there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know the article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing Aotearoa’s world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole legislation - and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article, but look
at the team involved in writing it:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation: https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues
during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to CLuxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not
understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at
least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government
themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing
something put through by the previous Labour Government.

So suck it up, Tony (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is
just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know >>the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >>encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >>surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >>lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of your intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation: >https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues
during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at
least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government
themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing
something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, that is bad English and wrong.
They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you gush over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know >>>>the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >>>>encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >>>>surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >>>>lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of >>your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it: >>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation: >>>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government >>>themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, >>that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the
change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing >legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the >Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that
more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax
rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a
change to previous laws.

What nonsense. Repeal is a total removal of the law - a very different thing - no wonder you can't be bothered checking eh?

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you >>gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it
is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all, >including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health >Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the
paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing
out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco
Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians
have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ
Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have
been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence
based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government
has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you
accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements
that we have signed up to?

The article is politically motivated and contains inacuracies, lies and half truths - it is worthless.
No we do not have to continue to obey any agreements that are no longer appropriate - no other country does, neither should we.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know >>>the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >>>encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >>>surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >>>lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation: >>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government
themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the
change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing
legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the
Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that
more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax
rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a
change to previous laws.

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it
is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all,
including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health
Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the
paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing
out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco
Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians
have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ
Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have
been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence
based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government
has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you
accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements
that we have signed up to?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:24:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know
the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it
encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no
surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such
lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of >>>your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it: >>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group: >>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>>>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind >>>>that Foundation: >>>>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in >>>>this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of >>>>the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>>>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government >>>>policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important >>>>to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>>>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a >>>>team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government >>>>themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>>>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, >>>that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the >>change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing >>legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the >>Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that
more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax
rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a
change to previous laws.

What nonsense. Repeal is a total removal of the law - a very different thing - >no wonder you can't be bothered checking eh?

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you >>>gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it
is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all, >>including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health >>Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the
paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing
out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco
Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians
have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ >>Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have
been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence
based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government
has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you >>accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements
that we have signed up to?

The article is politically motivated and contains inacuracies, lies and half >truths - it is worthless.
No we do not have to continue to obey any agreements that are no longer >appropriate - no other country does, neither should we.

Can you identify any inaccuracies, lies or half-truths, Tony?

If New Zealand wanted to withdraw from an agreement, would it not be
better to do that before we ignore our obligations under the
agreement?

And a later news story: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350166539/pm-christopher-luxons-sister-law-works-tobacco-company

It is good that the potential conflict was identified regarding
Luxon's sister-in law, and she is entitled to work for whoever she
wants to. It would be interesting however to know whether National
and/or ACT have received monetary donations or other assistance from
the NZ Initiative or the NZ Taxpayer Union . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:24:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You >>>>>>know
the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and >>>>>>it
encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you >>>>>>(no
surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>>>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>>>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell >>>>>>such
lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of >>>>your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it: >>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group: >>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>>>>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind >>>>>that Foundation: >>>>>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in >>>>>this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of >>>>>the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>>>>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government >>>>>policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important >>>>>to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on >>>>>their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>>>>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article >>>>>you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a >>>>>team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government >>>>>themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>>>>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, >>>>that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the >>>change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing >>>legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the >>>Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that
more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax
rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a >>>change to previous laws.

What nonsense. Repeal is a total removal of the law - a very different thing >>-
no wonder you can't be bothered checking eh?

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you >>>>gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it
is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all, >>>including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health >>>Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the
paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing
out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco >>>Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians
have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ >>>Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have >>>been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence
based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government >>>has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you >>>accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements >>>that we have signed up to?

The article is politically motivated and contains inacuracies, lies and half >>truths - it is worthless.
No we do not have to continue to obey any agreements that are no longer >>appropriate - no other country does, neither should we.

Can you identify any inaccuracies, lies or half-truths, Tony?

Already done.

If New Zealand wanted to withdraw from an agreement, would it not be
better to do that before we ignore our obligations under the
agreement?

It would be better to re-negotiate first if possible. However I have not said that we should not withdraw first - why would you think otherwise?
In fact your question is non-sensical.

And a later news story: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350166539/pm-christopher-luxons-sister-law-works-tobacco-company

More abuse, lies and political rhetoric removed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:56:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:24:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You >>>>>>>know
the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and >>>>>>>it
encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you >>>>>>>(no
surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>>>>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>>>>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell >>>>>>>such
lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle of >>>>>your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it: >>>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group: >>>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>>>>>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind >>>>>>that Foundation: >>>>>>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in >>>>>>this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of >>>>>>the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>>>>>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government >>>>>>policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important >>>>>>to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on >>>>>>their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>>>>>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article >>>>>>you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a >>>>>>team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government >>>>>>themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>>>>>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was described, >>>>>that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the >>>>change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing >>>>legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the >>>>Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that >>>>more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax >>>>rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a >>>>change to previous laws.

What nonsense. Repeal is a total removal of the law - a very different thing >>>-
no wonder you can't be bothered checking eh?

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder you >>>>>gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it >>>>is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all, >>>>including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health >>>>Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the >>>>paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing >>>>out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco >>>>Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians >>>>have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ >>>>Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have >>>>been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence >>>>based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government >>>>has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you >>>>accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements >>>>that we have signed up to?

The article is politically motivated and contains inacuracies, lies and half >>>truths - it is worthless.
No we do not have to continue to obey any agreements that are no longer >>>appropriate - no other country does, neither should we.

Can you identify any inaccuracies, lies or half-truths, Tony?

Already done.

To nz.general?

If New Zealand wanted to withdraw from an agreement, would it not be
better to do that before we ignore our obligations under the
agreement?

It would be better to re-negotiate first if possible.

I agree, either withdrawing or renegotiating would have been
preferable to ignoring obligations, but they do not appear to be
trying to renegotiate.

However I have not said
that we should not withdraw first - why would you think otherwise?

So what do you think they should be doing now, Tony?

In fact your question is non-sensical.

And a later news story: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350166539/pm-christopher-luxons-sister-law-works-tobacco-company

More abuse, lies and political rhetoric removed.

Where? Luxon appears to be doing the Right thing in responding to new information - sad really that he appears to have been unaware of some
of the connections with tobacco companies, but he does appear to now
know more about the links between lobbyists and the NZ Taxpayer Union
and the NZ Initiative; he may of course also have been unaware of his obligation under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:56:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:24:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You >>>>>>>>know
the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag >>>>>>>>and
it
encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you >>>>>>>>(no
surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing >>>>>>>>Aotearoa’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole >>>>>>>>legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell >>>>>>>>such
lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article

Grow up - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and for you is the pinnacle >>>>>>of
your
intellect.
But grow up please.

, but look
at the team involved in writing it: >>>>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group: >>>>>>>https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and >>>>>>>following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind >>>>>>>that Foundation: >>>>>>>https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in >>>>>>>this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of >>>>>>>the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues >>>>>>>during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government >>>>>>>policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important >>>>>>>to C Luxon, and even more so since they over-promised by not

Note correction to deliberate slur above this line.

understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on >>>>>>>their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at >>>>>>>least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article >>>>>>>you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a >>>>>>>team of academic scientists and others in their group.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government >>>>>>>themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing >>>>>>>something put through by the previous Labour Government.

abuse gone. (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is

just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now? >>>>>>They are not repealing the legislation. I don't care how it was >>>>>>described,

that
is bad English and wrong.

That is easily resolved - if you find the initial announcement of the >>>>>change, I am sure you will find that it was described as repealing >>>>>legislation. I can't be bothered looking; this change was not in the >>>>>Coalition Agreements, but introduced only after it became clear that >>>>>more money was needed to support the promise of cutting the top tax >>>>>rate, which was itself also delayed. All legislation is of course a >>>>>change to previous laws.

What nonsense. Repeal is a total removal of the law - a very different >>>>thing
-
no wonder you can't be bothered checking eh?

They are repealing an amendment not yet implemented.
The entire article is politically motivated and misleading - no wonder >>>>>>you
gush
over it.
Why do you waste your time writing this garbage?

The article provides good information about proposed legislation - it >>>>>is an unbiased academic analysis of proposals, but it reminds us all, >>>>>including politicians, of their obligations under the World Health >>>>>Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A lot of the >>>>>paper is direct quotations from (now) Government politicians pointing >>>>>out that they are repeating misleading information from Tobacco >>>>>Interests, and then listing evidence that contacts with politicians >>>>>have been involved in organisations (such as Tax Payers Union. NZ >>>>>Initiative, that have received funding from tobacco interests, or have >>>>>been employed by Tobacco companies. The article calls for evidence >>>>>based policy formulation; sadly it appears that the current government >>>>>has been significantly influenced by tobacco Company interests. Do you >>>>>accept that our Government should comply with International Agreements >>>>>that we have signed up to?

The article is politically motivated and contains inacuracies, lies and >>>>half
truths - it is worthless.
No we do not have to continue to obey any agreements that are no longer >>>>appropriate - no other country does, neither should we.

Can you identify any inaccuracies, lies or half-truths, Tony?

Already done.

To nz.general?

Obviously.

If New Zealand wanted to withdraw from an agreement, would it not be >>>better to do that before we ignore our obligations under the
agreement?

It would be better to re-negotiate first if possible.

I agree, either withdrawing or renegotiating would have been
preferable to ignoring obligations, but they do not appear to be
trying to renegotiate.

Nobody is ignoring anything - you have shown nothing of the sort.

However I have not said
that we should not withdraw first - why would you think otherwise?

So what do you think they should be doing now, Tony?

In fact your question is non-sensical.

And a later news story: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350166539/pm-christopher-luxons-sister-law-works-tobacco-company

More abuse, lies and political rhetoric removed.

Where? Luxon appears to be doing the Right thing in responding to new >information - sad really that he appears to have been unaware of some
of the connections with tobacco companies, but he does appear to now
know more about the links between lobbyists and the NZ Taxpayer Union
and the NZ Initiative; he may of course also have been unaware of his >obligation under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

You know zero of his knowledge, motivation or intellect - all way beyond your ability to assimilate and process.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:38:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

The PHCC appears to itself be very confused. Look at the first
sentence in the article Rich80105 posted, then take a look at the
first sentence of another article from the PHCC:

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/stubbing-out-democracy-no-government-mandate-smokefree-repeal#:~:text=Summary,has%20a%20mandate%20and%20legitimacy.

The key word in the second article is 2022 and it is missing from the
first article.

The second article is correct - the government is repealing the
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco)
Amendment Act 2022. This was the only Smokefree legislation passed in
2022.

https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0079/latest/LMS708154.html?search=y_act%40act_2022__ac%40ainf%40anif%40aaif_ac%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=3

The first article specifically states "The new coalition Government
has controversially proposed repealing Aotearoa’s world-leading
smokefree legislation." and that is a blatant lie.

Rich I found this info (including the legislation website for the 2022
Act) within a 20-minute research window. Perhaps the search for facts
takes a bit longer than the effort required to post political
rhetoric. This may be a bit harsh but you do this repeatedly and have
done so for a long time, in some cases repeatedly ignoring rebuttal
evidence.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-02-03, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:38:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

The PHCC appears to itself be very confused. Look at the first
sentence in the article Rich80105 posted, then take a look at the
first sentence of another article from the PHCC:

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/stubbing-out-democracy-no-government-mandate-smokefree-repeal#:~:text=Summary,has%20a%20mandate%20and%20legitimacy.

The key word in the second article is 2022 and it is missing from the
first article.

The second article is correct - the government is repealing the
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco)
Amendment Act 2022. This was the only Smokefree legislation passed in
2022.

https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0079/latest/LMS708154.html?search=y_act%40act_2022__ac%40ainf%40anif%40aaif_ac%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=3

The first article specifically states "The new coalition Government
has controversially proposed repealing AotearoaÂ’s world-leading
smokefree legislation." and that is a blatant lie.

Rich I found this info (including the legislation website for the 2022
Act) within a 20-minute research window. Perhaps the search for facts
takes a bit longer than the effort required to post political
rhetoric. This may be a bit harsh but you do this repeatedly and have
done so for a long time, in some cases repeatedly ignoring rebuttal
evidence.

It is a sad state of affairs when the facts of a simple action are not known
to some people and others who keep sucking the enegry out so that it all
ends up with a much poorer out come for society as a whole.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-02-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >>encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >>surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing AotearoaÂ’s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >>lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article, but look
at the team involved in writing it:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation: https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues
during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to CLuxon,

So they should be, the Government has a mandate to give tax cuts.

and even more so since they over-promised by not
understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at
least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

Being academic in this age does not mean that they are correct. There is a
view that the acsdemic side has gone woke.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government
themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing
something put through by the previous Labour Government.

That is a half truth at best. By repeating it all yoy are doing is showing
your political intellence, and how slow you are to correct the facts so that the debate can continue.

So suck it up, Tony (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is
just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 15:28:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:38:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

The PHCC appears to itself be very confused. Look at the first
sentence in the article Rich80105 posted, then take a look at the
first sentence of another article from the PHCC:

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/stubbing-out-democracy-no-government-mandate-smokefree-repeal#:~:text=Summary,has%20a%20mandate%20and%20legitimacy.

The key word in the second article is 2022 and it is missing from the
first article.

The second article is correct - the government is repealing the
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco)
Amendment Act 2022. This was the only Smokefree legislation passed in
2022.

Your second article is dated 11 December 2023; your first article is
dated 1 February 2024.

I don't see any inconsistency between the two; but you have confirmed
that the proposed action is the repeal of a 2022 Act - which does of
course amend the laws of New Zealand as any Act does. The 1 February
article appears to be a minor revision of the earlier report - I have
not made a detailed comparison.

The first report is talking about whether there is a parliamentary
mandate for the changes proposed at that time. I can't get very
excited about mandate arguments. Certainly their changes will have an
adverse effect on New Zealand long term, while the government will
raise more money in the short term (so they can lower the top tax
rate), New Zealand will pay more in real terms (around double has been suggested) over the long term for more people dying from the effects
of nicotine. Such a policy that was not discussed with voters before
the election certainly seems unwise, but since they botched their
costings of the tax cut they believe they have to do something
unpalatable in the short term. They have the votes in the house, they
can do it. A "mandate" has no legal effect, but it may well have an
effect on the trust voters have in this government, and that may
affect the next election. Supporters of ACT / Nat during the previous government were keen on purported lack of mandate - some have asserted
that no government should make changes that have not been canvassed
with voters before an election. They probably knew that was stupid and
wrong, but they had found it hard to criticise without such crazy
assertions.

The later article which I posted is dated 1 February, and addressed a
quite different issue - that of international obligations. That matter
is a major concern, affecting the reputation of our country. The
concerns over the negative financial return and the deaths that the
change will make are not diminished, but the involvement of tobacco
companies in the development of policy, leading to greater expected
deaths from smoking over the next few years until the legislation can
be corrected is of concern as well. That our government appears to be
blithely ignoring both the morality of their position, as well as the
deaths it will cause, as well as the picture of corruption of all
three parties in the coalition, as well as their willingness to parrot
lies fed to them from the tobacco companies is quite simply appalling.

https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0079/latest/LMS708154.html?search=y_act%40act_2022__ac%40ainf%40anif%40aaif_ac%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=3

The first article specifically states "The new coalition Government
has controversially proposed repealing Aotearoa’s world-leading
smokefree legislation." and that is a blatant lie.

While I can see no lie in the statement, I can see that some ACT /
National supporters may be disappointed that it does not acknowledge
the part played by previous governments, including two National-led governments, in reducing smoking, and hence expected costs relating to
future deaths, by the policy of increasing taxes each year to make
tobacco products more expensive, and hence reducing sales. That
eventually however led to a high priced product that was attractive to
thieves, and we saw ram-raids develop as a way of committing thefts.
The last Labour government saw that the effectiveness of keeping on
increasing prices was creating negative off-setting effects, and the
truly world-leading legislation was in also setting in place policies
that over time would have created an increasing percentage of the
population that would not have legal access to tobacco products. Other Governments have indicated interest in the new policies, and regret
was expressed when the current NZ government indicated that they were
not following through.

Rich I found this info (including the legislation website for the 2022
Act) within a 20-minute research window. Perhaps the search for facts
takes a bit longer than the effort required to post political
rhetoric. This may be a bit harsh but you do this repeatedly and have
done so for a long time, in some cases repeatedly ignoring rebuttal
evidence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3 Feb 2024 04:34:43 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2024-02-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

there are political donations! . . . .

and then?

https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/tobacco-industry-interference-new-government-meeting-its-international-obligations

You have made nasty accusations in the past but this is a new low. You know the
article is mischievous at best and yet you write this shit.
It is full of lies, and you know it. It is obviously a political rag and it >>>encourages people with dim minds to read and follow it - and it got you (no >>>surprise there).
"The new coalition Government has controversially proposed repealing Aotearoa?s
world-leading smokefree legislation."
Is a lie - they are talking only about an ammendment, not the whole legislation
- and people with tiny, shitty minds like yours think it is OK to tell such >>>lies.
You are a disgraceful and evil piece of garbage.

I am flattered that you think I may have written the article, but look
at the team involved in writing it:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#people

and the story behind this group:
https://www.phcc.org.nz/about-us#content

Now you will see that this work was funded by The Gama Foundation, and
following the logical process, you would want to know who is behind
that Foundation:
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/big-giver-the-gama-foundation

So the sort of public interest and unbiased work that is embodied in
this report has been going on since about 2010, addressing issues of
the day.

If previous governments did not object to light being shone on issues
during their terms, what is wrong with this project, Tony?

It is fairly clear that tobacco money is influencing government
policies - it is clear that the promise of tax cuts is very important
to CLuxon,

So they should be, the Government has a mandate to give tax cuts.

Actually if you mean a majority of New Zealanders voted for that
policy then that is very unclear. Many are said to have voted for NZ
First specifically to "Keep National Honest"; and while that clearly
has not happened, the percentage voting for tax cuts may well be much
less than 50% of the population. As it is, we have seen the drive to
save enough money to make the tax cuts mean a real reduction in the
value of the minimum wage, a reversal of smoking policies that will
lead to higher deaths and higher costs from the effects of smoking; a
delay in the tax cuts coming through due to not being able to afford
them when initially promised, and a government that is not prepared to
assist New Zealanders that have been severely affected by adverse
weather events. While the possibility of tax cuts may have affected
some votes, what most voting for coalition parties will have been
voting for is a party that they believed would help New Zealand better
than other parties - and a government prepared to make decisions based
on facts and actual economic conditions after the election. Very few
would have wanted the three headed scrabble for power and commitments
based not on open parliamentary debate but on back-room deals between
Seymour, Luxon and Peters where it became evident that some agreements
only emerged through lack of knowledge by at lest one of those in
those discussions. If a policy is wrong, then it should not be
implemented, even if it was a significant reason why the government
was elected. we all make mistakes; a good government will own up and
seek to convince voters that what they are doing is the best under all
the circumstances, even if other actions were anticipated
pre-election.

and even more so since they over-promised by not
understanding budget numbers, but giving major donors a return on
their 'investment' is also very desirable, so to the National Party at
least this is a must have policy.

Now if I or any other poster to nz.general had written this article
you would have been upset; but I didn't write it - that is down to a
team of academic scientists and others in their group.

Being academic in this age does not mean that they are correct. There is a >view that the acsdemic side has gone woke.

And finally, repealing legislation is how the current Government
themselves described their proposals it sounds good to be repealing
something put through by the previous Labour Government.

That is a half truth at best. By repeating it all yoy are doing is showing >your political intellence, and how slow you are to correct the facts so that >the debate can continue.

So suck it up, Tony (and no I did not mean start smoking!) - this is
just giving the public information that they need - Happy Now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)