City Of London Bans Spray Paint Sales To Minors (Ont)

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-05-03 04:58pm

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."

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-05-03 05:03pm

I believe they already did this in Oregon, but instead as part of the "WAR ON DRUGS!!!" as paints can be used as inhalants... which perhaps less kids knew until they started yammering about it.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-05-03 05:05pm

Assuming graffiti to generally be a bad thing I can't see anything wrong with this law. Or does Canada have some kind of Right to Bear Markers and Spray Paint?

Of course some might suggest that graffiti, like a good old non-violent protest, is a good thing, indeed some (not much) of it is quite beautiful. I assume all the decent graffiti is done by over 18 year olds anyway though so this stands as a reasonable law in my opinion.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2006-05-03 05:23pm

Been this way in California for a while also.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-05-03 05:26pm

I wish they'd at least bother to show some studies indicating that most young people use spray paints for grafiti purposes. This law could just end up being an inconvenience.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-03 05:33pm

Old Peculier wrote:Assuming graffiti to generally be a bad thing I can't see anything wrong with this law. Or does Canada have some kind of Right to Bear Markers and Spray Paint?

Of course some might suggest that graffiti, like a good old non-violent protest, is a good thing, indeed some (not much) of it is quite beautiful. I assume all the decent graffiti is done by over 18 year olds anyway though so this stands as a reasonable law in my opinion.

No matter how artistic it is, if it's done without permission (which is why it's usually called graffiti in the first place), it's still defacement of someone's public property, which is very much illegal and expensive to the owners to get it replaced. There's no way you can justify damaging someone's places of business in the name of 'art'.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-05-03 05:46pm

General Zod wrote:No matter how artistic it is, if it's done without permission (which is why it's usually called graffiti in the first place), it's still defacement of someone's public property, which is very much illegal and expensive to the owners to get it replaced. There's no way you can justify damaging someone's places of business in the name of 'art'.

Indeed, I was referring to the type you see under bridges etc. which I sometimes see on walks, and is unobtrusive, which I'm vaguely willing to forgive in the cases where it looks good.

Generally, of course graffiti is both unsightly and a pain to remove.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-03 05:56pm

Old Peculier wrote:
General Zod wrote:No matter how artistic it is, if it's done without permission (which is why it's usually called graffiti in the first place), it's still defacement of someone's public property, which is very much illegal and expensive to the owners to get it replaced. There's no way you can justify damaging someone's places of business in the name of 'art'.
Indeed, I was referring to the type you see under bridges etc. which I sometimes see on walks, and is unobtrusive, which I'm vaguely willing to forgive in the cases where it looks good.

Bridges are still owned by the city. Since they aren't private property that's still no excuse for someone to go spraying it with crap that not everyone is going to be amused with or find 'artistic'.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-05-03 07:24pm

I remember back in college a friend of mine was hassled at Wal-Mart because he was trying to buy spray paints for an art project and was under 21. Luckily his friend was there and was able to make the purchase for him. I doubt official Wal-Mart policy has such restrictions, but the fact that occured in a small town with no grafitti problem to speak of is telling.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2006-05-03 10:40pm

IIRC it was the same in Illinois (without an accompanying adult, as in CA), though it's been a while since I was there last. And usually it's either within view of a help desk, or locked up.

What gets me is the graffiti itself - I see it in places nobody should be able to get to. The sides of the girders on the bottoms of bridges, etc. While I don't condone it, I am consistently amazed that the more elaborate the graffiti the more absurd the location.