[angler57]

Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have big brother do it all.
Are folks so weak that they can't Stifle themselves.
Should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbKQklwNScA

[Bodah]

I've never done heroin but apparently it has the same addiction level as heroin, some people have addictive personalities as well. The point isn't whether people should be strong enough to quit on their own. The point is its a harmfull product that the government has decided to make legal, I haven't read the HEalth Canada mandate but I'm sure some where in there, there's a section about not letting products into the country that could kill Canadians. 45 000 Canadians die each year from it.

[Brenda]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

She says she started smoking at 12, which does result in insanely higher chances of lifelong addiction.

So did I. I quit 11 years ago. What's her excuse?

Addiction is different for everyone.

There are plenty of products and other forms of help available. I'm not saying everyone should do it the way I did it.
I don't know if she ever quit, or tried to. But I'm sorry, I have no sympathy...

Alcohol can be addictive too, and causes liver cancer and braindamage. How many lawsuits are there against brewers?

[kenmore]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

with all the info that's been out there for decades, if she has health problems it's her own fault.

I agree totally, who is at fault here? There are cessation programs and medications that help people quit.. Smoking is a choice albeit a bad one.

[Unsound]

I think that government should be required to chip in a share of the award relative to the amount they make in taxes off each pack of smokes. As well the money should go into a trust fund which would pay expenses related to the persons sickness with the rest of the money going to fund anti-tobacco campaigns. this way no one gets rich by shirking their own responsibilities to their health.

[Yogi]

Bodah Bodah:

I've never done heroin but apparently it has the same addiction level as heroin, some people have addictive personalities as well. The point isn't whether people should be strong enough to quit on their own. The point is its a harmfull product that the government has decided to make legal, I haven't read the HEalth Canada mandate but I'm sure some where in there, there's a section about not letting products into the country that could kill Canadians. 45 000 Canadians die each year from it.

News Flash; These same 45,000 Canadians were going to die anyway!

[Gunnair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Personally, I'd like to see the Feds start taking some heat for tobacco as well. In Canada AND the US, they are little more than facilitators for drug pushers. Not dealers, pushers

I'm not gonna argue yer point about it being her decision to smoke, but the shit should be banned outright. And gov'ts aren't going to listen until it starts costing them more in additional lawsuits than what they make in cigarette taxes.
And keep suing those tobacco companies and drive 'em out of business too.

Gotta disagree.

Government will not and should not ban it as long as they can collect tax revenue from it against the cost of the health problems it creates. Same as with alcohol and frankly, the same with low end drugs like pot.

Ban it, the revenue goes and trafficking in an illegal substance that no one will be sent to jail over, will become the norm. And we'll still be paying the health costs without having smokers offset some of it in taxes.

[Brenda]

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Personally, I'd like to see the Feds start taking some heat for tobacco as well. In Canada AND the US, they are little more than facilitators for drug pushers. Not dealers, pushers

I'm not gonna argue yer point about it being her decision to smoke, but the shit should be banned outright. And gov'ts aren't going to listen until it starts costing them more in additional lawsuits than what they make in cigarette taxes.
And keep suing those tobacco companies and drive 'em out of business too.

Gotta disagree.

Government will not and should not ban it as long as they can collect tax revenue from it against the cost of the health problems it creates. Same as with alcohol and frankly, the same with low end drugs like pot.

Ban it, the revenue goes and trafficking in an illegal substance that no one will be sent to jail over, will become the norm. And we'll still be paying the health costs without having smokers offset some of it in taxes.

Even with it being legal, cigarettes are still being smuggled
Just to avoid taxes...

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Personally, I'd like to see the Feds start taking some heat for tobacco as well. In Canada AND the US, they are little more than facilitators for drug pushers. Not dealers, pushers

I'm not gonna argue yer point about it being her decision to smoke, but the shit should be banned outright. And gov'ts aren't going to listen until it starts costing them more in additional lawsuits than what they make in cigarette taxes.
And keep suing those tobacco companies and drive 'em out of business too.

Gotta disagree.

Government will not and should not ban it as long as they can collect tax revenue from it against the cost of the health problems it creates. Same as with alcohol and frankly, the same with low end drugs like pot.

Ban it, the revenue goes and trafficking in an illegal substance that no one will be sent to jail over, will become the norm. And we'll still be paying the health costs without having smokers offset some of it in taxes.

Even with it being legal, cigarettes are still being smuggled
Just to avoid taxes...

True, but not as much in the mid 90s when the feds bumped the tax into the level of a tax revolt.

That being said, cigarette smuggling goes hand in hand with the fed's unwillingness to deal with the criminal activity on native land.

[Bodah]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Gotta disagree.

Government will not and should not ban it as long as they can collect tax revenue from it against the cost of the health problems it creates. Same as with alcohol and frankly, the same with low end drugs like pot.

Ban it, the revenue goes and trafficking in an illegal substance that no one will be sent to jail over, will become the norm. And we'll still be paying the health costs without having smokers offset some of it in taxes.

Obviously if the government really wanted people to quit they would ban it. They dont'. I'd wager a large portion of smokers would quit if they did. I don't think the government should spend time trying to crack down on the obvious increase in smuggling/illegal sales of tobaco if they did ban it. There's limits to this of course a corner store selling them should be fined shut down etc. But if a person really wants to drive to a reserve to buy a bag of smokes knock them self out.

As far as the health concerns of taking care of smokers. They money they've collected over the years which is in the billions covers their costs of taking care of people getting sick from it, they've paid their share in taxes already.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Gotta disagree.

Government will not and should not ban it as long as they can collect tax revenue from it against the cost of the health problems it creates. Same as with alcohol and frankly, the same with low end drugs like pot.

Ban it, the revenue goes and trafficking in an illegal substance that no one will be sent to jail over, will become the norm. And we'll still be paying the health costs without having smokers offset some of it in taxes.

And that's why the gov't has such a hypocritical stance on tobacco. As long as it costs them less to treat smoking related illnesses than they rake in in taxes, it'll stay legal. Pathetic. Why don't we just let the Chinese sell their toxic crap to us while we're at it?
Why pretend to be concerned about public safety while helping tobacco companies push their insidious toxins that are designed to kill when used as intended?

I gotta wonder if the government was getting the kind of cake from toxic Chinese products as they are from tobacco if they would have been so quick to ban those.

[Zipperfish]

Bring on the nanny state.

Before dumping it all on the tobacco companies--remember that (at least in Canada) governments make far more off cigarettes than tobacco companies do. They are just the same as Big Tobacco--get people hooked then jack up the price.

If people want to smoke, let 'em. It's their life to throw away.

[andyt]

This lawsuit has noting to do with the nanny state. The suit is not against the govt, but the tobacco companies that were marketing to minors and adding extra nicotine to their product to make it more addictive. It's like if pot was legalized, but with some heroin added and packaged in ways attractive to teens.

Tobacco and pot should both be legal. Both should be regulated and come with warnings. Since tobacco is such a harmful product it should be sold in liquor stores only, same way pot would be sold if it was legal. None of this would prevent kids from accessing this stuff, but right now kids find it easier to buy pot than liquor - if legalization undercut the black market, they would find it a lot harder to get.

[angler57]

andyt andyt:

This lawsuit has noting to do with the nanny state. The suit is not against the govt, but the tobacco companies that were marketing to minors and adding extra nicotine to their product to make it more addictive. It's like if pot was legalized, but with some heroin added and packaged in ways attractive to teens.

Tobacco and pot should both be legal. Both should be regulated and come with warnings. Since tobacco is such a harmful product it should be sold in liquor stores only, same way pot would be sold if it was legal. None of this would prevent kids from accessing this stuff, but right now kids find it easier to buy pot than liquor - if legalization undercut the black market, they would find it a lot harder to get.

Why don't you just give your government the right to control your entire life?
Then it would, from your words, be a Utopia? A perfect government State?
What about personal control of ones life?

[PostFactum]

angler57 angler57:

andyt andyt:

This lawsuit has noting to do with the nanny state. The suit is not against the govt, but the tobacco companies that were marketing to minors and adding extra nicotine to their product to make it more addictive. It's like if pot was legalized, but with some heroin added and packaged in ways attractive to teens.

Tobacco and pot should both be legal. Both should be regulated and come with warnings. Since tobacco is such a harmful product it should be sold in liquor stores only, same way pot would be sold if it was legal. None of this would prevent kids from accessing this stuff, but right now kids find it easier to buy pot than liquor - if legalization undercut the black market, they would find it a lot harder to get.

Why don't you just give your government the right to control your entire life?
Then it would, from your words, be a Utopia? A perfect government State?
What about personal control of ones life?

Yes, it sounds like utopia, but it's some situations, when citizen don't realise what is good for him and government try to show or deny something using laws or social instruments.