New Zealand set to ban smoking

I would like to take this moment to make a stance, and ban 'Banning'.

From this point forward, the 'Banning' of anything is now banned, and will no longer be allowed anywhere.

a reply to: thebtheb

Ah , thats to Bad . It's Also to Bad NZ dosen't have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to Protect it's Citizens from Tyrannical Government Based in IngLand.............

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: [post=262522]

Aren't there studies showing that smoking inhibits the virus' ability to adhere to lung tissue?

There is a study that proposed that damage to the ACE2 receptors caused by smoking may interfere with the infection process of COVID-19. However, the most damaging effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is due to the way it turns off ACE2 function in the cell once it has infected it (if ACE2 still bound the virus while it was exiting the cell, the virus particles would bind to ACE2 and be stuck on the cell wall).

That aside, clinical studies have revealed that smoking and obesity are significant risk factors in severe COVID-19 cases.

Smoking and COVID-19: What we know so far

Interesting connection here.

I've always said, the logic being applied to keep the virus at bay doesn't make sense.

However the logic that does fit based on the actions taken is that they want it to spread, mutate and spread some more.

The people who want to block every attempt to stop it spreading (don't mask, don't vaccinate, don't lock-down, congregate and protest in crowds, even deny it is happening) are the ones promoting its spread.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

I would like to take this moment to make a stance, and ban 'Banning'.

From this point forward, the 'Banning' of anything is now banned, and will no longer be allowed anywhere.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your cited study is an attitude of or to, not a measurement of fact.

How about this one:

Implications: (1) Recent epidemiologic data suggest a paradoxical link between smoking and COVID-19. (2) Among the 1688 crewmembers (with an attack rate of 76% and exposed at the same time in the same place to SARS-CoV2), we found a significantly lower risk for developing COVID-19 in current smokers (71%) versus former and nonsmokers (80%). This finding strongly supports the need for further research on nicotine physiological pathway and its impact on COVID-19 infection whilst emphasizing that tobacco smoking should not be considered as efficient protection against COVID-19.

Link

Now I would concede a point you didn't make and that would be that smokers are more likely to suffer more complications including hospitalization from covid. However that is obvious as we know smoking isnt healthy and can be labled as 'comorbididty."

The people who want to block every attempt to stop it spreading (don't mask, don't vaccinate, don't lock-down, congregate and protest in crowds, even deny it is happening) are the ones promoting its spread.

However these arent' the ones who are forcing the evolution and play a part in the enrichening of the pharma industry as well as your favorite part, government overeach into authoritarianism.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Isn't it ironic....dontya think? Considering your documented position on the 'vid vaccine?

Vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than the pathogens that they oppose.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry.

I'm going to patiently wait for the audible click to happen between yer ears.

Things are changing.

Only a century ago governments marched people off to wars, to throw their lives away defending themselves from stuff that could never happen to them, anyway.

Now, we have truly international information at our fingertips.

Although it will probably take some a few more centuries to catch-up.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Your cited study is an attitude of or to, not a measurement of fact.

How about this one:

Implications: (1) Recent epidemiologic data suggest a paradoxical link between smoking and COVID-19. (2) Among the 1688 crewmembers (with an attack rate of 76% and exposed at the same time in the same place to SARS-CoV2), we found a significantly lower risk for developing COVID-19 in current smokers (71%) versus former and nonsmokers (80%). This finding strongly supports the need for further research on nicotine physiological pathway and its impact on COVID-19 infection whilst emphasizing that tobacco smoking should not be considered as efficient protection against COVID-19.

Link

Now I would concede a point you didn't make and that would be that smokers are more likely to suffer more complications including hospitalization from covid. However that is obvious as we know smoking isnt healthy and can be labled as 'comorbididty."

The people who want to block every attempt to stop it spreading (don't mask, don't vaccinate, don't lock-down, congregate and protest in crowds, even deny it is happening) are the ones promoting its spread.

However these arent' the ones who are forcing the evolution and play a part in the enrichening of the pharma industry as well as your favorite part, government overeach into authoritarianism.

The birth of new strains of the virus due to mutation is a random event and its primary contributing factors are time, chemistry, and the size of the host population.

Those that oppose efforts to limit the size of the host population, and the time those cases are active, are the ones 'forcing' the 'evolution'.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

SO smoking shouldn't be an individual choice, it should be determined by government.

How. . . . authoritarian.

Smoking reduces the quality of life of significant numbers of people. It is also absolutely unnecessary.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an internationally agreed list of things which should be considered Human Rights.

You get on a rather slippery slope if you abandon real rights for some loop-de-loop crazy thing which you then try and portray as a right.

There is no such thing as right to choose to smoke.

A safety protocol, enforced in law, as so many other laws are, is not authoritarian.

a reply to: chr0naut

Individual rights are paramount everywhere where there isn't tyranny.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
—C. S. Lewis

a reply to: chr0naut

The birth of new strains of the virus due to mutation is a random event and its primary contributing factors are time, chemistry, and the size of the host population.

Those that oppose efforts to limit the size of the host population, and the time those cases are active, are the ones 'forcing' the 'evolution'.

Citation required.

a reply to: chr0naut

You get on a rather slippery slope if you abandon real rights for some loop-de-loop crazy thing which you then try and portray as a right.

So in your eyes, rights are subjective?

Article 2 of the UDHR:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

In case you're unfamiliar with the definition of liberty....

the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

the power to do or choose what you want to

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry. And starting with the youngest is a reasonable method to achieve that goal.

But a potential mother can still murder her unborn foetus if she wants to, am i right.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry. And starting with the youngest is a reasonable method to achieve that goal.

Cool
Corn syrup is next
Followed by going outside without sunscreen
Followed by watching television

Own it fascist!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

SO smoking shouldn't be an individual choice, it should be determined by government.

How. . . . authoritarian.

How long until somene decides he's had entirely too MUCH to eat this week -- he can still type with too much ease.

Restrict the rations, nothing but water for the next 2 days. he can stand to thin out to physically match the skeletal Jacaranda or whatever the hell her name is running the show.

i take offence ass hole, I like to smoke an I hand role every cig i smoke by hand, and not one filter involved.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Individual rights are paramount everywhere where there isn't tyranny.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
—C. S. Lewis

I'm not proposing any loss of existing codified human rights.

I am proposing that we don't call stuff like having all your pockets filled with house bricks, a right.

a reply to: chr0naut

People should really just do some independent research. The Tobacco lie was the first one that they got a divide and rule thing going on. Moderate smoking of decent natural tobacco is certainly not harmful in the smallest sense. In fact, pipe smokers live longer than nonsmokers. Smokers have significantly fewer joint replacement operations. They have a seventy-five percent less likelihood of getting Parkinson's' or Alzheimer's disease. Nill risk of getting Beri Beri, plus so many more positive effects that it is no wonder big pharma want to ban smoking. Smokers' lungs are used in transplants and surgeons cant tell the difference between a smoker's lungs and a nonsmoker. They started with this lie and most fell for it.

a reply to: chr0naut
Please NEVER again atrempt to convince me you understand or respect individual freedom in any way.

You and your chosen fascist nation are a pox on the ass of the planet.

originally posted by: dirtydog
i take offence ass hole, I like to smoke an I hand role every cig i smoke by hand, and not one filter involved.

I personally indulge in pipe tobacco myself, though not every day (or even every week)

But I might have to grab some to smoke up in his honor.

originally posted by: CthruU
Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Pooping is filthy, smelly and unsanitary. Let's ban it! Well, except for Biden, that is. He does it in his pants.