By arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
Thursday, July 27, 2006
although tough anti-smoking laws are already in place such as Ontario's Smoke-Free Ontario act that virtually bans smoking in all public places, that's not enough for the anti-smoking zealots whose aim goes beyond the health concerns of children and non-smokers to the prevention of people from consuming a legal product.
The National Post reported that an opinion poll that was commissioned by Health Canada shows that many Canadians are in favour of even greater controls on legal tobacco products. This is hardly surprising since concepts such as "liberty" and "freedom" are ones that are usually associated with the nation of cowboys to the south. Freedom and liberty play a poor second place to tolerance and diversity although tolerance is limited to tolerating politically correct notions of the majority of liberal-thinking Canadians.
Some new suggestions about how to put the screws to smokers go far beyond protecting people from the possible dangers from second-hand smoke. One such idea that is currently in vogue is to limit the number of stores that are allowed to sell tobacco products. To illustrate how extreme this proposal is, it has been rejected by Ontario's chief nanny, Minister of Health Promotion, Jim Watson. If Watson or anyone else in Dalton McGuinty's government is not in favour of it, it really is going way too far.
The idea of limiting stores that sell cigarettes and tobacco products is based on the theory that when it becomes more difficult to obtain cigarettes, more people will quit. There is some truth to this. after all we are a pampered lot and there are undoubtedly some Canadians who will give up their addiction to nicotine if forced to travel two blocks to buy a pack of smokes rather than the one that they do now. But there is a downside to this that the anti-smoking crowd simply couldn't care less about and that is somewhat troubling.
Limiting outlets that can legally sell cigarettes will have a disproportionate affect on the poor. Those who can afford to do so will find it easy to travel further to make their purchases and can even afford to buy cigarettes in bulk if reaching a store becomes too inconvenient. But those with not much money and no ready transportation will be adversely affected rather than just merely inconvenienced. Many will undoubtedly use their welfare money to take taxis to the store in much the same way as some do to obtain alcohol. Restricting the sale of tobacco to only certain stores will make it difficult for the elderly and this physically disabled who have some but not much mobility. Then again, the hell with them all; they shouldn't be smoking in the first place. and if the number of stores that can sell cigarettes is limited, the mind boggles as to how the decision that Joe's Convenience Store can sell cigarettes while Mary's Convenience Store can't will be made.
Limiting cigarette outlets would also have severe repercussions on many convenience store owners who earn a significant portion of their income from the sale of tobacco. Many of these owners are relatively new immigrants to Canada who put in long hours seven days a week to support themselves and their families. Oh well, they can go on welfare, who cares. It's all for the greater good you know. Then again, they can always drive taxis and do tobacco runs.
Those who argue for more restrictions on the sale of tobacco are usually the same ones who cry out the loudest on behalf of the poor, the disabled and immigrants. But when it comes to smoking, those people really don't count for much.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement