Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the
Smokefree legislation:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but
not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not
being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with
'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises
whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as
reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the
Smokefree legislation:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but
not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not
being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with
'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises
whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as
reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of theI assume that question is rhetorical Crash. But maybe I could suggest that they
Smokefree legislation:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but
not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not
being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with
'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises
whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as
reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
do not see it as something they have been paid to publish.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 01:40:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou wouldn't, but most people would.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the >>>Smokefree legislation:I assume that question is rhetorical Crash. But maybe I could suggest that >>they
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but >>>not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not >>>being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with >>>'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises >>>whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as
reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
do not see it as something they have been paid to publish.
I don't see the questions as at all rhetorical,
and given the veryIt is only a small part of the policy which has yet to be implemented.
large lead the National and ACT Parties had over all other parties
combined as far as money to spend, the suggestion that not covering
the policy may have been politically motivated is insulting to those
parties; and I do not in any event believe it to be true.
The question of media bias has made the news very recently in relationIrrelevant.
to the New York Times - see >https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-bennet-nyt-firing-00131826
The article (and even more the longer essay by the ex-editor), makes
it clear that in the past the newspaper had published a wide range of
views, but that this had changed in recent times. As Editor, he
published an opinion relating to protests over the police murder of
George Floyd by a prominent Republican who called on the
then-President trump to use the US military in an “overwhelming show
of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.”
Rather than endangering protestors and journalists, the publication ofWhat silly off topic nonsense.
this opinion resulted in public debate that led to the idea being
rejected - there is value in inclusive debate rather than intolerance.
In the case of Smokefree , legislation in New Zealand, I suspect it
did not become a policy until quite late in the election period, but >certainly the media generally were paying little attention to NZ
First. The support from ACT was a very misguided response based on
giving people the freedom to kill themselves - but missing that this
method of killing yourself takes some years and a huge cost to health >services.
The key element in having it accepted appears to be the involvement of >Willis, who at that stage was discovering that she had hugelyWhat lies you tell.
over-estimated the money from foreign purchasers which was being
removed, but that the smoke-free policy was losing taxes through being >successful in turning people away from smoking. She would have been
desperate to cover the hole in National's promises regarding tax,
hence National's support.
It also illustrates the weak position Luxon found himself in, and his >inability to negotiate effectively. In this case a wiser choice wouldOff topic jyust like most of what you have written this time.
have been to allow the proposal to go forward, but to a vote of
parliament, by implying that he had some MPs (and possibly most of
them) that would on conscience grounds cross the floor to vote
against. By putting it in the form it is in the agreements, National
appears to be committed to supporting it (and possibly wants to
because of the top tax rate issue) - it appears to be accepted that
the agreements do not allow a party to vote against on the basis of >''agreeing to disagree".
As it was however the policy was largely unknown until it came throughOff topic.
in the coalition agreements, and to an extent that does reflect badly
on our media - they appear to have been motivated to generate
excitement through presenting polls as giving a close result, to
interpreting polls as more accurate than they were, and by reporting
"wins" and "losses" rather than discussing policies. Some saw the
election as a career opportunity (Jessica Mutch Mackay and a few
others come to mind), and analysis of policies were fairly rudimentary
for the main parties, and largely non-existent for the smaller
parties.
I have said before that I believe polls should be banned from two orOff topic.
three months before election day, and that published poll results at
other times should be required to give the percentage of no answer /
could not decide.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 01:40:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the >>>Smokefree legislation:I assume that question is rhetorical Crash. But maybe I could suggest that they
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but >>>not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not >>>being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with >>>'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises >>>whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as
reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
do not see it as something they have been paid to publish.
I don't see the questions as at all rhetorical, and given the very
large lead the National and ACT Parties had over all other parties
combined as far as money to spend, the suggestion that not covering
the policy may have been politically motivated is insulting to those
parties; and I do not in any event believe it to be true.
The question of media bias has made the news very recently in relation
to the New York Times - see >https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-bennet-nyt-firing-00131826
The article (and even more the longer essay by the ex-editor), makes
it clear that in the past the newspaper had published a wide range of
views, but that this had changed in recent times. As Editor, he
published an opinion relating to protests over the police murder of
George Floyd by a prominent Republican who called on the
then-President trump to use the US military in an “overwhelming show
of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.”
Rather than endangering protestors and journalists, the publication of
this opinion resulted in public debate that led to the idea being
rejected - there is value in inclusive debate rather than intolerance.
In the case of Smokefree , legislation in New Zealand, I suspect it
did not become a policy until quite late in the election period, but >certainly the media generally were paying little attention to NZ
First. The support from ACT was a very misguided response based on
giving people the freedom to kill themselves - but missing that this
method of killing yourself takes some years and a huge cost to health >services.
The key element in having it accepted appears to be the involvement of >Willis, who at that stage was discovering that she had hugely
over-estimated the money from foreign purchasers which was being
removed, but that the smoke-free policy was losing taxes through being >successful in turning people away from smoking. She would have been
desperate to cover the hole in National's promises regarding tax,
hence National's support.
It also illustrates the weak position Luxon found himself in, and his >inability to negotiate effectively. In this case a wiser choice would
have been to allow the proposal to go forward, but to a vote of
parliament, by implying that he had some MPs (and possibly most of
them) that would on conscience grounds cross the floor to vote
against. By putting it in the form it is in the agreements, National
appears to be committed to supporting it (and possibly wants to
because of the top tax rate issue) - it appears to be accepted that
the agreements do not allow a party to vote against on the basis of >''agreeing to disagree".
As it was however the policy was largely unknown until it came through
in the coalition agreements, and to an extent that does reflect badly
on our media - they appear to have been motivated to generate
excitement through presenting polls as giving a close result, to
interpreting polls as more accurate than they were, and by reporting
"wins" and "losses" rather than discussing policies. Some saw the
election as a career opportunity (Jessica Mutch Mackay and a few
others come to mind), and analysis of policies were fairly rudimentary
for the main parties, and largely non-existent for the smaller
parties.
I have said before that I believe polls should be banned from two or
three months before election day, and that published poll results at
other times should be required to give the percentage of no answer /
could not decide.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:16:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 01:40:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs I said in my OP, the point at hand is that the government is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the >>>>Smokefree legislation:I assume that question is rhetorical Crash. But maybe I could suggest that they
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/smokefree-repeal-protest-in-auckland-wellington-as-pressure-piles-on-govts-tobacco-laws/IJIG2PDMAJED5CZZ5VGOYYC46Q/
It is just the last round of legislative changes - passed into law but >>>>not yet in effect:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics-changes-to-smoking-vaping-laws-planned-under-coalition-government/7RQTSDKY3VFJDKEA47ZEQ54RQU/
My interest here is to be specific: the Smokefree legislation is not >>>>being repealed - it is just the latest iteration that verges on
banning tobacco products. We know, from past experience with >>>>'Prohibition' that bans do not work because a black market arises >>>>whenever this is attempted.
Additionally all of this is part of NZF policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Scroll down to 'Vaping, Smoking and Nicotine'.
Notwithstanding that NZF captured only 6% of the party vote and
managed to get this into their coalition agreement with National,
these actions constitute enactment of publicly-announced policy.
Failure to take this action could quite rightly be construed as >>>>reneging on said policy.
Why is this not covered on Stuff and NZ Herald articles?
do not see it as something they have been paid to publish.
I don't see the questions as at all rhetorical, and given the very
large lead the National and ACT Parties had over all other parties
combined as far as money to spend, the suggestion that not covering
the policy may have been politically motivated is insulting to those >>parties; and I do not in any event believe it to be true.
following stated intent from NZF policy included in their coalition >agreement. Nothing more, nothing less.
The question of media bias has made the news very recently in relationI did not raise media bias. I wondered why the media have not pointed
to the New York Times - see >>https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/james-bennet-nyt-firing-00131826
The article (and even more the longer essay by the ex-editor), makes
it clear that in the past the newspaper had published a wide range of >>views, but that this had changed in recent times. As Editor, he
published an opinion relating to protests over the police murder of
George Floyd by a prominent Republican who called on the
then-President trump to use the US military in an “overwhelming show
of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.”
out that the government is following its policy with respect to repeal >Smokefree legislation changes that have not yet come into force. That
is an allegation of omission, not bias.
Rather than endangering protestors and journalists, the publication of
this opinion resulted in public debate that led to the idea being
rejected - there is value in inclusive debate rather than intolerance.
In the case of Smokefree , legislation in New Zealand, I suspect it
did not become a policy until quite late in the election period, but >>certainly the media generally were paying little attention to NZ
First. The support from ACT was a very misguided response based on
giving people the freedom to kill themselves - but missing that this
method of killing yourself takes some years and a huge cost to health >>services.
The key element in having it accepted appears to be the involvement of >>Willis, who at that stage was discovering that she had hugely >>over-estimated the money from foreign purchasers which was being
removed, but that the smoke-free policy was losing taxes through being >>successful in turning people away from smoking. She would have been >>desperate to cover the hole in National's promises regarding tax,
hence National's support.
It also illustrates the weak position Luxon found himself in, and his >>inability to negotiate effectively. In this case a wiser choice would
have been to allow the proposal to go forward, but to a vote of
parliament, by implying that he had some MPs (and possibly most of
them) that would on conscience grounds cross the floor to vote
against. By putting it in the form it is in the agreements, National >>appears to be committed to supporting it (and possibly wants to
because of the top tax rate issue) - it appears to be accepted that
the agreements do not allow a party to vote against on the basis of >>''agreeing to disagree".
As it was however the policy was largely unknown until it came through
in the coalition agreements, and to an extent that does reflect badly
on our media - they appear to have been motivated to generate
excitement through presenting polls as giving a close result, to >>interpreting polls as more accurate than they were, and by reporting
"wins" and "losses" rather than discussing policies. Some saw the
election as a career opportunity (Jessica Mutch Mackay and a few
others come to mind), and analysis of policies were fairly rudimentary
for the main parties, and largely non-existent for the smaller
parties.
I have said before that I believe polls should be banned from two or
three months before election day, and that published poll results at
other times should be required to give the percentage of no answer /
could not decide.
None of which is relevant. It was NZF policy announced prior to the
election (unless you have proof otherwise). That made it into the
coalition agreement so implementation is to be expected.
Much has been made of the decision to repeal some aspects of the
Smokefree legislation:
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:16:39 |
| Calls: | 6,661 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,403 |