|
Provinces can sue tobacco companies --this should be scary to any business owner (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| swilly |
Honestly, Jayx1 you are nuts at times. I can just imagine you using your right hand to masterbate to a picture of magaret thatcher and Ronald regan having sex.
Here is something that is actually scary and that should be a big concern for all of us. That the government can now sue tabacco companies for producing products that cost society money is one thing. However, already under NAFTA companies are allowed to sue the government for current and future profits lost due to mew legislation. Here is the problem, in BC the government tried to ban an additive used in the refining process of oil as the additive was found to be causing major problems in the air quality. However, they faced a multibillion law suit from several american and canadian firms and sadly the bill was not passed. The government could not afford to ethier 1) pay for the massive lawsuit or 2) if they lose pay for future profits lost
What then happens if the government says ok we want companies to practice more sustainable harvesting of the forest? The companies can than sue the government to recoup the costs.
What if there was a deadly chemical being used in plastics and the government wanted to ban it? What then?
What is a chemical used in a production processs was making everyone sick. The government could ban it but it would have to pay the company for its lost profits.
That is what you should be worried about not this!
swilly
PS margaret thatcher is UGLY |
|
|
| newr |
| ... I'm closing up my business... cause when i work I'm a serious risk to the safety and health of others around me... |
|
|
| newr |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
I can just imagine you using your right hand to masterbate to a picture of magaret thatcher and Ronald regan having sex. |
do you imagine this often... is there something you would like to say to him... maybe some bottled up feelings |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Swilly: my fears are not unfounded.
The government is indeed ready to treat junk food the same as tobacco and has even admitted it:
This quote is very telling | quote: | Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
|
here is the full story
| quote: | The amount of junk food Canadians eat, and the pounds they pack on as a result, are personal choices the government has no right to discourage -- even if it means some lives will be shortened, a Toronto audience heard Wednesday.
"People may very well choose to trade off years of their life, or the possibility of disease or injury, in exchange for the current pleasure, excitement, or stress relief they get (from food)," said Jacob Sullum, a syndicated columnist and senior editor at Reason, a U.S.-based libertarian magazine.
'PROTECTING PEOPLE'
"It's not for the government to say that's not a legitimate trade-off to make. Canadians need to question the idea that just because something implicates health that government intervention is justified."
The same rationale that informed public health policy against smoking -- leading to higher tobacco taxes -- has set its sights on junk food, Sullum argued during a luncheon sponsored by the Montreal Economic Institute.
"You're talking about protecting people from their own decisions," Sullum said in an interview before the speech.
"What you put in your mouth and how much exercise you get, that's pretty personal. It doesn't get much more personal than that."
Faced with a so-called obesity epidemic -- 8% of children and 23% of adults were obese in 2004, according to Statistics Canada -- provincial governments are pursuing policies to separate people from their junk food.
Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
In Quebec, politicians are considering a junk food tax that would send a "healthy message" to citizens while helping fund athletic programs. British Columbia has shown interest in banning junk food vending machines from schools.
In Britain, a sweeping ban on junk food in the nation's schools-- including chocolate bars -- was announced Wednesday.
Sullum believes that while governments have every right to protect the public against health risks posed by communicable diseases and pollution, they have no authority to tell people what to eat.
"It's a question of what people want," Sullum said.
"What the anti-fat activists are saying is, people don't want what they ought to want, and therefore the government has to coercively change what they want."
But for Toronto-area dietitian Lynn Roblin, government-directed eating guidelines are key to a healthy society.
"Whatever government you're talking about, whether it's provincial or federal, they do have a role in promoting healthy lifestyles, definitely," Roblin said.
Skyrocketing health-care costs are among the possible repercussions of government inaction on healthy eating, she added.
"It would not be a responsible action for them to ignore this."
Sullum maintains that government policy aimed at restricting eating habits is not the answer.
"For some people the solution is, they prefer to be fat," he said. "That's their choice and they should be permitted to make it." |
|
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Honestly, Jayx1 you are nuts at times. I can just imagine you using your right hand to masterbate to a picture of magaret thatcher and Ronald regan having sex.
|
lmao |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| For once I totally agreed with the editorial that the Toronto Sun wrote about this issue last week...Basically the Government is raking billions in taxes from cigarette sales and NOW they want to sue the tobacco companies for MORE $$$...Well I don't agree with that even as a non smoker...The Government wants "their cake & eat it too"... that:mad: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobbyG.
For once I totally agreed with the editorial that the Toronto Sun wrote about this issue last week...Basically the Government is raking billions in taxes from cigarette sales and NOW they want to sue the tobacco companies for MORE $$$...Well I don't agree with that even as a non smoker...The Government wants "their cake & eat it too"... that:mad: |
yeah but look at all the blind faith in government demonstrated even here. This is what is allowing the government to ever increasingly encroach on the rights of the individual and the rights of free enterprise. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobbyG.
For once I totally agreed with the editorial that the Toronto Sun wrote about this issue last week...Basically the Government is raking billions in taxes from cigarette sales and NOW they want to sue the tobacco companies for MORE $$$...Well I don't agree with that even as a non smoker...The Government wants "their cake & eat it too"... that:mad: |
Exactly. I agree with this and I agree with Jay's original post.
The government is making more than enough money from tobacco taxes to pay the health care costs. This is just a cash grab. Yet another tax on our economy.
People really need to look at this with a more historical perspective. When tobacco companies went into business hundreds of years ago, they did not really know about the health risks. In the past 50 years the risks have become more apparent - what do you want from them, that they should just cease doing business because of this?
I think they've done everything in their power to warn people of the dangers of smoking - there are warnings on every pack and the companies aren't even allowed to advertise. I agree that the government should not be responsible for paying the health care costs of smokers who get lung cancer or heart disease; the smokers should be paying for it! But then that would lead us into a discussion of privatized health care, which is another "taboo" in this country...
Anyway, it's hardly relevant to the issue whether or not smoking is "necessary to live" like eating. That seems to suggest that we should be restricted from doing anything that isn't necessary to live, which is totalitarianism in its purest form.
I supported the "war" on smoking to the extent of attempting to stop smokers from doing it in public places where non-smokers would be involuntary breathing in the second-hand smoke. Unfortunately, the passing of that bylaw seems to have set a dangerous precedent whereby ANY attack on the tobacco companies is viewed as a Good Thing, regardless of how immoral or unconstitutional it is. The governments are going *way* overboard with the anti-tobacco legislation and it really needs to stop.
Personally I think we just need to do away with the whole tort law system and start over from scratch. Citizens must relearn the concept of personal responsibility, and governments DEFINITELY must relearn the concept of accountability. |
|
|
| swilly |
No response then to the current laws in NAFTA which allow MNCs to sue the government for present and future lost profits due to laws which impact bussiness. i.e banning asbestos
thought so
swilly sano
Margaret thatcher is ugly |
|
|
| swilly |
still no response to the provisions in NAFTA. I declare Swilly san the winner then!
heheheh
swilly |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
No response then to the current laws in NAFTA which allow MNCs to sue the government for present and future lost profits due to laws which impact bussiness. i.e banning asbestos |
I don't understand - what do you perceive as the problem with this? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't understand - what do you perceive as the problem with this? |
i dont either... but whatever |
|
|
|
|
