|
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Bars shut doors across province to protest smoking ban -NL
By BRADLEY BOUZANE, The Telegram Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Many members of the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador (BIANL) followed through on their threat to protest the province’s smoking ban by shutting the doors to their establishments Monday.
BIANL president Marcel Etheridge said as many as 100 bars across the province took part in the protest in an attempt to convince government to allow licensed establishments to construct designated smoking rooms.
“This was a symbolic protest,” Etheridge said Monday, “first against the government, and the other thing was this was the bar owners’ way of saying to the smoking customers — which is still the largest majority of our patrons — that we appreciate their business and are going to protest to try and get a smoking room for smokers.
“In many cases, when laws are put in place, people protest and then give up and accept it … but we can’t give up protesting because this is our livelihood, it’s not simply an inconvenience. If we do not get a designated smoking room, we’re out of business and that’s the way it is.”
Etheridge, who operates a number of bars, said three bars — one in Gander, another in Traytown and a third near Bonavista — have already fallen as a direct result to a reduction in business to the smoking ban.
He said many bar owners are hanging on by the skin of their teeth until they are allowed to get a designated smoking room to stay afloat, hoping it would keep them in business and bring back some lost customers.
Evelyn Glavine, owner of a nightclub and billiards lounge in Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as a pub in Gander, took part in the protest and shut the doors to all three establishments Monday.
She said since the July 1 smoking ban for licensed establishments and decks, business has been in a tailspin. The ban, she said, has spawned problems near the bars that owners never had to deal with before.
“We did this (protest) on behalf of the smokers because no one is out there speaking for them and we know they’re there,” Glavine said.
“The government want them to go away in the bushes to have their cigarettes and we don’t think it’s fair. The only thing we’re asking for is a room where they can go and have a cigarette.
“What we’re finding now, where everybody is outside having their cigarette, they’re basically using the club for entertainment and listening to the music from the outside. They don’t (come into) the club, they just stay out and party in their vehicles.”
Glavine said her sales were down 40 per cent in July, about the same in August, and while month-end figures for September haven’t been tallied, she said they definitely didn’t increase.
Considering the ban started in the warmer summer months, Glavine is dreading the sales figures she’ll face this winter when having a cigarette outside becomes more uncomfortable.
She said bars in smaller areas are at a further disadvantage because due to less tourism traffic that would bring extra dollars to the businesses.
“There’s a lot of tourism in centres like St. John’s, but we don’t get that,” Glavine said.
“Pretty much everything in regards to festivals is over now that would bring tourism, but (we depend on regulars).
“We’re not saying we should go back to putting ashtrays out in the bars. All we’re saying is we want a comfortable place (people) can have a cigarette. Ninety per cent of our customers are smokers, and all we’re saying to government is to give us 10 per cent of our space for a smoking room. We think it’s a reasonable request.”
Etheridge said his patrons were not upset that he shut his doors during the holiday long weekend. Most of his customers, he said, appreciated his willingness to lose money to defend the rights of smokers.
He said some bars in the province are taking measures to construct smoking rooms in defiance of the law. There are two designated smoking rooms being built, Etheridge said. A third is already up and running in central Newfoundland. He government has not stepped in to shut down that room.
The setup of a designated smoking room is not an option Glavine has ruled out for either of her three businesses.
She said something must be done by government to save countless bars that have lost money since the smoking ban came into force.
bbouzane@thetelegram.com
http://www.thetelegram.com/
Financial Burden
I admit Jose Rodriguez's arguments are not without merit, but he fails to discuss the financial burden on all taxpayers caused by the millions spent on additional health care secondary to smoking. ("If I die, blame me," Oct. 7.) Smoking contributes to about 32 diseases. I would come to his side if all smokers were made responsible for smoking-related health issues. I realize this is not practical. Smoking is a horrible addiction that controls its victims. Counselling and other help should be more available. The legal actions against tobacco companies should be prosecuted.
Gary J. McLaughlin
(Governments make more profits than tobacco companies.)
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/12/1258522.html
Penalize rowdy bars: councillors -ON
Carly Weeks The Ottawa Citizen Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Holmes, Bedard would recover costs from repeat bylaw offenders
Ottawa's downtown councillors want the city to crack down on bars they say are allowing late-night noise and drunken carousing to get out of control.
Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes will ask city council today to pass a motion requiring bylaw officers to be more aggressive with bars that allow or create problems.
"This is ridiculous, and it's time to now start charging the bars," Ms. Holmes said yesterday. "When people come out of the bar drunk and there's behaviour that the city is trying to control ... that cost should be transferred back to the business owner."
Ms. Holmes' ward contains the strip of bars along Elgin Street. She said while most establishments don't cause problems, "there are a few that are out of control."
While the city already has cost-recovery bylaws that allow it to bill bars for enforcement costs, they have not been used. And, according to Ms. Holmes, that's only because Ottawa has a dismal record of enforcing its own bylaws. "We have very weak enforcement at the city."
But some businesses say the city's bylaws already go too far. Fines for noise violations and other infractions make sense, but it's unfair for the city to threaten businesses with having to pay bylaw enforcement costs, said Robert Peterson, manager of the Whiskey Bar in the Byward Market.
"We pay business tax. Any business pays a lot more tax than the average individual, for the most part. To go above and beyond that, I think is a little excessive," he said. "I don't think there should be any reason to double-tax."
Ottawa and Mississauga could be the only Canadian cities with bylaws that allow the municipality to charge bars for enforcement costs, said Susan Jones, the city's director of bylaw services.
So far, though, Ottawa's bylaw department has chosen to negotiate with bar owners, instead of billing them for enforcement costs.
But if Ms. Holmes' motion is approved today, bars can expect to be billed when they repeatedly violate bylaws. "If they don't comply, then they may have to pay for the cost of the additional enforcement resources needed to address problems," said Ms. Jones, adding that those costs would be over and above fines the bar would pay for bylaw violations.
"Quite often, a ticket might be, for a noise charge, $200 on a ticket. We might have spent $1,000 in staff time having to deal with that ticket," Ms. Jones said.
Ms. Holmes isn't the only council member complaining about noisy bars. The situation is much the same in the Byward Market, said Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges Bedard, who represents that area.
Mr. Bedard supports Ms. Holmes' motion because he said taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for repeat violators.
"It's very costly for all of us," he said. "We have some establishments that, unfortunately, we end up going and visiting on a constant or regular basis. We somehow have to say to these people, 'What you're doing is unacceptable.' "
Ms. Holmes said enforcing the bylaw will make bar owners realize they have to be responsible when it comes to those they serve and how much they allow people to drink in their bars.
There are about 400 licensed establishments in Ottawa's central area, according to Ms. Holmes' motion.
During a crackdown on downtown bars in the spring, 318 charges were laid. The operation was conducted by police, bylaw and fire services, as well as Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission. Several people were caught with open liquor in parks near Elgin Street and 30 noise bylaw charges were laid.
The Fire Station Bar, for example, was charged for overcrowding on its patio. Privilege Bar was charged twice for the same offence.
The Bulldog Pub faces a licence suspension for serving a minor, according to statements in Ms. Holmes' motion.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=a8ad970b-f22e-4ce8-99de-6cb81cff7387
Mychoice.ca has gone country
Mychoice.ca has gone country and sponsored the recording and national promotion of an original smoker’s protest song “My Choice.”
All that’s needed now is for a few people in every place with a country station to make a few quick calls. Just phone in and request “My Choice” by “Too Drunk to Fish.” If they have haven’t heard of it, tell them it was sent out Sept. 27 and to check with their music director. Keep calling till they play it.
Link added to our music section http://www.smokersclub.com/audio/srmusic.html
For sale: Tobacco kilns, and lots of them -ON
Jeff Helsdon - Staff Writer Wednesday October 12, 2005
Tobacco troubles affecting many
The Tillsonburg News — A small market has developed for used tobacco kilns.
One of the issues tobacco farmers were concerned about with the now-past buyout was the loss of capital on their tobacco-specific assets, such as kilns and priming machines.
The tobacco buyout removed 279 quota holders from the province. If each had an average of six kilns, that leaves more than 1,800 kilns across the tobacco belt. The buyout didn’t address those assets and kilns are rusting away in kiln yards across tobacco country.
While there isn’t a huge demand for kilns, the good news is some are selling.Colin Decker of Colin Decker Builders specializes in moving buildings, but didn’t plan on moving buildings this year because of the red tape involved. However, the number of calls he received from people asking if he would move bulk kilns, changed all that.
“We just go so many calls that we inquired about getting the proper insurance and permits,” he said. “It took us six weeks to get all the paperwork in place. As soon as we got set up we were non-stop and we have been non-stop ever since.”
He teamed up with Eric Taylor, whose father Don was one of the original movers in the area. Decker said he is moving anywhere from one, two or three kilns up to 14 for each farmer. By the end of the season he expects to have moved 50.
Decker isn’t surprised there would be used kilns around at a reasonable price.
“It would be like 50 per cent of Norfolk County losing their driver’s license,” he said. “There would be some bargains on cars around. It’s unfortunate, but the ones who stuck with it are making the best of a bad situation.”
Simcoe-area farmer Rick Kichler is one of the farmers who took advantage of the excess kilns on the market. He added two to increase curing capacity, and wished in hind sight he bought more.The price was right, with each costing $5,000. That’s much less than the $30,000 cost of new kilns.
Otterville-area grower Hugh Zimmer took the buyout package and wishes he could unload some of the 50 kilns he has.
“The problem simply is how do you market something when there’s such a surplus,” he said.
Zimmer still used some of the kilns this past year to honour sharegrowing contracts he had for this year. What will be grown on the farm next year is still a big unknown.
Zimmer said corn was selling at $3 per bushel when he started farming in 1973. Now it’s $2.30 to $2.40 per bushel. He said tobacco isn’t a lot better with natural gas and electricity costs going up and the tobacco price going down on B grades.
Even getting rid of the the kilns isn’t always a money maker, Zimmer said. To remove a kiln, the electricity has to be disconnect, gas disconnected and then the farmer pays to dispose of the concrete pad.
“When it’s gone you still have nothing,” he said. “Then you have to figure out how to get the property taxes down to the point where you can make a living off 100 acres of sand.”
The downturn in tobacco has also hit home for DeCloet Ltd. The manufacturer of bulk kilns, automatic harvesters and other tobacco equipment didn’t build a harvester this year. It was the first year in a long time where there were no orders.
Kiln sales also took a hit.
“It’s very difficult to sell new when there’s so much used available,” said Len Erdelac of the company’s sales department.
DeCloet used to sell a fair amount of equipment into the United States. But a quota buyout there and the high Canadian dollar have curtailed sales in that direction.
As a result, the company has downsized considerably. It has diversified somewhat into the manufacture of construction heaters and is still servicing its harvesters and kilns.
http://www.tillsonburgnews.com/story.php?id=189588
Top Ontario Air Polluters Revealed
Latest data show most reported pollution in Ontario is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Ontario emitted more than 888 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Ontario pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Ontario No. 2 in Canada, after Alberta, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9853.html
Top New Brunswick Air Polluters Revealed
Latest data show most reported pollution in New Brunswick is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in New Brunswick emitted more than 175 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new New Brunswick pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9864.html
Top Quebec Air Polluters Revealed
Latest data show most reported pollution in Quebec is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Quebec emitted more than 727 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Quebec pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Quebec No. 3 in Canada, after Alberta and Ontario, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9846.html
Top Alberta Air Polluters Revealed
Latest data show most reported pollution in Alberta is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Alberta emitted more than 1 billion kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Alberta pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Alberta No. 1 in Canada, followed by Ontario and Quebec, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9856.html
Smash-and-grab thief gets 3-year jail term
By DAVENE JEFFREY Staff Reporter
A young Dartmouth man involved in three thefts earlier this year in which vehicles were driven through the front of stores has been sentenced to three years in prison.
Adam Leslie Griggs, 20, of Portland Street was sentenced Wednesday in Dartmouth provincial court on 13 charges including break, enter and
theft, possession of stolen goods and failing to stop while being pursued by police.
Tall and slim, Mr. Griggs wore jeans and a white undershirt under an open blue plaid shirt. He sat quietly throughout the hearing.
On Feb. 28, Mr. Griggs was involved in a smash-and-grab-style theft, in which a stolen van was driven through the doors of Penhorn Mall and into the Crescent Gold and Diamonds shop.
"Security tapes show the vehicle took two runs in order to get through the (jewelry store's) security doors," Crown attorney Greg Lenehan told the court. Jewelry worth $10,000 was taken, and nearly $25,000 worth of damage was caused to the mall and the store.
In March, Mr. Griggs participated in two similar thefts at grocery stores. On March 1, a stolen van was driven into the front of the Sobey's smoke shop in Fall River, and tobacco products were taken. About four weeks later, a stolen van was driven into the tobacco shop at the Porters Lake Superstore, and more cigarettes were stolen. Mr. Griggs and an accomplice were arrested later in Gaetz Brook.
Mr. Griggs's first known foray into crime was in December 2003, when he used his father's vehicle to steal some tires and rims from a car dealership.
This past Valentine's Day, Mr. Griggs stole a car which had been left running outside a veterinary clinic on Portland Street in Dartmouth. A short time later, police spotted the stolen car at Penhorn Mall and followed it. Mr. Griggs led police on a high-speed chase through a nearby residential area before he and another man ditched the car on Canal Street and were caught trying to run away.
During a search of Mr. Griggs's possessions, officers turned up goods stolen in a break-in at Cash Mart, the court was told.
Mr. Griggs has been in custody for the past six months, much of that time spent at the Cape Breton Correctional Centre.
All of Mr. Griggs misdeeds seem to stem from an unnamed traumatic incident in his life which the Crown, defence and judge all alluded to during the hearing.
"Clearly, you haven't addressed that," Judge Anne Derrick said, urging Mr. Griggs to "turn this page and move on with your life."
Judge Derrick said she agreed with defence lawyer Pat Atherton and Mr. Lenehan's joint recommendation for a three-year sentence.
Once paroled from prison, Mr. Griggs has a job waiting for him at his uncle's construction business in Ontario, Mr. Atherton said. Mr. Griggs's father was present in court Wednesday.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/457560.html
Final Approval of Bill 164 Marks a New Era in Tobacco Control in Ontario: Health Agencies -ON
FOR: ONTARIO CAMPAIGN FOR ACTION ON TOBACCO
JUNE 8, 2005 - 11:44 ET
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - June 8, 2005) - Today's anticipated vote to approve Third Reading of Bill 164, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, marks the beginning of a new era in tobacco control in Ontario, according to leading health agencies which have long advocated passage of the Bill.
The vote to approve the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, expected before Question Period today, will make virtually all public places and workplaces in the province 100% smoke-free as of May 31, 2006. It will also start a process toward a complete ban of retail displays of tobacco products on that date, which will be completed by May 31, 2008.
"Bill 164 will make nearly all workplaces and public places in the province 100% smoke-free," said Michael Perley, Director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. "The only exceptions are a few smoking rooms still functioning in long-term care facilities and psychiatric facilities, and hotel and motel rooms have still not been addressed. Other than these minor exceptions - and protection for workers is provided for in the Bill in the first two cases - we've reached our goal of a level playing field."
Perley also congratulated the government on strengthening the retail display ban provisions of Bill 164. "Going into April hearings on the Bill, there was no final date for a complete display ban. This would have left our kids exposed to tobacco industry products, and the message that they're normal and relatively harmless, indefinitely. Now, we have a drop-dead date for these displays of three years, which also allows plenty of time for adjustment by the retail sector."
The next steps in the full implementation of Bill 164 are the writing of regulations, particularly those concerning the transition period for retail displays and the regulation of smoking on outdoor patios, and the preparation of enforcement and public education plans.
The Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco is a coalition of provincial health agencies that have been working together since the early '90s in support of the implementation of effective tobacco control policies in the province of Ontario
-30-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Michael Perley
link to over 75 reports on Supreme court ruling
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&rls=com.netscape:en-US&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050929/bc_tobacco_lawsuits_050929/20050929%3Fhub%3DCTVNewsAt11
**investigate leave the pack behind !! - see http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/news100305.asp
Overview and Summary of Responses to Proposed Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations and Regulations Amending the Tobacco Reporting Regulations - Bill enacted Oct 5/05
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/osrpciprratrr-arprrripc/index_e.html
My letter To Woodstock Sentinel editor
Woodstock is in Oxford County. It is only one of the few counties that grows tobacco in Canada. There is a need for this product obviously, cause there's smokers. When a paper doesn't show the neighbours and family heartache, it's ignoring the farmers caught in the middle. (1)
The board accepted lower tobacco prices and lower volumes this year because of lower-priced imported tobacco and higher cigarette taxes. The amount of imported tobacco has risen to about 10 million pounds from four million over the past five years.(2) Rather than protecting the economy our government, with its ill conceived social engineering agenda is destroying farms and businesses, causing Ontario to become a "have not province". There are still at least 20% of the Canadian population smoking, according to Stats Canada. Although it makes you wonder how many there really are, crime rates have increased, smuggled and contraband tobacco has become a big underground business. In other words there is a need for quality Ontario tobacco.
“When you take $150,000 out of the cash flow of an individual [farmer] in three years' time, it hurts big time.” said president of Tobacco Farmers In Crisis, Brian Edwards in April. Since June OCAT (Ontario coalition against tobacco) has asked people to "contact MPP's in your province/riding to ask that funding be restored to Health Canada's tobacco control programme prior to funding being given to tobacco farmers." (3) It’s good to see that the OCAT care's for farmers of Ontario. It's also good to see that the tobacco control extremists realize how much they are actually hurting people who just want to be able to live. Increased funding for their "charity" and it's highly paid executives is obviously more important to them than providing support for the farmers in your area who are being forced into bankruptcy, and affect election outcomes. (4)
I agree with Nancy that we do need information from both sides of the issue. Action on Smoking and Health, was quoted in January that banning smoking in workplaces doesn't hurt businesses. He noted five provinces and territories have already brought in universal smoking bans. "The only industry that is affected by smoking bans is the tobacco industry," (5) Well the Freedom of information request has proved otherwise, and your local tobacco farmers can attest their damage.
Thank You
Linda Duguay
Editor of the Canadian Smokers Club Inc. Newsletter
Available at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=58
for your reference:
1 http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/09/17/tobacco_farmers20050917.html
2 http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/9890.cfm
3 Ninth point down on page http://www.ocat.org/whatsnew.html
4 Making Tobacco Control an Election Issue
Les Hagen
4 Calgary Herald article January 8, 2005http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=940
Posted at 2:54 pm by looped_ca
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has Ruled that Big Tobacco can be sued for Health Costs going back as far as 50 years.
Steve Hartwell
To get it, 'They' had to dispense with the 3 foundations that make our Justice System even remotely democratic.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
Complaint to the CRTC
I was shocked to see that there was a smoking sucks ad on the TV. The reason for the shock was that there was a picture of a "black lung" included in the ad. I have done some research and the only account I can find of a black lung is in Coal miners. This is false advertising from what I can see.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1900
The Canada Revenue Agency Strengthens its Measures to Prevent the Sale of Illegal Tobacco Products
MONTREAL, Sept. 27 /CNW Telbec/ - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Revenu Québec, is pleased to launch an awareness campaign, targeting all tobacco merchants and retailers in Quebec, reflects the federal government's desire to combat non compliance with tobacco related tax legislation.
In addition, in order to enhance CRA's ability to ensure compliance with federal tobacco legislation, the February 2005 federal budget allocated 8 Million dollars to the CRA over 5 years. These resources will be used to implement key initiatives at three different stages of the tobacco production and distribution system: enhancements to the stamping and marking regime for manufactured tobacco products, increased audit activities for tobacco manufacturers, and increased monitoring and tracking of raw leaf tobacco.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/27/c4453.html
Province Faces $350 Million a Year Loss in Gaming Revenues from Smoking Ban Confidential Government Report Warns -ON
September 28, 2005
The Ontario government stands to lose $250 million-$350 million a year in gaming revenues as a result of its new province-wide smoking ban, according to official government documents obtained by mychoice.ca under the Freedom of Information Act. (FOI)
The government was also told last year that existing municipal smoking bans in cities with gaming facilities had already cost the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp (OLGC) $131 million, and a second report indicated those existing losses might be as high as $165 million.
“While it was rushing Bill 164 into law this spring, the government steadfastly insisted there would be no serious impacts, but mychoice.ca has been saying from the beginning that smokers will not go where they are not welcome,” said mychoice.ca president Nancy Daigneault, whose association has almost 23,000 members, nearly two thirds of whom are from Ontario.
“This is a government that is still running a big annual deficit, despite having imposed new taxes on Ontarians, and it is about to impose big energy hikes on us – did it really think losing $250 million to $350 million year wasn’t worth mentioning?”
To put this dollar figure in perspective, it is two to three times the amount the government allocated in extra funding this year to cut classroom sizes.
Ms. Daigneault noted the documents state revenues will be lost because smokers will stay away, or seek alternative venues, or spend less time and money when they do go out.
“Our members have tried to make it clear to the government that as smokers they stay away from the venues that do not welcome them,” Ms. Daigneault said. “Charity bingos, bar owners and others have tried to make the government look at revenue losses in jurisdictions that already have total smoking bans, which prove smokers do stay away and that non-smokers do not take their place.
“Now we learn that all this time the government has been sitting on clear evidence from its own experts that shows there is a very big problem indeed,” Ms. Daigneault said.
Ms. Daigneault said that given the evidence on gaming revenue losses, the government can no longer pretend its punitive measures against smokers will not seriously impact those charity bingos, Legions and other establishments that depend heavily on adult smoking clienteles.
The documents, all prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, were produced before the government tabled its smoking ban legislation, Bill 164, last December.
Mychoice.ca’s initial FOI request was made last December, but these documents have only just been released – more than three months after the government passed Bill 164. The new law is scheduled to come into force May 31. 2006.
The most recent document is dated last Nov. 18 – just a month before Bill 164 was introduced. It states a preliminary spring 2004 assessment by the OLGC “determined that a Province-wide smoking ban could result in an impact of $250M-$350M in lost gaming revenues.”
A note dated Nov. 9 states that preliminary estimates of the impact on casinos alone would be at least $165 million and as much as $240 million.
A document dated Sept.8, 2004, states that existing municipal smoking bans had already cost the OLGC $131 million in lost revenues, although another undated page indicates this figure is in the $140-$165 million range.
Yet another document says the OLGC’s experience showed gaming facility revenues drop by 15%-20% after smoking bans are introduced and that any recovery experienced has been slow. Examples cited include a 20% loss experienced at the Ottawa-Carleton Racetrack Slots and an 18% loss at the Brantford Charity Casino.
There is also a “conservative” estimate that lottery ticket sales could drop by 5% as the result of “reduced convenience store traffic combined with less spare change for impulse purchases.” The government’s new tobacco control strategy has included tax hikes, and its new province-wide law includes a ban on in-store displays of tobacco products, as well as prohibiting smoking in all work or public places, and even bans separately enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms and private clubs.
Meanwhile, preliminary and final assessment reports by the OLGC on the impacts of the new province-wide smoking ban are still being withheld.
“This is all information that should have been available for public debate when this law was being considered,” Ms. Daigneault said.
Mychoice.ca was launched exactly one year ago, Sept. 28 2004, to give a voice to smokers and others who believe laws should be fair and balanced and that governments should not be allowed to intrude too far into legal adult lifestyles and choices.
It is funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, but is an independent, registered non profit organization. It pursues a wide variety of issues raised by the almost 23,000 people who have since become members. These issues range from calls for government assistance with the high cost of cessation products for those who want to quit, to mutually respectful and accommodating laws that allow smokers the choice of venues where they can smoke without bothering others.
Read the FOI documents obtained from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (PDF)
http://mychoice.ca/display_page.asp?page_id=561
What's the deal with nicotine?
Wednesday September 28, 2005
Clinton News-Record — I am a former smoker. I say this with the utmost caution because I know -- all too well -- the draw of my old friend, Player’s Extra Light.
We had a long relationship the two of us. It spanned back to 1990 while, as a second-year journalism student at St. Clair College, I picked up a cigarette one day.
I was feeling a bit stressed, you see, because a chain of unfortunate incidents -- starting with a car accident that rearranged my front teeth to the subsequent loss of my lucrative pizza delivery job, the untimely death of my cat at the claws of unkind hooligan tomcats and last, but by no means least, the death of my beloved maternal grandfather of a massive stroke at the age of 64.
His death was undoubtedly hastened by a penchant for Export A -- yes, the deadly green ones -- cigarettes. That addiction began when my grandpa was in the Merchant Marines in the 1940s. As us older folks know, giving cigarettes to military personnel was seen as a kindly gesture -- though, no doubt, one started by the wily tobacco industry that is always eager to hook a new nicotine fiend.
My addiction started when I was 21, which is -- according to statistics -- quite unusual. Though, truth be told, I’ve met many people who started to light up in their 20s and 30s.
And no, unlike what the anti-tobacco lobby will sometimes purport, these are not silly or uneducated folk. Indeed, the vast array of smoking friends I have include a book editor, an IT pro for McGill University, a teacher and an engineer.
Every one of them -- without fail -- has his/her own story as to why he/she picked up the addiction. For some, it started with peer pressure in grade or high school and for others a life event sent them heading for the match stick. Naturally, I have yet to meet anyone who says they took up smoking because it seemed like a healthy lifestyle alternative.
I managed to quit smoking last October following a nasty bout with bronchitis. I wasn’t “ready” to quit. In fact, I was in one of those spells -- that many smokers are likely familiar with -- when I felt a keen desire to smoke my brains out (and since the organ is so gigundoo, the project required a lot of time.)
But then, a couple of days passed by and I realized that if I was in for a penny, I was in for a pound. In short, I knew the hardest part of letting go had already gone by so I just went with it.That is not to say there weren’t a few rough days. Ah yes, I was ready to separate body parts from innocent passersby on more than one occasion. But, I frowned and bore the brunt of it.
After a few months, even the hints of a craving went away -- though I admit I missed the ritual itself.
Like most quitters, I’ve managed to pack on weight that is incredibly difficult to shed. I have a sneaking suspicion -- though I can’t prove it -- that there is something in multi-chemical-laced cigarettes that is designed that way. And yes, there have been occasions where I’ve been tempted to return to the cigarette counter in order to, ideally, lose some poundage. But, as I learned from my sister-in-law this past weekend, that doesn’t work.
And, as I also heard during a presentation by a tobacco education specialist at St. Anne’s on Monday, one would have to gain 100 pounds to offset the damage wrought by tobacco.
Mercifully, the weight issue isn’t that bad.
Now, I realize it’s different for everyone, but there are a few aspects of letting go of tobacco that deserve addressing.
For one, it’s been nearly a year, but I don’t “feel” like a new, rejuvenated Arnold Schwarzenegger type. Food doesn’t taste better, either, one just wolfs down more of it because of the oral ritual.
On the other hand, my teeth are noticeably whiter and my gums are as healthy as can be. Plus, my car doesn’t smell like smoke and I don’t have burn marks on my clothes. And yes, I don’t have to get up every hour or so to feed the need.
Still, I’m the same wacky cat as I’ve always been.
I absolutely refuse to send someone outside to smoke when they’re at my house and I wouldn’t dream of lecturing a parent about their habit as is rudely displayed in some TV commercials and shows.
After all, smoking is legal and it is something that -- up until very recently -- was shamelessly marketed and presented as a cool thing to do.
My beloved grandmother -- also a two-pack a day smoker -- adored her six children and growing brood of grandchildren but stomach cancer took her away at the age of 64. Recently, her youngest son -- my uncle who is only five years older than yours truly -- had his first child, a boy.
Grandma would’ve been so proud. But, thanks to tobacco, she has been out our lives -- though dearly missed -- since 1987.
I must admit I still get the occasional pang whenever someone speaks of their grandma because I feel mine should still be here. After all, she’d only be 82 today.
All of this, of course, leads me to the question I’ve been asking ever since my smoking days: Why is this stuff -- with all the evidence out there -- government approved?
I, and a lot of other grandparentless adults, am still waiting to find out.
http://www.clintonnewsrecord.com/story.php?id=187137
Manitoba judge upholds provincial smoking ban, convicts bar owner -MB
By MICHELLE MACAFEE September 29, 2005
WINNIPEG (CP) - Manitoba's sweeping smoking ban has survived a constitutional challenge that will set a precedent for other provincial governments that have, or are considering, similar measures.
On Thursday a provincial court judge rejected a rural bar owner's argument that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn't apply to native reserves.
Robert Jenkinson says he's being discriminated against and has lost lucrative VLT business at his bar in Treherne, Man., because his customers are flocking to two neighbouring reserves where they can puff away.
But Judge Murray Howell convicted Jenkinson of all 13 counts he faced, for letting customers smoke and other related offences under the law that came into effect Oct. 1, 2004.
He was fined $2,550, an amount well below the maximum penalty for each offence.
Jenkinson, who owns the Creekside Hideaway Motel, said he was disappointed with the ruling and will consider an appeal.
"I strongly believe as a Canadian that we don't have a two-tier system," Jenkinson said outside court, flanked by supporters wearing "Can the Ban" T-shirts.
"This is 2005, this isn't 1867. Let's put this country in the right direction and move forward and have everybody equal and start from there."
A coalition of rural Manitoba bar owners has raised more than $30,000 for Jenkinson's defence.
The group estimates non-native bar owners who do business close to reserves have lost up to 80 per cent of their revenues in the year the ban has been in effect.
Howell said he believed the law has financially hurt Jenkinson's business.
But he said governments regularly pass laws that can have "profound and varying" financial effects, pointing to taxation and licensing as examples.
"There must be more to a discrimination claim under Section 15 of the charter than a claimant pointing out that others are subject to differential treatment," said Howell.
Health Minister Tim Sale applauded the decision, saying it validates the government's goal to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace.
The law prohibits smoking in all public places, but can't be enforced in reserves, airports, federal prisons and other places under Ottawa's jurisdiction.
"We just keep going forward trying to reduce the level of tobacco use overall," said Sale.
"This is one step in a program that started many years ago when all of us knew tobacco was a serious issue."
But Sale said he'll take his concerns about smoking on native reserves to his federal counterpart, Ujjal Dosanjh, during next month's meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers.
"It's appropriate for the federal government to carry some responsibility in this area," said Sale.
So far, however, the federal government has been reluctant to wade into the debate.
In Saskatchewan, where a ban similar to Manitoba's went into effect in January, the federal government refused to quash any band smoking bylaws that were weaker than the provincial legislation.
Earlier this month, a judge threw out a discrimination lawsuit brought forward by the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan, saying such a challenge could only be launched by individual members.
New Brunswick's provincewide smoking ban went into effect at the same time as Manitoba's, while Ontario is planning a similar law for next year.
Crown prosecutors did not comment on Thursday's decision.
During Jenkinson's three-day trial in July, prosecutor Cynthia Devine argued the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are aimed at visible minorities and others who have been historically disadvantaged - not white male business owners such as Jenkinson.
Defence lawyer Art Stacey said he was disappointed Howell chose to take "a pretty narrow and mechanical approach" to the equality charter argument.
Jenkinson said his business, which opened in 2002, will continue to suffer under the ban.
"It's definitely hard now just to pay the bills," said Jenkinson.
"People aren't coming. They're buying their alcohol and going to people's garages. It's unfair."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/29/1240892-cp.html
Top court allows tobacco lawsuits
By JIM BROWN September 29, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - In a major blow to big tobacco, the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses.
The 9-0 judgment, handed down Thursday, applies for now only to one province. But it opens the door for all the others to take similar action - a course that could spark hundreds of billions of dollars in claims.
B.C. Health Minister George Abbott hailed the unanimous verdict as a "landmark ruling in our attempt to hold the tobacco industry responsible for its detrimental products."
His federal counterpart, Ujjal Dosanjh, expressed satisfaction as well but shied away from predictions about how many jurisdictions would follow suit.
"Whether or not other provinces want to pursue that avenue, I think that's a decision that they will make," said Dosanjh.
Most public health care in Canada is delivered under provincial medicare programs, but Ottawa is responsible for treating some people - mainly aboriginals, military personnel and prison inmates.
The court ruling appeared to leave room for the federal government to contemplate a lawsuit on that basis, but Dosanjh wasn't ready to speculate on the possibility.
"That's not an issue I have given any thought to at this point," he said outside the Commons. For now, he added, federal authorities are concentrating on educational, advertising and other programs aimed at preventing youngsters from starting to smoke.
"It was an enormous victory I think for us and for Canadians, and I think it's going to allow us to deal with some of the problems tobacco creates in people's lives," Premier Gordon Campbell said after speaking to a convention of B.C. municipalities in Vancouver.
"I think now the other provinces are now looking at carrying on with other suits as well so we'll continue to push it right now."
At issue before the Supreme Court was B.C. legislation that allows the province to seek damages to recover public health care costs dating back 50 years, as well as future costs for tobacco-related illness.
The law also curtails some of the legal defences available to tobacco companies and makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
The tobacco firms claimed the province was exceeding its legislative power, undermining judicial independence and violating the fundamental rule of law.
The high court flatly rejected all those arguments - and even suggested that B.C. was only trying to level the playing field rather than seek undue advantage.
The legal ground rules set out in the legislation are not as unfair as the tobacco firms claim, wrote Justice John Major on behalf of the court.
"They appear to reflect legitimate policy concerns of the British Columbia legislature regarding the systemic advantages tobacco manufacturers enjoy when claims for tobacco-related harm are litigated through individual common-law tort actions."
Canadians who want to claim personal damages from tobacco firms have long been free to file individual or class-action lawsuits and can still do so.
The new wrinkle in the B.C. law is that it lets the province file a so-called "aggregate action," in which it seeks to recover money to support the health care system as a whole.
That means the government doesn't have to prove specific harm to each individual.
British Columbia filed suit last year against the three major Canadian tobacco manufacturers, Imperial Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald and Rothmans, Benson and Hedges.
Also targeted were the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council and nine foreign firms, including such industry heavyweights as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris.
The suit was put on hold when the companies launched a constitutional challenge of the earlier enabling legislation that had set the stage for the court action.
The Supreme Court verdict means proceedings can resume in the lower courts - although lawyers say it will be years before the case is resolved.
John McDonald, a spokesman for Rothmans, was quick to emphasize that point in the wake of the ruling Thursday.
"This decision does not in any way find any tobacco company liable," said McDonald. "The merits of the case have yet to be argued."
Christina Dona of Imperial Tobacco echoed that view and said the company will vigorously defend the suit.
She also questioned why governments would want to sue for health costs now when they have heavily taxed cigarettes and other tobacco products for decades.
"This last year alone they collected more than $9 billion in taxes," said Dona. "Where do they think the money is coming from? There's not some hidden vault for them to loot that has cash in it."
Some analysts have suggested the major tobacco firms could be driven into bankruptcy if they have to assume a major share of health care costs.
But Dan Webster, a lawyer for the B.C. government, was skeptical of that claim.
"We hear the tobacco industry crying poor in the court of public opinion," said Webster. "I really seriously doubt whether British Columbians or Canadians are particularly sympathetic to them."
Rob Cunningham, a lawyer and policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society, said the financial impact on the industry pales compared to the impact its products have had on public health.
"I expect other provinces to adopt their own laws to recover health care costs," said Cunningham. "Finally the tobacco industry will be forced to account for its actions."
The B.C. initiative was modelled on similar lawsuits launched by many American states against tobacco manufacturers south of the border.
They led during the 1990s to a settlement in which the leading firms agreed to pay $245 billion U.S. over 25 years to defray health costs for illnesses linked to smoking.
There are no firm estimates of how high similar claims could go in Canada, but the federal Health Department has estimated the national cost of treating tobacco-related disease at $4 billion a year.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/09/29/1241295-cp.html
Tobacco Company Will Continue to Defend Lawsuit
MONTREAL, Sept. 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Today's Supreme Court of Canada's ruling reassures Imperial Tobacco Canada that it can have a fair trial and bring forward all the relevant information in any legal action undertaken by the B.C. government under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Recovery Act. The company intends to vigorously defend itself in any trial initiated by that province.
It must be remembered that the decision rendered today does not in any way find any tobacco company to be liable, but merely allows the action already taken by the provincial government to continue.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5855.html
Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Challenge of B.C. Legislation
No substantive court hearings have been held regarding the merits of the Province's claim as a result of the stay of the action which had been in place. RBH and Rothmans Inc. deny the Provinces' allegations and believe that they have good defenses to the Province's claim. RBH and Rothmans Inc. intend to vigorously defend themselves and anticipate that the Province's legal action will involve many years of complex litigation through the trial and appellate process.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5810.html
Canadian Cancer Society applauds Supreme Court of Canada ruling upholding B.C. tobacco legislation
"This decision represents an extremely important victory in the fight to control the tobacco industry," says Rob Cunningham, lawyer and Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society. "It clears the way for the tobacco industry to be held accountable at trial in a court of law for decades of wrongful behaviour. In light of this ruling, we urge other provinces to adopt legislation based on the B.C. model and to pursue similar lawsuits against the tobacco industry."
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5784.html
*Hotels and bars suffering -SK
Veronica Rhodes The Leader-Post Friday, September 30, 2005
Restaurant business in Saskatchewan is booming while tavern sales are tumbling, according to newly released data from Statistics Canada.
A report on the total sales for restaurants, caterers and taverns, released Thursday, showed a 1.5 per cent decrease in Saskatchewan industry sales in July 2005 compared to July 2004.
Total sales went from $81.7 million down to $80.5 million.
Full-service restaurants saw a big increase during the same time period, with $36.9 million in sales in July 2004 jumping to $40.4 million the following year. Conversely, sales for drinking places took a dive from $7.5 million in July 2004 down to $4.5 million a year later.
"They're verifying that the situation in bars or taverns in Saskatchewan is worse than we figured it is," said Tom Mullin, president and CEO of the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan.
The association has been vocal in opposing the province's ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, which came into effect Jan. 1. Mullin has often stated the ban has had a crippling effect on bars in Saskatchewan, mostly in rural areas.
Donna Pasiechnik, tobacco control co-ordinator for the provincial division of the Canadian Cancer Society, said it is too early to determine if the smoking ban directly affected taverns' sales.
At the time data collection for the report ended in July 2005, the ban had only been in place seven months. Based on the effect similar smoking bans have had on other jurisdictions, Pasiechnik said a decrease in sales was expected initially but it should come back over time.
However, she wasn't surprised to see restaurant sales go up.
"We knew for a long time prior to the smoking ban that it was coming. I think that businesses that embraced the smoking ban and got ready for it and marketed to 80 per cent of us who don't smoke are probably doing better than those who fought it tooth and nail months into it," said Pasiechnik.
Mullin said restaurants were never expected to be financially hurt by the ban.
"We never spoke on behalf of full-service restaurants. It was basically the smoking issue was going to effect the drinking establishments and the licensed lounges," said Mullin.
Data for the report was taken from a sample size and the presented sales numbers are estimates. The report notes that the amount of sales for drinking places in Saskatchewan for July 2004 should be used with caution because the quality of data used for the estimate was not ideal.
The hotels association filed a lawsuit against the provincial government earlier this year alleging the provincial smoking ban violated its members' equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because First Nations-run casinos do not comply with the legislation. The lawsuit was dismissed in August.
Mullin said the organization is still pushing the provincial government to meet with it to discuss changes to the ban.
http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=c6189fc0-a864-43de-a2e9-1401e4d723f4
EDITORIAL: They just don't know how to quit
Fri, September 30, 2005
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada paved the way for provinces to sue Big Tobacco for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
Provincial lawsuits that will now be launched due to this ruling are still years away from being decided in the courts. But if there's any justice, the provinces will lose every case.
We say this not because we are fans of smoking -- a deadly habit -- or of Big Tobacco, an ethically suspect industry.
But what's relevant here is that both our federal and provincial governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold legally in Canada -- and rake in billions of dollars in taxes from it.
Now the provinces, which pay for health care, are after even more money from the tobacco industry under the guise of caring about the well-being of their citizens. Of course, this is nonsense. If our governments truly cared about the health of their citizens, they would have banned the sale of tobacco decades ago, when its dangers became known.
This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry.
That said, this unanimous Supreme Court decision wasn't a surprise, given that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.C.'s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Ontario and Newfoundland have similar laws on the books and most other provinces are now expected to follow suit.)
The passage of similar legislation in Florida eventually led to a US $245 billion settlement, which the tobacco industry agreed to pay out to state governments over 25 years.
Obviously, the provinces will at some point attempt to reach a similar settlement with Big Tobacco here. While this move will be politically popular, it doesn't change the fact that it will also be wrong, bad public policy and utterly hypocritical.
Will the provinces, for example, then sue themselves to recover the added costs to our health care system caused by their own deep involvement in and promotion of the alcohol and gambling industries? Of course not.
Because what they're motivated by is the smell of money, not the health of their citizens. And when governments start to act this way, who knows where they'll strike next?
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/09/30/1242036.html
Utterly hypocritical-MB
Fri, September 30, 2005
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada paved the way for provinces to sue Big Tobacco for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Provincial lawsuits that will now be launched due to this ruling are still years away from being decided in the courts.
But if there's any justice, the provinces will lose every case.
We say this not because we are fans of smoking -- a deadly habit -- or of Big Tobacco, an ethically suspect industry.
But what's relevant here is that both our federal and provincial governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold legally in Canada -- and rake in billions of dollars in taxes from it.
Now the provinces, which pay for health care, are after even more money from the tobacco industry under the guise of caring about the well-being of their citizens.
Of course, this is nonsense. If our governments truly cared about the health of their citizens, they would have banned the sale of tobacco decades ago, when its dangers became known.
This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry.
That said, this unanimous Supreme Court decision wasn't a surprise, given that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.C.'s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Ontario and Newfoundland have similar laws on the books and most other provinces are now expected to follow suit.)
The passage of similar legislation in Florida eventually led to a US $245 billion settlement, which the tobacco industry agreed to pay out to state governments over 25 years.
Obviously, the provinces will at some point attempt to reach a similar settlement with Big Tobacco here. While this move will be politically popular, it doesn't change the fact that it will also be wrong, bad public policy and utterly hypocritical.
Will the provinces, for example, then sue themselves to recover the added costs to our health care system caused by their own deep involvement in and promotion of the alcohol and gambling industries? Of course not.
Because what they're motivated by is the smell of money, not the health of their citizens.
And when governments start to act this way, who knows where they'll strike next?
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2005/09/30/1242039.html ( published in all Sun editorials varying days )
Editorial - Natives excluded -MB
Friday, September 30th, 2005
THE province's smoking ban has been upheld as legal, and a Treherne bar owner has been fined $2,550 for permitting his customers to smoke in his business. The ruling will be heralded as a victory for non-smokers and for the health of all Canadians. In fact, it gives Manitoba's government a convenient excuse to ignore its responsibility to protect all Manitoba workers, regardless of where they collect their paycheques.
Provincial court Judge Murray Howell dismissed Robert Jenkinson's argument that Manitoba's Non-Smokers Health Protection Act was unconstitutional because it permitted a double standard in the province. Aboriginal businesses on reserves can ignore the legislation because the provincial government says it has no jurisdiction over them. Mr. Jenkinson argued that Sec. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to equal treatment under the law and the smoking ban discriminates based on race. The judge dismissed this, noting there are all manner of licensing and taxing rules that apply differently, with varying financial effects, to groups of people and businesses.
Mr. Jenkinson's business has lost money -- something the judge accepted as factual -- due to the competition nearby at the bingos and gaming halls on the Swan Lake and Long Plain reserves, which permit puffers to light up with impunity. The province believes its anti-smoking law is good public policy because it protects the health of non-smokers. It then shrinks from imposing the ban on reserves where the NDP has traditionally held firm electoral support. It argues its legislation has no authority on reserves, which are under federal jurisdiction. In fact, as a function of good public policy, those most in need of protection from smoke-filled rooms are employees in bars, restaurants and gaming houses. Customers can always take their money elsewhere if they don't like the smell of the place or if their asthma is irritated, but finding another job can be tough. The province says regardless of what the air quality might be, workplace hazards on reserves fall under federal labour law. The federal labour department says Ottawa has such control over a First Nations commercial enterprise only if it is integral to cultural identity.
Gary Doer's government has ample authority to ban smoking and to protect First Nations workers. Deplorably, workers on reserves, where unemployment is highest, get no relief under the smoking ban, and no protection under provincial Workplace Safety and Health legislation.
In the end, Mr. Jenkinson's primary point was that there should be one law for everyone, and in the absence of good reason for a double standard, that is true in this case. If the NDP administration, for political reasons, doesn't want to pick a fight with First Nations over its smoking ban, it most certainly owes First Nations workers protection from smoke-filled rooms that may present a health hazard.
www.winnepegfreepress.com
Hamilton to province: butt out over smoking legislation -ON
By Kevin Werner News Staff (Sep 30, 2005)
Hamilton politicians had harsh words for the provincial government's no smoking legislation that they believe penalizes local businesses who have followed the city's legislation.
"I find it repugnant the province has overturned municipal legislation," said Hamilton councillor Tom Jackson. "Honest businesses who have obeyed (Hamilton's) bylaw have invested thousands of dollars in designated smoking rooms."
Hamilton councillor Sam Merulla demanded that the provincial government compensate business who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on DSRs, but who will now, under the province-wide legislation, have to tear them down to become smoke-free by June 1, 2006.
"(The province) is treating us with disrespect," said Mr. Merulla. "It is usurping this city's authority. It is unfortunate, and unfair. The province should provide compensation."
But despite politicians' anger, there is very little they can do except inform the province about their disagreement.
At the urging of anti-smoking groups, Hamilton passed a non-smoking bylaw June 1, 2002, that allowed workplaces, restaurants, banquet centres and other private places to construct a DSR or become smoke-free.
On June 1, 2004, the legislation was extended to billiard halls, bingo halls, bars and nightclubs.
Smoke-free
The legislation allowed that all public and private places would, including establishments that erected DSRs, have to be smoke-free by June 1, 2008.
But the Liberals this June, passed legislation that designates all public and workplaces smoke-free by June 1, 2006.
There are about 80 Hamilton establishments that constructed DSRs instead of creating a smoke-free workplace under the city's bylaw.
About 30 establishments have still not complied to the city's no-smoking bylaw, and three operating licenses have been recently suspended.
Provincial officials believe that by establishing a June 1, 2006 date it will provide business owners enough time to comply with the provincial legislation.
Hamilton councillor Bill Kelly pointed out despite pressure from some councillors who advocated for a stricter no-smoking bylaw that would have eliminated the need for DSRs, the bylaw that was passed was "watered-down."
The province, he said, even threatened it would introduce an Ontario-wide no-smoking legislation. At the time, municipalities were approving varying degrees of no-smoking bylaws creating a crazy legislative quilt across the province.
"Other municipalities went further than us," said Mr. Kelly. "(Businesses in Hamilton) built DSRs of their own volition. I feel sorry they invested the money, but it was a decision they made."
Mr. Merulla countered, that at the time when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, there was no hint they would introduce province-wide legislation to ban smoking. Only after the Liberals took power in 2003 on the promise of introducing smoke-free workplaces, did the legislation become a reality.
"We developed a made-in-Hamilton solution," he said. "The Tories at the time did not indicate there would be province-wide legislation."
http://dundasstarnews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&c
=Article&cid=1128031105383&call_pageid=1069851996007&col=1073476868082
Let them eat junk food
By GREG BONNELL, THE CANADIAN PRESS Fri, September 30, 2005
The amount of junk food Canadians eat, and the pounds they pack on as a result, are personal choices the government has no right to discourage -- even if it means some lives will be shortened, a Toronto audience heard Wednesday.
"People may very well choose to trade off years of their life, or the possibility of disease or injury, in exchange for the current pleasure, excitement, or stress relief they get (from food)," said Jacob Sullum, a syndicated columnist and senior editor at Reason, a U.S.-based libertarian magazine.
'PROTECTING PEOPLE'
"It's not for the government to say that's not a legitimate trade-off to make. Canadians need to question the idea that just because something implicates health that government intervention is justified."
The same rationale that informed public health policy against smoking -- leading to higher tobacco taxes -- has set its sights on junk food, Sullum argued during a luncheon sponsored by the Montreal Economic Institute.
"You're talking about protecting people from their own decisions," Sullum said in an interview before the speech.
"What you put in your mouth and how much exercise you get, that's pretty personal. It doesn't get much more personal than that."
Faced with a so-called obesity epidemic -- 8% of children and 23% of adults were obese in 2004, according to Statistics Canada -- provincial governments are pursuing policies to separate people from their junk food.
Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
In Quebec, politicians are considering a junk food tax that would send a "healthy message" to citizens while helping fund athletic programs. British Columbia has shown interest in banning junk food vending machines from schools.
In Britain, a sweeping ban on junk food in the nation's schools-- including chocolate bars -- was announced Wednesday.
Sullum believes that while governments have every right to protect the public against health risks posed by communicable diseases and pollution, they have no authority to tell people what to eat.
"It's a question of what people want," Sullum said.
"What the anti-fat activists are saying is, people don't want what they ought to want, and therefore the government has to coercively change what they want."
But for Toronto-area dietitian Lynn Roblin, government-directed eating guidelines are key to a healthy society.
"Whatever government you're talking about, whether it's provincial or federal, they do have a role in promoting healthy lifestyles, definitely," Roblin said.
Skyrocketing health-care costs are among the possible repercussions of government inaction on healthy eating, she added.
"It would not be a responsible action for them to ignore this."
Sullum maintains that government policy aimed at restricting eating habits is not the answer.
"For some people the solution is, they prefer to be fat," he said. "That's their choice and they should be permitted to make it."
http://www.torontosun.com/Lifestyle/2005/09/30/1242249-sun.html
Cigarette makers play down ruling
DAVID PADDON CP September 30, 2005
First step in complex battle, they say; Stock market regulators halt trading of Rothmans on Toronto Stock Exchange
Rothmans Inc. played down the impact of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling against Canada's tobacco companies yesterday, saying it is just one step in what will be a long, complex legal battle with the B.C. government.
"This decision does not in any way find any tobacco company liable. This was a constitutional issue. It really just allows the action to continue in the province of British Columbia," Rothmans spokesperson John McDonald said.
"We very much deny the allegations that are made by the province and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges will be vigorously defending itself. And we anticipate many years of complex litigation ahead of us."
In Montreal, a spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco said the company is relieved the Supreme Court assured the company a fair trial.
"It's our intention to defend ourselves very vigorously," Christina Dona said.
"The health risks of tobacco have been known for decades. Ultimately, governments will have to be accountable for their own behaviour."
Big tobacco sees the British Columbia government's action as a cash grab, Dona added.
Analysts have said that Canada's major cigarette makers - Rothmans, Imperial Tobacco and JTI-Macdonald - can't afford the billions of dollars that could be sought by British Columbia and other provinces now that big tobacco's constitutional challenge has been rejected unanimously by the the country's highest court.
However, they also note that the provinces would have to prove many allegations and face numerous court challenges by the tobacco companies.
Merrill Lynch analyst Marc Marzollo wrote recently that the B.C. government "would still have to prove the tobacco products added to provincial health-care costs, what those costs were and that tobacco manufacturers should be the ones paying those costs."
Marzollo added that it's impossible to assess what the eventual damage awards might be.
"We believe that if the governments are ultimately successful in actions against the tobacco manufacturers, the manufacturers would have difficulty paying any amount that comes close to the billions that could potentially be sought."
Stock market regulators halted trading on Rothmans shares after the court's decision was made public in Ottawa late yesterday. The stock fell sharply this week, ahead of the court's decision, but remains well above where it was a year ago.
The 9-0 Supreme Court judgment upholds provincial legislation that allows the British Columbia to seek damages to cover public health-care costs dating back 50 years, as well as future costs for maladies linked to tobacco.
The law also curtails some traditional defences in civil suits, and it makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
Tobacco firms had claimed the law exceeded the province's legislative powers and said it stacked the deck against them.
Rothmans, the country's only publicly traded tobacco company, has fared well in the marketplace against its major rivals - Imperial Tobacco and JTI-Macdonald, both subsidiaries of foreign multinationals - thanks to its success with discount cigarette brands that cost less than its premium brands.
However, Marzollo said in his Sept. 28 research note that the consumption of cigarettes in Canada has been declining and "the significant market-share gains by Rothmans, Benson & Hedges in recent quarters will end as industry growth of discount category cigarettes slows."
Rothmans shares last traded yesterday at $23, up 21 cents for the day but down from $25.69 at the end of last week. Its 52-week low is $16.76, set about a year ago. Its 52-week high of $26.99 was set in May.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?s_id=
K4PxE9vw%2bhl%2bXA6Qr08%2fFEyBwpwP2Avqak4%2bPt0ixNGb8WSq%2fL3i6A%3d%3d
Rothmans Inc. Announces Further Details Regarding Supreme Court of Canada Decision
Studies prepared for Health Canada have already concluded that British Columbia receives more in tobacco tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products in the Province than it spends on related health care. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the Province's ability to recover monetary damages in excess of the taxes that it collects.
The Supreme Court of Canada judgment can be found at www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6267.html
Smoke ban upheld
By NATALIE PONA, COURTS REPORTER September 30, 2005
Letting patrons light up costs bar owner $2,550
A constitutional challenge of the province's butt ban went up in smoke yesterday when a judge convicted a rural bar owner of letting customers light up.
Provincial court Judge Murray Howell ordered Robert Jenkinson to pay $2,550 in fines and costs for 13 convictions of breaking the smoking ban.
"It's a very disappointing day for business owners in Manitoba," Jenkinson said outside court after the decision was heard.
Under provincial legislation, smoking is banned in most enclosed public places.
Jenkinson had argued the ban discriminates based on race because it doesn't apply to First Nations communities.
He said the ban, which took effect last year, has slashed his customer base by nearly half to his bar in Treherne, Man.
His patrons now go to bars on nearby reserves where they can smoke, he said.
"Something's got to change. All I'm looking for is an equal playing field," he said.
Howell dismissed Jenkinson's defence, saying the ban is "constitutionally valid legislation."
"The mere fact of differential treatment by the law between those on reserves and those off reserves does not in itself constitute a breach of ... the charter," Howell wrote in his decision.
Plans to appeal
Art Stacey, Jenkinson's lawyer, said he plans to appeal.
In light of yesterday's ruling, Health Minister Tim Sale said he plans to call on Ottawa to implement a similar smoking ban on reserves.
"I'll be putting it on the agenda with (federal Health Minister) Mr. (Ujjal) Dosanjh, but the laws that they frame will obviously be their responsibility," said Sale, adding he is equally concerned about smoking on reserves.
"I think there are many people in reserve communities and reserve leaders who feel that smoking is a real problem, and they are prepared to take action."
The minister also said the judge's decision vindicates the province's approach to the smoking ban.
The Manitoba Hotel Association helped pay some of Jenkinson's legal fees but it likely won't participate in any challenge to yesterday's ruling, president Jim Baker said.
Entrepreneurs have argued they're losing customers to casinos and other businesses on reserves that are exempt from the smoking ban.
"I think this issue has all but exhausted itself," said Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Chief Tina Leveque, whose band operates the recently opened South Beach Casino near Grand Beach.
"First Nations have no impact whatsoever in the making and creation of provincial laws. If the people of Manitoba have an issue with their lawmakers, there's avenues they can pursue."
By now, most operators have adjusted to the law, said Larry McLennan, president of the Manitoba Restaurant and Food Service Association.
"The ruling is almost anti-climactic," he said. "Whether they like it or not, they've moved on."
Now that the provincial bylaw has passed a court test, Mayor Sam Katz and some councillors are musing about snuffing out the city's smoking bylaw.
The ruling got them thinking the higher government law may make their two-year-old municipal clampdown redundant and an unnecessary expense to enforce, said Katz.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2005/09/30/1241966-sun.html
Letting patrons light up costs bar owner $2,550 -MB
He said the ban, which took effect last year, has slashed his customer base by nearly half to his bar in Treherne, Man.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2138
Growers caught in the middle of governments' war on tobacco -ON
TILLSONBURG, ON, Sept. 30 /CNW/ - The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, that clears the way for the Government of British Columbia and other provinces to sue cigarette companies for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses, could result in more devastation for tobacco farmers in southwestern Ontario, said Fred Neukamm, Chair of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.
Neukamm expressed concern that tobacco growers would suffer indirectly as a consequence of lawsuits that may be launched by provincial governments. "Growers are caught in the middle of the war between governments and tobacco manufacturers. We have already suffered disproportionately in this war in that we are facing decreasing crop sizes and shrinking margins. This adds up to pain and hardship for our growers and their families, not to mention the communities that we live in and support," he said.
The relentless assault against tobacco consumption in Canada has unintended consequences. Mr. Neukamm noted that in the current environment, crop size continues to slide, imports are on the rise and there is a resurgence of illegal product in the marketplace.
"The fallout of the war between government and big tobacco continues to erode the viability of our sector. As a result, we are looking to all industry partners, including government and manufacturers, to do the responsible thing which is to assist those who, through no fault of their own, are facing financial ruin," said Neukamm.
For further information: Fred Neukamm, Chairman
* full release
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6168.html
Smoking ban will hurt casino revenue -ON
Brian Cross Windsor Star Friday, September 30, 2005
An internal government prediction that gaming revenues will sink by $250 million to $350 million annually once the province's smoking ban goes into effect bodes ill for Windsor, a critic of the ban says.
On Wednesday, mychoice.ca, a smoker's rights group funded by the tobacco industry, released a series of briefing notes written in 2004 to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade Joe Cordiano. Acquired with an Access to Information request, the notes say:
- Municipal non-smoking bylaws in jurisdictions like Ottawa (which has racetrack slots) and Brantford (with a charity casino) had already resulted in $131 million in lost revenue;
- Tightened rules for selling smokes will lead to less foot traffic in convenience stores and a resulting five per cent drop in lottery sales; Revenue loss for casinos alone is estimated at between $165 million and $240 million annually;
- Overall drop in gaming revenue is estimated at 20 per cent, or $250 million to $350 million annually;
- Casinos at the border, particularly Casino Windsor with three strong Detroit competitors about to build flashy new smoking-allowed facilities, will suffer a "significant revenue drop."
The legislation to ban smoking in public places, including casinos, bars, service clubs and restaurants takes effect May 31.
PREDICTING LOSSES
"I do think Windsor, because of its casino and because of its close proximity, is going to be severely impacted," said Nancy Daigneault, president of mychoice.ca. "I think a big chunk of the $250 million to $350 million that the government is predicting in losses in gaming will be coming from Windsor."
And reduced revenues translate into reduced jobs, at the casino and at spinoff businesses, she said. "The economic impact will be huge."
Casino Windsor spokeswoman Holly Ward said it's too early to speculate on potential job losses at the 4,000-employee casino. "We'll just have to match our employment complement with business levels," she said.
She said the casino is working on a marketing campaign to cope with the smoking ban, and counting on renovations under way in the existing casino (as part of the $400-million expansion that won't be complete until the end of 2007) to come online prior to May 31.
"There's going to be new things attracting them to the casino, so it's not going to be the same place as it was," she said.
Casinos are controlled by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission, which used to report to Cordiano but now reports to David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.
A spokesman for Caplan, Wilson Lee, would not share a chart -- mentioned but not included in the documents provided to mychoice.ca -- that displays the effect of the smoking ban on casinos, including the expected impact when the three new Detroit facilities are completed in 2008. The smoking ban will definitely affect revenues, said Lee.
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=53847b06-bcfe-42e2-bf57-ae71367f0099
Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations Now in Effect
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh today announced all cigarettes manufactured or imported for sale in Canada must now meet the new national standard intended for ignition propensity which will reduce the risk of fire.
This new standard does not mean fire-safe; a burning object is never completely fire safe.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6106.html
Tobacco companies hit with two massive class-action lawsuits from Que.
By ROLLANDE PARENT
MONTREAL (CP) - A class-action lawsuit seeking $17.8 billion in damages against Canada's three tobacco giants has been filed by a Quebec women on behalf of nearly 1.8 million smokers in the province.
The lawsuit, filed in Quebec Superior Court on Friday, targets Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson and Hedges and JTI MacDonald. It follows from a February decision by a Quebec Superior Court judge which upheld Cecilia Letourneau's right to go ahead with her giant class-action suit against the cigarette manufacturers.
The suit is not related to Thursday's Supreme Court decision giving the British Columbia government the right to sue tobacco companies to cover health-care costs related to smoking.
Letourneau's lawsuit claims that she, along with every other smoker in Quebec, had been misled about the dependency caused by the nicotine in cigarettes.
The action is filed on behalf of all Quebecers over the age of 15 who smoked every day in September 1998, when Letourneau first sought permission from Superior Court to go ahead with her lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks $10,000 per person: $5,000 for moral damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. If the lawsuit is successful, the tobacco giants would also have to pay interest on half that amount retroactive to February 1998, a sum that could represent an additional $5 billion.
Among the arguments cited in the lawsuit, it's alleged that cigarette manufacturers had a responsibility to inform consumers about the dangers associated with using their product.
"All the knowledge acquired over the years on the dangers of cigarettes were despite efforts by the manufacturers of tobacco products to contradict, deny or hide the truth that they already had," the document reads.
The tobacco companies were hit with a second, separate class-action lawsuit, also filed Friday in Quebec Superior Court, seeking $5 billion, according to news sources.
That lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of some 49,000 Quebecers who have contracted emphysema, or cancer of the lung, throat or larynx from smoking.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/30/1243230-cp.html
Posted at 3:14 pm by looped_ca
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month - One woman in nine will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. One in 27 will die from it
MONTREAL, Sept. 30 /CNW Telbec/ - October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the Canadian Cancer Society takes this opportunity to reiterate that many women are alive and well today because their breast cancer was detected and treated early.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/01/c6426.html
Tobacco taxes best spent on health
Top court clears way for lawsuits Sept. 30.
It's laughable that the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. How do they plan on collecting? How will they determine which of the thousands of annual cancer patients are victims of tobacco and second-hand smoke? Perhaps the government should first volunteer to redirect all sales taxes collected on the sale of tobacco products to the health-care system of that province before they initiate lawsuits. Not doing so would be enormously hypocritical since they are making money off the backs of addicts just as the tobacco giants are.
Jennifer Chalklin, Brampton
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1128117012241
Governments 'hypocritical,' say tobacco companies
Jeff Rud Times Colonist staff Friday, September 30, 2005
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council says the B.C. and federal governments have been like "senior partners" in their industry over the last three decades.
That means British Columbia's lawsuit to recover health-care costs related to smoking is hypocritical, council spokesman Dave Laundy said Thursday.
Laundy's comments followed a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision that clears the way for the B.C. government to go to trial with a multibillion-dollar civil suit against tobacco companies.
"Governments are the senior partners really in this industry,'' Laundy said, adding that last year the federal and provincial governments collected more than $9 billion in cigarette taxes.
Since 1970, governments in this country have reaped more than $150 billion in tobacco taxes -- about 13 times more than tobacco manufacturers combined have earned on their products, Laundy said. A settlement between tobacco companies and governments in the U.S. produced a $245-billion settlement in the late 1990s. But Laundy said the situation is different in Canada because governments are much more "proactive" in regulating the tobacco industry here.
"We have a right to operate as legal companies under the rules and regulations that are set by government,'' Laundy said. "It's somewhat hypocritical for governments to be setting these ground rules and then turning around and suing the industry which basically complies with the law.''
"Governments have been much more proactive in Canada in overseeing the tobacco industry,'' he added. "So the role of governments in the development and implementation of tobacco policy will be relevant to this lawsuit and will be fully explored.''
But B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal said the lawsuit is really "about how we can attempt to hold the tobacco companies liable for their misrepresentations and all of those things that we heard about from the 1950s onward.'' However, the council believes that the B.C. legislation cleared by Thursday's ruling essentially stacks the deck against tobacco manufacturers.
"Government should not be able to change rules in advance of a lawsuit to make it easier for them to win and harder for the defendant to defend [itself,] " Laundy said.
But B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said that's not the case with this legislation.
"The Supreme Court of Canada, by a 9-0 margin, has concluded that the deck is not stacked against the tobacco industry, that there's every reason to expect that tobacco will get a fair trial in future civil action,'' he said.
The B.C. suit includes three major Canadian companies -- Imperial Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald and Rothmans, Benson and Hedges. It also names the tobacco manufacturers' council and nine foreign companies.
"We have understood from the tobacco industry themselves that the potential consequences of these type of lawsuits would put them out of business in Canada -- that it would bankrupt them,'' said Canadian Cancer Association spokeswoman Barbara Kaminsky. "I don't know if that's an exaggeration or whether it's the truth and I guess we'll just have to see what happens as the months and years go by.''
http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/story.html?id=06d20769-7afd-4e67-bf02-3850f46fb941
Our cartoon federal taxmen
Re "They just don't know how to quit," (Editorial, Sept. 20): You are so right when you wrote, "This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry." Just what does the government do with the billions they already receive in taxes?
I was under the impression the ridiculous amount of tax on cigarettes was to: 1) discourage people from smoking, and; 2) help offset the cost of health care.
Guess I was wrong.
Another tax grab in the billions is the gas tax. Our highways are falling apart and something has to be done about it. Again, I was under the impression that the ridiculous amount of tax on gas, along with my yearly plate renewal, tire tax, etc., etc. was for the upkeep of our highways and roads. Guess I was wrong on this also. When it was said that $1 billion of the gas tax should be set aside for highway improvements, I heard politicians say a user fee should be implemented instead. All this makes me think back to watching cartoons where the tax man comes to the village demanding the people pay taxes to the king. When the people say they have no more to give, they are promptly held upside-down and shaken for any last coins they may have in their pockets.
Dave Podres
(Canadians have been held upside-down for a while)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243510.html
The way of government
Sue the tobacco companies for health costs with one hand, rake in taxes selling the product with the other. Hypocrisy, thy name is government.
Michael Knight Orillia
(They like to have it both ways)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243510.html
Shaky, two-faced fence
I couldn't agree more with your Sept. 30 editorial, Utterly hypocritical.
The governments are sitting on a shaky, two-faced fence. They need to finally make tobacco illegal and find new sources of revenue or just get into the business already. They're not fooling anyone -- except perhaps the Supreme Court -- with their hypocritical position. And, hey, imagine the fat surpluses we'd hear about if they cut out the middle man and became Big Tobacco.
Tom Buller Winnipeg
(Then they would have to sue themselves.)
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243574.html
A flawed ruling on tobacco
The Gazette Saturday, October 01, 2005
The peculiarity of the British Columbia law upheld this week by the Supreme Court of Canada is that it was designed to make it as easy as possible for the government to go after a single business, the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was passed in 2000 for the express purpose of recouping the hundreds of millions of dollars that B.C. spends every year to treat smoking-related illnesses.
The law, in other words, shamelessly stacks the deck in favour of the province. It allows the government to launch an "aggregate action," meaning it can attempt to bill 14 domestic and foreign tobacco companies for costs the health system had to absorb as a whole.
Under this legislation, the province has only to prove patients treated in B.C. suffered from smoking-related diseases. It does not have to present individual smokers' cases to try to prove its contention of fault. This is a huge advantage, to the government, over the usual course of civil lawsuits, where individual harm must be found to flow from individual fault before damages can be assessed.
The Supreme Court decided it was not a problem that B.C. would not have to abide by the customary rules of civil procedure and evidence, or that damages could be assessed retroactively.
Tobacco is, admittedly, a special case. Used as intended, it almost inevitably leads to illness and death. If it were to come on the market for the first time today, governments everywhere would not hesitate to ban it outright.
But, unfortunately for governments and the public purse, tobacco is beyond the point at which any society or nation can ban it. It has been a legal product for centuries. How could any government enforce a ban? What would happen to the millions of addicted smokers?
Still, that leaves us with a huge problem: Smoking-related illnesses take more than 47,000 lives and cost $4 billion a year in medical care in Canada. Cigarettes will end up killing one in every two smokers, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.
In Canada, governments until now have taken the route of levying high taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products. This can be seen, in a certain light, to be a sensible compromise. High cost has been shown to keep cigarette consumption down among youngsters, who tend to be the most vulnerable to forming an addiction to cigarettes.
But the truth of the matter is also that governments have played a hypocritical role: Cigarette taxes have helped swell government coffers. Governments not only benefit from the sale of cigarettes, they have refused to do the right thing medically and socially and try to ban tobacco. This makes them complicit.
B.C. has decided to let the courts do its dirty work for it. And the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly, and the result might well be to help bring an end to the scourge of tobacco-related illness. But what will be next? Products laden with fat and sugar? They, too, are harmful to health.
The principle of proving harm flows from a specific product or act should not have been jettisoned, even in this case.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=5d0c68e9-be18-4912-9df5-531b30c51f66
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
An unseemly money grab
Saturday, 1 October, 2005
Given broad public awareness of how deadly cigarette smoke is, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling giving British Columbia the go-ahead to sue tobacco companies may sit well with a majority of Canadians.
But that doesn't make it good public policy.
B.C. is suing a number of cigarette makers to recover smoking-related health-care costs going back to the 1950s. The province took the extraordinary step of passing a law that sets the ground rules for its court case. That is something like challenging someone to a duel and claiming the right to make the rules for the fight.
Neither Ontario nor any other province has said yet whether it will follow British Columbia's lead -- so far. But how likely is it that hard-pressed finance ministers will be able to resist such a tempting cash cow? They can look to the south for a precedent. Litigation in the United States led to a 1998 out-of-court settlement requiring tobacco companies to pay out $246 billion US over 25 years.
While mimicking the litigious fervour of the United States, B.C.'s attempt to extract money from tobacco reeks of hypocrisy. Dave Laundy of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council summed it up neatly five years ago:
"They (the government) decide it's legal, they set the rules and regulations under which the industry operates, and they collect their share of the revenues. And now they're suing us for doing what they give us a licence to do."
Indeed, governments' role in overseeing, and taxing, the sale of tobacco products makes them, in effect, willing accomplices in the distribution of a product known to be lethal.
As more than one editorialist has pointed out, British Columbia's next logical step should be to sue itself.
It must be acknowledged that government is in a bit of a no-win position with respect to the legality of cigarettes. The experience of Prohibition in the United States has shown that a ban on smokes would be unenforceable and would create a fertile ground for organized crime. To date, government has handled this conundrum by steering a middle course: regulating advertising, banning sports sponsorships, requiring manufacturers to print stark warnings on their packages, and collecting hefty taxes.
Together, taxes and public information have been doing their work. The rate of smoking in Canada stands at 20 per cent, down by about half from 1964, when a U.S. surgeon general's report definitively established tobacco smoke as a cause of death and disease, exploding the issue into the public spotlight.
The road ahead is unclear, as always, but the ruling was bad news for cigarette manufacturers, as well as for smokers concerned about the ever-rising cost of feeding their habit. There has been speculation that tobacco company losses could range into the hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly forcing makers into bankruptcy.
The essential point is that government should not conduct itself in such a two-faced manner.
"The government has made a lot of money through taxes and if they want more money through this product they can simply raises the taxes," Laundy said.
That would be a proper way of moderating corporate behaviour.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2005/10/01/1243506.html
Accounting needed
I agree wholeheartedly with John Day's letter, Cancer funds all seem to go down pit (Sept. 24).
I, too, have always wondered where the money from the Terry Fox runs for more than 25 years have gone. It seems to me the Cancer Society and the researchers who receive these funds have no incentive to find a cure or improve the survival rate of victims.
This is big business and the more money that is raised the further away the cure is.
Helen Van Gassen, Delaware
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
But could it break the bank at Big Tobacco?
SHARDA PRASHAD BUSINESS REPORTER Oct. 1, 2005. 10:27 AM
Tobacco manufacturers could be dealt a devastating blow by an onslaught of litigation after their setback at the Supreme Court of Canada this week.
The court's unanimous ruling paved the way for provincial governments to pursue billions of dollars in restitution for tobacco-related health-care costs.
Analysts believe tobacco companies will eventually settle out of court in Canada, and that settlements could be large. The companies, in turn, say they will defend themselves vigorously in court and that they have done nothing wrong.
In addition to Rothmans, Canadian manufacturers Imperial Tobacco Canada and JTI-MacDonald Corp. and other foreign manufacturers, including Philip Morris, were also named in the legal action.
Certainly the markets took a dim, although not devastating view, of the ruling, which allows British Columbia to sue tobacco manufacturers for related health-care costs dating back 50 years and for future related costs.
Shares of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., the only manufacturer with stock trading on a Canadian exchange, sank yesterday and its credit rating was put under review.
Rothmans stocked dropped $1.38, a fall of 6.0 per cent, to close at $21.62.
Dominion Bond Rating Service, meanwhile, placed the company's commercial paper and senior unsecured debt "under review with negative implications."
The ratings service indicated in a statement that litigation represented a "material risk and concern to the company." The debt review should be completed within a month, said spokesman Paul Macciacchera.
Other observers sounded similar warnings. Blackmont Capital Inc. analyst David Hartley said in a research note that a large settlement could "create tremendous financial hardship for industry participants."
The stock price of U.S. tobacco companies have recovered because of a "more favourable litigious environment and other company-specific factors," Hartley said.
Dundee Securities analyst William Chisholm lowered his stock rating to "market underperform" from "market neutral" and cut the target price by $6.50 to $20.
Hartley expects the stock price to drop to below $20. He used the $246 billion (U.S.)1998 Master Settlement Agreement in the United States with 46 states and the U.S. tobacco industry and a 1999 trial which was overturned.
In those cases, stocks plunged by 40 per cent within six months after each outcome was known.
Estimates for the B.C. claims are $10 billion.
In his note, Hartley said observers have estimated the case could take at least five years to reach a conclusion and total national claims could reach $80 billion.
Analysts, including Hartley and Marc Marzotto of Merrill Lynch, expect an out-of-court settlement will eventually be reached.
Marzotto pointed to the Master Settlement Agreement, where "not a single trial reached a jury verdict." The massive settlement is being paid out over 25 years.
Rothmans spokesperson John McDonald stated emphatically that the company would not settle out of court. Christina Dona of Imperial Tobacco Canada agreed.
Both pointed to Health Canada studies that indicate British Columbia collects more in tobacco-related revenue than it spends on related health care.
"We know the facts are on our side," said McDonald, adding the ruling found no fault or liability with the manufacturers and that "we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and challenge these allegations."
When asked about the potential impact of any payout by Imperial, Dona said answering the question would be a "presumption of guilt" and the company had done nothing wrong.
But, she said, "we don't have a hidden vault of cash."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1128117013219
Province urged to go after tobacco money
By BILL LAYE, CALGARY SUN Sat, October 1, 2005
The husband of late anti-smoking crusader Barb Tarbox says Alberta should seek cash compensation from cigarette companies.
In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada said B.C.'s government is within its rights to sue cigarette makers to recoup the costs of treating diseases linked to smoking.
The verdict has opened the door for legal action by other jurisdictions and Alberta Health officials say they will be looking into the ruling's implications.
An while he approves of the court's decision, Pat Tarbox said his wife, the former model diagnosed with terminal cancer who spent the last months of her life convincing Alberta youth to butt out, never considered suing the tobacco firms herself.
"She was of a generation that knew it was bad for them, but there's generations before us that were told otherwise," Tarbox, himself a former smoker, said yesterday.
"But these lawsuits will straighten the companies out from all the lies they told for years ... anybody who blatantly lies to the public should be held accountable."
Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit seeking $17.8 billion in damages against Canada's three tobacco giants has been filed by a Quebec woman on behalf of nearly 1.8 million smokers in that province. It targets Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson and Hedges and JTI MacDonald, and follows a February decision by a Quebec Superior Court judge that upheld Cecilia Letourneau's right to go ahead with her giant action.
The case is not related to Thursday's Supreme Court decision.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2005/10/01/1243915-sun.html
More clouds gathering over tobacco firms -AB
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005
EDMONTON -- Other provinces are considering siccing their lawyers on tobacco companies, after the Supreme Court decided this week to allow British Columbia to sue the companies for smoking-related health care costs.
Alberta Health Minister Iris Evans said the Klein government will decide by Christmas whether it too will sue the tobacco industry.
Anti-smoking lobbyists in Saskatchewan are also urging their provincial government to introduce legislation that would also allow it to sue.
Evans said smoking is related to about $1.5 billion of the province's $9 billion in annual health costs.
Lawyers for Alberta Health have been asked to quickly review B.C.'s Supreme Court win. Manitoba is also looking at the court decision.
"I hope before Christmas that we'll have something in front of caucus to talk about whether or not the justice minister and the health minister should aggressively carry it one step further," Alberta's Evans said.
Evans said Alberta law lets the province try to recover costs from tobacco makers, but admitted it has never been applied to smoking-related illness.
"This (Supreme Court) decision is a first step and a major victory for the health-care system in terms of trying to recover some of the health costs associated with smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke and for those concerned about the health of Canadians," said Alex Taylor, president of the Canadian Health Care Association and head of the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO).
It would make sense and save the provinces a lot of money if they jointly sued the tobacco companies, he said.
www.winnipegfreepress.com
Lawsuit smokescreen -- Government is senior partner in tobacco industry
October 3, 2005
Let's get something straight. The government does not want Canadians to stop smoking.
If they were serious, they could ban tobacco tomorrow, just as they ban dozens of other drugs, just as they banned alcohol during Prohibition.
Such a ban would be difficult to enforce, of course, as marijuana laws are, and as Prohibition was. But Canada's three cigarette companies would be shut down, and so would tobacco farmers, and cigarettes would be taken out of convenience stores across the country. Smuggled or home-grown cigarettes would still be available, but fewer people would smoke.
That's what the government would do if they really believed their own anti-smoking rhetoric. They don't believe it, because they are actually the senior partner in the tobacco industry.
Depending on the province, 60 to 75% of the retail price of a pack of cigarettes is tax. Tobacco farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and convenience store retailers share about $3 from each pack, and the profit for "Big Tobacco" is about 50 cents a pack. Governments get about $7 a pack -- all profit for them, or 14 times as much as all three companies combined.
There is no industry in Canada more closely regulated than cigarette companies are. They are not allowed to advertise, or even sponsor public events; their product packaging has been expropriated by the government for shock-style messages; their product development and marketing decisions must be approved by government bureaucrats. The chief remaining function of the cigarette companies themselves is to be the party to shoulder the blame. Their job is to look evil and be called "Big Tobacco" while federal and provincial governments pocket 93% of the profits.
So what should we make of last week's Supreme Court decision to permit provinces to sue tobacco companies to recover health care costs? Not much.
It will pave the way for the actual money-grabbing suits to follow. Those suits will surely be successful, just as they were in the U.S. And, just like in the U.S., the cost of those lawsuits will be passed on to smokers through higher cigarette prices. The nine provinces that sued could avoid all the lawyers' bills and simply tack on another buck a pack in taxes. The coming lawsuits will simply continue the tradition of shifting the government's dirty work to the tobacco companies.
The model being followed here is the nearly $250-billion legal settlement 46 U.S. states came to with tobacco companies in 1998.
That sounds like a back-breaking sum, but it's spread out over 25 years, so it's just a small tax-hike. It allowed 46 preening attorneys-general to declare "victory" in the press against big, bad tobacco. But it actually was the consummation of the merger between Big Tobacco and Big Government. Those 46 U.S. states now depend on smokers to keep on smoking -- for at least 25 years -- or they won't get paid.
Two years ago, a $10-billion trial victory in Illinois by private citizens threatened to bankrupt Phillip Morris.
State attorneys-general from around the U.S. intervened in court -- on behalf of the cigarette company, desperately trying to stop Phillip Morris from going under. Didn't those private litigants understand the game? Take the golden eggs, but don't kill the goose!
Canada's governments have made the same calculation that every ruler has since King James wrote his puritanical Counterblaste to Tobacco in 1604, while filling his treasury with tobacco taxes: Tell people to stop smoking, but hope by God that they don't.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1495582/posts?page=2
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
RE "Smoking gun for suits," (Sept. 30): What in hell is going on? The federal government and the Supreme Court of Canada are going to allow lawsuits against tobacco companies because of health issues.
The Supreme Court hasn't got a clue or an ounce of intelligence to allow this kind of lawsuit unless they include the government of the day. Why? Because the government allows the sale of cigarettes to consumers and that brings in billions of dollars, and allows our citizens to suffer from diseases such as lung cancer. Until the Liberals ban the sale of products that cause this serious problem, this issue is utter stupidity.
So what else is new?
Nick Evanoff Kanata
(It's also utter hypocrisy)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1245768.html
Cigarettes Worse
HAVE always thought it is interesting that the federal government can make marijuana illegal, and spend a lot of time and money fighting it with police raids and so on, but they won't do the same thing with cigarettes, which are totally worse for your health than marijuana. I don't smoke cigarettes or marijuana, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the hypocrisy of government.
Matthew Alexander
(See today's editorial.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/02/1245565.html
Teens not sold on butt law: Study -ON
By SHARON LEM, CP Mon, October 3, 2005
The laws dealing with selling cigarettes in Ontario to underaged teens aren't effective at preventing them from buying smokes, says a recent study.
Ontario minors are easily able to buy cigarettes by themselves or through a friend, a study of 737 occasional smoking teenagers and 2,050 regular smoking teens under the legal age of 19 indicates.
The study suggests a more comprehensive approach to restricting access may be required, including upping the price of cigarettes to discourage teen use, said Dr. Terry Sullivan, president and CEO of Cancer Care Ontario.
The study found the majority of occasional smokers (69%) and regular smokers (64%) say they were asked their age less than half of the time when trying to buy cigarettes.
The paper said occasional smokers usually buy their own cigarettes from a friend (60%) whereas the majority of regular smokers said they usually buy their own cigarettes (60%).
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Health/2005/10/03/1245868-sun.html
Point taken
So the thrust of your argument in your Sept. 30 editorial "They just don't know how to quit," is: If the government really cared about the effects of tobacco, then like marijuana, it would ban the sale of tobacco thus stopping its effects. Additionally, anyone seen smoking a tobacco product must be using an illegal substance. No government has the balls to do that! But your reasoning is valid.
Scott Ellison Bowmanville
(Let's not even get into which is more dangerous, pot or tobacco ...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the next target?
As a non-smoker, I applaud the government for going after the legally operating entities of Big Tobacco through big lawsuits. How dare this legally produced, legally distributed, legally consumed and legally taxed product be so bad for us? What is the governments' timetable to go after Molson's, Seagram's, McDonald's, Pepsi and Frito-Lay? Will these industries be deemed illegal and shut down because they are all so bad for us? It's very clear that government is rapidly spinning out of control. How long before you or your business land in their sights?
G. Williams Toronto
(We predict the next step will be junk food taxes)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1245763.html
Very dangerous precedent
Re: Utterly hypocritical (Sept. 30 editorial).
If the government is genuinely concerned about the ill-effects of smoking on the public's health -- taxes be damned -- they should just make tobacco use illegal. Period.
As your editorial points out, the ruling in B.C. sets a very dangerous precedent for other legitimate companies selling legal products, such as alcohol.
I made a personal choice to smoke and I am certainly not going to sue the tobacco company for a decision I made and I really don't see any reason why the government should do so -- I would think that the taxes I have spent (and continue to spend) on cigarettes would cover any health issues I may suffer in the future.
Mrs C. McLeod Winnipeg
And then some.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make smokers pay, too
I agree that the tobacco companies should be held financially responsible for health-care costs associated with smoking (first hand as well as second hand). But they should not be totally responsible financially. Why not charge the client (smoker) for part of the costs as well, as they are ultimately responsible for putting that cigarette in their mouth and inhaling and exhaling? If adults can say, "Oh, the tobacco company made me smoke so make them pay for my health care," then how are we to teach our children about being responsible for everything they do?
Stacey Derkson Winnipeg
Smokers are paying through their teeth.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/02/1245597.html
Big Tobacco doesn't owe a penny
National Post Monday, October 03, 2005
The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in a major tobacco case, decided Thursday, is not so much a victory for governments, patients and anti-smoking crusaders as it is a vindication of the right of legislatures to make public policy.
The justices, who were unanimous, did not pass judgment on the merits of British Columbia's planned litigation against tobacco companies to recover the health care costs of smokers. They merely said that if the B.C. government wanted to pass a law giving itself the right to sue, it was within Victoria's constitutional power to do so. The court did not presume to prejudge what the outcome of such suits would be.
Now it will be up to the B.C. government -- which initiated this court case four years ago, and which has been trying for nine years to win the right to sue tobacco manufacturers -- to prove successfully to a court that cigarette companies deceived British Columbians into smoking and that, as a result, the province incurred at least $10-billion in additional health costs for duped smokers.
Proving that case will be no easy task. Unlike B.C.'s first tobacco lawsuit act, which was struck down nearly five years ago, the one upheld on Thursday does not stack the deck against the tobacco companies. Under the current law, the rules of evidence have not been changed -- as they had been in the first version -- to make it harder for cigarette makers to defend themselves. The most recent version does not attempt to extend the B.C. government's grasp beyond provincial boundaries, nor does it permit suits on behalf of people the government cannot demonstrate had been made ill by smoking or second-hand smoke, as its first law did.
Other provincial governments have rushed to line up behind B.C. with plans of their own to sue for billions, now that the Supreme Court has spoken. But like the B.C. government, they are being disingenuous.
In the United States, where tobacco taxes have traditionally been low, state governments may have been justified in seeking compensation from tobacco companies for past health costs -- as they did successfully in the 1990s. But in Canada, governments have always made more money from the sale of cigarettes than the tobacco manufacturers themselves -- many times more. Last year, for instance, Ottawa and the provinces took in more than $9-billion in taxes on smokes; the combined profits of Canada's cigarette companies were just over $1-billion. (Most years, the ratio is on the order of eight-to-one.)
In other words, Canadian governments are already the biggest beneficiaries of Canadian smokers' addiction. And if they directed their excise and sales taxes on tobacco to health care, instead of general revenues, they would already have recouped any additional costs to the health system imposed by smoking-related illnesses. The B.C. government claims it is out of pocket $10-billion in health costs over the past 50 years. But in the past 35, Canadian governments have collected more than $170-billion in tobacco taxes. B.C.'s share of that is more than $25-billion, far more than it claims it's owed. It is not the tobacco companies' fault that successive B.C. governments have spent that windfall on other programs.
The Supreme Court of Canada was correct to uphold the principle of legislative primacy in policy-making. It will now fall to B.C.'s judges to deal fairly with tobacco companies in the litigation now set to follow. As we see it, those companies don't owe Victoria, or anyone else, a penny.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=4e0bdee9-683f-4576-bcee-06020fd96af1
Lawsuit smokescreen
Government is senior partner in tobacco industry
By Ezra Levant Mon, October 3, 2005
Let's get something straight. The government does not want Canadians to stop smoking.
If they were serious, they could ban tobacco tomorrow, just as they ban dozens of other drugs, just as they banned alcohol during Prohibition.
Such a ban would be difficult to enforce, of course, as marijuana laws are, and as Prohibition was. But Canada's three cigarette companies would be shut down, and so would tobacco farmers, and cigarettes would be taken out of convenience stores across the country. Smuggled or home-grown cigarettes would still be available, but fewer people would smoke.
That's what the government would do if they really believed their own anti-smoking rhetoric. They don't believe it, because they are actually the senior partner in the tobacco industry.
Depending on the province, 60 to 75% of the retail price of a pack of cigarettes is tax. Tobacco farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and convenience store retailers share about $3 from each pack, and the profit for "Big Tobacco" is about 50 cents a pack. Governments get about $7 a pack -- all profit for them, or 14 times as much as all three companies combined.
There is no industry in Canada more closely regulated than cigarette companies are. They are not allowed to advertise, or even sponsor public events; their product packaging has been expropriated by the government for shock-style messages; their product development and marketing decisions must be approved by government bureaucrats. The chief remaining function of the cigarette companies themselves is to be the party to shoulder the blame. Their job is to look evil and be called "Big Tobacco" while federal and provincial governments pocket 93% of the profits.
So what should we make of last week's Supreme Court decision to permit provinces to sue tobacco companies to recover health care costs? Not much.
It will pave the way for the actual money-grabbing suits to follow. Those suits will surely be successful, just as they were in the U.S. And, just like in the U.S., the cost of those lawsuits will be passed on to smokers through higher cigarette prices. The nine provinces that sued could avoid all the lawyers' bills and simply tack on another buck a pack in taxes. The coming lawsuits will simply continue the tradition of shifting the government's dirty work to the tobacco companies.
The model being followed here is the nearly $250-billion legal settlement 46 U.S. states came to with tobacco companies in 1998.
That sounds like a back-breaking sum, but it's spread out over 25 years, so it's just a small tax-hike. It allowed 46 preening attorneys-general to declare "victory" in the press against big, bad tobacco. But it actually was the consummation of the merger between Big Tobacco and Big Government. Those 46 U.S. states now depend on smokers to keep on smoking -- for at least 25 years -- or they won't get paid.
Two years ago, a $10-billion trial victory in Illinois by private citizens threatened to bankrupt Phillip Morris.
State attorneys-general from around the U.S. intervened in court -- on behalf of the cigarette company, desperately trying to stop Phillip Morris from going under. Didn't those private litigants understand the game? Take the golden eggs, but don't kill the goose!
Canada's governments have made the same calculation that every ruler has since King James wrote his puritanical Counterblaste to Tobacco in 1604, while filling his treasury with tobacco taxes: Tell people to stop smoking, but hope by God that they don't.
Levant is Publisher of the Western Standard
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2005/10/02/1245555.html
SP stance champions government intrusion -SK
Monday October 3, 2005
"A recent SP (StarPhoenix) editorial commenting on the Dakota Dunes casino agreement could not resist chastising the government for not taking the opportunity to bludgeon SIGA (Sask. Indian Gaming Authority) into abiding by the province's smoking ban.
The SP has shown itself to be an unrelenting apologist for the smoking ban and an unabashed cheerleader for government in its role as nanny. However, advocating government to take on the additional role of bully simply is wrong.
SIGA obviously has not been impressed by the exaggerated and largely unproven claims that secondhand smoke is a serious health concern and, judging by the success of its casinos, a large portion of the population remains similarly unimpressed.
The FSIN (Federation of Sask. Indian Nations) and SIGA have taken the position that most, if not all, bars and bingo halls would take, if only given the opportunity. In age-restricted venues, allow adults to make their own choices without intrusive government legislation.
The FSIN has made it quite clear that it has chosen to resist the wave of anti-smoking hysteria and will continue to do so.
Get over it!"
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/letters/story.html?id=9bc46b5f-a035-4745-aac7-ea7ae6dae1b2
Your own choices
The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for people to sue tobacco companies because of the damaging effects. What's next? Lawsuits against liquor companies because of the hangovers and missed work time? Or, lawsuits against potato chip companies because their products make people fat? Unbelievable. If you make the choice to consume products that are bad for you, you live with the consequences.
M. Berry
(Governments are addicted to tobacco money)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close the factories
My suggestion to the tobacco companies in Canada would be to simply stop the production and distribution of cigarettes. It can't possibly be a violation of the law to halt the sale of a legal product and it would be difficult to sue a company that has willfully withdrawn a substance that upsets so many people by its mere presence. The money saved by not having to pay the lawsuit(s) could be used in part to compensate employees until they find new jobs or subscribe to government assistance. As well, farmers have been exploring alternative crops for years so they shouldn't pose a problem. What could possibly go wrong?
Brian Marshall Pickering
(Why would they shut down when there's little chance of government suits succeeding?)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1246946.html
McGuinty Government Helping Students Kick The Habit -ON
Leave The Pack Behind Program Builds On Proven Results
Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson today announced the McGuinty government is expanding the fight against smoking among post-secondary students by providing $600,000 to further support the Leave The Pack Behind program.
Thirteen per cent of smokers using the program have quit, -- twice the rate of five to seven per cent of smokers who quit unaided.
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/news100305.asp
If Government Cared
RE: "UTTER hypocrisy," editorial, Oct. 3. Well said. If governments truly cared about the health of the citizens they would have banned smoking years and years ago. What's next? The Big Liquor companies? When will governments take Big Liquor to court? After all, is it not the liquor industry's fault that there are drunk drivers?
D. McTavish
(Drunk drivers are to blame.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MOST recent study estimates the cost of treating smoking-related disease at $4 billion this year. This year the federal and provincial governments' combined take from tobacco taxes will be over $7.5 billion. So the myth of smokers being a huge drain on the heath-care budget can be replaced with the truth that smokers actually subsidize the system. The difference could pay for the patch or nicotine gum for every smoker in Canada with enough left over to fund increased educational programs.
Eric Harvey
(Coughing up cash.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1246931.html
Smokers get prod from Capital Health -AB
Tue, October 4, 2005
Capital Health is taking a "gentle" approach to enforcing a sweeping smoking ban that went into effect at all its properties yesterday, a spokesman said.
"Any individuals who continue to smoke on Capital Health properties are encouraged to review the Capital Health policy," Mark Dixon said.
"We don't have the ability to assign special staff to police that. It's very much an honour type of process."
Staff and security who notice people smoking are asked to point out the new smoke-free rules.
At the Royal Alexandra Hospital, which in July was the first health centre to go smoke-free, patient Joshua Damstrom yesterday said he has no plans to butt out on hospital grounds.
"I won't. I will keep coming outside for cigarettes," he said.
The 22-year-old was attached to an IV and wasn't able to walk off hospital property.
Damstrom ventured outside a few times for cigarettes yesterday, but by late afternoon had not been asked by hospital staff to butt out.
Dixon said response to the new smoke-free rules has largely been positive.
The policy bans patients, visitors and staff from lighting up outside on the grounds and in the parkades in the Capital Health Region's 16 hospitals, 34 continuing-care facilities and 22 public and community health centres.
Smoking rooms used by palliative care and psychiatric patients in some facilities will be phased out by the spring.
Free nicotine gum, patches and other smoking cessation aids are on hand for patients. Help is also available for hospital workers who want to quit smoking.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/04/1247625-sun.html
Family defends tobacco crown -ON
Chris Thomas & Daniel Pearce - Times-Reformer Tuesday October 04, 2005
Rick and Nellie Verbruggen have the honour of being the Ontario Tobacco Champions in the 50th year of the competition.
The Verbruggens successfully defended the title they won last year during judging at the Norfolk County Fair. But it wasn’t easy.
The Tillsonburg area couple edged out former winners Brenda and Randy Godelie by a single point to retain their title.
“That was very close,” Nellie said. “My face is warm (from the tension).”
Although the competition was tougher, Rick said the result was even more satisfying. For their efforts, the Verbruggens won more than $1,500 in prize money.
Because the tobacco harvest is still going on, there were only seven entries.
But judge Mark DeVos of the Canadian Tobacco Research Foundation said the competition was close.
The Verbruggens grew a total of 93 acres, their largest crop ever. It was Nellie’s job to set aside promising looking tobacco during grading. Then it took Rick about 12 hours to pick out the samples for display.
“It was more difficult this year because we were so busy doing other things,” he said.
However, the Verbruggens said the competition is worthwhile.
“With the way things are going in our industry, this is the only place to show off something you enjoy doing,” Rick said.
A second-generation grower for the past 19 seasons, he acknowledged the uncertainty in tobacco growing. However, his sons want to follow in his footsteps.
“As long as there is a tobacco industry, I want to grow,” said the Verbruggens’ 19-year-old son Dennis.
The junior tobacco champion was Brad Deleye, RR 2 Delhi.
Tara Tanchak of Townsend Fruit Farm was named apple champion for the second year in a row.
The 30-year-old walked through her father’s 400-acre orchard northeast of Simcoe to select the best apples to put on display.
Growing a good crop wasn’t easy this year, Tanchak told the Reformer, because of the hot, dry weather and “a bit of hail” the farm received.
Fruit chairperson Lorraine Vogel said judges look for uniformity in size, shape, and colour. Apples, Vogel said, should also “be true to type” and without blemishes.
Entrants are also judged on the attractiveness of their display. Tanchak created a harvest scene using a human-sized doll she created and a bushel basket.
“It’s a lot of hours” to enter fruit in the fair, said Vogel, who has been a contestant in the past. “You have to keep disease and insects off the apples.”
Tanchak wins almost $900 for finishing first in all eight sections and second in two of those.
She was one of two adult competitors.
Winning in the junior categories were Brooke McKay, 12, of Waterford and Brad Vogel, 12 (Lorraine Vogel’s son).
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/story.php?id=188049
I'm ready to sue
I will watch with interest the outcome of the provincial claims against Big Tobacco. I sincerely hope they win huge amounts of cash through the courts by proving the "manufacturers and their lobby" deliberately and knowingly sold us on a product that was both harmful and addictive, so that I in turn can sue the provincial and federal goverments for a ton of money for keeping such a deadly product legally on sale -- even though, as per their own argument, this product was pushing the health care system to the brink of bankruptcy. As a non-smoker now, but one who was hooked on this dangerous product (kept legal by both governments) for over 30 years, I should be in for a bundle. Anyone care to join me?
Gerry Daniels Ajax
(Go for it)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/05/1248867.html
Depressing options
WHEN ALL the lawsuits go through and the people who freely damaged their health put the tobacco companies out of business with multibillion-dollar settlements, are the smokers who can't find any more cancer sticks going to sue the newly rich upper class of hacking ex-smokers for robbing them of their right to hurt themselves? Or will they just be mad because they didn't get sick soon enough to cash in?
C. Cary
(Depressing options.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/05/1248845.html
Deaths from diabetes expected to soar 44%
By Melissa Leong Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
Of the 388 million who will die from chronic diseases over the next 10 years, about half will suffer needless deaths because they've smoked too much, exercised too little and ate unhealthily, according to a ground-breaking new report by the World Health Organization.
The analysis released today projects that in the next decade, deaths in Canada from chronic diseases will increase by 15 per cent to more than two million, and most strikingly, deaths from diabetes will soar by 44 per cent.
"The area that is changing the most and the most quickly is diabetes," said Dr. JoAnne Epping-Jordan, senior program adviser, chronic diseases and health promotion for the WHO.
"Diabetes is very closely related to (being) overweight and obesity and we are seeing in many countries including Canada, that despite the public health's successes, rates of overweight are continuing to rise."
The report entitled Preventing Chronic Diseases: a vital investment featured nine countries, including high-income nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, and low-income countries like Nigeria.
Its purpose, Epping-Jordan said, was to urge global action to prevent chronic disease which could save the lives of 36 million people who would otherwise be dead by 2015.
It showed how chronic disease hinders economic growth and reduces the development potential of countries.
"At the global level, we are undergoing a rapid transition," she said in an interview from Geneva.
"In many low- and middle-income countries, they are on the cusp of an explosion of chronic disease. We're seeing in the future, their health systems will be overwhelmed."
In China, for example, the country is projected to lose 80 million people to chronic diseases over the next decade and $558 billion in hindered economic growth from premature deaths due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
The report said Canada stands to lose $9 billion from premature deaths.
The WHO report acknowledged Canada has already made important gains in reducing chronic disease death rates. It estimates that from 1970 to 2000, more than a million cardiovascular disease deaths were averted in Canada.
"(Canada) is thought to be a sort of role model for many countries," Epping-Jordan said.
-- CanWest News Service
Chronic diseases around the world
Here are some facts about chronic diseases around the world.
Each year at least:
* 4.9 million people die from tobacco use.
* 2.6 million people die as a result of being overweight or obese.
* 4.4 million people die due to raised cholesterol levels.
* 7.1 million people die because of high blood pressure.
www.winnipegfreepress.com
Both legal and lethal
SO FAR this year, Canadians have smoked almost 26 billion cigarettes. That’s what the running counter says on the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada website. For tobacco companies, the smoke-o-meter is a testament to galloping sales figures. For governments already alarmed by galloping health-care costs, the counter doubles as a doomsday clock.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the government of British Columbia – and by extension, other provinces – the constitutional clearance to try to recoup some of those costs from tobacco manufacturers. In a sweeping piece of legislation first drafted in 1998, B.C. declared open season on Big Tobacco, not only enabling a lawsuit but setting the ground rules for it. The companies appealed the legislation and now they have lost. This does not mean B.C. has won the fundamental argument; it has merely won the case that it has a case at all. So the real litigation is yet to begin in earnest.
The court decision has raised all kinds of questions of principle. Purists will argue governments are in no position to point the finger, since they, too, make a mint (in tax revenue) off smokers’ addictions. Besides, tobacco companies are selling a legal product and it’s not as if people haven’t had fair warning that cigarettes are bad for them. Banning the product, as opposed to bankrupting the suppliers, would seem to be the more principled stand.
Of course, we all know prohibition would be a bonanza for smugglers and no panacea at all for smokers. Keeping smoking legal – hypocritical as it may be – is by far the better course of action. The practical question is: How do we control the damage and the costs, and who should be responsible for them?
Arguably, smokers are already forking over a health premium of sorts by paying taxes through the nose every time they buy a pack. But that revenue comes nowhere near covering the cost of lung cancer and heart disease, just to name a couple of ailments linked to this bad habit. Hiking cigarette taxes is not an option. They are already as high as they can go without driving the lion’s share of the business into the arms of smugglers.
Governments – i.e. taxpayers, including the majority who don’t smoke – are paying through the nose, too. Between chronic care and critical care for smokers and former smokers, not to mention the lost productivity along the way, the bill is in the billions.
So is it fair that a third party – i.e. the manufacturer – should be held liable, as a matter of tort law, for some of the damage done by this product? Ultimately, that’s what this case is all about.
Naysayers like to draw comparisons between cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legally sold, heavily taxed and the source of untold ravages in our society. Shall we sue breweries next for abetting alcoholism? What about the fast-food industry? Will governments go after it as well to recoup the enormous health costs incurred by obesity? Whatever happened to personal responsibility in all this?
These are all fair questions. Yet, in our view, cigarettes belong in a league of their own. They have no health benefits whatsoever, even consumed in moderation. There is no safe level of smoking. The same cannot be said of alcohol. As for food, it is a necessity – unlike booze or smokes – although it, too, should be consumed in moderation. User error, or excess, is what makes alcohol and food deadly.
But in and of itself, the cigarette is a lethal product. That’s the difference. You might still argue that people already know this when they first take up smoking. Nobody makes them smoke. This is true, and smokers will pay all their lives, if not with their lives, for this decision.
Yet if smokers know the dangers of smoking, does it not follow that tobacco firms also know the perils of selling? Nobody makes them sell cigarettes. Shouldn’t they, too, have to pay the consequences? Or at the very least, expect lawsuits as an occupational hazard?
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorial/457427.html
Let's sue everyone! -ON
Wed October 5, 2005
The decision by the Supreme Court to allow the B.C. government to sue tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health costs sets a precedent that could generate tidal waves for many industries.
How long will it take until some health ministry sues the fast food and snack food industries to recover the cost of treating obesity-related problems? Burger, fries, doughnut, sandwich, cola and candy providers, beware!
Car crashes kill hundreds and injure thousands, so the auto industry must be added. Beer, wine and whisky cause many medical conditions, so add the booze makers to the must-sue list. Why not go after the illegal drug trade while you're at it?
I do not dispute that tobacco products are a health hazard, but I think that the user (or abuser) of a product should bear some responsibility. The proof of tobacco's danger has been there for enough years that no one can say that they didn't know what they were doing.
He who diggeth his own grave should not feel that others are obligated to pull him out at no cost when he falleth in.
Robert Drummond Exeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is pesticides hazardous to health
In response to the letter, Pesticide Untruths (Sept. 23), by Henry Valkenburg, president of Great Lakes Lawn Care, Inc:
The truth is the Ontario College of Family Physicians (not exactly a pressure group of malcontent activists) recently conducted a thorough review of more than 250 in-depth studies around the world on the effects of pesticides and concluded that pesticides are linked to prostate, brain and pancreatic cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and many other ailments.
The truth is pesticide use for cosmetic purposes has already been banned in more progressive municipalities.
The truth is children are most vulnerable to health problems caused by pesticides.
The truth is government regulatory agencies rely on studies provided by the pesticide industry.
The truth is it's only common sense that spraying and spreading tonnes of these poisons throughout our neighbourhoods year after year can't possibly benefit any life form, except maybe lawn care company presidents.
Vic Roschkov London
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
No sympathy for tobacco companies
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review Brad Needham Tuesday October 04, 2005
Tobacco companies must be choking Posted at 3:09 pm by looped_ca
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Charities pay to work bingo’s -AB
In the second month of the smoking bylaw some of Edmonton's charities are being asked to pay back the losses in their pooling. This is how this works. Bingo associations are the medium with which charities do business. If the association closes all charities within must pay losses or reap the benefits. Because of the smoking bylaw many associations pools are in trouble as customers are not coming to play bingo and if they do they come just before the regular games begin and go outside to smoke when a break comes. The result is less sales of early bird, bonanza, odd even, satellite and other extra games, various associations may have. These extra games are a large part of where the money going to the charities comes from. This situation is only going to get worse as winter comes on and the few customers we have don’t come because they don’t want to smoke outdoors. A.G.L.C. has bingo on a fixed fee which covers the expenses, the remainder is the amount going to the pool to be divided at the end of each month. Even a look at association books says things are o.k. but the pool (return to charities) is not. The only thing that will help the charities is if city council pays us for our losses or the smoking bylaw is amended to allow a closed off non-smoking room as a number of halls already have. My charity has already stopped donations to children’s programs. I know of one charity in my association that has already pulled out, many more to come I think. This will result in more bingo hall closures, job losses and more charities not being able to meet the needs of the community, higher costs to the consumer of children’s programs therefore less children in programs as parents wrestle with rising costs. Charities do not have and may not use charitable monies to hire lawyers and do battle with governments, we need big time help.
Jerry Deboer
President Edmonton Block Parent Association
V.P. Edmonton West Bingo Association (Palms Bingo)
Smoking petition falls short -AB
By lana michelin Advocate staff Sep 10 2005
A summertime slump in bar business has fizzled a petition launched by smoking advocates trying to stop Red Deer's no-smoking bylaw.
The Central Alberta Business for Choice group managed to gather 4,852 signatures against a bylaw that will prohibit smoking in all public places, including bars, bingo halls, casinos, taxis, restaurants, and private clubs - even those with outdoor patios.
The petition was presented to the municipality last month.
But the number of signatures fell well short of the 10 per cent of the city's population required by the terms of the Municipal Government Act.
As a result, the Smoke free bylaw will proceed as previously approved, taking effect on June 1, 2006, said city manager Norbert Van Wyk.
Sheree Davies, spokesperson for Central Alberta Business for Choice, said the group predicted it would have a hard time raising signatures during the summer months. "The majority of our patrons are not there."
Bar business drops off during July and August, and charitable groups that fundraise through bingos are less available because of vacations, Davies added.
She predicted the drive would have been successful if done in October. But the group's petition drive couldn't wait for the fall because provincial rules require the petition to be presented within 60 days of when the bylaw was passed last June.
While this is a setback for the group, Davies said "we're still fighting the bylaw."
Group members are consulting with experts to see what other options are available to defeat the legislation.
More information on the city's Smoke Free Bylaw is available from the Inspections and Licensing Department or online at www.reddeer.ca
http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/portals-code/searchd.cgi
Is tourism in crisis?-NS
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
HAS TOURISM increased or declined this year? Apparently, the answer depends on a number of factors, including who you ask.
While it is based on anecdotal evidence, there are few in the tourist business who would dispute the widely held belief that tourist activity in Nova Scotia has declined this year. But numbers released by the province's Tourism Department seem to indicate the number of visitors has actually risen two per cent this year over last.
That apparent conflict has a lot of people scratching their heads and led some to openly question the accuracy of the official figures. In fact, some people are wondering if there shouldn't be an official investigation of how the government comes up with the tourist numbers it reports.
On Monday, I received a five-page letter from an anonymous reader who claims to own and operate a business that has catered to the tourism sector for the past 18 years. Never in all that time has the writer seen tourism in such terrible shape.
The writer is by no means alone in his or her analysis of this year's tourist season.
Based on the writer's personal experience, the tourist industry was off by 10 to 15 per cent last year. And this year things are worse, the writer claims, off more than 10 per cent from "the disastrous year in 2004."
"Quite frankly, few in the (tourist) industry believe the Department of Tourism . . . numbers."
To help back up that point, the writer points to tourism revenue figures published in the media that suggested revenue was down 30 to 50 per cent in the Yarmouth area. Using the Tourism Department's own figures, the writer says that visits to Fortress Louisbourg have declined by 25 per cent since 2002. From 2002 to June 2005, tourist visits were down 17 per cent at the Halifax Citadel. The Bell Museum in Baddeck has experienced a 23 per cent decline in visits from 2002 to 2004 and a further six per cent decline this year. Visits to the Cape Breton Highlands Park, according to the provincial government numbers, were down last year and down an additional 11 per cent this year.
"I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to hear my customers tell me that their business is down 10, 20 even 30 per cent and then read … that the Department of Tourism reports that tourism is off only five per cent. Speak to motel and business owners in Baddeck, Cheticamp, Yarmouth and Lunenburg. They'll give you a far truer picture of the state of the tourism industry than the . . . spin issued by the Department of Tourism," my unnamed correspondent wrote.
Although I don't know this person, I tend to believe what they have to say because it backs up some of what I have been hearing from others across the province.
"Clearly things have to change or else the tourism industry will go the same way as the Atlantic fishing industry, 15 years ago. This is an industry in crisis," the letter said.
And things could get worse, the writer said, pointing out that in the coming years, U.S. citizens will require a U.S. passport if they want to re-enter their country and that little bit of inconvenience may be enough to discourage a significant number of American visitors from venturing across the border.
The letter writer blames several factors for the poor season, including fuel prices and the rise of the Canadian dollar. But there are some other factors over which the province has a little more control.
For instance, the writer says, roads must be upgraded as soon as possible, especially those leading to tourist destinations. Nova Scotia has "one of the most poorly maintained road system in the country, if not the worst," the letter says, a familiar refrain from tourism operators in Cape Breton about the Cabot Trail being dotted with potholes and road sags, which discourage anyone from driving their car or RV over the famous highway.
The writer also says there are too many motels and hotels outside of metro stuck in the 1960s.
They offer outdated accommodation, which fails to meet the expectations of modern travellers.
"Through its lack of new investment, the industry has clearly signalled that it does not have confidence in the future of the tourism sector."
The writer suggests there could be tax relief for new construction or modernization of motels across the province.
As a final note, the writer has stopped investing in his or her.
"If the tourism numbers do not improve next year, then I will have no choice but to close my business.
""You cannot grow a business in an industry that is shrinking eight per cent or more per year."
Write to me with your own views on Nova Scotia tourism and let me know if you believe the tourism glass is half-empty or half-full.
rtaylor@herald.ca
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/09/13/fBusiness248.raw.html
Heavy Drinking, Levels of Stress High Among University Students - Canadian Campus Survey
TORONTO, Sept. 15 /CNW/ - Rates of cigarette smoking are in decline among university students but rates of binge drinking and psychological distress remain high according to the results of the 2004 Canadian Campus Survey released today by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).
The 2004 survey shows that rates of cigarette smoking and the use of hallucinogens have declined since the survey was last conducted in 1998 (4% and 3%, respectively) but as these behaviours have declined, results also show that some problematic trends still prevail. Results of the survey show that 32% of undergraduates reported patterns of harmful drinking. Though this rate has not increased since the survey was last conducted, these numbers are high and only tell part of the story. Consequences such as alcohol-related harms were evident in the survey with 10% of those surveyed reporting alcohol- related assault, 9.8% reporting alcohol-related sexual harassment and 14.1% reporting that they had experienced unplanned sexual relations due to alcohol. According to Dr. Adlaf, research scientist at CAMH and associate professor, Department of Public Health Sciences and Psychiatry, University of Toronto, who conducted the study along with colleagues across Canada, "Reports of alcohol-related harms are not trivial. Indeed, the 10% of students who report such consequences represent some 64,000 students."
Another troubling outcome in the survey involves the mental health of Canadian students. Rates of students reporting psychological stress have remained high at 30%. Indicators in the survey show that respondents reported that they experienced lack of sleep, were under constant stress and exhibited feelings of unhappiness and depression.
These feelings may have negative consequences on the health and academic success of students. According to co-investigator Dr. Andrée Demers, professor, Department of Sociology Université de Montréal, "Students living under these conditions tend to exhibit lack of concentration, absenteeism and many leave school before they graduate," she says. In addition, the rates of psychological distress were found to be higher among women than men (33.5% vs. 23.9%).Other Survey highlights include:
- 31.6% of undergraduates reported at least one indicator of dependent drinking such as being unable to stop, failing to perform normal everyday activities or needing a drink first thing in the morning.
- The most commonly used illicit drug was cannabis, used by 51.4% of students during their lifetime, 32.1% during the past 12 months, and 16.7% during the 30 days before the survey.
- 61.5% of undergraduates have bet or spent money on at least one gambling activity since the beginning of the school year.
Results of the survey may indicate that universities themselves may have a role in the behaviour of students. One-quarter of students surveyed said that they had taken advantage of low priced promotions at campus bars and believe that alcohol policies on their campus are not enforced.
According to co-investigator Dr. Louis Gliksman, Director of Social, Prevention and Health Policy Research at CAMH and Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, universities have to assume a larger role in the presence of alcohol on their campuses, "While we are aware that some universities prohibit alcohol in residences and that many have begun 'dry frosh week,' the numbers show that more needs to be done on the part of universities together with the communities of which the universities are part."
The Canadian Campus Survey surveyed 6,282 full-time students from 40 universities across Canada. Funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the survey aims to understand the social and environmental determinants of hazardous drinking, drug use and psychological well-being among students.
The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is a Pan American Health Organization and World Health Organization Collaborating Centre and a teaching hospital fully affiliated with the University of Toronto.
For further information: or to schedule interviews with survey investigators, please contact Michael Torres, media relations CAMH, at (416) 595-6015.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/15/c0138.html
Trampling rights wrong course for smoking ban -AB
Smoking - Re: Let's ban smoking now and save lives, Naomi Lakritz, Sept. 8
Bruce Korol For The Calgary Herald Thursday, September 15, 2005
After appealing to emotion by citing numbers and painting alarming pictures of smoke-filled restaurants and pubs Naomi Lakritz asks: "Why should we wait even one more day to stop poisoning these people."
However, instead of wondering whether the 2008 date was politically expedient for city hall or if it should be moved up at all we should be asking if this popular smoking ban is appropriate in the first place.
For most people, including smokers, this smoking-ban debate has been over for a while so why rehash something already long decided?
In his famous vindication of moral liberty Lysander Spooner explained that "vices are not crimes" and in the current age of politically correct crusades his words couldn't be more prescient.
If we are talking about the continuing failed war on drugs, the impending war on obesity or the current smoking bans the common thread is state coercion and people's unwavering faith in the benevolence of government.
Robyn Hefferton refers to the fact that 90 per cent of people she approaches sign her petition but this should have little bearing on whether this ban is right or wrong. As history has shown us, the majority frequently errs. So why trust their will even if it is something as seemingly innocuous as a trendy smoking ban?
Because other municipalities are hopping on the bandwagon and we could be stuck in the middle of two provinces that ban tobacco shouldn't play a part in what we do and it certainly shouldn't be the raison d'etre of the smoking ban.
The story of Hefferton's friend who quit her job is touching but unfortunately for her the fact remains that a privately owned and operated business should be free to choose whether to be smoking or non-smoking.
While open to the public it is not a "public place" where democratic rule or government laws should govern smoking policies. The employees can choose to work there or elsewhere and the patrons have no right to force their agenda on the establishment.
Ergo, contrary to what Hefferton says this is, intentionally or unintentionally, about property rights versus state control. When the state can dictate how you run your business or what patrons can or can not do by force, then it inevitably becomes about state control.
The fact that 75 per cent of Calgarians are non-smokers is a moot point but if they really wanted non-smoking venues then it should follow that restaurants and bars would cater to this demand and thus this legislation isn't needed.
Robyn Hefferton and Naomi Lakritz may have an earnest desire to see people kick the smoking habit, but using legalized force to trample on private property rights is the wrong course to take.
As the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1886, Thomas Reed, said, "one of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
So cry for Heather Crowe and others affected by tobacco but cry harder for the loss of liberty and freedom.
Bruce Korol is a recent law graduate from the University of Alberta.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=72987cb3-9c76-4127-b58b-f5b75daaffb8
Smoking leads to the morgue -AB
September 16, 2005
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Editor, The debate continues and those who care to do so share their opinions about smoking rules and regulations with the rest of us so I thought I'd add my bit.
As I was reading the pros and cons about the smoking bans in today's (Sept. 9)Saint City letters section I had what I call an oxymoronic moment as I couldn't decide to laugh or cry.
I had just returned home from the Cross Cancer Institute where I (a non- smoker) had taken my husband (another non- smoker) to have his 48-hour intravenous chemotherapy treatment discontinued for this particular session. The last breath of rain cleansed "fresh air" we both had as we entered the Cross was heavily tinged with someone else's left over cigarette smoke. We held our breath as we moved, as quickly as he could, through the entrance of the hospital and our next breath was then of hospital odor.
With the thought of "never mind" when we leave the odor of cigarette smoke will have waived off and the fresh rain scent would then be in the air and we would be able to cleanse ourselves of hospital aroma. Hope soon faded, as guess what? The first "fresh breath" we experienced as we left the Cross was "perfumed" with another benefactor's cigarette smoke.
Not to be daunted, I was still able to maintain my "sick" sense of "black humor" as I remembered that the patient's of one Edmonton hospital actually sign off the units to the "morgue." That means that they have gone outside for a smoke.
Maybe that is an indication that the hospital administration is cost conscious and has learned that if they provide a demanded smoking area and use the morgue entrance area for that purpose then they won't have far to move some people when the cigarette smoking finally gets them.
Helen Dempsey-Simmons St. Albert
http://saintcitynews.advancedpublishing.com/
Groups making alternative plans for bingo hall closure Sept. 28 -ON
Published in Section A, page 3 in the Friday, September 16, 2005
By DEREK ABMA Staff Writer
Organizations that have been using Johnstown's Bingo International to raise money are making alternative plans in light of the facility's pending closure after September 28.
The South Grenville Minor Hockey Association was making about $23,000 a year from holding events at Bingo International, said association president Mike Spencer.
Spencer said parents had already paid their $250 registration fee for the coming season, plus a $50 deposit that would have been returned if the parent worked two bingo sessions over the year.
He said that deposit is now non-refundable, essentially increasing the overall fee to $300. Spencer said he does not think this will pose a major problem for most parents, the majority of whom didn't end up working the bingos to get their money back.
"There might be a couple (parents) that really, truly went and worked the bingos because they needed the $50 back," Spencer said. "But for the most part, I think they understand the situation."
Spencer said next year's registration fee could increase beyond $300, but he said South Grenville currently has the lowest minor hockey fees in the region.
Girls Incorporated of Upper Canada, which provides various leadership and skills-development programs for girls aged six to 18, cut back its budget for the rest of the year because of the bingo's closure.
Donna Perrin, executive director of the group, said about $4,500 has been cut, which is what it stands to lose from not having its twice-a-month bingos during the last three months of this year.
She said there were budget reductions made to things such as marketing and travel, but programs for girls this year will remain intact and no staff reductions were necessary.
"The impact on our programs (this year) will be negligible," Perrin said.
She said next year's budget is more uncertain, but she hopes to tap various agencies and foundations to make up any funding shortfall.
Perrin said the United Way of Leeds and Grenville was not willing to waive the provision that affiliated members like Girls Incorporated not campaign for funds during the United Way's annual campaign, ongoing until December 2.
Judi Baril, executive director of the United Way of Leeds and Grenville, said the agency does not conduct bingos itself, but some of the service clubs that make donations to the United Way do.
She said it's unknown at this time what kind of impact Bingo International's closing will have on the United Way's fundraising.
Steve MacArthur, owner of Bingoland Brockville, said he's been contacted by about 15 agencies that were using Bingo International and now want to conduct bingos at his facility.
"If things work out, we may be able to accommodate almost all of them that have come in to see us," MacArthur said.
Perrin said Girls Incorporated is hoping to put on bingos at the Brockville facility, but she has been told there's a lengthy waiting list.
Spencer said the South Grenville Minor Hockey Association has requested some spots at Bingoland but has not received a response.
MacArthur said some of his existing clients have offered to give up time slots to provide time for agencies that were using Bingo International.
MacArthur said he's also been in touch with officials from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation about making changes that could help the bingo squeeze in more participants. He would not say exactly what he had in mind.
The Bingoland owner said while the demise of Bingo International is unfortunate, it makes it easier for Bingoland Brockville to survive the provincewide smoking ban, affecting indoor public places and coming into effect next May.
"With the smoking ban coming up, what we probably would've lost in clientele and volume through the business for the current charities, we'll probably be stabilized from Bingo International closing down," he said.
John Goodwin, owner of Bingo International, has said the coming smoking ban is one of the reasons that facility is closing.
http://newsfeed.recorder.ca/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=15050
Smoke-free -QC
Letter Friday, September 16, 2005
Montreal bar owners who object to the planned smoking ban should consider this: There are many places in Montreal where I and people like me will not go because of the smoke.
We will start going to these establishments when the ban comes into force. These business owners are short-sighted. This is a matter of health and safety.
Roy Eappen Montreal
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=8bc24636-ceab-4239-a418-03466cb76ec2
Smoking remains burning issue -MB
By Marc Zienkiewicz Friday September 16, 2005
Lac du Bonnet Leader — Smoking may now be banned in all indoor public places and tobacco is more expensive than ever in Manitoba, but smoking continues to be a problem for the Town of Lac du Bonnet.
CAO Colleen Johnson told the Leader last week that LdB Senior School students smoking on the sidewalk in front of the school is once again a concern now that the 2005/06 school year has begun.
“We’ll be meeting with (Senior School officials) to discuss it,” Johnson said at the Sept. 8 meeting of council.
“Maybe if we work together as a team, rather than just talking about it, we can get something accomplished.”
The smoking issue began back in August 2004, when the Sunrise School Division decided to ban smoking on all school property.
As a result, students who smoke have been forced onto public property if they want to light up.
Many students at the Senior School have chosen the sidewalk along Fifth Street -- right in front of several houses -- as their location to smoke during their respective break times.
Johnson said she was told by school officials last year that the problem would be dealt with, after residents complained about students hanging around their driveways and leaving cigarette butts and other litter behind.
List of smokers
Bob Hummelt, the school’s new principal, told the Leader the school developed an initiative last year to help curb the number of students smoking on the sidewalk in front of the school.
“They developed a list of parents who acknowledge their kids may be smoking during breaks,” he said.
“Any kids out there smoking who can’t verify to me they’re on the list, I tell them ‘I have to phone your parents to see if you smoke or not.’”
Hummelt said the system is working well at deterring students from smoking during school hours, and stressed the current approach to the problem should not be mistaken as a soft stance on the student smoking issue.
He noted he has read town council minutes from the past two years to bring himself up to speed about local concerns regarding smoking at the school.
“Obviously, I’d much rather none of them be smoking at all,” he said. “But if I had to rate how it’s working so far out of 10, I’d give it an 8.5.”
Hummelt said he looks forward to meeting with town council to introduce himself, and welcomes any ideas as to how to discourage students from smoking.
Under the school division’s Smoke Free Environment Policy, students caught smoking on school property can face suspension, and the policy encourages students to respect private property when smoking off of school grounds.
The policy also encourages schools to work with property owners to address littering and loitering concerns that arise from students smoking on public property.
http://www.lacdubonnetleader.com/story.php?id=184623
RHA moves closer to butting out smoking -MB
By Gene Still Friday September 16, 2005
“The culture’s changing out there and communities are ready for this kind of change.” – Dr. Shelley Buchan
Carman Valley Leader — The Central Region RHA took another step towards becoming a smoke-free environment.
The RHA’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Shelley Buchan, said effective Oct. 1, the main entrances to authority offices and facilities in the region, will be smoke-free. In addition, distance requirements have been established for all other entrances/opening windows.
“We’ve actually been working on this for several years,” Buchan said. “And now we’re ready to move forward with it.”
The doctor, who is co-ordinating the smoke-free initiative for the authority, said while they are taking steps to curb smoking, they’re also trying to help those who want to quit the habit.
“We’re making a greater effort to have more counseling available and helping with smoking cessation efforts,” Buchan explained. “The culture’s changing out there and communities are ready for this kind of change.
“(But) we recognize that smoking is an addictive behaviour and it’s hard to stop for many of the people who do smoke.”
Part of those efforts include offering “appropriate therapies/counseling methods” for staff and clients along with continuing to promote wellness initiatives in the central region via the RHA.
This latest step by the authority follows a similar move in April 2004 when smoking was banned inside RHA offices and facilities, by the public, residents, RHA employees and patients. It also keeps in line with an RHA board resolution in 2003 to work towards eliminating second-hand smoke.
“We want to maintain the most safe and effective environment possible in which to deliver health care services,” Buchan said. “These efforts and in keeping with the region’s statement of purpose so that people in our region are as healthy as they can be at a reasonable cost to the community.”
http://www.carmanvalleyleader.com/story.php?id=184725
Flue board hires consultant to help with exit strategy -ON
EXIT: Producers to be consulted
By Jeff Helsdon Staff Writer Friday September 16, 2005
Tillsonburg News — The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board is consulting with outside professionals in a bid to complete a long-term exit plan for growers and to restructure the board.
Deloitte has been retained by the board to guide it through the strategic planning process for its future and to help the board refocus its priorities. The second part of the study will look at board governance.
“We want to relaunch a push towards a long-term exit strategy for tobacco farmers as well as some things that can help maintain tobacco growing as viable for as long as possible,” said board general manager Jason Lietaer.
He said the plan will be presented to the manufacturers and used to communicate the farmers’ position to government. The strategic planning exercise will be used to set long-term and short-term priorities for the board.
“It’s essentially a business plan for the tobacco industry in Canada,” Lietaer said.
The intent is to consult producers on what’s being proposed in early October. It’s public launch will be sometime this fall.
Part 2 of the Deloitte consultant’s work is a review of the governance structure of the board. The goal is to instil best management practices into the board’s system.
“We want to ensure it’s the right operation to ensure board members can get their job done effectively,” Lietaer said.
A questionnaire to gain producer input into the various suggestions will be mailed out to producers in the next week. Information sessions will be held for producers in the near future.
Lietaer said one thing up for discussion is a reduction in the number of tobacco board directors. A faction of producers have been pushing for a cut in the number of directors to accompany the reduction in the number flue growers.
The general manager said there has been been a move towards moving from a working-type board to a governance model board.
“The objective of the board is to continue to move to that type of governance where the board sets policy and staff implements policy,” he said.
Lietaer was clear that if there is a recommendation to reduce the size of the board, and the board accepts it, there won’t be a reduction in the number of directors in this fall’s board election. He has already talked to Farm Products Marketing Commission and was told with the necessary regulatory red tape any potential changes to the board size won’t be implemented until next fall.
“We want to relaunch a push towards a long-term exit strategy for tobacco farmers as well as some things that can help maintain tobacco growing as viable for as long as possible.”
http://www.tillsonburgnews.com/story.php?id=184652
Fire verdict due next month-BC
By CP September 17, 2005
KAMLOOPS, B.C. -- The man accused of sparking the wildfires that devastated the B.C. interior in 2003 will learn Oct. 18 if a judge thinks he is guilty.
Lawyers fixed the date in provincial court yesterday for Judge William Sundhu's decision.
Mike Barre is charged with dropping a burning substance within 1 km of a forest.
The judge reserved his verdict against Barre after a trial earlier this month. The Crown says Barre dropped a burning cigarette on a trail behind his McLure house and failed to properly stub it out, causing a blaze that consumed more than 35,000 hectares of forest and 75 homes.
Barre told many people, including investigators, in the days after the July 30, 2003, fire he was responsible.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/09/17/1221147-sun.html
Cda's tobacco farmers battle debt, depression as industry hits hard times -ON
Tara Brautigam Canadian Press Saturday, September 17, 2005
DELHI, Ont. (CP) - A faint cinnamon-like aroma wafts from the barns and kilns of this southwestern Ontario town, the heart of Canada's tobacco belt.
It's harvest, and the country's tobacco farmers are reaping the rewards of four months in the fields.
But bankruptcy and depression are taking their toll on the growers, many of whom have left the family business after decades of tilling. Farmers say alcoholism and drug abuse are on the rise because of the crushing debt.
"Ask the local doctors around what kind of anxiety level farmers and their wives and their children are under," says Brian Edwards, a tobacco grower of 30 years who sold his business last year.
"There's lots of depression. Suicide is a very last resort for people . . . that's a real fear."
Mark Bannister, a tobacco farmer in nearby Vanessa, Ont., since 1980, speaks of one farmer "hitting the bottle pretty hard" and another under close watch because his family is worried he might take his life.
"This is a man now that's on 24-hour a day surveillance by his family. He's depressed. He's on antidepressants, day in, day out," he says, looking to the ground.
"People are scared."
There were more than 4,500 tobacco farms throughout Canada in the 1960s. A decade ago there were about 1,650 growers.
Today there are 680, virtually all toiling in a small stretch of land north of Lake Erie known for its natural irrigation and fertile soils that provide Canadian tobacco a distinct flavour unlike any other in the world.
"This could be our last year," says Joe Stachura, a tobacco farmer of 25 years in Delhi, a quiet town of 16,000.
"We have no idea what our future holds for us."
While the agricultural industry overall has hit hard times in recent years, tobacco farmers find themselves in an unusual dilemma all their own - growing a product that, albeit legal, has been blamed for the premature deaths of 45,000 Canadians annually.
Every province except Alberta has passed some form of smoking ban in public places such as bars and restaurants.
"What we are trying very hard to convince government of is that, as they pursue these types of aggressive policies, there has to be a balance in addressing the needs of the farmers that those types of policies are really displacing," says Fred Neukamm, chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.
As farmers turned away from tobacco, accordingly, tobacco crops have steadily declined. In 1998, 151 million pounds were produced. This year the crop target is set for just over 85 million pounds.
Tobacco farmers in 1990 earned an average income of $79,062, according to Statistics Canada. That dropped to $57,876 in 2000.
"The bills are just getting paid," says Jason McElhone, a relatively young tobacco farmer at 32.
"It's bad when you have to take it out on your own family at home at night and then take it out on your own employees."
Aggressive federal and provincial government policies to dissuade smoking have indirectly yet increasingly encouraged tobacco companies to use cheaper foreign leaf in Canadian-made cigarettes, Bannister says.
Six years ago, six per cent of the shreds of tobacco in your typical du Maurier cigarette came from other countries such as Brazil. In 2003, that figure rose to 30 per cent.
"These companies are allowed to bring in foreign leaf which is substandard to Canadian leaf, and that's being smoked by people here," says Bannister, who has lobbied both levels of government to increase Canadian content in cigarettes sold here.
"If Canadians are going to smoke, they should be smoking only Canadian blends of tobacco."
He says tobacco grown abroad isn't as rigorously inspected as domestic tobacco, possibly exposing smokers to chemicals such as DDT, a toxic insecticide fully banned in Canada since 1989.
Currently, all Canadian tobacco farmers are required to document their use of fertilizers and the volume and type of pesticides they use.
"You can be sure that in countries like Brazil and India, there may be guidelines in place, but they're not being followed as strictly as they are here," Bannister says.
In March, Ontario set aside $50 million in a transition fund for tobacco farmers looking to get out of the business and pursue alternative crops such as beans and sweet potatoes.
But the farmers say much of the infrastructure designed for tobacco farming - namely the kilns, which cure, or essentially heat the tobacco, can't be used for any other crops.
Ontario Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky says there are farmers making strides in adapting to cultivating different and viable crops, pointing to some who have taken up sweet potato farming.
"There are really going to be two benefits," she said in an interview.
"There will be the production of sweet potatoes for consumption, and then those lower-grade potatoes will be used for the production of ethanol."
The province is pushing gas companies to ensure all gasoline contains five per cent of ethanol by 2007 to reduce greenhouse gases.
But Bannister says trying to get tobacco farmers to grow other crops will only saturate other markets.
"If, say, 400 acres of strawberries were planted here, we would ruin the strawberry industry for Canadians," he says.
"We can't be planting 10,000 more acres of tomatoes or peppers or sweet corns. Nobody makes money then."
To cope, one farmer tried his hand at a marijuana grow-operation but was quickly busted, Bannister says.
"It's come down to where if you got no way to pay the bills, you get tempted to do something illegally," Edwards says.
Bannister has discouraged his 20-year-old son Wes from taking up the family trade, given the grim outlook he has for Canada's tobacco farming business.
"The tobacco industry is the Titanic," he says, gazing out at row upon row of tobacco crops as he lights a smoke.
Here is the annual quota of tobacco crops grown in Ontario since 1998:
1998: 151 million pounds
1999: 143.3 million pounds
2000: 124 million pounds
2001: 117.1 million pounds
2002: 108.1 million pounds
2003: 94.1 million pounds
2004: 87.9 million pounds
2005: 85.3 million pounds
(Source: The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cfb12fa9-390d-4fad-a359-36bd030e95ec
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2083
Adults turn to youths in bid to curb smoking -ON
By Libby Peters Times-Journal staff Saturday September 17, 2005
It’s an invaluable employment opportunity for seven to 10 local youths, positive change for the community, and potentially life-saving to other teens.
As part of the Smoke Free Ontario Strategy’s Youth Development Program, a new community-based project is set to launch in St. Thomas with help from the Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit, the St. Thomas-Elgin Youth Centre and the local YWCA. Up to 10 young people will lead an aggressive new campaign to change public perception of smoking among youths.
Youth Action Alliance is an initiative funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health whose aim is to involve middle and high school students in tobacco control activities. The young people hired to lead the program will plan strategies to counter tobacco industry marketing and try to denormalize smoking among youth.
St. Thomas is one of four areas in southwestern Ontario to receive funding for this initiative. The city has received $110,000 to start the project.
Laurie Benner, youth advisor for St. Thomas’s Youth Action Alliance, said peer leaders could plan projects such as rallies, posters, or dances.
Benner pointed to the extreme, but effective, Ottawa-based anti-smoking campaign known as Expose. It is the model Youth Action Alliance was built on.
“This gives youth another outlet to rebel against (instead of adults) -- the tobacco industry.”
“The kids’ job is to empower their peers to stop smoking, or not to start smoking,” said Lindsay Grondin of the YWCA.
Grondin, Benner, and Jackie VanRyswyk, of the health unit, said the project is a ‘great opportunity’ for youth who want to get involved and promote change.
Peer leaders who are hired for the project will be paid for their work and receive training in media advocacy, community mobilization and policy change. They will also have the opportunity to attend a leaders’ summit being planned for next March.
http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/story.php?id=184802
NDP's taxapalooza -MB
By TOM BRODBECK Sat, September 17, 2005
Soaring transfer payments from Ottawa and healthy gambling profits aren't the only reason why the Doer government is sitting on a big surplus.
The NDP took in $301 million more in taxes last year -- income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, you name it -- than it did the year before, according to the province's public accounts released last week.
And part of the reason is that the NDP has been quietly jacking up your taxes over the years.
It doesn't get a lot of media attention because the NDP's strategy is to spread it out among many different types of taxes. But when you look at the overall numbers, the tax windfall is staggering.
Let's start with the big stuff. For the second time in five years, Premier Gary Doer expanded the provincial sales tax last year, this time to include professional services such as lawyers, accountants and engineers.
Manitobans paid $59 million more in PST last year than in 2003.
If you bought a house, you probably paid more in the little-known "house tax" called a land transfer tax. Doer jacked that one up last year, too. He took in $5 million more in 2004 in land transfer taxes compared with the previous year.
Diesel fuel taxes went up last year. The rate jumped to 11.5 cents a litre from 10.9 cents a litre. Doesn't sound like much, but the province took in $9 million more in diesel fuel taxes than it did the year before.
If you smoke, you got hit hard again last year. Cigarette taxes go up almost every year, and 2004 was no exception. Doer collected $13 million more in smoke taxes last year than the year before, despite the public-smoking ban. In fact, cigarette taxes have become one of the most important sources of revenue for the province, generating $203 million last year. That's more than the province collects in gas taxes, which yielded $154 million.
Doer talks a great deal about the modest cuts he's made to individual income taxes since taking office in 1999. But what he doesn't tell you is that unlike most governments, he's refused to index tax brackets.
That means workers who get cost-of-living wage increases move into higher tax rates because the tax brackets aren't indexed to inflation. It's called bracket creep and it's one of Doer's greatest revenue generators.
Big money
Last year the province took in $67 million more in individual income taxes than it did the year before. It's big money.
Business also took a hit last year. Doer changed how the capital tax -- a tax on companies' capital -- is calculated for banks, trust and loan corporations.
The province collected $27 million more in corporate capital tax compared to the previous year.
All told, tax revenue soared $301 million last year, enough to run the entire department of justice -- courts, jails, rural policing, legal aid and all.
But that's not all. The NDP has been jacking up fees and fines, too.
Vehicle registration fees, for example, went up last year, netting Doer $10 million more than the previous year. Driver's licence fees also rose last year, yielding $4.2 million in extra dough. And liquor taxes went up, lining provincial coffers with almost $11 million in new revenue.
All told, the NDP took in $126 million more in fees, fines and other revenues in 2004 compared with the previous year.
Between taxes, fees, fines and other revenues, the NDP hauled in a stunning $427 million more last year than it did in 2003. That's on top of the more than $400 million the NDP got from Ottawa in extra transfer payments last year.
At least you know where your money is going.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2005/09/17/1220725.html
Mounties probing 'unexpected' death of hospital patient while outside smoking-BC
Darah Hansen Vancouver Sun Saturday, September 17, 2005
SURREY - A police investigation has been launched into the death of a Surrey Memorial Hospital patient after the body of a man in his 50s was discovered Friday afternoon in the smoking area outside the Shirley Dean Pavilion.
Authorities are saying little about how the man died, though Don Bower, Fraser Health Authority spokesman, confirmed two people were involved. He said there were no witnesses to what happened.
Bower referred to the man's death as "unexpected."
He said both the victim and the second man were patients in the hospital's extended care facility, but refused to identify either man, citing privacy act regulations.
No charges have been laid in the matter. It remains under investigation by Surrey RCMP and the B.C. Coroners' Office.
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=1053d729-4a46-4562-b1d9-b8e64a58bc1a
The toil and trouble in our tobacco fields -ON
Debt-ridden farm families battle social ills along with bankruptcy and the foreign leaf
By TARA BRAUTIGAM Canadian Press Saturday, September 17, 2005 Page A17
DELHI, ONT. -- A faint cinnamon-like aroma wafts from the barns and kilns of this Southwestern Ontario town, the heart of Canada's tobacco belt.
It's harvest, and the country's tobacco farmers are reaping the rewards of four months in the fields.
But bankruptcy and depression are taking their toll on the growers, many of whom have left the family business after decades of tilling. Farmers say alcoholism and drug abuse are on the rise because of the crushing debt.
"Ask the local doctors around what kind of anxiety level farmers and their wives and their children are under," says Brian Edwards, a tobacco grower of 30 years who sold his business last year.
"There's lots of depression. Suicide is a very last resort for people . . . that's a real fear."
Mark Bannister, a tobacco farmer in nearby Vanessa since 1980, speaks of one farmer "hitting the bottle pretty hard" and another under close watch because his family is worried he might take his life.
"This is a man now that's on 24-hour a day surveillance by his family. He's depressed. He's on antidepressants, day in, day out," he says, looking to the ground.
"People are scared."
There were more than 4,500 tobacco farms throughout Canada in the 1960s. A decade ago there were about 1,650 growers.
Today, there are 680, virtually all toiling in a small stretch of land north of Lake Erie known for its natural irrigation and fertile soils that provide Canadian tobacco a flavour unlike any other in the world.
"This could be our last year," says Joe Stachura, a tobacco farmer of 25 years in Delhi, a quiet town of 16,000. "We have no idea what our future holds for us."
While the agriculture industry overall has hit hard times in recent years, tobacco farmers find themselves in an unusual dilemma all their own -- growing a product that, albeit legal, has been blamed for the premature deaths of 45,000 Canadians annually.
Every province except Alberta has passed some form of smoking ban in public places such as bars and restaurants.
"What we are trying very hard to convince government of is that, as they pursue these types of aggressive policies, there has to be a balance in addressing the needs of the farmers that those types of policies are really displacing," says Fred Neukamm, chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.
As farmers turned away from tobacco, accordingly, tobacco crops have steadily declined. In 1998, 151 million pounds were produced. This year the crop target is set for a little more than 85 million pounds.
Tobacco farmers in 1990 earned an average income of $79,062, according to Statistics Canada. That dropped to $57,876 in 2000.
"The bills are just getting paid," says Jason McElhone, a relatively young tobacco farmer at 32.
"It's bad when you have to take it out on your own family at home at night and then take it out on your own employees."
Aggressive federal and provincial government policies to dissuade smoking have indirectly yet increasingly encouraged tobacco companies to use cheaper foreign leaf in Canadian-made cigarettes, Mr. Bannister says.
Six years ago, 6 per cent of the shreds of tobacco in your typical du Maurier cigarette came from other countries, such as Brazil. In 2003, that figure rose to 30 per cent.
"These companies are allowed to bring in foreign leaf, which is substandard to Canadian leaf, and that's being smoked by people here," says Mr. Bannister, who has lobbied both levels of government to increase Canadian content in cigarettes sold here.
"If Canadians are going to smoke, they should be smoking only Canadian blends of tobacco."
He says tobacco grown abroad isn't as rigorously inspected as domestic tobacco, possibly exposing smokers to chemicals such as DDT, a toxic insecticide banned in Canada since 1989.
All Canadian tobacco farmers are required to document their use of fertilizers and the volume and type of pesticides they use.
"You can be sure that in countries like Brazil and India, there may be guidelines in place, but they're not being followed as strictly as they are here," Mr. Bannister says.
In March, Ontario set aside $50-million in a transition fund for tobacco farmers looking to get out of the business and pursue alternative crops such as beans and sweet potatoes.
But the farmers say much of the infrastructure designed for tobacco farming -- namely the kilns, which cure or essentially heat the tobacco, can't be used for any other crops.
Ontario Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky says there are farmers making strides in adapting to cultivating different and viable crops, pointing to some who have taken up sweet potato farming.
"There are really going to be two benefits," she said in an interview. "There will be the production of sweet potatoes for consumption, and then those lower-grade potatoes will be used for the production of ethanol."
The province is pushing gas companies to ensure all gasoline contains 5 per cent ethanol by 2007 to reduce greenhouse gases.
But Mr. Bannister says trying to get tobacco farmers to grow other crops will only saturate other markets.
"If, say, 400 acres of strawberries were planted here, we would ruin the strawberry industry for Canadians," he says.
"We can't be planting 10,000 more acres of tomatoes or peppers or sweet corns. Nobody makes money then."
To cope, one farmer tried his hand at growing marijuana but was quickly busted, Mr. Bannister says.
"It's come down to where if you got no way to pay the bills, you get tempted to do something illegally," Mr. Edwards says.
Mr. Bannister has discouraged his 20-year-old son, Wes, from taking up the family trade, given the grim outlook he has for Canada's tobacco farming business.
"The tobacco industry is the Titanic," he says, gazing out at row upon row of tobacco crops as he lights a smoke
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050917/TOBACCON17/TPNational/TopStories
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2083
Last year for Canada's tobacco farmers? -ON
CBC News Last Updated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:15:03 EDT
Canada's last remaining tobacco farmers are in trouble, and some say this could be their last year.
Canadian tobacco farmers have found themselves in an unusual dilemma over the past several years. They grow a product that is legal, but is blamed for the premature cancer-related deaths of 45,000 Canadians every year.
Every province except Alberta has passed some form of smoking ban in public places such as bars and restaurants. With more laws restricting smoking and promotion of smoking, there are fewer tobacco farmers.
While there were more than 4,500 tobacco farms in Canada in the 1960s, today there are only 680 -- grouped north of Lake Erie, near Delhi, Ont.
As farmers turned away from tobacco, tobacco crops declined. In 1998, 151 million pounds were produced in Canada. This year the crop target is set for just over 85 million pounds.
Tobacco farmers in 1990 earned an average income of $79,062. According to Statistics Canada that dropped to $57,876 in 2000.
"This could be our last year," said Joe Stachura, a tobacco farmer of 25 years in Delhi. "We have no idea what our future holds for us."
Fred Neukamm, chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board said: "What we are trying very hard to convince government of is that, as they pursue these types of aggressive (anti-smoking) policies, there has to be a balance in addressing the needs of the farmers that those types of policies are really displacing."
In March, Ontario set aside $50 million in a transition fund for tobacco farmers looking to get out of the business and pursue alternative crops such as beans and sweet potatoes. But the farmers say much of the infrastructure designed for tobacco farming -- such as the kilns which cure the tobacco -- can't be used for any other crops.
Ontario Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky said some farmers are adapting to cultivating different crops, such as sweet potatoes. Dombrowsky said there will be two benefits: "There will be the production of sweet potatoes for consumption, and... lower-grade potatoes will be used for the production of ethanol."
The province is pushing gas companies to ensure all gasoline contains five per cent of ethanol by 2007 to reduce greenhouse gases and to support agriculture.
Bankruptcy and depression are taking their toll on the growers, many of whom have left the family business after decades of tilling. Mark Bannister, a tobacco farmer in Vanessa, Ont., since 1980, said: "People are scared."
Bannister, vice-chairman of the Tobacco Farmers in Crisis association, said trying to get tobacco farmers to grow other crops will only saturate other markets.
"If, say, 400 acres of strawberries were planted here, we would ruin the strawberry industry for Canadians," he said. "We can't be planting 10,000 more acres of tomatoes or peppers or sweet corns. Nobody makes money then."
Gazing out at row upon row of tobacco crops, Bannister said: "The tobacco industry is the Titanic."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/09/17/tobacco_farmers20050917.html
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2083
Bell Centre to become smoke-free environment Sept. 18 -QC
PRESS RELEASE (09/17/2005)
MONTREAL – In an ongoing effort to provide a healthy environment for all its visitors, the Bell Centre, as of September 18, 2005, will become an entirely non-smoking facility.
The Bell Centre initiative is being instituted prior to the Quebec government’s implementation of its new regulations on the usage of tobacco. The law states that smoking inside all public buildings is strictly prohibited, and that no designated smoking areas inside the buildings will be allowed. This policy will apply for every single event held in the Bell Centre, starting on Sept. 18, when the Canadiens play their first preseason game of the year against the Atlanta Thrashers. The only areas that will accommodate smokers will be outside of the Bell Centre, near the de La Gauchetiere, Lucien L’Allier and Windsor Court entrances. Consequently, as of Sept. 18, existing designated areas for smokers will be closed.
Since December 17, 1999, in accordance with governmental laws on the usage of tobacco in the workplace and most public areas, the management of the Bell Centre had offered their clients and employees designated areas for the usage of tobacco.
http://www.canadiens.com/eng/news/redirect.cfm?sectionID=habsNewsDetails.cfm&newsItemID=4354
Posted at 2:12 pm by looped_ca
Romanow fears `end of medicare'
TRACEY TYLER LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER Sep. 17, 2005. 08:19 AM
Romanow fears `end of medicare'
Says buying health care violates Charter Court ruling is `body blow' to Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada's 4-3 decision to strike down Quebec's ban on private health insurance could be "the end of medicare as we know it" and a "serious body blow" to the future of Canada, Roy Romanow says.
In a hard-hitting speech in Toronto yesterday, the former Saskatchewan premier, who headed a royal commission into the future of health care, accused the four-judge majority in the Chaoulli case — which many see as opening the door to two-tier health care — of meddling in social policy decisions better left to elected politicians.
"The net legal effect of the Chaoulli decision is that, in grappling with medicare, the court has ventured beyond constitutional and legal principles and into complex social policy, an area that has traditionally been in the domain of elected lawmakers," said Romanow, who was speaking at a legal forum on the implications of the June ruling, organized by the University of Toronto's faculty of law.
The court's "somewhat startling" decision showed a "remarkable" level of judicial activism, he said. Romanow questioned whether some judges in the majority were looking for a "mandate" to venture into the world of politics.
"Seems so, and they did it in such a thunderous way," he said.
By allowing privileged Canadians to buy health care, the court has used the Charter, and in particular its guarantees of life, liberty and security of the person, to protect the economic rights of citizens, something that was never intended when the Charter was drawn up nearly 25 years ago, Romanow said. He helped draft a 1981 compromise agreement that led to the Charter's enactment and the patriation of the Constitution.
The most charitable interpretation of the decision is that it was an "aberration," said Romanow, who said he hopes the court will "recalibrate" its approach in future cases.
If not, it will "radically alter Canada" and could lead to the dismantling of other social programs, he warned.
"Without sounding too apocalyptic about it, I think it could sound the end of medicare as we know it and (deliver) a very serious body blow to Canada as we know it," he told reporters later.
Last month, without providing reasons, the court suspended its judgment until June, 2006.
Romanow said he finds it difficult to be so harshly critical of the court but said there are larger issues at stake.
The ruling flies in the face of what Canadians told him they want in their health-care system, he said.
"The implied conclusion that timely access to health-care services will be improved with the establishment of a parallel private scheme flies in the face of all the evidence with which I grappled for 18 months as a royal commissioner," he said.
Until yesterday, Romanow, now a public policy expert at two Canadian universities, has said very little publicly about the decision, which found in favour of Jacques Chaoulli, a physician who wants to operate a private hospital, and George Zeliotis, a patient who was left on a waiting list for a hip operation.
Four of the court's judges said there was ample evidence that some Canadians have suffered grave consequences while on waiting lists and the public health system's failure to deliver medical care in a timely, reliable way had jeopardized their liberty, health and psychological well-being.
Justice Marie Deschamps, in the majority decision, said that banning private health-care options was a violation of the Quebec Charter.
The remaining six judges were evenly split on whether such a ban also violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As a result, the decision only applies in Quebec.
But Romanow said yesterday the "clear implication" is that it's a violation of the Canadian Charter, as well.
"The court basically said that the prohibition of private health insurance enacted by a democratically elected provincial government was bad public policy," he said.
While the court based its decision on the evidence it had before it, that evidence wasn't from the millions of Canadians who receive "great health care" and continue to support it, despite their concerns about the future of the system, he said.
Instead, it was from the Canadian Medical Association, individual doctors unhappy with the constraints of a publicly funded system and senators who were oddly granted intervenor status, Romanow said.
Although privately funded health care would be a radical step for Canada, Allan Hutchinson, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, challenged Romanow's claim that the Chaoulli decision is an "aberration."
The Supreme Court has used the Charter repeatedly to uphold conservative principles, he said.
Despite all the talk by Romanow and his political counterparts in the early 1980s of it being a "people's Charter," the court has used it to protect tobacco companies and deny treatment to autistic children, Hutchinson said.
"It's turned out to be a very strange group of people who have benefited by the Charter," he added. "There's nothing new about the Chaoulli decision. Nothing new. This is a case where all the conservative chickens have come home to roost."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1126907414361
Smoking ban burns clubs -AB
Vernon Clement Jones The Edmonton Journal Sunday, September 18, 2005
Bingo parlour dropoff cuts into fundraising for charities, athletics
EDMONTON -- Last year bingo brought in $91,000 for the Association of Evergreen Youth.
"It's huge for us," says Alice Hobbins, executive director of the not-for-profit organization.
"At least it was huge."
So far this year, Hobbins' organization has taken in slightly more than $30,000 from its bingo nights. She blames the drop, in part, on Edmonton's smoking ban, which took effect on July 1, 2005.
She is not alone.
While the bylaw has lifted the blue cloud of cigarette smoke hanging in the city's bingo halls, it has lowered the takings of the civic organizations and charities using them to raise money.
Edmonton's 15 parlours are reporting drops in attendance from 10 to 40 per cent.
"City councillors didn't listen to us then and I doubt they will listen to us now, but we have got to voice our concerns," she says.
Like other clubs, Evergreen -- devoted to providing after-school programs to youths -- sends out a team of volunteers to work bingo events each month. Those workers spend two to five hours handing out cards and attending to patrons, all eager to yell "bingo!"
The clubs then share the profits each month, after deductions for prize money and hall expenses.
Last week, Hobbins joined officials from other civic clubs in a letter-writing campaign to the mayor and council, calling for an end to the smoking ban, at least in bingo halls.
Action couldn't come soon enough, says one volunteer who has seen profits for all three of the organizations she works decline. But the ban has brought positive change as well, says Melissa Webb, 24.
Before, "if you were working and walking around the hall, you felt like you had smoked a thousand cigarettes," she says, while volunteering at Parkway Bingo. "It's now easier to get volunteers to come out. The air is fine now."
There are about 120 playing and paying customers out for Parkway's afternoon event. That's only about 20 to 30 fewer than would likely have come before the smoking ban, bingo manager Susan Moore says.
"But when you lose 20 people in attendance you lose an awful lot more in profits," she says, pointing to the multiple cards most players purchase.
Edmonton halls also lose money when those patrons go for cigarette breaks.
"When they're outside that means they're not inside buying Bonanza and satellite cards -- money that goes to the charities," she says.
But that may be the least of Moore's worries. Bingo halls in neighbouring Spruce Grove and Wetaskiwin still allow smoking. In fact, they have been smokier than ever since the change in Edmonton.
"Our increase is about a 23-per-cent increase since the ban," says John Wanless, manager of Spruce Grove Bingo, pointing to a growing number of players from Edmonton. "Travelling the 20 minutes to Spruce Grove is no worse than driving 20 minutes to a hall in Edmonton.
"When the cold weather hits and going outside for a cigarette break at an Edmonton bingo hall becomes even less
attractive, we will probably go up more."
About 37 non-profit clubs share profits at Wanless's bingo parlour. Those groups, ranging from Spruce Grove
Minor Hockey to the community's Kinsmen centre, have seen a 40-per-cent increase in their monthly takes since the ban took effect.
The hall isn't looking to take on any more charities. Even if it were, he said Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission rules prevent him from considering clubs from the city of Edmonton.
"From a compassionate point of view, it's a shame that our gain is at the expense of other bingo halls," he said.
Local bingo parlours are likely experiencing temporary pain, says Doug Baker, a regional services director for the Canadian Cancer Society. "Within a year, revenue levels will likely be back to where they were before the smoking ban."
He points to studies in other Canadian cities that have stamped out smoking in public places.
"We have to look beyond the short-term losses of charities to the long-term health of Albertans, especially those working in bingo halls," he says.
As a charity, the Cancer Society does not use bingo halls as a vehicle for raising cash, but relies on a diversified fundraising strategy. It's an approach other charities will have to adopt, says one bingo volunteer.
"They have to be more creative to keep the customers if they want to keep on making it," Hector Labbe says, outside an east-end hall. A cigarette dangles from his mouth.
"I'm not sure they were making it before."
vjones@thejournal.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=85cf2164-5cc3-452d-bf9f-fb6f3be8cac0
Warning: Smoking is a Leading Cause of Vision Loss
Global survey shows low awareness of link TORONTO, Sept. 19 /CNW/ - Smoking, well known to cause lung cancer and heart disease, is also a major contributor to blindness. According to an international report, however, global awareness of the causal link between smoking and vision loss is alarmingly low.
The report also documents scientifically proven studies showing that smokers are two to four time more likely to develop AMD as compared to non-smokers. AMD is recognized as the leading cause of blindness in developed countries by the World Health Organization.
"Smoking is the only proven and preventable risk factor for the development of AMD, a disease that affects more than 25 million people around the world," said Dr. Patricia Harvey, Retina Specialist, University Health Network, Toronto. "The AMD Alliance International report clearly shows a dire need for more AMD education, along with the need to increase knowledge that smoking is as harmful to eye health as it is to one's overall health."
References -------------------------
(1) Klein, R. et al. Prevalence of age-related Maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Study. Ophthalmology 1992; 99:933-43 and Vingerling JR, et al. Epidemiology of Age-related Maculopathy. Epidemiol Rev 1995;17(2):347-360 and Statistics Canada
(2) Cost of Blindness Symposium Committee. A CLEAR VISION: Solutions to Canada's Vision Loss Crisis. Available from www.costofblindness.org .
(3) CNIB. National Consultation of the Crisis of Vision Loss. Toronto: Oct 2 - Oct 5, 1998. Available from www.cnib.ca/eng/publications/pamphlets/nccvl/chapter2.htm .
****For further information: to arrange an interview with Dr. Harvey or Gerrard Grace, or for a copy of the "AMD Campaign Report 2005" please contact: Andrew Leopold, John Elias, Weber Shandwick Worldwide, (416) 642-7949, (416) 642-7965, aleopold@webershandwick.com , jelias@webershandwick.com ; Wanda Hamilton, Executive Director, AMD Alliance International, (416) 486-2500 ext. 7505, executivedirector@amdalliance.org
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/19/c0749.html
Welcome to mini Cali -AB
Sept 20, 2005
FIRST, WE have to alienate smokers, then banning certain breeds of dogs becomes an issue, and now city council is considering banning firepits? Thank goodness there is always someone around to save me from myself. Welcome to mini-California.
C. McLachlan
(The firepit plan got panned.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/09/19/1226611.html
Doctor urges trustees to reconsider butt-ban vote
By STAFF September 20, 2005
School divisions can't expect students to take anti-smoking campaigns seriously when they're still allowed to light up on school property, according to one parent and advocate.
"Teens are extremely sensitive to hypocrisy on the part of adults," Dr. Mark Taylor told Winnipeg School Division trustees last night. "For them to be learning about the dangers of tobacco in class and then see that the school provides a special place for them to smoke outside, demonstrates hypocrisy."
Taylor spoke last night at a special meeting of the province's largest school division, offering a response to a recent decision by trustees to not implement an all-out smoking ban at its 77 schools.
A motion for a ban was defeated 5-4 several weeks ago. Last night. Taylor encouraged trustees to reconsider.
He cited extensive studies showing educational campaigns have had "disappointing results" when not coupled with non-smoking policies and reminded them smoking is already banned in many public and private spaces in Manitoba and North America.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2005/09/20/1226926-sun.html
Federal grant targets youth smoking -AB
By DAVE BREAKENRIDGE, CALGARY SUN Sept 20, 2005
Young people are starting to get the message about smoking but more needs to be done to curb tobacco addiction, says Canada's health minister.
To that end, Ujjal Dosanjh yesterday announced a $250,000 Health Canada contribution to the Calgary Health Region's project aimed at a mass media campaign designed to change how tobacco is viewed by youth between the ages of 12 and 18.
The content of the ads will be designed with input from people in that age group.
"I think it's important to let them decide and design print, radio and television messages for the people we're trying to aim at," Dosanjh said.
He said smoking rates among young people have dropped from 22% in 2002 to 18% this year.
The money will go toward the production of ads, which a CHR youth co-ordinator said will be released in early 2006.
The project is partnered with Lord Beaverbrook high school, the Canadian Cancer Society, Calgary Urban Vibe and AADAC.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/09/20/1226992-sun.html
WORKPLACE ETHICS 101
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page C6
Ethics: A set of principles of right conduct; a theory or a system of moral values.- Canadian Dictionary
Every day, people are faced with moral dilemmas at work. Here's a chance to put your two cents into the ethical pot. Please include your full name and address. Responses may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Last week's question You're trying hard not to sound like a reformed smoker, having quit a couple of years ago, but even you are becoming miffed at how a couple of co-workers with whom you share responsibilities are taking several smoke breaks every day at times that are problematic for you from a work standpoint. Do you raise it with them without sounding like a hypocrite?
One side
I see no quandary here. Whether it is smoking or coffee breaks, excessive time away from work, which affects productivity, should be confronted and resolved.
Paul Henry, New Jersey
Presuming that smoke breaks are allowed by company policy, speak directly to your immediate supervisor and inform him/her that you want a memo sent regarding the minimum people needed at all times in the work area.
Brian Pease, Scarborough
The issue here is not whether they are smoking; the issue is the effect their repeated absences are having on my performance, and ultimately the business. Perhaps this habit has been allowed to go on for some time, so my co-workers think nothing of it. I would approach my co-workers in a non-judgmental manner, and focus my communication on ways we can all take a reasonable amount of break time throughout the day and not inconvenience our co-workers as a result.
Richard Williams, Morinville, Alta.
I would talk to the co-workers but focus on how their availability is impacting my ability to work. I would see if there is some sort of agreement we could come to.
Darrell Grainger, Toronto
There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to get the work done. Early in the work period, prior to their usual smoke breaks, talk to your co-workers about scheduling your work time together. Follow up at the end of the work day with a brief review of how matters went. Maybe more co-ordination is needed. Your focus is your shared work task. How they handle their smoke breaks is their business.
Mary Valentich, Calgary
Your status as a reformed smoker is irrelevant in this problem. As you well know, a smoker is unlikely to quit to please someone else. Your co-workers' apparent neglect of work responsibilities is similar to the effect of a worker who has to take frequent breaks due to a medical condition. Your goal should be to work out a schedule that shares the break times so there is less difficulty for you, as you would try to do for a medical problem. If a co-operative approach along those lines fails to reduce the problem, you would be within your rights to ask your superior for help in seeing that the work responsibilities are being shared fairly.
Dave Prebble, Fredericton, N.B.
You sure do raise your concern with them. Two choices: sound like a hypocrite or do their work for them. . . . I'll take hypocrite.
Tim Brooke, Guelph Ont.
I would raise this issue with the co-worker from a health standpoint. I would explain to them how I was a heavy smoker myself previously and how I went about changing my habits. I would then tell them indirectly that it causes a lot of work to be built up as well. But I would definitely approach this issue by showing them that I am concerned about their health rather than the workload that builds up for me.
Anjum Sajjad, Mississauga
I wouldn't say anything to them directly, but I would tell my company because this problem should be solved by the company. It's not fair for non-smokers and smokers to have different working times. Don't you think we can compromise with each other?
Kiyomi Fuji , Wakayama, Japan
Absolutely raise the issue of timing of smoke breaks. All breaks are subject to operational requirements and should be scheduled at times that are convenient for the business, not the individual. In practice of course, one would try to accommodate the individual, but the business provides for their employment and must be considered first. In addition, smoke breaks should not be in addition to legislated coffee breaks or lunch; if they are taken in addition, then that person is stealing time from their employer.
Shery Yoner, Vancouver
The other side
Reformed smokers are the worst. It's like working with your mother-in-law or a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, but worse. Lighten up. I am sure the chains to the desk can be unlocked for a few minutes for those others who have yet to become reformed smokers like you. Your shared responsibilities will get done. If the three of you are so interlinked that when one is not there nothing gets done, what do you do during summer holidays, when one is sick, or when one is in the washroom? Yes, you are being a hypocrite, and reformed smokers are the best doing just that.
Norm Greenfield, Calgary
Everyone needs a break once in a while. While some smoke, others just need to stretch. Suggest to the team that irregular breaks are hampering your work efforts. Find what can be done in terms of your and their schedules to make things work better. If someone brings up your past, demonstrate how you have moved on and for their own health, you wish they would too.
Tom Breuer, Ottawa
Having been a smoker, you must realize how your co-workers enjoy their smoke breaks. Since you all share responsibility for the work, and you are all paid to do it as quickly as possible, you should pick a time that is agreeable to all and take a break then. No one should be allowed to wander off whenever he/she feels like it. Work comes first.
Frances Jeaurond, St. Catharines, Ont.
Studies show that 45 per cent of all productivity losses at work are related to "water cooler" chit-chat and socializing, followed closely by unauthorized use of the Internet and personal phone calls. In terms of productivity losses, unauthorized smoke breaks are only sixth or seventh down the list. Before broaching the issue with others, it might be wise to examine your own motivation to ensure that you are not, in fact, irked by their choices as opposed to the so-called "extra work" imposed on you. Who does your work when you stop to chat with other workers or take time for that personal phone call? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
As an employee, it is not your place to complain about the working ethics of others. Worry first about your performance and let the supervisors and managers worry about the bigger picture.
Remember, most people don't get fired because of incompetence but rather, because of a difficulty in fitting into the existing corporate culture.
Michelle Gervais, London, Ont.
As a former smoker, you should be the most sympathetic of all toward your co-workers still in the clutches of a tobacco addiction. If there is an important project under way at work, try to get the group to agree beforehand on convenient times to take breaks. On routine workdays, try to ignore the smoke breaks. Focus instead on being an inspiring example of a person who has successfully overcome the addiction.
Carolyn Tytler, St. Catharines, Ont.
Reformed smokers (of whom I am one) must be the most paranoid of zealots. This week's question is not a moral dilemma -- it is not really an ethical issue -- and actually has nothing to do with smoking. Employees have a right to take breaks -- what they do while on those breaks is their own business (as long as it's legal). The issue here is the timing of the breaks. If timing is interfering with work flow, surely the response should be to simply say: "Now is really not a good time; why don't we finish this task , and then we can all take our break?"
Dr. Basil W. Johnston, Peterborough, Ont.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050921/CAETHICS21/TPBusiness/
Using the media for advocacy: http://strategyguides.globalink.org/guide01_10.htm
Italy
Film gets flak from anti-smokers
Award-winning movie under fire over cigarette-hooked cast (ANSA) - Rome, September 19 - An Italian film which scooped a prize at the Venice Film Festival has come under fire from the anti-smoking lobby because of its cigarette-hooked cast . La Bestia nel Cuore (The Beast in the Heart) stars acclaimed Italian actress Giovanna Mezzogiorno as chain-smoking Sabina, a woman whose happy existence is torn apart when buried memories of abuse return to haunt her . Mezzogiorno's performance bagged her the top acting award for a woman at the Venice fest earlier this month . But consumer group Codacons was less impressed and has asked magistrates to investigate the Cristina Comencini-directed film for alleged "indirect advertising for smoking products" . "Too often directors opt to heighten moments of tension or unease with a cigarette. That's something we do not agree with because it is too simplistic and harmful," said Codacons President Marco Donzelli . "As for this film, it's excessive. The actors smoke one cigarette after another," Donzelli said . There have been growing calls to limit smoking in films and on TV as part of a general crackdown on cigarettes . Former Health Minister Girolamo Sirchia, who spearheaded a ban on public smoking, recently resurrected his proposal that health warnings accompany old films on TV in which movie icons are seen puffing away on cigarettes . The minister maintained that Hollywood legends like Humphrey Bogart, the smoker supreme, set a dangerous example for youngsters, making cigarettes look sexy and glamorous . Italy's smoking law, which came into effect in January, is one of the toughest in Europe and has virtually ended smoking in cafes, restaurants, bars and clubs . Any establishment wishing to cater to smokers - and there is no obligation to do this - must have separate rooms for them with automatically closing doors and smoke extractors . Smoking is also banned from all work places . The Health Ministry insisted there was nothing prohibitionist about the new measures, which came on top of a 1975 law banning smoking from public places such as cinemas, schools, libraries, hospitals and underground trains. Cigarette sales have dropped some 10% since the new law .
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2005-09-19_1313344.html
WI
Mayor Wants Truce, Ads For Smoke-free Bars
The Capital Times :: METRO :: 1B
Saturday, September 17, 2005 By Bill Novak The Capital Times
Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz is willing to put up $10,000 in room tax revenue to help promote Madison bars, but only if the anti-smoking and pro-smoking forces also kick in some cash.
The mayor issued a challenge Friday to both sides in the smoldering fight, urging the combatants to put down their rattling sabers and come together to see what can be done about the financial loss some Madison bars have reported since the smoking ban took effect on July 1.
"I'm concerned about the relatively small number of tavern owners, especially on Madison's periphery, who say our smoke-free ordinance is hurting their business," Cieslewicz said in letters sent to smoking ban supporters SmokeFree Wisconsin and the Tobacco-Free Dane County Coalition, and to smoking ban protesters including the Coalition to Save Madison Jobs and the Dane County Tavern League.
SmokeFree Wisconsin accepted Cieslewicz's challenge and urged the others to do likewise.
"We accept the mayor's challenge and commit up to $10,000 to this effort," said Maureen Busalacchi of SmokeFree Wisconsin. "A positive promotional campaign to benefit Madison's hospitality industry is far more beneficial to the industry and the community than a prolonged and heated debate."
Cieslewicz is committing the $10,000 from room tax revenues, which are earmarked to be spent on helping promote Madison business. Property tax revenues won't be used for the challenge.
"I am willing to commit city resources to help taverns gain new customers to replace those who may have left because of the (smoking) ban," the mayor said. "But this needs to be a partnership with tavern owners and smoke-free advocates."
Tavern owners are hoping to be allowed to show they've suffered a hardship because of the smoking ban so that patrons can light up once again while enjoying a beer.
Some bar owners and others against the ban want a referendum but the mayor prefers the challenge route.
"This is a far better option than a referendum," Cieslewicz said.
The council is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to hold an advisory referendum in April.
Cieslewicz said it's far more beneficial to have opposing groups come together and try to promote the city's bars, instead of seeing if the smoking ban can be done away with. Repealing the ban, which was attempted once but failed this summer, again has little chance of being rescinded by the City Council.
"Tavern owners and smoke-free advocates have two choices," the mayor said. "They can both spend substantial amounts of money battling each other for the next seven months for the public's support of their respective positions, or they can pool their resources and join together to help taverns thrive under the ban so they both win."
There was no word Friday from the Dane County Tavern League if it would accepting Cieslewicz's challenge.
\ E-mail: bnovak@madison.com
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=tct:2005:09:17:514805:METRO
Painkiller use, hypertension linked?
Published: Sunday, Sep. 18, 2005
The question: Consider that nearly one in three adults in the United States has high blood pressure and that painkillers are the medication taken most often by Americans. Might the two be connected? The latest: This study analyzed data on 5,123 female nurses participating in two long-term studies on chronic diseases. None of the women had high blood pressure at the start of the study. In a three- to four-year period, those who regularly took more than 500 milligrams a day of acetaminophen were nearly twice as likely to develop high blood pressure as those who took none. Women who took more than 400 milligrams daily of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mainly ibuprofen) had a 60 percent to 78 percent greater chance of developing high blood pressure than those who never took NSAIDs, with the likelihood increasing with age. Taking aspirin did not affect blood pressure readings. Who may be affected by these findings? Women who take sizable doses of painkillers regularly. Caveats: The findings were based on self-reporting of hypertension, but the authors considered the reports reliable because all participants were registered nurses. The study did not determine whether the risk of high blood pressure varied for ibuprofen, naproxen or other NSAIDs. The study considered participants’ family history, physical activity and use of such products as caffeine, alcohol and tobacco; whether participants’ health problems might have affected their blood pressure was unclear. Find this study: Aug. 15 online issue of Hypertension; abstract available at www.hypertensionaha.org . Learn more about high blood pressure at www.americanheart.org and www.mayoclinic.com.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050918/HEALTH/50917059
Non-Narcotic Analgesic Dose and Risk of Incident Hypertension in US Women
John P. Forman; Meir J. Stampfer; Gary C. Curhan
From the Renal Division (J.P.F., G.C.C.), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Channing Laboratory (J.P.F., M.J.S., G.C.C.), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; and Department of Epidemiology (J.P.F., M.J.S., G.C.C.), Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to John P. Forman, Channing Laboratory, Third Floor, 181 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail jforman@partners.org
Acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin are the most commonly used drugs in the United States. Although the frequency of their use has been associated with hypertension, prospective data examining the dose of these drugs and risk of hypertension are lacking. Furthermore, whether certain indications for analgesic use, particularly headache, mediate the association is unclear. We conducted 2 prospective cohort studies among older women 51 to 77 years of age (n=1903) from the Nurses’ Health Study I and younger women 34 to 53 years of age (n=3220) from the Nurses’ Health Study II who completed detailed supplemental questionnaires pertaining to their analgesic use and who did not have hypertension at baseline. We analyzed incident hypertension according to categories of average daily dose of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and aspirin. Information on indications for analgesic use as well as relevant confounders was also gathered prospectively. Compared with women who did not use acetaminophen, the multivariable adjusted relative risk for those who took >500 mg per day was 1.93 (1.30 to 2.88) among older women and 1.99 (1.39 to 2.85) among younger women. For nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, similar comparisons yielded multivariable relative risks of 1.78 (1.21 to 2.61) among older women and 1.60 (1.10 to 2.32) among younger women. These associations remained significant among women who did not report headache. Aspirin dose was not significantly associated with hypertension. Higher daily doses of acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs independently increase the risk of hypertension in women. Because acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly used, they may contribute to the high prevalence of hypertension in the United States.
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/500
Posted at 2:11 pm by looped_ca
|
|
|
