Back to Mobile View

Oh, Canada! The Great White North's economic battle against smoking

Posted 6:00PM 06/24/08 Ripoffs and Scams, healthcare, Family Money, Saving Money
0 Comments Print Text Size A A A
As I may have pointed out once or twice, I am a former smoker. As such, I would have to argue that I'm a little more sensitive to cigarettes than most. Whereas the average non-smoker merely has to deal with a little unwanted smoke, I have to deal with unwanted smoke while attempting to quell the demon inside that is telling me to steal the cigarette, suck it down, and go on a nicotine bender. In spite of this, however, I try to be a nice non-smoker. I don't fake cough, I try to avoid getting into preachy discussions about the dangers of the evil weed, and I generally do my best to live and let live. With this in mind, I can't help but feel that anti-smoking laws in Canada may have jumped the shark...

The first thing is the anti-smoking warnings. Since 2000, the Canadian government has mandated that cigarette packages must sport large warnings that take up roughly 50% of the available display space. These warnings, which have to appear in both French and English, feature highly specific information about the means by which cigarettes harm health. Best of all, they come with flashy and disturbing pictures.

Canada's latest tool in its war against nicotine delivery devices is a law requiring that stores cannot openly display cigarettes. By the end of this year, all Canadian cigarette retailers must either keep their cancer sticks in drawers or hide them behind gray wall hangings that cost approximately $1,000 US. The idea is that, if children cannot see cigarettes, then they will not be inclined to begin smoking. On the other hand, speaking as someone who started smoking in his early 20's, I'd have to say that there's a slight flaw in the plan.

Another flaw is the apparent hypocrisy of Canada's anti-smoking stance. As several retailers have noted, Canada allows alcohol and pornographic magazines to be displayed within view of children. Anti-smoking activists have countered that, unlike pornography, cigarettes kill 50% of their regular users.

Ultimately, this is a good point. After all, the primary danger of pornography is chafing, which pales beside cancer. That having been said, it seems like Canada's expensive gray shields are, effectively, a fine that is being levied against smoking retailers. Perhaps Canada should consider whether its quest for health is getting in the way of its democratic ideals.

Then again, who am I to talk? My country just taxes the damn things into oblivion!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. If he was still smoking like he did in the late 1990's, it would cost him about $25 a day.
Bruce Watson

Bruce Watson

Features Writer

 Bruce Watson is a features writer for DailyFinance, focusing on the political and cultural effects of economic events. A contributor to Military Lessons of the Persian Gulf War, A Chronology of the Cold War at Sea, the Journal of American Philosophy, A Cafe in Space, and the forthcoming Peanut Butter, Gooseberries, and Latkes!  He has also worked as a research assistant in the British House of Commons and at the United States Naval Institute.

SUBSCRIBE TO:
RSS

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum
Newswire

Compare Mortgage Rates

Mortgage Rates by Zillow
Follow Us

Headlines From DailyFinance Partners

CNN Money
CNBC
Smart Money
Consumer Reports
Huffington Post
AOL Energy
AOL Jobs
Business News Personal Finance Investing Our Partners

DailyFinance Sitemap | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks | HELP | Advertise With Us

© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved