Don't you live in a province were organized crime controls construction, cigarettes ..... government not doing a good job there

it's a moral failing if you know it's bad logic and you use it anyway, so as I sad, either really evil, or incredibly bad at logic, in both cases people who should never have a say about anything in society

2-3 packs a day, jfc

i was at my peak 1.5

had tapered down to .5 and then just quit cold turkey

do not miss them in the slightest - occasionally i'll bum one for the lols and it always taste disgusting now and i hate it

Before the government intervention , loteries, alcohol etc were far far more problematic .
Now it’s minimal .
What can I tell you , 0% risk do not exist shrug .
If people want to to do bad thing they will .
But if people had the choice many won’t do criminal actions if a decent alternative exist .

Ps: I have no idea why construction is referred to in your post .
Working in construction isn’t a vice …

Regulation on goods through taxes and fees is extremely effective and very simple compared to other approaches to steer public behavior, so it gets used a lot. It's often controversial, so most people can find examples they agree with and examples they disagree with.

The main disadvantage I see is that it often hits low income earners harder, especially when it is for fixed amounts. So for example if you use such an approach to limit gasoline / diesel usage, wealthy people will be free to pollute as much as they want, while low income earners are the ones that have to shoulder the burden for society's mistakes.

everything that is about what you think you can tell others can do is literally about morality.

if by being bad at math you favor state violence to achieve anything that's about morality yes.

Cool. Tell me more, I love chatting with ex smokers about smoking. After chatting to AA members about drinking, it's my favourite thing to do.

because I disagree with how they spend the money and I think the deficit should be fixed by decreasing that rather than by increasing taxation.

but anyway, neither is politically feasible as explained, and it has nothing to do with Harris proposal of price control

Fwiw I work in a highly populated environment , it seem it’s always the poorer individual that smoke
I do a very decent living and even I think I couldn’t possibly afford to smoke 1 pack a day at 20$ a pack !

that's an accise which is another thing though (a terrible one, especially when predicated on actual lies like tobacco ones) than price control

That’s fine !
Me I agree the way my government spend seeing how much lower education and healthcare for daniel is cheaper .

So who’s right ?
No one but u keep inferring evil propaganda because that what your value and desires tell u too , doesn’t make evil for all ….
Taking care of your neighbor and his kids isn’t evil in my book .


Ps: find me an example where decreasing taxes help reduced deficit and I will look into it !

There's already a great deal of government involvement in the free market; I don't think it would be ridiculous for a carrot and stick approach to ensure pricing is fair on essential items IF they found there truly was price gouging.

But that "if" is quite important, and far from a foregone conclusion. I believe a lot of this talk about price gouging is performative, and I might even agree with whomever mentioned populist. People organized a boycott up here of one particular supermarket empire after record profits, which actually worked out to be just a few percent of their sales. That chain wasn't necessarily any worse than others, but that didn't matter to the organizers. Trudeau of course jumped on the bandwagon, and while I don't agree with Lozen that it was completely useless, it also was far more show than substance, which JT excels at.

Could there be some price gouging? Of course. But if you think there is, then find the evidence of that and come up with a productive way to deal with it rather than using it as a populist election platform plank. But while you're at it, how about looking at the bigger issues of food production, wasted food, making sure everyone has enough food, and unfair subsidies and trade practices.

well you want to take my stuff to do what you like, I just want you to leave me alone, and I can sign whatever to lose the right to ever take your stuff to do what I want if you all do the same, who is right? it is not symmetrical.

for me it shouldn't even be legal for anyone to take other people stuff to do what they want, even if many people agree with it, other than what is absolutely indispensable for society survival. literally though, if there is any example of a society that worked without x done by the state, it should illegal to do x.

define fair price and price gouging, in competition, go.

trying to have the best margins you can every time is gouging?

while we are at it, how about looking at the bigger issues of food production costs, which depend on insane environmental regulation and trade tariffs? just drop all tariffs on everything worldwide to begin with, and allow any procedure that was legal in 1880

I think I agree with you, but you're saying two things.

You are right that taxes isn't the problem, it's the politicians managing it.
They are absolutely horrendous at managing money.

Which means you can either increase taxes, or decrease spending. I'm in favor of the latter.

Sadly for political and vote getting reasons, neither party is particularly good at that. But I think one is better than the other.

Those cigarettes must be tasty.

in the army i chewed endlessly.
we ran out of chew and couldn't get supply for a couple months.
took up smoking. a carton from the locals was $5

haven't done either with any regularity in a decade. even a smoke now while drinking makes me feel poisoned the next day. it's probably been 2-3 years since i had either.

I smoked 3 packs a day (davydoff) until Jan 7 2015. I was walking around in the deep cold and had to remove gloves to light up swearing profusely while doing that when I walked by an e cig store.

a friend already mentioned that option to me previously.

I entered bought 2 and liquids (for me and wife, she smoked a pack a day as well), never smoked normal cigs again.

had huge problems adjusting at the beginning gaining like 7-8 kilos in 3 weeks and only taking a dump once per week then realized I just needed a lot more of nicotine in the liquid and was fine ever since.

I now vape like 100ml/week at 12 nicotine

swapping to vape was easier for me perhaps because I was never addicted to smoking itself (gestures, taste) rather specifically to nicotine, which is why I don't vape tobacco flavours

Sarcasm's really not your thing, huh, bro?

Anyway, I find vaping just means I vape and smoke rather than being a replacement. Won't continue the derail beyond saying that.

my friends who swapped to nicotine vaping just seem to vape way more than they ever smoked

@Luciom - Davidoff's actually my favourite brand but they don't sell them in the UK (maybe in specialty smoke shops, but not in general retailers anyway) so I only get to smoke them when I travel.

That's been the exact opposite of my experience with people who vape in the US

In Italy approx 20% of tabaccherie (the only places that can sell tobacco here) had them, and none put them in automatic machines

Obviously because if you want the same nicotine intake it takes an order of magnitude more time with vaping, unless you use those insane chimneys which are very uncomfortable to use unless you basically are at home.

smoking is for pathetic weak-willed addicts


why is this supposedly an election issue?