Gradfathering Tobacco

[grainfedprairieboy]

Canada has a long history in introducing new legislation that effectively makes a product against the law but does not make the use or ownership of the product illegal, only the sale or transferability.

For example, firearms recently deemed restricted but owned by families for generations must be turned over to the government upon the death of the owner or a jail sentence ensues. Conversely, wiring or plumbing in an older home that is not to modern code can remain so as long as it conforms to the standard of practice of the day it was installed and no new permit is drawn where at that point it will not be passed and insurance and resale will be disallowed until compliance is achieved.

Furthermore, septic systems that are dysfunctional can continue to operate legally but must meet tough new standards if any upgrade is done. Seatbelt use is not required in cars that were originally constructed without them but fines and demerits are the result of noncompliance in a modern automobile.

So the fact that grandfathering is well established from consumer goods to building codes to even weaponry, is it politically possible to draft tobacco legilsation that forbids the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 regardless of how old they may be and even after they are well beyond the age of majority?

Perhaps it should be extended to a moratorium on all products that are purposefully designed for inhalation that are not specifically endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association as safe, such as pipes, rolling papers, electronic inhalers, etc.

Assuredly some might presume that there would be some criminal element that may profit from such a prohibition and that government might as well benefit through sin taxes but as witnessed with gambling and alcohol, when you increase the availability of the product you inadvertently and correspondingly increase consumption.

If we look at the history of gambling, perhaps a small market of criminals catering to a small market of users is better then the mass of casinos, lotteries, VLTs and the increased social ills associated with their mass presence. Even the most radical proponent of unrestricted marijuana use will admit that consumption will increase if the product is legal, cheaper and widely available and marketed (they just claim it has no negative health impacts). An even greater argument can be made for reserves that have banned alcohol and while they haven't eradicated the consumption, considerable harm reduction within the communities has been achieved.

There are sound Libertarian points that government has absolutely no business in regulating the consumption of any product and that recreational drugs to food stuffs should be available free of government restrictions but this is likely a minority opinion.

There are also points to be made that government may not be interested in weaning itself from the tax revenue associated with such a highly marked up product but if government is to assume the responsibility and expense for our healthcare, and have already interfered with lifestyle choices far more mundane from seatbelt use to bicycle helmets to the issue surrounding the young Quebec women arrested for refusing to hold a handrail on an escalator as the sign advised, clearly a product as destructive and harmful as tobacco should be eliminated.

Your thoughts?

Edited October 13, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[DrGreenthumb]

Canada has a long history in introducing new legislation that effectively makes a product against the law but does not make the use or ownership of the product illegal, only the sale or transferability.

For example, firearms recently deemed restricted but owned by families for generations must be turned over to the government upon the death of the owner or a jail sentence ensues. Conversely, wiring or plumbing in an older home that is not to modern code can remain so as long as it conforms to the standard of practice of the day it was installed and no new permit is drawn where at that point it will not be passed and insurance and resale will be disallowed until compliance is achieved.

Furthermore, septic systems that are dysfunctional can continue to operate legally but must meet tough new standards if any upgrade is done. Seatbelt use is not required in cars that were originally constructed without them but fines and demerits are the result of noncompliance in a modern automobile.

So the fact that grandfathering is well established from consumer goods to building codes to even weaponry, is it politically possible to draft tobacco legilsation that forbids the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 regardless of how old they may be and even after they are well beyond the age of majority?

Perhaps it should be extended to a moratorium on all products that are purposefully designed for inhalation that are not specifically endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association as safe, such as pipes, rolling papers, electronic inhalers, etc.

Assuredly some might presume that there would be some criminal element that may profit from such a prohibition and that government might as well benefit through sin taxes but as witnessed with gambling and alcohol, when you increase the availability of the product you inadvertently and correspondingly increase consumption.

If we look at the history of gambling, perhaps a small market of criminals catering to a small market of users is better then the mass of casinos, lotteries, VLTs and the increased social ills associated with their mass presence. Even the most radical proponent of unrestricted marijuana use will admit that consumption will increase if the product is legal, cheaper and widely available and marketed (they just claim it has no negative health impacts). An even greater argument can be made for reserves that have banned alcohol and while they haven't eradicated the consumption, considerable harm reduction within the communities has been achieved.

There are sound Libertarian points that government has absolutely no business in regulating the consumption of any product and that recreational drugs to food stuffs should be available free of government restrictions but this is likely a minority opinion.

There are also points to be made that government may not be interested in weaning itself from the tax revenue associated with such a highly marked up product but if government is to assume the responsibility and expense for our healthcare, and have already interfered with lifestyle choices far more mundane from seatbelt use to bicycle helmets to the issue surrounding the young Quebec women arrested for refusing to hold a handrail on an escalator as the sign advised, clearly a product as destructive and harmful as tobacco should be eliminated.

Your thoughts?

Why does it not surprise me that a Harper supporter is a prohibitionist? Gotta stop those sinners eh?

[grainfedprairieboy]

Why does it not surprise me that a Harper supporter is a prohibitionist? Gotta stop those sinners eh?

Why does it not surprise me that a Liberal is incapable of meaningful nonpartisan political discussion? Is this not a thread devoted to political philosophy? Isn't your political extremism supposed to be reserved for the dedicated political threads?

Anywho, for the record pal, I have never voted for Harper's Liberals and never will. The Conservative Party are way too far to the left for me and unlike most other Albertans who hold their nose and vote for the party because the alternative is one step next to economic Armageddon, I vote Liberal because it is the only hope of bringing about the "winning conditions" necessary for Alberta to move forward as an independent state.

Now try and focus on the topic at hand................

[Oleg Bach]

Either admit that you have no morals or principles and continue to deal this drug to the public - or out law the poison...Looks like government when it comes to sustaining themselves through addiction tax don't have a problem with being evil - and in fact they don't like to talk about it - so if those in government are evil..what the hell are they doing ruling us and telling us what to do - we should not listen to them.

[eyeball]

Your thoughts?

One consistent substance use law makes the most sense but the most important thing is to just keep the damn state off people's backs.

As for divorcing from Ottawa it seems unlikely but count me in anyway. The winning conditions for an autonomous Vancouver Island probably include BC and Alberta going their own way but once that's out of the way arrivederci Alberta. You guys are way to willing to put up with authoritarianism in the name of your wallets for my liking, I can only imagine how much you'd be willing to make other people put up with.

There's a lot more to my life than your money.

Edited October 13, 2010 by eyeball

[Shwa]

Your thoughts?

Why stop at tobacco or other destructive and harmful products? It's the thinking that starts it all. What we need is thought police and a mechanism to source what thoughts are deemed to be destructive and harmful. This forum could be such a mechanism. Albertan separation for one, is a destructive and harmful idea especially to the legislators over here in Ontario.

So if the police knock at your door, wave that Canadian flag you have stashed behind the couch and all will be well.

[bloodyminded]

Canada has a long history in introducing new legislation that effectively makes a product against the law but does not make the use or ownership of the product illegal, only the sale or transferability.

For example, firearms recently deemed restricted but owned by families for generations must be turned over to the government upon the death of the owner or a jail sentence ensues. Conversely, wiring or plumbing in an older home that is not to modern code can remain so as long as it conforms to the standard of practice of the day it was installed and no new permit is drawn where at that point it will not be passed and insurance and resale will be disallowed until compliance is achieved.

Furthermore, septic systems that are dysfunctional can continue to operate legally but must meet tough new standards if any upgrade is done. Seatbelt use is not required in cars that were originally constructed without them but fines and demerits are the result of noncompliance in a modern automobile.

So the fact that grandfathering is well established from consumer goods to building codes to even weaponry, is it politically possible to draft tobacco legilsation that forbids the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 regardless of how old they may be and even after they are well beyond the age of majority?

The distinctions in your analogy are manifest. Grandfathering--whatever one thinks of it--is about pre-existing material goods (most of which are destined to deteriorate eventually anyway), not about a consumer product in the continually-producing paradigm.

You're talking about instituting unequal rights, focussed only on young people, and comparing it to special circumstantial status which is by definition decreasing.

[guyser]

... when you increase the availability of the product you inadvertently and correspondingly increase consumption.

I believe you have that backward,

See prohibition. Sale restrictions or outlaw banning caused a huge surge in crime, death, drunkeness and the number of speakeasys went through the roof. Upon repealing prohibition the reverse happened.

[Topaz]

Why does it not surprise me that a Liberal is incapable of meaningful nonpartisan political discussion? Is this not a thread devoted to political philosophy? Isn't your political extremism supposed to be reserved for the dedicated political threads?

Anywho, for the record pal, I have never voted for Harper's Liberals and never will. The Conservative Party are way too far to the left for me and unlike most other Albertans who hold their nose and vote for the party because the alternative is one step next to economic Armageddon, I vote Liberal because it is the only hope of bringing about the "winning conditions" necessary for Alberta to move forward as an independent state.

Now try and focus on the topic at hand................

Question....when Harper leaves Ottawa and goes back to Alberta, what chance do you think he has of being Premier?

[Shady]

I voted no to grandfathering tobacco. It's already being grandfathered out, by society on its own. People are using it less and less as the years go by. And those who do use it, pay high taxes and fees as a result. In some cases, you can't even use tobacco in your own truck, on your own time. Essentially governments are already legislating it out of existence.

[DrGreenthumb]

Why does it not surprise me that a Liberal is incapable of meaningful nonpartisan political discussion? Is this not a thread devoted to political philosophy? Isn't your political extremism supposed to be reserved for the dedicated political threads?

Anywho, for the record pal, I have never voted for Harper's Liberals and never will. The Conservative Party are way too far to the left for me and unlike most other Albertans who hold their nose and vote for the party because the alternative is one step next to economic Armageddon, I vote Liberal because it is the only hope of bringing about the "winning conditions" necessary for Alberta to move forward as an independent state.

Now try and focus on the topic at hand................

I'm not a Liberal, but I see them as a lot less threatening and authoritarian than the religious whack-job infested Conservative party. I'm more of a social libertarian actually, and anyone who promotes the states right to tell me how to enjoy my life can get bent.

[ToadBrother]

I believe you have that backward,

See prohibition. Sale restrictions or outlaw banning caused a huge surge in crime, death, drunkeness and the number of speakeasys went through the roof. Upon repealing prohibition the reverse happened.

Even jacking up the price of tobacco saw a huge upswing in smuggling. Banning it, even in limited fashion, would certainly make the smugglers happy, as it would immediately jack the price up.

[grainfedprairieboy]

I find it interesting that the prevailing sentiment over a political philosophy that should a government enforce it's own legislative authority over product safety and gradually remove one of the only products that used correctly will result in premature death or disease, it must be a nefarious Conservative plot.

Some of you should give your head a shake on several counts:

1. This is thread is about political philosophy rather then partisan politics. We are just exploring the feasibility of such a bill.

2. Anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" and sees such a bill as a government invasion of personal rights must be losing their mind over tax funded hospitals, cancer research and a regulatory body to approve the safety of consumer goods and enforce pharmaceutical regulations.

[bloodyminded]

I find it interesting that the prevailing sentiment over a political philosophy that should a government enforce it's own legislative authority over product safety and gradually remove one of the only products that used correctly will result in premature death or disease, it must be a nefarious Conservative plot.

Some of you should give your head a shake on several counts:

1. This is thread is about political philosophy rather then partisan politics. We are just exploring the feasibility of such a bill.

2. Anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" and sees such a bill as a government invasion of personal rights must be losing their mind over tax funded hospitals, cancer research and a regulatory body to approve the safety of consumer goods and enforce pharmaceutical regulations.

I take your point. But my reply at least, if I may say so, wasn't in any way about partisan politics. I disagreed with you because I didn't consider the analogy of current grandfathered material objects apt, and I considered it an assault on rights by virtue of age...whether you agree with my assessment or not, it's totally unrelated to which party is in power or from which part of the ideological spectrum the grandfathering would be generated.

[grainfedprairieboy]

I take your point.

Cheers

But my reply at least, if I may say so, wasn't in any way about partisan politics. I disagreed with you because I didn't consider the analogy of current grandfathered material objects apt, and I considered it an assault on rights by virtue of age...whether you agree with my assessment or not, it's totally unrelated to which party is in power or from which part of the ideological spectrum the grandfathering would be generated.

I have yet to form an opinion on the subject and the OP was strictly to lubricate the angles of debate. By nature I am a staunch libertarian so I do believe government has no role to play in social behaviour. However, I am also a realist and I know that whether I like it or not, for the foreseeable future the Canadian government will be assuming the responsibility for my health care despite my objections.

Now since as a Canadian I have signed over all rights to the government to decide what medicines they will allow for my treatment, how timely I will be seen by a physician, which surgeon will see me and whether the surgeries, diagnostics or, hospital stay, etc etc will even be performed.....all at my expense of course courtesy of a tax funded system averaging 50% of every penny collected and rising.......it seems to me that I have to accept that the greatest drain on our healthcare system is a result of the effects of smoking itself.

So trying to raise the first tobacco free generation attacks no current smokers right, presumably the ones too addicted to cease the habit. And I see little difference between my grandson not being allowed to buy or inherit certain ammunition and products with which to discharge them and not being allowed to buy or inherit tobacco and certain products with which to smoke them.

In essence, I am looking for a good reason that a state who demands the citizens accede to their healthcare monopoly, and are forcing them to pay for it, then you see a reduction in services, should continue to make available a product which is the root of the greatest drain on resources of the system.

No business or household would operate this way. It is akin to heating a prairie box with three walls.

[eyeball]

In essence, I am looking for a good reason that a state who demands the citizens accede to their healthcare monopoly, and are forcing them to pay for it, then you see a reduction in services, should continue to make available a product which is the root of the greatest drain on resources of the system.

Because the harm caused by trying to prohibit that product will simply be added to the harm the product is causing. The product will never ever go away so long as the demand doesn't go away.

As for your Grandson, controlling guns and ammunition is not the same as prohibiting them. He can buy and discharge as many guns and bullets as he wants, so long as he stores them at an armoury and uses them at a gun range. Ideally ranges and armouries will be located at the same place.

He could buy a mortar and discharge a 50 calibre machine gun while smoking crack cocaine for all I care. Why a gun range would object to a little second-hand smoke amidst all the guns being discharged is beyond me.

[RNG]

2. Anyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" and sees such a bill as a government invasion of personal rights must be losing their mind over tax funded hospitals, cancer research and a regulatory body to approve the safety of consumer goods and enforce pharmaceutical regulations.

I consider myself a libertarian. As the lesser of two evils, I favor the concept of a single payer healthcare system. (Not saying there couldn't be many improvements in our current one.) And those are two opposing philosophies I have internally debated for years. The solution would have been for the medicare to have never been instituted in the first place, I would have bought health insurance when I got my first real job and all would be fine. And therein lies the evil of giving. Once the government gives, it becomes almost impossible to take back. Now, since my taxes are used to pay for medical services, I grudgingly agree the government has the right to force you to not smoke, wear helmets when cycling, wear a seat belt and much more.

Edited October 14, 2010 by RNG

[guyser]

Cheers

However, I am also a realist and I know that whether I like it or not, for the foreseeable future the Canadian government will be assuming the responsibility for my health care despite my objections.

Object if you want, no one is forcing you hand over responisbility

Now since as a Canadian I have signed over all rights to the government to decide what medicines they will allow for my treatment, how timely I will be seen by a physician, which surgeon will see me and whether the surgeries, diagnostics or, hospital stay, etc etc will even be performed...

You can stop there.

None of that is true.

..all at my expense of course courtesy of a tax funded system averaging 50% of every penny collected and rising.......it seems to me that I have to accept that the greatest drain on our healthcare system is a result of the effects of smoking itself.

...and perhaps smokers contribute the most to Healthcare via taxes. They are taxed heavily you know.

[bloodyminded]

Cheers

I have yet to form an opinion on the subject and the OP was strictly to lubricate the angles of debate. By nature I am a staunch libertarian so I do believe government has no role to play in social behaviour. However, I am also a realist and I know that whether I like it or not, for the foreseeable future the Canadian government will be assuming the responsibility for my health care despite my objections.

Now since as a Canadian I have signed over all rights to the government to decide what medicines they will allow for my treatment, how timely I will be seen by a physician, which surgeon will see me and whether the surgeries, diagnostics or, hospital stay, etc etc will even be performed.....all at my expense of course courtesy of a tax funded system averaging 50% of every penny collected and rising.......it seems to me that I have to accept that the greatest drain on our healthcare system is a result of the effects of smoking itself.

So trying to raise the first tobacco free generation attacks no current smokers right, presumably the ones too addicted to cease the habit. And I see little difference between my grandson not being allowed to buy or inherit certain ammunition and products with which to discharge them and not being allowed to buy or inherit tobacco and certain products with which to smoke them.

In essence, I am looking for a good reason that a state who demands the citizens accede to their healthcare monopoly, and are forcing them to pay for it, then you see a reduction in services, should continue to make available a product which is the root of the greatest drain on resources of the system.

No business or household would operate this way. It is akin to heating a prairie box with three walls.

Ok. You were offering a topic for debate, but not unambiguously taking the stance on a personal level. Looking back, I can see that now.

My own feeling on the matter is this: while I don't at all believe in a deterministic historical progression, I do think that smoking is on its way out. So why get the government involved, beyond its current (albeit conflicted and contradictory) status as "officially" opposed to smoking, and offering anti-smoking education?

[bloodyminded]

I consider myself a libertarian. As the lesser of two evils, I favor the concept of a single payer healthcare system. (Not saying there couldn't be many improvements in our current one.) And those are two opposing philosophies I have internally debated for years.

Yes, it appears contradictory, but in life there are always going to be dilemmas and contradictions. Political philosophy and ideologies didn't invent these contradictions; they simply became riddled with already-existing ones.

The trouble with the libertarian stance--that health care is not a right, that it would be better without government--is that there's no evidence whatsoever that this is true. "Freedom" would inevitably result in greater freedom for people of financial means, and de facto less freedom for people without.

How is that better? Well, no one seems to know. The word "freedom" is not meaningful without a context, and means nothing except how it relates to human beings. This is just a truism, but easy to forget amidst the furious ideological debates.

A wise libertarian will never assume that theory trumps reality. That's just insane.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[grainfedprairieboy]

Object if you want, no one is forcing you hand over responisbility

You can stop there.

None of that is true.

...and perhaps smokers contribute the most to Healthcare via taxes. They are taxed heavily you know.

RNG hits the nail right on the head in post #22. You surrender your healthcare to the government you must expect the government to eventually enact laws such as seatbelt or helmet regulations.

And the government controls everything. Got a cancer and want to try a new drug? Sorry.....not yet approved for funding by health Canada. Want an MRI? Sorry, government decides if you even need one. Need a hip replacement and can't work? Sorry, waiting list of 6 months is what it is.

Of course, there is the second tier to Canadian medicare........USA

[guyser]

RNG hits the nail right on the head in post #22. You surrender your healthcare to the government you must expect the government to eventually enact laws such as seatbelt or helmet regulations.

If that is what he said, he is wrong, as are you.

I dont surrender my healthcare to anyone but a Doc , and when I had cancer no one from the govt called me, reviewed my file nor did they do anything else.Now my Dr's on the otherhand...

And the government controls everything. Got a cancer and want to try a new drug? Sorry.....not yet approved for funding by health Canada.

True, they may not pay for it but I can try it.

Want an MRI? Sorry, government decides if you even need one. Need a hip replacement and can't work? Sorry, waiting list of 6 months is what it is.

Simply put, bullshit.

The handbook you got that from was printed in and for our good friends down south

Edited October 14, 2010 by guyser

[bloodyminded]

True, they may not pay for it but I can try it.

Excellent point.

Why do the opponents of the universal healthcare system suddenly believe that the government should pay for any and every possible treatment you could conceivably want? An odd contradiction.

[RNG]

If that is what he said, he is wrong, as are you.

I dont surrender my healthcare to anyone but a Doc , and when I had cancer no one from the govt called me, reviewed my file nor did they do anything else.Now my Dr's on the otherhand...

True, they may not pay for it but I can try it.

Simply put, bullshit.

The handbook you got that from was printed in and for our good friends down south

Two years ago in Calgary, I needed an MRI. They thought I had cancer and the doc wouldn't look at me until he had the MRI. It was going to be a three month wait. But a private outfit had opened up and thankfully I could afford the $600 they charged. I got it that day. As it turns out the original diagnosis was wrong, but this saved my family and myself three months of emotional agony. So yeah, it's all American propaganda. NOT!

[bloodyminded]

Two years ago in Calgary, I needed an MRI. They thought I had cancer and the doc wouldn't look at me until he had the MRI. It was going to be a three month wait. But a private outfit had opened up and thankfully I could afford the $600 they charged. I got it that day. As it turns out the original diagnosis was wrong, but this saved my family and myself three months of emotional agony. So yeah, it's all American propaganda. NOT!

If we're going to start using personal anecdotes as profound evidence, I can tell you (and with sincerity and honesty) that I was extremely gratified with the disproportionate amount of potentially-expensive health care I've received over the past year.

It's true. It doesn't prove much, though, does it?

Whose personal experience is the deal-breaker here?

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded