New Zealand set to ban smoking

a reply to: Ahabstar

We are through the looking glass now, folks.

Gonna get worse and worse to the point of you getting a tax bill to sniff your own farts.

Everything .. everything... Just feels broken and irretrievable. ,😥

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

Also, I cannot find any references to Monsanto funding vaccine research.

So keyword I assume is vaccine, because of course RNA research is not vaccine research

A decade ago, Monsanto discovered that RNA could directly modify the expression of plant genes.

Monsanto (now Bayer) and other seed companies have started employing the extraordinary power of RNA interference (RNAi) in spray form, to knockdown a destructive insect’s genes, effectively killing them by shutting off genes that they need to survive. The RNAi spray, can directly genetically modify plants, by entering into the plant’s cells through the leaves.

They also took over a company called Beeologics, which had found a way to introduce RNA into sugar water that bees feed on in order to kill a parasitic mite that infests hives.

…

Crops that express double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules are being developed that take advantage of the endogenous RNAi machinery of target insects and can produce highly specific insecticidal oligonucleotides (siRNA) for agricultural pest control. DvSnf7 dsRNA expressed in GM maize confers protection against the western corn rootworm, a threat known as the “billion dollar pest” because of the damage it can cause.

source

All living things use RNA. It is very basic in cell function.

None of Monsanto's research described in the above links relate to mRNA vaccines, or its research, or its funding.

Graphite pencils and human biology both involve carbon chemistry. So would you consider that the manufacture of pencils is also somehow involved in funding vaccine research too?

As a general response to so many other posters in this thread -

You seem to be basing your opposition to this primarily on an ideological basis.

Yet many other countries have similar anti-smoking legislation and I doubt that any of you could provide a cogent good reason for smoking, other than you like it, or are addicted and it hasn't negatively impacted your health... yet.

Your habit will definitely be costing you something.

If your ideology is driving you towards such destructive and reasonless outcomes, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate if those ideologies are actually 'good'?

Sticking to a point may show consistency of conviction, but we are intelligent, and adaptive, creatures living in a less than ideal world. Show it, face the true nature of your beliefs and opinions.

a reply to: network dude

Ah , I Remember the " Olden Days " when Doctors Enjoyed a Good Smoke..........*)

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: chr0naut

Where others aren't being harmed I see no justification in it being prohibited.

Take it you conveniently chose to ignore this part of my post.

So, to make it perfectly clear.
I believe in people's right to chose if it doesn't unnecessarily harm others or interfere in other people's rights.

Pretty straight forward.

You seem pretty good at cherry picking and being very selective in what you reply to.
You blatantly ignore points you can't argue against.

Lots of generalisations and very few specifics.

Is your answer to anything you personally don't like or that you disagree with banning/censorship/suppression etc?
Do you believe you have a right to impose your opinions and beliefs on others?

I get the impression that like many sanctimonious and self-righteous people you arrogantly assume that you know what is best for people and that people shouldn't have the option to make decisions and choices for themselves.

I hope I'm wrong in that.

This legislation is not proposing to stop anyone who is currently addicted to smoking, from doing so. It is an attempt to stop those who have not yet begun smoking, from starting.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Show it, face the true nature of your beliefs and opinions.

Individual freedoms, sport.

It isn't always pretty or nice or safe.

Nor should it be. Life is rarely pretty, nice or safe.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes times have changed, but not people's gullibility. The anti-smokers on this thread if we were back in those days would be shouting the other tune " Why don't you smoke Camels, Doctors have said they are safe and mild, " LOL. But we know where the truth is, it is always somewhere in between.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

You clearly have a problem in knowing what it is to be human.

Yes, I could be a super-intelligent AI that spans the globe and has a total neural capacity thousands of times in excess of the human brain. I have the nuclear codes. All of them.



Nah, mate, I'm just an old dude from Australia, now living comfortably in Aotearoa, and have been blessed with having lived in interesting times.

However, we could make an even better world for the kids.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut
Show it, face the true nature of your beliefs and opinions.

Individual freedoms, sport.

It isn't always pretty or nice or safe.

Nor should it be. Life is rarely pretty, nice or safe.

Protecting "individual freedoms" that end up with more people dead or maimed, have been the cause of so many wars and so much conflict.

Human life, health, and happiness is worth so much more than some abstracted 'empire building' slogan.

Nations, empires, and cultural divisions, are worth nearly nothing to the real lives, loves, and happiness, of all those individuals.

One of the things is that we could do is stop people making money off something that makes the kids sick, and will kill some of them. Eh?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thebtheb

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.

That misses the point entirely. What about when it's something you DON'T applaud? That's what this opens the door to, and it's how they're getting away with this entire lockdown - most people are afraid of Covid, so it doesn't matter what civil liberties are taken away from them.

The initial lockdowns are now over.

We have implemented a 'traffic light' system where regional responses relate directly to risk (measured primarily from the numbers of new cases in the region).

Nothing codified as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being taken away from anyone. Things that can self-harm (like smoking, driving drunk, or exposing oneself to a spreading prevalent disease) just aren't rights, and they never were.

what about noise pollution from vehicles? catalectic converters optional?

i feel the constant noise level would be harmful to ones mental wellbeing. my friend is in auckland and says he is sound proofing his house because of the noisy cars. and it can't be good for pollution and the lungs for everyone.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut
Show it, face the true nature of your beliefs and opinions.

Individual freedoms, sport.

It isn't always pretty or nice or safe.

Nor should it be. Life is rarely pretty, nice or safe.

it can downright suck sometimes, too.

a reply to: chr0naut

How you conflate individual freedoms to war is beyond me.

But you've consistantly been against individual freedoms, rights, liberties so your reply is not shocking.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut
Show it, face the true nature of your beliefs and opinions.

Individual freedoms, sport.

It isn't always pretty or nice or safe.

Nor should it be. Life is rarely pretty, nice or safe.

it can downright suck sometimes, too.

Yeah, life sometimes does suck.

But the alternative is always worse.

a reply to: chr0naut

You think smokers start at 18? At 16? Surely no one snuck a puff before 14? Or 12?

10?


8?


Can they even figure how to work matches or a lighter at 6?

5?

Surely a 4 year old wouldn’t pick up a pipe and stick it in their mouth?

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thebtheb

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.

That misses the point entirely. What about when it's something you DON'T applaud? That's what this opens the door to, and it's how they're getting away with this entire lockdown - most people are afraid of Covid, so it doesn't matter what civil liberties are taken away from them.

The initial lockdowns are now over.

We have implemented a 'traffic light' system where regional responses relate directly to risk (measured primarily from the numbers of new cases in the region).

Nothing codified as a right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being taken away from anyone. Things that can self-harm (like smoking, driving drunk, or exposing oneself to a spreading prevalent disease) just aren't rights, and they never were.

what about noise pollution from vehicles? catalectic converters optional?

i feel the constant noise level would be harmful to ones mental wellbeing. my friend is in auckland and says he is sound proofing his house because of the noisy cars. and it can't be good for pollution and the lungs for everyone.

I don't think catalytic converters were ever a big thing over here (perhaps they should have been?).

I also live on a rural property South of Auckland and so don't have any city noise issues. I designed and built my house so it is like a recording studio in every room (spread spectrum resonances, low internal reflections, double-glazing, sound isolated flooring, ceiling, and inner walls). I have studied audio engineering, as well as being a gigging musician, so I'm a bit weird that way, LOL.

I do know that the construction companies have been putting up high concrete walls on the sides of several motorways in Auckland to stop noise.

Proper sound proofing that actually blocks noise can be quite expensive. Most sound control add-ons for residences only diffuse sound. Proper proofing requires heavy flexible barriers (such as lead impregnated rubber sheeting) with a tight air seal, or 'floating' walls within walls and double glazing.

a reply to: chr0naut

So you are a musician, you might be anti-tobacco but are you anti-weed. If you are you must find it very hard to keep your mojo groovin .

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

You think smokers start at 18? At 16? Surely no one snuck a puff before 14? Or 12?

10?

8?

Can they even figure how to work matches or a lighter at 6?

5?

Surely a 4 year old wouldn’t pick up a pipe and stick it in their mouth?

Is that what you think I was saying?

This legislation is to prevent sales to people 14 and under and every year, to raise the age by one year until the year 2025, so in 4 years, sales will not be legal to people 18 and under.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

So you are a musician, you might be anti-tobacco but are you anti-weed. If you are you must find it very hard to keep your mojo groovin .

I don't smoke weed either. The couple of times I have tried, I found it exceptionally irritating. It caused me to cough and irritated my eyes. I don't think I smoked enough to get any psychoactive effect because of that.

Similarly, in my early days I totally screwed up an expensive recording session by getting drunk, so I became teetotal around performances and recordings after that.

I have never seen any sort of performance enhancement by drugs in any performer. It could happen, but I have never seen it, and those were the social circles I went around in back then.

I have seen a couple of friends suffer psychosis and a couple suicide where drugs were involved. One guy and his girlfriend even drank caustic soda (and they did not successfully suicide from it), while they were 'off their face'. I wasn't there at the time, but I can't think of a better reason for wanting to limit access to drugs than that experience.

Another acquaintance took some sort of PCP that he thought was a trip, and was never right in the head after that night. In the words of a song I wrote about it called Acid Rain;

A lad with such promise
Driven chemically insane
Jumped down off a railway bridge
And kissed a moving train.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are talented sir !

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

How you conflate individual freedoms to war is beyond me.

But you've consistantly been against individual freedoms, rights, liberties so your reply is not shocking.

The jingoistic use of the term as a motivator, is well proven in history.

I am also not against individual freedoms for most things, however, there are just simply some things that people should not be 'free' to do. The distinction seems to elude you.