CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THESE TWO ISSUES FOR ME?

CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THESE TWO ISSUES FOR ME?

The US has just passed a law effective January 1, 2020, that forbids the sale of tobacco or marijuana or any smoking paraphernalia to anyone under the age of 21. The previous age was 18. At first glance, this change appears to be a good idea, but is it really? The dangers of smoking have been known and disseminated for decades, including warnings of possible death boldly stamped on cigarette packages. I am not against the change, I only wonder if the horse is not already out of the barn and vanished far over the hill.

Since I was a kid in another geologic era, kids have been lured to try smoking at a very early age. I recall as a ten-year-old, an old storekeeper in our little village would sell one cigarette to any kid who had two cents. I certainly don’t think that times have changed much in that regard and anyone who wants a pack of ciggies can find someone a little older to buy them one.

Raising the age to 21 will do little to prevent, especially teenagers, from getting their hands on tobacco or marijuana products whenever they want. It’s a legal change that will do little to change smoking habits; it will only make it a little more of an inconvenience to the underage buyer. What have we really achieved?

                                             ————————————————

A big attraction of the US Super Bowl is the plethora of original television commercials that are unveiled during the telecast of the big football game. Many viewers are more interested in the commercials than the competition on the field. In recent years, Canadian television viewers have been prevented from viewing the American commercials by the CRTC. Of course, we were outraged with this censorship.

Our Canadian dissatisfaction has now reached all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. They just made their ruling on the matter and lo and behold they upheld the ruling NOT to show American commercials on Canadian television during the Super Bowl again this year. I personally don’t care, as you can see them all the next day on YouTube and not have to suffer through the four hours of boring, concussion-inducing, head-banging that is called football.

What concerns me is why in the world our Supreme Court is even spending an hour dealing with this issue? I thought the Supreme Court would have far more pressing issues to concern themselves with than what kind of advertising we see on TV during one football game. Are there no serious cases of fraud, bribery, money laundering, terrorism, or SNC Lavalin stuff to deal with? I would have thought that there were more than enough issues stemming from political corruption, criminal gang activity, or indigenous protests to keep the Court busy all year long!