It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cigarettes whisked out of sight

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Cigarettes whisked out of sight


news.yahoo.com

You can browse the latest porn magazines at Canadian shops, but tough new laws mean that cigarette packages are simply too suggestive.
Shop owners in Ontario, Quebec and a few other provinces must now hide tobacco products from their customers under rules that will cover most of Canada by year-end as the country tries to stamp out smoking by young people.

The provincial governments want to discourage the habit by "de-normalizing" the presence of cigarettes, which typically enjoyed prime placement behind the cash register.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Read the whole article. Does anyone else have a huge problem with the varying treatment that our addictive products get? So Alcohol is less of a problem than cigarettes? Sound off, WTF is up with our Nanny states?

"It's a pain in the ass, and a double-standard that the government supports liquor sales," said a Toronto shop owner who did not want to be named, but who noted children too young to buy pornography are still free to eye the plastic-covered magazines, which are only partly hidden by their shelving.

"It's kind of like a nanny state."
well at least they know...
news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
And this is the gov't line...

Canadian retailers complain the law will confuse customers and sellers, and stifle sales of their top product.

But the provinces, which are responsible for managing Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, say they are trying to curb the country's No. 1 cause of early death, cancer.


I wrote a whole thread on what would happen if "universal healthcare" happened, and everyone called me an idiot....



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The politicians are considering the same thing over here in the UK.

After fiddling their expense accounts, (the news if full of the swindles the MPs are pulling), maybe some have had a freebie holiday in Canada and nicked your ideas.

www.localgov.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson

Read the whole article. Does anyone else have a huge problem with the varying treatment that our addictive products get? So Alcohol is less of a problem than cigarettes? Sound off, WTF is up with our Nanny states?


Cigarettes are easier to hide. I don't like my beverages to be hidden. I like to stand there for a while and debate with myself over what to buy. I can't do that if they're out the back or hidden in a special compartment under the floor.

Besides, don't worry about them hiding the Cigarettes. Cigarettes are working directly for the Romulans. John Sinclair's Cutter's Choice all the way. Reckon they'd dare hide that?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


There is no debate between cigarettes and Alcohol in this situation. Here is why:

In Canada, we do not sell beer/liquor/wine at the grocery store or gas station. You have to go to a liquor store. Children are not allowed in liquor stores.

Cigarettes on the other hand are sold in all sorts of stores (the same as America). These stores allow children (of course).

The main goal of this law was to remove smoke advertisements from children (which it has effectively done). If beer was sold in the grocery store, then it would be hypocritical, but since children are not legally allowed in the liquor store, there is no reason to hide the liquor (and various adverts) from view.

Now if you want to take issue with the giant beer decals hanging in all ages restaurants, then you might have a case.

I smoke, and I don't find this to be a big issue whatsoever.

If you want to hate on universal health care and our nanny state, I think other issues would be best (such as how our dogs have faster access to health care than we do).

[edit on 9-6-2008 by WuTang]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WuTang
 


Dear God man!

Where have you been every time I write about the myths of the social medicine in Canada?

Although I agree with the idea that children should not be exposed to cigarettes, and I know of the Canadian package stores, I still believe that this is BECAUSE of your socialized medicine. Um, why else try to prevent new smokers? Either make it illegal, or let me live my life, you know?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


there is too much money to be made by tobacco companies

i dont see the reason

and just dont get it

i can see stricter laws but people who choose to smoke will still smoke and or those addicted and are unable to quit

i smoke a pipe and stogiess from time to time and only cigs when i drink

so prices for me arent a big deal

i also dont have a problem leaving a group to do my thing as i know it can be a bad smell for some, some cigs and cloves i hate and wouldnt want to sit there and smell it

although i do miss sitting in a bar and having a pint and a pipe

[edit on 9-6-2008 by MurderCityDevil]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


We have this interesting double standard in that respect.

Our smokes cost about $10 a pack on average. More than $5 of that is taxes, which go mainly into the health care program. So the government has to tax and encourage the tobacco industry to keep the system running, but at the same time they need to discourage people from smoking because it is bad for them (who else will protect us from ourselves), and also because of the long term costs in caring for the people who get sick from smoking.

I would be very interested in a good study (which our government and think tanks have not done) comparing whether the taxes raised from tobacco sales outweigh the long term health care costs. I think that would be a very solid basis for tobacco policy.

And yes, it is true that our dogs have much faster access to certain diagnostic tools (it might be MRI but I am not sure). That was a sad embarrassing read.

However I wouldn't straight hate on a socialized health care program, just one which has no private alternatives. Remember that the top 5 health care systems in the world are all half socialized and half private.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WuTang
 


I agree again. A semi socialized system that was for children and disabled people is not a horrible idea. But only if coupled with an intense amount of health and diet information,(in primary schools) as well as an intense P.E. program. Start kids off right....

As for the cigs there. Well, I used to be married to a Nova Scotian, and I bought plenty of smokes up there. But I agree with you that these taxes are probably being used for the short term treatment. To fund the hospitals if you will. So if they made them illegal, then what happens to that generation that was the last to smoke? They get sick, and there won't be revenue to cover them or the people that I'm sure the tax surplus is covering now.

And I know the stats on doctors there. Need a check up? Sure, come on in! Need an MRI? See you in a year!

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I have to laugh at this..they do everything they can to make tobaco products harder to get..then when they loose the revenue ..they raise taxes on it in the name of preventing it more.. They do nothing but screw the poor and middle class, then complain because no one gets the anti's message. Yup, socialism works just fine..in your dreams!!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join