Potentially Controversial Opinion On Legislation...

mortonbriar · Aug 21, 2014

First of all, I am a very committed pipe smoker, i intend to puff up till the end and am very enthusiastic about buying/aging/smoking new blends.(I have a pipe tattoo just to reinforce the obsession).

On a personal level, of course i am pissed off that tax and duty is so extremely high on tobacco in New Zealand, it makes my hobby expensive!
BUT...

I actually think that on a societal level, heavy taxes on tobacco is a good thing. New Zealand government intends to make the country smoke-free by 2025, and are rolling out higher taxes and stricter branding laws every year leading up to that. We currently have fairly nasty statistics concerning high tobacco consumption and its strain on the health department, kids with asthma etc, etc. The truth is tobacco is not being sold or used responsibly by the majority of the market and I just cant quite bring myself to fight for my 'rights' when really there is a much bigger picture...
I know other countries are heading in the same direction too, does anyone think i have a point, or am i just about to be shunned by the entire community for my disloyalty to the noble weed?
isaac

p.s of course i am stockpiling.

darwin · Aug 21, 2014

The big problem in all this is a lack of proportionality. Cigarette smoking is the 900 lb. gorilla of poor health outcomes but pipe smoking is not even a twinkle in the gorilla's eye since it is both wildly less harmful in every relevant metric and is pursued by a tiny percentage of the populace. To the hard core anti-tobacco establishment *any* sort of smoking is ipso facto an epochal tragedy and must perforce be hounded from the ken of men by means fair or foul. To exhibit any nuance or acknowledge any harm proportionality would amount to ideological back-sliding and thus is not permitted. To the fanatically committed ideologue a 99 percent improvement in a perceived social ill is indistinguishable from abject failure. The times we live in I suppose. Even if the next round of FDA regulations does not punish the pipe smoking community you can be sure there will be another attempt at punitive regulation in the not distant future. Dig your cellars deep lads. It won't hurt anything and it could make a big difference in the next few decades.

tuold · Aug 21, 2014

That the minority should suffer or be deprived for the greater good is a false doctrine that has been around a long time and has historically been implemented in many different ways. The trap we have all fallen into is one where we have been made to believe that we are all reliant on each other for everything. If one of us veers from the herd it must somehow be hurting us all.
Where we used to raise up the individual as an example for our children to follow, the individual is now one who needs to be punished and brought back into conformity for whatever acts of selfishness they have perpetrated.
That's how I feel anyway....must be getting old and tired of pretending to be a model citizen anymore!

Ok, that's not me, but it's how I'm feeling these days :?

mortonbriar · Aug 21, 2014

trailboss: yes, hypocritical, i have to agree with you there, and will think further about my position since i dont really like hypocrisy particularly... it is more in theory than anything, since in reality that stockpile of mine is going to be puffed in the open, one bowl at a time a few times a week...As for 'backing its extinction', pondering on this forum is probably about as close as i will get to doing that. In some ways I posted this because I wanted to see if i could be convinced that I should be fighting for my rights, in the last couple of years I have considered attempting to open a small tobacconist to try and help encourage a renaissance of passionate pipe smokers so we might have a voice, government is making that a very tricky task. I was running a small mailing list for a while but getting a whole lot of tobacco seized by customs just kind of left me a bit deflated, (i managed to get the leaf after appealing and paying a lot in tariffs)
Just to further divide my already divided opinion, I am also under the impression that pipe tobacco as an industry is propped up by the larger tobacco industry, and that if it was not for people buying and smoking cigarettes maybe i would not be able to enjoy the variety of leaf/blends/brands that i do...

jitterbugdude · Aug 21, 2014

It will be interesting to see the health statistics in New Zealand 10 years after all smoking has been banned. I'm willing to bet there will be no difference in asthma rates, cancer or any other malady that tobacco is alluded to cause.
If I were in New Zealand now, I'd be importing tobacco seeds from discrete sellers and learn how to grow my own... but that's just me!

andystewart · Aug 21, 2014

If it were that harmful, surely they should ban tobacco outright rather than tax it? Especially since all of the evidence says that increased cost does not deter folk from pursuing things they enjoy. But - of course - a ban would not allow governments to levy ever-increasing amounts of revenue while mollifying the boo boys with social and medical excuses for choosing the taxation route. Let's be honest; we all know that smoking tobacco is not good for you. The only debate is to what extent. I believe that the right to smoke tobacco in a pipe is my right, as is my choice to face the consequences. Similarly with alcohol, fast food, and the myriad other things I'm told are bad for me. I defy my government to remove that right until they can prove TO MY SATISFACTION that to continue to exercise it would be perversely detrimental to myself and those around me. That proof has not yet been produced and therefore any attempts to simply embarrass, exclude, or tax me into submission are wrong and must be resisted.
Andy

northernneil · Aug 21, 2014

I hear your point, mortonbriar, concerning abuse. There is no question that a 2 pack a day smoker is hurting them self. But is it the responsibility of the government to police said person? I'm pretty sure New Zealand has national health care, so the argument is on the cost to the public in health care expenses if said smoker gets sick.

Personally, instead of attacking (taxing) smokers, and fast food chains, try encouraging people to buy locally and cook from scratch. Encourage people to exercise and live an active life style. As soon as you tell someone NO, they instantly want to do it. If you encourage / reward good behavior, people will want to continue those actions because rewards feel good.

lochinvar · Aug 21, 2014

Living is danger. People were dying of things other than blunt force trauma well before we hit Jamestown.
What gives me pause is if you think heavy taxes and having a country totally smoke free is a good idea, and you are so enamored with the ideas of those who want to limit your rights that you "can't bring yourself to fight for your rights".....why do you continue to smoke and stockpile tobacco? Just quit. Tobacco is obviously misued and anything misused or with any harmful effect should be banned.
I myself am working to ban a terrible danger. Just last week a boy, A CHILD DEAR HEAVENS!!!!!!!, died after football practice from drinking to much WATER!!!!!!!! When will this dangerous cocktail of Hydrogen and Oxygen be controlled? Do you know it can contain acid, arsenic, lead and spores? Why won't some agency or group of do-gooders come save us? I mean, a child died. Obviously it must be taxed and controlled.

phred · Aug 21, 2014

As soon as you tell someone NO, they instantly want to do it.

Which is why the mechanism of high taxes is being used rather than outright bans from the top down - the U.S. tried this with alcohol, and actually passed a Constitutional Amendment banning sales and manufacturing of the stuff. Look how well that worked... Ditto the "War on Drugs".
The disadvantage that smokers face is that our particular habit does have an immediate effect on others, who can smell it and therefore react to it, whereas something like alcohol does not have quite the same immediate impact on others when consumed in moderation. I'm a former anti-smoker myself, and I still don't like the aroma of either cigarettes or most cigars (though I find I tolerate the latter more than I used to) - so I don't particularly mind workplace or indoor bans, though it would be nice if exceptions could be made for separate smoking lounges...
But yeah - getting tarred with the same brushes (social or monetary) used to pressure cigarette addicts is rather frustrating.

conlejm · Aug 21, 2014

If the tax-revenues realized from tobacco products were actually used to offset the increased morbidity costs of tobacco use, then perhaps the taxation of tobacco products might make sense. I can understand the mindset of non-smokers not wanting to share the burden of costly self-induced tobacco-related medical conditions, and if the taxes were used to subsidize the tobacco-related medical costs that many smokers realize, the taxes could be justified. But I don't believe that is happening.
But - at the risk of being crass - I believe as a healthy thin person that being fat is a personal choice. If you don't want to be fat, eat less, eat healthy, and exercise more. Being fat causes increased medical costs that are ultimately subsidized by thin healthy people. I can understand the mentality of thin healthy people not wanting to share the burden of costly self-induced fat-related medical conditions. But there are no "fat taxes" that I am aware of, and if there are, I guarantee the tax revenues are not being used to subsidize the increased fat-related medical costs realized by fat people.
Same with alcohol, promiscuity, extreme sports, yada, yada, yada. Everything enjoyable in life is bad for you when taken to an extreme, and no one wants to pay the cost when you become an outlier.

cmdrmcbragg · Aug 21, 2014

Glad everyone had taken the same stance in opposition to increased taxation, shoddy/biased research and increased government regulation.
I will merely second what everyone has said.
+1 to the above.

lochinvar · Aug 21, 2014

You're right that was fairly crass, as well as somewhat inaccurate on several points. The main one being that no one is subsidizing my healthcare, quite the opposite, I'm paying for quite a few skinny peoples very bad habits....but that's the cost of being an employer.

hiplainsdrifter · Aug 21, 2014

mortonbriar, I am with you. First, I think that government has its dirty digits in way too much right now, and I am not a fan of a government waging a 'war' on use of a legal substance. However, tobacco use is clearly bad for people. I am not going to start waving signs on the street corner here. Protecting my ability to enjoy tobacco is NOT a high priority to me compared with the myriad of complex issues facing the American people.

conlejm · Aug 21, 2014

You're right that was fairly crass, as well as somewhat inaccurate on several points. The main one being that no one is subsidizing my healthcare, quite the opposite, I'm paying for quite a few skinny peoples very bad habits....but that's the cost of being an employer.

And in turn, healthier employer group accounts are subsidizing your employer group account if you are a fully insured group account. That's the whole concept of private healthcare insurance. Unless you are a very large account and are "self-funded", whereby you pay the claims incurred by your members each month, rather than pay monthly premiums. But even then your administrative fees as well as reinsurance premiums would be subject to subsidization (either to your group account or from your group account).
Subsidy is the whole foundation of health insurance. Young subsidize old, healthy subsidize unhealthy. Otherwise the sick and the old could never afford health insurance. I am a healthcare actuary, so this is what I do.

lochinvar · Aug 21, 2014

Never mind not worth fighting a balloon.

conlejm · Aug 21, 2014

lochinvar · Aug 21, 2014

Ok that's honestly the best response I've seen in weeks.

mortonbriar · Aug 21, 2014

jitterbugdude, i have seeds and am intending to plant this summer!
One other thing is that the last census i did here in NZ there was a box to tick if you are a smoker, however it specified to tick non-smoker if you only smoke pipes and or cigars. So the government is obviously aware that there is a fairly definitive distinction between hobby and habit, their blanket taxes however, make no distinction. I dont know if other countries are collecting information on smoking via census?
Another side note, is that the green leaf that has been fairly decriminalized and grows very well in new zealand is relatively cheap, its going to be more affordable for kids to smoke at lunchtime than tobacco, that is concerning to me after hearing the research about the effects it can have on a teenage brain which is still developing. Sorry i dont follow through with providing any references, im just typing whats on my mind...

peckinpahhombre · Aug 21, 2014

I have a slightly different perspective. I accept that Governments need to raise a certain amount of revenue. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they spend it on, and I would certainly like to see them spend a whole lot less. However, they clearly need tax revenues, and amongst the menu of things to tax I would much rather see them implement "sin taxes" than many other forms of taxes, like income taxes, which I firmly believe are much more destructive to the economy because of their distortionary impact. At least with a "sin tax" you can choose to pay it or not simply by choosing to engage in the sin or not.
Just one fat guy's view here.

peckinpahhombre · Aug 21, 2014

I should also add that I think the whole "subsidization" argument is really quite silly. There are numerous circumstances in society where one group subsidizes another. In it's most obvious form, those who opt to work and pay higher income taxes are subsidizing those who opt for leisure and pay less income taxes. Both groups derive comparable benefits from publicly provided goods and services, whether it be road infrastructure, government funded healthcare (in the case of my country) or the protection provided by the military, but one group is footing the bill more than the other.

Potentially Controversial Opinion On Legislation...

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Site Sponsors

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Lifer

Part of the Furniture Now

Lifer

Lifer

Part of the Furniture Now

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Part of the Furniture Now

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer