Let's Get This Occupation Started

Let’s Get This Occupation Started

I hope this “Occupy” movement spreads and I hope people stick with it. We tend to feel things about issues like a crackhead flippin' channels while he's bored.

Channel Surfing

Remember the Chilean miners? That was HUGE! But no nobody cares anymore. Nobody asks what the conditions were like at that mine, whether more could have been done, how many previous mining accidents occurred where the miners didn't survive. In fact, there have been 34 deaths per year since 2000 in Chile's copper mines (1). There's a rich history of labour abuse and struggle we know little about. Dickens wrote about it in his novels, Howard Zinn documents it in his writings (2). Labour abuse has been a reality in every land and every era, but we don't care about that. The Chilean thing was a good story, we swallowed it whole, and then emotionally moved on.
BP Oil spill? Fukushima nuclear disaster? Wikileaks? Are these things even still going on? We totally forgot about them! (For the record, they ARE still going on and are still urgent concerns).
Remember the 2008 "Great Recession"? Do you even know anything about it? It has had far more devastating effects than 9/11, OJ Simpson, or the conclusion of Lost. But nobody in politics used it as their 24/7 talking point like they did with 9/11. In fact, no one really talks about it at all. And heaven help us if anyone tries to learn about it or do something about it. We're all in debt. That statement is almost literally true for every person in the industrialized world and every country. The average Canadian consumer debt is over $25,000 per person, not including the national debt and the inflation our children will have to bail our countries out of (3).
Who cares about Greece defaulting and going into chaos? I mean, it's a good story, but who cares about actually asking questions? Who cares why it happened to them or to Iceland? And the London Riots? Who cares that, since 1998, police have killed 333 citizens, yet not one officer was ever punished or charged. Who cares that this riot happened because after an officer fatally shot Mark Duggan -- in gun-controlled England -- police-officers physically harassed a 16 year old girl who was only protesting peacefully. Who cares if the people who live there say that’s what happened (4)? Let's just think of them as young, highly ethnic, hooligans who are being raging, ignorant, anarchists.    

Who Scarifices for Security in this Post 9/11 World?

A Breast Cancer survivor just got humiliated at an American airport when a standard pat-down included a public pat-down of her synthetic breasts (which replaced the ones she had to amputate). For the record, she was not a terrorist or drug-smuggler (5). Who cares? I didn’t even read the whole story, just the headline. It’s just so funny how, after 9/11, Western society swallowed the lesson that we have to give up many of our civil liberties in order to make everything safer in this now dangerous world.
What’s funnier is how the 1% don’t seem to think that they need to sacrifice with the rest of us. Environmental movements are still fiercely resisted (just ask Harper about regulating big business for the benefit of the environment). Does anyone care whether, after the BP Spill, our oil industry is doing things any safer or more responsibly? The Earth? Global Climate Change? Who cares?
Or how about economic safety? Watch Inside Job, Meltdown, Maxed Out, or read a book. Fractional-reserve banking is doomed to bankrupt us all for the benefit of the top 1%. Regulators are bought and paid for. The system creates way too many unnecessary risks for the benefit of the few and the risk of the many. That’s the story of the 2008 Global Recession. Things are the same now, many of the same people are still in charge, and many of those to blame have made MORE money. Remember AIG executives’ sweet getaway right after the bailout money had cleared (6)?
Or how about regular ol’ military safety. The US and its allies continue to make war around the globe for nothing more than strategic advantage and awarding of fat military-industrial contracts. It has little to do with making us safer or benefitting anyone else. If that were the case, we’d fight HIV in Africa and intervene in their bloody civil wars. Or maybe we’d campaign for global peace. The CIA already knows that when Western Powers topple foreign governments for their own selfish reasons, they create “blowback”. Basically, we create terrorists because we give them all the reasons they’ll ever need for hating us. Is it right? No. Is it the reality we face? Yes.
But why would the 1% make any sacrifices for our security? We need to make those sacrifices, not them. Just because they have all the money and make all the decisions doesn’t mean that the 1% can make any difference; it’s us who have to change our behavior.

A Problem of Trust

Well, we do have to change our behaviour. We need to care more about how things are run at every level. We need to be better informed and more demanding of our leadership. We need to strive to live in a world that we can be proud of, that we feel is really being the best it can be. But I think I get why people don’t care. Why people tune out. It’s because, no matter what, life goes on. We are all busy and we are all entitled to relax when we’re not busy. We elect people to take care of this stuff for us. The economy, the environment -- our role is supposed to be small. Don’t liter, find a job, pay our bills, walk a little more. Our lives are complex and demanding enough without worrying about the big stuff.
But, unfortunately, we can’t trust the 1% to take care of the public good -- our good. Hell, we probably can’t trust those who insulate them or those who would replace them. We just can’t trust anyone who controls so much in each of our individual lives. We can’t simply put our faith in anyone who, from afar, directs the affairs of our civilizations and our planet. These people are supposed to be leaders: the most talented and most responsible our society has to offer. They need to start living up to their job descriptions, no matter who they are, because they have the most responsibility on their hands. We need them to be their best. But we can’t trust them. Not our political leaders or our business leaders, at the very least. If we could trust them, if they took their responsibilities seriously, things would be better.

Jesus is Spinning in His Grave!

We potentially have the technology, labour, and moral wisdom to make this world a far better place. Our political discussions should be about how to take care of everyone and how to make ourselves as happy and fulfilled as possible. I mean, we’ve had these moral philosophies around for over 3000 years, and from every different kind of culture. Every religion teaches peace, compassion, unity, empathy. There’s no good reason why we still put up with far less from our leadership, and from ourselves.
We have the means to grow far more than enough food, build far more than enough material things, construct far better infrastructure, produce enough energy, and provide enough services and assistance for everyone. Our governments and voters should be arguing over how to best balance a surplus of resources between everyone. We all have different ideas about how much inequality should exist: how much is necessary and when the gap between rich and poor becomes unacceptable. We all have different ideas on what the details might be like: the mechanisms, rules, and principles. We have the power to force the 1% into these discussions.
Let’s remember, the 1% stand on a huge pyramid. They live in a dream realm that extends far up into the heights. Their wealth and power is just amazing. Yet, they only achieve those heights because of us. Almost 7 billion people laboring, consuming, buying, voting, obeying, serving. No matter how powerful or capable you are in respect to your society, it’s the people who make you. If you’re the king on an island of 11 people, you’re not much. If you are in the 1% who cuts off a huge slice of 7 billion people? Now that’s something. But make no mistake, the 99% hold the real power in our pockets. We are the king-makers. We just forget.
For example, Wal-Mart is huge. We’ve helped make it a king by spending so much of our money there. But if we decided not to buy anything from Wal-Mart ever again, it would shrivel up and die almost immediately. If we decided to say “suck it” to Harper (or Obama) and decide to elect Pete from down the street instead (because, even though he’s stupid, maybe he’d at least be honest with us), than Pete would be the political leader of the free world and Obama (or whoever else) would be a funny but odd footnote in political history (the first president in history to lose to a World of Warcraft addict).
Occupy!
Right now, we need to realize that we hold this system up. Right now, we need to remember that we supply all the power society runs on. Right now, we need to decide that whatever is going on in politics and the economy has to change. We need to take an interest in learning more or, at the very least, demand that our leaders are honest and responsible. We need to make sure that our leaders are -- above all else -- serving the 100% instead of the 1%.    

Links

1) Wikipedia. 2010 Copiapó mining accident. . 

2) Youtube. Howard Zinn on the Ludlow Massacre. . firstrunfeaturesnyc.

3) The Globe and Mail. Average debt for Canadians: $25,597. . June 1st 2011. 

Wikipedia. List of countries by external debt. .

Wikipedia.  List of sovereign states by current account balance. .

The Economist. World Debt Comparison:The Global Debt Clock.

4) Al Jazeera. Nothing 'mindless' about rioters. . Opinion. 09 Aug 2011.

Al Jazeera. Rioting for 'justice' in London. . 09 Aug 2011. 

The Guardian. Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none. . 3 Dec 2010.

5) The Globe and Mail. Breast cancer survivor slams ‘humiliating’ patdown at U.S. airport. . 04 Oct 2011.

6) Wikipedia. AIG bonus payments controversy. . 

We Are All Morons: Over 50% Think Tim Horton's Tastes the Best

In recent poll of reader’s in The Globe and Mail Financial Report, over 50% of respondents said they thought Tim Horton’s had the best tasting coffee. 

Though I work at Starbucks, I’m far from a coffee expert. However, the idea that Canadian’s think Tim Horton’s has the best tasting coffee makes me want to throw up all over myself.

It’s the same reaction I have to anyone who thinks that Molson Canadian or Coors Light is the best tasting beer. Disgusting. It’s like when I here someone at a party say “Man, I love drinking beer!”

So I ask, “What’s your favorite beer?”

They inevitably reply, with a look of moronic indignation, “I don’t drink anything but Coors Light!”

What an idiot! Anyone who thinks a crisp, easy-drinking beer tastes the best is an idiot and they don’t like the taste of beer. Those terms, “crisp”, “light”, and “drinkability” are made to describe a tasteless beer.

Unfortunately, as with coffee, most people dislike the real taste. What these morons really like is the drug, whether it’s caffeine or alcohol. Do you ever see these idiots sip a straight whiskey or double espresso? No. They need the taste of their drugs buried in bland, watered down, easy-drinking forms.

The whole association with “ice cold” demonstrates how these corporate American-style lagers are for people who don’t like a real beer taste. The colder something is, the harder it is to taste it. That’s just how our taste buds work. The complexities of the taste are lost. It’s like plugging your nose while tasting.

Some beer – the tastier ones -- are meant to be consumed at “cellar” temperature, which is just below room temp. Once, when a bartender poured my Rickard’s Red into a Coors Light frosted mug, thinking I was an idiotic tool like most of my peers, I almost punched him in the face. Instead, I told him that I liked to taste my beer and he poured it in a normal fucking glass.

But not even wussy American-style lagers are supposed to be drank at “sub-zero” temperatures. Coors Light have bottle labels that change color to alert you that your beer isn’t ice cold anymore. They also have “sub-zero” taps at bars which are encased in ice, and serve their beer in frosted mugs. Just in case you could taste a little bit of real beer in your pussy American lager, they had to freeze the shit and numb your face in order for you to drink it. Yum, doesn’t Coors Light just taste the best!? It’s like drinking the fucking ghost of a beer.

These major breweries take a real product, beer, and dilute it for the masses -- not unlike record companies who manufacture crossover pop hits that dilutes real music. Basically, Coors Light, Molson Canadian, and Miller Light are the Taylor Swift, A Simple Plan, and Vanilla Ice of beer.

Likewise, Tim Horton’s the Coors Light of coffee. And McDonald’s is the Molson. They are mass-produced, watered-down, cheap coffees that appeal to people who would never drink espresso, who mask the taste of their coffee in sugar and cream, and who only drink coffee for its caffeine. They are the Kenny G and Nickelback of coffee.

Now I’m not a snob. As it is, I can easily drink Coors or Tim’s. I’m just disgusted at those who think those drinks taste the best, when they aren’t real beer or coffee drinkers. Real drinkers try lots of different kinds, like a wide variety of tastes, and preferably know something about what they are drinking. They don’t measure what is the best based on the fact that it’s the only shit they can stomach down.

Tim Horton’s is popular because its liquid sugar is good, because it’s weak-tasting, and because most people can’t handle the taste of real coffee. 

Unfortunately, ignorant, weak-stomached people make up over 50% of the coffee consuming public. And they vote for Tim Horton’s – the Steven Harper of coffee

Cigarettes are Amazingly Non-Toxic!

What I don't get about secondhand smoke is how toxic non-smokers seem to think it is. They act like it's mustard gas. Holding their breath as they walk past a smoker. Faking a cough around a smoker.

Sure, cigarette smoke looks something like the exhaust from a tailpipe or an industrial smoke-stack. But it also looks like the smoke from a scented candle or incense. And if you ask a non-smoker whether they'd rather breath in a room with a lit candle or a lit cigarette, they'd scoff at you for being ridiculous. In fact, the comparison is ridiculous.

Let's look at it this way, millions of people smoke 20-60 cigarettes a day. Some of them die because of it, but most of them live: 40, 60, 80 years after they start.

How many years do you think you'd last if you stuck your face over 20-60 lit candles a day and inhaled all its smoke? Now what do you think is really toxic? And you're still going to light a candle everyday and leave it, burning, smoking, gathering, while your guests and your children all sit for hours in that room?

And you still can't suffer passing a smoker, for a second, outside, where the smoke dissipates into the air, without holding your breath and making a big deal about it?

Or what about people who live in a city that's smoggy? Compare smoking a cigarette to putting your face over the exhaust vent of an oil refinery that's pumping out smokestacks 24 hours a day, and tell me how toxic you think cigarette smoke is.

The fact that someone can smoke a million cigarettes in their lifetime, and have odds of surviving heavily in their favour, is astounding! (2 packs of 25 per day for 60 years equals 1 095 000 cigarettes)

Tell me the survival rates of someone who inhales pure smoke from a million candles or sticks of incense, and then we can really start comparing toxicity.

Smoke looks like car exhaust, but is less toxic. Smoke looks like candle smoke, but is less toxic. Smoke also looks like someone exhaling on a cold winter's day. What about that?

Well, our breath is high in CO2, which is one of the toxic compounds found in cigarette smoke. Now let's compare chain-smoking for 60 years to breathing in a paper bag. Wow. Looks like your own breath would kill you after a couple of minutes, while I'm just lighting my second cigarette.  

Against Supply-Side Economics (And the Rape of the Public Good)

In today’s world, the tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes. This has been done in the name of supply-side economics or trickle-down economics.

According to John Ralston Saul’s The Collapse of Globalism, in order to compensate for the loss of so much corporate and upper-class tax revenues, many governments are now relying more heavily upon stealth taxes. Stealth tax draws revenue from the middle to lower class in ways which aren’t as obvious to the public. One popular form is the taxation and encouragement of gambling. During the globalization period, gambling revenues in most developed countries has risen 10-15% a year. Revenues in New Zealand equal $12 billion a year, Britain is at $25 billion a year. India only spends $7 billion a year in gambling, which is still 2% of its GDP. Worldwide, $900 billion of citizen money is gambled and taxed.

Countries support this trend. The tax revenue that is created by this $900 billion industry is now essential for many countries who have given up their lucrative upper-class and corporate tax base. In Britain, 9.7 billion British Pounds from gambling tax revenue was spent on public services. That is a huge chunk of public money – more than half of what was contributed to the public good through corporate tax.  In oil-rich Alberta, the provincial government sometimes makes more revenue from gambling than from oil-and-gas.

Supply-side theory’s main incentive to reduce upper-class and corporate taxes is the threat that the rich will simply pull their money out if they have to pay high taxes. In the Globalist era (1970’s to present), many multinationals simply set up their headquarters and bank accounts in countries with low or no taxes. For example, the infamous Halliburton, who has made so much money off of Chaney and Bush’s government reconstruction contracts in Iraq and New Orleans – money from the public coffers – have moved their headquarters to Dubai in order to dodge paying higher taxes to the American public.

It seems inevitable that the global community will soon have to remedy the fact that companies can make so much money from a nation’s resources, consumers, and public funds and yet try to avoid having to give any of that money back. One common sense approach could be the creation of international tax laws that force these multinationals to pay a fair amount of tax to the nation(s) from which they generate so much profit and resource.

Another solution can involve fighting the supply-side economic structure. The idea, that giving tax breaks, interest-relief, and bailouts to the wealthy section of the economy is actually healthy for the whole state, has been proven false. There is an almost universal consensus that the gap between the rich and poor is widening, that the middle class is eroding, and that the median Western family is surviving on a tighter budget than in the 1970’s. This fact is plain to see: the average 1970’s family lived off of a single income (usually the man’s), while now households with fewer children require both parents to work in order to maintain a similar lifestyle.   

The supply-side theory has always, hypothetically, held some water. As pure theory, it makes some intuitive sense that if the companies and investors have more money and less expenses, they will then use that money to hire more people, invest in more infrastructure, pay higher wages, provide more benefits, and so forth. Metaphorically, it’s the image of a tree. The wider and higher its branches stretch out, the more sunlight the leaves can soak in, and then the more energy the tree can share through its whole body – branches, truck, and roots.

But the actual practice of this theory has shown us that these benefits do not reach the trunk and roots of the greater public. Instead, we find more of a closed loop of money. This is illustrated through the widening gap between rich and poor. Also, the gap is seen in comparing average executive-to-worker wage ratios. In the 1970’s, in America, the average executive made 30x the salary of his average worker. Today, the average executive makes 300-500x the salary of the average worker. It seems as if supply-side economics has actually pooled at the top as opposed to tickling down. 

Another compelling example against supply-side economics comes out of the American bailout. The American government (as with many other governments) choose to borrow huge sums of money to bailout the large financial institutions instead of the general public ,who were also swimming in debt. The theory was, again, supply-side. IF we keep these institutions alive, more money will be circulated, and thus more jobs and economic growth. Well what did those companies do with their bailout money?

Companies like AIG, an embodiment of the unregulated and greedy actions that directly caused the financial crisis, took the taxpayers bailout and immediately spent it on… bonuses and luxurious retreats for their executives. How is that supposed to help the public good?

Yet still, even after the bailouts and its failure, the public does little to contest supply-side economics in action. The rich still get all the tax breaks and public financing. Politicians, economists, and news pundits still argue that this is the best policy for aiding the public, but the public still gets poorer and poorer while the national debt keeps rising and rising. Rising national debt is another of the stealth taxes. The higher the national debt, the higher the interest payments. And those interest payments, along with the debt itself, is paid through taxpayer money. The corporations get taxpayer bailout money and the corporate taxes stay low, so the public is left paying the interest on these loans as well.

In opposition to the supply-side, trickle-down, theory, I’d like to suggest a Keysonian approach. You know, the type of economics that helped building the West into a financial giant after WWII with the introduction of the Welfare State, universal health care, Social Security, infrastructure projects, and the like. The type of economics like the New Deal, or the Marshall Plan, which donated money to Europe and Japan to help them rebuild, which they did in incredible fashion.

My metaphor is one of watering a tree. When you water the ground below the tree, the roots soak up the water and push it all the way through the tree so that every single cell gets some of that water. If money and wealth are invested into the lower and middle classes, that money does get shared with the upper classes in the form of spending. The more money people have, the more they consume. Especially in our current culture. If the rich get the money, there’s no reason why they have to share it with the public. They might create more jobs, or they might just spend it on themselves. If the public gets the money, then whatever they spend it on creates tax revenue and goes to companies who provide services and products. The money gets soaked up through the roots and goes through the entire tree. In this way, it’s an open loop that truly circulates the wealth.

If the bailout had injected the money into the public, perhaps that money would have more evenly circulated throughout the system. The public is still one of a consumer culture. If the public had the funds to pay off their mortgages and credit cards bills, then many of the financial institutions would have had a resurrected stream of money coming in. As well, the public would have kept up higher levels of consumer spreading, which again stimulates corporations. Instead, the money went directly to the corporations first, leaving them with the option to share with the public or no. In the end, they haven’t. Job growth remains abysmal. Homes are still being foreclosed on at an alarming rate in the US. Instead of the public getting money which they would, in turn, spend on the corporations, the public got shafted. No jobs. A rising national debt. And major financial institutions given life by taxpayer money, not to help the public, but so they can continue to call in the public’s debt through mortgages, foreclosure, and credit card bills.

All while the public gets sued for downloading mp3s because it’s called “theft”.

Sources:

John Ralston Saul’s book The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World.   (2005)

The documentary Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders (2006) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxed_Out

CBC’s Meltdown mini-series. http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/meltdown/about.html

New Law, Outrage, Against Prime Time Cigarillos Justified?

This summer, cigarillos were briefly pulled off store shelves in Canada. This ban was politically motivated, as the anti-smoking lobby feel that flavored cigarillos are marketed directly at minors.

As a way to target cigarillos, the law banned filtered tobacco products weighing less than 1.4 grams. The popular cigarillo brand Prime Time quickly responded by repackaging their product in units heavier than 1.4 grams, replacing the filter with compressed tobacco, and changing the label from “cigarillo” to “cigar”. Needless to say, the anti-tobacco lobby, who thought they scored a big win against smoking, felt burned and are pushing for a new ban that is free of such “loopholes”.


But what sense is there in targeting cigarillos? The lobby thinks that the novelty will attract more new smokers, especially minors. I don't think the lobby understands why young people smoke in the first place. For an interesting discussion on why the young smoke, read Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" where he argues that the types of kids who are cool are "innovator" types that start trends in any demographic. And these innovators are drawn to cigarettes as a symbol of rebellion and a symbol of becoming an adult. Other kids see the cool kids smoking, and it starts catching on. 


In fighting to ban cigarillos, I personally think the anti-smoking lobby are missing out on a great compromise. Cigarillos support casual smoking, which could help thousands of smokers reduce the amount they smoke. 


I have thus laid out an argument against the idea that cigarillos are encouraging children to smoke more, that cigarillos could help children and adults reduce there smoking to a "casual" level that is much harder to achieve when buying cigarettes, and then I will share my experience as a "casual" smoker who saw his own smoking habits get out of control and then choose to quit, while also refusing to become one of those obnoxious non-smokers who seem omnipresent these days. 

Are cigarillos bad for children?

            As far as public heath goes, having less people smoking is a very good thing. And from a health and legal standpoint, having less children smoking is even better. So it goes without saying that encouraging less children to smoke, and inhibiting their access to tobacco, is a very good thing.

            However, children do smoke. Now some of them are smoking cigarillos, and at a greater ratio than adults. But what does that mean? Does it mean that cigarillos can entice more minors into smoking? Or does the popularity of cigarillos with minors mean that minors smoke more casually than their two-pack a day adult counterparts? We need studies to help decide whether more children are smoking because of the enticement of flavored, attractive, cheaper cigarillos or whether children who would be smoking cigarettes are now smoking fewer cigarettes in favor of cigarillos.

            The argument is made that impressionable minors smoke cigarillos because the packaging has less heath warnings, looks cool, and the availability of flavors give the product a “try-me” quality. These arguments have a certain merit. Personally, the packaging and flavoring of Prime Time cigarillos helped enticed me to try them as an adult.

            However, I am weary of blindly considering children as ignorant sheep who will try anything in a cool package, especially when the “children” in these surveys are aged 15-19. Minors deserve a little more credit than they sometimes receive. As George Carlin puts it, in his comedy routine, “children don’t smoke because a camel in sunglasses tells them to [in reference to Camel cigarettes]; children smoke for the same reasons adults do: it relieves anxiety and stress”. The point being, smoking tobacco has always had an attractiveness beyond cute marketing ideas. Unless one is willing to recognize those deeper, more universal features of cigarette smoking, they will never understand what entices people to try tobacco for the first time.

Why smoke cigarillos?

             

            I like cigarillos because I like to think that there is such a thing as casual smoking. People who smoke cigarettes tend to smoke a lot of cigarettes. This is less true for cigarillo smoking. If used smartly, cigarillo smoking can help a smoker limit the amount they smoke and truly keep it at a more casual level, whether that is a few per day, per week, per month, or per year. For me, it’s a few per month on average, though I skip most months.

            As a person who was, for about 18 months, an admitted smoker, I have a few insights as I was first an avid non-smoker, then a smoker, and now a non-smoker. First of all, my friends and I liked to joke that a person never becomes a smoker simply by trying a cigarette or “bumming draws” off other people (in other words, finishing other people’s cigarettes). We’d say that someone officially became a smoker when they bought their first pack.

Likewise, most of my friends have tried smoking casually.Some of those friends are now non-smokers, some are smokers. But all of them had intended only on smoking casually.Most of those friends, and myself included, have stories about when they’ve been drinking and have wanted to have a casual smoke. 
Many people find tobacco and alcohol use go very well together, and many people try to limit themselves to smoking only when they’re drinking. Yet cigarettes only come in packs of 20 or 25, and most people can not and do not want to smoke that many cigarettes in a night. So they find themselves then stuck with a half-pack of smokes the next day. Soon enough, boredom or stress creeps in and that person remembers that they still have cigarettes that are just going to waste. Most often, those leftover cigarettes get smoked and that helps push casual smokers into being full-time smokers.

Thus, for the casual smoker, being able to buy a “kiddie” pack of cigarillos is actually a very responsible and reasonable thing to do. It is unreasonable for any casual smoker to be forced to buy 20+ cigarettes or a huge cigar that the majority of the smoking population simply can not handle.

I understand if non-smokers disagree with the “causal smoking” distinction. As an addictive substance, tobacco use encourages people to sometimes fool themselves. A person who considers themselves “quit” can fool themselves into thinking a puff every now and again isn’t cheating. A person who only buys a pack every so often can pretend that they aren’t addicted. But then again, who is to say what distinguishes someone liking something and someone being addicted? It is a blurry line, and there are certainly smokers on both sides of it. There are official smokers who think they’re casual, but there are definitely casual smokers who non-smokers see as addicted zombies.


My Experience in quitting cigarettes and becoming a casual smoker

I myself quit smoking over 4 years ago. Yet I consider myself a casual smoker. Some people would say then I haven’t quit at all. So what do I mean by “quit” and “casual smoker” when it concerns my own personal experience?

Well, first of all, my number one condition of quitting was that I would never have another puff of a cigarette again. Not being from a culture that smokes many cigars, I equate cigarette smoking with being an addicted, official smoker. Some people smoke cigarettes sometimes and claim to be a casual smoker. That’s fine. I buy that argument sometimes, but not often. For me, smoking a cigar or cigarillo every now and again is the more credible and secure form of being a casual smoker.

When I first quit, I had actually only intended on quitting temporarily. I really liked smoking. I can still list many things I like about it. But I had become a little worried about being addicted. I had always just wanted to be a casual smoker, but I noticed I had been steadily purchasing more and more cigarettes. Before I quit, I was buying 2 packs every 3 days. So I quit, cold turkey, on a trial basis.

Once I started missing cigarettes, I started smoking Prime Times. At first, it was tough. My roommate was a smoker and would often put tobacco into joints we would smoke together. So although I wasn’t smoking cigarettes, my body was still getting small doses of nicotine and it seemed to be driving my cravings through the roof. I was fighting to keep myself to two Prime Times per day. I managed, but just barely.

Soon enough, once I moved into a new place and my cravings started to die down, I stopped smoking so many Prime Times. I’d have a few sometimes when at a party where many of my friends would be smoking, but I’d also go days and weeks without a single one. I also decided that picking up cigarettes again, even at a casual pace, was probably not a good idea. I had quit cold turkey, the cravings had died away, and it was definitely better for my health if I just gave them up permanently.

Prime Times helped me through my quitting period. It is also a great way for me to indulge from time to time in an activity I truly enjoy, like drinking wine or eating chocolate. I have gone months with Prime Times in my possession without ever having one, and truly do not feel any craving at all. But I still like to know that I can casually enjoy one from time to time. And I especially like to know that I can enjoy a single Prime Time without being stuck with 19 more, waiting to be smoked. Banning “kiddie” packs dangerously tempts causal smokers into smoking more. I know from buying tubs of ice cream that, when it’s there, I tend to eat a lot more than I feel comfortable with. It just calls to you. Fortunately (maybe) the call of Mint Chocolate ice cream in my fridge is much stronger than the call of the single Cherry Prime Time that’s been in my room for four days already. 

The following argument is based upon a summary report by a Canadian Anti-Tobacco lobby group and my own experiences as a former smoker and current casual cigarillo smoker.

The summary report:

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada

Backgrounder: Cigarillo smoking in Canada

http://www.smoke-free.ca/eng_home/2008-media/2008-news-release-background/Cigarillo-Q&A.pdf

What I agree with:

-          Packages need to follow the conventions of the World Health Organization’s “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” requirement that at least 30% of the package has a health advertisement.

-          Cigarillo’s are more attractive to kids than cigarettes.

What I disagree with:

-          Cigarillos are a kiddy product.

o       This is too rash a judgment to make

o       Minors may smoke a higher cigarillo-to-cigarette ratio than adults, but this could be a good thing.

o       What needs to be answered is: Are minors smoking a greater quantity of tobacco because of cigarillos? Are more minors becoming smokers because of cigarillos?

o       OR are cigarillos a way for smoking minors to smoke casually without having to buy a full pack of cigarettes?

-          Cigarillos should be sold in larger packages in order to make a purchase more expensive and thus less attractive to minors

o       This is unfair to the poor and to casual smokers

o       This encourages ANYONE who wants a single cigarillo to smoke more because they are forced to purchase more tobacco than they actually want

o       IDing practices should prevent any child from purchasing tobacco, not package size

o       Minors (especially aged 15-19) have money!

How to Jump Off a Bridge: Conquering Your Fears Through Bungee Jumping

I’ve always had a fear of heights. Even when I’m on the ground, looking up at heights, I sometimes get vertigo. But unlike most people who suffer from this very common anxiety, I have been determined to overcome it. I want to ride my first roller coaster and I want to sky-dive before I die. So when I had a chance to bungee jump in South Korea last summer, I jumped on the opportunity to jump off a bridge.But I didn’t show up unprepared. I had a game-plan mapped out and I don’t think I could’ve jumped without it. Here’s how you can prepare yourself like I did:

1) Have a Touchstone

Before you get up there and your fear starts controlling your brain -- and body -- you need some sort of touchstone based in reality. Long before I got to that bridge, I knew I was going to be safe. I believed it more than I believed anything else. I told myself, bungee jumping is very safe: the harness is safe, the staff are experts, and people bungee jump all the time. Like the saying goes, the only thing to fear is fear itself. Nothing bad was going to happen to me – I just needed to jump and then let the equipment take care of the rest. That was my touchstone, and it grounded me in reality.

2) Jump Fast!

The longer you wait, the more you psych yourself out. Some people think that taking a little time will help them build up courage. You need to build up your courage before you buy the ticket. Once you’re strapped in and people are waiting, you need to jump! Taking time will only embarrass you and give your brain time to rationalize why doing the walk of shame and missing a fantastic experience makes sense. When you get up there, the time for thinking is over and the time for jumping begins. But if you think you’ll need inspiration to jump quickly…

3) Don’t Freeze: Plan a Routine

Definitely, the hardest part of the whole experience is having to jump. Being on the bridge isn’t so bad, and flying through the air is just awesome. But just after you get strapped in, and everyone left is waiting and watching, you hit a wall of fear. You might think you just need a moment’s courage to jump, and then everything will be fine, but taking time will only make it harder. My routine for jumping quick was simple: I’d turn my camera towards me, I’d tell myself that I was %*$&ing Batman, I’d take a last look out over the horizon (and NOT down), then I’d immediately soar through the air. Long before my jump, I practiced visualizing the moment of fear and my routine. I drew upon comic books to steel my nerves. In one issue of Batman, Bruce Wayne has recovered from a broken back and has lost his nerve for swinging through the air. I kept thinking of being that mortal man, and though I was scared I was sure that I’d be alright if I just trusted my equipment and jumped. So, once I was strapped in I nervously shuffled to the edge, looked into my camera, said “I am f*&^ing Batman”, looked out over the horizon and immediately jumped into it.

4) Scream! But keep those eyes open!

Okay, jumping is definitely the hardest; but if you’re a wuss like me then the intial fall and sling-shot back up is pretty scary, too. I handled it by screaming! It helps! Also, with the video rolling, I wussed out and looked into my camera instead of the river rushing towards my face. It helped me keep my nerve and my sanity. By the second drop and sling-shot back into the air, I was loving every second of it!

5) Do it again, ASAP!

For a month after my bungee jump, heights honestly didn’t scare me anymore. I felt I had overcome it! And I desperately wanted to jump again, right away. If I had the chance, I would have! And you should, too! After the first time, it’s definitely going to be easier. But after a month without really challenging myself, I was terrified on the world’s second largest ferris wheel in Tokyo. Hello Kitty was terrifying enough without having my life depend on her engineering.

Tough Lessons Learned About Canadian Cell Phone Industry

Owning cell phones and cell phone contracts in Canada makes suckers of us all. The industry “competition” set prices and low standards of service between each other, comfortable that there are enough suckers for everyone. At least that’s the lesson I received earlier this year: first from shopping around the major companies for a plan, and then from some disturbing reports from the CBC.

Moving to Vancouver in March, and looking for a new job, I needed a cell phone. I decided it would be smart to talk to customer representatives from Rogers, Bell, and Telus – whom I considered to main cell phone providers in the country. I was looking to but an iPhone via a new cell phone contract.

Being an early resistor to cell phone culture, I am still a cell novice at the age of twenty-five. I had pay-as-you-go once before, because I already had the impression that cell contracts are expensive, long, and particularly nasty when you break them.

However, the first thing that surprised me while looking at the package options were the absence of features that I considered standard in my experience with land-line phones. For example, call display is not a new service, nor requires manpower beyond the click of a mouse for someone in a call center. It’s something that I’d expect for free, especially from a phone that has a screen and can access the internet. To include it only in a package of $10-15 that is bundled with less standard options is a complete disgrace.

Furthermore, incoming calls have always been free on house phones. The only exception is collect calls, which are for emergency. Incoming calls also used to be free on cell phones, too. But recently the companies have started charging both the caller and the receiver at the same time -- effectively billing each call twice.

Unlike the lack of standard features, I had actually expected the phone and contract to be expensive. Yet I was still to be surprised by exactly how expensive. Agreeing finally to purchase my iPhone from Telus, which seemed the best of the triplet companies, I would have to pay $200 for the phone, $35 for activation, $80 per month, and agree to a 3-year contract. That $80 did, however, include a package with call-waiting that was only included at an extra $15/month. Also, for $80/month, there is no unlimited data plan and free “evening” calls start at 9pm instead of 6pm.

Still, I have finally caught the cell phone bug thanks to the sleek new iPhone. Many of you have already made purchases like the one I’m describing. Regardless of my concerns with the plan, it had always been the length of cell phone contracts, and the steep expense of buying them out, that scared me away in the past.

When bringing my concern up with a Bell salesperson, he explained that I could simply give away my contract to another person when wanted out. In fact, he told me, people search places like Criag’s List for older contracts all the time because cell phone contracts – as he explained to me – are getting more expensive each year.

The Bell representative’s comment gave me the sick impression that, despite these companies being in competition with each other, and despite improvements in infrastructure and technology, and despite a growing customer base, cell phone companies are offering worse and worse deals to Canadians.

Well, at least the growing popularity of Craig’s List has made it easier to ditch unwanted contracts to people as long as you’ll ditch your expensive new phone with it.

Plus, I still had iPhone fever! After carefully discussing the various plans with my girlfriend over coffee, I chose Telus. Once I filled out all the information, had a credit check run, and had my brand new iPhone placed in front of me, the salesperson finally revealed that I’d have to pay a $400 security deposit. Out of the blue. This deposit would be held until the coming December, by which time I would have paid them a total of $1040.

Next, she informed me that because she had just run a credit check, buying my iPhone with another company would now hurt my credit.

Her deceitful bait and switch routine still almost worked on me Luckily my girlfriend talked me out of it. I was left very angry when I realized I couldn’t afford my phone and now couldn’t shop around for a better price.

I couldn’t help but wonder how cell phone companies can get away with this. Then my girlfriend received a lesson from Bell.

She had been a Bell Mobile customer for over five years, previous to leaving the country. Upon her return, she had to open a new account and was helped by a sales-representative in training who set her up with a month-to-month plan for $40. Two months later she received a bill of over $200. I had been calling her from Newfoundland, which she assured me was free for her because it was an incoming call. However, those calls had totaled over $140, and left her being charged 35¢/min on every call for the rest of the month.

She called Bell, at 35¢/min, and they claimed that incoming calls had always been charged. A representative at a Bell store admitted to us that the company had only started charging for incoming calls about 6 months ago – while my girlfriend was out of the country.

No one had told her of this change in policy and no one at Bell felt that they were at fault.

The manager told her that sales-representatives can’t possibly explain every part of the contract and, besides, any customer should know to ask about incoming calls. They promised to “ask” a higher up about it, and they would call her back. They didn’t.

 If she had known that incoming calls were now being charged, she would have paid $5 extra to change her Fab 5 feature from province-wide to nation-wide. But she received no warning, no apology, and no mercy.

The problem is a lack of any real competition. The salesperson at Telus revealed to us that the companies agree to keep a standard rate between them. The companies obviously do so well that they have no need to challenge each other in terms of pricing and value.

Why don’t the government step in and protect consumers?

Ridiculously, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) refuses to do anything because they feel that “the market for wireless services is sufficiently competitive”. When the three major companies agree to pricing and raise prices in unison, there is no “sufficiently competitive” marketplace. A sufficiently competitive marketplace offers lower prices, especially as technology gets better and infrastructure expands. Instead, the actions of the cellular industry demonstrate a monopoly by committee. In response, the website www.dissolvethecrtc.ca offers Canadians a chance to sign a petition voicing their displeasure with the corporate-friendly CRTC. Canadians have a right to demand a regulatory body that protects the people from corporations, not the other way around.

Is it unfair of Canadians to expect better cell phone service and value? Surely it must be easy to improve service and quall growing complaints.

For example, a simple automated text to alert customers who have gone over their allotted minutes could prevent thousands of problems like my girlfriend’s problem. A halfway honest or competent representative could have prevented both our problems.

If the industry was struggling to remain profitable, I'd be more sympathetic. But considering their unwillingness to compete with each through new, more attractive offers, and through acknowledging how many people own and operate cell phones, the question of profits can hardly be in doubt.   

            
             A study reported by the CBC found that between the 30 nations in the OECD, Canada ranks the 3^rd most expensive nation in medium-usage cell-phone plans. In the same category, Canadians spent $500 US a year in cell phone rates, while the Dutch spend only $131 for the same plan. Also, according to a poll on that same CBC webpage, 96% of readers thought that Canadian cell phone rates were too high.

A recent episode of CBC Marketplace ran a tongue-in-cheek competition looking for the highest Canadian cell phone bills – many which reached into the $1000s. One bill ballooned because of international roaming charges. One Canadian was charged almost $900 for checking her email in Europe. According to an expert interviewed on the show, Professor Srinivasan Keshav of the University of Waterloo, the cost of roaming for the company is barely more than local service. In fact, Huge international roaming charges have been outlawed in Europe by the EU.

All three cell phone companies spawned strong candidates for Canada’s Worst Cell Phone Bill, as did Virgin Mobile. This isn’t the problem of one bad company. This is an industry-wide problem. People need to get angry about how bad the Canadian cell phone industry is compared to the rest of the world, and compared to how good it should and could be.

             To watch the Marketplace episode "Canada's Worst Cell Phone Bill", go to: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2010/canadas_worst_cellphone_bill/main.html. 


               And to see the CBC report on Canada’s international ranking in cell phone costs, visit http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/08/11/canada-cellphone-rates-expensive-oecd.html.