View topic - smoking

The Party

Provincial - smoking

capebretoner - Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:10 am
Post subject: smoking

The NDP leader from New Brunswick is calling for all displays for cigarettes to be taken down. This has alread been done in Sask. and when the law was challenged it was upheld in the Supreme Court.

I think that this is a great idea. The governments are always saying that they are raising the price of the things so that younger people will not start. I think that this is just a good reasson to raise the taxes to make more money. Banning the displays will take the products out of view of young people, especially children. Like the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind".

http://www.canoe.ca/AtlanticTicker/CANOE-wire.NB-Cigarettes-Displays.html

HickoryStick - Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:35 pm
Post subject: Nanny-state?

New Brunswick is becoming a nanny state?

I don't think we should be telling businesses what to do either, if peeps want to smoke then go right ahead.

However, our healthcare system should not have to pay for those who choose to smoke. To hell with them, I says.

Whoooop-woooooo.

Seriously though, what's with these NDippers trying to run our lives? I'm not interested in a police state, thank you very much.

eastern capitalist - Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:00 pm
Post subject:

Typical reaction of the government. If smoking (or more accurately the consumption of nicotine) is so bad, then the government should be out right banning the product if it wants to end the "health risk" that tobacco products pose to the youth of Canada.

If people really want to believe that the sole purpose of raising the "sin" tax is to use some sort of invisible hand of state sponsored collective, people are being seriously ignorant of the rational and the timing that government use in such cases.

Government always raise the so-called sin taxes in time of financial difficulties because they know that those addicted will cough up the extra capital for the product, while doing nothing to hinder the "cool" appeal to youth. If anything, the increase in tax only provides the state with extra cash at the expense of the citizens it is trying to help quit smoking in the first place.

We should free the hand of the tobacco merchants as long as the product is legal. It is a disgrace to see how much regulation and red tape exists around a legal product that is consumed by an individual of their own free will.

Once again Canadians are showing their weakness -- I mean, it seems we want Mr. Government to take care of everything, rather then taking on a sense of individual responsibility for our own actions.

capebretoner - Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:12 pm
Post subject:

eastern capitalist wrote:

Good point, I do think that the government should have less involvement in the lives of adults however, children are more easily influenced. This is the same rational why VLTs must not be visible to minors. This simplest thing that could be done is to regulate tobacco the same way as the Nova Scotian government regulates alcohol. People going in to purchase alcohol in the NSLC stores in Metro have their IDs checked at the door. This could be true in other districts but I am not sure.

eastern capitalist - Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:18 pm
Post subject:

Last time I check parents are suppose to have responsibility over their children. I do not want my tax dollars going towards a "nanny" function.

Additionally, commercial retailers have an obligation to ask for identification if they think someone is under the legal to purchase tobacco products. So in a sense it is regulated to a degree that is approaching alcohol. I mean it is time for people to learn that with their actions comes responsibility. If you do not want your child consuming tobacco, then teach your child about the dangers and follow through with it. Use discipline in cases where enforcement is required. It is not the job the state to raise a child.

Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:26 pm
Post subject:

I agree in theory with the remark that people should exercise control over their own decisions and accept responsibility for those decisions.

However, since we live in Canada where the electorate supports publicly funded health care by a vast majority, we end up shouldering the burden of smokers. Since it is not really feasible to take away universal health care from smokers, the only other viable alternative short of a complete ban is to initiate programs which reduce smokers, and increase the tax burden on those smokers.

Often, one has to work within the framework of the ideals of a given society.

HickoryStick - Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:19 pm
Post subject:

Good point.

But what happens when you tax the hell out of them and a black market opens up? And what do we do about the smoke-shops on Reserves, where non natives buy cigarettes illegally without paying tax?

Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:41 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

But what happens when you tax the hell out of them and a black market opens up?

cross that bridge when we get to it. If you can markedly decrease demand (as has been the case over the last number of years) it will decrease the likelihood of a strong black market.

And, I don't think the current situation with the native smoke shops are ideal. But I don't want to comment on this because it will lead to a discussion on the native dilemma in canada, which would be opening a huge can of worms.

capebretoner - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:45 pm
Post subject:

Moishey wrote:

Quote:

But what happens when you tax the hell out of them and a black market opens up?

Yeah, that would be a can of worms, but I think we should open it anyway, maybe in another topic, at another time....

HickoryStick - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:49 pm
Post subject: Oh really?

Quote:

cross that bridge when we get to it.

Doesn't sound like a very responsible plan. Don't you criticize Bush for following the same method of dealing with situations?

capebretoner - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Oh really?

HickoryStick wrote:

Quote:

cross that bridge when we get to it.

Doesn't sound like a very responsible plan. Don't you criticize Bush for following the same method of dealing with situations?

Huh? Fill me in...

Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:51 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

Doesn't sound like a very responsible plan. Don't you criticize Bush for following the same method of dealing with situations?

Sorry, HickoryStick. I don't equate in severity having a black market in tobacco that needs to be controlled, with irrevocable destruction to the climate of the earth.

HickoryStick - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:51 pm
Post subject:

I do believe Moishy criticizes Bush for going into Iraq without an exit strategy.

I could be wrong, Mosihy could be all for the Iraqi liberation for what I know.

But I doubt it.

Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:57 pm
Post subject:

Alright, modify last response by replacing "irrevocable destruction to the climate of the earth." with "invading a foreign country and creating a power vaccuum which leads to chaos, and the deaths of multitudes of iraqi civilians and American soldiers".

Furthermore, the two issues don't even compare. If you invade Iraq, you know there is going to be a post-invasion situation that must be dealt with. If you raise taxes on cigarettes reasonably, you can't guarantee that you'll need to implement a major plan to stop a black market beyond the regular border checks etc.

eastern capitalist - Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:33 pm
Post subject:

Moishey wrote:

However, since we live in Canada where the electorate supports publicly funded health care by a vast majority, we end up shouldering the burden of smokers. Since it is not really feasible to take away universal health care from smokers, the only other viable alternative short of a complete ban is to initiate programs which reduce smokers, and increase the tax burden on those smokers.

Well public heathcare is something for a different thread. However, as I said, the state wants to keep the product legal and take in the "sin" tax, that is a decision it has made, and under our current system it means the state picks up the assoicated medical bills.

Again, it is people that wish to smoke and they pay taxes just like the rest of them. It is not fair to single them out as a target group when there larger groups that also place a "burden" on the healthcare system. It is a legal product and smokers should not be targeted for particpating in a legal activitiy.

capebretoner - Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:50 pm
Post subject:

eastern capitalist wrote:

Moishey wrote:

What are the larger groups? I think that if you are thinking about people who do not eat right or not do any physical activity that you are right. However, this can't be tackled the same way as smoking. Healthy living is a lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle must start at home, and to be successful you have to be educated, have phys Ed in school, encourage sports, etc... You can not just go out and tax unhealthy food. this would be a major burden in lower income households since "junk food" is usually cheaper than "healthy food".

People have been educated about the affects of smoking for years. People knew it was unhealthy when my parents were kids, but people still decided to start, and since smoking is not a necessity, it should be taxed. Personally I would support a total ban on tobacco, even though I enjoy a good cigar once or twice a year....

eastern capitalist - Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:59 pm
Post subject:

Well,

I was thinking of people that drink. They can place a higher demand on the public system. They often plance a demand on the legal system.

You are right, persons that choose to eat "junk food" also place a burden on the healthcare system. People who have unprotected sex also place a demand.

You see there are a lot of legal activities that people can do that the state could try and regulate to death, but it does not. Smoker's are doing a legal substance and they taxpayers. They have the same rights as the users of other legal products.