Youths Smoking Black Market Cigarettes

[Bizud]

Youth puffing black-market smokes

Students are big customers of contraband, store owners say

 

OTTAWA

[ToadMan]

I disagree... I don't really mind if the smokers are killing themselves faster nor that the tobacco industry is losing money.

[Crusader]

We should just legalize smoking for underaged kids but ban public smoking all together.

 

 

Then we should make smoking legal in a designated smoking box like the Germans do.

[Sparq]

And then put randomly timed foutains in the box.

[hum-an-ole]

Yes. Fuck making smoking cigarettes easier for people. I say ban them totally, and then the smokers can kill themselves with cigarettes that are suspicious and illegal, like all the other drug users do.

[Bizud]

I disagree... I don't really mind if the smokers are killing themselves faster nor that the tobacco industry is losing money.

 

Okay then, you shouldn't have any problem with kids smoking at all if you don't care how fast they kill themselves.

[supercanuk]

The obvious solution is to let kids buy smokes legally. At least then they'll be smoking cigarettes that have been approved for the rest of us to smoke.

 

Tim, here id say that you are assuming there is a solution.

 

Kids will do a lot of illicit and illegal things, and making it illegal hasn't detered them, but mitigating harm by regulation and legalizing smokes for kids won't do very much either. Kids are going to get legal and illegal cig's and either way they're going to die of lung cancer if they keep it up. This is a situation where I just don't think there is an "obvious solution" because it wont be a solved issue. That is of course, if the idea is to reduce the harm to health.

 

I think we shouldn't have any laws on drugs to begin with, i think that we should legalize all drugs and regulate them. So i am in favor of an aspect of what you are saying, but in terms of kids, it's just not going to make a big difference. They are going to smoke and do drugs whether we let them legally to do so or not.

[Sparq]

Tim, here id say that you are assuming there is a solution.

See? That's what I've been saying for YEARS. With a complex social issue, if there's a simple black-and-white solution in your viewfinder, you better believe you're blinded by hope and idealistic crap. You can't fix everything. And with a big load of idealistic hippy bullshit, I guarantee that the practical will crush you and sell the nutrients they take from your corpse. As well they should. Entropy and self-interest, people.

 

Anyway, I don't think smoking is a big enough world or national issue to worry about at this point.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Sparq

[Bizud]

Maybe not, but at this point the evidence is just overwhelming - prohibition simply doesn't work, and empowers those who supply the black market. There's not even any reason to believe that letting kids smoke would result in an increase in kids smoking, since for the most part kids who want to smoke can and do get smokes. I mean, I know a lot of 18 year old smokers. Harm reduction simply makes more sense.

 

Yes. Fuck making smoking cigarettes easier for people. I say ban them totally, and then the smokers can kill themselves with cigarettes that are suspicious and illegal, like all the other drug users do.

 

I guess if you don't care about the health of drug users...but then why criminalize any drugs at all, if not for the health of those who would use? Wouldn't it be better to legalize other drugs so that other drug users don't have to worry about suspicious illegal drugs?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Bizud

[ToadMan]

It's nice to throw around words like "regulate" but what would that really mean? How can we legally and willingly supply a drug that has no known benefits, and only negative consequences. I can't honestly understand what that would really gain us. It would simply mean that instead of debating the legality of it, we would be debating the carcinogenic composition of it.

 

There isn't one simple solution, kids who want smokes/drugs/anything will get it. If we expand the argument of legalization in any situation where kids desire something illegal (and forgive the hyperbole) then we might as well hand them AK-47, and rocket launchers. I know plenty of people who as kids wanted guns, so lets legalize it and regulate, right?

[Bizud]

Except that guns kill people. In my hands, they're a threat to others, not just myself. Cigarettes, second hand smoke aside, affect only the smoker, and second hand smoke is the reason most places don't let you smoke indoors anymore. And the same goes for heroin, cocaine, and obviously marijuana. Legalize it all.

 

Who are you to say a substance has no benefits, only negative consequences? Does the subjective experience of the user matter to you? Ever had sex on coke? E? I've derived tremendous benefits from the drugs I've used. Especially mushrooms...sweet, sweet mushrooms.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Bizud

[Sparq]

Well, that kinda figures.

 

At any rate, some people get black market cigarettes just because they're cheaper. It's not like youths can't get legitimate smokes.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Sparq

[ToadMan]

I reject that personal experience should be weighed. I assert that people (especially youth) are incapable of grappling with the negative tradeoff involved in taking drugs. I believe that an immediate positive experience will always be favored no matter what the negative long term impact. We can see this to be evident in many things, kids speeding in their cars on the 401 spinning out and killing themselves. Many instances persons high on LSD leaping from buildings believing they can fly.

 

Though I admitted that the gun example was hyperbole, I think it is also flawed to assert that drugs potentially only hurt the user. Many addicts commit robbery when they can't amass funds by other means. This directly relates the use of drugs to injury to people other than the user.

 

I doubt that you will accept my argument that people can't make good choices about addictive mind altering drugs, then we better just agree to disagree.

[Bizud]

We do trust people to make their own decisions about dangerous "mind-altering" drugs. Alcohol is legal, but by any definition is a "hard drug," and much more dangerous to the user than pot, mushrooms or LSD (all soft drugs and nonaddictive). I think it makes no sense not to weigh personal experience, because value is an entirely subjective thing in all cases. You can't weigh the benefits versus drawbacks of something objectively.

 

And you're right that people can become addicted to drugs and commit robbery to get them - but if we had a legal, affordable supply, we could treat addicts more effectively (because they wouldn't have to conceal their addiction and could seek treatment at the same time as seeking a fix). And I've done coke, and I'm not an addict, and if I ever do it again I obviously won't be letting the laws stop me. We need to understand that prohibition doesn't work - doesn't accomplish the thing that it is supposed to accomplish - and it empowers organized crime (who are best positioned to provide the supply), and therefore contributes more to social problems than drugs themselves do.

[Moonlight_Graham]

i'd like to see some statistics on the ban vs no ban on how it influences usage of drugs, alchohol etc.

 

That said, it sucks these kids are smoking unregulated cigarettes

[hum-an-ole]

I don't think any drug should be legal or distributed with the help of a government, including cigarettes and alcohol. I think decriminalizing and regulating all drugs (like driving without your seatbelt) would be much more effective than criminalizing some, while making others legal and sticking a warning label on the package

[ToadMan]

I can only provide prohibition examples that utilize gratuitous amounts of hyperbole, so I will refrain. I would however encourage you to think about what is prohibited in our society, and consider the effects of lifting those prohibitions.

[heyrabbit]

*COUGH* government interference in the economy.

 

My dad spends thousands at an Indian reserve, buying tax free cigarettes. The government is being silly now, charging, what, like 80 bucks for a carton, or whatever it is ?

 

This is one of my pet peeves. I actually order people out of the bus shelter if they are smoking, or tell them to smoke elsewhere if they are on a platform. And they respond with, "WHat?! what do you mean?"

 

 

On the topic of guns, I think only criminals and police have the right to protect themselves. I blame guns for violence, in the same way that I blame food for fat people. Come to think of it, we should regulate cheese-burger consumption and raise the cost to $20 a burger. And we can use the money to help fight heart disease. Wouldn't that be a noble caues?

Edited November 13, 2007 by heyrabbit

[hum-an-ole]

I can only provide prohibition examples that utilize gratuitous amounts of hyperbole, so I will refrain. I would however encourage you to think about what is prohibited in our society, and consider the effects of lifting those prohibitions.

As others in this thread have pointed out, prohibition simply does not work, especially when it comes to drugs. It just doesn't add up. Why are some drugs allowed and not others? If the government is so worried about our safety, then why are there copious amounts of fluoride and aspartame in our food and drink? That's just tip of the iceberg. If this is a free country, then why can we not chose how to live our lives, putting into our bodies what we decide?

 

Not only do these laws not make sense in the grand scheme of things, they don't stop anyone. Whether the law is there or not, drugs are available to those who seek it, and from my experience closely examining others, the legal drugs have been the biggest problem. Oxy cotton is widely available as a prescription drug to anyone who has back pain, a tooth ache (yes, I do know someone who got some from their dentist) or whatever sob story they can think of. I know of significantly more lives that have been ruined due to that prescription drug, and/or alcohol, than any drug that is illegal. It has nothing to do with the lack of availability of those illegal drugs, because I could find any drug you ask me to within a few hours, and I don't even do them

[Guest Prosis]

I'm not a drug user and have never been, but I completely agree with Christine on this one.

 

They forbid smoking for teens and they make their prices sky high...so they smoke black market cigarettes: cheaper, easier to get

 

They forbid alcohol for teens...who has never gotten drunk illegally?

 

They forbid drugs for everyone...still everyone knows one or more illegal drug user(s)...

 

Prohibition doesn't work. Considering this, education is best. You want to smoke weed all the livelong day, this is what it entails. You want to smoke cigarettes and look cool, this is what you'll look like at the age of 70, you wanna drink like theirs no tomorrow? Be aware of the following things, etc.

 

Then it's the person's own problem if they do it anyway.

 

It's time the government start handing out the responsibility to the people who do the actions. You've got lung cancer because you smoked all your life...not our problem, you knew what you were in for.

 

This should be applied for everything actually.

[ReaperACI]

Agreed. Education is the first step although I believe there has been an increase in educational awareness of the effects and damages of MANY dangerous drugs, substances and compounds.

 

UNFORTUNATELY, we have the effect and belief on some of society of "If it makes me feel good now, what does it matter later?". Some people just DO NOT want to look to the future.

 

They want to have the world given to them on a silver platter and DO NOT want to work for it.

 

Sure, some people don't know seriously what damage is occuring because of the substance being ingested or inhaled, whether it be cigarrette smoke, aspartame, acrymalide, oxy-contin or any number of other drugs. However, there are people that DO know the harm that is occuring but choose to have the "feel good" benefit of NOW, and hope that society can fix them later.

 

Prohibitions are not effective against the reckless, stupid. Hell, some people smoke/take drugs/illegal substances just because "it's illegal, look how rough and tough I am for doing it and getting away with it for now".

 

Would we see LESS substance abuse if people were told "Look, screw your bodies up all you want, it's OK, you won't be punished, but we won't be responsible if you harm yourself"?

 

Then, what of the trend in a country such as the United States, where people jump on lawsuit bandwagons when they are "allowed" to do something that harms their "physical, emotional and mental" well-being? Would everyone be popping oxy-contin and sueing the government for allowing it? "Oh please, HOLD our hands, it's your fault we ruined our lives".

 

We DO need to look to society's better and brighter future, but it's the people as much as the role models, education systems, law enforcement and government. People need to take action and say "THIS IS NOT RIGHT". Yes, people do that, but what effect does it have? The only true way to eliminate the production of harmful substances is to eliminate the need. Unfortunately, it goes back into "People need to be educated...and smart enough" to realize what they are doing.

Edited November 14, 2007 by ReaperACI

[ToadMan]

Because that gives us power, and the government cares not about our safety, but that we're easy to control.

 

Cynical a little?

 

So this might seem a little fascist of me, but I believe that people who are going to use drugs even though they are illegal, are also fundamentally incapable of understanding the consequences of doing drugs. Sure there will be a few fence dwellers who would be deterred, but I'm not sure that they are a significant statistical factor.

 

I truly believe that restriction and approval of drugs belongs in the hands of government. Why? because the government employes researchers who are much more qualified to make educated choices about the effects of a drug on a persons system, then most people are. Would you expect an emergency room doctor to consult you before administering a life saving procedure? Honestly we are not qualified to know the answers, which is why people study for years to be qualified to answer these kind of questions.

 

Even countries with liberal drug policies still impose prohibition. Holland classifies 'hard' and 'soft' drugs. Where 'hard' drugs are those which are considered to be "to great of a risk". Even legal 'soft' drugs are prohibited beyond certain volumes.

 

It is a fallacy to state that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition is ingrained in us, it exists in almost all things we do. Just try and go about your day with out encountering one thing you are prohibited from doing. I believe that prohibition of things is a natural consequence of a society of law and order. It is the price we pay to avert anarchy. To say prohibition doesn't work is to say that societies of law and order cannot exist without inevitable destruction, which is clearly not the case. Yes, people will always violate any boundary placed on them, but that doesn't make the boundaries invalid.

[hum-an-ole]

You call it cynical, I call it pragmatic.

 

Having known a lot of heavy drug users in my life, I must agree with ReaperACI on the point that many users chose not to look to the future, however, if they were educated at an early age, their outlook may be different by the time they develop this view. There is a reason behind that attitude

Edited November 14, 2007 by Christing

[ToadMan]

I know this isn't really the topic of debate, but one thing I cannot stand is when people correct me on the use of a word I remember looking up in a dictionary before using:

cynical: bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cynical)

Which is exactly what your sentiment about government was.

 

pragmatic: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pragmatic)

Which is hardly a reasonable definition of your anti government rhetoric.

 

My view that people are fundamentally incapable of making such decisions is not in reality based on extensive expose to drug addicts. I can't refute that any would have taken the choice differently had they been properly educated. It is however hardly cynical, antagonistic perhaps.

 

With regards to the continued sale of alcohol and tobacco. I don't believe I have said I support either. The government would ban them if they where free to act entirely in the interest of public good. However, people at large would not support such an action. I don't believe that anybody in government thinks that tobacco is actually that bad.

 

With regards to fluoride. From what I have seen in my last 10 minutes of researching it, fluorides negative effects have only been seriously considered by researchers in the past few years. Prior to that there is a body of evidence that suggests fluoride in 0.7 ppm (fluoridation of drinking water) is safe.

 

With regards to aspartame. It's tough to come up with any hard evidence (a with fluoride). There are a lot of opinions, but I've had a hard time coming across hard evidence. This also is the likely reason why it is still in the market place.

 

My comment regarding boundaries was meant more to articulate that if we stretch the borders of law to make it such that nobody commits a crime, then we subvert the rule of law. Accepted we might live in a society where people don't violate sane laws, but I am doubtful. A meaningful reason to change a boundary is when a majority of people feel the boundary is wrong. Laws must fit the majority of society. I think that every law can be traced to a reason, and you would be hard pressed to find any law to which no reason can be fixed. In this case, does the potential risk out weigh the individuals rights to chose to take that risk? I believe so. I hardly see how the reasons that instituted Canada's drug laws are false pretenses.

 

As a final point we should maybe take a minute to consider the ridiculousness of this whole thing. In that we are arguing about whether our drug laws are sane, and contending that they exist for the government to control us. In the grand scheme of global politics, if this is how our government 'controls' us, I think I will take it over the barrel of a gun that is the 'control' in other less western democracies (yes, those places have elections too, but there is only one name on the ballot).

Edited November 16, 2007 by ToadMan

[CanadianMaple09]

lol, I never even knew there was such a thing as the "Convenience Stores Association" hahaha just seems funny.