[Image-1]
So no more flavoured tobacco products as of May 31st in Nova Scotia. Laaaaammmmeee sauce.
I get that you’re trying to keep kids from picking up smoking but I don’t think this will help much. These same products exist in other places with lower rates of smoking. The reason we have a lot of youth who smoke, drink and use drugs here are social, we need to invest in more ways to keep them engaged, and all this will do is take tax revenues away from the province. Also many business owners report that the province is not giving them enough time to sell off what they have left, leaving them on the short end of the stick through no fault of their own.
Also, you know, I’m an adult. If I want to smoke a primetime or a menthol (not that I ever would, yuck) or a backwood I should be allowed. They’re even banning flavoured rolling papers! No one seems to have a problem with NSLC selling banana split flavoured vodka, and those products are displayed in plain sight, in front of children, unlike tobacco products.
Yet another band-aid solution that refuses to address the root cause , not to mention costing the province money it can’t afford to lose.
And for the record I’m fairly certain that every person I know who started smoking as a teen, and I know a lot, started with plain old cigarettes, and I don’t know anyone under the age of 70 that smokes menthols or doesn’t find them disgusting. It wasn’t until they were older and tried to get off the smokes that they switched to cigarellos and such. —Guess I’ll have to stock up
This article appears in Apr 30 – May 6, 2015.
Ah, stale flavoured tobacco!
Okay, enough joking around… I think the point about the banana split vodka was the most poignant and credible argument.
As far as lost tax dollars go, that money will be recouped from lowered grants to the film industry.
I don’t see the logic around the ban either. It’s either a smoke screen or a personal value of an MP being expressed in law; that’s one of the challenges with majority governments.
For disclosure purposes, I am a former smoker who loved PrimeTimes. Grape.
Lets just quit fucking around and ban everything. Why wait for the next government to start with their personal agenda, lets strike now while the iron is hot. Lets ban alcohol, tobacco, food, fun, interpretive dance (which might not be such a bad idea) and, most importantly, choices. Fuck peoples right to choose their own destiny, they’ll just choose incorrectly.
Education is the key, not banning everything. Educating people to make more responsible choices should be the governments mandate, not controlling the outcome by eliminating societies freedoms. We’re either free or we aren’t. Which is it?
How does the government “educate people to make more responsible choices?” It can provide the relevant information but – and this is important – is that “educating” them?
Keep smiling.
Will they ban flavoured condoms next? Need to prevent children from experimenting with safe-sex practices. But, I suppose little Zach’s arse does not have taste buds so he wouldn’t be aware it was a penis-colada being served.
I don’t know, MM, is it? You’re the expert.
Bot your sentences are correct. Keep smiling.
“…we need to invest in more ways to keep them engaged…”
Can we use the windfall from the re-jigged film tax credit to purchase horses for the little darlin’s? That would keep them engaged and encourage responsibility. Marlboro Man was the quintessential horseman – look what it did for him.
An excellent point Miss Grundy and one I wholly endorse. Unlike Hot Blow who, lacking any ideas of any description to say nothing about how to go about investing in more ways to keep the young engaged – all he can do is bellow emptily – you have specified precisely what is required. Good work!
Sorry, Slappy, wasn’t me that said anything about; “investing in more ways to keep the young engaged”.
“Educating people to make more responsible choices should be the governments (sic) mandate…” Stephen “Hot Blow” Harper (05/09, 12:23PM)
Sorry Hot Blow but “Investing in more ways to keep the young engaged” is logically presupposed in “educating people to make more responsible choices should be the government’s mandate.” I realize it’s not easy for you but you must keep at it. Keep smiling.
No, you shouldn’t presuppose anything. You confused what I said with what the OB said “we need to invest in more ways to keep them engaged, ” and is taken in a completely different context than my opinion on “education – vs – banning”. Do I need to spell out the differences for you, or can you bridge that gap all by your own self ?
Well no, you don’t need to spell out anything. Indeed, the mistake was mine as I thought Miss Grundy (05/09, 9:26M) was quoting from you and not the OB. Still, there is a clear logical connection between the OB’s “we need to invest in more ways to keep them engaged” and your “Educating people to make more responsible choices should be the governments (sic) mandate.” In other words, peope cannot be kept engaged without, at the same time, being educated to make more responsible choices. Do I need to spell out the connection for you, or can you bridge the gap all by your own self?
But my original query still stands. How does one educate another to make responsible choices where, by “responsible,” is to be understood being morally right. What would that process of education look like? I am no “expert” in these matters but I do have my ideas. Do you? Perhaps you might want to give it a shot. Keep smiling.
Y’know who also like his flavoured cigars? Bill Clinton, that’s who.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003155705…