>>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>>>>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>>>>>matter.Correct.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in >>>>>just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the >>>>>political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years.
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise money >>>>>by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short termIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>>elected twice in a row.
comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am >>>>sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related.
Correct Tony. If prohibition (particularly in the USA) has taught us >anything it has taught us this.
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smokingIn your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback, >>>through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around
$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF >>>government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not
asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have
to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election
- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to >>become educated past 5th form.
A bit brutal on Rich, Tony, but I understand where you are coming
from.
This thread, started by Rich, is to do with an anti-government tirade
using smokers and a perception of cutting regulatory restriction, more
than it is a health mitigation measure.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:05:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Your lack of education is evident every day in this group. Either that or you need to see a doctor.
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyIndeed - pique is Tony's common resort when he is out of his depth.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge >>>>>in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs >>>>>comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am >>>>>sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well - >>>>>>we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and >>>>>>using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids >>>>>>and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying >>>>>>their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>>>costs that will be much greater.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New >>>>>>>>> Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that
NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more >>>>>>>>> disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding >>>>>>>>> information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would >>>>>>>>agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making >>>>>>>>the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on thisCorrect.
matter.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in >>>>>>just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the >>>>>>political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three >>>>>>>>years.
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise money >>>>>>by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short termIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>>>elected twice in a row.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >>>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related.
Correct Tony. If prohibition (particularly in the USA) has taught us >>anything it has taught us this.
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smokingIn your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback, >>>>through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around >>>>$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF >>>>government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not >>>>asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have >>>>to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election >>>>- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, >>>got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to >>>become educated past 5th form.
A bit brutal on Rich, Tony, but I understand where you are coming
from.
ABsolute nonsense.
This thread, started by Rich, is to do with an anti-government tirade
using smokers and a perception of cutting regulatory restriction, more
than it is a health mitigation measure.
Health services are near the core of one of the issues here. Advice
received by Labour when they put the legislation in place pointed to
some initial costs, but a huge financial benefit to the country over
time through reduced need for health services, and many additional
life years through people not dying as quickly. That would have been
a year or so, and as it is not clear that National are precisely
reversing the changes that were costs so relatively recently for the
Labour government, but it is clear that by going for more short term
taxes through selling more tobacco, the current government is creating
a much larger long term financial problem than the small assistance it
gives to their current tax plans.
I suspect that party because the long term cost to the country of
National's current proposals, they are seeking to block Regulatory
Impact Analysis from being done for this legislation - not because it
cannot be done in time (given how recent the change they are reversing
was done, it should be fairly quick for the public service to do
that), but because they do not want to admit how bad the long term
financial effect of their desperation is.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
The long term damage includes a severe cost to finances of the New
Zealand Government - smoking, like alcohol abuse, is one of the
largest contributors to health costs that government can do something
about. Very few smokers want their younger relatives to start; this
change will encourage more to keep smoking, and enable more to start
smoking.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can
increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyBrutal? Not sure that I agree - Rich does not respond to logic, does not respond to honesty and at the very first sign that someone disagrees with him he becomes sarcastic and sometimes downright abusive,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge >>>>in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well - >>>>>we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and >>>>>using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids >>>>>and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying >>>>>their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>>costs that will be much greater.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>>>>>> that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be. >>>>>>>> I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked >>>>>>>> it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation >>>>>>>> - no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>>>>>> NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would >>>>>>>agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making >>>>>>>the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on this >>>>>>>matter.Correct.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in >>>>>just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the >>>>>political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three >>>>>>>years.
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise money >>>>>by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short termIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>>elected twice in a row.
comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am >>>>sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related.
Correct Tony. If prohibition (particularly in the USA) has taught us >anything it has taught us this.
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smokingIn your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback, >>>through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around
$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF >>>government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not
asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have
to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election
- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, >>got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to >>become educated past 5th form.
A bit brutal on Rich, Tony, but I understand where you are coming
from.
This thread, started by Rich, is to do with an anti-government tirade
using smokers and a perception of cutting regulatory restriction, more
than it is a health mitigation measure.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course, such is the fate of bigots.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Give it a rest Rich. People voted for these policies and you guys
lost in a big way. Now all you and your buddies in the media are
doing is to make snide comments about everything this government
does.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:05:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyIndeed - pique is Tony's common resort when he is out of his depth.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge >>>>>in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs >>>>>comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am >>>>>sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well - >>>>>>we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and >>>>>>using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids >>>>>>and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying >>>>>>their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>>>costs that will be much greater.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New >>>>>>>>> Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked. >>>>>>>>>
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that
NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more >>>>>>>>> disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding >>>>>>>>> information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This >>>>>>>>will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on thisCorrect.
matter.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in >>>>>>just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the >>>>>>political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years.
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise money >>>>>>by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short termIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>>>elected twice in a row.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >>>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related.
Correct Tony. If prohibition (particularly in the USA) has taught us >>anything it has taught us this.
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smokingIn your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback, >>>>through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around >>>>$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF >>>>government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not >>>>asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of
excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have >>>>to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current
dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election >>>>- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their
cut to the top tax rate.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to >>>become educated past 5th form.
A bit brutal on Rich, Tony, but I understand where you are coming
from.
This thread, started by Rich, is to do with an anti-government tirade
using smokers and a perception of cutting regulatory restriction, more
than it is a health mitigation measure.
Health services are near the core of one of the issues here. Advice
received by Labour when they put the legislation in place pointed to
some initial costs, but a huge financial benefit to the country over
time through reduced need for health services, and many additional
life years through people not dying as quickly.
That would have been
a year or so, and as it is not clear that National are precisely
reversing the changes that were costs so relatively recently for the
Labour government, but it is clear that by going for more short term
taxes through selling more tobacco, the current government is creating
a much larger long term financial problem than the small assistance it
gives to their current tax plans.
I suspect that party because the long term cost to the country of
National's current proposals, they are seeking to block Regulatory
Impact Analysis from being done for this legislation - not because it
cannot be done in time (given how recent the change they are reversing
was done, it should be fairly quick for the public service to do
that), but because they do not want to admit how bad the long term
financial effect of their desperation is.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
The long term damage includes a severe cost to finances of the New
Zealand Government - smoking, like alcohol abuse, is one of the
largest contributors to health costs that government can do something
about. Very few smokers want their younger relatives to start; this
change will encourage more to keep smoking, and enable more to start
smoking.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Give it a rest Rich. People voted for these policies and you guys
lost in a big way. Now all you and your buddies in the media are
doing is to make snide comments about everything this government
does.
On 2023-12-10, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:05:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyIndeed - pique is Tony's common resort when he is out of his depth.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Correct Tony. If prohibition (particularly in the USA) has taught us >>>anything it has taught us this.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:00:13 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:33:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:01:47 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:This is a direct example of the sort of political rhetoric you indulge >>>>>>in Rich. The Government is revoking further restrictions on cigarette >>>>>>sales. Any resulting increase in deaths and related health costs >>>>>>comes solely from smokers. At some point (possibly the repealed law >>>>>>changes) smokers who insist on continuing will be driven to the black >>>>>>market. There is a black market dealing with illegal drugs and I am >>>>>>sure that this can easily expand into cigarettes should the demand of >>>>>>smokers unable to get their fix legally warrant it.
On 9 Dec 2023 23:19:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Guide being a key word - prohibition for alcohol did not work well - >>>>>>>we have learned a lot about addictive substances since then, and >>>>>>>nicotine is one of those. Labour had outlined a broad strategy for >>>>>>>avoiding the criminal aspects that resulted from prohibition, and >>>>>>>using the methods of drug addiction recovery to ensure that those >>>>>>>addicted to tobacco could continue to be treated, that we look after >>>>>>>tourists and immigrants that arrive with an addiction, that tobacco >>>>>>>continue to be available but not in a way that encourages ran raids >>>>>>>and burglary. National demonstrated they did not really want to think >>>>>>>about such matters - they misread the number of medium term outlets in >>>>>>>Northland (ACT and NZ First have strong links to Northland) would only >>>>>>>have one outlet - actual proposals were for 65, still accessible but >>>>>>>lower than the number of current outlets. We know from the work done >>>>>>>for Labour that the restrictions would have saved millions of dollars; >>>>>>>possibly billions over time through avoidance of health costs for >>>>>>>illness triggered through smoking; and limiting scope for organized >>>>>>>crime. National are now going to try to avoid finding out the cost of >>>>>>>their proposals so they do not have to admit that they are buying >>>>>>>their short term commitment to cutting the top tax rate with health >>>>>>>costs that will be much greater.
On 2023-12-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yep - organised crime will be able to quickly expands the black market >>>>>>>>to include cigarettes.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New >>>>>>>>>> Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable
that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know >>>>>>>>>> just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know >>>>>>>>>> until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a >>>>>>>>>> result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . .
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>>>>>>>> distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that
NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more >>>>>>>>>> disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>>>>>>>> increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding >>>>>>>>>> information from New Zealanders.
Most people agree that smoking is not a good thing. Most people would agree
that orgainised crime is not desirable. Pushing the price up and making the
legal supply limited will at some point wind up the criminal side. This
will
cause more tax payers money to be needed for the policing.
As I have said before the example of prohibition should guide us on thisCorrect.
matter.
It is probably the least stable coalition government that we have had >>>>>>>since we dropped First Past the Post, but strange things can happen. >>>>>>>They may fall apart in less than a year, but the damage they do in >>>>>>>just this nasty betrayal of good health policy will put us back for a >>>>>>>lot longer. While some have talked of doctors supporting the >>>>>>>political proposals, I have not seen any evidence of that
Rich, all things being equal, we will have this Government for three years.
Quite a contrast to a new government changing the law to raise money >>>>>>>by increasing deaths and related health costs just to reduce tax for >>>>>>>the most wealthy New Zealanders in the short termIt is part of democracy and what caused the previous Government to be >>>>>>>>>elected twice in a row.
The black market is a different issue from the reduction in smoking >>>>Nonsense, an irrefutably stupid comment. The two are intricately related. >>>
triggered by the increase in taxes and resulting reduction in smoking >>>>>- the payback of Labour's changes was assessed as giving a payback, >>>>>through lower deaths and lower costs of health treatments, of around >>>>>$20 return for each dollar of tax forgone. The Act/National/NZF >>>>>government are reversing that good return - but are carefully not >>>>>asking for proper costings of what they propose. Every dollar of >>>>>excise tax raised to pay for the top tax rate being cut, we will have >>>>>to find something like around $20 (and possibly more) in current >>>>>dollar terms - and I see that as a change in policy since the election >>>>>- they are only doing it because they stuffed up costings for their >>>>>cut to the top tax rate.In your opinion and unsupported by any evidence.
Your inability to follow logic and avoid political rhetoric has, I suspect, got
you into some serious trouble in the past - it could explain your failure to
become educated past 5th form.
A bit brutal on Rich, Tony, but I understand where you are coming
from.
This thread, started by Rich, is to do with an anti-government tirade >>>using smokers and a perception of cutting regulatory restriction, more >>>than it is a health mitigation measure.
Health services are near the core of one of the issues here. Advice
received by Labour when they put the legislation in place pointed to
some initial costs, but a huge financial benefit to the country over
time through reduced need for health services, and many additional
life years through people not dying as quickly.
The assumption in this is that the smoking levels would drop. National do
not accept this assumption and are trying not to encourage more criminal >activity.
So the point of this arguement is one of validating the assumption. Do that >and the course of action is clear. Until then getting upset at National is >really doing no one any favours. All it does is politicise the matter.
Health should never be a political matter. See the covid response forThough the first year of Covid, that was largely the case; bizarrely,
reasons why not.
That would have beenYes, society needs to keep the pressure on, to show determination, to make >smoking not acceptable.
a year or so, and as it is not clear that National are precisely
reversing the changes that were costs so relatively recently for the
Labour government, but it is clear that by going for more short term
taxes through selling more tobacco, the current government is creating
a much larger long term financial problem than the small assistance it
gives to their current tax plans.
I suspect that party because the long term cost to the country of
National's current proposals, they are seeking to block Regulatory
Impact Analysis from being done for this legislation - not because it
cannot be done in time (given how recent the change they are reversing
was done, it should be fairly quick for the public service to do
that), but because they do not want to admit how bad the long term
financial effect of their desperation is.
Each year of delay causes a disproportionate effect on long term >>>>>>>damage.
Rich will continue to make silly and unfounded accusations about >>>>>>>>reversing only the most recent cigarette sales restrictions. Emotive >>>>>>>>claims that this will cause an increased death rate are true, but he >>>>>>>>ignores the fact that smoking is not compulsory and therefore disease >>>>>>>>and death that result from smoking is self-inflicted.
The long term damage includes a severe cost to finances of the New
Zealand Government - smoking, like alcohol abuse, is one of the
largest contributors to health costs that government can do something
about. Very few smokers want their younger relatives to start; this
change will encourage more to keep smoking, and enable more to start
smoking.
Over the last several decades the publics attitude to smoking has changed to >one of that is not acceptable from everyone does it. The ex-smokers have >multiplied and been vocal for the no smoking cause.
"Encouraging" criminal behaviour is not acceptable even if the rates of >smoking drop with the Labour proposals.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:07 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>All that is political rhetoric.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Give it a rest Rich. People voted for these policies and you guys
lost in a big way. Now all you and your buddies in the media are
doing is to make snide comments about everything this government
does.
I do not believe that is the case, Mutley. This policy arose after the >election - I think around the time that a coalition was formed.
Nicola Willis discovered on looking at budget papers that tax paid
through tobacco excise was reducing as New Zealanders smoked less.
That there was a much greater reduction in future liabilities does not
appear in annual budget figures, but I suspect we already started to
see fewer victims of nicotine poisoning needing health care. For
budget purposes however, Willis needed to find other income to cover
the drop in the top tax rate, and hence the idea of reversing smoking
policy; it was not known by the public at election day, so no we did
not vote for it. I am not as clear about the other policy changes;
clearly some of the coalition deals will have cost money, but they can
be included in "what people voted for", even if in some cases quite a
small number will have done that.
The budget problems are coming from an obstinate determination to
stick to the cuts to the top tax rates; I am surprised that National
did not agree to at least a deferral, or even a slightly smaller cut
using as a reason the cost of commitments under coalition agreements;
I suspect most New Zealanders would have accepted that, but National's >problem is also that they have retained control over finances, and
Nicola Willis has not exactly appeared to have been on top of data
that was in the last budget, let alone the pre-election data.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:07 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-rocked-by-second-leak-in-five-days-ministers-suspend-analysis-of-repeal-proposals/I4UDII5ZFJCE7IDVTYC63UYEIE/
When a government wants to fund tax cuts by exposing more New
Zealanders to illness and death from smoking, it seems only reasonable >>>that they go through normal processes of letting New Zealanders know
just what the experts assess the impact of this new legislation to be.
I suspect someone in NZ First was so upset about this that they leaked
it to The Herald; I hope we do eventually find out how it got leaked.
Instead the NActFirst is pushing it through so that we do not know
until too late how many are likely to die or become very ill as a
result of this change.
Doctors have again expressed concern, Dr Reti supports the legislation
- no wonder he is being called Dr Cigga Reti . . . >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-doctors-say-scrapping-smokefree-legislation-ridiculous/MBQE2HK2YFEN5O3BAL7CMHKDSE/
I have seen people in late stage emphysema - it is one of the most >>>distressing diseases; a very difficult way to die. I am disgusted that >>>NactFirst are putting this legislation through, but even more
disgusted that they are putting it through urgently so that they can >>>increase excise payments to pay for tax cuts. They are hiding
information from New Zealanders.
Give it a rest Rich. People voted for these policies and you guys
lost in a big way. Now all you and your buddies in the media are
doing is to make snide comments about everything this government
does.
I do not believe that is the case, Mutley. This policy arose after the >election - I think around the time that a coalition was formed.
Nicola Willis discovered on looking at budget papers that tax paid
through tobacco excise was reducing as New Zealanders smoked less.
That there was a much greater reduction in future liabilities does not
appear in annual budget figures, but I suspect we already started to
see fewer victims of nicotine poisoning needing health care. For
budget purposes however, Willis needed to find other income to cover
the drop in the top tax rate, and hence the idea of reversing smoking
policy; it was not known by the public at election day, so no we did
not vote for it. I am not as clear about the other policy changes;
clearly some of the coalition deals will have cost money, but they can
be included in "what people voted for", even if in some cases quite a
small number will have done that.
The budget problems are coming from an obstinate determination to
stick to the cuts to the top tax rates; I am surprised that National
did not agree to at least a deferral, or even a slightly smaller cut
using as a reason the cost of commitments under coalition agreements;
I suspect most New Zealanders would have accepted that, but National's >problem is also that they have retained control over finances, and
Nicola Willis has not exactly appeared to have been on top of data
that was in the last budget, let alone the pre-election data.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:01:28 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,748 |