Anti-smoking proposals

February 5th, 2010 at 7:37 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Taxpayer-funded health officials are calling on the Government to increase tobacco tax and ban in many outdoor public areas such as beaches.

The call from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service for a range of tough measures comes in its submission to the Maori affairs select committee’s forthcoming inquiry into the tobacco industry and the effects of tobacco use on Maori. …

The Auckland service wants the law banning indoor smoking at workplaces extended to playgrounds, outdoor eating areas, beaches, the area outside buildings, cars when a child aged less than 16 is present, public transport stops and pedestrian malls.

I think there is a case for restrictions in playgrounds and cars with children in them. I accept a role to protect kids. But decisions on pedestrian malls and building exteriors are best left to the owners of those places.

The recommendations:

* Ban smokers from outdoor public areas such as beaches.

I’m not sure why beaches should having smoking ban. There is no risk of passive smoking on beaches.

* Increase tobacco tax by 5 per cent plus inflation per year.

Fairly relaxed over that.

* Dedicate portion of tobacco tax take to tobacco control and quit-smoking services.

Seems sensible.

* Ban tobacco vending machines.

Now while it is a legal product.

* License tobacco retailers.

Why?

* Compel tobacco firms to disclose product specifications and marketing strategies.

Product specifications yes, marketing strategies no.

Tags:

107 Responses to “Anti-smoking proposals”

  1. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    It gets a bit tricky banning smoking from outdoor areas, beaches seems silly because it’s easy to find your own bit of beach in NZ. Building exteriors seems over the top too, it’s easy to hold your breath when passing the puffers. But there are some places that deserve attention, like bus stops where you have to hang about.

    Another that I would like banned is in sports stadiums – it can ruin a day at the game if you are stuck in a seat downwind of a chain smoker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    I suggest a caste type system set to 3 levels. Non-Smokers, reformed smokers and smokers.

    Smokers should be made to wear bells and shout “UNCLEAN” to warn passers by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    5% per year plus inflation? jesus.

    banning smoking in a car if theres a kid in it? NANNY STATE!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    I had thought of a good solution to the problem of smoking, re health costs and associated problems

    We all know the health spend per GDP is increasing beyond the point taxpayers can fund the needs demanded.

    Smokers inhale a product that kills them. Taxpayers are required to pay for their medical treatment after they having knowing used this dangerous substance.

    Solution – When you purchase a packet of smokes, your name is added to a database of known smokers. All known smokers are disqualified from receiving taxpayer funded health treatment for any problem for the rest of their life. Treatment for any aliment will now cost them personally.

    Win, win for struggling taxpayers.
    Smokers die earlier saving dollars for people who don’t abuse their body
    Smokers still pay high taxes on smokes that is redirected into the public health system that is struggling.

    Cant see a problem
    So smokers – keep smoking everywhere you can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    I will just wear a sign that says Lepper when i want to have a smoke outside my property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    “* Increase tobacco tax by 5 per cent plus inflation per year.”

    The rapacity of the state knows no bounds. By the way, I do not smoke, but I do respect the right of others to do so without having to pay extortionate money.

    The Auckland Regional Public Health Service is just another contemptible busybody organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Screw it lets just make it legal to hunt them for sport. Once we’ve killed them off we can go after the next group we don’t like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. KiwiGreg (3,244 comments) says:

    @ Lipo net net smokers are a lower burden on the health and welfare systems simply because they dont last very long, no need to exclude them.

    I hate smoking. Wont have it at my house (well except for my mother in law but she is a special case). But it IS legal. We have enough rules tellings us what to do and not to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    What a load of crap this is, Any additional health costs are well offset by non payment of national super

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    I’m going to get a pole on my head with a bell on it to warn people that I may be smoking.
    To ban smoking in public places is just crazy, if they want to make the whole smoking thing illegal then just do it, but can you imagine the downcline in tourists especially Asian???
    I just wonder how many of these people that lobby for this are actually reformed smokers.

    But while they are at it why not ban beer and spirits (not wine as that’s natural)?
    Hell why not have a real clean up and remove guns from everybody, put regulators on all vehicles so they can’t go over 100km. Why not ban gambling and how about a sex tax? Actually a sex tax should cover the lack of tax they will get from smoking, drinking, speeding fines and the lack of tourists. But, everyone will have to wear a sex-o-meter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    “Hell why not have a real clean up and remove guns from everybody, ”

    How can Murray and I go hunting if you do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Leprosy, witchcraft, lollardy, Catharism, plague, End of the World 1000, Y2K, “bad” food, smoking, global warming. All things that the state has used for social control without regard for individual rights.

    Worht noting that all measures ulimately proved futile and achieved nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    What will the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, do with these “wise” recommendations”? They should go straight to the rubbish bin where they belong.

    The PC crap that has infected NZ society at all levels is out of control.

    Under the guise of “endangering the public helath” these do-gooders and busybodies are ordering us how to life our lives. I’ll tell them to f..k off.

    Enough is enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    # Johnboy (1913) Says:
    February 5th, 2010 at 8:33 am

    “Hell why not have a real clean up and remove guns from everybody, ”

    How can Murray and I go hunting if you do that?

    YOU CAN’T!!!!
    Just like I won’t be able to smoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Just let us shoot you and then you won’t suffer withdrawal symptoms. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Banning smoking? Oh how terrible! Next thing they will be banning ‘P’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    Perhaps we could call a truce and just shoot the bureaucrat instead?

    Oops i committed a thought crime =(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    Give it up, DPF. These are not anti-smoking proposals. That’s just a name that has been applied by opponents and seized on by the media. The Green Party has never referred to these proposals as “anti-smoking”. This is nothing to do with smoking. These proposals are anti-cancer proposals, and any person who opposes them favours selling tobacco to children and is little different from a child murderer.

    [DPF: heh for a second there I wondered what you were smoking until I caught on to the subtle analogy]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Of course the same people have probably got a completely different steer toi the smoking of marijuana!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    How about making a compulsory Smokers’ Register, where smokers must list their name and address publicly. Have them wear a little nicotine coloured badge on their clothing at all times and ban them from holding jobs, or maybe shuttle them away to re-education camp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Michaels I don’t own any firearms. All my weapons are non-gunpowder. They were killing people for 2,000 years before someone said hey hey what if we stuff this Chinese spitit scaring powder into a tube, stick a ball on top and see what happens…

    Gunpowder, its a fad that will pass.

    You don’t need a “gun” to hunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. KiwiGreg (3,244 comments) says:

    “These proposals are anti-cancer proposals, and any person who opposes them favours selling tobacco to children and is little different from a child murderer.”

    I honestly cant work out if you are serious or taking the piss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    How about banning smoking in jails?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    They should at least have smoke free areas in jails. It’s a bit harder to escape the pollution there.

    They could just let tobacco companies add even more lethal chemicals to their products and sort this out quicker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    Lets ban tobacco and add it to the war on drugs… this has been such a successful war. Lets stunt our tourism industry at the same time.

    Most of these proposals are a tragic trampling of peoples individual freedoms, just like the banning of smoking in private work places. You cannot protect people from themselves, and all these measures do is make people unhappy and poorer. Tax on tobacco has very limited effects other than making smokers poorer, simple economics, demand for smoking is inelastic. People must realise that the majority of smokers enjoy smoking, just as I enjoy the odd beer or coffee or pie.

    The implications of these measures are terrifying as once smoking becomes effectively banned, alcohol will be next, then gambling. In the end we will find ourselves living in a society where we are only free to do as the state says.

    John Key must stand up as the leader of NZ’s only “center right” party and say enough is enough, the government does not have the moral right to rule peoples private lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nigel Kearney (979 comments) says:

    As someone who has never smoked and never will:

    The dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated almost as much as global warming. Smoking outdoors is basically harmless to everyone except the smoker. The bans are popular for paternalistic reasons – people just think others should not smoke so they don’t care too much if the risk to nonsmokers is fictitious.

    Anyway parents who smoke can avoid a ban on smoking in playgrounds by just not taking their kids to the playground and keeping them in a smoky house instead. And they can afford a higher tobacco tax by not buying their kids new shoes. After all, they won’t need the shoes since they aren’t going out anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    My point about being on a register and excluding them from public health is only a logical conclusion to the state taking money from taxpayers and distributing it to people based on ???

    There is no disincentive for people to look after their own health needs.

    If there is no disincentive then the state will use it’s resources to discriminate based on selected criteria

    The state does this now in many areas of expenditure. Couple spring to mind – State Housing, Unemployment Benefit (reword to living allowance).
    These 2 items are not universally available to everyone. Why? Because it is uneconomic.
    Why not health

    Why not restrict health access based on your life choices?

    People who are fat – Still entitled to public health for Diabetes
    People who consume alcohol – Still entitled to liver transplants
    People who break bones playing rugby – Ditto
    etc

    It just doesn’t make sense why I am paying for peoples choices to abuse themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    People who talk crap are still allowed to get elected and piss our money away on bullshit lipo, you have a problem with that at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    “maybe shuttle them away to re-education camp.”

    I can see it all now all the sad faces of the smokers all wearing a little nicotine yellow star walking through the gates of the re-education camp under the sign “Krebs macht frei”. Team Leader Von Edgeler rubbing his hands with glee knowing what fate awaits them.

    But it would all be for their own good of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    The question is

    Should people who make bad life choices be recompensed by others?

    If yes – then your happy throwing your hard earned money away to others.

    If no – then what? Keep a record of person’s bad life choices and discriminate against them based on their record.
    Or let them look after themselves with their own money

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. KiwiGreg (3,244 comments) says:

    “Should people who make bad life choices be recompensed by others?”

    I’m still paying for all the people who voted labour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    It doesn’t need a sign to label a smoker, they are obvious enough now – fag, nicotine fingers, leathered skin and of course the “aroma” that permeates their clothes and surrounds. Smokers may not see past their own smoke screen, but it can all look (and smell) quite ugly.

    A lovely female told me she gave up smoking when it dawned on her that waking up in the morning coughing and spluttering and hoiking up green crap was not an attractive way to start the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    You’re talking crap lipo, EVERYTHING we get taxed for can be presented as beign the result of someone elses choice.

    You shop and you do so by your own choice, you are protected by the commerce commision which my taxes help pay for. See how that works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    You could be on to something there Lipo perhaps we should generate a database of all the tax everyone has paid and when they have a health problem or fall on hard times or require the dole or dpb or being fed and housed in jail we could assist them based on their contributions to the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    “John Key must stand up as the leader of NZ’s only “center right” party and say enough is enough,..”

    Sorry Charlie, but you must be dreaming. Empty-suit Key does not have a bone in his body, let alone the spine required to intervene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “hoiking up green crap was not an attractive way to start the day.” ………… you should pass that observation on to Russell and Metiria

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. kowtow (8,315 comments) says:

    Be very careful folks.

    Policy makers, social control freaks and politicians are all aware that they can control and change behaviour.
    They cite seat belt laws,drink driving laws and now anti-tobacco as examples of good social policy.
    I’m not saying any of those things are bad,indeed a smoking drunk driver not wearing a seat belt might be doing everyone a favour as long as its only a bridge he runs into.

    Look at the tone of Graeme Edgelers comment and you get the idea .

    Human rights legislation has already silenced and threatened many in the West. Look at the assault on the family that the anti discipline amendment was.

    Who or what will be next on the list?

    The point is they know they can do it ,there will be no end to this. Orwell was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I honestly cant work out if you are serious or taking the piss.

    Think smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Orwell was right.

    About what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    @lipo “My point about being on a register and excluding them from public health is only a logical conclusion”

    to an extent they do that now, ask anyone in public health about smokers geting ‘bumped’ down the public health queue

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Judging by a few comments here we should just adopt Bernard Shaws eugenics propsal and everyone will have to appear before a board and jusstify their existance every couple of years. Then we kill those who don’t make the grade.

    THATS what you are arguing. Well done you have gotten to where Nazi Germany took socialism. Not a wild Nazi comparasion a simple observable fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    Manolo – I still have a miniscule of hope that national will live up to their claim of being center right, but I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    If you asked people the question i proposed

    “Should people who make bad life choices be recompensed by others?” i would estimate a least 80% would so no

    So why do we do it?

    We are we happy to pretend it doesn’t happen.
    We are happy to live a lie
    We are happy not to make tough choices
    We are comfortable that by paying our taxes and sinking them into a big hole that everything will be ok

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    I have sympathy for those of you who arguments are consistent, i.e. accusing the state of being a nanny by restricting where IF you have the same view of other substances which cause less harm (BZP, ecstasy etc – if you want to dispute this then can link some studies). But those who say one is ok but the other is not just show your inability to be consistent with your own philosophy.

    My view is the view above, tax it, but in your own home fuck it its your own home (same with car etc). Was for banning smoking inside in bars cause it was gross to others, but rest is different. People can make their own minds up on how to kill themselves, isnt the states role.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,718 comments) says:

    I live for the day when some nico nazi approaches me at the beach and orders me to extinguish my cigarette….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Lipo for Reich Minister of Eugenics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “Should people who make bad life choices be recompensed by others?”

    think any car accidents, in most cases someone must have made a bad choice for it to have happened? think Search and Rescue- mountain climbers, trampers, boaties, all must have made bad decisions at some point to need rescuing. where do you draw the line?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” What will the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, do with these “wise” recommendations”? They should go straight to the rubbish bin where they belong. ”

    Damn right they should, but Tony Ryall is on their side, not ours. He lines up to kiss their arses just like Stephen Joyce kisses the arses of the bureaucrats in his Ministries. They just have no idea. No principles. No mission. No plan. Just knee jerk reactionary left wing robots and a complete waste of fucking time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yvette (2,776 comments) says:

    Make presentation of a licence, similar to a driver’s licence, a requirement for the purchase of tobacco products. No personal ID’ed Smoker’s Licence – no sale. This licence should be available to anyone over 18 years of age, but on issue for a period of three months only – so anyone believing they are dependent on, or addicted to tobacco may in that time avail themselves of the licence. After the 3 month period no more licences would be issued – ever –

    This will cater for those dependent or addicted now – the group always regarded as a ‘difficulty’ when bans are spoken of, but would make tobacco products inaccessible to new buyers.

    There would be an inevitable abuse of the system, with black market licences, the need to provide for tourist smokers and other problem areas, but those are minor [no more than other banned drugs probably] while a step like this would hopefully deplete the market, by natural attrition, to the point where tobacco companies would find their operation unsustainable.

    Shoot holes in this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Yvette for Reich Minister of Individual Regulation.

    Do you people even consider the existance of the Bill of Rights Act or elementary human rights in your flailing quest for utopia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Yvette (2,776 comments) says:

    “Yvette for Reich Minister of Individual Regulation.’

    Great – I am currently looking for a job.
    Surely you accept there are a few things you are not allowed to do because they are likely to kill you.
    The whole point here is that those who have already made that decision may carry on, just hopefully any potential new users would not.
    Otherwise you do nothing – or go the other way: legitimise ALL drugs, and put up with a period of disruption while all those who want to kill themselves do so [and just hope the collateral damage is minimal].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    As someone who has never smoked and never will:

    The dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated almost as much as global warming. Smoking outdoors is basically harmless to everyone except the smoker. The bans are popular for paternalistic reasons – people just think others should not smoke so they don’t care too much if the risk to nonsmokers is fictitious.

    Anyway parents who smoke can avoid a ban on smoking in playgrounds by just not taking their kids to the playground and keeping them in a smoky house instead. And they can afford a higher tobacco tax by not buying their kids new shoes. After all, they won’t need the shoes since they aren’t going out anymore.

    Never a truer word.

    The hard core smokers, who smoke because they want to (which is just about every smoker I ever met. The ones who didn’t want to any more stopped) wont stop buying smokes even if they are $20 a packet. They will just economise in other areas, such as providing for their kids. Pretty much what the same people do now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The problem here is the public health system. No way government should be in health care as it gives them the right to take over our lives. Not so much of a problem if NZers were civilised, but when so many of them are knuckle dragging obsessive power seeking commies without any concept of individual rights, far too dangerous. They pervert any public service to their control freak political ends. Get the gummint out of health care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Yvette (2,776 comments) says:

    So from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition :
    “There is evidence that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e. g. alcohol and tobacco). In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend, 40 million are social drinkers, 11 million are “at risk” or “problem” drinkers, and 9 million smoke cigarettes, resulting in 40 ecstasy-related deaths a year, 6500 deaths due to alcohol and 120,000 deaths due to smoking, making the per user risk of ecstasy half that of alcohol (about 1:12,500 occasions, compared to 1:6,153 for alcohol), and much below tobacco”

    Smoking seems to be the bigger problem
    Only cold-hearted real question is [assuming people make their own decision to smoke] is whether the costs in their dying is more or less than paying them super or other welfare in later life if they lived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ed Snack (1,848 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney makes the very good point, second smoke is a faux scare, another Y2K, the evidence shows that it is not a problem with perhaps the sole exception being new born babies. So what’s all the fuss about banning smoking from various areas, I suggest it is purely because these interfering b*stards want to ban smoking full stop, but realize that prohibition doesn’t work very well with other drugs, and are trying to sneak this one in under the radar.

    If people know the dangers (and I assert that they do), who are you to tell them not to do it ? People need to be responsible for themselves, you can’t do that for them. All you finish achieving is producing people who can’t and won’t think for themselves and yet refuse to follow the “rules” that their “betters” want to foist on them. This leads to the disintegration of a society over time, the UK seems to be following this route ahead of many.

    Disclaimer, I don’t smoke, hate the smell of smoke, and think people who smoke are usually self deluding about it, but it is their choice to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    “Only cold-hearted real question is [assuming people make their own decision to smoke] is whether the costs in their dying is more or less than paying them super or other welfare in later life if they lived.”

    There is another question… “Would the resulting cost savings in health-care be greater than the tourism declines, tax revenue decline”

    One must also wonder if people dieing of smoking costs more money in health-care than people dieing of old age?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    There is another option, allow smokers to register as “a smoker” so that they can get the tax portion of the price they pay for cigarettes back (about 3/4 of the price) and in return they are excluded from access to public health facilities. The tax they get back they could put toward private medical care if they so desire.

    Smoking will not be made illegal till such time as another source of income is found to replace it. be carefull what you ask for though, socialist govt’s like we have in NZ will not give up revenue easily and something you like consuming might end up picking up the tab to fund other social engineering programs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. KiwiGreg (3,244 comments) says:

    Or just leave people the hell alone and fix the real problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    second smoke is a faux scare

    When smokers inhale and then exhale cigarette smoke do they purify it?

    Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke . The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

    Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

    And how many kids would get better food nutrition if their parent/s didn’t burn so much money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. KiwiGreg (3,244 comments) says:

    “And how many kids would get better food nutrition if their parent/s didn’t burn so much money?”

    Or spend it on booze, or gambling, or big cars, or the “wrong” type of food. If only if only we could control every facet of their lives. THen the kids would finally be ok.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    Pete George

    So if we ban smoking and lotto then we won’t have as many hungry kids ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me, is coffee good or bad for us this week ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Funny how they think they’ll tell the maoris what they can and cant do on the beaches, when Keys about to determine who owns the beaches

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr

    It’s for their own good – nanny knows best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    …..and nanny key will hand over title – you just watch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    “Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States ”

    Thats a common statement used to justify the banning of smoking. Fact is, lung cancer can be caused by a number of factors such as smog, viruses, particulate matter, gases in the air. The whole secondhand smoking causing cancer argument is based around unprovable theories, therefore there is nothing scientific to the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. big bruv (13,718 comments) says:

    “Can anyone tell me, is coffee good or bad for us this week ?”

    Oh Bloody hell!, don’t start that off again Burt, you have seen how bent out of shape some people get around here when they cannot get their coffee on Easter Sunday……lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Diesel smut is a know carcinogen and we still import thousands of clapped out rice oil burners to NZ. Goes with our third world status I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown

    But we all know the heat from buring cigarettes is warming the planet. Heat from cigarettes alone will cause a 1,234.3 degrees increase in global temperatures by Q4 2010. It’s in the IPCC report, they got the stats from a year 4 science project conducted in Rotorua.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    I fail to see why it is your or the states business if I choose to kill myself earlier via drinking, alcohol, or drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    And Diesel tax is increased every year as well….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke . The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

    What a load of horseradish – the biggest study on the matter could find no evidence that passive smoking causes cancer so the authoritarian second rate scientists in WHO changed the rules of statistics to try and get a significant result.

    Incidentally this study, the one used to justify these claims also showed that the non smoking children of smokers were less likely to get lung cancer in later life than anybody but this of course only holds if you change the rules of statistics in the same way as they have been justified to make the other passive smoking claims.

    Lets face it Protestant Puritans have morphed into Secular Government nannies because thas what this is Protestant Puritanism rewritten for the secualar age

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    I understand the difficulty in proving second hand smoke risks. But:

    When smokers inhale and then exhale cigarette smoke do they purify it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Must reduce the tar content in the smoke because it gets stuck to the inside of the lungs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Grizz (597 comments) says:

    Lets look at this another way.

    Every smoking related death saves the country 20 years of old age pensions, gold card discounts, health and care for the elderly costs. These will far outweigh most other smoking related health care costs. Surely it would be far more cost effective to considerably reduce tobacco taxes and allow people to make informed choices on whether they should take up smoking or not.

    From a purely narcissistic point of view, I would say that the majority of smokers are from the low end of society. While it will never eliminate their gene pool, smoking will limit their participation in the electoral process. Besides, if smoking was prohibitively expensive or banned, it would only promote gang activity and other criminal behaviour in trying to profit from a black market industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    I know you are scientifically illiterate Pete George and therefore a sucker for every piece of junk science that comes down the pike.

    The reason why there is “difficulty in proving second hand smoke risks” is the risk if any is so small as to be immeasurable and if a risk is that small it is not worth worrying about is it!

    Logic 101

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Using all your scientific acumen PG what is your take on smoking via a hookah. Is it healthier that sucking on a Rothmans because the water washes the smoke before it is inhaled?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Tauhei Notts (1,692 comments) says:

    Fact
    More non smokers died in New Zealand in 2009 than smokers died.
    A fellow smoker told me that the amount he has to cheat on his income tax and GST to get square on the tobacco excise duty is now rather high. If the excise duty is increased further it will increase his tax evasion.
    Smoking is expensive. When visiting my elderly mother in the rest home I would go outside for a smoke. The old bastards then would queue up to bludge a gasper off me. All of them former smokers who had given up buying smokes, but not given up bludging them. And all in their eighties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Using all your scientific acumen PG what is your take on smoking via a hookah.

    Don’t know much about it, is that second hand smoke in a brothel?
    Actually I thought the water was to cool the smoke.

    Good point about all the crap left behind in the lungs.

    The reason why there is “difficulty in proving second hand smoke risks” is the risk if any is so small as to be immeasurable and if a risk is that small it is not worth worrying about is it!

    Logic 101? Uncertainty cuts both ways – difficult to isolate and measure surely means difficult to prove either way, not just the way you choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Fact
    More non smokers died in New Zealand in 2009 than smokers died.

    Considering about 20% (excluding children?) of people smoke that’s not a big surprise. And some of them suffer from second hand smoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    “Logic 101? Uncertainty cuts both ways – difficult to isolate and measure surely means difficult to prove either way, not just the way you choose.”

    Not if you are an IPCC believer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    Logic 101? Uncertainty cuts both ways – difficult to isolate and measure surely means difficult to prove either way, not just the way you choose.

    No it doesn’t Pete George – if I tell you that if you go to Fiordland you are might be burned up by a dragons breath you wont believe me – correctly so. It would be up to me to prove the existance of dragons in Fiordland not up to you to disprove them.

    There is not a whit of evidence that passive smoking causes harm – its a bold claim with no substance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Or an IPCC nonbeliever Johnboy. If they are quite wrong who knows what direction the errors go, maybe all over the place. I suspect their is a problem but much less than they have said, but if they are not reliable then who knows?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. harleyrider1978 (1 comment) says:

    The new Tobacco Prohibition

    I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
    This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
    We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
    Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1930: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

    Now onto the falsehood……

    We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

    Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

    A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth……

    A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

    JUNK SCIENCE

    ”EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology’s gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

    This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19–an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality–the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.”

    So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real.

    The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

    Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

    The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

    Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

    The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

    Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

    Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]

    This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 94% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

    According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

    WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

    By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

    Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ”EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen”……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

    But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.

    Oh! have you heard the one about ”laugh” thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
    Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

    The next time you see a healthscare claim
    consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

    disclaimer; I am a victim of the smoking bans like tens of millions of smokers and non-smokers who liked to hang with their friends in a public accommodation. We have in effect lost our freedom of association because of the bans.
    Property owners have lost their right to their property rights by these laws based upon psuedo-science and propaganda.I dont work for any tobacco company nor do I get anything but the satisfaction that I can make the smoke free activists cringe when the truth gets out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    That’s not a very clever analogy Andrei. If you tell me when you die you will be going to heaven I won’t believe you, correctly so. It would be up to you to prove the existence of heaven.

    Climate is quite different as both things are scientific possibilities. It could stay as it is, or it could heat up (or could cool down actually). There is insufficient proof of any.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    You really are a muddled thinker Pete George – no one is proposing public policy based upon the existence or otherwise of Heaven.

    On the other hand people are proposing public policy, expensive public policy at that with significant impacts on individuals based on both Climate Change and upon the supposed perils of passive smoking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (344 comments) says:

    What is the difference in cost now between smoking tobacco cigarettes or smoking marijuana?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Sounds more like muddled evasion. Are you and a few others not proposing anything for yourself based upon the existence of heaven? What’s a few dollars compared to the significant impact and supposed perils of death?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    You Pete George are living proof of how moronic the left truly are – are you for real.

    Listen Buster YOU ARE GOING TO DIE one way or another and there is no Government intervention that can change that fact.

    Its probably pointless trying to point out to the terminally stupid that the single biggest advance in public health was the provision of lean water and sewerage systems to the general population and this raised the life expectancy from about 40 to about seventy. And since then all the advances in medical technology have raised that at most by a year or two.

    And they can pass all the fucking laws they can get away with and fuck people over and over and it will not improve this number nor will it extend your pitiful existence by one nano second – not one!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Thanks andrei for demonstrating the clarity and intelligence of the right (I guess that’s where you see yourself due to your painting me on the left).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    As best as I can calculate the figures, the tax income covers the health costs by a factor of 3 or 4. That doesn’t even include the bonus of smokers dying sooner. We already spend $1 million a week on tobacco control and in the last 5 years the percentage of smokers has decreased by less than 1%. It is still currently around 24%. This means that the actual number of smokers has increased (population growth). Can be confirmed by the increase of sales by the tobacco companies. Basically the guys at the Min. of Health might have good intentions but they are just bloody useless at getting people to stop smoking. The main tool used is nicotine patches. Giving someone trying to quit smoking large doses of nicotine just does not work. There are other options, including Champix, but the dickhead bureaucrats get stuck in their little cubicles and end up being typically bloody useless. A few years back the scientist who discovered the link between smoking and cancer died and it was noted that he had quit smoking immediately at the time but when asked about secondhand smoke he said he could not find a link to cancer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    I’d like to see fines for the smokers who chuck their used butts out of their car windows. For that matter anyone who discards their used ciggy in any public place. It’s disgusting seeing the orange fluffy remains filling the gutters, or even worse in the sand at the beach!

    For the person who mentioned non-smokers with lung cancer, and the guy arguing about the small levels of chemicals:
    As a non-smoker I have about a 1% chance of getting lung cancer.
    As a smoker, you have about a 10% chance.

    Lung cancer is a horrible disease to have. And of course smokers have a higher risk of everything else bad. I won’t go into it, but there’s no point even trying to argue that smoking ain’t bad for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. menace (402 comments) says:

    tristanb, don’t be so thin my freind, littering is already an offence is it not!
    Personally i just flick the end(tobacco) out of the paper of the fag and put the but inth e rubbish orin my pocket.

    If we are already paying our costs and then giving hte added bonus of not cashing in on pension then where the fucking problem.
    Don’t we have freedom?

    Under this pretence, should you be able to drive a car with a motor bigger than two liter engine with out having at least 4 people in it?

    Bla bla

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” (I guess that’s where you see yourself due to your painting me on the left). ”

    Yeah, its obvious you’re dead wrong there Andrei. Pete George, who has made 3627 posts here in around 6 months and every one of them either defending every looney commie or statist idea out there or attacking any idea slightly to the right of Karl Marx is just your common garden type middle of the road New Zealander. Wisen the hell up man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Seán (397 comments) says:

    “I’m not sure why beaches should having smoking ban. There is no risk of passive smoking on beaches.”
    – you’re right about the passive smoking, but guess where the butts invariably end up? I realise thats a littering issue, not so much a smoking/health issue, but it does fix that problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    I wonder if it was something I said.

    The problem with having such a one dimensional name (and aims) like Redbaiter is that he has to try and find Reds to bait. He must have missed what happened in the 1990s, and keeps desperately looking for people to label to try and justify his existence. I’m not sure why I have been chosen as one of his main targets of abusement, I guess I’m relatively new here and after a year or two of the same blah blah repeats changing to a new recipient may make him think he sounds different. But it’s all the same, inane.

    How many people has he driven away from Kiwiblog? I guess that’s his aim. But blowing smoke in the faces of guests at someone else’s place is so last century. Hiding behind a bum moniker has it’s limitations and cowards seem to get a bit flustered if you stand up to them. Fluster away Redbovinebum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Oh look petey georgie thingy is tryimg another namby pamby flamethrower act.

    Ypu and big blouse drive people away from kiwiblog with your feeble and meaningless rhetoric.

    Get a life!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    feeble and meaningless rhetoric.

    Are you related to Redbovinebum? Probably not, his abuse is usually eloquent, and sometimes his intelligence shines through the pats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. big bruv (13,718 comments) says:

    “Ypu and big blouse drive people away from kiwiblog ”

    It seems I am failing miserably D4J, sadly, you are still here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Please get some professional help with your deranged and creepy fixation with me you twisted keyboard coward. You were so much better as Insloent Prick.

    Real names please David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Petey, you troll for a reaction and whine when you get it. And that’s about all there is to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    No petey I am upset with that gutless filth big blouse continually calling me a child abuser. My twins son want a chat with the creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Didn’t see any sign of anything like that here on this anti-smoking thread. You need to wait until there is a “resurrecting past grudges” thread, or use GD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Tobacco products should be banned, fullstop. The health harm simply doesn’t support any argument in favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. big bruv (13,718 comments) says:

    “No petey I am upset with that gutless filth big blouse continually calling me a child abuser”

    Now, now D4J, there is no need to tell lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.