0/T question for the Canadians

Just caught part of a story on the local news. Said the Canadian government was about to ban some blends of US tobacco in cigarettes. Any one on here from Canada know much about this?

Dave

kyplowboy, as far as I know, the ban applies only to flavored tobacco. This is being done in an effort to protect kids.Yeah right.

They should ban tobacco all together

Here


This week the House voted 298 to 112 to give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco along with food and drugs. Ted Kennedy will soon introduce his version of the bill in the Senate. The White House supports the bill: "Tobacco use is a major factor driving the increasing costs of health care in the U.S.," said a statement by the Office of Management and Budget, "and accounts for over a hundred billion dollars annually in financial costs to the economy."

Which begs the question: Why regulate it at all? Why put cigarettes under the jurisdiction of the agency charged with making sure our food and drugs are safe, when cigarettes are, as we all know by now, unsafe by definition. Used as intended, they are bound to make you sick. Rather than equate them with food and drugs, if lawmakers were serious about the health costs of smoking, they would take the logical next step and just make the damn things illegal. (See pictures of vintage smoking advertisements.)

Upon launching his campaign, President external_link stopped smoking. Quite publicly. Letting the world see him chew gum and fidget with his pencils was an invaluable example. I have now practiced long enough to have seen scores of people, more than a few of whom I've loved, get miserably sick and die from tobacco use. I've pointed to the black spot on their X-ray and watched strong men and women collapse, touched the smoke-grown tumors in the operating room, the path lab, even on those poor experimental bunnies' ears and I'm convinced. You can be dubious about global warming if you want — but not about cigarettes. They absolutely do cause cancer, vascular and lung disease — the things that kill most of us. I've watched scores quit too, seen their skin get pinker, their wounds heal faster, their lungs work better. It's true: No matter when they quit they're better off for it.

Not many of us in medicine smoke cigarettes any more. Few who live in the fancy zipcodes do either. Cigarettes, to an extent, have become an indicator of lower socioeconomic status. This week public hospitals were handing out free nicotine patches as the federal cigarette tax more than doubled, to $1.01, which means that in places like New York City a pack costs more than $9, sometimes more than $10. Like the lottery, this is exactly what nnalert should hate — a tax on the poor. (Do nnalert stay silent on cigarettes because the government needs the money?) Certainly, in this economic climate, passing sin taxes is more tempting than ever. But the value of a cigarette tax depends on enough people continuing to smoke, and no matter how much revenue streams in, it pales before the estimated[b:63944d55b1][u:63944d55b1]$100 billion in health-care costs [/u:63944d55b1][/b:63944d55b1]caused annually by cigarettes.

Apart from the proven power of the tobacco lobby, perhaps lawmakers fear the unintended consequences of stronger action: The intensely addictive quality of smoking certainly means that a black market would thrive in the face of an outright ban. Homegrown tobacco wrapped in E-Z Widers would surely be passed around behind the bleachers.

While I'm not sure I agree with every moral dimension of the tax, I do know that far fewer people will die from cigarettes because of it than are dying now. Past tax hikes have showed that smoking is price sensitive: Fewer kids start smoking and more smokers quit with each increase in the cost of a pack. Government "quit lines" got record numbers of calls on April 1, the day the current tax took effect. Restaurant smoking bans have also helped; so have ad campaigns about the dangers of smoking. Finding any and every way to deter and defeat the habit — including outlawing cigarettes and levying fines (no, not jail terms) for possession — would be a huge benefit to both our physical and fiscal health.

will try to find out more but this past year the gov't has offered a buy out package to the tobacco growers & was accepted by the vast majority here in southern ontario basically bought up their quota's so they grow no more
guess we gotta get ift from somewhere now not sure where
personally I buy smokes on the reservation at a fraction of the taxed cost think they come in from the states somewhere in up-state new york
smokes in a bag here ( 200 cigs ) about $13 a carton 7-11 or variety store price about $8.50 per pack indian reserve 5 miles from here
as far as the tobacco growers i know they were getting squeezed real bad the last few years
would sell their stuff in the fall only to find out it cost them $$$$ thousands more to produce than they got no wonder they got out
bob

If they ban tobacco all together, what would they use in it's place to generate revenue?
It's ironic that our government will bad-mouth tobacco, alcohol and lotteries, but won't outlaw them because of the incredible amount of taxes that they bring in.

Never made any news here in B.C.

Do you want to see what those products do to kids? Oral cancers leave some hideous victims.
I can find you some pictures in a couple minutes if you need them.

What has happened is the US has banned all flavorings of cigarettes except for natural tobacco flavors and menthol well are neighbors i guess decided that they would take there law one step forward and ban burley tobacco which makes up the majority of tobacco grown in kentucky hence thats why its on the news here. And we all know that burley tobacco is what gives a cigarette flavor and that flue-cure is just filler. Now what this would be like for you non residents of the tobacco belt would be if the us for instance banned sweet corn from some kind of food and then canada just banned it outright now sweet corn and field corn are both corn but one happens to taste better but they're the same thing sound fair?No; This all comes down to another great example of the so called smart people who have no real world logic at all who are suppose to lead society

Yep, tobacco has been making governments rich since the 1600's. They ain't gonna do away with it.

Can't feel real sorry for anyone that grows a destructive crop. About in the same league as Afghanistan farmers and opium. But agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to ban one tobacco element that apparently adds taste, unless the goal is to render smokers dissatisfied and they subsequently quit.

Red1, I agree that a ban on cigarettes would be a good thing. But if you want to really curb medical costs, you will need to also work on the other two addictions that greatly contribute - obesity-food and alcohol.

If all three of these were removed, the health costs would spiral down like a wounded duck. Unfortunately, there is no way to effectively ban the three addictions. We are what we are.

Hey kyplowboy lets just cut out the middlenan, u bring me up a load of Copenhagen and we can talk tractors.

Wish I could remember more details but can't. It was something like this.


Around 20+ years ago some insurance company was suing tobacco company because they wanted help paying tobacco related claims because it was costing them very much. Tobacco came up with statement and figures from insurance where they said life expectancy was XX amount less for smokers. Tobacco company shower they were saving insurance co. money because their insured would die sooner and insurance wouldn't have to pay health care, that is expensive for older folks, for many years. Tobacco co. won.

Now political. Will this new health care try to do
away with tobacco and their tax $ OR just let it be so life end and associated health expense will come sooner saving that expense. I think that is what you call being between a rock and a hard place.

Interesting. US farmers who have for generations grown a legal crop are, in your opinion, in the same class as Afghanistans who grow Opium, a crop that is not legal there or anywhere, which means they are criminals.

Therefore, Afghan criminals = US farmers.

Using your logic, I guess Sugar Beet Farmers aren't much better? Or those that grow hops for beer, or those that grow grains that go into liquor? Or cattlemen that raise beef? And those that raise hogs?

You know 37% of Americans are obese, so those sugar beet farmers should be ashamed for growing that crop. Not to mention all the people with diabetes these days, drinking all that soda pop with corn syrup in it. We should just outlaw sugar and corn. And there are too many people dying from drinking alcohol. And too much beef and pork in your diet is bad for your heart.

I disagree with your assertation that growing tobacco is not something to be proud of. But you can look down your nose at those that do, and judge them as you wish. I was taught that judging others was a job for a much higher authority than you or I.

I don't grow tobacco, nor do I know anyone who does. But I'm not one to tell others what they should do, or what they should consume.

And your last sentence..."unless the goal is to render smokers dissatisfied and they subsequently quit". Who are you, or any person or government agency, to make that decision for anyone else? Your statements sound elitest and snobbish to me. Just my opinion, as yours is yours.

Who are you to tell someone else what they can or cannot consume? And where would the government derive the power to do the same? I've never read anything in the Constitution that would give them that power, have you?

Soft drinks contain too much high fructose corn syrup causing obesity and diabetes, ban it?

Grains used for alcohol cause death by motor vehicle and liver disease, ban it?

Beef and pork cause heart disease, ban them?

I was always under the impression than the Founding Fathers created a country where men had freewill, to live their lives as they choose to. I guess you don't believe in those ideals. You must believe that the Federal government has a right, (derived from where I don't know), to dictate to us what we can and cannot choose to do.

Tell me, are you pro-abortion? Do you believe a woman has a right to "privacy" and therefore can terminate her pregnancy? Yes? But I don't have the same right to privacy? Interesting. That's quite a contradiction.

Just another eltiest snob who thinks you're more enlightened than everyone else.

If its not legal anywhere then how do they get morphine.It is legal.If I get my leg ripped of I dont wanna hear "hugs are better than drugs" I want morphine.

I agree.There is way too much of this thinking that the government has authority to ban things,and snobs running around messing the country up.I think we need to ban snobs first.So no more thinking like a snob,its banned.Once you quit being a snob then maybe you can go back to school and learn about the Constitution and American History.Lots of folks in the past went overseas and even in this country and fought for it to be free.If any of them wants to smoke,drink,or raise He11 I dont have any problem with it at all and will likely join them.I like them better than people like you all snobs too,so do lots of other people.However its good to get this out in the open for a change.If you want to be a snob then you will have to fight for the right.I say we start throwing these rule making snobs out.The sooner the better.

IR makes a big federal issue out of everything.
I live in a heavy smoking state and have made several businesses ban smoking, but as far as a farmer growing a legal crop I don't have a problem. You can't ping the farmer for the end result. People die every year from peanut allergies, but the farmers not responsible.

Medical morphine is synthetic. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

Nice try though.

trucker, you really need to hit the space bar, once after commas and twice after periods. You're posts all look like one long sentence, makes them hard to read.

TK, life would be so much simpler if I could do that. Cope around here runs 3.50 for 1.2 oz. I sell it to them on the baskett for 2.20lb. Heck of a mark up some where down the line.

Dave

Before you insult me you should do some research and you will find morphine is an opioid. Some of the opium produced in Afghanistan is for the pharmacutical industry.

Steve, No need for the photos but thanks for the kind offer. What I meant was that I believe this to be political not genuine concern for kids. If I thought this was intended to protect kids I'd be for it but I'm suspicious.

Well, lets ban beer, liquor,chemicals of any kind,processed food,dirtbikes,skiing,mountain climbing,stinking smoking factories,refineries and all else that peple enjoy and that may or may not cause them harm.

I smoke tobacco,and both mine and my wife's family does.No one ever died of oral or lung cancer yet.

But, its all about money anyway.

So I have been lead to believe-----if I smoke a yankee smoke my skin will wrinkle,my teeth turn white and my palms will be pink. Humm can't be that bad as you elected a president that fills the slot.
Don from Canada

I think automobiles should be banned,... they kill more people than tobbaco every day.

Suspicion is entirely justified whenever the government says it is doing something to
"protect" the public.

Having said that, smokeless tobacco products are extremely (unjustifiably) dangerous to young people because their systems are softer and the cancers spread so fast.

Our govenment passed a buy out about 5 or so years ago. Didn't amount to a whole lot to the smaller growers like me but some folks retired. Basically what they did was throw some money at us and open it up to a free market system letting the companies control demand rather than the government control the supply.

Dave

While I certainly respect your right to have your opinion I cant follow it. Fat and red meat is destructive, just look at the cardiac and colon cancer wards, so should we ban cattle and hogs? High fructose corn syrup contributes to all kinds of things, from obesity to gout. So we should ban corn? Estrogen compounds from soy..... and so on. All are farmers producing legal crops which can at some level, in some people cause health problems. So does living, its 100 percent fatal.

Red, you ask a most excellent question, "Who are you to tell someone else what they can and cannot consume ?". I guess that means you think people should be able to use Heroine, Cocaine, Crystal Meth , Marijuana, Hashish and Ectasy, and that producing any of those is as honorable as growing tobacco ?

Very well said Hayman, I wrote several replys to the above comment and deleted all of them because I could not say it as nicely as you did.

Thank you.

Dave

Of all the addictions there are. The one you can't go cold turkey on is food!

i dont have any problem reading his posts

There are two commonly used versions of synthetic morphine. Dilaudid, an older version, and Oxycontin, made famous by Rush Limbaugh and others. There are newer, stronger analogs but they are mostly used in research.

Real morphine is still used in medical situations because it is SAFER than the fakes. Aren't you sorry you asked?

The operative word is YET!!!

Kent

yea the middleman makes all the profit.

growin tabacco doesn't sound much more profitable than milkin cows.

No he already knows all.I dont know Im only a DOCTOR! Red is probably on the hillbilly herion right now.He got it from Rush.

Least with tobacco there is still some profit. The problem we have is we are still get'n the same price for it we were 10 years ago with $.79 farm diesel, $7 orthene, $200 fert., and $5 labor.

Dave

Trying to justify tobacco is "OK" because some foods can also kill you if you eat too much, is "grasping for straws". Yea, water can kill if you drink too much, but just like food it is necessay to sustain life. It might not be too healthy, but you could survive with just eating sugar or meat and supplementing with necessary vitamins. However all the vitamins in the world aren't going to be enough with just eating or smoking tobacco. I really don't care if those currently using tobacco want to continue rolling the dice with an early death, the concern is with the upcoming generations. So smoke and chew away, just keep the smoke and spit away from me and the entire product from children. I would never grow such a foul product.