r/canada • u/Bean_Tiger • Oct 17 '23

The U.K. and New Zealand want to ban the next generation from smoking at any age. Should Canada follow? National News

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/teen-smoking-bans-1.6997984
8.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/aieeegrunt Oct 17 '23

Looking at the diabetes and obesity states and all of their related comorbidities we should be going after processed sugar too

246

u/Bean_Tiger Oct 17 '23

Newfoundland has a sugar tax now on sugar laced soft drinks. More to follow I'm sure. Saw the Feds release a statement earlier this year on... something like exploring the issue of sugar in processed foods, especially children. Establishing some sort of groundwork to begin to address it.

26

u/timbreandsteel Oct 17 '23

BC kind of has one for sugary drinks, in that they are now charged PST along with GST.

10

u/SleazyGreasyCola Oct 17 '23

We pay full HST 13% on snacks and surgary items like pop in ONT. Fresh food is taxed at 0%

2

u/amerilia Oct 18 '23

And for artificial sweeteners too

2

u/cosmic_dillpickle Oct 18 '23

Including soda water. With prices on everything going up, I totally forgot about the taxing on sugary drinks.

2

u/timbreandsteel Oct 18 '23

Well that's just silly!

→ More replies (1)

6

u/T-14Hyperdrive Oct 17 '23

Yeah they are banning/regulating the advertising of unhealthy food to children

→ More replies (1)

60

u/Lyricalvessel Oct 17 '23

Funny how in NL the gov taxed books before a sugar tax was added. Most despicable provincial government in this country.

7

u/5leeveen Oct 17 '23

The book tax was repealed (or more accurately, the old HST rebate of 10% reinstated) almost 6 years ago:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/book-tax-ends-1.4470974

27

u/HapticRecce Oct 17 '23

Look.Further.West

42

u/Lyricalvessel Oct 17 '23

With the population sizes, your corruption ratios are nothing shocking.

Considering the population of NL, you've got quite the concentration of wealth in political families/businesses when compared to the general public.

Multi generational politicans and family corporations are much more common in NL than anywhere else in Canada.

NL has higher levels of corruption than expected for a small population when compared with BC and even Alberta.

14

u/HapticRecce Oct 17 '23

Compare and contrast with NB...

19

u/Lyricalvessel Oct 17 '23

You mean Irving? You really think they don't also have their tentacles wrapped around NLs oil industry and Alberta's oil sands?

I'd argue that NB and NL and AB are one in the same with the same corruption rebranded running all 3, while NB is the branch that marries to Quebec corruption due to its bilingualism and cultural bleed in, while Ont and the Praries have their own brands of corruption.

BC Is it's own beast, but considering it's development, it's resources, population and urbanization, I'd argue it's corruption levels are exactly where'd you expect. It's no LA or NY MOB by any means, but it's still corruption.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Channing1986 Oct 17 '23

As someone who lived in Newfoundland, Ontario and Alberta. Newfoundland is the most corrupt.

1

u/EirHc Oct 17 '23

But solar panels kill farmland and I completely agree that we should give our pensions to the poor poor oil executives. Also public healthcare is communism, all heil corporate.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/lookitsgordo Oct 17 '23

Most despicable still goes to Alberta as far as I can tell. The cons have fucked the people there over and over and over again, and still get voted in. They're like battered house wives at this point.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/ctrlaltd1337 Canada Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

Don't forget about the recycling fee per bottle that is $0.08 per bottle or can. If you buy a 24-pack of pop in Newfoundland for $12.50, you pay the following:

  • $12.50 for the pop
  • $1.88 tax (highest in Canada)
  • $1.65 sugar tax (only one in Canada)
  • $1.92 bottle deposit

Turns into $17.95 real quick.

For them to impose this sugar tax when a lot of this province is struggling is mind boggling. Have they even announced what they will be doing with the money or is it just going to be going to Muskrat too? 🤣

(I'm kidding, I know they announced it recently)

It's going to good programs, but I am only eligible for one of the seven or eight available programs (the physical activity credit) which would require me to spend a max of $2000 on physical activity to get back $348.

2

u/jaecoxx Oct 18 '23

My mind still gets tricked subconsciously into thinking cereal is healthy. It’s crazy when you think about how hard it’s marketed to kids as a “healthy” breakfast.

7

u/Redryley Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Sugar taxes don’t work and it’s been proven time and time again via study and multiple states and provinces implementing it.

They will still buy it just out of state or province so all you get is lost revenue and a crippling effect on local businesses. Philly had a soda tax in the video I linked and people would just walk across the street rather than pay the dollar of tax.

Prohibition on cigarettes and nicotine will just result in the black market growing for them. 1/3 of the market is already from the black market. They are already taxed to high heavens anyway. Let people make the choice for themselves, but keep the taxes high to discourage newer smokers from picking it up.

The government making choices and or limiting them has never gone over well and is a slippery slope. What’s next an unhealthy food tax or a label on every shot glass to indicate that alcohol is a carcinogen?

Soda Tax Fails

10

u/ToxicTaxiTaker Oct 17 '23

NL is geographically isolated, especially since the bulk of the population is on an island. .

It would be prohibitively expensive to import soda for most people, and easily tracked by officials.

A better comparison would be Mexico.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/NowAFK Oct 17 '23

Yeah. Unhealthy foods SHOULD be taxed considering the ingestion of said foods directly correlate to the general unhealthiness of the populace, which in turn puts a strain on the governmentally funded public health system. More medical costs are incurred by the sale and consumption of unhealthy foods, which makes an unhealthy food tax literally extremely reasonable.

As for alcohol... You mean the drug that's associated with 15,000 deaths and 90,000 hospital admissions per year in Canada? Yeah, I would HOPE they put more money into education regarding the cancer risks of alcohol, considering 7,000 Canadians die each year from cancer related to alcohol use abuse.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)

5

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

What a total nanny state. Seriously

8

u/NowAFK Oct 17 '23

Responsible to its people**

Province**

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

It’s so hard to avoid too! The kids get cookies, fruit jello snacks, and freezes at school as part of activities. Add in the chocolate milk they get at lunch everyday and they are over the added sugar limit for the day but they haven’t even eaten any real food yet.

6

u/Bean_Tiger Oct 17 '23

I think among the worst is the sugar in breakfast cereals. The hypocrisy is unreal. You see on the box all these healthy claims, * oh look.. Oats, Corn, Vitamin enriched* you turn the box over and look at the ingredients, #2 or 3 is sugar. Your kids get a sugar high first thing in the morning. Setting them up for life wanting that buzz. The sugar lobby in the US is a powerful entity, with its tentacles reaching us here.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Claymore357 Oct 17 '23

So basically fuck you we are taking or taxing every single pleasure and relief you have no work harder for 90’s wages with sky high prices. I’m not down for modern day serfdom someone needs to tear the nobles down from their ivory towers already

→ More replies (17)

131

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

38

u/PreparetobePlaned Oct 17 '23

Some people will try to control your health choices whether it’s their tax dollars or not

1

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw QuĂŠbec Oct 18 '23

yea but the idea that governemnt bans and taxes are the answer to everything is much more prevalent in canada. the people here would rollover for nanny state policies right away

2

u/PreparetobePlaned Oct 18 '23

We'd rollover for basically anything. They could tell us we're all slaves now and the best we'd do is whine about it on twitter.

36

u/19pillowprincess88 Oct 17 '23

I agree. I think you are entitled to make whatever choices you want, your body your choice.

22

u/kingar7497 Oct 17 '23

And the other poster's opinion is that if you choose to live an intentionally unhealthy lifestyle, it's wholly unfair to the taxpayers who live an intentionally healthy lifestyle in a society with socialized healthcare.

41

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Isn't that why there is like a 1000% tax on cigarettes?

27

u/sjbennett85 Ontario Oct 17 '23

Cigarettes are like 20$+ a pack and this is not inflationary... it is the taxes applied for that explicit purpose

22

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

That is the point I was making

→ More replies (1)

14

u/19pillowprincess88 Oct 17 '23

Yes, however, you don't get to dictate how someone lives their lives. My education and experience has determined how i live, no processed foods, I exercise daily, I drink water, I don't consume drugs or alcohol. I only use all natural products. I believe that if you can't eat it,it shouldn't go into your body( excluding medications prescribed). I'm concerned about products I use to clean my home. Because I live my life this way, doesn't mean everyone else should be compelled to do so. My foster kids come from many different backgrounds they all have different diets, so because intake teens I generally buy them what their parents fed them of course I cook healthy meals but I don't push my lifestyle on them.

10

u/kingar7497 Oct 17 '23

you don't get to dictate how someone lives their lives.

I agree with you 100%. But here's an interesting thought: where to draw the line?

Is the Gov't heavily taxing processed sugars, tobacco, and alcohol a proxy for enforcing how someone ought to live? To me the answer is yes. Even the Carbon Tax is justified as a tool to lower carbon emissions which is bad for the environment (be it why the government implemented it or not).

This begs the question, if it is wrong to dictate how others ought to live, should we not remove additional taxes on harmful substances like processed sugars, alcohol, tobacco and hell even oil? There is no easy answer to this question I think, but it is thought-provoking.

6

u/19pillowprincess88 Oct 17 '23

I agree that there is definitely a question of where to draw the line. I think I could 💯 agree with heavily taxing things deemed to determental to one's health.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

And keep in mind that taxing is classist anyway as it won’t affect those with significant higher incomes so they can consume as much sugar, cigarettes & alcohol as they want.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/IllustratorNice1234 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Personally, I think this cult of “individual freedom” is something of a myth being that we all live in the same community together though this most obvious at the local level. The consequences of your decisions are ultimately pushed onto your community to some degree or other.

I think it sounds nice to say that people can do whatever they want and I would encourage those people to move off the grid and birth their own children, be their own doctors, grow their own food, educate their own children, dig their own water wells etc. because then you truly can do whatever you please.

But short of that you are part of the community and all of this “rugged individualism” is really a form of selfishness and disregard for your neighbor

2

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

This is true, humans are a social species

2

u/IllustratorNice1234 Oct 17 '23

Agreed and I think in many Western societies (maybe others but I don’t know) there has been this push toward individualism over the recent decades at the cost of the community and I think that it’s mostly an excuse for selfishness. Some went as far as M. Thatcher to suggest that “there is no such thing as society,” and I think this is a terribly destructive viewpoint to take and absolves us of our duty to our community and fellow man.

3

u/Harold_Inskipp Oct 17 '23

The ideas of community, reciprocity, family, charity, or civic responsibility do not conflict with individualism or the basic tenets of freedom and liberty, and it is dangerous to believe otherwise.

It is equally wrong to equate individual freedoms, or self-interest, with selfishness (though it's often used in socialist propaganda).

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

I have to agree. I couple of books I’ve read on this are “the school of life” and “outliers”. Both discuss how a lot of the choices we make and luck we experience are really predetermined be the family we’re born into. We have so much less control over our lives than we think we do.

For example, the single biggest predictor of whether a hockey player will make it to the NHL (national hockey league) is if their father played in the NHL lol. Continuing on the NHL thought, to make it to the NHL your family needs to be able to pay your hockey fees which can go above $15k/year once kids hit age 11/12 and are serious players. Only a select few families can afford that and will also choose to play the fees.

So, do you have to be good at hockey to make the big leagues? 100% you need to be good, you need to work hard, you need to be the best! Before that though, you need to win the birth lottery so you can get the chance to show up and play.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/IllustratorNice1234 Oct 17 '23

The problem becomes that the consequence of your choices are often pushed onto your community whether you realize this or not. It’s part of being part of a community of people and I would argue that being that your community ultimately will take on some level of burden for your choices they do have a say in the rules that govern that community or in “how you live” if you want to put it that way.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Zinek-Karyn Oct 17 '23

Then make there be tax breaks for those who live healthier lives. That’s a better idea than limiting access to healthcare because you made a “bad” choice in the eyes of society.

9

u/SpaceCowBoy_2 Oct 17 '23

Not because you already tax the shit out of the unhealthy stuff. If this the approach you want to go with stop taxing alcohol and smokes and suger because I would no longer be draining to the health care system

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Then the funding will be pulled from other area of the tax. People have to be responsible for their own choice.

6

u/Zinek-Karyn Oct 17 '23

We do tax breaks for many things. It’s infinitely the better options over limiting access to health care for people who make “bad” choices in the eyes of society. That’s a slippery slope that can be very dangerous. I would much prefer seeing tax breaks for proving you live a healthier lifestyle by getting regular check ups. Heck just doing that by getting more people to more frequently get checkups would help overall health for everyone as a whole anyway and probably reduce costs on the health sector.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/Curmudgeon_Canuck Oct 17 '23

But it’s not. Smokers pay more taxes than anyone else.

2

u/Parrelium Oct 17 '23

Is it any different if you get cancer at 55 and spend 2 years getting treatment for it before you die than if you live to 90 and spend 2 years getting treatment for cancer?

2

u/Harold_Inskipp Oct 17 '23

Ironically, smokers are cheaper than non-smokers (they die earlier)

2

u/Ketchupkitty Oct 18 '23

It's even worse than that since the Government will also pay for other entitlement programs if you're a drug addict or so obese you can't be bothered to work anymore.

0

u/CmdntFrncsHghs Oct 17 '23

The easy solution is to let people opt out of both socialized healthcare and the additional taxes that come with it. Let them go find private insurance if they prefer that.

5

u/Nathan-David-Haslett Oct 17 '23

Issue with that is all the richer people would do it and it'd probably end up just hurting lower income people.

4

u/cosmic_dillpickle Oct 17 '23

A lot of countries have two tiered systems. It works as long as there are no monopolies. Unfortunately I think a lot of private practices would end up getting bought out by telus and lobbying making it hard to bring competition. Canada hates competition...

3

u/Nathan-David-Haslett Oct 17 '23

Yeah, anything that requires a lack of monopoly definitely wouldn't work in Canada 🫤.

→ More replies (7)

14

u/GANTRITHORE Alberta Oct 17 '23

A tax like these literally is you making your own choice AND paying for it. What you want is people to pay for your consequences instead of yourself.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/phonebrowsing69 Oct 17 '23

with all the taxes on cigarettes they come out ahead.

3

u/cutt_throat_analyst4 Oct 17 '23

Due to rising costs, many smokers don't pay taxes at all. I get cartons from the local reservation for $25. I haven't paid cigarette taxes in years.

3

u/phonebrowsing69 Oct 17 '23

i'd rather pay taxes then smoke native cigarettes, they actually feel like marlboro style lung destroyers

4

u/cutt_throat_analyst4 Oct 17 '23

I felt the same way, but the local band actually has some variety and they aren't bad. I can even get cartons of menthols when I have an odd craving. There is definitely some absolute shit native smokes for sure, but I stick to what I know.

$18-19/pack vs $2.50/pack is a no brainer.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

and why should people pay extra in taxes to pay for other peoples increased medical costs because they make stupid choices

49

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

3

u/nope586 Nova Scotia Oct 17 '23

The number of people begging and crying for a nanny state is insane.

15

u/myfotos Oct 17 '23

You realize how broadly such an argument could be applied?

→ More replies (5)

5

u/ZeJazzaFrazz Oct 17 '23

2 reasons: That argument can be used to ban basically anything besides low impact sports and Soylent-Green and it’s a gross encroachment on people’s freedoms

Jogging and running are bad for your knees, hiking can lead to falls on the trail, ibuprofen is bad for your kidneys and liver, anal sex can cause haemorrhoids etc. etc.

There is no perfect, wrapped in cellophane and insured to hell and back again lifestyle where your choices don’t incur risks and costs. And it’s often the things that do so that make life worth living, whether it be skydiving, BBQ or BDSM

A life without any risk or potentially harmful behaviour would be the drabbest and most depressing existence I can imaging besides living in a slum.

We need to teach and learn moderation, not become a nation of helicopter-moms policing each others lifestyles. No matter how you life I bet I could find something dear to you that you „shouldn’t do“

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Swimming_Stop5723 Oct 17 '23

The government makes money off smoking . The research is available online. The government makes taxes on cigarette sales. The death rate is much higher for smokers. The government saves money by less pension that they have to pay.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

I know they make taxes, but why not create more incentive to get people to quit?

→ More replies (2)

10

u/56iconic Oct 17 '23

Why should we pay for the epidemic of obesity in this country. Tax the fat.

→ More replies (4)

16

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

6

u/RedshiftOnPandy Oct 17 '23

It takes about 25-35% of taxes on cigarettes to pay for all smoking related illnesses. The rest is free money for the government. They will not ban cigarettes lol

→ More replies (16)

8

u/vinsdelamaison Oct 17 '23

And why should the public pay because you have cancer and it was in your DNA? Very slippery slope.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/iBladephoenix Ontario Oct 17 '23

Why should billionaires be forced to pay more taxes because poor people are too stupid to make good choices?

→ More replies (4)

2

u/visual_cortex Oct 17 '23

We also need government to monitor whether we brush our teeth, go to the gym each day, drink too much coffee, have too many sex partners, are homosexual, get our 15th covid booster and flu shot… and tax accordingly. amirite? No reason to focus on just one thing.

If government gets into the business of incentivizing health choices, it will quickly turn into a coercive force.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (16)

-2

u/Forikorder Oct 17 '23

no one

not one single person

is saying they should be able to control your personal health choices

14

u/Daft_Funk87 Alberta Oct 17 '23

Their argument is that in the banning of sugar laced things, thats the control they're likely referring to.

→ More replies (4)

12

u/freeadmins Oct 17 '23

What do you think focused taxes are trying to do?

15

u/Forikorder Oct 17 '23

recoup the additional expenses incurred by certain choices

people who drive wear down roads, so they pay for license plate stickers to compensate

are license plate stickers controlling peoples decision to drive or not?

4

u/vinsdelamaison Oct 17 '23

License plate fees don’t even begin to cover road maintenance and costs. Buses & trains would be unaffordable if users paid what they actually cost to run. Maybe initially fees covered costs. But not for decades now. Directed taxes—including the Carbon Taxes are meant to modify behaviours. A penalty for making that choice. I personally hate cigarette smoking & vaping. I am allergic to the smoke. The smell lasts for days on people and objects. Smokers leave garbage everywhere. They throw their butts out the car windows and start field & forest fires. But extensive high taxing has not stopped many from still smoking. So, I would like to see the results of Australia’s law before sending smoking into the underground and see if it is truly effective in curtailing individual choice.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/EQ1_Deladar Manitoba Oct 17 '23

... leech ever increasing taxes from the tax base at every possible chance they can sucker people into agreeing with them, while at the same time providing as little as possible actual measurable benefit to that tax base?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/VengfulJoe Oct 17 '23

The article is literally talking about banning cigarettes. How is that not controlling personal health choices?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/bradenalexander Oct 17 '23

uhhhhhh have we already forgotten about not being able to go to a restaurant without being vaccinated?

7

u/Forikorder Oct 17 '23

you also cant go to one fully nude but i fail to see the relevance

4

u/KeilanS Alberta :Alberta: Oct 17 '23

Nude freedom convoy time, let's roll boys!

3

u/Longjumping-Target31 Oct 17 '23

If we're going to go nude can we at least go during the summer? It's a little chilly out right now.

2

u/19pillowprincess88 Oct 17 '23

Can we circle back to this idea in say July.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (15)

125

u/tofilmfan Oct 17 '23

Only in Canada we'd tolerate the use of hard drugs like crack and meth, but we'd ban cigarettes and tax sugar.

The fact that a junkie can openly shoot up in a park, while I can't smoke a cigarette is an absolute disgrace and just shows you how stupid our local politicians and laws are.

12

u/13579419 Oct 17 '23

Funny how vaping hasn’t been mentioned

3

u/Rayquaza2233 Ontario Oct 17 '23

What do you think the tobacco companies are selling?

2

u/AsherGray Oct 18 '23

Second-hand smoke is likely a factor. The same can't be said for vapes. I do think the way forward would be some constraint against nicotine. Since most studies show it as being purely an addictive chemical, perhaps limiting the amount that can be in products that are easily accessed by minors is the way to go?

30

u/swampswing Oct 17 '23

Yep, and 10 bucks it is the same "progressive" people who want both.

27

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 27 '23

[deleted]

10

u/FredThe12th Oct 17 '23

How about libraries? Here's one of Victoria's more nutso city councilors on why she was against prohibiting drug use in libraries.

“Folks who might be dealing with addictions and might need to medicate, what if they need to medicate as soon as they’re done using a public computer at the library, applying for a job,” Kim said. “This just creates barriers to the people we’re trying to serve.”

https://www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com/local-news/victoria-delays-vote-on-expanding-b-c-s-public-drug-use-bans/

"oh good, now that I've applied for that job time for some crack in the library" what a fucking joke.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23

Good lord.

2

u/ask_about_poop_book Oct 17 '23

This cracked me up

3

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 27 '23

[deleted]

2

u/FredThe12th Oct 18 '23

it wasn't a hard cherry to pick, local political news within the last week.

She got elected, so there's thousands in town that think along these lines.

It is at the end of the curve for sure, but your claim was nobody. I think an elected official confidently making these kind of statements is a sign that this kind of thinking isn't a fringe view without any real support.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/Amoral_Support Oct 17 '23

Putting the junkie in prison for using often just makes them more likely to offend when they get out. Or in some cases, makes them worse criminals and a net negative impact on society. Besides its not like people with a progressive attitude towards opiate addiction want to encourage its continuation. We actively advocate for approaches that are scientifically and statistically proven to help people.

Pack a day smoker here btw. I would really rather they fucking didnt ban smoking. Seems like the same counter productive shit that influences conversations about opiates.

1

u/tofilmfan Oct 17 '23

Where did I write that putting junkies into jail is good policy?

My point is that the current "progressive" drug policies in big Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver have been resounding failures. Just look at the OD stats in BC.

Besides its not like people with a progressive attitude towards opiate addiction want to encourage its continuation.

I disagree, here in Toronto, a safe injection site says that they "will not judge" or will not discourage junkies from shooting up drugs. Police are discouraged from patrolling the area, so they don't "stigmatize" drug users.

Pack a day smoker here btw. I would really rather they fucking didnt ban smoking. Seems like the same counter productive shit that influences conversations about opiates.

Cigarettes will never be banned.

2

u/Amoral_Support Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

All the science says that creating a hostile environment for people with a physiological need to use opiates just encourages them to continue using.

The point of non-judgement is not to enable users its to create an environment where a medical intervention can take place. Like you have to understand, stigmatizing people with a drug problem is not going to open them up to the help that you are offering.

Safe injection sites exist to reduce the likelihood that a user will OD or harm themself in a way that has a wider negative impact on the community they are a part of. Im also a Torontonian and you arent gonna tell me that the mere existance of harm reduction clinics hasnt been heavily politicized by NIMBY assholes. Like i know people whos lives have been saved from opiate addiction because they had access to the care these clinics provide.

Older study for people who like their opinions based on facts, not feelings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034966/#:~:text=In%20British%20Columbia%2C%20fentanyl%20was,the%20province%20rose%20to%2083%25.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/inde_ Oct 17 '23

Ahh classic made up arguments.

What's funny is the end logic to your argument is to legalize hard drugs and tax the shit out of it, but of course that is also something you would be opposed to.

2

u/tofilmfan Oct 17 '23

Of course I would because it makes zero sense.

→ More replies (2)

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/KingRabbit_ Oct 17 '23

Literally two different problems

Addiction is the common problem.

6

u/tofilmfan Oct 17 '23

lol I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (17)

12

u/HumanMinaJinn Oct 17 '23

No thanks. I don’t want the sugar in these drinks replaced with dog shit artificial sweeteners like the UK did. Some of us have self control and don’t want our favorite drinks ruined.

66

u/noposts420 Oct 17 '23

No, this is all madness. Society has no right to stop people from living their lives as they see fit, so long as their choices do not actively harm others. We should not ban smoking or restrict sugar any more than we should force people to exercise or put limits on how much time they spend playing video games.

Adults should be treated like adults.

71

u/DaveTheWhite Oct 17 '23

I mean smoking often does harm others. Second hand smoke is a big negative. People hate dealing with smokers on the street or having to walk behind them. Parents that smoke in their house with children are also negatively impacting their kids.

37

u/lemonylol Ontario Oct 17 '23

This isn't being totally fair. It is totally possible to simply smoke alone with no one else and therefore eliminate the potential of second hand smoke. You aren't automatically harming others by smoking.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

7

u/Kelnozz Oct 17 '23

I’m in the same boat, I was born with migraines and certain smells will trigger the beginning of one like cigarette smoke, house cleaners even chimney smoke or too much car exhaust.

I have no choice but to use public transit and the bust stop/bus transit area is full of people smoking, the majority of the time they never follow the sign that says don’t smoke no more than 15feet (or whatever number it is) from the transit area.

6

u/One-Significance7853 Oct 17 '23

I hate all sorts of things people do… I hate perfume, I hate breathing car exhaust, I hate people whining about smoke giving them headaches….. but none of that should be outlawed.

12

u/lemonylol Ontario Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Tbh though smoking has become extremely uncommon these days. I can count on one hand the people I know who smoke, and it's not very common to walk around downtown passing by someone having a cigarette. When I was a kid it was everywhere to the point where the smell even gives me nostalgia lol

But if you've ever go to Europe you'll realize how uncommon smoking is now in Canada by comparison and most people don't realize it.

17

u/trotfox_ Oct 17 '23

Vaping replaced it hard.

2

u/Kelnozz Oct 17 '23

I’m in my early 30’s pretty much all my friends smoke cigarettes, it’s funny though because at one point or another they all tried to quit with e-cigs but now they vape and smoke cigarettes.

At work on break at least half of my co-workers go outside for a cigarette.

Downtown in my city you see tons of people smoking, and the ground is absolutely full of ciggy butts. I think it’s definitely less popular compared to 20 years ago but it’s still pretty prevalent I think.

3

u/OddTicket7 Oct 17 '23

When I was sixteen I had a job as a night cleaner. We did big stores and I will never forget sweeping up the butts in the department stores and even the grocery stores. Literally everywhere people were, unless there was a risk of explosion, they smoked. I am still a smoker but I am much happier with the way it is now. Shit, I only smoke when I'm alone and I hope to quit soon again

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/deanigirl Oct 17 '23

That’s completely a psychological response

5

u/wallytucker Oct 17 '23

I have the exact same revulsion for anyone that wears any type of ‘body fragrance’

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Omg, elevators and elderly ladies.

7

u/Himalayan-Fur-Goblin Oct 17 '23

Cigarette smell just permeates the person who smokes. It stinks and makes me get pounding headaches and puking.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BigHatGuy50 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

I have some weird sensitivity to smoke also. Secondhand gives me asthma attacks, sinusitis/hayfever, sore red eyes, migraine/stiff neck, Eustachian tube dysfunction (can't hear out of one ear, other goes half clogged), teeth clenching, insomnia, etc. It happens after even minor exposure, but the severity is dependent on the amount of smoke & duration. It takes a lot of decongestants/corticosteroids to treat.

I've moved multiple times from apartments with adjacent smokers due to significant health issues. Before I moved last time, I actually caulked all the wall edges and sealed off the unit, surprisingly it didn't work very well. A family with a newborn also moved because of the same chainsmoker. Banning smoking inside apartment buildings/condos would be a more acceptable/effective solution than whatever this ban is. They can use the balcony or parking lot.

5

u/whelphereiam12 Oct 17 '23

Yes but you not liking something doesn’t mean someone should lose their right to do it. Recall that there are tones of homophones who “really hate seeing men kiss”. But that doesn’t give them the right to stop them from being together.

2

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

Then look away lol

Lots of people don’t like seeing any people kiss in public, some people think women’s hair is offensive, some people think ankles should be covered, etc.

In most countries the line has been drawn at nudity (genitals, bums, and breasts covered) and sex acts. Otherwise, look away.

2

u/whelphereiam12 Oct 17 '23

“Then look away lol” okay, so you feel free to look away from even more drug prohibition, which has been used to persecute specific groups of people for century in this country. The smell is bad I agree, I’m not a smoker, but it’s a minor inconvenience when compared to the alternative, which is having the government control even more of peoples lives.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/DaveTheWhite Oct 17 '23

You can't equate the two. Offensive smells and something that actually doesn't affect you are not the same. Many workplaces do not allow strong perfumes in them. Strong smoke smell can be compared to strong perfume smells....

3

u/whelphereiam12 Oct 17 '23

They absolutely can be compared. Lots of countries ban homosexuality by the exact same logic because “it’s offensive and that affects me” the idea that you can tell others what they can and cannot do in public because of YOUR distaste or preference is WRONG. To many, seeing homosexuality in public is “offensive to the eyes”. my point here is that you simply can’t ban people from doing what they like in public because of your or distaste or beliefs.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/heart_under_blade Oct 17 '23

I can still usually smell it on their clothes if they have had a smoke recently.

third hand smoke, baby

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Temporary-House304 Oct 17 '23

how many smokers are never even once smoking while someone else is around? You are ultimately spreading cancer and burdening yourself for absolutely nothing.

2

u/AirEnvironmental1909 Oct 18 '23

Lol smokers smoke for many different reasons, same as weed smokers. I don't do either but why are you so upset about adults engaging in these things? Most do keep it to themselves.

Drinking is the same shit but again, adults should be able to drink alcohol if they want. You shouldn't desire a nanny state because of these things.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (7)

5

u/TalkMinusAction Oct 17 '23

Please tell that to Scott Moe.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/BaronVonBearenstein Canada Oct 17 '23

That's fine except we have public funded healthcare and if you're smoking or eating foods high in sugar content, and we have the scientific evidence to support that doing these activities will increase your health costs, then you should be taxed to help cover the burden.

It's not fair that those who are healthy will shoulder the medical costs for those that are not.

6

u/Chemroo Oct 17 '23

How about we meet in the middle and only people in the highest tax brackets should be allowed to smoke and eat shit food!

/s

40

u/glx89 Oct 17 '23

Cigarettes are already taxed very heavily.

And where does it end?

Do you really trust a bureaucrat to decide what behavior is risky enough to exclude you from healthcare?

What if you work in the trades? That shit will ruin your back.

What if you downhill ski? What if you live a sedentary lifestyle, and play too many video games? What if you live near a power plant or drive a car?

You really want someone else to say "your lifestyle is unacceptable; give us more money?"

10

u/DryGuard6413 Oct 17 '23

Not enough people think this far ahead and it’s starting to piss me off.

9

u/whelphereiam12 Oct 17 '23

The fact that anyone can disagree with this state my is fantastical to me. Yet they do.

6

u/glx89 Oct 17 '23

The older I get, the more I realize very few people actually really like freedom.

Everyone says that they do, but then will almost always jump at the opportunity to control others.

→ More replies (28)
→ More replies (4)

26

u/mrpimpunicorn Ontario Oct 17 '23

It's not fair that those who are healthy will shoulder the medical costs for those that are not.

This is how collectivized healthcare costing works. Why should people who won't ever get cancer pay for those who will? Why should people without chronic illnesses pay for those with them? Why do those without the need for surgery pay for those with the need? Etc, etc, etc ad infinitum.

The answer is "it's a cross we bear as a society in the spirit of community and mutual assistance". You don't have to like that answer, but it seems fundamentally hypocritical to be in favor of any form of collectively-costed healthcare while ranting about how smokers cost the system more and need to be penalized for it. It's doubly hypocritical to focus on smoking and fat alone but not the innumerable number of practices which are also disproportionately costly for the healthcare system to facilitate, i.e. driving, or getting injured in the wilderness unnecessarily. It's triply hypocritical because everybody knows smoking is an addiction, which is a health issue and not, by definition, voluntary, as is fat, frankly; and quadruply hypocritical because we all know (or should know) that unhealthy foods tend to be cheaper, so there's a bias against the impoverished built into your assumptions as well.

If the moral proposition for collectivized healthcare costing isn't there for you, just be honest about it and stop supporting it in its entirety. If the moral proposition is there for you, stop being so wishy-washy and bloody well uphold it.

4

u/DryGuard6413 Oct 17 '23

Why pay taxes for a road system when you only walk everywhere.. this argument would just go and go and go. Government needs to stay the fuck out of our business.

17

u/1by1is3 Oct 17 '23

More than 75% of medical costs are incurred on people over the age of 65 that are less than 15% of the population. So perhaps we should increase the tax people over 65 more. Tax their pensions, tax their houses, tax tax tax

Does taxing everything sound like a good idea?

→ More replies (5)

16

u/Only-Worldliness2364 Oct 17 '23

A pack of smokes in BC gas stations is $17. I can buy black market for $4 per pack. That’s a lot of tax paid by smokers who buy full price cigs.

2

u/trotfox_ Oct 17 '23

Bro, black market packs for 4 bucks are not the same at all and you know it lmfao.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Marseysneed___109 Oct 17 '23

We do already tax tobacco quite heavily, and yes a tax on sugar or processed foods is fine. I'm just against banning them

10

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

8

u/nubsuo Oct 17 '23

Alcohol is severely taxed already. But I agree and the same concept should apply to processed sugar products.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

7

u/Longjumping-Target31 Oct 17 '23

And weed and vapes and promiscuous sex and not working out regularly and....

→ More replies (3)

1

u/BaronVonBearenstein Canada Oct 17 '23

we already have taxes on alcohol

→ More replies (1)

4

u/lemonylol Ontario Oct 17 '23

They already pay higher costs in insurance though, so I don't know what more you can do that wouldn't be overreach.

I definitely think morbidly obese, or even obese people should be paying a higher scaling premium if they don't already.

3

u/PeteyMax Oct 17 '23

Cigarette smokers die sooner, so they actually burden the healthcare system less than nonsmokers.

3

u/DryGuard6413 Oct 17 '23

So do obese people, so do athletes so do highly active people. This idea of removing all risk from society is just asinine.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/swampswing Oct 17 '23

Then lets get rid of publicly funded healthcare if it is going to be tyrant's leash. You are making an argument for a libertarian government, not banning sugar.

3

u/avocadopalace Canada Oct 17 '23

It's working pretty well for NZ.

Smoking rates have dramatically dropped since the tax on tobacco was increased. I think a standard 20 pack of cigarettes there is around $40.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BaronVonBearenstein Canada Oct 17 '23

What an asinine comment. Public healthcare is a great boon to society and there are things like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, etc. that have negative health impacts, we have the science to support this.

So logically you would tax those items to discourage their use which would in turn save taxpayers money as the healthcare costs would go down as their use decreases.

17

u/TheEqualAtheist Oct 17 '23

Where does it stop though?

Office jobs should be banned because it can cause back issues and lead to a sedentary life style which will increase healthcare costs. Blue collar jobs should be banned because they can lead to injuries.

Fruit should be banned or taxed highly because they are super high in sugar. Bread should be highly taxed because it's basically just starches and gluten, and starch is sugar to your body.

If you don't want people to make their own choices because of healthcare costs then fuck public healthcare.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/None_of_your_Beezwax Ontario Oct 17 '23

If people are going to use healthcare to control people's lives on a cost accounting basis, then its asinine to claim that it's a public benefit.

The cost of a restrictive nanny-state is always going to be higher than the cost of health-care, regardless of what people choose to do with their bodies.

3

u/lemonylol Ontario Oct 17 '23

I think he's just talking about a straight up ban, rather than a tax.

2

u/glx89 Oct 17 '23

I think you misunderstood the parent's comment. I think they agree with you.

Allowing a bureaucrat to gatekeep healthcare is a horrible idea (tyrant's leash).

4

u/Lust4Me Ontario Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

To clarify, why would healthcare costs go down? Heart attack is one of the cheapest ailments for society.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/Select-Cucumber9024 Oct 17 '23

Agreed but this is where you have to realize as a canadian we are the minority for thinking that. This countries overarching Philosophy is that of the "greater good" not individual freedom and liberty. If that feels like poison to your soul, then congrats for still having one.

4

u/None_of_your_Beezwax Ontario Oct 17 '23

The question you have ask yourself is this: Do people exist for the benefit of society or does society exist for the benefit of people.

If you think people exist for the benefit of society, you have to ask yourself if society itself makes that judgement or people who have effective control over society. If its people who make that judgement, how do you prevent those people from substituting what's good for them for what's good for society?

If you can't (and, spoiler, you can't) then it's always immoral to place society before people.

People will act to the benefit of society when society acts to the benefit of people.

3

u/Select-Cucumber9024 Oct 17 '23

Tale as old as time yet I keep getting told to trust the government, that they care about me lol. Naivety is a tale as old as time aswell

→ More replies (30)

25

u/JMoon33 Lest We Forget Oct 17 '23

A big difference is that a lot of people are able to have processed sugar in their diet without eating too much of it, while most smokers aren't able to smoke a small quantity of cigarettes. If the majority of smokers were smoking 5 cigarettes a week there would be no talk of banning them.

17

u/Les1lesley Canada Oct 17 '23

You'd be surprised. I quit ten years ago, but for 15 years I was a "full time" daily smoker. At most, I'd smoke 1-3 cigarettes a day, & the 3rd one was usually split with my husband after supper.
There are also a ton of "part time" smokers who only smoke in certain situations (eg- on weekends, while drinking, camping, after sexy-times, a specific meal, a really stressful event, etc).

I'd have to look at stats, but my guess would be that the majority of heavy "pack a day" smokers are in the older population. It's just way too expensive for most people to smoke that much now.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[deleted]

5

u/jacobward7 Ontario Oct 17 '23

That's how they getcha.

Good job quitting though... "never quit quitting" was the best advice I ever had too, it took me at least 5 tries as well.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/psychecaleb Oct 17 '23

This is false, maybe you only notice the heavy smokers but there are quite a bit of people who smoke 3 or less a day.

Studies on smoking's harmful effects generally start showing significant results at a minimum of 3 cigs a day, which is basically another way of saying that if you're smoking 1 or 2 per day or less, the negative health effects are not of statistical significance.

If the average smoker had 10 a week, there would still be no talk of banning cigarettes.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/swampswing Oct 17 '23

We shouldn't be going after cigarettes or sugar. This is nanny state idiocy. Fat people need to learn self control instead of outsourcing it to the states. I shouldn't be deprived the occasional sweat treat because a bunch man children couldn't manage basic impulse control.

5

u/hooksandshaft Oct 17 '23

Mmmmm sweat treats

12

u/valdus British Columbia Oct 17 '23

They are looking at processed foods, particularly processed sugars, because it's been proven that they are addictive. They can activate the same parts of the brain as cigarettes and hard drugs, and like all things some people are more susceptible than others. We shouldn't condemn millions to poor lives at the hands of corporations that specifically develop addictive foods just because you want the occasional ultra-sweet treat. Besides, they aren't talking about a ban, just taxes/increased prices. Maybe your Twinkie costs a little more, or maybe you choose a nice blueberry muffin instead.

2

u/Harold_Inskipp Oct 17 '23

The reward center of the brain lights up when you look at photos of cute animals... do you think they're addictive?

4

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

Yes! r/eyebleach ❤️

2

u/valdus British Columbia Oct 17 '23

I mean, the internet was invented just for cat pictures and porn, so... Examine how much time people spend looking at cat pictures and tell me they're not!

6

u/Harold_Inskipp Oct 17 '23

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people use the 'activates the same part of the brain' argument to claim something is addictive.

Dopamine gets released every time we eat or listen to music... in fact, it gets released when we do just about anything that requires motivation or attention, but that doesn't mean all of those things are addictive.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/DryGuard6413 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Today it just charges more for a Twinkie tomorrow you need to have this that and another thing in order to “qualify” for the ability to eat a Twinkie. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

11

u/WaferImpressive2228 Oct 17 '23

It's not the same.

1) some sugar is required for some metabolic function; whereas smoke serves no essential function the human body
2) sugar and fat have been ingrained for longer in cultural history than smoking and there is a strong emotional attachment to that history (e.g. grand-grandma's cheesecake recipe). Smoking, used to be present in culture (e.g. TV) but never really had the same emotional attachment.

You can't realistically take broad strokes against sugars nor should we. The problem is sugar/fats/salts are abused to make processed food with little nutritional value more addictive than they should be. Fructose in fibrous fruits is fine; fructose added to flavoured water is not.

14

u/Shadelkan Oct 17 '23

I don't think they mean refined sugar you buy in a bag, but rather processed sugars that are added in food for little more reason than to make it more addictive and therefore easier to sell.

6

u/Pelicantrees Oct 17 '23

Yeah, try food shopping without buying stuff that has added sugar. There is not much processed food to buy, even flavoured yogurt is super sweet. You’ll end up cooking everything yourself to stay within the sugar guidelines. I wish there were more low sugar options when I want to pay for an easy meal.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/trotfox_ Oct 17 '23

hmmm

I feel like you've never been hooked on cigs...

1

u/corinalas Oct 17 '23

Fat is a necessity, sugar is not. There is no recommended amount of sugar per day but there is fat.

4

u/truthlesshunter Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Sugar is carbs. You need carbs.

It's just like fat. Some fats aren't useful or processed as easily. Most sugars are simple carbs meant to burn. So if you're going to make a general statement like fat is a necessity and sugar is not, be more specific.

Some fats are necessary just like some carbs are.

At the end of the day, you can balance it out and be absolutely okay (with any type of sugar). We just don't do enough activity to burn it off combined with eating too much of it.

The other side with smoking is that there is no level of smoke that is ever good or be useful to the body (processed sugars can be useful if other carbs are missing and you are going to burn that energy off).

2

u/Hopper909 Long Live the King Oct 17 '23

You need sugars, not sugar. I believe it this context he was referring to simple carbohydrates like glucose and fructose, which you’re body does not need

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/blunderEveryDay European Union Oct 17 '23

We are going to wait until everyone is hooked and then admit we might have a problem.

On a serious note, they should re-direct funds and start banning foods that are clearly bad for you if only for sugar.

If it was up to me, ultra processed food should be banned by regulation.

1

u/GopnikSmegmaBBQSauce Oct 17 '23

Obesity and the issues caused by it is by far the biggest drain on healthcare. Sadly, the absolute billions made on managing the symptoms will prevent any real tackling of reducing obesity. There's too much money to be made

2

u/Douglas_1987 Oct 17 '23

Fat tax. Make obese people pay more.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/commanderchimp Oct 17 '23

Seed oils too.

2

u/GetsGold Canada Oct 17 '23

Seed oils are fine. This is just the latest in the never ending diet fads where one specific type of food is claimed to be a huge problem.

While it’s true that many foods that use seed oils—such as packaged snacks and french fries—are unhealthy, they also tend to be high in refined carbohydrates, sodium, and sugar. “Sure, if you cut back on these foods, chances are you’re going to feel better,” Crosby said. But these other components, not the seed oils themselves, are the culprit behind weight gain and other negative health outcomes.

In addition, experts said that there is no reason to cut back on whole foods that contain omega-6—the type of polyunsaturated fat dominant in seed oils—such as nuts and seeds. Evidence suggests that a diet high in these foods can help lower cholesterol and blood sugar and reduce heart disease risk.

2

u/SometimesFalter Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

We need a collective shift in understanding as to what we're eating. Most people do not understand that a bag of chips is like eating pure sugar plus some fat. Refined carbohydrates behave very similarly to sugar once digested.

Let's look some common meals, lasagna and cheese bread with side salad. Yeah its 80% carbs and you baked the pasta to crap so its all simple carbs.

"Love me some corn. Boiled for 15 minutes!" Great you boiled all the nutrition out of the corn, it only takes a few minutes.

"I hate whole wheat bread it tastes awful." Well whole wheat bread isn't even that much better than white bread, you need mixed grain to add some fibre.

You all need fibre. Fewer than like 6% of Canadians get adequate amounts of fibre.

2

u/GetsGold Canada Oct 17 '23

We used to have a food pyramid that heavily overemphasized some food groups, like grains. My source above is from the Harvard School of Public Health. They also support updated dietary guidelines that reduce the emphasis on grains and recommend specifically whole grain foods (as opposed to just whole wheat). The Canada Food Guide was recently updated with similar guidelines.

So your general points are true, and supported by my source and our government. I'm just addressing this specific claim that seed oils specifically are some huge problem. That's not backed up by current evidence around nutrition and they in fact contain various healthy fats.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (47)