NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read this article, and was wondering what your opinions were. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the restriction, as I think it addresses the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself


Anti-graffiti crackdown bans spray paint sales to minors
Last Updated Tue, 02 May 2006 11:38:50 EDT
CBC News

The city of London, Ont., is taking a tough stand on graffiti, banning the sale of markers and spray paint to anyone under the age of 18.

The new bylaw, which was passed on Monday, is reportedly the first of its kind in the country.

"It took some hard work, but we're the first in Canada to do this and I think it's great," said Coun. Bernie MacDonald, who spearheaded the graffiti bylaw.

Police records show that in the last two years in the city, 25 of 42 people arrested for making graffiti were under 18.

As well, 126 people were seen but not caught. And, of them, 92 were minors.

With the bylaw passed, signs will soon be posted in the city warning young people that they need a parent or guardian to buy certain art supplies. MacDonald said the city will try to provide outlets for minors to express themselves creatively and artistically.

But other city councillors say they are worried the new bylaw will leave London open to legal challenges.

"It's ludicrous," Coun. David Winninger told a council meeting on Monday. "It's offensive to the Charter of Rights. It's not reasonable that it can be justified in a free and democratic society."

The original article is here. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/02/graffiti-bylaw.html)
If you wonder about the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms (It's part of our Constitution), click here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)

Most US cities have such a restriction. Don't know if it ever went to court. Hasn't stopped grafiti but maybe cut it down.

What are the basic problems that could be addressed instead?

The basic problem seems to me to be an immoral wanton disregard for public and private property.

Walmart also has such a restriction, I think. They carded me, but Meijer's didn't.

I just read this article, and was wondering what your opinions were. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the restriction, as I think it addresses the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself


Anti-graffiti crackdown bans spray paint sales to minors
Last Updated Tue, 02 May 2006 11:38:50 EDT
CBC News

The city of London, Ont., is taking a tough stand on graffiti, banning the sale of markers and spray paint to anyone under the age of 18.

The new bylaw, which was passed on Monday, is reportedly the first of its kind in the country.

"It took some hard work, but we're the first in Canada to do this and I think it's great," said Coun. Bernie MacDonald, who spearheaded the graffiti bylaw.

Police records show that in the last two years in the city, 25 of 42 people arrested for making graffiti were under 18.

As well, 126 people were seen but not caught. And, of them, 92 were minors.

With the bylaw passed, signs will soon be posted in the city warning young people that they need a parent or guardian to buy certain art supplies. MacDonald said the city will try to provide outlets for minors to express themselves creatively and artistically.

But other city councillors say they are worried the new bylaw will leave London open to legal challenges.

"It's ludicrous," Coun. David Winninger told a council meeting on Monday. "It's offensive to the Charter of Rights. It's not reasonable that it can be justified in a free and democratic society."

The original article is here. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/02/graffiti-bylaw.html)
If you wonder about the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms (It's part of our Constitution), click here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)
HAIL LONDON!!! Finally they are getting some Conservative sense in their Liberal skulls.

The basic problem seems to me to be an immoral wanton disregard for public and private property.[/QUOTE]

Amen brother!:D

Just another stupid bullshit law from a stupid bullshit government.

When the government makes laws like this, punishing everyone for the actions of a few, they are in effect saying "you buy spray paint only at my leave."

Which is bullshit.

This law is just another of the endless illigitimate encroachment of the government on my and your rights.

I agree witht he law. A year ago I was in Aix and that old city was covered in Graffiti. You would walk blocks and every wall and statue was tagged.

This law is just another of the endless illigitimate encroachment of the government on my and your rights.

So you have a right to tag other peoples walls?

The problem is with the disregard for private property and lack of discipline. Banning the sale of spray paint to minors merely defers those root causes, rather than really addresing them. Not only that, it is a blanket punishment that affects minors who have legitimate uses for paint. I would prefer something that targets the offenders specifically. Work should be done to instill a sense of community: Have schoolkids get outside the school and do things in public like litter cleanups and co-op programmes, teach them to value the place where they live. Coupled with some form of public humiliation for those caught vandalising, it would get the problem to stop while safeguarding those who want to buy spraypaint to coat their own property (Or the kids who parents send to the store to pick it up for them).

-----

My sister, on another hand, likes the ban. She also favours a solution of enacting tons of ridiculous laws so that people who want to be delinquent can get their fix without doing serious damage to the community. She suggests illegalising walking backwards and banning chewing gum.

My local area has restrictions. It's pretty much a non-issue, because it does nothing to combat the "menace" of graffiti anyway.

my city has a restriction that they don't sell it to people under 18, but they referenced the reason being that "kids are huffing it", the rate of huffing deaths has gone down, but the meth-related arrests of that age group went up, so then they banned the sell of sinus meds over the counter which cut down on meth labs, but more people are being arrested for possession.

As well, 126 people were seen but not caught. And, of them, 92 were minors.

do you guys tag your minors or something? make them all wear neon green shirts?

So you have a right to tag other peoples walls?
being able to buy markers and spraypaint at age 14 =/= a right to tag other people's walls.

You are allowed to buy a car, but you don't have a right to crash it into someones wall.

The problem is that kids don't give a fuck, and you can't make them.

Therefore addressing the symptom makes sense.

I won't exactly be losing sleep over this "terrible injustice" some are bound to try to depict it as.

So you have a right to tag other peoples walls?

Quote to me where I said that and I'll never post on this forum again.

I have the right to buy spraypaint, no matter my age, is what I have the right to do.

Stop putting words into my mouth.

I won't exactly be losing sleep over this "terrible injustice" some are bound to try to depict it as.

No, it's not a "terrible injustice," but it is wrong, it leads to the kind of thinking I was talking about earlyer, and it opens the door for the gov to get even more in my personal business and make blanket laws that punish offenders and innocent alike.

It's like someone said a bit back in the Mass. machete thread, I don't so much care about Canada and spraypaint as I care about how people view their rights and their government.

Well it's sort of like not being able to buy cold medicine because a few are going to cook it.

Or not being able to carry guns in the car.

Or not being able to cash a check anywhere

Or get on a plane without being searched

The list could go on forever.

We all get punished for the stupidity of the minority.

Meh.

I'll get someone to buy the spray paint for me or order it off the internet.

Not a problem.

I don't understand the purpose of any age-based law. I seriously doubt my being 24 is going to make a rental car magically wrap itself around a tree, you can get lung cancer form or addicted to smoking just as easily when you're 18 or older as you can before, alcohol still makes you drunk when you're 21 or over, and there is absolutely nothing stopping someone 18 or older from buying spray paint and spraying graffiti all over something. All that's happening is some inane restriction that solves absolutely nothing.

whats wrong with art?

Let Graffiti artists Go!!!

I don't understand the purpose of any age-based law. I seriously doubt my being 24 is going to make a rental car magically wrap itself around a tree, you can get lung cancer form or addicted to smoking just as easily when you're 18 or older as you can before, alcohol still makes you drunk when you're 21 or over, and there is absolutely nothing stopping someone 18 or older from buying spray paint and spraying graffiti all over something. All that's happening is some inane restriction that solves absolutely nothing.
Because when you're young, stupid, and inexperienced you do stupid, inexperienced mistakes.

I haven't been drunk since I was 21. Before that it was every Friday and Saturday night. I've learned not to take chances driving and have enough experience to drive out of trouble instead of into it. I've had two tickets since 25 (one for 1 MPH over the limit). I've had NO accidents since 25 (had several before). Statistics show if you don't smoke before 21 you probably won't smoke. Also the younger you start to smoke the more likely you will die of smoking. I have never used spray paint illegally, but I did a lot of illegal stupid things in HS that I would never do now or wouldn't have done after 21.

Kids are not adults. I campaigned to change the voting from 21 to 18 because I thought I was "mature" at 18. That was one of the young and stupid things I did. If it were up to me I would change the voting age to 25 or an advanced (something after HS) degree. Which ever comes first.

Kids are not adults. I campaigned to change the voting from 21 to 18 because I thought I was "mature" at 18. That was one of the young and stupid things I did. If it were up to me I would change the voting age to 25 or an advanced (something after HS) degree. Which ever comes first.

I guess universal suffrage is not one of your strong points... My opinion is that responsibility breeds maturity. How are we ever to have politically interested future generations if we deny them the ability to have a say when they are at their most passionate ages? I cannot see how the opinions of an eighteen year old are worth any less than those of a twenty-five year old. Just because one's opinions change as one grows does not mean that one should never have had the opportunity to express them.

You are allowed to buy a car, but you don't have a right to crash it into someones wall.
Two things. I disagree and what is your home address?

I guess universal suffrage is not one of your strong points... My opinion is that responsibility breeds maturity. How are we ever to have politically interested future generations if we deny them the ability to have a say when they are at their most passionate ages? I cannot see how the opinions of an eighteen year old are worth any less than those of a twenty-five year old. Just because one's opinions change as one grows does not mean that one should never have had the opportunity to express them.
Express all you want. Even Aristotle said that youth operate on passion and sex and not on logical consideration. They don't have enough experience to weigh the options.

I agree responsibility breeds maturity. How many 18 year olds today have responsibility. Oh, I know you can list a few but certianly not even close to the majority.

There is a reason the founders used the traditional 21 to vote. There is a reason they set the House at 25. The Senate at 30. And the President at what was then the life expectancy of 35. With each step there is more experience, consideration of the issues, and less passion.

Express all you want. Even Aristotle said that youth operate on passion and sex and not on logical consideration. They don't have enough experience to weigh the options.

I agree responsibility breeds maturity. How many 18 year olds today have responsibility. Oh, I know you can list a few but certianly not even close to the majority.

There is a reason the founders used the traditional 21 to vote. There is a reason they set the House at 25. The Senate at 30. And the President at what was then the life expectancy of 35. With each step there is more experience, consideration of the issues, and less passion.

How will the 18 year olds ever become mature if we fail to give them responsibility? Besides that, maybe we need passions to dictate our priorities sometimes. Presumably the masses of logical types will still have the ability to outvote the passionate ones anyway. Personally, I think the age restrictions you have on particular offices is bizarre. You yourself said that there are exceptionally responsible young people. Obviously an 18 year old president would be strange, but even if it were allowed I find it very unlikely to happen. The same could be true of representatives and senators.

Grafitti isn't vandalism (well, sometimes it is), it's art. Imagine how beautiful our cities would be if more people engaged in quality grafitti-making.

Grafitti isn't vandalism (well, sometimes it is), it's art. Imagine how beautiful our cities would be if more people engaged in quality grafitti-making.

But just think, man - as graffiti becomes the norm, them young 'uns will look for a new means of rebellion - they'll paint over every bulding, fence, and highway overpass in dull, patternless colours. Those damned delinquents! :mad:

Grafitti isn't vandalism (well, sometimes it is), it's art.

No, it's pretty much ugly vandalism. Deface your own fucking wall.

whats wrong with art?It isn't art if it's sprayed on a historical site.

Most of the talentless dicks who spraypaint in and around my downtown neighbourhood come from the suburbs to do it. They think everybody living down here does it, like we're living in some sort of gangsta rap video and letting our end down by not defacing public and private property.

I've held people on subway platforms until the police arrived for tagging the station walls. And they're always out-of-towner teens with no consideration for the inner city neighbourhoods they run riot in on weekends.

Or not being able to carry guns in the car.
Or on your hip. Congratulations on Nebraska's new right-to-carry law. ;)

Grafitti isn't vandalism (well, sometimes it is), it's art. Imagine how beautiful our cities would be if more people engaged in quality grafitti-making.
No, it's vandalism.

How will the 18 year olds ever become mature if we fail to give them responsibility? Besides that, maybe we need passions to dictate our priorities sometimes. Presumably the masses of logical types will still have the ability to outvote the passionate ones anyway. Personally, I think the age restrictions you have on particular offices is bizarre. You yourself said that there are exceptionally responsible young people. Obviously an 18 year old president would be strange, but even if it were allowed I find it very unlikely to happen. The same could be true of representatives and senators.
So if 18 is ok why not 16 or 12 or 5, 5 year old can run a voting machine. The answer is of course that a person needs some maturity. 21 was moved to 18 because of the draft. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." Well, ok, if you join up you can vote at 18, otherwise 21. Like I said earlier, I campaigned for 18 out of my own youthful stupidity. It was a mistake. 18 year olds today have been sheltered from the problems of the world. Much more than they were at the founding when most states chose 21.

Grafitti isn't vandalism (well, sometimes it is), it's art. Imagine how beautiful our cities would be if more people engaged in quality grafitti-making.


I've been to Rome. It's not pretty. It's just shitty.

Also, no matter how "artsy" you think it is, if it's on someone else's property without permission, it's vandalism.

Also, it's not art. As much as some people what to think otherwise, art has a definition, art isn't "whatever you want it to be."

Also, it's not art. As much as some people what to think otherwise, art has a definition, art isn't "whatever you want it to be."

What is the defintion of art then? I've always thought that it could be whatever you wanted. In fact, I always thought that was sort of the point. Just because its related to a gang, or not well done, doesn't mean it isn't a valid form of artistic expression. Hey shit, a lot of taggers have some amazing work. Even if its just a signature, a lot of the time it can look real fucking cool.

Just another stupid bullshit law from a stupid bullshit government.

When the government makes laws like this, punishing everyone for the actions of a few, they are in effect saying "you buy spray paint only at my leave."

Which is bullshit.

This law is just another of the endless illigitimate encroachment of the government on my and your rights.


Agreed.

How come when I was a kid, I never wanted to paint walls and stuff. I wanted to paint on paper, or canvas, or whatever.

Is grafitti(sp?) a guy thing? Do I need a penis to understand the desire to paint on a wall?

How come when I was a kid, I never wanted to paint walls and stuff. I wanted to paint on paper, or canvas, or whatever.

Is grafitti(sp?) a guy thing? Do I need a penis to understand the desire to paint on a wall?


No, I don't understand it either. Maybe it is compensating for something...

I think when someone spraypaints profanity or whatever on a building/railcar/etc, what they are really saying is don't look at my small penis!

Free the spraypaint! Stop the oppression! :cool:

Graffiti-making should be much more tolerated by the law, if not completely legal. Ever notice how graffiti tends to be of a higher quality in cities that are more tolerant of it, such as Barcelona? That's because the artists are not afraid of being caught. In more authoritarian cities, they just spray their crappy tags as fast as possible and leave for fear of getting caught.

People are going to spray paint the urban environment anyway. Wouldn't you rather see a city that is overrun by artists, than overrun by criminals?

How come when I was a kid, I never wanted to paint walls and stuff. I wanted to paint on paper, or canvas, or whatever.

Is grafitti(sp?) a guy thing? Do I need a penis to understand the desire to paint on a wall?
Not at all. Some of the folks here (http://visualresistance.org/wordpress/zine) are female.

I suspect that female artists are more afraid of going out on the streets at night, or getting caught by police.

Why not have graffitti walls, walls on which one is allowed to graffitti. Some smart individual could make a good sum of money out of it, by taking pictures of the wall and selling them to the artists, considering someone else will probably paint over your work.
My idea damn you all, my idea!!!

Graffiti-making should be much more tolerated by the law, if not completely legal. Ever notice how graffiti tends to be of a higher quality in cities that are more tolerant of it, such as Barcelona? That's because the artists are not afraid of being caught. In more authoritarian cities, they just spray their crappy tags as fast as possible and leave for fear of getting caught.

People are going to spray paint the urban environment anyway. Wouldn't you rather see a city that is overrun by artists, than overrun by criminals?

I direct your attention to Rome.

Also, no matter how good it looks, how skillful it is, if it's on someone else's property without permission, it's vandalism.

Why not have graffitti walls, walls on which one is allowed to graffitti. Some smart individual could make a good sum of money out of it, by taking pictures of the wall and selling them to the artists, considering someone else will probably paint over your work.
That's also a good idea, but then you're running into the problem that graffiti tries to get away from in the first place: you're creating a sort of 'gallery' space that will probably only be seen by a small number of people and not everyone.

Also, no matter how good it looks, how skillful it is, if it's on someone else's property without permission, it's vandalism.
Don't talk to me about private property. Property owners subject the residents of a city to their stupid advertisements and their dull walls already. They have a right to clean walls in places that we can't see, such as indoors and courtyards. But they shouldn't have a right to subvert freedom of expression by buying up all surfaces.

That's also a good idea, but then you're running into the problem that graffiti tries to get away from in the first place: you're creating a sort of 'gallery' space that will probably only be seen by a small number of people and not everyone.
Hmmm, yeah. Maybe put said wall in a public place?

Hmmm, yeah. Maybe put said wall in a public place?
It seems to be hard to keep the developers away from public spaces these days. Big money is buying up the entirety of city centres.

Don't talk to me about private property. Property owners subject the residents of a city to their stupid advertisements and their dull walls already. They have a right to clean walls in places that we can't see, such as indoors and courtyards. But they shouldn't have a right to subvert freedom of expression by buying up all surfaces.

Bullshit. I own a house, or fence, or building, I have a right to do as I please with all it's surfaces, including make the outside as dull or as colorful or creative or boring as I like. Same applies to you and your walls.

Bullshit. I own a house, or fence, or building, I have a right to do as I please with all it's surfaces, including make the outside as dull or as colorful or creative or boring as I like. Same applies to you and your walls.
In the case of residences, I have more understanding, but not in the case of business premises. I don't respect the right to buy out other peoples' freedom of expression. Money shouldn't determine one's right to be seen.

In the case of residences, I have more understanding, but not in the case of business premises. I don't respect the right to buy out other peoples' freedom of expression. Money shouldn't determine one's right to be seen.
Why not express on something legal? Plenty of surfaces that are wasted in the city dump. Collect the waste wood from a construction site. Lots of legal surfaces out there.

In the case of residences, I have more understanding, but not in the case of business premises. I don't respect the right to buy out other peoples' freedom of expression. Money shouldn't determine one's right to be seen.

So I start a business, I buy a building to run it out of, do I own that building any less then I own my house?

Personally, I smile a wee bit when I see grafitti, especially on something like a corperate office building. Most especially "Borf!" But gatta be honest with ourselves here. It's fun, sometimes it's sticking it to people who deserve it, sometimes it's very beautiful and skillful, but the simple fact remains, if it is done on someone else's property without permission, it's vandalism. You gatta at least be honest with yourself about what you're doing.

On the other side, many times it's just gang tags and racial slurs.

But either way, we can't delude ourselves into thinking we're doing nothing wrong, that we are opressed victims. You can do it anyway, and feel good about it, just so long as your being honest with yourself about what you're taking pleasure in. Vandalism. Defacement of another human being's property.

EDIT: Case in point: I shoplift, I scam, I overall steal. Only from big businesses. Is it wrong? Of course it is. Should I be doing it? Of course not. But I realise this, and it's still worth it to me to do it (for strange moral reasons that I won't go into here and that don't make it any less wrong). But at least I don't add intelectual cowardince and self-deception to my list of sins.

When I was a teenager I had to get some spraypaint.

They wouldn't sell it to me, so I had to steal it.

So you see, this law won't stop graffiti, but it will cause theft.

When I was a teenager I had to get some spraypaint.

They wouldn't sell it to me, so I had to steal it.

So you see, this law won't stop graffiti, but it will cause theft.
You "had" to steal it????? What type of life or death situation were you in that you needed spraypaint to survive?

You "had" to steal it????? What type of life or death situation were you in that you needed spraypaint to survive?

Now, now. I was being facetious to illustrate an example of why preventing legal sales of a good to minors is not going to prevent all minors from acquiring that good, and in this case how the prevention of legal sale leads to an increase in crime, given that those minors who will commit a crime with the good are also likely to have little inhibitions about committing a crime to get said good.

Now, now. I was being facetious to illustrate an example of why preventing legal sales of a good to minors is not going to prevent all minors from acquiring that good, and in this case how the prevention of legal sale leads to an increase in crime, given that those minors who will commit a crime with the good are also likely to have little inhibitions about committing a crime to get said good.
AH! The weakness of written vs. spoken language.

When I was a teenager I had to get some spraypaint.

They wouldn't sell it to me, so I had to steal it.

So you see, this law won't stop graffiti, but it will cause theft.
Or graffitti without paint.

I like the work of some grafitti artists, like Bansky for instance. Most grafitti is ugly and in the wrong places though - like on trees and rocks out in nature. Cities are ugly anyway so when it's done on public property like freeway dividers or bridges I think of it as beautifying even if the grafitti is poor because it adds character to an otherwise stale environment, although when done on businesses, homes, cars, memorials or historical sites I don't like seeing it.

It's funny that someone earlier mentioned having a public place for these artists to express themselves and show their work because I had the same idea.

A large center where people could display their work for others to see would be awesome. All kinds of works with few rules as to what can be done and where. Perhaps give someone a wall, ground or whatever for a month and then give someone else their shot. Keep photographic records of the work which anyone can view online perhaps.

So I start a business, I buy a building to run it out of, do I own that building any less then I own my house?
Since many more people see it, and work in it, yes, you really do own it a bit less than your house.

Personally, I smile a wee bit when I see grafitti, especially on something like a corperate office building. Most especially "Borf!" But gatta be honest with ourselves here. It's fun, sometimes it's sticking it to people who deserve it, sometimes it's very beautiful and skillful, but the simple fact remains, if it is done on someone else's property without permission, it's vandalism. You gatta at least be honest with yourself about what you're doing.
Vandals destroy. Artists create.

On the other side, many times it's just gang tags and racial slurs.
I've already labelled such things as crap. You also tend to get more of them in cities with more authoritarian attitudes to graffiti, causing artists to scrawl a quick cheapo tag rather than take time to make something good.

But either way, we can't delude ourselves into thinking we're doing nothing wrong, that we are opressed victims. You can do it anyway, and feel good about it, just so long as your being honest with yourself about what you're taking pleasure in. Vandalism. Defacement of another human being's property.
If it makes the world a more beautiful place then it's worth it. The real vandals are the scangers that smash up bus shelters, windows, etc; but also those developers that build ugly buildings that deface the urban landscape.

EDIT: Case in point: I shoplift, I scam, I overall steal. Only from big businesses. Is it wrong? Of course it is. Should I be doing it? Of course not. But I realise this, and it's still worth it to me to do it (for strange moral reasons that I won't go into here and that don't make it any less wrong). But at least I don't add intelectual cowardince and self-deception to my list of sins.
If you only steal from big business, I suspect that you have moral reasons and thus don't really think it's wrong. Remember, against the law =/= wrong.

Why not express on something legal?
That will be seen by a lot of people?

So you see, this law won't stop graffiti, but it will cause theft.
Indeed. You can't stop people from making graffiti. You can stop them from making good graffiti by passing draconian laws against it, though.

Since many more people see it, and work in it, yes, you really do own it a bit less than your house.

I disagree with you here. If I buy something, I own it, no matter how many people see it.


Vandals destroy. Artists create.

Semantics. If I spraypaint art onto your fence or building, I am both artist and vandal.



If it makes the world a more beautiful place then it's worth it.

This I agree with. But, as I said, you can't pretend it's not what it is: defacement of the property of another.


If you only steal from big business, I suspect that you have moral reasons and thus don't really think it's wrong. Remember, against the law =/= wrong.

I am fully aware that against the law =/= wrong. And while I have my moral reasons that make it worth doing for me, I still acknowledge that taking something that does not belong to me without permission is wrong.



Indeed. You can't stop people from making graffiti.

Especially not with stupid blanket laws such as this that don't stop the act and punish the innocent.

You do realize kids steal the paint they use and don't buy it? Unless of course they are total poser bitches in which case they deserve to lose their spraypaint.

You do realize kids steal the paint they use and don't buy it? Unless of course they are total poser bitches in which case they deserve to lose their spraypaint.
Ya, you aren't a real graffitti artist unless you stole your spraypaint.


Oh wait, no you aren't!:rolleyes:

I disagree with you here. If I buy something, I own it, no matter how many people see it.
Legally, this is true. But this is a part of the law that I don't believe lines up with reality. People see these big things that are there, every day. Whether it's your property, or an advertisement that someone paid for, it's as real as the illegal graffiti scrawled on it. To the passer-by, they are equally valid. Property is a mere technicality. Especially when you're comparing billboards to graffiti.

Semantics. If I spraypaint art onto your fence or building, I am both artist and vandal.
Vandals destroy, artists deface. :p

This I agree with. But, as I said, you can't pretend it's not what it is: defacement of the property of another.
That doesn't matter to me. I don't deny it. I only deny the extent of the owner's right to control what's on the outside walls of the property that are part of the public space.

I am fully aware that against the law =/= wrong. And while I have my moral reasons that make it worth doing for me, I still acknowledge that taking something that does not belong to me without permission is wrong.
Unless it's from big business, right?

Ya, you aren't a real graffitti artist unless you stole your spraypaint.
Stealing paint is stupid, IMO. You're hurting the paint companies that enable you to create your art, and hurting the shop that supplies you with it. Its detrimental to your own interests.

I object very strongly to restrictions like this. They're prohibiting something that doesn't hurt anyone in an attempt to make the activity that does hurt people impossible.

The appropriate response is to make the penalty for performing the act that actually harms people vastly more severe.

Governments should not be permitted to prohibit non-harmful behaviour.

I object very strongly to restrictions like this. They're prohibiting something that doesn't hurt anyone in an attempt to make the activity that does hurt people impossible.

The appropriate response is to make the penalty for performing the act that actually harms people vastly more severe.

Governments should not be permitted to prohibit non-harmful behaviour.
So if you rob a store of a rich company and no one gets physically hurt--no harm, no foul?

But there is harm, just not physical. The cost of repair is added to the cost of the products sold and we all get to pay for "non-harmful" behavior.

Thanks, I love to pay for garbage cleanup.

So if you rob a store of a rich company and no one gets physically hurt--no harm, no foul?

But there is harm, just not physical. The cost of repair is added to the cost of the products sold and we all get to pay for "non-harmful" behavior.

Thanks, I love to pay for garbage cleanup.

You misunderstood him. The non-harmful act is minors buying spraypaint. The harmful act is graffiti.

With the bylaw passed, signs will soon be posted in the city warning young people that they need a parent or guardian to buy certain art supplies.

Haha! Art supplies!