Easy. At some point between then and now.

Again, I agree with your first point. Hence I like the LCBO model ( Government owned and run store , it also adds to the budget ).

You mentioned civil war, not sure which country you're from. Greece? Portugal? Former Yugoslavia?

Second would be to end specific tobacco blends that invite to grab a cigarette after another. I work around smokers and the more conscious ones mention there are such blends, while others satisfy after just one, whatever that may mean.

I like this second point a lot. One of the issues I have with the current government structures is that what we do is this: People -> MPs -> select Government -> select Finance Minister -> interacts with LCBO. I would be perfectly OK with people who drink to elect people to the board of LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), weed for OCS (Ontario Cannabis Store), and the equivalent one that would be for the tobacco one to get their voices heard. There should be people who represent people who don't do those things on the boards as well to represent their interests. But this second point highlights why the people who use and make the products should take a charge in creating their experience and have customers and non-customers regulate their experience.

Well the advance of manufacturing is probably a key role in reducing the price, the same as in every industry. Hence the need of punitive taxes to discourage starting and staying (as your coworker shows).

I agree, this is a cultural change. This is a Canadian forum. We are heavily influenced by the US. US and Canadian media became really anti smoking in the 90s-2000s.

I am from Ontario, Canada.

Addictive substance abuse is taught in Grade 5 ( age 10-11 ) toward the end of the year. There is a whole unit on it. At the end of the year, there is also a unit on puberty. Then we get taught them again through the teenage years in physical education classes. Mandatory phys-ed ends at Grade 9 ( age 14-15 ).

The portion of the Ontario, Canada curriculum that talks about addictive substance is found in Ontario Curriculum standard Grade 5 Standards Healthy Living section D1.2 , D2.3 , and D3.3 . Found here ( link: https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/elementary-health-and-physical-education/grades/grade-5/strands#healthy-living )

I know there are punitive taxes ( punitive to discourage people ) on tobacco products in store hence the high price tag. The reason I would still prefer to restrict it to the crown monopolies is to restrict commercial entities from profiting at all from it.

We are going the opposite way for alcohol (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-beer-wine-convenience-corner-stores-doug-ford-1.7055737 ). We already have LCBO, we have OLG, we have OCS ( though it was purposely nerfed).

Why is there a need for private entities to distribute it? The LCBO model works, why not use the same for tobacco. Does LBCO push people to black market alcohol?

Not very familiar with First Nations' jurisdiction on this. But from your comment that there are people who would still skirt the law even if it legal. Well it is their problem, and when they break the law, they should face the consequences. We do not need to make every black market activity legal. What I find reasonable is to provide a pathway for these substances to be bought with large disincentives to heavy discourage it.

What is your line between heavy discouragement and the black market? There is already a black market for pirated software and copyrighted material. Many justified and many others unjustified. The existence of a black market, in and of itself, does not justify the need to relax or remove regulation or legislation.

Oh I see. I just misread it. Thanks for clarifying it.

Isn't Stiles Ontario Provincial leader not federal? Why mix up the two?

Who represents the working poor?

Wow

Customers outside Quebec

1. English Canada needs better consumer protection laws
2. Canada needs a nationalised alternative to Visa/MasterCard like a Interac (There's debit but also add credit) or Digital Dollar

You know what? Your right, when someone's mad it is a moral issue. When your face gets shot, and you mad about it, it is not a question of fact but a moral question.

Shooting a gun is one thing, the trajectory of the bullet is another thing.

Smoking is not just you. Because of the public effects of smoking, I will be affected and I should be asked to consent. If you see my consent or lack thereof to you smoking as a moral issue than I see your non consent to your face being shot as a moral issue to be corrected.

If something being OK or not is a moral issue. If you say I'm OK with a shorter life because I want to smoke. That is a perfectly OK statement. Acknowleding tradeoffs is logical denying them is not.

Some people are OK with a shorter life so they jump off a skyscraper. They understand the cause and effect of their actions and still do the action. You should take similar wholeistic picture in your decision making.

I was being purposely absurd about shooting people in the face to prove a point.

But since you would actually play counterstrike IRL if these nanobots were invented, I'd gladly take the opposing side to your team.

When (not if) I win, I'll emphatically take over those sex parties, but leave the cigars and smoke (not really my thing).

You really think technology will make you immortal. I bet my mortal life that you didn't take a STEM degree. You really are a delusional joke.

I don't get why getting the patch and vaping should be seen as a simple neutral choice of delivery method when the delivery method is the very thing being debated?

Nobody here is against the patch to get off smoking. The article is about starting the habit. And studies about vaping is literally about the delivery method.

People who start vaping are more likely to start smoking. Before vapes, they may have gone straight to smoking? Or not done it at all? But to focus on the getting off, when there are people getting on and then going further should be seen as diversion from the topic at hand.