Smoker inconvenience

admin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:42:31 +0000

Everything seems to cost more as each year passes. Groceries, gas, rent, utilities, cigarettes, and liquor. None of them are getting any cheaper, and the taxes on them aren’t going down, either.

Considering a large portion of the population in Lethbridge is students, for those who smoke, raised taxes are yet another hand in their wallets.

In 2002, Alberta raised the taxes on cigarettes to discourage tobacco use, bringing the cost from of a carton from $14 to the current amount of $37, but we certainly haven’t seen a drop in customers buying tobacco when we’re in the line at our local corner store. Meanwhile, the government is raking in millions.

Higher taxes don’t discourage the purchase of a product, but it does seem to affect how much is purchased. If the government really wants to wean the public off smoking, or even drinking, banning it is a step in the right direction, but they won’t ban it completely, since it’s a huge cash cow.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, people have to decide for themselves that they want to stop doing something. Putting pressure on them with bans and taxes only goes so far, and using the hand of the law only goes so far.

In 2008, Alberta lawmakers made it illegal to smoke inside a public building or within five metres of one. This includes colleges and universities. The trouble with that law, or any other, is that it doesn’t do any good unless it’s enforced.

It has been proven in Alaska and Finland that raised taxes on alcohol does decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road. One study found 23 fewer deaths per year after a 1983 tax hike and 21 fewer deaths per year after a 2002 tax increase. One has to wonder if the taxes are simply for government coffers or to encourage personal responsibility.

Case in point: When Finland lowered the taxes on booze in 2004 to help encourage local sales after officials warned that patrons would simply go to neighbouring nations for cheaper liquor, consumption went up nearly 50 per cent. People obviously hadn’t learned personal responsibility from the higher taxes.

On July 1st, Alberta banned the retail displays of cigarettes, which includes the colourful posters and behind-the-counter displays. The next stage comes into effect on January 1st of 2009, at which time, the sale of tobacco in health facilities, college and university campuses, and pharmacies will be banned.

Banning the posters and counter displays only makes shake our heads in disbelief, though restricting sales in certain places may be enough of an inconvenience to get some people to quit, it won’t stop people from satisfying their habit elsewhere if they choose to.

To reiterate, people have to want to quit or decrease how much they smoke or drink, and though these laws put pressure on them to do so, it really comes down to personal choice, just as it always has.

Originally posted 2008-11-27 14:19:08. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

User protest forces Facebook to rethink how they treat member content

admin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:42:30 +0000

In the past couple of weeks, Facebook released their new Terms of Service, which many users and websites protested, because of the way it reads. It appeared to say anything you post to Facebook becomes their property, forever. Within days, Facebook reverted to its old terms, instead opting to invite users to have a say in a revised Terms of Service.

Facebook is one of the most popular websites in the world, with more than 150 million active users. The site quickly introduced a new “Bill of Rights”, and is allowing the site’s users to comment and vote on the new wording of the Terms of Service.

As CNN noted, Facebook, and we quote, “granted itself permanent rights to users’ photos, wall posts and other information, even after a user closed an account.”

Thousands of angry users either cancelled their accounts in protest.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was quick to point out that users reminded the company that they feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, and just the information that they share over the site.

Facebook was quick to clarify their position, which eased a lot of minds. Here is an excerpt from that statement:

“We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc…), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).

The note goes on to say that any limitations that a user puts on display of the uploaded content are respected by Facebook.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has also posted a more philosophical response on the Facebook blog saying that while the new Terms of Service were “overly formal”, and that the company is encouraging user input for a new Terms of Service. In essence, they admit as new features are introduced, mistakes will be made, because companies like Facebook are new.

“Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we’re announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future,” said Zuckerberg, referring to how the company is now accepting input into a new Terms of Use.

In 2006, Facebook launched the News Feed, which is a key part of the Facebook site now, but it caused a great deal of uproar when it was introduced, since users can see what a friend’s friends are up to. Users came to accept the feature, though.

Many websites use user information for marketing purposes, including Facebook. For example, if you make it known to the site that you’re single, you will see a lot of singles ads. Websites across the internet use such methods.

A golden rule of thumb seems to be that people shouldn’t post anything to the internet that they want kept private or that could embarrass them, including pictures, video, and personal information. Sites like Facebook make it a lot harder for just anybody to find your information, but for sites like MySpace, YouTube, and Twitter, anyone can access it.

It’s important for users of sites and companies like Facebook to continue to make it known what they feel is acceptable for a Terms of Service. This will remind companies not to get power hungry, and that, overall, the success of such sites solely depends on how they treat their users and customers, and their content.

Originally posted 2009-03-02 01:33:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Kevin's Portfolio » editorials

Smoker inconvenience

User protest forces Facebook to rethink how they treat member content