Comments on: Against Bill 112: A Theory of Relativity http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/ Taking it one page at a time... Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:29:15 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: chrishttp://www.jamaisvu.org http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-582 chrishttp://www.jamaisvu.org Wed, 24 May 2006 18:07:23 +0000 http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-582 To clarify, the emphasis in my second paragraph above was on the word <i>Malawian</i>. The big North American and European tobacco companies have set up shop all over Africa, and are probably responsible for most of Malawai's tobacco industry. But independent Malawian tobacco farmers would probably not find it cost effective to export to the USA or Europe because of heavy import duties. To clarify, the emphasis in my second paragraph above was on the word Malawian. The big North American and European tobacco companies have set up shop all over Africa, and are probably responsible for most of Malawai’s tobacco industry. But independent Malawian tobacco farmers would probably not find it cost effective to export to the USA or Europe because of heavy import duties.

]]> By: christopher hearnshttp://www.countplusplus.ca http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-581 christopher hearnshttp://www.countplusplus.ca Wed, 24 May 2006 17:34:56 +0000 http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-581 I don't buy the there are other problems in this world so let's not focus on this problem argument. Let's face it, the problem with poverty isn't the fact that we try to be healthy, the problem is that we have an economic system that only functions with ever increasing consumerism. When Canadians alone are spending twenty billion a year on Christmas and it only takes eighty billion a year more to end world hunger, well, I think I can see what's actually causing the problems. And it's not eliminating smoking. It's consumerism. If we scaled back our lifestyles, we'd have more than enough money to balance this world.<br/><br/>And no I have no idea why I'm responding to these arguments you're putting forward. I mean, no one's going to be convinced, and no one has to be, this is the direction North America is going in, and there's no turning back. So my opinion, yours, don't much matter. It's as inevitable as gay marriage. I don’t buy the there are other problems in this world so let’s not focus on this problem argument. Let’s face it, the problem with poverty isn’t the fact that we try to be healthy, the problem is that we have an economic system that only functions with ever increasing consumerism. When Canadians alone are spending twenty billion a year on Christmas and it only takes eighty billion a year more to end world hunger, well, I think I can see what’s actually causing the problems. And it’s not eliminating smoking. It’s consumerism. If we scaled back our lifestyles, we’d have more than enough money to balance this world.

And no I have no idea why I’m responding to these arguments you’re putting forward. I mean, no one’s going to be convinced, and no one has to be, this is the direction North America is going in, and there’s no turning back. So my opinion, yours, don’t much matter. It’s as inevitable as gay marriage.

]]> By: Vila H. http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-579 Vila H. Wed, 24 May 2006 14:56:38 +0000 http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-579 If you take the time to click on the links I've provided, you'll see that it quite clearly does. This doesn't negate your argument about soft paternalism; I'm just looking at a slightly bigger picture. If you take the time to click on the links I’ve provided, you’ll see that it quite clearly does. This doesn’t negate your argument about soft paternalism; I’m just looking at a slightly bigger picture.

]]> By: chrishttp://www.jamaisvu.org http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-578 chrishttp://www.jamaisvu.org Wed, 24 May 2006 14:30:58 +0000 http://thesmokingsection.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/against-bill-112-a-theory-of-relativity/#comment-578 I don't think Bill 112 has anything to do with Third World health problems or tobacco farmers. I think it has to do with the provincal government, or any government, trying to make people's choices for them. There was an article in The Economist about the phenomenon a couple of weeks ago called <a HREF="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6772346" REL="nofollow">soft paternalism</a>. <br/><br/>BTW, I find it kind of hard to believe that decline in demand for tobacco in either the North American or European trade zones is in any way affecting Malawian tobacco farmers, considering the massive import duties on tobacco in both blocs. I could be wrong though. I don’t think Bill 112 has anything to do with Third World health problems or tobacco farmers. I think it has to do with the provincal government, or any government, trying to make people’s choices for them. There was an article in The Economist about the phenomenon a couple of weeks ago called soft paternalism.

BTW, I find it kind of hard to believe that decline in demand for tobacco in either the North American or European trade zones is in any way affecting Malawian tobacco farmers, considering the massive import duties on tobacco in both blocs. I could be wrong though.

]]>