I understand your point that people who are foolish will expect help despite bringing trouble on themselve, but that is really another issue from not allowing them to bring trouble in the first place.

Sure, there are fools like that guy that decided to row a boat across to Australia, and then had to call for help when the sea got rough, diverting a commercial boat hundreds of miles and an Orion out to find him. Guys like that should be very severely punished for that kind of foolishness, even though they probably should be rescued. People who get cancer from smoking don’t need punishment - they’re already getting it. It is in itself enough punishment. Our job is to make people aware of the punishment they will receive from their actions, be it natural or under the law.

Not me, for the record. I think it’s an invasion of personal freedom. I think there should be many controls on how substances are used, but within those parameters the individuals should get total choice. The onus should always be on those who seek to restrict freedom to prove greater harm to society by not restricting it.

I also find the arguments about the intoxicant differences contradictory and uninformed, in most cases. For instance, it’s a well known side effect of booze to make people aggressive, which manifests in violence a lot. This clearly harms wider society, but is not considered sufficient reason to ban it. It is merely controlled by making the locations alcohol may be consumed in somewhat restricted, rightly so.

Also it is well known that booze makes you uncoordinated and slows your reactions which leads to the majority of fatal car accidents. This also is not seen as a reason to ban, although it did eventually lead to a crackdown on drunk driving. I would advocate the same thing with any intoxicant. There would need to be studies into what real effects the intoxicants have, and what level of intoxication was too much.

The harm issue is separate, in my mind. I personally don’t subscribe to any view that the government has the right to stop you harming yourself. They don’t with so many things, that it is utterly contradictory for them to pull it as a major argument in the case against drugs. You are completely free to ride a motorbike, which often leads to fatal accidents and severe injuries. You can be a fat lazy pig which puts great strain on your heart. You can sink booze and fags with impunity. You can cross the road, which leads to many fatalities. You can eat turds if you like, it’s not against the law.

The only area where the government has the right to legislate against harm is when it is done to other people. That is the only justification I can see for the smoking ban in bars. It is a good one. You can’t speed in your car for similar reasons - you increase your chance of killing someone else.

What about seat belts and bike helmets, you ask? I respond that failing to wear either one should not be a criminal offence. But wearing them is very sensible, and fining people who don’t can be considered the tax paid for that freedom. I find this especially intrusive in the area of pushbike helmets, which should be completely a matter of personal choice. Children are a different matter, always the exception to any rule.

On most other points I agree with SPC.

The intent is to move to our arrangement at a later date - yes with the intent to reduce smoking rates.

The arguement against dope is its harm. Yet tobacco smokes are unhealthy for all who use them and in all use levels AND for those in the surrounds (thus the workplace legislation). It is a drug use (nicotine) too.

Dope is harmful to those of a younger age and those with a pre-disposition to some mental health consequences (it like alcohol can be a workplace health and safety problem). Alcohol is quite benign in lower use levels, but can be problematic for those pre-disposed to alcoholism - as with gambling (some become addicts) and eating and over-eating.

Clearly tobacco smoking would be prohibited, if it was a new product. Yet today a similar number of people smoke both - and one is illegal. Yet the one that is legal, is the one of the two which results in huge health costs and death rates.

huskynut,

“What’s the purpose in trying to homogenise the laws on tobacco and marijuana?

Justice in the law, for ALL New Zealanders.

“They’re different products after all.”

The difference does not explain the different treatment. Both are a recreational drug use - with drug addiction issues, the legal one involves greater health cost to society - as it is more addictive, used in greater amounts and is more deadly as a result.

Those who don’t want the two related, support the continued legal use of one and not the other.

I can live with placing the two on the same status. I use neither. My preference (if I was given a choice), would be to ration card use both and tax/regulate. This would mean reducing the consumption of many using tobacco, improving users health and financial circumstance. Also taking control of marijuana supply off criminals - and allowing very low levels of use at younger age levels (18-20’s).

I ideologically prefer choice, but while we regulate speed people travel on roads and have a public taxpayer funded health system, rationing and regulation is social justice.

Whether there should be confined places, the two smoking groups can gather is another matter. The majority don’t smoke and prefer smoke free environments. So it’s become a mainstream vs minority issue. It’s been customary for smokers to be included and for others to put up with it. This has now been reversed.

Possibly they might revisit the tobacco “smoking place” issue when both groups have similar legal status. These not serving anything but the on-site purchased and smoked (smoking workplace - with no non smoker required to staff them), or being charge entry (tickets sold outside the door, staff airing the premises before cleaning up) places for smokers. These nearby cafes, restaruants and bars.

The idea that a well ventilated bar (and some pubs *were* willing to install these - evidence Bodega in Wellington spent $20k on a system prior to legislation) is significantly more hazardous than a myriad of other occupations I find completely non-rational (admittedly without any evidence to back up my gut reaction).

Blacksand is ranting rather than arguing, but at least is honest enough to say their position is based on the fact they don;t *like* smoking. I wish others would be more honest that their position was simple personal preference and prejudice.

If dope is banned because it is intoxicating, then similar consideration should be given to booze. I think this has a stronger argument in limited circumstances, just as with booze. Driving stoned or operating any kind of dangerous machinery is riskier than doing it straight. More studies need to be done to ascertain what is an acceptable level of intoxication for these tasks, and the answer could be ‘none’ for many things, like piloting a plane or driving a bus or car. ‘None’ should be clearly defined as below a certain threshold, rather than ‘having no discernable traces at all’ which is too draconian, and is not even applied to alchohol, which is well known to lower performance in many tasks.

The issue of where people can smoke, tobacco or dope or whatever, is obviously more complicated than the issue of whether they should be allowed to smoke at all. I’m a fan of the ban in bars, because I don’t like to inhale it myself, and the poor bar staff are in a much more exposed position than me. I can see any number of problems with my suggestion that smoker’s bars should be allowed, merely put it up as an alternative. Yes the staff will inhale it sometimes. Yes it will encourage larger and larger areas dedicated to smoking. These things could be regulated for - appropriate venting, size proportion restrictions, etc. All ideas.

blacksand makes a good point that smokefree bars died quickly prior to the indoor smoking ban. I think the total ban is a bit much, that it is possible to make indoor smoking areas that are sealed from the rest, and well enough ventilated that short forays in there have neglible health effects. They could become ‘cool’ areas, but that is a matter of personal choice. Being huddled outdoors has a similar critique. During my brief foray as a smoker, this was my main purpose - I went outside to smoke, but really it was just an excuse to get away from my desk and talk gossip off the company premises. It only sucked when it was raining, otherwise it was a great excuse to get out into the sun and watch the passing chicks. So, doing things with an intent to socially engineer can backfire bigtime. I’m not a fan of doing it for those reasons. The health reasons for the innocent are far more compelling.