|
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Alberta smoking ban debate officially underway -AB
EDMONTON (CP) - The debate Premier Ralph Klein promised would take place over smoking in Alberta opened Monday with his predicted signs of a split between rural and urban members of the legislature.
Bill 201, proposed by rookie Conservative backbencher Dave Rodney of Calgary, calls for a provincewide ban on smoking in public places and workplaces.
Rodney told the house it's aimed at protecting Albertans from second-hand smoke, which kills 350 non-smokers each year from smoke-related cancers and 3,500 from smoke-related heart disease.
He said his statistics came from the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission.
Eighty per cent of Albertans don't smoke, he noted, and 84 of the province's 353 municipalities have already passed some form of non-smoking bylaw.
The bill received second reading, or approval in principle, on Monday but will likely be watered down under pressure from rural constituencies, where the heart of Tory support lies.
Klein said about two-thirds of the Conservative members support the kind of amendments he has recommended, which would exempt bars, casinos and bingo halls from the ban. He suggested enforcement would be next to impossible in what he likes to call the old-time beer parlours.
''Do you set up a special police force - you know, smoke cops - to tell the 80-year-old guy in the Youngstown bar that he has to put out his cigarette?''
Health Minister Iris Evans supports a smoking ban, but the split in caucus is one reason why the legislation is proceeding as a private member's bill.
She diplomatically urged her colleagues to give it ''careful consideration.''
''We must be vigilant because Alberta has fallen behind other Canadian jurisdictions regarding tobacco legislation,'' Evans said. ''With the exception of Alberta, every province has adopted or is developing some form of comprehensive tobacco control legislation.''
http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/Z05_alberta0315.lasso
Tobacco firms assigned blame for teen smoking -ON
By Brian CleeveWednesday March 16, 2005
Actor Brad Pitt and tobacco companies are among the villains for a local anti-smoking group.
Pitt was vilified for smoking in a movie and tobacco companies were criticized for targetting young people.
CAUTION (Chatham-Kent Against Uncaring Tobacco Industries of North America), a group of Chatham-Kent high school students, criticized advertising of cigarettes at the Teen Tobacco Summit at the Chatham Cultural Centre last Wednesday.
One of the organizers says one point of the summit was to expose the “lies” told by tobacco companies.
“We want to show students that tobacco companies are interested in profits, not the health of young people,” said Marc Cibulka, a Grade 12 student at Ursuline College.
Cibulka also said: “Movies sometimes show people smoking and it seems glamorous,”
Matt Boire, another Grade 12 student at UCC and an organizer, expanded on how tobacco interests get their tentacles into the movie business.
“The tobacco companies pay directors to insert scenes in which people are smoking,” Boire said in an interview.
The 1994 movie Forest Gump is one example of a film in which people smoked, Boire said.
Craig Washburn, a Grade 8 student from Tilbury Area Public School, said he thought the summit was worthwhile because it provided information to students.
Part of the presentation to the 600 students included a video of a 41-year-old woman dying of cancer who pleads with students not to follow her lead.
The woman, who had lost her hair through cancer treatment, began smoking at about Grade 7 as a means of achieving popularity, although she was a model and an athlete.
A video suggested that “smoking is not sexy.”
It indicated that by 2030, 10 million people will die each year from smoking.
It pointed out that one cigarette can lead to a “lifelong addiction.” Another statistic was that 800,000 children under 12 years of age are exposed to secondhand smoke.
Jay Irvine and Cameron Tulloch from the Hamilton Crew for Action Against Tobacco, told the students that tobacco companies need people 14 to 21 if they are to survive.
Michelle Bogaert, health educator for Chatham-Kent Public Health, says the summit was a benefit because it was “youth led.”
“They educate their peers about the tobacco companies and the facts about smoking.”
Bogaert worked as an adult supervisor for CAUTION.
Information from the summit will complement school curriculum for business studies, Canadian and world studies, guidance and career education, health and physical education, social sciences and humanities.
A fact sheet presented by CAUTION indicates that 19 per cent of people 15 to 19 years old in Ontario are smokers, according to the Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey 2002.
A survey by CAUTION in 2004 showed that 14 per cent of people aged 14 to 16 in Chatham-Kent are smokers.
CAUTION has also organized a poster contest and has produced a video.
http://www.chathamthisweek.com/story.php?id=149027
Provinces can limit tobacco displays, Supreme Court says
CBC News Last Updated Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:12:52 EST
Federal law doesn't give retailers the right to display the products and Saskatchewan was within its right to ban them.
Supreme Court of Canada says retailers can easily comply with both laws in one of two ways, Major said, by refusing to admit anyone under the age of 18 years of age, or by not displaying tobacco products.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/18/supremecourt-tobacco050318.html
virtue of the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy
Supreme Court Judgment Document
Intro:
It is plain that dual compliance is possible in this case. A retailer can easily comply with both s. 30 of the Tobacco Act and s. 6 of The Tobacco Control Act in one of two ways: by admitting no one under 18 years of age on to the premises or by not displaying tobacco or tobacco-related products. [25] Section 6 of The Tobacco Control Act does not frustrate the legislative purpose underlying s. 30 of the Tobacco Act. Both the general purpose of the Tobacco Act (to address a national public health problem) and the specific purpose of s. 30 (to circumscribe the Tobacco Act's general prohibition on promotion of tobacco products set out in s. 19) remain fulfilled. Indeed, s. 6 of The Tobacco Control Act appears to further at least two of the stated purposes of the Tobacco Act, namely, "to protect young persons and others from inducements to use tobacco products" (s. 4(b)) and "to protect the health of young persons by restricting access to tobacco products" . . .
There is no inconsistency between s. 6 of The Tobacco Control Act and s. 30 of the Tobacco Act that would render the former inoperative pursuant to the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy. The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant throughout.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc013.wpd.html
Benefiting from butts -AB
Edmonton Sun - Mar 20/05
Leave it to Premier Ralph Klein to tell the truth about the hypocrisy of governments and smoking.
Faced with a caucus revolt this week over rookie backbencher Dave Rodney's anti-smoking bill, a piece of legislation that the premier opposes, Klein vented some frustration about the topic last week.
"If you really want to do something, make smoking illegal," said the premier. "We can't do that, but the federal government can do that. You now, that is what I find so crazy about this whole debate is that you're dealing with a totally legal substance that can be sold virtually anywhere. A totally legal substance.
"The key to this, I guess, is make it illegal. But no one is going to do that. No government. Why? Of course, taxes. You know that. You don't need to ask me."
We've said the same thing in the past and come to the same conclusion, too. It's a nice idea, Ralph, but it'll never happen. At least not while governments can continue to find ways to milk every last dime from
smokers.
Still, we understand the premier's frustration on this topic, because candid talk on smoking is difficult to find amidst all the politically correct platitudes that dominate the discourse on this topic.
The debate in the legislature last week was all that and more. MLAs from all parties bemoaned the evils of cigarettes, the concerns of the health of children (if we had the proverbial nickel for every time an MLA mentioned protecting children in this debate ... ), the right to breathe clean air and on and on it went. MLAs quoted studies from the U.S. on how smoking bans don't impact bars or restaurants. They quoted from polls showing how many Albertans want a smoking ban. They cited death rates of smokers. It was all very predictable stuff.
But obviously only the premier was thinking about the hypocrisy over governments financially benefiting from a product that, if it were introduced today, would never be allowed on the market.
In fact, the only reference we could find in last week's legislature debate to tobacco taxes was a call to raise them even more!
The government need not bother, though, because its budget figures show that the amount of tobacco tax money collected by the province continues to rise. Alberta took in $618 million in 2002-03 and expects that the 2003-04 final number will be about $650 million.
The current budget predicted that Alberta would take in $660 million in tobacco tax in this fiscal year and tobacco tax revenue would rise to $700 million in 2006-07.
But last month's third-quarter budget update now estimates the government bringing in $720 million in tobacco tax this budget year due to "higher volume."
Higher volume? But aren't the number of smokers dropping? Health Minister Iris Evans told the legislature about the tobacco reduction strategy that was launched in 2002 to "denormalize" tobacco use. On the one hand, it seems to be working, as MLA Rodney said in the legislature that the smoking rate in Alberta has dropped from 25% in 2001 to 20% in 2003.
Yet Evans also told the legislature that "cigarette sales in Alberta are up 7.5% for the nine months ended December 2004 compared to the same nine months in the year prior."
So Alberta has fewer smokers, but increased cigarette sales and higher tobacco tax revenues? Go figure. Ask around in the government, and the answers for that weird statistical anomaly include smokers puffing more, population growth and the discount cigarette market.
Of all the MLAs who spoke on the anti-smoking bill last week, Ray Danyluk, PC MLA for Lac La Biche-St. Paul and a former smoker, was one of the rare MLAs who said something with which we completely agree: "Wouldn't it be better to encourage adults and children to quit smoking instead of telling businesses how to operate? By focusing our efforts on eliminating where people can smoke, all we're doing is changing the locations where parents will be subjecting their children to second-hand smoke."
Can't argue with that. Sure, it's not as radical as Klein urging the feds to ban tobacco entirely, but Danyluk's idea has a much better chance of succeeding.
And maybe it will finally result in Alberta collecting much less tobacco tax money.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Editorial/
Party rooms snuffing out rural bars -MB
Smoking ban a financial 'disaster,' some hotels forced to close.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1284
Keep smokes promise: Cancer Society -PE
Last Updated Mar 21 2005 06:53 AM AST
CBC News CHARLOTTETOWN – The government should make good on the promise it made two months ago to get rid of cigarette displays, says the Canadian Cancer Society.
In January, Health Minister Chester Gillan said he planned to bring forward legislation that would force retailers to keep cigarettes hidden. The announcement came shortly after a court ruling that upheld a Saskatchewan law barring the so-called "power wall" tobacco displays.
Gillan did not say when he might introduce such legislation.
Dawn Binns, director of health promotion and public issues with the Canadian Cancer Society on P.E.I., says she's urging Gillan to introduce the law in the upcoming session of the legislature.
Binns says power walls are one of the primary methods of advertising for tobacco companies. They make a particular impression on youth, she says, because they give the appearance that tobacco is used by many people.
She says the walls are also a cue for smokers and recent quitters to purchase a product.
http://pei.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=pe-smokes-20050321
Tobacco class-action loss, a victory of sorts -ON
By BEPPI CROSARIOL Monday, March 21, 2005 Page B13
Toronto lawyer Andreas Siebert is a surprisingly happy man for someone who recently lost a costly, nine-year court battle against Canada's Big Three tobacco multinationals.
That's because Mr. Siebert considers himself lucky to have avoided losing much more than just the case -- specifically, more than $1.2-million in court costs sought by the cigarette giants for the trouble he and his law firm caused them.
In a highly unusual case in Ontario's Superior Court watched closely by class-action litigators across the country, lawyers for the defendants -- Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp. -- earlier this month turned the tables on Mr. Siebert and his law firm, Sommers & Roth.
They asked a judge to hold the lawyers financially accountable for driving up legal fees with "errors," and "excessive" motions and cross-examinations.
Ultimately, Mr. Justice Warren Winkler dismissed the tobacco companies' request, saying that to punish lawyers as well as clients would have a "chilling effect" on important future litigation.
The case serves to highlight the rising tensions between not only plaintiffs and defendants in highly emotional product-liability lawsuits, but also between the legal teams on either side of the class-action war zone.
"The court recognized that where you have a bona fide claim being put forward by plaintiffs' counsel, [the lawyers] shouldn't be punished for having represented poor plaintiffs or persons with modest means," says Mr. Siebert, who helped launched the lawsuit that was dismissed late last year.
The original suit was launched in the mid-1990s on behalf of four sick smokers who claimed their illnesses were the result of tobacco company negligence. They sought class-action status for their suit, which would have enabled millions of other smokers to join in and collect any resulting damages.
However, after a protracted battle, Judge Winkler declined to certify the case because it was too broad and unworkable.
So, in a surprise move, lawyers representing the three tobacco companies sought to penalize their opponents with a bill for their considerable lawyers' fees.
Laws in most provinces, including Ontario, generally entitle the winning side in a civil suit to recoup a portion of their legal fees from the loser.
In class-action cases in particular, however, such costs tend to be awarded much less frequently and, depending on the province, only in specific circumstances.
In Ontario, for example, a successful defendant cannot collect costs for class proceedings that are deemed to raise novel points of law or that involve a strong public-interest component. It was mainly on those two scores that the tobacco companies failed.
As Judge Winkler wrote in his March 8 decision: "The use of tobacco products is considered to constitute a serious risk to the health of the public in this province and elsewhere in Canada. It logically follows that any proceeding that might have the effect of either curtailing the use of those products or visiting the health costs of their use on the defendants rather than the public at large clearly raises issues that go beyond the interests of the proposed class, and is of some specific societal significance to residents of Ontario and the rest of Canada."
Still, lawyers for the defence say the landmark decision will ultimately have the effect of making it nearly impossible to ever recoup costs in a class-action proceeding -- a harsh development that they say is at odds with the general loser-pays rule in Canada.
"This decision is going to make it very difficult for successful defendants to recover costs in class-action proceedings," says Lyndon Barnes, a senior partner with Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, who led the case on behalf of Imperial Tobacco. "In a system where the loser pays, yes, it's unfair."
And, he adds, denying costs to defendants in class actions would be particularly punishing to large corporations targeted by such suits because they are obliged to defend themselves with vigour due to the potentially catastrophic consequences of losing.
"The defendants have to take class-action proceedings extremely seriously because usually the magnitudes of the sums of money being sought are significant to the bottom line of the companies," Mr. Barnes says.
What made this case unusual, however, was that, instead of seeking costs only from the plaintiffs, the tobacco companies' also attempted to recoup costs from the plaintiffs' lawyers, whom they argued were the real agents -- in their words the "de facto plaintiffs" -- behind the case.
The novel argument underscored one of the more controversial aspects of class-action suits, many of which involve product-liability or malpractice claims. Typically, lawyers fighting such cases work on a so-called contingency-fee basis -- performing work at no upfront cost to the plaintiffs in the hope of scoring a substantial portion of any settlement or court award, typically in the range of 30 to 40 per cent.
Critics argue that such arrangements encourage a form of lawsuit lotto in which lawyers champion cases that have negligible merit on the assumption that large corporations with deep pockets prefer to settle out of court rather than entangle their executives in lengthy and distracting litigation.
But on this point, too, Judge Winkler disagreed. The defendants, he wrote, "allege at the same time that the plaintiffs' counsel were the de facto plaintiffs by their conduct. There is no evidence to support that assertion and I reject it."
Lawyers who specialize in advocating plaintiffs' class actions agree.
"That's a huge swipe at you as a plaintiffs' counsel," says Harvey Strosberg, a partner at Windsor, Ont.-based Sutts Strosberg LLP and one of the country's leading plaintiffs' lawyers specializing in class actions.
Mr. Strosberg says the strategy of trying to penalize lawyers for spearheading class actions in Canada is unheard of. "It's precedent setting in the sense that, in the context of a class action, it's the first time that I've seen this having been done."
David Church, a partner at litigation firm Church & Co. in Vancouver, says the Ontario decision affirms what he considers to be the vital and courageous role that lawyers play in furthering the public good by actively soliciting class-action cases on behalf of victims who don't have the money or knowledge to take up on their own.
"You cannot have these cases unless you have lawyers' involvement," he says. "And the lawyers often will find the plaintiff, the lawyers will often find the cause of the action and the lawyers will often pursue it. And it will be out of the lawyers pocketbook if the action isn't successful."
Some observers, however, argue that it's wrong to view the plaintiffs' counsel exclusively as "little guys" who are outgunned by comparatively rich corporations.
"This is not a loosely organized David-and-Goliath setting," says Prof. Lorne Sossin, associate dean of University of Toronto's law faculty and an expert in administrative law and civil litigation. "These are very capable, well-organized and well-financed counsel often in these large cases."
He says there's a popular "Hollywood notion" that all class-action suits are brought forth by destitute individuals who rack up monumental legal fees on credit. "I'm aware of very few cases where class-action litigation in Ontario has been advanced with personal credit cards getting maxed out."
The Ontario class-action case was also followed closely in British Columbia, which, like most provinces -- in contrast to Ontario -- denies defendants the recourse to seek legal costs except in rare circumstances, such as when a suit is brought forth out of malice or for an ulterior motive.
J.J. Camp, a partner with Camp Fiorante Matthews, a Vancouver firm specializing in plaintiffs' litigation, was appalled at the tobacco companies' tactics.
"It's exceedingly rare for costs to be visited on lawyers," he says. "That's Draconian to seek costs against counsel." He argues that the high cost to contingency-fee lawyers of bringing forward class-action cases provides enough disincentive against launching cases with little or no merit.
The Ontario tobacco case, he adds, affirms his opinion that the Ontario Class Proceedings Act should be amended so that no costs are awarded to any party.
"People do not bring frivolous class actions in B.C.," Mr. Camp says. "You've got to be a dumb lawyer to bring a bad case."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050321/PFPROF21/TPBusiness/General
Forty-one year smoker butts out to win Quit Smoking 2005 contest -ON
TORONTO, March 23 /CNW/ - Butting out 41 years after getting hooked on smoking has earned Ron Herd of Wingham Ontario a sparkling new Ford Mustang, the grand prize in the Ontario Quit Smoking 2005 contest.
Herd, 55, was among more than 19,000 adult daily smokers across Ontario who entered the contest and quit for the month of February and, he says, "for good."
"I just made up my mind I was going to do it this time," Herd said. "My son is getting married in September and I told him I'd win the car so he could use it on his wedding day. I'll never put another cigarette in my mouth."
Tanya Kulnies, chair of the provincial Quit Smoking Contest 2005 planning team said the contest has proven to be a fantastic incentive for smokers who are thinking about quitting.
"The number of smokers entering the contest has risen every year and the number of smokers in the province has continued to drop. We don't think that's a coincidence. The vast majority of smokers will tell you they want to quit. The contest gives them a quit date and helps them build a support system to
succeed."
This year's contest was launched in December and encouraged smokers to begin planning for a February 1st quit date. Each smoker had to sign up a non-smoking buddy to support them through the tough times in the quitting process. A potential grand prize winner and regional winners were chosen by random draw and their smoke-free status verified by a urine test. Along with Herd, seven regional quitters have won surround sound home theatre systems. They include Paul Nagy of Orleans, Joe Pellegrino of Mississauga, Ann-Louise Neumeyer-Rauch of Scarborough, Marshall Marion of Penetanguishene, Cindy Lannigan of Sault Ste. Marie, Robin Matteis of Leamington, and Trevor Brown of Beamsville. The buddy of each winner receives $250 in cash.
"This contest is the only provincial initiative of its kind that encourages smokers to take the step from intention to action," said Kulnies. "It's so easy to take up the smoking habit and so tough to quit. We applaud everyone who has tried. If you haven't been successful yet, try again. And don't be afraid to ask for help. Talk to your doctor, pharmacist or health care provider about products and services that can help you succeed." Contest data shows that smokers entering the 2005 contest were almost equally split between men and women. On average, participants had been smoking about 18 cigarettes a day for about 20 years. Among previous contest participants, research shows 30 per cent of smokers who stayed smoke free for the quit month were still smoke free one year later.
The Quit Smoking 2005 Contest was funded in part by Health Canada, and supported by more than 60 local councils on smoking and health and public health units throughout Ontario with sponsorship provided by Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Division, the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, Ontario Smokers' Helpline, Ontario Dental Hygienists Association, Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, Ontario Dental Nurses and Assistants Association and the Association of Local Public Health Agencies.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/23/c7460.html
Lawyers fume over tobacco suit -ON
Cigarette makers lose bid to hold plaintiffs' legal team responsible for costs in class action
Sandra Rubin, Senior Business Writer Financial Post March 23, 2005
Three large tobacco companies have lost their bid to have the lawyers behind a failed anti-smoking class action personally held responsible for more than $1.2-million in costs along with their clients, a move many see as an attempt to chill Canada's emerging class-action bar.
While it's normal for the victor to go after the vanquished for costs, it is unprecedented for the victor to go after the vanquished's counsel in a class action.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp. said in their motion for costs that the small Toronto firm of Sommers & Roth should pay because it was the "real plaintiffs" in the class-action lawsuit, not the four ill Ontario smokers it was representing. They also said the personal-injury firm badly mismanaged the litigation, making it much more expensive.
The move has galvanized the plaintiffs' bar, shaking the normally symbiotic relationship between plaintiff and defence firms away from public view.
Defence counsel are often anxious to know which class actions are coming so they can position their firms to get on to what are very lucrative files. Plaintiffs' counsel will sometimes oblige as part of the private give-and-take in big litigation.
"I'm fuming that these guys brought this motion. We all feed off the same pot. They've breached an unspoken code," says one plaintiffs' counsel. "Defendants in these things play hardball and no one complains about good hard litigation. But this takes it to a new level, it's completely off-side. You don't go after the lawyers.
"This is going to affect how I deal with these guys in the future. You can't do something like this and expect people to be yucking it up with you over drinks after the case is over. You know the normal indulgences we all need from time to time in litigation? Zero. They can't expect that any more."
The litigator, who asked that his name not be used, says he suspects the tobacco companies went after Sommers & Roth because "it's a small firm, not that well-known and not known at all for class actions. But who's to say they won't go after me next time? I'm really furious."
He's not alone. The case has been the subject of private gossip and vigorous e-mail debate among a certain segment of the bar.
It didn't hurt that well-known names such as Earl Cherniak of Lerners, and Deborah Glendinning and Lyndon Barnes of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt were involved in the original lawsuit. But it was the application for costs that had everyone buzzing.
"No matter what happens, you can't start hitting the lawyers," says Alan Lenczner of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin. "If he had awarded any amount of costs against Sommers & Roth, that would have sounded the death knell for class actions. I mean, who would take one on under the circumstances?"
Mr. Lenczner says he was involved in something disturbingly similar in a suit he has against Georgia-Pacific. The multinational asked for an order obliging him personally to post $206,817.16 in security for costs for his client, who is impecunious.
"Their reasoning was I should pay because if we win I stand to get my fees paid and maybe a premium, that I should put up the money because I stood to get a benefit from the litigation."
Ian Nordheimer of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion on March 16, but Mr. Lenczner, one of Canada's most prominent litigators, says "the guns have turned a bit.
"The question is why, why are people doing this, what's the motivation?
"With my case, I believe it was designed to kill the action. They knew damned well I wasn't going to pay security for costs, they were hoping if I said no it would have been the end of it. In the tobacco case, they're saying surely the lawyer who carries this thing should pay for it. And if the court agreed, that would spell the end of class actions. Kill or chill. I guess that's it.
FIRST ANTI-SMOKING CASE
From the moment it was filed in 1995, David Caputo, Luna Roth, Lori Cawardine and David Gordon Hyduk, as Estate Trustee of Russell Walter Hyduk v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans Benson & Hedges, Inc., RJR-Macdonald Inc. seemed destined to make waves -- and not because of costs.
It was the first class-action lawsuit in Canada to go after Big Tobacco for the health damage caused by cigarettes. The suit was brought on behalf of all Ontarians, living and dead, whose health suffered because of smoking.
Anti-smoking suits in the United States have resulted in lifetime paydays for some plaintiffs and their lawyers. But Canada's first tobacco class-action didn't get off the ground.
After nearly a decade of sparring, Warren Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to certify it last year. He found the pleading was too broad and failed to meet four of the five elements in Ontario's Class Proceedings Act (CPA).
The tobacco companies moved to recover their expenses. They shocked many people by asking that Sommers & Roth be held "jointly and severally" liable with their clients.
They argued in court earlier this month that Sommers & Roth ran up costs by mismanaging the case. They said the scope of the class definition was changed multiple times, along with the causes of action. They complained of excessive cross-examinations, and that defective affidavits filed in support of the motion for certification meant the plaintiffs were constantly trying to introduce new evidence.
And they also pointed out that Sommers & Roth had chosen to bypass the Class Proceedings Fund, which would have indemnified the firm and its clients against costs had they lost, but taken 10% of any recovery had they won.
The tobacco companies argued because the firm had gambled on indemnity it didn't mean they should have to pay for defending an "amorphous" lawsuit that led to "a lot of wasted time and money."
Imperial Tobacco, which used a litigation team headed by Ms. Glendinning and Mr. Barnes, asked to be repaid $490,817.91. "They should bear the responsibility for their decisions," Ms. Glendinning says. JTI-Macdonald, represented by Mr. Cherniak and Susan Wortzman of Lerners, asked for $347,532.97. Rothmans Benson & Hedges, which used Steven Sofar and Marshall Reinhart at Gowlings, asked for $184,850. The tobacco companies also asked to be reimbursed the $255,655.22 they laid out for experts.
The tab was more than $1.2-million, which may be the largest cost award requested in Canada yet.
"When you think about it, it was the plaintiffs' choice to bring the action against all three parties, knowing there would be three sets of counsel, which would potentially triple the cost exposure," says Ms. Wortzman, who argued the cost motion with Ms. Glendinning.
"I don't think the quantum of the costs were unreasonable based on the record that was before the court, the 68 volumes of material, the endless motions and the delays over a nine-year period."
The other side fought back vigorously saying "there was ample blame to go around."
Litigator Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky, who was brought in by Sommers & Roth to argue the certification motion, and Brian Brock, of Dutton Brock, who was representing Sommers & Roth for LAWPRO, claimed the high costs were due in part to the tobacco companies' lawyers loading up the motion record with evidence that went to the merits of the case, not just to certification.
They said if Caputo became expensive, it was in part because the tobacco companies were "overlawyering" it, and they accused the tobacco companies of using the prospect of a huge cost award to shut down future class actions.
"The message is if you bring proceedings against these defendants, as lawyers they will seek costs against you personally," Mr. Baert told Justice Winkler.
"This should really drive home the risks plaintiffs' lawyers assume," says Won Kim, a litigator at Roy Elliot Kim O'Connor, a Toronto boutique involved in several high-profile class actions. "Now it's not just carrying a case for eight or nine years and assuming the cost for experts, the stakes have been raised.
"I think this shows that class actions are clearly getting to people, but could you imagine the chill it would have put on the plaintiffs bar if any part of this were successful?
"We'd all be running for Manitoba."
REASONS FAULT BOTH SIDES
In his reasons on costs released March 8, Justice Winkler faulted both sides for running up expenses. But he said there was no basis for a cost award because Caputo met two of the three factors in the CPA that can be used to mitigate against costs.
Section 31.1 of the act says when weighing whether to award costs, "the court may consider whether the class proceeding was a test case, raised a novel point of law or involved a matter of public interest."
While he said Caputo was not a test case, which involves the resolution of a legal principle, he found as one of the earliest class actions it did raise novel points of law. And he held that since smoking is seen as a serious risk to the health of the public, there was a strong public-interest component.
The judge said with two of the three factors satisfied, he was not prepared to assign costs. While that made the question of whether the lawyers should have to pay costs moot, he addressed arguments that Sommers & Roth were the "real plaintiffs."
"The simple fact counsel may be more heavily involved in a class proceeding is neither surprising nor a valid reason to elevate them to the status of party to the proceeding for cost purposes," he wrote. "Access to justice and other laudable goals of the CPA will only be served as long as there are counsel willing to take risks to advance the cause of plaintiffs of modest means or modest claim.
"The fact counsel stand to be rewarded for successfully taking the risk does not make them a de facto party."
Mr. Baert says he believes the decision will resonate for some time. "This case is important. It's the first time anyone has gone after the lawyers. There hadn't been a lot of discussion in a lot of these cost decisions about what the purpose is of the provisions in the Class Proceedings Act, so I think this will be the leading case on costs for a long time. It's written by the senior judge in the area and a lot of people are talking about it. I'd expect it to be followed by other judges."
Ms. Glendinning says she is not persuaded Caputo ever wielded the big stick some other counsel seem to think. "Costs are a matter of discretion and are highly dependent on the facts of each case -- this was a very unique case, so was the way it was prosecuted.
"As for any so called 'chilling effect,' the highly fact-specific nature of the issues at play here would, in all likelihood, have significantly limited the scope for using a positive decision as a blunt instrument in deterring other cases."
Harvey Strosberg, who helped pioneer class actions in Canada, says he suspects there will be some cooling effect even though the bid to make the lawyers pay ultimately failed. "In my opinion, the application was an attempt to chill and discourage any further litigation against the tobacco companies but any time you do something like this, it's a shot across the bow at the whole plaintiffs' bar," says Mr. Strosberg of Sutts Strosberg in Windsor.
He says he is completely convinced it was the tobacco companies, not the law firms, who were behind the attempt to have the lawyers held personally liable. He says he doesn't believe corporate law firms would try to shut down class actions even if they could. "Not a chance. That would be like killing the golden goose. They wouldn't want to do that."
But Ms. Glendinning suggests it would be a big mistake for anyone to think this can't happen again.
"This may be the first time an order for costs of this magnitude and against unsuccessful plaintiffs' counsel has been requested in a class proceeding, but it likely will not be the last," she says. The rules and jurisprudence clearly provide for this relief in appropriate circumstances.
"We will just have to wait and see what those circumstances will be."
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=7094e799-3ee3-4d2e-b04e-b746bdc7c842
Steady economic growth for Ontario: RBC forecasts http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7361.html
Healthy growth expected for Manitoba's diversified economy, says RBC forecast http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7348.html
RBC forecasts healthy economic growth for Saskatchewan http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7349.html
British Columbia's economic growth on upturn: RBC forecasts http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7361.html
Alberta remains Canada's growth leader: RBC Economics http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7354.html
Prince Edward Island economic growth looks to capital spending to boost economy: RBC forecasts http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7332.html
RBC forecasts slower growth for Newfoundland and Labrador http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7315.html
Manufacturing and retail sectors boost New Brunswick's economic growth, says RBC http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7338.html
Nova Scotia continues modest economic growth, says RBC http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7340.html
RBC forecasts slower economic growth for Quebec http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7312.html
Invitation: Can we Stop the Cardiovascular Disease Time Bomb? http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2005/22/c7218.html
Posted at 9:23 am by looped_ca
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Smoking ban issue not so simple
By Murray Mandryk Date: March 1st, 2005
Of course, rural Saskatchewan hoteliers can continue their opposition to the NDP government's smoking ban.
But here are a couple of points they might want to first consider:
Point One: According to a 1999 report of the British Columbia Capital Health Authority, service industry employees (waitresses, hostesses, bartenders) working an eight-hour shift in a smoke-filled establishment consume the equivalent of a pack to a pack and half of second-hand smoke. And some American studies suggest that a bartender may consume the equivalent of three times that amount in a day.
Point Two: Quebec smokers last week won the first round in two multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuits against Canada's three largest tobacco producers. A Quebec Superior Court Judge certified the legal action that may allow as many as two million smokers to seek damages.
So what's the significance of these points to rural Saskatchewan and those that rallied in Weyburn last week in support of Rob Joyal's bid to fight eight charges of breaking the province's Jan. 1 smoking ban?
Well, perhaps what some rural hotel owners need to know is that the issue here is much bigger and much more complicated that a provincial law they don't happen to agree with.
What they should begin to realize is that they are not only on the wrong side of public opinion but they also may be setting themselves up for far, far bigger court trouble in the future.
I've never had the pleasure of meeting Rob Joyal, owner of the Royal Hotel in Weyburn, but he sure seems to me to be more like an honest Joe trying to make a living than some harden criminal.
And while I don't exactly sympathize with the cause he's taken up, I can appreciate how people can be frustrated with the seemingly arbitrary way the province's NDP government sometimes does things. Lord knows, I've seen enough examples.
But if Joyal or anyone else thinks this is simply about them being victims of an unfair provincial law hindering their ability to make money, they may be missing the point.
The smoking issue is no long simply a matter of telling people who don't like smoke in bars that they can stay home. It's not simply a matter of solving the problem with a few ventilated smoking rooms.
And it sure isn't just simply a matter of arguing: "If the First Nations casinos allow, we should be allowed to have smoking in our establishments, too."
Whether the hotel and hospitality industry likes it or not, the world is changing.
According to a recent poll conducted for the Regina Leader-Post, a whopping 66 per cent of people support the NDP government's Jan. 1 public smoking ban. A lot of people would prefer to see a level playing field, but tell me this: What other government initiative has ever received 66 per cent of public support?
But it isn’t just an issue of smoking in public places no longer being socially acceptable. The issue that hoteliers need to consider is a legal one.
Credible organizations are not identifying the dangers of second-hand smoke. In fact, we've seen in recent years the first successful lawsuits of waitresses and others suing over second-hand smoke.
And now we're seeing in Quebec what may be open season on the tobacco companies. So what's next?
Well after one lawyer finds one successful target for suit, he and other lawyers tend to look for the next one. I'm no lawyer, but I know a lot of them and some of them tell me that the second-hand smoke lawsuits against establishments that permit smoking may not be that far away.
That means bars, restaurants and hotels.
This isn't simply an issue of protesting a provincial law that you don't like. The world has gotten a lot more complicated than that.
http://www.whitewoodherald.sk.ca/view_article.php?id=1478
Alberta evidence for ban
http://www.newdemocrats.ab.ca/archive/20050125.php
Smoke ban bolstered -AB
By BILL LAYE, CALGARY SUN Mon, March 14, 2005
Majority of MLAs seen to support bill
The majority of the province's MLAs are set to support a total tobacco ban -- provided Premier Ralph Klein butts out of the debate, says anti-smoking lobbyist Les Hagen. Calgary-Lougheed MLA Dave Rodney's bill, calling for an end to puffing in almost all work areas and public places, including bars, restaurants and gaming facilities, is currently before the Alberta legislature.
If Alberta's politicians are allowed to express their feelings, Hagen, the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said the feedback he's received indicates nearly half the Tory's 62 members -- and all Opposition MLAs -- would give the new law the nod.
"Based on those numbers we believe Bill 201 would pass in its present form if a free vote is held," Hagen said.
"We believe at least 25 government MLAs are prepared to support this bill without weakening amendments."
If ASH's numbers ring true, the bill would easily pass in Alberta's 83-member legislature, given Opposition parties currently hold 21 seats.
Hagen said in light of these odds he's hoping Klein, who's previously been cool to the idea of a total smoking ban, will keep his promise not to interfere in the current debate.
ASH can rest assured that will happen, said Marisa Etmanski, a spokeswoman for the premier.
"Premier Klein has said all along he supports a good discussion of this topic," Etmanski said last night.
She also said she wonders at ASH's MLA support numbers -- and hopes the lobby group will also consider everyone's views during the debate.
"This has been a sensitive issue," she said.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2005/03/14/pf-960138.html
Let feds outlaw tobacco: Ralph -AB
JERRY WARD, LEGISLATURE BUREAUWed, March 16, 2005
Premier Ralph Klein says the easiest way to quell the debate around whether the province should adopt a smoke ban in workplaces is for Ottawa to outlaw tobacco. "If you really want to do something, make smoking illegal," Klein said yesterday.
"We can't do that, but the federal government can do that. You know, that is what I find so crazy about this whole debate is that you're dealing with a totally legal substance that can be sold virtually anywhere. A totally legal substance.
"The key to this, I guess, is make it illegal. But no one is going to do that. No government. Why? Of course taxes. You know that. You don't need to ask me."
Action on Smoking and Health director Les Hagen said banning tobacco would be like the government adopting a prohibition on alcohol - as was done in the 1930s - but liquor was still to be found.
Cancer-stricken Steven O'Hearn, 42, of Cochrane, who started smoking at age 12, says the root of the health problem is the federal government, which permits the sale of tobacco in Canada even though countless studies show the harm it can do to human health.
"The tobacco companies over the years have been given permission to put toxins in the tobacco to make it addictive," O'Hearn has said.
"There's over 4,000 ingredients in a cigarette that make it so highly addictive, which is regulated by the federal government.
"If they're going to be doing that and continue to do that then they should tell their tobacco companies to get out of the business because you're killing Canadians."
Liberal health critic Laurie Blakeman has said she feels that tobacco is not illegal because of the revenues it generates.
"There's a lot of money involved in it. I think that's always a big factor," said the Grit MLA for Edmonton-Centre.
Alberta MLAs are currently debating the merits of a bill to ban smoking.
As it contains allowances for ventilated smoking rooms, some critics say the legislation fails to protect workers from second-hand smoke.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/03/16/962521-sun.html
More people attend casino after smoke ban -SK
CBC News Last Updated Mar 17 2005 11:49 AM CST
REGINA – The province-wide smoking ban didn't hurt attendance at Casino Regina in the early weeks of 2005.
In fact, according to documents obtained by CBC, about 25 per cent more people (1,175 more) visited the casino in January compared to January 2004.
There was also a rise in attendance from December 2004 to January 2005 – 244 or four per cent. The provincial government banned smoking in most public places, including bars, restaurants and hotels, beginning Jan. 1.
Some bar owners around the province said they expected to lose money from the ban.
However, the casino business appears to have benefited.
Casino Moose Jaw also saw an immediate rise in attendance, although its smoking ban was introduced in February 2004.
Saskatchewan Gaming Corp. officials point out that the numbers refer to all visitors to the casinos – gamblers and non-gamblers.
That means even though attendance is up – the impact on revenues from the slots and gaming tables is not yet known.
However, Donna Pasiechnik, a spokesperson with the Canadian Cancer Society, said she expects revenues will be up as well.
"We recently saw a study on gaming revenues in the state of Delaware. Despite a smoking-ban in Delaware, gaming revenues have not been affected," she said.
Pasiechnik said the cancer society always predicted the smoking ban would encourage non-smokers to get out more often and the latest casino numbers seem bear that out.
CBC obtained the casino attendance figures after filing a Freedom of Information request.
http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=casino-number050317
OPSEU welcomes Ottawa mayor's change of heart on ad ban policy, considers charter challenge -ON
TORONTO, March 17 /CNW/ - Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli's decision to review a city policy allowing OC Transpo to ban ads it considers "too political" is a step in the righyeap ont. t direction, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union says.
However, the union is considering a legal challenge under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if the city fails to amend the advertising policy.
This month, senior officials at OC Transpo vetoed several ads the union planned to place in city transit shelters. Mayor Chiarelli later rejected OPSEU's appeal to reverse the ad ban.
The OPSEU ads are part of a provincewide campaign the union launched on Monday calling on the McGuinty government to rebuild public services. The ads
were approved and are running in transit shelters in 11 other Ontario cities. They feature photographs of OPSEU members who work in the Ontario Public Service and text that reads:
Lives depend on our public services.
It's time Dalton McGuinty lived up to his promises.
No more cuts - Rebuild our public services.
"OC Transpo has no business acting as a political censor," said OPSEU President Leah Casselman. "Banning these ads is a clear violation of our members' right to free speech."
"We are glad Mayor Chiarelli seems to be having a change of heart, and we want to participate in the city's policy review" Casselman said. "Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Unless the city reverses its policy, we may have no option but to take legal action."
OPSEU represents more than 100,000 public sector workers, including 40,000 in the Ontario Public Service who are currently in negotiations with the McGuinty government for a new collective agreement.
To download the OPSEU transit ad go to: www.opseu.org
Tory fuming at dino analogy
THE CANADIAN PRESS
At least one Alberta Tory doesn't like being compared to dinosaurs when it comes to the issue of smoking. In the Legislature yesterday, NDP Leader Brian Mason tabled a well-known Gary Larson cartoon that suggests that smoking is what killed the dinosaurs.
Mason, who calls himself a longtime Larson fan, says he was just poking fun at the refusal of many Conservatives to support a bill that would ban smoking in public places.
"I got some kind of unsigned note from one of the Tory backbenchers, a lengthy note explaining why the cartoon really showed that socialism was the problem," said Mason.
"If the person had signed it, I would have sent it back with a notation that far worse than smoking in terms of determining extinction is a lack of sense of humour."
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/03/17/963828-sun.html
Smoking room needed -MB
Re: the March 3 letter Keep smoke to yourself: March 17/05
Since smoking is banned in all public workplaces, where would people like smokers to smoke?
Smoking is not illegal, just smoking in particular places is.
If a smoker gets a 10-minute smoke break, I hardly think they are going to walk all the way through the building, go down the elevators and then out into the middle of the road to smoke.
If there are businesses on either side, where else should they go?
Does it not make sense to provide smokers with an indoor smoking room to have their legal puff rather than huddling in public entrances? I don't smoke, but I am tolerant of those who do.
DEANNE OLSTON
www.winnepegfreepress.com
Gaming, booze income jumps -MB
New fleet of VLTs, liquor prices cited
By Paul Egan Thursday, March 17th, 2005
THE province's income from betting and booze is way up, reports filed yesterday in the legislature show.
New VLTs and higher prices for beer and liquor are the reasons why.
The Manitoba Lotteries Corp. reported a net profit of $206.3 million for the nine months ended Dec. 31. That's up 10.7 per cent from the profit the corporation posted at the same point a year earlier.
At the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, profits to the end of the third quarter are up by five per cent, to $151.7 million from $144.4 million a year earlier, the commission reported.
Scott Smith, the minister responsible for both Crown corporations, said the replacement video lottery terminals the province installed last summer have reversed a downturn in play that was linked to the ban on smoking in bars.
"People seem to be coming back," he said.
The corporation's overall income is up $19.9 million despite a $12.5-million decline in profit from the two casinos.
Income from VLTs alone was up $31.7 million for the nine-month period even though the new VLTs were only in place for the latter half of that time period.
"I am frankly amazed at the upswing in gambling; I am concerned," said Tory lotteries critic Ron Schuler.
The corporation recently announced plans to spend $10 million over five years on research and programming related to problem gambling.
It also plans to spend $5 million this year on 400 new slot machines to replace a portion of the existing ones at the two casinos.
The increased beer, wine and liquor profits were mainly due to price markups last May, commission CEO Don Lussier said in the report.
Drops in beer and cooler sales -- likely related to the cool summer -- were offset by increased wine sales, Lussier added.
Conservative liquor commission critic Cliff Cullen said the increased profit makes the commission's recent attempt to hike the price of bargain beer even more mysterious.
Smith intervened and asked the commission to reconsider a planned increase in the price of economy-brand beers.
Extra money from the lotteries corporation, which was factored into the budget tabled last week, will go into general government revenues and mainly be spent on priorities such as health care and education, Smith said.
www.winnepegfreepress.com
Grits overcome hurdles, rebound in poll
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Queen's Park Bureau
TORONTO -- A new Ottawa Sun/Leger Marketing poll shows Ontario voters may be ready to kiss and make up with Dalton McGuinty's Liberals. The Grits had the support of 44% of those polled, the Conservatives 33% and New Democrats 19%.
Craig Worden, associate vice-president of public affairs for Leger Marketing, said the Liberals are back to the kind of polling numbers they enjoyed prior to their election victory.
"They've returned to their fighting weight," Worden said.
When polled in September, 37% of Ontarians favoured the Grits, 35% the Tories and 19% the NDP.
Worden said the Liberals have come out of a successful legislative session in which they ushered through a pit bull ban and same-sex marriage legislation.
The government also reached a deal with doctors and went on the offensive to get more funding out of the federal government.
"When we look at them, we've seen a government that's perhaps turned the corner," Worden said.
BROKEN PROMISES
The Liberals' popularity plunged after their first budget in which they brought in the unpopular health levy and broke several key election promises.
Worden said the Liberals will be looking to see if these new polling numbers hold, but they're definitely a good sign for the party.
One of the key challenges will be the rising profile of PC Leader John Tory, who is contesting a seat in the Legislature today and is considered the frontrunner to take the riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.
Worden said the provincewide poll numbers are not reflective of any one riding.
Leger Marketing polled 1,000 Ontarians and asked who they would vote for if an election were held tomorrow. The polling was conducted between March 8-13.
The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2005/03/17/963492-sun.html
Court to review smoking ban authority
By Bryan Meadows - The Chronicle-Journal
March 16, 2005
A judicial review is set to weigh a Health Services Appeal and Review Board decision that medical officer of health Dr. Pete Sarsfield overstepped his authority when he issued a smoking ban for public places.
The Divisional Court hearing is slated to begin Sept. 26 in Toronto.
The Ministry of the Attorney General requested the review almost a year ago, arguing that the appeal board erred in its final decision on Sarsfield’s authority and its interpretation of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the Tobacco Control Act, the Smoking in the Workplace Act and Section 115 of the Municipal Act.
The ministry wants the court to toss out the board’s February 2004 decision and order the appeal and review board to reconsider the case.
The ministry said the province couldn’t appeal the decision to the review board, but has the right under common law to apply for a judicial review.
The Northwestern Health Unit declined comment on the proceedings.
The review board ruled that Sarsfield’s smoking ban was “beyond the scope of his authority” under Section 13 of the health protection act.
The three-member panel agreed with 19 Kenora-Rainy River district bar and restaurant owners who maintained that Sarsfield lacked the authority to ban smoking in their establishments.
The panel said that a medical officer of health’s mandate — with respect to general health concerns associated with smoking — is to promote smoke-free living through co-operation, education and assistance in the enforcement of other provincial legislation such as the Tobacco Control Act.
The health unit decided not appeal the decision after the Ministry of Health rejected a request for $100,000 to cover legal fees associated with an appeal.
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/story.shtml?id=26249
Smoking Discrimination
The Daily News (Halifax), Editorial March 1, 2005
Posted with Permission. All Rights Reserved.
To the editor:
As of Jan. 10, Capital Health implemented a tobacco-free policy for all mental-health facilities. Mental-health consumers, who are accessing services under capital health, be they inpatients or outpatients, will no longer be able to carry tobacco products on their person while in a mental-health facility. Mental-health consumers must turn over any tobacco products to staff and may get them back when they leave the premises.
This policy only affects citizens accessing mental health services, and it does not apply to other patients or staff in the hospital system. Other patients and staff in Capital Health can carry their tobacco products with them and may go off grounds to smoke as they please. This policy is extremely discriminatory, given its limited implementation.
This policy is unethical and a violation of a marginalized group's human rights. Capital Health should seriously reconsider the impact of such a policy on the community at large.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=527ba804-444e-401d-9563-ae58505ba840
Posted at 9:14 am by looped_ca
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Ex-bureaucrat to be jailed for defrauding government
OTTAWA - A former federal bureaucrat is going to jail for a year, after admitting that he got more than $200,000 in kickbacks for channelling millions of dollars to an addictions treatment centre.
Paul Cochrane was an assistant deputy minister with Health Canada and in charge of a $1-billion budget before he retired in 2001.
Cochrane, 58, pleaded guilty in an Ottawa court Friday on charges of fraud and breach of trust.
He admitted in court that he and his family received more than $200,000 in cash and gifts in exchange for funnelling more than $70 million in contracts to a native addictions foundation in Manitoba.
FROM JAN. 8, 2004: RCMP informant claimed treatment centre directors were organized crime group
The kickbacks included nearly $30,000 in travel to Florida and the Caribbean, several SUVs and tens of thousands of dollars in cash, which he used to buy condominiums in Mont Tremblant, Que.
He alleged in court that they came from Perry Fontaine, the director of the Virginia Fontaine Addictions Foundation in Manitoba. It ran a 76-bed treatment centre located on the Sagkeeng reserve about 145 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg.
FROM NOV. 30, 2001: Manitoba treatment centre to close
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/11/cochrane-050311.html
Pressured staff to fast-track millions: Cochrane
Cochrane said he repeatedly increased funding to the foundation, negotiating agreements with Fontaine before Health Canada officials could approve them and pressuring his staff to fast-track millions of dollars in payments.
"It seems to be a clear abuse of the tremendously important responsibilities he was given to assist some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society," said Manitoba Conservative MP Brian Pallister.
Manitoba MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis expressed disappointment at the quick court settlement, saying she expected the investigators and prosecution to find out why Cochrane's superiors didn't step in sooner.
It also leaves "the wrongful impression that it's really the poor administration of the aboriginal community" that caused the fraud, the NDP politician said.
More than a 'slap on the wrist'
But both the Crown and Cochrane's lawyer agreed there was no proof that Cochrane was aware the gifts were paid for with money he gave to the foundation to treat native people addicted to drugs, alcohol and solvents.
Judge Lynn Rutshny said Cochrane allowed himself to be corrupted, and he had fallen from the grace of his high position. She agreed with the plea bargain that Cochrane should serve a year in jail.
"No civil servant working at their desk today would think that's a slap on the wrist," said Cochrane's lawyer, William Vanveen.
"That's a serious penalty."
Cochrane apologizes to public, department
Cochrane, who lives in Kanata near Ottawa, is also facing criminal tax-evasion charges, and is a defendant in a civil suit launched by the government to reclaim some of the money that went to the treatment foundation.
Before being taken to the Ottawa detention centre, Cochrane told the judge he was sorry he let down the public's trust and regretted the embarrassment he caused officials with the department.
With tears in his eyes, he turned to his wife to apologize.
He could serve as little as eight months in jail before receiving two years probation.
Others face charges in Manitoba
Vanveen said details are still being worked out for Cochrane to provide evidence in the continuing prosecution of the foundation's director and members of his family in Manitoba.
The police began investigating four years ago with an informant who told them the foundation's directors had bragged they'd bought a corrupt official.
They eventually confiscated more than 60,000 documents from dozens of banks, government offices and private homes in three provinces.
According to auditors, more than a million dollars Cochrane funnelled to the foundation for treating addicted native people ended up in one director's pocket.
Cochrane's testimony is to be used as evidence in a continuing investigation against six other people in Manitoba who have been charged in the scandal.
None of them have entered pleas and the allegations against them haven't been proven in court.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/11/cochrane-050311.html
Smokers' lawsuit being stalled: lobby group
CBC News Last Updated Mar 14 2005 07:01 AM EST
MONTREAL – The Quebec Tobacco and Health Council says tobacco companies are trying to stall a class action lawsuit launched by people suffering from lung and throat cancer.
Last month, the Quebec Superior Court allowed some 40,000 Quebecers who smoke to proceed with a class action lawsuit against JTI-Macdonald, Imperial Tobacco and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges.
RELATED STORY - Court certifies class action suits against 3 tobacco companies
Late last week, the tobacco companies filed a formal appeal challenging the lawsuit.
Mario Bujold of the Quebec Tobacco and Health Council says it is just a delaying tactic, that a class action certification can't be appealed.
Cancer victims have already waited too long for tobacco companies to take responsibility for their products, the group says.
http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc-tobac20050314
WHY IS it that every time I take the LRT the carriages smell like alcohol mixed with body odour and horse manure? This pungent odour is so bad that it burns my nose. Is it that hard during non-operational hours to shampoo the rugs and stale seats so that the odours don't set in?
Nathan Lucyk
(Steaming mad at dirt.)
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Letters/
Smokin' in the lobbyists' room -ON
Activists to use song to battle ban
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF Tue, March 15, 2005
A SMOKERS' rights group funded by the tobacco industry is launching a series of "rock 'n' rallies" to battle the province-wide smoking ban. Nancy Daigneault, president of mychoice.ca, which has about 15,000 members and is funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, said they're paying Toronto-based rock group Southbound $400 a gig for shows in Etobicoke, Windsor, Ottawa, Brampton and London.
The band also recorded Smokin' in Ontario, sung to the music of Smokin' in the Boys' Room. Copies will be sent to radio stations.
Smokin' in the Boys Room was written by the late "Cub" Koda for his band Brownsville Station.
Mychoice.ca is fighting the McGuinty government's legislation, which would ban smoking in all public places and workplaces, including ventilated smoking rooms in bars, by May 2006.
"It's not about turning back the clock ... it's allowing smokers to continue to have places they can go to to smoke," Daigneault said.
One Ajax bar owner who has gone out of business blamed Durham Region's smoking ban, similar in scope to the province's.
Rob MacArthur of the former Puck and Beaver Pub said 26 bars in the region have gone under since the ban came in last June.
Liberal MPP Peter Fonseca said research has shown that jurisdictions with smoking bans, such as Ottawa and New York, have seen increased hospitality industry profits and jobs
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/15/961351-sun.html
University of Ottawa
August 26, 2004
�� Telephone surveys were conducted with:
-University or college administrators, Student union executives, Retail store managers, Campus bar managers, Health services contacts
Approximately 30% of young adults aged 19-24smoke. Source: CTUMS, 2003.
Important increases in prevalence and frequency of smoking occur after the age 18 Source: CTUMS, 2003
Proportion of daily smokers increases from 8% among youth, to over 22% among young adults. Source: Hammond et al., 2004
A general lack of support for stronger tobacco control policy among student, and very mixed for college /university executives.
Policy Recommendations
Smoke-Free Bylaws
Smoking should be prohibited in all indoor places including student housing, campus restaurants, bars and pubs. Institutions should consider extending these restrictions outside buildings, including entrance ways and all of campus.
Tobacco Advertising
All forms of tobacco advertising on campus should be prohibited, including campus newspapers, radio stations, and signage at campus bars. In addition, distribution of tobacco-related products and paraphernalia with tobacco logos should be prohibited.
Prohibition of Campus Tobacco Sales
The sale of tobacco products should be prohibited on campus property, including retail outlets run by the institution, as well as those that are leased from the institution.
*these people have grown up with Tobacco Education in grade school and up. Why in an adult environment should you worry?
http://www.smoke-free.ca/campus/TOC%20Presentation%20(DH).pdf
Klein backs Alta. smoking ban -AB
Jason Markusoff and Larry Johnsrude The Edmonton Journal Wednesday, March 09, 2005
But premier wants Casinos, beer halls exempt
EDMONTON - Premier Ralph Klein said Tuesday he will support a bill for a provincewide smoking ban, but only if it is amended to allow people to puff away in bars, casinos and other adults-only venues.
Anti-tobacco advocates fumed that the premier wants to weaken the private member's bill of rookie Conservative MLA Dave Rodney that proposes a blanket ban, while representatives of the hospitality industry welcomed the softer approach.
When it was introduced Monday, many Tories predicted Rodney's bill stood little chance of passing, especially since Klein did not support it. The rural caucus strongly opposes the idea of forcing aging smokers in beer halls to butt out, a scenario Klein regularly brings up.
But with the premier's new-found support and provisions to exempt the beer halls, it's far more likely it will succeed.
"I don't want to quash Dave Rodney's bill," Klein said. "I think it's fundamentally a good bill."
He ordered Health Minister Iris Evans to present amendments to bar smoking everywhere except facilities where people under the age of 18 are not allowed.
"The amendment, if I recall, reads that smoking be allowed in places that are ventilated properly and where that smoke does not filter into a non-smoking area," he said.
"I wouldn't call it diluted. I would call it a more common-sense approach."
But government insiders said that doesn't necessarily pave the way for designated smoking rooms, which have been widely panned as too costly for most small businesses. It might keep status quo at bars, or establish set hours for smoking.
The amendment will not be tabled for weeks, after the bill gets second reading next Monday and is debated in the legislature.
Rodney said he acknowledges the political reality, that the bill stands a better chance at becoming law this way.
"To me, a smoke-free Alberta is what I'd be shooting for," Rodney said. "I'm shooting for it right now, but if we don't get all the way there today, I'd be happy if we at least take a step in the right direction."
Lindy Rollingson, president of the Alberta Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said allowing smoking in designated sections would ease some of the industry concerns.
"Our position is 'freedom of choice' for the restaurateurs," she said. "In places like lunch counters in industrial parks, that (catering to smokers) is their business.
"A smoking ban would make it tough on them."
She said allowing bar owners to have smoking and non-smoking sections would go a long way to satisfy their fears about lost business.
"It's pretty hard for a casino owner or bar owner to put a 100-per-cent ban in," she said.
Klein said he doesn't see why an 80-year-old patron of the Youngstown Hotel in east-central Alberta should be told he can't light up.
An employee of that hotel agreed.
"Smoking and drinking go hand in hand," said Steve Laughlin.
"We get a lot of people coming from Saskatchewan because you can't smoke in bars there."
The Saskatchewan government implemented a provincewide ban at the beginning of the year.
About 70 bar patrons signed a petition opposing a ban on smoking.
Laughlin was cool to the idea of a designated smoking section in bars.
"They tried it in B.C. and what they ended up with was a little compact room packed with smokers and the rest of the bar empty," he said.
The Canadian Cancer Society is dismayed that Evans is working on the premier's side of the debate now rather than Rodney's, but said a partial ban is better than none whatsoever.
"This is politics, and I think she really wants to see smoke-free legislation, and she's going to try and balance the priorities of her party to do that," said spokeswoman Susan Mide Kiss.
All opposition parties would reject a bill that still lets Albertans light up in bars or bingo halls. MLA Laurie Blakeman, the Liberal health critic, said she'll propose amendments to cancel out ones which water down the Rodney bill.
She cited the current phase of Edmonton's smoking bylaw, which bans smoking everywhere except adults-only bars. Several coffee houses and family restaurants, like the Silk Hat downtown, converted to bars.
"We should have learned the lesson by what happened in Edmonton where, in effect, we banned children," Blakeman said.
"We didn't ban smoking, we banned children."
The amendment will also let municipalities make their local smoking laws stronger, and make sure the legislation does not affect blanket bans slated this July for Edmonton, Strathcona County and St. Albert.
Les Hagen, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, has spent recent weeks lobbying MLAs from all parties, pushing them to enact a law that doesn't expose any workers anywhere to second-hand smoke.
He has urged Klein to allow free votes on the Rodney bill, and not meddle with it within the Tory caucus, as he has. He said he's somewhat pleased to see that the premier has "come around" to allow guarded support for smoking restrictions, after years of insisting it's a municipal issue.
"I think it's interesting to see that there is movement, and I think that perhaps they are concerned that if this went to a free vote in the house, it just might pass," Hagen said.
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=cd90d46b-3f27-412a-8d88-27c9bab04fa9
MLAs flex muscles on bill to ban smoking
JERRY WARD, LEGISLATURE BUREAU
Rural Tory MLAs came out of the woodwork yesterday to demand a proposed smoking ban in Alberta workplaces be amended to exclude businesses that cater to adults only. "There is no doubt about it - there is a rural-urban split on this particular matter," said Premier Ralph Klein.
"It has something to do with enforcement. Do you have to set up a special police force - smoke cops - to tell the 80-year-old guy in the Youngstown bar that he has to put out his cigarette?"
MLAS DEBATE BILL
All 83 MLAs yesterday debated the proposed Smoke-Free Places Act - a private member's bill that opposition parties say falls short of a total ban in workplaces, as it contains allowances for ventilated smoking rooms.
"I think this is a bandwagon bill," said Carol Haley, Conservative MLA for Airdrie.
"I know many people who are overweight who eat extremely unhealthily. Perhaps they should be told when, where and how much they can eat."
She added the issue should be left to municipalities to decide what is best for their regions, as some people in cities like Peace River have voted down proposed smoking bans.
New Democratic Party Leader Brian Mason said the province is falling behind other jurisdictions on smoking law.
"Alberta is the dinosaur on this issue," he said.
Lac la Biche-St. Paul Tory MLA Ray Danyluk said the government should be working with businesses, not dictating how the issue should be dealt with.
"Alberta has become a great province," he said. "Not because we're best at making laws. But because of the entrepreneurial spirit that flows through our blood."
HEALTH UPSIDE
The sponsor of the bill - rookie Tory MLA Dave Rodney of Calgary - said the legislation is required due to an enormous health and wellness upside.
"There are a number of other dangers in society that individuals are involuntarily exposed to both now and in the past," he said. "Some examples include lead in paint and asbestos.
"Once they were recognized as a danger to the well-being of individuals they were designated as hazardous substances."
The bill is to go before a policy committee before a vote on third reading by all MLAs.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/03/15/961295-sun.html
Smoking debate begins -AB
CBC News Last Updated Mar 15 2005 10:42 AM MST
EDMONTON – Premier Ralph Klein says most of his MLAs want to see the workplace smoking ban legislation amended, and that they are split among rural-urban lines.
Debate on a private member's bill which would prevent smoking in any workplace, including bars and casinos, began Monday. It was introduced last week by Conservative MLA Dave Rodney.
Klein says he doesn't think the bill will pass as is – two-thirds of his 62 MLAs oppose it. The 20 Liberal and NDP MLAs support it.
It's thought it could pass if a free vote were held, but the Conservatives could also re-introduce it as a government bill with amendments.
Rural MLAs oppose a ban on smoking in bars and bingo halls, Klein said, because it would be difficult to enforce in "old-fashioned beer parlours."
Klein said enforcement would also be a problem.
"Do you set up a special police force – you know, smoke cops? But the real problem is the owners of country hotels and the amount they depend on their beer parlours. These are old-fashioned beer parlours that have always allowed smoking," Klein said.
The bill received approval in principle Monday.
http://calgary.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ca-smoking-klein20050315
BANNED: Ontario Businesses Reeling from Arbitrary Bans -ON
By Julie King
 Opinion Piece
Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. - Dictionary.com
CanadaOne has mostly been apolitical (tax issues excepted). We now feel that we must speak out about very disturbing behaviour from the McGuinty Liberal government in Ontario.
"BANNED" in the name of public safety has become a catch-phrase in Ontario's government. This approach not only contradicts the founding principles of the Liberal party, but can devastate small Canadian companies.
Provincial governments have the right to control property when it is in the interest of public safety. Banning crayons loaded with lead that can cause brain damage in children is reasonable. However, Ontario's Liberal government has crossed a line and is now using its power to remove fundamental rights from allegedly "free" citizens.
At first it was a sushi ban. Then came the smoking rooms that business owners have spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. After that there was junk foods in schools, t-shirts in Kitchener... and with incredible financial repercussions the government froze a lot of land surrounding the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Yesterday it was dogs.
For businesses the practice of announcing a ban before consulting with experts and stakeholders is disturbing. The McGuinty Liberals did it with sushi. They did it with dogs. One man recently spent over $15,000 to establish a business breeding Staffordshire Bull Terriers. How is it reasonable to order him to spay and neuter all of his stock? There are many breeds that have attacked in Canada, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not one of them. This small breed is not banned in England, France, Germany or Italy - all places that have dog bans.
The City of Kichener banned "pit bulls" but exempted purebred Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers. They have had no problems with these breeds since their ban went into effect. Kitchener told Ontario that it should exempt CKC registered breeds as well. No exemption was provided. Where is the reasonableness in that?
More importantly, what would you do if your government banned your business activity tomorrow? What if you had $1 million in inventory that would now be worthless? Responsible government would offer verifiable, scientific evidence that the ban was warranted, and compensate legitimate business activities that were affected by the ban. With the banning of dogs under Bill 132, the McGuinty government has done neither.
Dogs are just one issue; there are others as well. Businesses who spent between $50,000 - $300,000 to build Designated Smoking Rooms (DSRs) are incensed by the recent announcement of a province-wide smoking ban in all public places - including DSRs. Not only have the businesses made substantial capital investments in good faith, but when the ban goes into effect they are likely to see sales drop as well. A New Brunswick survey found that sales plummeted by an average of 24% in the first month after its smoking ban, compared to a year earlier, for 71% of liquor-licensed establishments.
Public safety is very important. Protection for small businesses is important as well. It is possible to strike a reasonable balance between the two with good public policy, but this seems to be something the McGuinty Government is either unwilling or incapable of doing.
http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/march05/banned_bill132.html
Smoking debate goes province-wide
CFCN.ca POSTED AT 4:32 PM Tuesday, March 15
Another battle is brewing over the idea of a smoking ban.
This time, the fate of smokers across the entire province is at stake.
The Alberta Government is considering a private members bill that would ban smoking in all public and work places.
But pressure from rural MLAs is threatening to water the bill down.
Rural politicians want to keep smoking in casinos, bars, bingo halls, and other adult-only establishments.
But anti-smoking groups are demanding the proposed bill remain as presented.
Business owners are concerned that a province-wide bill will drive smokers out, hurting their bottom line.
But anti-smoking groups say that hasn't happened in other provinces that have banned smoking.
The Smoke Free Places Act has already passed two readings.
Next it will be looked at by a committee which could amend it before presenting it to the legislature for a third and final vote
Where do you think people should be allowed to smoke?
| Bars, casinos, bingo halls |
|
116 votes (8 %) |
| Their own homes |
|
480 votes (32 %) |
| Outside |
|
198 votes (13 %) |
| All of the above |
|
383 votes (26 %) |
| Everywhere |
|
57 votes (4 %) |
| Nowhere |
|
251 votes (17 %) |
results March 16 12:10AM
http://www.cfcn.ca/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/B/20050315/smokingalta?brand=generic&hub=&tf=CFCNPlus/generic/h
ubs/frontpage.html&cf=CFCNPlus/generic/hubs/frontpage.cfg&slug=smokingalta&date=20050315&archive=CFCNPlus&ad_page_name=&nav=home&subnav=fullstory
Klein may soften anti-smoking legislation -AB
canada.com Monday, March 14, 2005
EDMONTON -- Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says government members are being lobbied hard to soften anti-smoking legislation now being debated in the legislature.
Klein says much of the pressure is coming from the owners of rural hotels who rely on revenue from their beer parlours.
It's expected the legislation will be watered down with amendments to exempt bars, casinos, bingo halls and other places that don't allow children.
Klein says about two-thirds of his caucus members want to soften the legislation, especially government members from rural areas.
But the premier says he expects the government will pass some type of anti-smoking law this spring.
The opposition parties are speaking strongly in favour of a tough law which would ban smoking in the workplace and in all public places across Alberta
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=69cafb44-38f1-44a4-8de8-1ea72db75cc3
Don't be angry, be clear -ON
Mar. 14, 2005. 07:07 AM
ELLIE
Q My boyfriend and I have lived together happily for four years. The problem is his parents smoke. Not only does it make me ill (I have poorly controlled asthma), it also causes him to have severe headaches that last several days after every visit there. This past Christmas, they said they were no longer smoking in their house for our sake. But they smoked in their garage (attached to the house with the garage door open!). This was the last straw for me, I waited in the car for two hours under blankets for him to open his gifts so that we could leave. He suffered from a headache for a week. He never complains and takes the abuse. His chronic health problems as a child were probably caused by his parents' smoking (migraine headaches, allergic reactions, etc.) His parents think it's a joke because we live near a highway. They think cigarette smoke is no worse than smog. I'm seriously worried about this. I refuse to allow his parents to go near any child we have. I don't trust them, I believe that they abused their son. What can I do?
Choked Up
A Try getting rid of your anger, it's also unhealthy. While I agree with you completely that second-hand smoke is a health hazard, I'm certain his parents aren't purposefully abusive. It may be hard for you to believe this, but many smokers just don't get it. They read the statistics but have been smoking so long (and are so addicted) that they feel these problems can't be their fault. And, they're correct that air pollution also has unhealthy effects. So, be the responsible grownup here instead of the spiteful child who wants to punish them. Be clear that neither of you can handle any exposure to smoke (and yes, the smog may be making you both more sensitive), so future visits will have to be at your place, where there's a no-smoking rule. Help them be more informed about second-hand smoke and the possibilities to aid quitting by offering them websites and the quit-smoking helpline. You can show your own efforts to protect yourselves and family, by moving to a better environment.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1110715265159&call_pageid=970599119419
Posted at 8:55 am by looped_ca
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Canada's worst: Mrs. McGuinty's Nanny State whacks Ontario -ON
Terence Corcoran Financial PostSaturday, March 12, 2005
The government's most draconian initiative so far is the greenbelt around Toronto, a 700,000-hectare noose around the city that blocks all development over an area roughly the size of Prince Edward Island. Pandering to environmental activists, the province produced legislation that gives it absolute development control over every car dealership and farm property within the area. Pol Pot marched Cambodians out into the country. The McGuinty government hopes to lock them up in the city.
As for the property rights of people and companies that own land within the greenbelt, forget it. Paragraph 19(2) of the Greenbelt Act says that "No costs, compensation or damages are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, tort or trust, is available to any person in connection with anything" in the act. One developer alone says the greenbelt act has stripped up of land values of approximately $240-million.
Property rights not being a right in Canada, Ontario just might get away with such a massive confiscation of land without compensation. Compounding matters is a provision that no development decisions by the government are open to appeal to any court or agency. Mrs. McGuinty rules, absolutely.
Also looming over the province is the massive and incoherent restructuring of the electric power industry. The provincial energy board yesterday unveiled its plan to control prices for power throughout the province. Rates will go up for all consumers, depending on how much electricity they use. The objective is "to make sure the prices consumers pay for electricity better reflect the price paid to generators."
Instead of letting prices actually reflect generators' costs, the government has imposed a bizarre set of controlled prices that will be adjusted from time to time. And, in typical nanny mode, it will set prices at different levels depending on the time of day and time of year. Nothing wrong with matching prices with supply and demand, but Mrs. McGuinty has decided to manipulate price to allow people to use more electricity during winter than summer. Another plan is to put a "smart meter" into every home so that consumers can adjust consumption.
The trouble with the smart meters is that they will be hooked up to a dumb generating and distribution system. Especially dumb is the province's plan to shut down coal plants by 2007. Nobody expects that to happen, but the province has yet to notify voters that another election promise is dead.
There is much more. We didn't get to the looming budget deficits; the ethanol subsidies; the vindictive harassment of the private owners of Highway 407; the breached promises to the restaurant industry on tobacco regulation; labour legislation; a new environment law. When you're dealing with Canada's Worst government, the end is unlikely to be near.
Here is how airspace is using your tax money and donations. Has a lovely taste of money with only 3 people viewing it. Where a guy dress like a grim reaper gets paid to walk around a a campus etc. for an hour with his own photographer, They don't have to worry about an entourage, no one thinks their using money wisely right Robert ? ( or is that grim) lol
Lets use the money where the real fight is in the courts! Shouldn't the lawyers get some of your wages??
Oh yes, I forgot it's for the children. Such a good, make work project. I want your job so I can feel like I'm propagating hate crimes. After all the first thing you doing propaganda, is take the human element out, by using cartoons and death figures. After all taking the people out is the first step, to make any hate crime useable.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=bc6650b2-9d0a-4127-866e-312231ca0d31&page=1
Where there's smoke
By JOE WARMINGTON -- For the Toronto Sun Sat, March 12, 2005
This town was smoking last night. The way things are for smokers these days that's a news flash.
Now, we all know Premier Dalton McGuinty, Health Minister George Smitherman and the rest of those clean-livers in government were probably not out enjoying a pint and a smoke last night but there are people who still do that.
Yes, a lot of us who derive our livelihoods from the night were wondering when the heck smokers would finally mount a fight against the Goliath that is the non-smoking movement.
Even the pit bull people have put up a heck of a battle for A-G Michael Bryant. But with the smoking ban -- and upcoming legislation to take it even further -- Smitherman has been sleeping easy with virtually no vocal opposition.
Until now.
Yes, let the Scrawler report there is an underground revolution underway and it held its first meeting last night.
Dubbed the Rock'n'Rally, 200 people for a more common sense approach to handling smoking in public places gathered at the terrific Hollywood On The Queensway club.
"It is a grassroots campaign," said Nancy Daigneault, president of mychoice.ca, an "online smokers' rights group" which has 15,000 signatures.
The idea is merely to allow the continuation of smoking rooms and some dignity for those who enjoy, or are addicted to, a perfectly legal product.
"Smokers feel like second-class citizens," said Daigneault, a non-smoker by the way, who admitted the website is funded by the tobacco lobby.
Enjoying a butt in the glassed-in smoking lounge at the Hollywood, Owen Bailey and Maggie Balson say it's not fair. And don't forget bartenders like Karen Sorc and Mel Cramb who live off tips.
Also, don't forget places like the Hollywood played by the rules and invested in these smoking rooms, as did the owners at Doolys' 2,500 square-foot pool room in Woodbridge, which general manager Jordan Robbins tells me is the largest in the GTA.
Now, as I have said before, I don't smoke cigarettes but do enjoy a fine cigar -- something very difficult to do anymore.
My friend Sonia Nolan at Habanos on The Beach, where I buy my cigars, was saying that with the new rules -- and the hockey lockout -- it has been an extremely tough winter for business.
Of course, nobody is turning away their tax contributions.
The problem I have with such strict rules is it's killing Toronto's nightlife. Many of the pubs and bars are struggling. No one knows that more than veteran Toronto rocker Rick Jennings of the band Southbound, who performed at the rally. "We are losing gigs," he said. "It's insanity."
Like so many in the pubs, he's wondering where the non-smokers are.
"They were supposed to come out in droves and beat down the doors," he laughs. "The doors are still intact."
If it keeps up like this, he wonders if he might die of starvation or "die of pneumonia before I ever die of cancer."
Well, whether you smoke or not, have a smokin' weekend yourself. Scrawler out.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Joe_Warmington/2005/03/12/958010.html
ATTENTION DALTON McGuinty and the Fiberal government: -ON
My name is Allan Boynton and I'm a 22-year-old rural kid whose family has farmed for generations, previously in the Gormerly (Oak Ridges) area and now west of Orangeville in a place called Marsville.
How do you expect me to seriously look at farming as a future when your party offers nothing in return?
It's time you started listening to rural people that have fed you and your cabinet your whole lives instead of taking something away we take pride in.
Listen to the farmers and show some respect to the people that put you in office. I will make it my life-long goal to make sure lying, deceiving and incompetent people like you are never back in office -- and I look forward to electing John Tory in the by-election because he took the time to listen to me and my family.
Allan Boynton
Marsville
(Disappointing Dalton and his gang seem to be making a lot of enemies)
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Letters/
Border city in smoking dispute
LEO PARE, SUN MEDIA
LLOYDMINSTER -- On the Saskatchewan side of this border city, you can't smoke in bars or restaurants. Across town in Alberta, it's still permissible. Amid vocal demands for a level playing field, city councillors in Lloydminster are considering a city-wide bylaw forcing patrons to butt out.
"It's a bit of a standoff," said Milton Wakefield, MLA for the Saskatchewan side.
Wakefield supports the smoking ban in his province but lobbied unsuccessfully for an exception to protect local businesses in Lloydminster.
"Overall, I think it's only a matter of time before smoking bans are implemented every-where," he said.
At a recent council meeting, Mayor Ken Baker said the city believes provincial governments should be responsible for smoking legislation, but if Alberta rejects the idea of a provincial ban, Lloydminster will be forced to do something.
A committee consulting with businesses could discuss the issue as early as March 14, but it's unclear exactly what will be achieved in the short term, said Coun. Duff Stewart.
City officials had asked to be exempted from Saskatchewan's smoking legislation when it took effect Jan. 1, but the province turned them down.
A recent letter from the Prairie North Health Region urged council to reconsider a city-wide bylaw on smoking, a recommendation the city has rejected twice.
"Council hasn't said anything new since the last time we talked about this," Baker said. "From time to time, people can change their mind, and I'm not suggesting (council) will or won't. I'm just saying we haven't dealt with smoking for probably a month."
Seann Brenan, who owns and operates Cheers Restaurant and Lounge on the Saskatchewan side of town with his wife, Bev, said his place has seen a significant decline in business since the smoking legislation came into effect.
"We talked to the city about this before, but basically the city didn't want anything to do with it because then they have to start policing it and that sort of stuff," Brenan said.
"We tried to tell (the Saskatchewan government): 'You have to have an exception to the rule here because this is ludicrous.' "
Brenan is anxious to see results from the city's committee. "The mayor has really been trying to get us a level playing field."
Since the Saskatchewan smoking legislation took effect, Brenan said Cheers has had three visits from health officials.
He was issued one warning after they found ashes in a beer bottle on their second visit.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/03/11/957265-sun.html
Bill would ban the butt in bars -AB
By PAULA OGONOSKI Today staff and The Canadian Press Tuesday March 08, 2005
Fort McMurray Today — A local anti-smoking advocate said she is content with a new smoking bill which proposes to bar cigarettes in all workplaces throughout the province.
“It’s certainly different than we had anticipated. From the initial information there was going to be provisions with smoking rooms. This looks very different. It completely bans smoking in the workplace which is very positive,” said Kathy McKenna, chairwoman of the Wood Buffalo Tobacco Reduction Coalition. “I think we should strive to protect people who do not chose to smoke, whether it’s a minor or an adult in the workplace.”
McKenna said she isn’t sure if the bill will pass but the province has come a long way.
“We can only hope. When you look at where we’ve come over the years, we’ve progressed to protect people from tobacco. But we need to continue to strive to make bigger steps. Just think of how much we’ve come along in even recognizing how harmful second hand smoke is.”
Montana’s general manager Lee Laverdiere said he isn’t concerned a provincewide law would hurt business but it would certainly restrict people’s options.
“I don’t think it would affect us too much if everyone had to be anti-smoking, but it’s nice to have the choice of which atmosphere you wish to be in. We’ll deal with it if it comes,” he said.
A rookie member of the legislature introduced anti-smoking legislation Monday that would ban smoking on the job or in public places across Alberta.
But the proposed law from Dave Rodney, a Calgary member of the legislature, is a private member’s bill, which means its passage is uncertain unless the government decides to throw its weight behind the tough new anti-smoking measures.
‘‘We’re doing it for all the right reasons,’’ Rodney told a throng of reporters outside the assembly after he introduced his bill. ‘‘We want to do great things and we just have to set up the strategy to do exactly that.’’
Bill 201 would ban smoking in the workplace as well as bars, restaurants, public buildings and public vehicles including buses and taxis. The only exceptions would be designated smoking rooms in hotels and group homes with smoking rooms.
Traditional aboriginal ceremonies involving tobacco would also be exempt. But there is no provision for designated smoking rooms, which some media had reported was included in earlier drafts of the bill.
Rodney has faced some difficult challenges, including climbing Mount Everest twice, but concedes this anti-smoking bill is one of his toughest.
‘‘Climbing Everest was an amazing struggle. I have seen it’s exactly the same in politics. We have incredibly lofty goals,’’ he said.
On Monday, Premier Ralph Klein said that butting out where minors are present is a must but taking the ban any further must be left to Alberta’s communities.
‘‘I would like to see a law that enforces a ban wherever children are ... but to also have a notwithstanding clause that would allow municipalities to go further if they want to,’’ Klein said in Calgary.
The premier added the law should be enforceable, and he wondered how it’s possible to force an 80-year-old man who has enjoyed a smoke and a beer for decades to now change his ways?
But Health Minister Iris Evans said ‘‘I think it’s clear that it’s going to be a debate, and that’s what the premier promised.’’
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/story.php?id=147593
TOBACCO FREE COUNTERS CLAIM BY MANUFACTURER ABOUT DISPLAYS -ON
A letter March 7/05 from Christina Dona, manager of media relations with Imperial Tobacco Co. questioned Tobacco Free's Out of Sight, Out of Mind campaign which seeks to put a spotlight on the role of in-stores point of sale tobacco advertising in recruiting teens to become smokers.
Ms. Dona asserts that tobacco in-store advertising, complete with stand alone cigarettes displays at children's eye level next to the candy are aimed at solely at adults.
A California study looked at Grade 6 to 8 students who visited convenience stores once a week or more. After controlling for social factors, these primary students were 58 per cent more likely to become future smokers, an influence that ranks on the same level as having a parent as a smoker.
The Point of Purchase Advertising Institutes has found that more than 60 per cent of tobacco purchases are impulse buys, despite the addictiveness of tobacco. This is not surprising given that 20 per cent of smokers are occasional smokers , including almost 40 per cent of adolescent smokers.
In addition Health Canada has found a large majority of daily smokers-- 70 per cent--are trying to quit. Furthermore, Health Canada confirms that the average number of cigarettes smoked daily(by daily smokers) is highly volatile.
There are numerous references in internal tobacco company documents about the importance of impulse purchases to total tobacco sales: BAT, the International parent company of Imperial Tobacco says, "Many impulse sales are lost when stock is not available or cannot easily be seen or reached."
The industry knows the importance of power walls in sparking impulse purchases, that's why in 2003 they paid 88 million to retailers to put cigarettes under are noses.
The experiences of pharmacies shows that remove tobacco advertising will not hurt retailers. The available space will be taken by other companies that will pay to stock their products in the prime spaces.
It is a weak argument that tobacco companies need wall to wall advertising to persuade adult smokers to change brands. Apart those smokers who solely based on price, adult smokers are remarkably faithful to the brand that they first started with. Brand switching tends to occur only in the last two years of a person's smoking carrer as they mentally gear up to quit.
Putting cigarettes under the counter or covering up the power wall of packages will not stop adults smokers from asking for their brand. It will protect our youth when corner store tobacco advertising is out of "sight and out of mind."
Dr. Jim Morris Chairperson, Tobacco Free Thunder Bay
www.tbsource.com
Texas-style pokes takes hold in N.B. -NB
Bar owners risk losing licences and VLTs in high-stakes gamble
BY SARAH MCGINNIS SPECIAL REPORT As published on page A1/A6 on March 12, 2005
A 20-something woman, with long blonde hair and a silvery-grey blouse, shuffles playing cards then fans the deck out on a casino-style table. She flicks a blue and white card to each of the seven baseball cap-wearing men seated near her, then makes the rounds again.
Dealing stops abruptly and players, including the young woman, glance at their two cards. Most barely lift them from the red felt tabletop before placing them back down. The game begins.
This is Texas Hold'em poker, a seven-card game that's popping up in New Brunswick pool halls and bars. Players try to make the best hand from five communal cards and two they hold. Bets are high and bluffing is a must, a heady combination that is enticing hundreds of players across the province. But, the game could be turning local businesses into miniature casinos, as bar and pool hall owners install poker tables next to video lottery machines.
Poker is hot. Any night of the week Saint John card players can be dealt into a public game, and on Wednesdays and Sundays there are at least three separate tournaments in the city to choose from. The same is true for many other New Brunswick communities.
Participants aren't just after a night's entertainment or bragging rights, they're playing for cash. Most tournaments include a $35 fee to play for the night. Usually $5 goes to the business hosting the game and $7 is set aside for an end of season tournament, where upwards of $10,000 in trips to Las Vegas and cash are at stake. The remainder, $500 or more, is reserved for the top few players who, at night's end, have captured the most poker chips.
This week Fredericton Police announced they're ready to take action on such games. Texas Hold'em poker tournaments are illegal. Businesses hosting them could lose their liquor licences, VLT machines and face possible jail time if caught. Those that don't face empty bars or pool halls and plummeting profits as customers head next door for poker.
Last summer, Saint John pool hall owner Jeff Kennedy noticed that some of his regulars weren't showing up anymore. Those who warmed the well-worn barstools of J. K. Corner Pocket seemed to talk about one thing, poker. Texas Hold'em tournaments are being held at pool halls across the city and all over Fredericton, they told him.
Mr. Kennedy recognized that poker could be a great way to bring in folks on slow evenings. His competitors attracted 30, 40 or 50 players any night of the week. With the smoking ban looming and profits expected to drop because of it, last September Mr. Kennedy started holding poker games of his own.
"I built the tables myself," he explains, holding up one of four octagonal table tops, complete with green felt covers, wooden rims and drink and poker chip holders. He invested more than $1,000 to build them. He also removed a stage and re-tiled the floor in the far corner of his pool hall for poker games.
Initially, things went marvelously. He wasn't getting the same numbers as established tournaments, but every Wednesday night and Sunday afternoon Mr. Kennedy had 20 or 30 people show up eager to play cards.
Trouble started when a liquor inspector noticed a poker and pool poster on the wall. He removed the poster and left. Mr. Kennedy's staff alerted him. So, he called another liquor inspector. He was told Texas Hold'em tournaments are illegal, and if he held them in his licensed establishment, Mr. Kennedy could have difficulty getting his liquor licence renewed. That wasn't all. Mr. Kennedy was informed someone had filed a complaint against his games, and the liquor inspector told the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. A letter followed six weeks later, with the lottery corporation threatening to pull his five VLTs if the tournaments didn't stop.
"They're not bothering anyone else, why are they bothering me?" he said, sitting on the green leather couch located where his poker tables once sat. "I'm taking a hit because of Texas Hold'em now. Customers who were always in my establishment aren't anymore because of the poker frenzy, and they're going to go where the action is."
The Atlantic Lottery Corporation has no problem with Texas Hold'em poker tournaments, so long as they're legal, said spokesman Robert Bourgeois. With ESPN and TSN airing professional poker tournaments and home games being sold at department stores, Texas Hold'em has grabbed the public's attention. The ALC wants to cash in. The lottery corporation has designed a poker scratch and win ticket, but it's not interested in holding tournaments, he said. Instead, staff are informing business owners that Texas Hold'em is against the law, and threatening to take away VLT machines if they host games.
"We do have, under our contracts with retailers, clauses that allow us to remove VLTs," Mr. Bourgeois said.
The clause states that if businesses violate the law, or harm the reputation of the ALC, they could have their machines withdrawn.
"If we felt we needed to we can, and we would, remove VLTs," he said.
Many business owners looking to cash in on poker aren't willing to call ALC's bluff. Greg Stewart owns several bars and pool halls in Saint John, including Jakes Steakhouse and Pub, The Outback and Dooly's in the Westmorland Mall. He said he wants to launch poker tournaments on a large scale, but said liquor inspectors informed him he could lose his VLT machines if he did. With 25 machines he said he can't afford to take the chance. Still, Mr. Stewart sees poker as a key way to bring patrons into his businesses and said it's unfair he's prohibited from holding tournaments when others, who haven't checked the rules, are doing it anyway.
"With the non-smoking we need something to compensate," Mr. Stewart said. "While it's hot, we should be in n it. We should be capitalizing."
When it comes to Texas Hold'em, VLT revenue isn't the only profit at stake. Aquarius Pub and Restaurant owner Steve Vair approached liquor inspectors in January for the rules concerning tournaments. He wanted to boost sales after the smoking ban. Inspectors said he could lose his liquor licence if he starts hosting poker nights.
"The bottom line was: I don't want to be in violation of my liquor licence, to risk losing my liquor licence because that is my livelihood here...Without that we're not in business," Mr. Vair said.
Are Texas Hold'em poker tournaments legal? It depends, said Vicky Deschênes, spokeswoman for the provincial Finance Department. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, all gambling that is not licensed by the province is illegal. The government licenses charitable organizations to host events such as bingos, raffles or Monte Carlos if the money raised goes to a non-profit community cause. The province doesn't, however, license Texas Hold'em tournaments and isn't looking at changing that, she said.
The province isn't regulating poker tournaments, but it says it's not responsible for ensuring the games stop either. Liquor inspectors are telling bar owners and pool hall managers that Texas Hold'em tournaments are illegal. They are also forwarding information on such games to the police, but it's up to the cops to enforce gaming laws, said provincial Public Safety Department spokeswoman Patricia Hyland.
Police know Texas Hold'em games are being held in major cities almost every night. Many forces, including the RCMP and Fredericton Police, have received calls from businesses asking for clarification on Texas Hold'em. This week the Fredericton police issued a warning about the game on their website. In most cases, police are advising people to consult lawyers, because they could be breaking the law, said RCMP spokesman Sgt. Gary Cameron.
"The criminal code is very specific. You can't make a profit (off gambling)," Sgt. Cameron said. "You have to be licensed from the province. If you are not licensed that's when it may be a criminal act."
This is not to say that police will be charging into private homes, breaking up neighbourhood poker games. People playing Texas Hold'em in their basement is legal, so long as no one is profiting by holding the game.
The moment an unlicensed third party collects fees, or holds money to distribute as prizes later, there could be trouble, Sgt. Cameron said. This could be seen as holding a common gaming house, an offence that brings with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
It isn't just tournament organizers who should be concerned about gaming laws, said Corp. Martin Gaudet of the Fredericton Police Force. Anyone caught attending an illegal card game could be charged, and face up to a $2,000 fine or six months in jail.
Fredericton and Saint John police, as well as the RCMP, say they'll investigate any complaints received about poker tournaments. That bothers Mr. Kennedy. Either Texas Hold'em should be permitted everywhere, or it shouldn't, he said. If police only investigate complaints, some tournaments will be shut down while others will continue reaping the benefits.
"Obviously there are no rules because other people are allowed to play," Mr. Kennedy said. "There are no rules because other establishments have been allowed to continue to operate without obstruction and only a couple of establishments have been told to stop."
Twice a week, retired elementary school gym teacher Gary Ewart is counting his chips at a Saint John poker tournament. He's been playing poker for more than a decade but discovered Texas Hold'em last year. He loves it and doesn't think his hobby should be a crime.
Poker may be played in Las Vegas, but local tournaments aren't casinos, Mr. Ewart said. In the past he's watched people lose $300, $400 and $500 at a single game. Texas Hold'em tournaments, however, have a set fee and when you're out of chips you're done.
"I've been to Legions and bars holding cribbage tournaments where they charge an entry fee and the top few people win the money. Texas Hold'em is the same thing," Mr. Ewart said.
People can spend hours plunking coins into brightly coloured VLT machines, or litter tables with crumpled papers and silver flecks from scratch and win tickets, so why isn't Texas Hold'em legal, asked Liberal Justice Critic T.J. Burke.
"I'm greatly disappointed in the province's prevention of these type of games," Mr. Burke said. "They have allowed VLTs, which are known to be addictive and can lead to dire consequences for people in terms of health and also financial problems . . . . Texas Hold'em is legal in casinos in other parts of Canada but they have chosen to take the routes of illegality (here)."
Mr. Burke is a poker lover himself. He plays Texas Hold'em at home at least once a week, or "as much as my wife allows," and owns his own felt table cover and clay poker chips made in Nackawic. Mr. Burke isn't alone. He shares his poker table with doctors, lawyers and police officers and said the regular games are hardly criminal.
Just as businesses are using poker to boost profits, the province should be making money off the phenomenon too, Mr. Burke said. By licensing tournaments, the government could ensure a slice of the cash go toward public programs such as health care or education, he said.
Others agree it's only a matter of time before the province will deal themselves into the game. "I'm certain at some point when Atlantic Lotto and the province wake up they'll find it's an excellent source of revenue," said Mr. Stewart. "(If they do) I want to get into it. I want to do it and I want to do it on a big scale."
For now, Mr. Kennedy has moved his barely used poker tables into an unlicensed backroom of his pool hall, which was until recently his apartment. The rectangular room, with its chipped red paint and faded newspaper articles about pool players, still hosts the occasional game.
The venue change means there's no more drinks being served, no fees going to support his business and hardly any players anymore. In fact, he's not sure how long he will bother with Texas Hold'em, even though some of his competitors are thriving off it.
"It was originally a move to get more people in my place, now it's just a little bit of stubbornness on my part," he said. "I've been told I can't do it, but others are and that doesn't wash with me."
http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050312/TPEBRIEF/303120121
Man charged in B.C. blaze to plead not guilty -BC
CTV.ca News Staff
The man who allegedly started a blaze that destroyed 75 homes and burned thousands of hectares of land will plead not guilty to the charge against him, his lawyer says.
Michael Barre has been charged with one count of dropping a burning substance within one kilometre of a forest.
It is an offence under British Columbia's Forest Practices Code, and carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail and a $500,000 fine. Barre could also have to cover some of the costs of fighting the fire.
Barre has told people that he thought his cigarette started the blaze in the McClure-Barriere region, on Aug. 1, 2003. However, his lawyer, John Hogg, says he will be pleading not guilty to the charge.
"There will still be an issue as to whether his cigarette did cause it," Hogg told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.
"There is a little discrepancy on where exactly the fire started, in terms of yards here or there, one way or another."
A trial date is expected to be set today or in a few days.
The fire destroyed dozens of homes, burned down 26,000 hectares of land and displaced 8,500 residents. The total property damages are estimated at $8.2 million.
Despite the devastation, there are some in the community who are supporting Barre with a petition.
Rick Appel and his wife, Pat, have collected 600 signatures, according to The Globe and Mail.
Rick Appel told The Globe that most people who have signed the petition feel that Barre has suffered enough by having to watch friends and neighbours rebuild.
He also questioned whether the forestry service could have done more to prevent the spread of the blaze.
Hogg said he isn't sure the petition will have much of an impact on the case.
"Although I suppose it if gained momentum and had enough signatures, someone might have to pay attention," Hogg said.
Hogg said Barre has learned to live with the devastation of the fire, but initially, he and his wife were "borderline nervous breakdown" and had to leave the province for a while.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110809544044_100/?hub=TopStories
My email regarding the Sunday news show
SMOKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! March 13/05
How are smokers fighting back against anti-smoking legislation? They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore - at a smokers' rights rally in Toronto, we meet the smokers of the world who are uniting against what they see as an unjust law.
"Your program made it seem like there wasn't 200 people opposing the smoking smoking legislation, by editing. There are people who know this is about rights, what we can do in properties we pay taxes for, including our home and businesses. I see that the "prohibition advocates" are trying to get ALL homes smoke free, next. When will it end? A study mentioned during the Harm Reductions Forum, in April/04, said that even the most draconian ban will only reduce smoking to 17%. In other words the Ontario government wants to spend spend BILLIONS to reduce smoking by 3%. This commitment will take decades. The harm of tobacco is based on stat's (epidemiology studies), and we all know how easy stats, and questionnaires can be wrong.
Thank You"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/
The Medical Minute: Asthma - more than just wheezing
Penn State Family & Community Medicine Thursday, March 10, 2005
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Penn State College of Medicine By John Messmer
What do John F. Kennedy, Leonard Bernstein, Ernesto (Che) Guevara, Calvin Coolidge, Charles Dickens, Theodore Roosevelt, Marcel Proust, Woodrow Wilson and Antonio Vivaldi have in common? All were asthmatics, just like 15 million Americans, one-third of whom are children. The mental picture many people have of asthma is a wheezing person with an inhaler, but asthma is more than just wheezing. While many asthmatics from the past suffered with frequent wheezing and shortness of breath, current medical therapy can control asthma very well.
What is asthma?
Simply put, asthma is a condition of inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. Inflammation is what happens when the immune system attacks something. The immune response in asthmatics can be triggered by allergies, such as to cats, dust, mold or pollen; by irritants, such as smoke, dust or cold air; or by infections, such as cold and flu viruses. Once the immune response is started, chemicals from the inflammatory process are released in the air passages, causing them to swell and constrict, reducing the amount of air the person can get into and out of the lungs. Asthmatics may cough or wheeze, or simply feel short of breath. In serious cases, airflow is reduced significantly, causing collapse or even death. About 500,000 Americans are hospitalized and around 4,000 die from it each year.
Who gets asthma?
There is a strong tendency for asthma to run in families. Boys tend to get it more than girls, but in adults, it is more common for women to have asthma. It can develop at any age. There is some evidence to suggest exposure to cigarette smoke increases the possibility of asthma, particularly for young children. Since the prevalence of asthma is increasing, researchers have looked at everything from diet and obesity to environmental influences to explain it, but there is no concrete explanation for the increase.
What are the symptoms?
Wheezing is the hallmark symptom, but cough and shortness of breath, particularly if induced by exercise, cold air or a virus could be asthma. If severe, a person experiences tightness in the chest. In mild cases, it can be difficult to be sure, since the cough and difficulty breathing may be fairly mild. Not all wheezing is asthma, so self-diagnosis is not a good idea. Gastroesophageal reflux and heart disease also can cause wheezing.
How is it diagnosed?
A physician will evaluate the symptoms a person is experiencing and examine the heart and lungs. If wheezing is heard in association with a history consistent with asthma, a presumptive diagnosis can be made. Many times, a pulmonary function test (PFT) which measures lung function, can be used to help secure the diagnosis. If the PFT is consistent with asthma, it might be repeated after treatment with asthma medication to see if the abnormalities clear up. Since the PFT could be normal while the person is not having symptoms, sometimes it will be done after exposure to a medication known to induce asthma, methacholine. If methacholine causes asthmatic changes on the PFT, it supports the diagnosis.
How is asthma treated?
The most important part of asthma treatment is to control inflammation, which will stop the disease process. An inhaled steroid, a form of cortisone, very often is the foundation of treatment. These medications treat the inflammation very well and tend to have minimal side effects. They should be continued even if there are no symptoms. A leukotriene inhibitor may be beneficial in some people. This is another type of anti-inflammatory that is not a steroid, but it does not work for all asthmatics. A long-acting bronchodilator helps keep the airways open to improve airflow. Short-acting bronchodilators should be used minimally; if they are used more than a couple times a week, the asthma is not sufficiently controlled. Sometimes asthmatics stop using their anti-inflammatory and long-acting bronchodilators in favor of the rapid-acting medications because they feel the latter is working. It is possible to become insensitive to the effect of short-acting inhalers if used alone, making emergency treatment less successful. Death could result. Theophylline has been used for decades, but can have some serious side effects. More typically, it is added to other therapies in adult asthmatics if needed. Cromolyn and related compounds can control the release of histamine and can be a useful adjunct in appropriate people.
What's the prognosis?
Excellent, in most cases. There's no reason for asthmatic people to stay on the sidelines or limit their activities. Asthmatics can excel in all walks of life. Even some Olympic gold-medal winners have been asthmatic. Working with one's doctor on a treatment and monitoring plan can allow most asthmatics to manage their disease with minimal problems.
Asthmatics should get regular check-ups and be certain they understand what medications to take and how to use them. They should have a plan for self-monitoring and treatment if the asthma worsens. Asthmatics should never smoke and should make every effort to avoid exposure to smoking. Many times, children's asthma resolves by adulthood. With proper treatment, there can be fewer lost work and school days, and more importantly, fewer deaths from asthma
http://live.psu.edu/story/10831
American Cancer Society to Ohio Lawmakers: Ban Indoor Smoking by May
- 03/11/2005
The American Cancer Society is boldly trying to hold a flame to Ohio lawmakers in hopes of making Ohio the eighth state to ban smoking in businesses and public places.
The organization on March 10 gave Ohio lawmakers an ultimatum: Ban smoking before May 3 -- the date of primary elections in the Buckeye State -- or the group will begin a grassroots campaign to collect 100,000 signatures, which it would to submit to state legislators next January to put a smoke-free ordinance before the General Assembly.
"Right now, the American Cancer Society is working to change Ohio's future," said Don McClure, chief executive officer of the Ohio Division of the American Cancer Society. "We are asking for your help to make Ohio smoke-free. Help stop Ohioans from dying from second-hand smoke. Help protect every Ohio worker and customer."
If Ohio lawmakers fail to snuff out smoking or try to dilute the law, the American Cancer Society says it will collect another 100,000 signatures to put the smoke-free ordinance on the ballot in November 2006.
"We support a state law that states one simple fact: You have a right to breathe clean air," McClure said.
The American Cancer Society cites a growing body of evidence that second-hand smoke poses serious health risks to non-smokers.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a recent report placed second-hand cigarette smoke in the same category as radon, asbestos, arsenic and other cancer-causing toxins and concluded there are no safe exposure levels for second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke increasingly is being linked to lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses and diseases.
The American Cancer Society also cites research conducted by the advocacy group Tobacco-Free Ohio that suggests bars, restaurants and other businesses in Toledo -- one of 14 Ohio cities with a smoking ban already in place -- have suffered little or no economic impact as a result of the indoor smoking ban.
The American Cancer Society says it will be joined in its SmokeFreeOhio.org campaign by the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and other health advocacy groups.
- Josh Cable
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/articles/13093
Other Findings of the Elon Poll -NC
By ABC 11 Eyewitness News
(03/11/05 -- UNDATED) — The March Elon Poll found mixed news for President Bush, Governor Easley and strong support for public displays of the Ten Commandments.
President Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, which is three points higher than the Elon Poll indicated in February. Pollsters say the increase is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage point.
The poll had some good news for Governor Mike Easley, with 59 percent of respondents saying they approved of his proposal to raise cigarette taxes from 5 cents to 50 cents per pack over the next two years. Fifty-three percent said they approved of Easley's plan to continue a half-cent sales tax to help balance the state's budget.
Not all of the news was rosy for the governor. Sixty-five percent disapproved of Easley's proposal to reduce the state income tax on people in the highest income bracket.
Poll respondents widely supported displaying the Ten Commandments on government property. Seventy-nine percent supported displays inside city council chambers, 74 percent backed displays in public classrooms and 78 percent supported them in courtrooms.
The poll surveyed 571 adults around North Carolina between March 7 and 10.
Online Producer: Brian Shrader
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/031105_NW_otherpollfindings.html
Researcher Focuses On Obesity-Cancer Link
Study Conducted By Investigator At The Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute
Mar 12, 2005 8:15 am US/Mountain
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) The path to good health is through the stomach, according to Reza Hakkak, a research investigator at Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute.
Hakkak's preliminary studies show that a carcinogen known as DMBA, found in some cooked foods as well as cigarette smoke and car exhaust, causes mammory tumors to develop in obese rats more than two times more often than in lean rats.
Hakkak, also a professor of dietetics and nutrition at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, has been awarded a $250,000 grant from the Susan. G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
His research is on the role of the diet in preventing specific kinds of diseases, especially breast and colon cancer. The grant money will help him further his research into the relationships among obesity, carcinogens and breast cancer that he began two years ago.
His work under the new grant will again involve rats. The rats will be surgically altered so they mimic post-menopausal women, who are at the greatest risk of developing breast cancer, Hakkak said. They will then be fed special diets that include carcinogens in an effort to determine the links between obesity and tumor development, he said.
People are exposed to carcinogens every day in two major ways, Hakkak said. Everybody has some exposure to a limited amount of airborne carcinogens — such as from cigarette smoke or vehicle exhaust — while others are in the food they eat.
"The diet is the (best) route into the human body for carcinogens," Hakkak said, "so we need to pay attention to what we eat."
All foods have the potential to either aid or discourage diseases from appearing, Hakkak said. "The diet either promotes or prevents diseases," he said.
The level of fat in foods is a factor in promoting disease, as is calorie intake. Hakkak said that, since 1980 the average calorie intake per person in this country has risen significantly.
One type of chemical found in foods that can help prevent disease are phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables.
"These are really beneficial," Hakkak said.
Recognition of that has prompted dietary experts to raise the recommended daily intake of fruits and vegetables from 5 servings a day to nine.
"Food is the cheapest way to prevent diseases," he said. "I think nutrition research will have to make every single effort to prevent obesity, to solve this problem," Hakkak said.
http://news4colorado.com/health/health_story_071101735.html
Mercury Rises Over EPA Pollution Rules
By Steven Milloy Monday, March 14, 2005
As the Environmental Protection Agency prepares to announce next week final rules intended to reduce mercury emissions from power plants, EPA officials and the Bush administration are coming under heavy fire from the Government Accounting Office, Congressional Democrats, and environmentalists.
But in reality, it’s another pointless Washington, D.C. political tug-of-war that we should all hope no one wins.
In January 2004, the EPA proposed several options for reducing mercury emissions from power plants. A technology-based option capping pollution at each U.S. power plant and supposedly reducing mercury emissions by 29 percent by 2008 is favored by environmentalists.
The EPA estimated that this option would cost power plants -- that is, users of electricity -- $2 billion per year and provide $15 billion or more in annual benefits.
A so-called “cap-and-trade” option, favored by the Bush administration, would not set emissions limits at every plant, but would instead establish a national emissions cap. The EPA would then distribute emissions allowances to power plants that could be traded between plants. Under cap-and-trade, emissions allowances would be reduced by 29 percent by 2010 and by 70 percent by 2018. The agency estimated the cap-and-trade option would cost $3 billion to $5 billion annually and provide anywhere from $58 billion to $73 billion or more per year in benefits.
Though it appears that the cap-and-trade option offers a much better cost-benefit ratio, the Government Accounting Office poured cold water on the EPA’s plan this week in a report claiming that the agency distorted its cost-benefit analysis to make it appear that the Bush administration’s cap-and-trade option was superior to the technology-based option preferred by environmental groups.
“The administration is showing a blatant disregard for the health of children, the health of women of childbearing age,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the Washington Post. “The agency’s mercury rule first failed the public health test. It then failed the science test. Now it’s clear that EPA cooked the books,” added an environmental activist.
The criticisms are partly valid and partly junk science. Incredible as it may seem, none of the benefits estimated by the EPA for either option are tied to human health improvements resulting from lower mercury emissions, according to the GAO.
The GAO recommended that the EPA go back to the drawing board and include in the cost-benefit analysis the human health benefits of reductions in mercury emission from power plants or at least to provide qualitative information on how these benefits are likely to compare under the technology-based and cap-and-trade options.
But this would be an exercise in futility. Although mercury emissions from power plants have never been regulated before, no scientific study documents a single adverse health effect attributable to mercury from power plants.
In September 2001, researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated the incremental health risk to fetuses -- supposedly a highly vulnerable population -- from power plant emissions of mercury to be between 1 in 1 million and 1 in 100,000. In EPA-land, such minuscule and hypothetical risks typically do not warrant regulatory action.
A November 2004 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “confirmed that the blood mercury levels in young children and women of childbearing age usually are below levels of concern.”
One reason for the absence of data linking power plant mercury emissions with health effects is that U.S. power plants simply aren't a major source of mercury emissions. Including natural sources of mercury, U.S. electric utilities are responsible for only about 0.6 percent of global mercury emissions.
The glaring fact is that there likely will be no health benefits resulting from reduced mercury emissions, regardless of whether they’re brought about by the Green-supported technology-based option or Bush administration-supported cap-and-trade option.
So how did the EPA estimate that its proposed mercury control options would bring about billions of dollars in annual health benefits even though reductions in mercury emissions have not been demonstrated to bring such benefits?
The vast majority of the estimated human health benefits for the two options were based on supposed reductions in premature deaths, heart attacks and respiratory ailments allegedly attributable to reduced levels of emissions of fine particulates (soot) from the plants -- a hypothesized by-product of proposed mercury control options.
While these estimated health benefits sound great, they are most likely illusory. Though the EPA has claimed since 1996 that soot causes premature deaths and other health problems, this assertion has never been credibly substantiated.
I’m all for reducing air pollution to the extent further reductions will provide real and measurable benefits at a reasonable cost. That is quite different than the current mercury circus featuring fabricated risks and fake benefits.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150086,00.html
Montco: No jobs for smokers
County considers only hiring nonsmokers to cut health costs.
By Pamela Lehman
Of The Morning Call
In what might be one of the first regulations of its kind for a government agency, Montgomery County officials said Thursday they are considering a policy that would ban the hiring of smokers.
The county could save millions in health insurance premiums by hiring only nonsmokers, Commissioners Chairman Jim Matthews said, adding, ''I think it's common sense to know you'll save money if you don't hire people who smoke.''
| SMOKING BY THE NUMBERS |
• An estimated 46 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes.
• Last year, smokers cost the country $157.7 billion ($3,391 per smoker) in health-related economic losses, which include $81.9 billion lost in productivity and $75.5 billion spent on extra medical care.
• Cigarette smokers are absent from work 6.5 days per year more than nonsmokers.
Sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. surgeon general's office, American Cancer Society
|
But the idea appalled county employees like Mary Lou Eutera, a smoker for nearly five decades who asked, ''Are we living in freaking Russia?
''I don't think anyone has the right to dictate whether someone is allowed to smoke or not,'' said Eutera, who works in the prothonotary's office. ''Why not hire someone for their talents and education?''
Matthews, an ex-smoker and the ranking Republican on the GOP-dominated, three-member board of commissioners, said the county is only beginning to look at a policy, but it could be instituted by early 2006.
The policy would not pressure current employees to stop smoking, he said, and they would not be in danger of losing their jobs.
''A new employee that smokes might not have any ill effects of that smoking for 20 or 30 years,'' Matthews said, ''but by then it could cost us millions.''
This year, the county is paying $24 million for health insurance for its 3,200 full-time employees. That's an increase of about $1.3 million from 2004.
Matthews said he has directed the county's health care consultant, CBIZ Benefits and Insurance Services Inc., based in Plymouth Meeting, to provide a cost analysis of possible savings.
The county's solicitor is investigating the legality of the proposal, and that's where the county truly is in uncharted waters, said Bruce Walter, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits.
''It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the long-term savings could be in the millions,'' Walter said. ''We really commend them for their forward thinking, but we're going to have to wait and see what the courts say about the legality of this issue. It's very unclear right now.''
From a legal standpoint, there is no criminal statute forbidding the hiring of only nonsmokers, said District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. But he suspects the policy could be challenged in federal civil court and doesn't think it could be applied to row office employees.
'Bottom line is, I'm going to hire the best people available, whether they smoke or not,'' Castor said.
County solicitor Barry Miller said there are no legal cases to support the policy. ''We just don't know whether or not the county can do something like this,'' he said. ''They are looking at a tremendous unknown here.''
If the policy saves the county money, it's worth considering, said Tom Ellis, the other Republican commissioner. ''If the numbers come back and say this could make a difference, maybe we'll be a leader in this.''
Debbie Rudegeair, who works in the county's clerk of courts department, said she is vehemently opposed to the proposal.
''It is complete and total discrimination,'' she sputtered as she lit a cigarette in front of the courthouse in Norristown. ''It's my lungs and my health, and if I want to smoke, I should be able to smoke myself into the grave.
''What are they going to do next? Not hire people who have a few drinks or eat too much food?''
Others said the plan could save on future health care costs and might even encourage some people to quit smoking.
Patrick Brennan, a painter in the county's public property department, started smoking at age 7 when he would go to the store to buy groceries for women in his neighborhood. Their quarter tips would buy him a pack of cigarettes.
''I don't agree that smokers shouldn't get medical support because they choose to smoke,'' said Brennan. ''At one time, it was considered a status symbol to smoke, and now it's a punishment if you do.''
Matthews, the commissioners chairman, conceded the county might be approaching a slippery slope.
''What if someone doesn't smoke when you hire them and they then pick up the habit, or what if someone smokes but says they'll waive health coverage?'' Matthews said. ''These are all things we need to look into.''
He said the idea came from an anti-smoking policy instituted in January by a Michigan company, Weyco Inc.
Weyco, a medical benefits administrator, ordered its 200 employees to stop smoking and fired four workers who couldn't or wouldn't kick the habit.
The path the company decided to take was unfortunate, Matthews said.
''Any of our employees who smoke now are never going to be pressured to quit,'' he said. ''If you want to go outside and freeze your toes off to catch a smoke, that's fine. I would be along with them now if I were still smoking.''
Matthews said he hasn't smoked in about two years and continues to use nicotine gum to curb his cravings.
''It should be a reward, not a punishment system,'' he said. ''I was an avid smoker for many, many years, and I know what the struggle is like.''
Matthews said he'd like to offer incentives to encourage current employees not to smoke, including payment for anti-smoking programs and medicines.
Although Brennan said he enjoys a smoke, he won't smoke in restaurants where people are eating.
''That's one thing that really bothers me when I'm trying to eat, and I show the same consideration to others,'' he said. ''I don't think smokers should be lighting up around people trying to have a meal.''
Philadelphia City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday on a bill to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other workplaces.
Weyco and other companies have been instituting ''no smoking'' policies in an effort to drive down health care costs.
pamela.lehman@mcall.com215-529-2614 or 610-278-1862
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_2nosmokemar11,0,5136043.story?coll=all-newslocalpolice-hed
Airbrushing history
At France's National Library in Paris, caretakers have airbrushed a cigarette out of a poster of philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in preparation for an exhibition to commemorate his life, reports the London Telegraph. Rarely seen in public without a cigarette, Sartre once said, "Smoking is the symbolic equivalent of destructively appropriating the entire world." So, it's clear that smoking was a big part of Sartre's life and work.
To be fair, the National Library is supposedly following a French law that bans cigarette advertisements. There are similar bans here, though one doubts the Smithsonian would airbrush a cigarette out of FDR's mouth. The Telegraph story, however, reminded us of something George Orwell wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future: Who controls the present controls the past."
Attempts to control the past by no means are unique to France. Indeed, examples of similar manipulation abound in the United States, where most universities are dedicated to it. At Vanderbilt University in Nashville, for example, certain groups successfully lobbied to have the word "Confederate" removed from Confederate Memorial Hall, which was originally built with money from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. One of the more famous images from September 11 was the three firefighters who raised a flag above the rubble of the World Trade Center. The picture was further immortalized in a bronze sculpture, except that the three white firefighters had been replaced with a black, Hispanic and white firefighter. Same image, imaginary people. A spokesman for the group that commissioned the sculpture defended it: "I think the artistic expression of diversity would supersede any concern over factual correctness." And, in a slightly different vein, Harvard President Lawrence Summers was recently chastised for suggesting that genetic factors might influence a person's chosen profession.
Attempts to alter the past by distorting the truth also work in reverse: By emphasizing the bad at the expense of the good. A particularly egregious example of this is how liberal educators have been able to diminish the stature of our Founding Fathers because they were white slave owners. Some have even equate Posted at 12:32 pm by looped_ca
Airbrushing history
At France's National Library in Paris, caretakers have airbrushed a cigarette out of a poster of philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in preparation for an exhibition to commemorate his life, reports the London Telegraph. Rarely seen in public without a cigarette, Sartre once said, "Smoking is the symbolic equivalent of destructively appropriating the entire world." So, it's clear that smoking was a big part of Sartre's life and work.
To be fair, the National Library is supposedly following a French law that bans cigarette advertisements. There are similar bans here, though one doubts the Smithsonian would airbrush a cigarette out of FDR's mouth. The Telegraph story, however, reminded us of something George Orwell wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future: Who controls the present controls the past."
Attempts to control the past by no means are unique to France. Indeed, examples of similar manipulation abound in the United States, where most universities are dedicated to it. At Vanderbilt University in Nashville, for example, certain groups successfully lobbied to have the word "Confederate" removed from Confederate Memorial Hall, which was originally built with money from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. One of the more famous images from September 11 was the three firefighters who raised a flag above the rubble of the World Trade Center. The picture was further immortalized in a bronze sculpture, except that the three white firefighters had been replaced with a black, Hispanic and white firefighter. Same image, imaginary people. A spokesman for the group that commissioned the sculpture defended it: "I think the artistic expression of diversity would supersede any concern over factual correctness." And, in a slightly different vein, Harvard President Lawrence Summers was recently chastised for suggesting that genetic factors might influence a person's chosen profession.
Attempts to alter the past by distorting the truth also work in reverse: By emphasizing the bad at the expense of the good. A particularly egregious example of this is how liberal educators have been able to diminish the stature of our Founding Fathers because they were white slave owners. Some have even equated the United States during World War II with Japan and Germany, because the government interned Japanese civilians or President Truman chose to drop the atomic bomb.
The ancestry of this obnoxious revisionism traces to the Roman Empire, when the politically powerful would erase the names of their defeated rivals from public documents. It was known as damnatio memoriae, and for historians piecing together bits of Roman history, it worked: Lives and truths were erased forever. Or, in the Sartre case, airbrushed.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050311-091129-6632r.htm
Scandalized rookie pitcher to butt out for life
SAPPORO -- Nippon-Ham Fighters rookie pitcher Yu Darvish has pledged to give up smoking for life after his team forced him to stay home as a penalty for smoking cigarettes while playing pachinko.
Nippon-Ham executives held a press conference in Sapporo on Thursday to announce Darvish would be allowed to resume practice from Friday.
"He has recognized the seriousness of his actions," Fighters President Junji Imamura said. "We decided to allow him to take part in practice because he expressed regret over the affair."
After a photo magazine carried a photo of Darvish puffing on a cigarette in February, the club ordered him to stay in his dormitory as punishment.
"My careless actions have troubled fans and (team) officials," Darvish, 18, said during the press conference. "I will not smoke another cigarettes for the rest of my life."
The media has given Darvish extensive coverage since Nippon Ham signed him as a rookie for the 2005 season because he was a star pitcher for Tohoku High School.(Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, March 11, 2005)
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20050311p2a00m0dm003000c.html
Editorial | Smoke-free Philly and Jersey End of tobacco road
Posted on Sun, Mar. 13, 2005
Philadelphia, a city of 1.4 million people, could go smoke-free this week. That's big news. Even bigger would be a ban on indoor smoking in public settings and workplaces across New Jersey, a state of more than 8.5 million. With that city and state being neighbors - as well as close to smoke-free New York - the move toward smoke-free indoor spaces offers far-reaching benefits for their citizens' health and improved quality of life.
Good for Philadelphia's City Council, then, as it is poised to vote Thursday to limit smoking in bars, restaurants and other workplaces. The city proposal has been years in the making, and it's back before Council, thanks to the determination of Councilman Michael A. Nutter. This time around, Mayor Street also made the difference by providing his support.
Council has a rare opportunity to put Philadelphia on a par with cutting-edge cities.
The best reason to do so is to safeguard workers now subjected to deadly secondhand smoke on the job. But the measure should boost the city's hospitality industry, too, as Philadelphia eateries - like those in New York and other smoke-free locales - become meccas for diners who value smoke-free meals.
A smoke-free proposal in New Jersey that would cover the entire state is even more ambitious. A Senate committee could take up the proposal from Sen. John Adler (D., Camden) this week.
The Jersey ban also has the support of acting Gov. Richard J. Codey, who has been influenced by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
There's a loophole that first must be closed in the Adler bill - his proposal to exempt Atlantic City casinos. All employees should be guaranteed healthier workplaces, and that must include the 50,000 New Jerseyans employed in the East Coast gambling capital.
Sure, it's understandable that officials get jitters over any policies that might impact the industry, since casinos are a cash-and-jobs generator for the state. But out of respect for casino workers' health, and a sense of fairness to other nightspots that would go smoke-free, Gov. Codey is right to press for a truly statewide measure. (And this issue should transcend any deals on whether to permit slots at the Meadowlands Racetrack.)
On another smoking front, employers - among them, Montgomery County officials - would be heading off on the wrong track by barring smokers from jobs. That's troubling on many counts. It would infringe on privacy, and smacks of unnecessary discrimination, whereas limiting smoking in public settings is a reasonable step to safeguard public health. By clearing the air indoors, Philadelphia and New Jersey will help to save thousands of lives.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/11120261.htm
Inqlings | Starr, Perrier thoughts on ban
Inquirer Columnist By Michael Klein Posted on Sun, Mar. 13, 2005 
Tavern owners predict all sorts of doom from the public-smoking ban that City Council seems likely to approve Thursday.
However, two prominent restaurateurs aren't smoldering. Stephen Starr, whose 13 joints haul in about $60 million a year, is fine with the concept.
With one but.
"I think people can live two hours without a cigarette," says Starr, who has lived without them for 30 of his 50 years now. "But having said that, I realize that places that are strictly bars should have smoking."
Georges Perrier railed against the idea of a ban when it was raised five years ago. He even said he would take his flagship Le Bec-Fin and Brasserie Perrier out of town. Now? "It doesn't matter to me," he says. On the other hand: "If the city could put the same passion to put through [the expansion of] the Convention Center, it would be built already."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/11120307.htm
These laws aren't such a drag-PA
Posted on Sun, Mar. 13, 2005
Around the world, people adapt - without any economic disasters.
Good for health, bad for business?
That's the mantra uttered over and over again as the push to ban smoking in workplaces, including bars, taverns and restaurants, gains momentum across the nation, in Europe, and in the Middle East.
It has been no different here in Philadelphia, where City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday - St. Patrick's Day - on a sweeping bill that would make the city the first in Pennsylvania to go smoke-free. Or in New Jersey, where the health committee of the New Jersey Senate will vote tomorrow on a bill to ban smoking in most public places, including casinos.
And the predictions have been grim: empty bar stools, shuttered restaurants. Smokers fleeing city limits to light up in neighboring counties - or simply staying home.
But cities, states and countries with smoking bans say they are adapting, and largely without catastrophic economic results.
Even so, not everyone embraces change - and in some places, it has rarely been enforced.
Rules successful in California
In California, the first to enact statewide bans on smoking in restaurants (in 1995) and bars (in 1998), state monitors say the bans have been a financial and popular success.
"If you were to light up in a restaurant now, the entire restaurant would probably... look at you like, 'What are you doing?' " said Colleen Stevens, of the Tobacco Control Section of the California Department of Health Services.
Jordan Rasmussen, a spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association, which backed the statewide ban as more acceptable than having many local ordinances, said that "everybody is used to it and enjoys it."
Rasmussen said the number of patrons who shun bars and restaurants because of the ban appears to be offset by the number who go more often because of the smoke-free atmosphere. Rasmussen said restaurant and bar employees "definitely said it was better."
An economic impact study by Philip Bond, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, concluded that in California the ban "produced positive short-, intermediate- and long-term effects on bar revenues."
Food and drink sales in the California food-service industry rose from $26.7 billion in 1997 to $44.1 billion in 2003, the California Restaurant Association said.
According to a 2002 poll by Field Research, 75 percent of bar owners and employees in California said they preferred to work in smoke-free establishments, up from 47 percent in 1998. The poll was conducted for the California Department of Health Services, which administers the ban.
A similar Field poll of California bar patrons showed 75 percent approved of the law in 2002, up from 59 percent in 1998. Among patrons who smoke, support of the law increased from 24 percent in 1998 to 45 percent in 2002.
Try telling that to Hebrew University of Jerusalem student Einat Ovadia, 23, a pack-a-day smoker since she was 16.
"The law says no smoking in the mall," said Ovadia, "but I've never seen it enforced. Nonsmoking laws are trendy now. But a large portion of the population here is smoking."
By law, Israeli restaurants and cafes must provide a separate, well-ventilated space for smokers; the activity is banned in public places.
But in practice, Israelis smoke everywhere with impunity. Fewer than 1,000 of the $75 fines for public smoking were handed out last year in a country of 6.8 million people.
Smoking in the Middle East, where 10 countries have state monopolies on tobacco, is encouraged by the relatively low cost, compared with Europe, and the habit's historic place as a social custom. The offer of a cigarette is a mark of hospitality throughout the region.
Trend is spreading in Europe
It was remarkable enough when Ireland, home of the hazy corner pub, banned smoking in public places last year. But then Italy, with its estimated 14 million smokers, followed suit Jan. 10.
Italy watchers smirked: For every rule, Italians find 35 ways to flout it. But wonder of wonders, people are complying. And national retailers report that a feared reduction in business has not happened.
It's likely that most European countries will follow suit. Norway already has. The European Union's health commissioner has urged Italy- and Ireland-style rules, and the Starbucks Coffee chain, which bans smoking in all of its cafes, has had great success in Vienna, Austria, and in Paris, where smoking is still allowed in public.
Still, some countries will need time. Only this month, Germany announced it would phase in no-smoking sections in restaurants, and France and Spain resist full bans.
A voluntary plan to ban smoking in Paris restaurants flopped last month.
"It's a daft idea, and it was doomed to failure from the start," a catering union official told the newspaper Le Parisien. "How can you ask customers to stop smoking when 43 percent of establishments in Paris also sell cigarettes?"
In Delaware, which banned smoking in November 2002, bar owners say they lost revenue but have found new ways to replace it.
"It will be like a dull pain for most people for a year or two," predicted Xavier Teixido, immediate past chairman of the National Restaurant Association and owner of Harry's Savoy Grill and Harry's Seafood Grill in Wilmington.
He said though he initially lost customers, his business has continued to do well. But in Philadelphia, he cautions, only the city, not the entire state, will ban smoking, making it easy for patrons to go elsewhere.
Still fighting in the Big Apple
In New York, once-loud griping about the smoking ban imposed March 30, 2003, has settled into low-level grousing. Restaurant and bar owners concede that their business did not suffer as much as they had feared. City data showed that bar and restaurant receipts actually rose 8.7 percent from the previous year.
Patches of resistance still remain. Audrey Silk of Brooklyn stumps for smoker's rights on the Web site of her organization, New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, or NYC CLASH.
"I don't go out at all now," she said. Philadelphia "business owners better wise up." The city's data, she said, include food sales and don't say how bars that sold mostly drinks have fared.
"This is a busybody's law," she said.
Smoker Christina Lee said she enjoys not smelling like an ashtray after she goes out, but she thinks it has hurt the city's nightlife.
"I feel like New York is now Los Angeles, without the good weather," she said. "The ban really takes away from the city."
Even Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter, ticketed three times for smoking in his own office and once a vociferous critic of the ban, has quit smoking.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11120288.htm
Posted at 12:30 pm by looped_ca
|
|
|
