Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that
smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get
this done.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National have not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to that policy that Labour enacted.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that
smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get
this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict.
Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack
of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that
kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media
outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they
started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and
extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3%
discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate
and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that,
and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than
National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is
clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than
killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic
success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term.
They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not
going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with
two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university
courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have
two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which
will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the
next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will
make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a
time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also
means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will
still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind
National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted
Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that
by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid
wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000
lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else,
including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to
nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that
smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get
this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict.
Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack
of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR
UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that
kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto
people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every
NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media
outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate
and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate
and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National have >not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to >that policy that Labour enacted.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack
of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that
kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they
started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3%
discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate
and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that,
and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than
National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is
clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than
killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic
success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term.
They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not
going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with
two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have
two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which
will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the
next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will
make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a
time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also
means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind
National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted
Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that
by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid
wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000
lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else,
including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here as >the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only one >person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and you >see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.Wipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National have >>not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to >>that policy that Labour enacted.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they
started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that,
and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than
National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is
clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than
killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term.
They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with
two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have
two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the
next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will
make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a
time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted
Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that
by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid
wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000
lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else,
including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
repeal changes that Labour made, but the detail of that is not yet
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury
anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may
be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions
Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater
than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here as >>the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only oneWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and you >>see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
instead partisan ignorance and lies.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't care about any of that - your arguments are entirely based on mindless poltical hatred for anybody right of Labour (most of NZ and the world).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available? Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly as I wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National have >>not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to >>that policy that Labour enacted.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they
started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that,
and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than
National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is
clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than
killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term.
They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with
two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have
two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the
next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will
make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a
time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted
Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that
by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid
wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000
lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else,
including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
repeal changes that Labour made
, but the detail of that is not yetThere are no proven costs that would not already have existed.
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury
anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may
be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions
Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater
than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here as >>the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only >>oneWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and you >>see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
instead partisan ignorance and lies.
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich has selective morality (on the rare occasion that he has any morality at all).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >approved by the Government of the day.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over
time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >approved by the Government of the day.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Your personal abuse is off topic, Tony
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich has selective morality (on the rare occasion that he has any morality at >all).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >>approved by the Government of the day.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:58:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh well done, you found a slip and think anybody cares. Nobody does. What childishness.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, you said they had done it. They are still saying they propose to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly as I wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National >>>>have
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they >>>>>started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that, >>>>>and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than >>>>>National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is >>>>>clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than >>>>>killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term. >>>>>They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with >>>>>two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have >>>>>two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the >>>>>next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will >>>>>make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a >>>>>time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted >>>>>Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that >>>>>by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid >>>>>wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000 >>>>>lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else, >>>>>including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to >>>>that policy that Labour enacted.
repeal changes that Labour made
do it, but have not yet done it. There is time for them to realise the
extent of the damage they are proposing.
NO, you have not demonstrated that to be true.There were benefits in the changes that Labour made - by reversing, but the detail of that is not yetThere are no proven costs that would not already have existed.
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury
anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may
be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions
Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater
than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
those changes, National will incur additional costs. Based on those
fairly recent costing of the benefits from Labours changes, the impact
of reversing the changes will be:
" . . . reduce 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3%Somebody has dreamed thoise figures up - provide some facts.
discount rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Increase public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount
rate and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Reduce $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds
over time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a
discount rate. "
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here >>>>asWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only >>>>one
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and >>>>you
see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
instead partisan ignorance and lies.
On 28 Nov 2023 21:42:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:History will tell a different story I believe. The truth is slowly emerging.
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >>approved by the Government of the day.
The vaccines were a major reason for New Zealand having much lower
rates of death during the covid period than most other countries - we
saved approximately 20,000 lives compared with the experience of the
UK and USA. All vaccines have a small amount of risk , and a small
number of New Zealanders had bad reactions to the vaccine, but overall
the vaccine saved a lot of lives.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:49:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo abuse - just the facts. Demonstrated a myriad times over the years.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Your personal abuse is off topic, Tony
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich has selective morality (on the rare occasion that he has any morality at >>all).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>> that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >>>approved by the Government of the day.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 20:00:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat I wrote is the truth and only the guilty would be insulted, you are insulted therefore what I wrote is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't care about any of that - your arguments are entirely based on >>mindless poltical hatred for anybody right of Labour (most of NZ and the >>world).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>interpreting the actions of others.
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>drugs be made freely available? Do you regard safety belts and cycle >>>helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of >>>smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
Your personal insults are off topic, Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't care about any of that - your arguments are entirely based on >mindless poltical hatred for anybody right of Labour (most of NZ and the world).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ...
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when
you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are
interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating
that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available? Do you regard safety belts and cycle >>helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, you said they had done it. They are still saying they propose to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly as I wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National have
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now.
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they >>>>started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that,
and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than
National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is >>>>clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than >>>>killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term. >>>>They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with >>>>two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have >>>>two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the >>>>next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will
make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a
time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the
government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax
breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted >>>>Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that >>>>by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid >>>>wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000 >>>>lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else,
including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to >>>that policy that Labour enacted.
repeal changes that Labour made
There were benefits in the changes that Labour made - by reversing, but the detail of that is not yetThere are no proven costs that would not already have existed.
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury
anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may
be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions
Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater
than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here asWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only >>>one
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and you
see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
instead partisan ignorance and lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:58:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh well done, you found a slip and think anybody cares. Nobody does. What >childishness.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, you said they had done it. They are still saying they propose to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly as I wrote.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National >>>>>have
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now. >>>>>>>
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they >>>>>>started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>>>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>>>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>>>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that, >>>>>>and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than >>>>>>National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is >>>>>>clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than >>>>>>killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>>>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>>>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term. >>>>>>They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>>>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with >>>>>>two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>>>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have >>>>>>two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>>>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the >>>>>>next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will >>>>>>make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a >>>>>>time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>>>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>>>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>>>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>>>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted >>>>>>Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that >>>>>>by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid >>>>>>wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000 >>>>>>lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else, >>>>>>including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>>>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments to
that policy that Labour enacted.
repeal changes that Labour made
do it, but have not yet done it. There is time for them to realise the >>extent of the damage they are proposing.
The point is you wrote that National had changed their policy - a lie and a >deliberate one. My point was that they have noy, and that is correct.
NO, you have not demonstrated that to be true.
There were benefits in the changes that Labour made - by reversing, but the detail of that is not yetThere are no proven costs that would not already have existed.
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury
anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may >>>>be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions >>>>Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater >>>>than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
those changes, National will incur additional costs. Based on those
fairly recent costing of the benefits from Labours changes, the impact
of reversing the changes will be:
" . . . reduce 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>discount rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;Somebody has dreamed thoise figures up - provide some facts.
Increase public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount
rate and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Reduce $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds
over time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a
discount rate. "
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting here >>>>>asWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion
the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately only >>>>>one
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and >>>>>you
see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
instead partisan ignorance and lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Repeating an unsubstantiated opinion is a personal insult - and off
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 20:00:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat I wrote is the truth and only the guilty would be insulted, you are >insulted therefore what I wrote is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't care about any of that - your arguments are entirely based on >>>mindless poltical hatred for anybody right of Labour (most of NZ and the >>>world).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>>they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>>substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or >>>>imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>>that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>>drugs be made freely available? Do you regard safety belts and cycle >>>>helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are >>>>you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>>that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of >>>>smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
Your personal insults are off topic, Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your personal opinion is not sufficient to provide any evidence of
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:49:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo abuse - just the facts. Demonstrated a myriad times over the years.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Your personal abuse is off topic, Tony
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich has selective morality (on the rare occasion that he has any morality at
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>>> they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>>> substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>>
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>>> that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>>> drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally
approved by the Government of the day.
all).
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right >>>>> to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are >>>>> you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>>> that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 21:42:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:History will tell a different story I believe. The truth is slowly emerging.
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many
substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>> that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful
drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally >>>approved by the Government of the day.
The vaccines were a major reason for New Zealand having much lower
rates of death during the covid period than most other countries - we
saved approximately 20,000 lives compared with the experience of the
UK and USA. All vaccines have a small amount of risk , and a small
number of New Zealanders had bad reactions to the vaccine, but overall
the vaccine saved a lot of lives.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right
to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are
you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter
that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:50:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour beliefs do not have any more credibility than mine and indeed less every month.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 21:42:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:History will tell a different story I believe. The truth is slowly emerging.
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>>> they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>>> substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>>
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>>> that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>>> drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all totally
approved by the Government of the day.
The vaccines were a major reason for New Zealand having much lower
rates of death during the covid period than most other countries - we >>>saved approximately 20,000 lives compared with the experience of the
UK and USA. All vaccines have a small amount of risk , and a small
number of New Zealanders had bad reactions to the vaccine, but overall >>>the vaccine saved a lot of lives.
Your beliefs may well be shared by a number of people , but it does
not make them credible or true.
Your belief is contrary toCorrected your deliberately abusive change to my meaning.
widespread medical opinion.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right >>>>> to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are >>>>> you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>>> that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of
smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have
any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:49:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:58:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh well done, you found a slip and think anybody cares. Nobody does. What >>childishness.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, you said they had done it. They are still saying they propose to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly as I wrote.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They have not, but they have announced that they are planning to >>>>>repeal changes that Labour made
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 05:55:12 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>And you are a liar and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation. National >>>>>>have
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>Being Smokefree does not require regulation, it requires those that >>>>>>>>>smoke to case smoking voluntarily. It seems no-one knows how to get >>>>>>>>>this done.
Ahem, "voluntarily" and "getting it done" are terms in conflict. >>>>>>>>Government should get out of the business of peoples' choices. A pack >>>>>>>>of Marlboros should just say "Marlboro" and not "CIGARETTES KILL YOUR >>>>>>>>UNBORN BABY" and so on. So if it was the 1990 act that forced that >>>>>>>>kind of messaging, then I would indeed want to repeal it.
I'm just so over the lousy value systems that government pushes onto >>>>>>>>people. Everything's woke. Abolish the lot.
Also, I think Winston has added much merit to this coalition. Every >>>>>>>>NZFirst contribution has been worthy. It's fun to read the media >>>>>>>>outrage, knowing that most readers are seeing through it all now. >>>>>>>>
The target of being smoke-free by 2025 was made by National; they >>>>>>>started increasing tax year by year. Labour merely took that up and >>>>>>>extended it to reduce health costs more quickly.
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as :
" . . .save 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>>>>>discount
rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;
Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>>rate. "
The problems of the duty making cigarettes high prices was leading to >>>>>>>increased crime - Labour were planning other changes to limit that, >>>>>>>and to take steps to achieving the goals a little quicker than >>>>>>>National would have done. Why National have changed their policy is >>>>>>>clear - they put money for the wealthy as a higher priority than >>>>>>>killing poor people with emphysema and cancer - and before economic >>>>>>>success for the whole country.
In reality, by saving lives Labour was going to improve our financial >>>>>>>situation in the long term, but National is not thinking long term. >>>>>>>They know that the policy of taxing house sales to foreigners was not >>>>>>>going to raise enough to support the tax cuts, so they have gone with >>>>>>>two short term measures - the first was moving subsidizing university >>>>>>>courses from the first year to the final year - that means they have >>>>>>>two years of not paying any. The second was the smoking change, which >>>>>>>will mean deaths, but not in numbers likely to be noticeable in the >>>>>>>next two or perhaps even five years.
The university change is despicable in the different way - it will >>>>>>>make it harder for poorer students to start a course - there was a >>>>>>>time under Bolger when National supported equal opportunity. It also >>>>>>>means they will be supporting apprenticeships to a greater extent than >>>>>>>university courses - but they know that kids with wealthy parents will >>>>>>>still have choices - the days of equal opportunity are well behind >>>>>>>National - they can only afford to support their donors.
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>>breaks to the wealthy. They are at least consistent - they wanted >>>>>>>Labour to let more people die to support business - it was ironic that >>>>>>>by not doing so New Zealand's economy recovered from the first Covid >>>>>>>wave better than most countries, while we also saved around 20,000 >>>>>>>lives. NActFirst put their own wealth before everything else, >>>>>>>including the lives of those they will encourage to get addicted to >>>>>>>nicotine. They are no better than gang drug peddlers.
not changed or repealed their policy, they have repealed the ammendments >>>>>>to
that policy that Labour enacted.
do it, but have not yet done it. There is time for them to realise the >>>extent of the damage they are proposing.
The point is you wrote that National had changed their policy - a lie and a >>deliberate one. My point was that they have noy, and that is correct.
Of course they have changed their policy.
There was no mention of
opening up smoking to a larger group of people; and National have
explained the change in policy as arising from the need to fund tax
cuts, given that the coalition agreement rejected their previous
policy of allowing foreigners to buy houses subject to an additional
tax. The smoking policy change came as a surprise to everyone, as is
being shown by criticism of Shane Reti by the medical profession.
Every one I have seen is politically motivated or from vested interests.NO, you have not demonstrated that to be true.
There were benefits in the changes that Labour made - by reversing, but the detail of that is not yetThere are no proven costs that would not already have existed.
available. The savings and productivity gains that Treasury >>>>>anticipated from Labour's changes are as given above, but National may >>>>>be re-opening the market to a greater extent than the restrictions >>>>>Labour introduced - so the cost of NActFirst changes may be greater >>>>>than the benefits assessed by Treasury.
those changes, National will incur additional costs. Based on those >>>fairly recent costing of the benefits from Labours changes, the impact
of reversing the changes will be:
There are plenty of articles in news media confirming that the changes
will have adverse economic effects and an increase in sickness and
deaths
" . . . reduce 580,000 Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) using a 3% >>>discount rate and 2.21 million years when not using a discount rate;Somebody has dreamed thoise figures up - provide some facts.
Increase public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount >>>rate and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Reduce $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds
over time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a
discount rate. "
Articles already posted establish that these are the reverse of the
economic advantages calculated by Treasury when they were introduced
by Labour - the reversal by National will eliminate those positive
effects on health and health costs.
You will be remembered for no more than a week after you stop posting >>>>>>hereWipe the dribble, Tony . . . try putting up rational discussion >>>>>instead partisan ignorance and lies.
as
the greatest serial liar that this newsgroup has endured. Fortunately >>>>>>only
one
person who ever reads this newsgroup believes even one word you write and >>>>>>you
see that ugly soul in the mirror every time you dare face it.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:51:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyWell, you take it wrong. Your behaviour over the years is all the evidence necessary. You have limited and selective morality. Suck it up, after all sociopaths do not ever know they have the illness.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your personal opinion is not sufficient to provide any evidence of
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:49:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo abuse - just the facts. Demonstrated a myriad times over the years.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Your personal abuse is off topic, Tony
On 2023-11-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich has selective morality (on the rare occasion that he has any morality >>>>at
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>>>> they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>>>> substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>>>
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>>>> that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>>>> drugs be made freely available?
Why the hell not? The Covid vaccinces were peddled and did harm, all >>>>>totally
approved by the Government of the day.
all).
your deliberate slur - you are again off topic, and I take your
repetition of that slur as being another incident of abuse from you.
Do you regard safety belts and cycle
helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right >>>>>> to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are >>>>>> you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>>>> that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of >>>>>> smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have >>>>>> any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco
companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:52:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot off topic, merely responding to your posts. I am entitled to unsubstantaited opinions as are you. The difference between us is exactly that - you don't believe I have that right but you believe you do - shown also, a myriad of times here.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Repeating an unsubstantiated opinion is a personal insult - and off
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 20:00:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat I wrote is the truth and only the guilty would be insulted, you are >>insulted therefore what I wrote is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:14:40 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:You don't care about any of that - your arguments are entirely based on >>>>mindless poltical hatred for anybody right of Labour (most of NZ and the >>>>world).
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tobacco and alcohol kill - we have restrictions for good reasons, and >>>>>they are largely supported by most political parties. There are many >>>>>substances that are not able to be sold, and heavy fines or >>>>>imprisonment may result if drug dealers are caught. Are you advocating >>>>>that restrictions on many poisons, radioactive substances and harmful >>>>>drugs be made freely available? Do you regard safety belts and cycle >>>>>helmets as infringements on your human rights? Is it a human right >>>>>to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? What are >>>>>you really advocating, Willy Nilly? Perhaps you are a Green supporter >>>>>that wants cannabis legalised . . . Try looking up the effects of >>>>>smoking, including emphysema and throat cancer, and see if you have >>>>>any sympathy for those who became addicted before the tobacco >>>>>companies admitted that they knew smoking killed . . .
The impact of the changes was assessed by Treasury in 2021 as ... >>>>>>>Cut public health costs by $5.25 billion when using a 3% discount rate >>>>>>>and $15.5 billion without a discount rate; and,
Add $5.88 billion in productivity benefits from 25-65 year olds over >>>>>>>time using a 3% discount rate and $16.2 billion without a discount >>>>>>>
But in the longer term, this government will be known as the >>>>>>>government that it was prepared to kill its citizens to give tax >>>>>>>breaks to the wealthy.
This is funny -- you want to cash out our human rights in exchange for >>>>>>$billions, and then you accuse others of killing for $$$. Yet another >>>>>>example of lefty projection. Here's a clue: projection happens when >>>>>>you can't step outside of your own mental loop when you are >>>>>>interpreting the actions of others.
Your personal insults are off topic, Tony.
topic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:59:28 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,750 |