NDP holds a convention wackiness ensues

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

People dying of lung cancer at 60 isn't what I would call dying on your own terms. Also that is why smoking is such an awful thing, because it is a contributing factor in nearly every disease imaginable. Diseases which cost money to treat throughout the lifespan, COPD is a major burden on the health care system that negatively impacts quality of life as well as the quantity of years lived.

Honest question, do you smoke? Do you have children? Do you want your children to smoke... because umm freedom?

I'll agree, dying of lung cancer isn't going out on your own terms. That point was admittedly more about my own feelings about dealing with mortality as opposed to the smoking issue.

I don't think smoking is a good thing persay, but I also realize that in terms of 'wars on a product' we as a society have beaten smoking. We have all but eradicated it from public places, and brief moments of bad smells seems to be a fair trade off considering they used to be able to smoke EVERYWHERE. Don't be greedy, we aren't banning Diesel engines or farting outdoors, and both of those can be equally as unpleasant to smell as cigarettes, and all three have about the same impact in your overall health for the four microseconds you're exposed to them.

As for your question, I rarely smoke, but I have in the past. In the last four years, I've had maybe 25 cigarettes, and I enjoy a cigar with friends as much as the next man.

I do not have children, but if i did, I would prefer it if they did not smoke. But given that it is a legal activity once they turn 18, I don't see that it's much of my concern. I'm sure they'll be well aware of the dangers by the time they're in that 14-18 wheelhouse. If they choose to indulge in this particular habit, that really is their right as members of a free and democratic society. I really don't want the government or anyone else infringing on a right to do something that harms nobody else. Especially when the taxes on the product pay for the facilities the smoker will inevitably end up using.

And to preemptively address second hand smoke, it's bad for you in an enclosed space with a several hundred packs of cigarettes worth of cancer floating around. Being outside negates almost all the dangers of second hand smoke. And since even my 70 year old grandmother who's smoked for 55 years knows enough to go out on the porch, I'd say we've locked that problem down as well.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The NDP were trying to do one of two things

1) Either Steal the thunder of Trudeau by holding their convention on the same weekend as the Trudeau election. They were probably hoping that the big news was NDP not socialists anymore.

2) They throught that the press would be so busy with Trudeau that they would ignore the wackiness.

Not sure which

CBC was musing that it was probably #2. Makes sense. As was mentioned, these conventions can be great for the base, but they generally give the opposition some firepower. You don't really want opposing voters or even swing voters watching too closely.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I'll agree, dying of lung cancer isn't going out on your own terms. That point was admittedly more about my own feelings about dealing with mortality as opposed to the smoking issue.

Okay I agree with that actually, however the quantity and quality of years can be improved on average by not smoking.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don't think smoking is a good thing persay, but I also realize that in terms of 'wars on a product' we as a society have beaten smoking. We have all but eradicated it from public places, and brief moments of bad smells seems to be a fair trade off considering they used to be able to smoke EVERYWHERE. Don't be greedy, we aren't banning Diesel engines or farting outdoors, and both of those can be equally as unpleasant to smell as cigarettes, and all three have about the same impact in your overall health for the four microseconds you're exposed to them.

I agree, I don't mind smoking in designated smoking areas. It is an awful habit but if someone does decide to smoke 5 meters away from a door it doesn't impact me.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

As for your question, I rarely smoke, but I have in the past. In the last four years, I've had maybe 25 cigarettes, and I enjoy a cigar with friends as much as the next man.

I have nothing to add to this!

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I do not have children, but if i did, I would prefer it if they did not smoke. But given that it is a legal activity once they turn 18, I don't see that it's much of my concern. I'm sure they'll be well aware of the dangers by the time they're in that 14-18 wheelhouse. If they choose to indulge in this particular habit, that really is their right as members of a free and democratic society. I really don't want the government or anyone else infringing on a right to do something that harms nobody else. Especially when the taxes on the product pay for the facilities the smoker will inevitably end up using.

The thing is that you would educate your children on the dangers of smoking. However there are a bunch of people who don't have that influence or who don't get that same message from their parents... or who are young and dumb and smoke regardless because they think it is cool. I honestly think that every effort should be made to prevent them from starting to smoke in the first place. You wouldn't prevent everyone from smoking but preventing some people from starting to smoke would be a great start.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

And to preemptively address second hand smoke, it's bad for you in an enclosed space with a several hundred packs of cigarettes worth of cancer floating around. Being outside negates almost all the dangers of second hand smoke. And since even my 70 year old grandmother who's smoked for 55 years knows enough to go out on the porch, I'd say we've locked that problem down as well.

I honestly don't care about second hand smoke in outdoor environments, in cars with children or indoor environments such as bars smoking is banned and rightfully so and I think we agree on that.

[FurnaceFace]

Don't worry about smoking, we just need a law that the day after your 75 birthday, you get euthanized...and then turned into soylent green.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The thing is that you would educate your children on the dangers of smoking. However there are a bunch of people who don't have that influence or who don't get that same message from their parents... or who are young and dumb and smoke regardless because they think it is cool. I honestly think that every effort should be made to prevent them from starting to smoke in the first place. You wouldn't prevent everyone from smoking but preventing some people from starting to smoke would be a start.

Ding ding ding ding. Every major societal problem ultimately comes back to the parents. This is what government should be doing; trying to place more responsibility on the parents to uphold their end of the bargain. Do homework with their kids. Make sure they're not hanging around with bad influences. Emphasize responsibility and education.

Kids are like dogs; if you socialize them properly and train them, they're mans best friend. If you don't, you have a psychotic monster that doesn't listen and bites people.

And if people can't handle the responsibility of raising a child, they shouldn't have one.

This is what I wish the government would focus on instead of a 32 hour work week and curbing cigarette use.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Ding ding ding ding. Every major societal problem ultimately comes back to the parents. This is what government should be doing; trying to place more responsibility on the parents to uphold their end of the bargain. Do homework with their kids. Make sure they're not hanging around with bad influences. Emphasize responsibility and education.

Kids are like dogs; if you socialize them properly and train them, they're mans best friend. If you don't, you have a psychotic monster that doesn't listen and bites people.

And if people can't handle the responsibility of raising a child, they shouldn't have one.

This is what I wish the government would focus on instead of a 32 hour work week and curbing cigarette use.

You're not wrong, but it's hardly wisdom. The world is the way the world is though. There will always be bad parents, parents who don't give a crap, parents who didn't mean to have kids but ended up with them, and so on.

I'm not sure much a government can 'force' responsibility. You can put out a certain level of education and support groups, but that's about it. Stricter punishments are going to do absolutely zero, you can't force someone to be responsible, and in fact, it's probably only going to hurt the children more. The world is how it is. Government can't do much about that. I mean, why not focus on candy houses and a unicorn in every home?

[Hair bleach and Vodka]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Is smoking even an issue at this point. I smoked for fifteen years before quitting and now i don't know anyone that smokes.

It's banned in all public settings to the point that seeing someone smoking is now memorable. It is hidden in convenience stores and gas stations. There is no advertising for it.There are no kids outside 7-11 asking you to buy smokes for them anymore.

Are there reliable stats out there for the percentage of people that still smoke?

All I can say is that on a daily basis I see many people smoking here in Calgary. It's outside the pubs, it's at the bus stops, ppl walking downtown are puffing away, even the so called banned areas near entrances.

No it's not 1962 and everyone is doing it.. but it's still a big issue facing society.

Sorry to derail.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wait, if we paid out 10,000 to lets say 25 million Canadians wouldn't it come out to $250,000,000,000?, in as you put it a combination of program and cash.

Canada spends half of that per person federally on health care alone.

What it sounds like your proposing is the tax free exmption level actually becomes a check and people can decide what services they use?

The whole thing seems incredibly goofy and silly.

But it would certainly play up to the 99%ers who vote.

Coyne mentioned a clawback of 0.25$ on every dollar earned above that amount though so anyone making $50000 or more a year would receive nothing.

Unfortunately, if the program is understood half as well as tax brackets are understood you will have a lot of people who say they want to work but then they would lose their GIS so they just stay at home.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Ding ding ding ding. Every major societal problem ultimately comes back to the parents. This is what government should be doing; trying to place more responsibility on the parents to uphold their end of the bargain. Do homework with their kids. Make sure they're not hanging around with bad influences. Emphasize responsibility and education.

Kids are like dogs; if you socialize them properly and train them, they're mans best friend. If you don't, you have a psychotic monster that doesn't listen and bites people.

And if people can't handle the responsibility of raising a child, they shouldn't have one.

This is what I wish the government would focus on instead of a 32 hour work week and curbing cigarette use.

Spoken like someone that doesn't have a kid.

Parenting is the one thing for which there is no training, there is no interview, there is no pre-qualification. Every parent will tell you that they know they have made mistakes, no matter how their kids turned out.

Unlike dogs, kids have a complex mind of their own. It is impossible to bubble wrap them and segregate them and control them. You can teach them, but the outside influences will still occur. If not, there would be no crime, there would be no drugs, there would be no bullying, there would be no problems.

Blaming the parents sure seems like the perfect solution... it's more of a cop-out than anything.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You're not wrong, but it's hardly wisdom. The world is the way the world is though. There will always be bad parents, parents who don't give a crap, parents who didn't mean to have kids but ended up with them, and so on.

I'm not sure much a government can 'force' responsibility. You can put out a certain level of education and support groups, but that's about it. Stricter punishments are going to do absolutely zero, you can't force someone to be responsible, and in fact, it's probably only going to hurt the children more. The world is how it is. Government can't do much about that. I mean, why not focus on candy houses and a unicorn in every home?

I never said they should 'force' people to do anything. But emphasizing parental responsibility is something that never comes up in the public service announcements. Instead of say, a PSA that talks about reading to your kids, doing homework with them etc we get some BS fearmongering about immigration fraud or some ridiculous 45 second war drama featuring Laura Secord. You know... the chocolate lady.

Don't tell parents what to read to their kids, what to tell their kids, just emphasize time and energy into child rearing as an investment into the long-term health of a society. When was the last time that was talked about like it was a possible solution?

The world is a certain way, but bad parenting needs to be something we shame as a culture. Effective parenting is what makes cultures successful. Because nobody, not the government, not the schools, nobody except parents, can create an environment that produces an honorable, hardworking member of a high-functioning society.

They don't all have to be geniuses, and lord knows they'll make mistakes. But it's the foundation that everything else in our society is built on. Ignoring it is foolish.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Spoken like someone that doesn't have a kid.

Parenting is the one thing for which there is no training, there is no interview, there is no pre-qualification. Every parent will tell you that they know they have made mistakes, no matter how their kids turned out.

Unlike dogs, kids have a complex mind of their own. It is impossible to bubble wrap them and segregate them and control them. You can teach them, but the outside influences will still occur. If not, there would be no crime, there would be no drugs, there would be no bullying, there would be no problems.

Blaming the parents sure seems like the perfect solution... it's more of a cop-out than anything.

You're right; I don't have a kid. In no small part because I'm blatantly aware how not suited to that task I am. So I take steps to ensure that a child doesn't enter my life before I'm ready. You know, like a responsible adult.

I agree, parents make mistakes. And I would never say you can or should attempt to segregate or control their behavior in an unreasonable manner. And while individual mistakes and flaws inevitably crop up, understand that kids from stable families have a better concept of what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. A kid who is allowed to run wild and whose parent(s) place no emphasis on educating or properly socializing their child is going to be a disaster when they reach the real world. Probably well before then.

Blaming the parents isn't a cop out; it's identifying the root cause for most of the ills plaguing a society. Parents are why you never worry about a Mormon mugging you at an ATM at 11 at night, why Jewish kids graduate high school at a rate of about 97% and why you'd rather vacation in North Korea than certain parts of Baltimore.

Originally Posted by Hair bleach and Vodka

All I can say is that on a daily basis I see many people smoking here in Calgary. It's outside the pubs, it's at the bus stops, ppl walking downtown are puffing away, even the so called banned areas near entrances.

No it's not 1962 and everyone is doing it.. but it's still a big issue facing society.

Sorry to derail.

These people who are smoking, are they going to work, looking after their kids, paying their taxes? Then let them partake in a legal activity.

[Azure]

The question is what will replace the tax revenue collected from the 'sin tax' when there are no more people sinning anymore?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

The question is what will replace the tax revenue collected from the 'sin tax' when there are no more people sinning anymore?

Do tobacco taxes, for example, generate net revenue for the government after you take into account the increased health care costs for smoking-related illnesses?

[Azure]

Smoking rates are going down so they have to raise taxes to keep up revenue. I don't have a problem with that.

The problem is what will they do when very few people smoke and they can't collect anymore revenue from it? The shortfall has to come from somewhere.

[Resolute 14]

Probably, since if people weren't dying of smoking-related illnesses, they'd be dying of some other illness.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Probably, since if people weren't dying of smoking-related illnesses, they'd be dying of some other illness.

But presumably smokers have higher rates of illness than non-smokers, right? Hence why health insurance in the US is more expensive if you're a smoker as the insurance providers consider you a greater risk for making a claim.

Obviously everybody dies eventually, but it's pretty well documented that non-smokers have healthier, longer lives on average.

[Resolute 14]

Sure, but a not insignificant portion of medical expenses for smoking-related illnesss would be diverted to treatment for other illnesses, which would also factor into the profitability of such sin taxes to the government.

[Azure]

And you'd have to imagine that the profitability of those sin taxes falls year to year because less and less people smoke.

Which is why they keep raising the tax levels.

[MarchHare]

I'm not sure how authoritative this is, but a quick Google search yielded the following:

Tobacco taxes generate about $1.2B annually in Ontario; treatment of smoking-related illnesses cost the Ontario taxpayers about $1.6B.

Source: http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-fr...nue-120208.pdf

If those figures are accurate, then tobacco taxes don't result in a net revenue increase for the government (at least in Ontario). In a hypothetical fantasy world where there are no smokers, no smoking-related illnesses, and no tobacco taxes, the Ontario government would save $400M each year.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not sure how authoritative this is, but a quick Google search yielded the following:

Tobacco taxes generate about $1.2B annually in Ontario; treatment of smoking-related illnesses cost the Ontario taxpayers about $1.6B.

Source: http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-fr...nue-120208.pdf

If those figures are accurate, then tobacco taxes don't result in a net revenue increase for the government (at least in Ontario). In a hypothetical fantasy world where there are no smokers, no smoking-related illnesses, and no tobacco taxes, the Ontario government would save $400M each year.

Nobody's saying they do. But you show me another ailment that pays for as much of its own treatment as tobacco. And assuming in this fairy tale land where all that tax money treated tobacco related illness, 400 million seems like a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to health care expenditures.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Probably, since if people weren't dying of smoking-related illnesses, they'd be dying of some other illness.

Just 15-20 years later than they otherwise would have.

[Azure]

Obesity is the next biggest drain on the healthcare system if it already isn't.