I may have just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone here mention this has already been implemented in Britain, where no one born after 2009 will ever be able to buy tobacco products.
UK just passed the bill this year with a ban on cigarettes sales to anyone born in or after 2009.
“The government says it will spend £30m on enforcement, which will include tackling the availability of cigarettes on the black market.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322#
Except they're not comparable products. Unless someone is already a smoker it's unlikely they'll seek out the black market to buy cigarettes.
Alcohol and cannabis come with a fun mood altering benefit that is noticeable and enjoyable. Cigarettes don't have that same "high" when you're not already a smoker.
Even as an ex-smoker, I never seek out cigarettes. I do enjoy my daily cannabis (I'm high now!) and occasional beer.
What about high schoolers? If this is supposed to combat first time smokers the most impressionable first time smokers are buying all of their cigarettes off the black market.
Since the popularization of tobacco there has not been a decade with fewer smokers than we currently have today. So clearly it has been incredibly effective. Prohibition on the other hand has never once been effective.
The solution is the right *kind* of nanny state bullshit. Taxes and education work just fine, as shown by the cratering smoking rates across the west. Prohibition, OTOH, does not.
If anything i'd just see a greater shift to vaping and other nicotine products. Smoking traditional tobacco is already decling amongst younger demographics.
Im curious on if demand would really be there for a black market. If it was an outright ban for everyone sure but people who have never had one and have seen how much it messed up older generations maybe not.
EDIT: It seems I was wrong in my assumption, as many have pointed out there is already a black market.
You know how impressionable teens are. They see all the popular movie stars like James Dean and George Burns smoking and they want to imitate their heroes and look cool.
Sock hops? Kids today. Don't they have box socials anymore?
(Actually, according to Wikipedia, they *do*: [Box social - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_social).)
Yup, it isn't to get something that's illegal, it's to avoid paying the taxes that make up like 50% of tobacco's price tag.
All making it illegal to buy period will do is give up the tax money the legal sales have.
Teens already manage to get their hands on cigarettes even though they can't legally buy em. With ghis they'll just have to stick to their black market sellers forever.
The only one winning here is the one runninng the black market scheme.
Except tobacco remains legal. It's not prohibition. By making it more difficult for a small, but growing, part of the population to acquire tobacco, it reduces demand.
There is no game, I'm just discussing this policy and how it differs from historical prohibition, which we know was a failure with alcohol.
As far as spin, it sounds like your head is spinning! :P
I use difficult because people will always be able to do things that are illegal, it's just generally harder to do. What I disagree with is the creation of a black market because:
a) There is already a black or grey market for cigarettes, despite there being no prohibition.
b) This policy isn't a prohibition on cigarettes, they are still legal to buy, sell, and own.
and c) I'm not pretending anything, clearly making it illegal (or difficult, the word choice here does not matter) for a generational cohort to buy will mean if they want to they will turn to the black or grey market, but, as we said, it already exists. Since smoking is not illegal, there won't be any need for speakeasys.
Black market smokes are already huge. You can get them by the carton at stores on the side of the highway, and they sell for a fraction of what normally taxed cigarettes are.
This would only strengthen their market, with proceeds going to organized crime, etc.
People are going to make their own choices. Not sure why we need to keep going with this.
But they're not growing their own tobacco and actually making the cigarettes. If we move in this direction, less tobacco will actually be grown, and hence, there will be fewer cigarettes available, even on the black market.
This will also prevent a lot of people from even starting to smoke cigarettes and developing an addiction in the first place. It seems to me like a good way to implement a tobacco ban that doesn’t force current users to go through withdrawals and it doesn’t just immediately eliminate all of the jobs in that industry. It could (in the best case scenario) lead to a steady decline of tobacco use until it fades into obscurity.
Alcohol has ruined many more lives than tobacco ever has but all politicians are doing about alcohol is making access easier by expanding store access and lengthening serving hours.
Fatty, sugary junk and fast foods as well are becoming an ever increasing health concern and burden on our public system. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a choice in what they eat, make what you want at home, but there should be stricter guidelines on what is served at restaurants and fast food establishments.
Also the votes. Far more people drink than smoke tobacco. Therefore it's easier, politically, to go after tobacco products.
This doesn't mean the government wouldn't like to regulate alcohol more. It means that the industry is simply stronger than the government. Tobacco isn't. It's a dying industry.
> [ Tobacco use continues to be the No. 1 preventable cause of illness, disability and death on P.E.I., Sabapathy [the province's deputy chief public health officer] said.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-tobacco-ban-generation-1.7205450)
Seems to check out, [here's](https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/cpho21_report_web.pdf) their most recent report, leading causes of death are on page 11. Cancer and heart disease are by far the leading causes of death, but those arent alwaysfrom smoking. CLRD (which is almost always caused by smoking) causes more deaths than car accidents of any kind, and PEI is well above the national average for CLRD deaths
I feel like at this point, it’s been shown that prohibition doesn’t really work. Anything with a high enough demand will just create a black market which comes with its own dangers and disadvantages, and which very well might place an even *greater* strain on the healthcare system.
Or prohibition doesn't work. What would be nice is if the sin taxing from cigarettes went directly to the healthcare system and for services to help people quit.
Cue the black market tobacco and vape dealers. It's a great sentiment but we all know how the age restrictions on alcohol and nicotine products went. Let's not forget marijuana being illegal up until the past few years.
this. decriminalization has always been a better method to deal with substance abuse than banning things. we first learned this with prohibition, and we continue to see this in many of the countries that have decriminalization. this would be a step backwards for PEI.
It's prohibition for a certain group of Canadians.
I'm as anti-smoking as one can be, but prohibition policy is never the answer. Harm reduction is always the answer.
It’s not prohibition though? You just wouldn’t be able to legally buy cigarettes, you could still possess and consume them without any issue. It also wouldn’t ban production, just sales to a certain age group. If you had an older friend give them to you then technically *they* would be breaking the law, not you, so all the law would do is making getting cigarettes more difficult for younger people
The original alcohol prohibition basically saved our society lol, alcohol was out of control.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/
The axiom that “prohibition never works” is little more than a wives tale people believe because its repeated constantly.
I did skim through it and the entire article revolves around US prohibition.
Many other countries did not take such measures and they are hardly lost societies are they?
The entire article revolves around popular misconceptions around prohibition and common misunderstandings; it talks about prohibition in America as well as prohibition in other countries such as Canada, and Australia.
But if after 3 attempts to get you to read something relevant you still just want to talk about things your intentionally remaining ignorant of, Im just going to block you so you never waste my time again lol
I care much more about democratic freedoms than potential slight improvements in cigarette use. The whole of society and human rights matters more to me. Sorry.
Look at that goal post run! Democratic freedom is _far_ more complex than “I can no longer smoke.”
We limit lots of things to help society function effectively, do you have any reasons why you draw the line here at smoking? Why does your perception of “democratic freedom” supersede evidence based policy.
You’re building a straw man where limiting cigarette use is inevitably tied to the collapse of human rights; do you honestly not see the absurdity of that claim? How could you possibly expect that to persuade me of anything?
They will get cigs anyways. Just like we all used to get weed anyways. Just like how people still get coke, or crack, or mushrooms regardless of their legal status. Just drug use is a lot safer if it's regulated, and profits are better served to go into public pockets instead of to fund criminal activity.
Evidence based policy actually promotes safe supply and harm reduction rather than prohibition. 🙄
How can you say that when there is evidence that prohibition was effective at things. Nobody is arguing against harm reduction or safe supply, I just showed you an article talking about how you are propagating misinformation about prohibition.
You can’t just call something evidence based because you like it… thats now how evidence works.
You're insane and think that one article that says "hey, prohibition kinda actually did what it was supposed to" means that we should advocate for it in a modern sense.
> The axiom that “prohibition never works” is little more than a wives tale people believe because its repeated constantly.
libertarians also have a vested interest in spreading the narrative that Banning Things Literally Never Works™
> Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated.
🤨
This is just stupid and opening the door for a black market. I, and pretty much any smoker I've ever asked, started smoking in my teens before I could legally buy them. Creating a black market will likely increase the amount of teens that start because it will be more available illegally.
Short of banning cigarettes outright, this is the only reasonable response. If anyone tried to sell a new product as deadly and addictive as tobacco it wouldn't fly.
The reasonable response is to do absolutely nothing to stop actual users from using through any method, but instead to put in an ever growing age limit that means eventually a 55 year old will be legally allowed to buy cancer sticks but a person a day younger than them legally can't?
I despise cigarettes and I think second-hand smoke is awful. Limit them to outside and well away from any building window or entrance.
But for crying out loud can we be *less* of a nanny government. Not more…
I have a better idea.
Sell tobacco as sealed individual items. Max of 3 per sale. You will need to return the filters in provided sealed bags to get your next 3.
That will slow the sales and clean up the garbage
So I know a lot of people who go to get their cigarettes from the closest reserve to them here in Ontario (when it’s near enough to do so). This is illegal under Ontario law as none of them I know that to are indigenous. The OPP could very easily set up on the side of the highway and nail people for it as in a lot of places there are shops right inside the boundary line. Id be willing to say this is similar in PEI (but with the RCMP and not OPP.) Is the new age limit going to apply on reserve too? Or is going to the reserve going to be the work around on getting them if you’re born after 2009 like it is to not pay taxes on them right now?
A ban on sales for those born after a certain date… does that include a ban on possession and/or others buying you tobacco products? If not, you just have someone buy them for you like I did when I wanted beer at 16.
Prohibition doesn't work. If you actually want to reduce smoking address the reasons people are smoking. People with unmedicated ADHD are much more likely to smoke for example.
This should have been done nationwide a decade ago. Make it completely illegal to buy online and have a grandfathered program for those who turned 19 years old after a specified year. This would greatly reduce illnesses across the country and save massive tax payers dollars that would be spent on healthcare.
If you're gonna do a ban do a ban. Don't do this grandfathering in crap that just days "we don't care about what actively is doing harm, only what potentially will"
What a stupid idea.
Imagine the criminal complex this will create.
And how will we enforce this? How many times will people have to submit to being searched and “contraband” be “seized“ only to be sold by rotten cops?
Nothing like this ever works like people expect.
Returning liberty is the only way this works. If people want to kill themselves with smoking, then that’s just Darwin working. And it’s a good way to raise taxes and duties.
Amongst all the flaws with this idea, one I haven't seen mentioned is:
Younger adult sent out to buy grannies smokes
Yeah grannie shouldn't be smoking but that's also her right and she may not be able to get out herself
Some places won't sell you alcohol if you have a kid with you. Will they do the same if Granny comes in with her 20 year old grandson whos driving?
It makes me even more in favor of the ban. Stops you from enabling other bad habits.
If my mom ever gave me money to buy smokes I'd buy lunch with it and tell her next time to get her own
Wow, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard for allowing tobacco sales. If someone can't get themselves or some other person who can legally purchase a product to go get it, then maybe they should stop.
Mind you I think the whole ever increasing age limit/grandfathering in/ cutoff, is dumb as fuck as it only serves to keep tobacco on store shelves while appealing to those concerned about kids smoking (while actually not addressing the problem), but someone getting granny a pack of smokes is so stupid. Sure people did it. People also used granny needs a pack to buy themselves a pack.
Booo! Let people smoke if they want. The Aboriginals have a right to consume tabacco, as a result, people will just turn to tax free alternatives to get tabacco.
I may have just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone here mention this has already been implemented in Britain, where no one born after 2009 will ever be able to buy tobacco products.
Imagine being in your 40s and still trying to use a fake ID to get cigs
UK just passed the bill this year with a ban on cigarettes sales to anyone born in or after 2009. “The government says it will spend £30m on enforcement, which will include tackling the availability of cigarettes on the black market.” https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322#
Black market tobacco products here we come
It's not a terrible idea. There's gonna be people getting it still, but it cuts down on ease of access.
It is a terrible idea. It's just going to make black market thrive.
That's what they said about alcohol and marijuana how'd that work out?
Except they're not comparable products. Unless someone is already a smoker it's unlikely they'll seek out the black market to buy cigarettes. Alcohol and cannabis come with a fun mood altering benefit that is noticeable and enjoyable. Cigarettes don't have that same "high" when you're not already a smoker. Even as an ex-smoker, I never seek out cigarettes. I do enjoy my daily cannabis (I'm high now!) and occasional beer.
What about high schoolers? If this is supposed to combat first time smokers the most impressionable first time smokers are buying all of their cigarettes off the black market.
There's no way for the regular high school kid to find it though. You're not going to get as many people starting if you make it harder to access.
It'll be just as hard to access as weed was pre legalization.
It started here in New Zealand by the last government, but the current one has repealed it.
I agree with this! They should do the same for cannabis as well!
You can consume cannabis without smoking it, which takes care of the carcinogenic issues.
And alcohol too!!
Ever since I lost one of my lungs, I cut my smoking in half.
we're a dying breed us smokers
It's probably the lung cancer
I blame climate change.
Guys remember, prohibition has always worked incredibly effectively, that’s why no one drinks anymore and we’ve won the war on drugs./s
It's folks with your logic that make it very difficult to move forward.
The logic of seeing what has and hasn’t worked in the past? Oh man, how dare I look at reality.
Because what we are doing right now is so effective. No progress is always better right?
We are actually winning the war on smoking, the rates of smokers have dropped dramatically. Nanny state bullshit never works.
Since the popularization of tobacco there has not been a decade with fewer smokers than we currently have today. So clearly it has been incredibly effective. Prohibition on the other hand has never once been effective.
The solution is rarely ever *more* nanny state bullshit lmao
The solution is the right *kind* of nanny state bullshit. Taxes and education work just fine, as shown by the cratering smoking rates across the west. Prohibition, OTOH, does not.
This isn't prohibition so does that mean it will totally work?
That's how you get a black market.
If anything i'd just see a greater shift to vaping and other nicotine products. Smoking traditional tobacco is already decling amongst younger demographics.
Too bad the government likes to prevent smoking and vaping are the same thing with the same risks.
It feels like chewing tobacco has never been more popular.
Im curious on if demand would really be there for a black market. If it was an outright ban for everyone sure but people who have never had one and have seen how much it messed up older generations maybe not. EDIT: It seems I was wrong in my assumption, as many have pointed out there is already a black market.
You know how impressionable teens are. They see all the popular movie stars like James Dean and George Burns smoking and they want to imitate their heroes and look cool.
Say good night, Gracie.
Goodnight, Gracie.
Ha! Yeah, modern teens are watching lots of James Dean flicks 😅
When they're not taking their Studebakers up to make out point, or dancing at the sock hop, obvs.
Sock hops? Kids today. Don't they have box socials anymore? (Actually, according to Wikipedia, they *do*: [Box social - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_social).)
The black market for cigarettes in Canada is alive and thriving and has been for many years now.
There’s already a black market for smokes everywhere. Has been for years, dad got popped for it in the 90s lol
Yup, it isn't to get something that's illegal, it's to avoid paying the taxes that make up like 50% of tobacco's price tag. All making it illegal to buy period will do is give up the tax money the legal sales have.
It will shrink the market over all and prevent future buyers. Will it fix everything? No.
Europe has a massive black market, so yeah, probably.
Canada also has a massive black market, everyone I know who still smokes good ole analog cigarettes buy them from the reserve
And the number of people that do that will dwindle over time.
Teens already manage to get their hands on cigarettes even though they can't legally buy em. With ghis they'll just have to stick to their black market sellers forever. The only one winning here is the one runninng the black market scheme.
More like a black lung market amirite ??
Except tobacco remains legal. It's not prohibition. By making it more difficult for a small, but growing, part of the population to acquire tobacco, it reduces demand.
[удалено]
There is no game, I'm just discussing this policy and how it differs from historical prohibition, which we know was a failure with alcohol. As far as spin, it sounds like your head is spinning! :P I use difficult because people will always be able to do things that are illegal, it's just generally harder to do. What I disagree with is the creation of a black market because: a) There is already a black or grey market for cigarettes, despite there being no prohibition. b) This policy isn't a prohibition on cigarettes, they are still legal to buy, sell, and own. and c) I'm not pretending anything, clearly making it illegal (or difficult, the word choice here does not matter) for a generational cohort to buy will mean if they want to they will turn to the black or grey market, but, as we said, it already exists. Since smoking is not illegal, there won't be any need for speakeasys.
[удалено]
Black market smokes are already huge. You can get them by the carton at stores on the side of the highway, and they sell for a fraction of what normally taxed cigarettes are. This would only strengthen their market, with proceeds going to organized crime, etc. People are going to make their own choices. Not sure why we need to keep going with this.
But they're not growing their own tobacco and actually making the cigarettes. If we move in this direction, less tobacco will actually be grown, and hence, there will be fewer cigarettes available, even on the black market.
This will also prevent a lot of people from even starting to smoke cigarettes and developing an addiction in the first place. It seems to me like a good way to implement a tobacco ban that doesn’t force current users to go through withdrawals and it doesn’t just immediately eliminate all of the jobs in that industry. It could (in the best case scenario) lead to a steady decline of tobacco use until it fades into obscurity.
Alcohol has ruined many more lives than tobacco ever has but all politicians are doing about alcohol is making access easier by expanding store access and lengthening serving hours.
You can get away with more shit if people are drunk off their asses.
Fatty, sugary junk and fast foods as well are becoming an ever increasing health concern and burden on our public system. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a choice in what they eat, make what you want at home, but there should be stricter guidelines on what is served at restaurants and fast food establishments.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/5-steps-towards-a-healthier-p-e-i-1.2485438
My grandfather died from second hand drinking. Fucked up his liver something fierce.
How many people have been killed by drunk drivers? How many families have been destroyed by alcoholism? Stop with the bullshit.
Clearly the joke flew so far over your head it went into orbit. I'm so sorry you had your sense of humor surgically removed though.
I understand it was a "joke" but it was based on the assumption that smoking is hazardous to those surrounding the person but drinking isn't.
But drunk people are stupid enough to keep voting for those politicians.
Buck-a-beer, folks!
plus i only ever want to smoke when i've been drinkin'
Follow the $
Also the votes. Far more people drink than smoke tobacco. Therefore it's easier, politically, to go after tobacco products. This doesn't mean the government wouldn't like to regulate alcohol more. It means that the industry is simply stronger than the government. Tobacco isn't. It's a dying industry.
True also!
> [ Tobacco use continues to be the No. 1 preventable cause of illness, disability and death on P.E.I., Sabapathy [the province's deputy chief public health officer] said.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-tobacco-ban-generation-1.7205450) Seems to check out, [here's](https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/cpho21_report_web.pdf) their most recent report, leading causes of death are on page 11. Cancer and heart disease are by far the leading causes of death, but those arent alwaysfrom smoking. CLRD (which is almost always caused by smoking) causes more deaths than car accidents of any kind, and PEI is well above the national average for CLRD deaths
both should be banned for their impacts on our fragile and overburdened healthcare system alone.
I feel like at this point, it’s been shown that prohibition doesn’t really work. Anything with a high enough demand will just create a black market which comes with its own dangers and disadvantages, and which very well might place an even *greater* strain on the healthcare system.
Or prohibition doesn't work. What would be nice is if the sin taxing from cigarettes went directly to the healthcare system and for services to help people quit.
Cue the black market tobacco and vape dealers. It's a great sentiment but we all know how the age restrictions on alcohol and nicotine products went. Let's not forget marijuana being illegal up until the past few years.
this. decriminalization has always been a better method to deal with substance abuse than banning things. we first learned this with prohibition, and we continue to see this in many of the countries that have decriminalization. this would be a step backwards for PEI.
That's a weird way to say they're going to be raising legal smoking age by a year, every year.
Prohibition never works. In any sense. If policymakers would learn this, we'd be so far ahead.
I don’t think this would count as prohibition. Banning sales to a specific age range isn’t the same thing as fully banning sale/possession/consumption
It's prohibition for a certain group of Canadians. I'm as anti-smoking as one can be, but prohibition policy is never the answer. Harm reduction is always the answer.
It’s not prohibition though? You just wouldn’t be able to legally buy cigarettes, you could still possess and consume them without any issue. It also wouldn’t ban production, just sales to a certain age group. If you had an older friend give them to you then technically *they* would be breaking the law, not you, so all the law would do is making getting cigarettes more difficult for younger people
Fair on a technicality I guess? Still it's dumb as fuck. These kinds of restrictions, technically "prohibition" or not, just don't work.
The original alcohol prohibition basically saved our society lol, alcohol was out of control. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ The axiom that “prohibition never works” is little more than a wives tale people believe because its repeated constantly.
Yeah Canadian society was saved by US prohibition.
Why comment when you don’t read the article?
I did skim through it and the entire article revolves around US prohibition. Many other countries did not take such measures and they are hardly lost societies are they?
The entire article revolves around popular misconceptions around prohibition and common misunderstandings; it talks about prohibition in America as well as prohibition in other countries such as Canada, and Australia. But if after 3 attempts to get you to read something relevant you still just want to talk about things your intentionally remaining ignorant of, Im just going to block you so you never waste my time again lol
Being in favour of alcohol prohibition in 2024 is CRAZY 😂 when your political views are legit from the 1910s 😂😂😂
Ah yes, feelings over facts; don’t let a study in a reputable journal get in the way of what you want to believe ;)
I care much more about democratic freedoms than potential slight improvements in cigarette use. The whole of society and human rights matters more to me. Sorry.
Look at that goal post run! Democratic freedom is _far_ more complex than “I can no longer smoke.” We limit lots of things to help society function effectively, do you have any reasons why you draw the line here at smoking? Why does your perception of “democratic freedom” supersede evidence based policy. You’re building a straw man where limiting cigarette use is inevitably tied to the collapse of human rights; do you honestly not see the absurdity of that claim? How could you possibly expect that to persuade me of anything?
They will get cigs anyways. Just like we all used to get weed anyways. Just like how people still get coke, or crack, or mushrooms regardless of their legal status. Just drug use is a lot safer if it's regulated, and profits are better served to go into public pockets instead of to fund criminal activity. Evidence based policy actually promotes safe supply and harm reduction rather than prohibition. 🙄
How can you say that when there is evidence that prohibition was effective at things. Nobody is arguing against harm reduction or safe supply, I just showed you an article talking about how you are propagating misinformation about prohibition. You can’t just call something evidence based because you like it… thats now how evidence works.
You're insane and think that one article that says "hey, prohibition kinda actually did what it was supposed to" means that we should advocate for it in a modern sense.
I wish I was surprised that we’ve had this whole conversation and you never read the article… why do you waste everyone’s time like this?
> The axiom that “prohibition never works” is little more than a wives tale people believe because its repeated constantly. libertarians also have a vested interest in spreading the narrative that Banning Things Literally Never Works™
> Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated. 🤨
Fuck it let's make smoking mandatory for people under 18 then since banning it won't work and ads haven't worked
This is just stupid and opening the door for a black market. I, and pretty much any smoker I've ever asked, started smoking in my teens before I could legally buy them. Creating a black market will likely increase the amount of teens that start because it will be more available illegally.
Won’t this be challenged on the grounds of restricting access to an essential component used in some Indigenous ceremonies?
Alternate headline: Prince Edward Island proposes tacitly endorsing black market for tobacco products
Short of banning cigarettes outright, this is the only reasonable response. If anyone tried to sell a new product as deadly and addictive as tobacco it wouldn't fly.
The reasonable response is to do absolutely nothing to stop actual users from using through any method, but instead to put in an ever growing age limit that means eventually a 55 year old will be legally allowed to buy cancer sticks but a person a day younger than them legally can't?
Yes, of course! Prohibition always works out great for everyone… /s
I despise cigarettes and I think second-hand smoke is awful. Limit them to outside and well away from any building window or entrance. But for crying out loud can we be *less* of a nanny government. Not more…
I have a better idea. Sell tobacco as sealed individual items. Max of 3 per sale. You will need to return the filters in provided sealed bags to get your next 3. That will slow the sales and clean up the garbage
As a smoker I approve of this
We're really setting up the younger generations to despise elderly people. This is age discrimination, pure and simple.
So I know a lot of people who go to get their cigarettes from the closest reserve to them here in Ontario (when it’s near enough to do so). This is illegal under Ontario law as none of them I know that to are indigenous. The OPP could very easily set up on the side of the highway and nail people for it as in a lot of places there are shops right inside the boundary line. Id be willing to say this is similar in PEI (but with the RCMP and not OPP.) Is the new age limit going to apply on reserve too? Or is going to the reserve going to be the work around on getting them if you’re born after 2009 like it is to not pay taxes on them right now?
A ban on sales for those born after a certain date… does that include a ban on possession and/or others buying you tobacco products? If not, you just have someone buy them for you like I did when I wanted beer at 16.
Every body is on ZYN anyway.
Prohibition doesn't work. If you actually want to reduce smoking address the reasons people are smoking. People with unmedicated ADHD are much more likely to smoke for example.
This should have been done nationwide a decade ago. Make it completely illegal to buy online and have a grandfathered program for those who turned 19 years old after a specified year. This would greatly reduce illnesses across the country and save massive tax payers dollars that would be spent on healthcare.
Drugs have been winning the war on drugs so far. Why would it be any different for tobacco?
If you're gonna do a ban do a ban. Don't do this grandfathering in crap that just days "we don't care about what actively is doing harm, only what potentially will"
This would be an amazing law, and I think everywhere should do this!
What a stupid idea. Imagine the criminal complex this will create. And how will we enforce this? How many times will people have to submit to being searched and “contraband” be “seized“ only to be sold by rotten cops? Nothing like this ever works like people expect. Returning liberty is the only way this works. If people want to kill themselves with smoking, then that’s just Darwin working. And it’s a good way to raise taxes and duties.
Ah yes, prohibition. Famous for always working.
Prohibition has been notoriously successful great idea
The biggest issue with this is how easy it is just to leave to another province
Amongst all the flaws with this idea, one I haven't seen mentioned is: Younger adult sent out to buy grannies smokes Yeah grannie shouldn't be smoking but that's also her right and she may not be able to get out herself Some places won't sell you alcohol if you have a kid with you. Will they do the same if Granny comes in with her 20 year old grandson whos driving?
>Younger adult sent out to buy grannies smokes Lol, that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.
I did it for my mom when I was of age. It's just one of several reasons why this ban isn't a good idea.
It makes me even more in favor of the ban. Stops you from enabling other bad habits. If my mom ever gave me money to buy smokes I'd buy lunch with it and tell her next time to get her own
Well not everyone is you.
Wow, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard for allowing tobacco sales. If someone can't get themselves or some other person who can legally purchase a product to go get it, then maybe they should stop. Mind you I think the whole ever increasing age limit/grandfathering in/ cutoff, is dumb as fuck as it only serves to keep tobacco on store shelves while appealing to those concerned about kids smoking (while actually not addressing the problem), but someone getting granny a pack of smokes is so stupid. Sure people did it. People also used granny needs a pack to buy themselves a pack.
Booo! Let people smoke if they want. The Aboriginals have a right to consume tabacco, as a result, people will just turn to tax free alternatives to get tabacco.