|
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Cops stop tobacco rolling for Quebec -ON, QC Sat, March 10, 2007 By JON WILLING, SUN MEDIA The bulging tires of a cube truck on Hwy. 401 this week prompted OPP to launch an investigation into what was weighing down the vehicle. When police opened the truck's doors along the side of the highway Tuesday morning in South Glengarry Twp., they found 165 bales of raw-leaf tobacco. The tobacco had a total weight of 3,185 kg. Police said the tobacco, which was being transported in a 2006 Ford Econoline truck, wasn't packaged or properly stamped. RCMP investigators were called to assist with the probe and arrest the driver. EN ROUTE TO RESERVE According to police, the truck was transporting the tobacco from the SixNations Reserve in Brantford to Kahnawake, Que. Sgt. Michael Harvey, of the Central St. Lawrence Valley RCMP, said the bust was unique for area cops, who regularly arrest people for transporting contraband smokes. "It's rare," Harvey said. "We don't often see raw leaf." Police plan to take the leaves to a local dump and bury them. A 48-year-old Hagersville man has been charged under the federal Excise Act with possession of raw tobacco not packaged or stamped. SUPPLY ROUTE Police said the truck is registered to a Brantford rental company. The current price for raw-leaf tobacco by Canadian cigarette manufacturers is $3.56/kg when purchased through the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, police said. Police don't know where these tobacco leaves were purchased. The seizure of raw-leaf tobacco shows there is a supply route between Ontario and Quebec to keep up with the demand for contraband cigarettes, police said. http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2280
Cop dog sniffs out stolen smokes, but no suspects -ON Windsor Star Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007 Cezar the police dog was able to sniff out cigarettes stolen from a Seminole Street convenience store Friday morning but the suspects who took them are still at large. Police were called to the store in the 4000 block of Seminole Street at 3:30 a.m. and discovered the front door of the store had been pried open and cigarettes taken. Cezar led his handler to the 1500 block of Tourangeau Road where he discovered a large container filled with cigarettes and a calculator stolen from the store. Anyone with any information is asked to call Windsor police at 519-255-6700 ext. 4830 or Crime Stoppers at 519-258-8477. The incident number is 14883. http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2280
Report confirms tourism in decline -ON Roberta Pennington, Windsor Star Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007 The number of coaches, day tours and delegates that came to Windsor in 2006 dropped compared to 2005, continuing a five-year trend in declining tourism, according to a city report. And, although the number of convention groups increased slightly, the number of convention delegates declined, as did the number of nights they booked in 2006, compared to 2005. Statistics showing these drops were recently presented to the Convention andVisitors Bureau of Windsor, Essex County and Pelee Island board of directors. "They certainly confirmed the fact that 2006 continued to be another difficult year for the tourism industry in Windsor-Essex," said Gordon Orr, managingdirector of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Orr said "a perfect storm" of recent events has led to the five-year downward spiral. "It's everything from the dollar to the gas prices to the passport legislation and, of course, the smoke-free legislation," Orr said. "Individually, they're not that powerful to knock us out but collectively it's a major blow to tourism." The number of coaches to visit Windsor dropped by 219, from 6,042 in 2005 to 5,823 in 2006. Within the past 10 years, 2001 was a peak year for coach visits with 7,258 having made Windsor their destination. Moreover, Windsor welcomed 4,479 fewer coach visitors -- 234,640 in 2006, down from 239,119 in 2005. Day tours also dropped from 6,028 in 2005 to 5,761 in 2006, a difference of 267. These bus visits accounted for a $19.8-million investment in the area, the report said, with about $18.6 million coming from day trips and $1.2 million from overnight stays. Meanwhile, the number of groups booked in the city in connection with a convention increased from 42 in 2005 to 45 in 2006. But the number of delegates dropped from 13,955 in 2005 to 12,761, a difference of 1,194. The convention delegates also spent 5,753 fewer nights in Windsor in 2006. But the 31,747 nights booked by delegates here translated into a direct spending of $8.6 million and an economic spinoff of more than $19 million, according to the report. GRIM FIGURES Despite the grim figures, Orr said the future holds "pockets of optimism." "There are a number of things that we are on the fringe of seeing ... that are only going to help us as we continue to move forward to promote the area as a tourist destination," he said. "And, certainly, the biggest is the casino expansion and renovation project." Orr also noted the future arena complex, e-bingo and the area's vineyards offer hope for this area's tourism industry. rpennington@thestar.canwest.com or 519-255-5529. http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html
Province Still Reviewing Ban on Workplace Smoke -SK Friday, 09 March 2007 A complete ban on smoking in the workplace is still on the government's radar. But the plan fell further down the list when Occupational Health and Safety came up with a list of over 2 hundred recommendations to improve workplace safety a year ago. Provincial Labour Minister, David Forbes says his department had to prioritize the items and choose to work towards a reduction of accidents in the workplace, especially in the construction and healthcare fields. Forbes says he's been in contact with lobby groups who are pushing for a workplace smoking ban and he's working with them. He says the issue will be dealt with this fall. (sv) http://www.saskatoonhomepage.ca/index.php?option=com_ezine
Puffing pariahs pushed by province -BC Mar 10 2007 By Mitch Wright Assistant Editor At long last, the province is putting a stranglehold on second-hand smoke, hoping to choke smokers out of public places by next year. The new rules have been a long time coming, adding another layer of smoke-clearing legislation on top of tight regulations on smoking areas in bars, pubs and restaurants. Under the new rules, open-air smoking patios will still be allowed, but indoor smoking rooms will have to be removed. The legislative crackdown also carries through on promises to ban smoking in all indoor public spaces, including a “smoke-free zone” around public entrances and windows. All school properties in the province will also become smoke-free. Another aspect of the new legislation, introduced Tuesday by Health Minister George Abbott, is a ban on retail store displays featuring any tobacco brand that are visible to those under 19 – which is to say visible to anyone. That bit of law is targeted at preventing young British Columbians from taking up the habit which, in the long term, is hoped will further reduce our overall smoking rate from its current 18 per cent. Organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. Lung Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation and Clean Air Coalition are smiling toothy grins (no tobacco stains) at the news. For non-smokers tired of constantly being caught in carcinogenic clouds of someone else’s cough-conducive bad habit, it’s hard not to be pleased. Getting cigarettes and other tobacco products further out of the public eye, particularly that of impressionable youngsters, is a great move. Likewise for pushing the puffing pariahs even further out of busy public doorways (hospital entrances immediately come to mind). Permitted smoking on school grounds – particularly high schools – has always struck me as odd and more than a little hypocritical. Our public education system preaches healthy living, yet out behind the playing fields or alongside the automotive wing, we give students a sanctioned place to harm their health. Where’s the sense in that? In fact, there is some common sense. Educators and parents can talk until they’re blue in the face about the terrible consequences of tobacco, but teenagers will always be teenagers – prone to believe they’re invincible and know everything they need to know about whatever it is they ought to know something about. Is it better to have those teens smoking on school property, where there is at least some semblance of protocol in place to oversee their safety, or simply push them off school property? The latter is what’s bound to happen, but it seems the government feels that’s the lesser of two evils. As for smokers in general, they’ve been more and more marginalized since the Marlboro man went out of vogue 20 or 30 years ago, and are surely choking on this latest affront to their personal freedom. It’s not as though they don’t have an argument (I just don’t agree with it). It’s their right to choose their poison. That part I agree with. It’s the part about pulling on that poison in public and inflicting it on others that sends me into paroxysms. Want to smoke outside? Be my guest, so long as your smoke isn’t wafting into my personal space – this air was clean (relatively) before you started puffing those poison plumes into it. There’s been other arguments bandied about the hypocrisy of the B.C. government taking tax revenue – nearly $700 million last year – from tobacco sales. I don’t buy that either. We tax everything we legally can. Just because a product is bad for us shouldn’t mean we stop taxing it. By trying to decrease sales, the province knows its tax revenues will go down and clearly is willing to take the hit, if it means a healthier British Columbia. The resulting health-care savings should more than make up for any lost revenue, anyway. I say regulate away. Smokers are still free to smoke to their unhealthy heart’s content, so long as it doesn’t infringe on non-smokers’ right to breathe freely. news@nanaimobulletin.com http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=51
Dirty air in arenas could pose health risk: CBC investigation Last Updated: Monday, March 12, 2007 | 8:52 AM CT CBC News The polluted air inside some Canadian hockey arenas could be putting children at risk, a CBC News investigation reveals. The report found the exhaust that routinely streams out of ice resurfacing machines in skating arenas is to blame for high levels of tiny particles, which experts say are having an effect on people who skate in rinks. "It's quite serious. I think you'll find a large number of arenas have high levels of ultrafine particles," said Kenneth Rundell, who runs the human performance lab at Marywood University in Scranton, Pa. Pollutant particulates that have a diameter of less than 0.1 microns are defined as "ultrafine particles" — particles so small they can easily deposit deeply into the lungs,agitating asthma and some cardiovascular illnesses. Lung cancer and heart diseaseare commonly known as diseases related to high exposure of ultrafine particlesthat can be inhaled. With Rundell's help, the CBC tested 42 arenas in Halifax, Sudbury, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Of those rinks, 24 per cent tested higher than 60,000 particles of pollution per cubic centimetre — a level that Rundell said decreases lung capacity. What's more, 14 per cent also tested higher than 100,000 particles of pollution per cubic centimetre, roughly the equivalent of the air quality that might be experienced standing next to Toronto's Highway 401, the busiest road in the country. In some of the arenas tested, the CBC found that ice resurfacing machines spewing the microscopic pieces of toxic dust operated once every hour. An arenain Winnipeg peaked at 250,000 particles of pollution per cubic centimetre. "When I worked for the Olympic committee, we made this observation that ice rink athletes tended to have a much higher prevalence of asthma," Rundell said. Curbs for children suggested He believes it is the pollution in the arenas that is damaging the lungs of hockey players and figure skaters. Rundell advised limiting the time young people spend in arenas if they're filled with hundreds of millions of ultrafine particles. Jeff Brook, the senior research scientist with Environment Canada, is among dozens of scientists around the world beginning to study how ultrafine particle pollution is affecting health. "We really should be trying to make attempts to minimize kids' exposure to ultrafine particles while waiting for more info to come in on their impacts," he said. Improving ventilation systems in buildings or installing vents nearer to the ice rather than in the roof could help clear the air indoors. Another, more costly solution is to start using ice resurfacing machines powered by electricity to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. But those kinds of machines are not likely to become commonplace, as they might run into the six figures. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/03/12/arena-pollution-070312.html RelatedInternal Links
SMOKE LINGERS March 13, 2007 -Letter It is enjoyable now going to a pub or restaurant without being bothered by second-hand smoke. The only problem now is smokers who crowd around outside the front doors of these establishments. I seem to remember a bylaw enacted a few years ago that prohibits smoking outside business entrances within three metres. If the city finds it justifiable to create a new bylaw, it needs tobe enforced. TONY LINDROS (You can hold your breath as you exit these premises, but don't hold your breath for enforcement of that bylaw.) http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/
Smoke clears as bars adjust to new ban -AB Monday, March 12, 2007 Jamie Komarnicki, with files from Drew Anderson,Calgary Herald It may have had a rocky start, but as the city's no-smoking bylaw enters itsthird month, officials are predicting clear skies ahead. "All things considered, it went as well as it could have gone," said Bill Bruce, the city's director of bylaw services. Last fall, city council decided to bump up the smoking ban in bars and restaurants to Jan. 1, 2007 while allowing a year-long exemption to bingo halls, casinos and bars that had separate smoking rooms. Diane Taylor, general manager of the Ship & Anchor Pub, said the popular 17th Avenue establishment was able to comply with the bylaw without problem. The Ship had already established a non-smoking section more than five years ago. "Our customers have been very good with the changing of the rules, and we've been abiding with it from the get-go," she said. "I think there was a concern that bar owners weren't abiding by the bylaw, and that wasn't true. It was only a small number -- and we weren't one of them." Patrons adjusted quickly. "All of our customers were well aware of the bylaw," said Nicola Wealleans, the pub's operations manager. While customers have grown used to stepping outdoors to light up, many are still trying to wrap their heads around the idea that smoking is not allowed on outdoor patios. "Obviously, I'd like them not to smoke around me. But I also respect their right to smoke," said Jason Allsopp, 30, taking advantage of a sunny afternoon for a drink outside on the smoke-free patio while smokers lit up metres away on the pavement. Allsopp said he's pleased with the bylaw. "My clothes don't smell when I leave the bar," he said. "I feel like I can breathe without smelling someone else's smoke." Bill Fisher, 36, said he cut back on smoking after the bylaw came into effect, but now he doesn't mind going outside for a cigarette. "When it first happened, I slowed down, and now it doesn't matter anymore," Fisher said. At Bob the Fish Tavern, server Kari Derksen thinks the transition has been smooth and said the pub is busier than ever. "If anything, it's gotten more busy," Derksen said. "I haven't really gotten any complaints whatsoever." But the city has received complaints -- about violations of the bylaw. There are 159 on file. But some of those are duplicates, with more than one person reporting the same apparent infraction, said Jim Golbourn, acting operations manager for north division animal and bylaw services. The city's bylaw officers often arrive and find no problems, Golbourn said, and are likely to give verbal warnings. "For the most part, once we've advised the business through a written warning, they comply." The bylaw has already survived a court challenge. It was challenged on the grounds the exemption was discriminatory to establishments with VLTs -- a challenge the bar owners lost. City council also tossed around the idea of banning smoking at outdoor events held in city parks before the idea was shot down last month as unenforceable. The next big challenge? Stampede week, Bruce said. That's when the city is deluged with visitors who might not be familiar with how the city's bylaw works. "But the more you travel, you see non-smoking is the norm," Bruce said. "We'll take the same calm, educating approach." http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html
City rejects bid to move up smoking banCalgary Herald Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 A bid to move up the smoking ban in casinos and bingo halls was promptly extinguished Monday. The city's smoking bylaw, which came into effect Jan. 1, applies to all bars without a built-in smoking room. Casinos and bingo halls also received a one-year exemption until 2008. During question period at Monday's city council meeting, Ald. Joe Ceci asked his colleagues whether they'd reconsider the exemption. "I was just hoping to get a read on people today," he said. "And I got a lot of people looking at me like I was from another planet, frankly." Mayor Dave Bronconnier suggested Ceci bring forward a notice of motion at another council meeting. "That was his tactical way of saying, 'I don't want to deal with this today,' " said Ceci, noting he'll leave the issue alone for now. "I don't think there (was) anyone interested in opening this . . . but I asked the question because it's been asked repeatedly of me. "Businesses are feeling the pinch and they want an equal playing field now." Ceci said some bar and restaurant owners suggested their business is down as much as 40 per cent due to the smoking ban. Some bars, however, said they are noticing an increase in business since the ban came into effect. The city has received nearly 160 complaints about violations of the bylaw. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html
Butt ... butt we thought the debate was over UPDATED: 2007-03-13 01:40:40 MST By SHAWN LOGAN Debating Calgary's smoking ban seems to be a habit council can't break. Ald. Joe Ceci suggested the city could kill the one-year exemptions granted to casinos, bingos and bars with smoking rooms to level the playing field with bars subject to the ban. But Ceci acknowledged it might not be a battle worth fighting all over again. Ald. Ric McIver said he would back removing the exemptions sooner than planned providing council allowed a compromise to let businesses allow smoking on outdoor patios. "We could fix this all right away if we allowed smoking on patios and nowhereelse. "This is the show that never ends and it's either leave it alone and live withour mistake or open it up and fix it." http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2007/03/13/3742116-sun.html Posted at 9:09 am by looped_ca
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The old ways of fighting addiction don't work Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 Letter Re: Conservative senator attacks Sullivan's drug-treatment plan, March 2 Understandably, former Vancouver undercover police officer Senator Gerry St. Germain views Mayor Sam Sullivan's innovative substitute drug addiction treatment program through the eyes of someone who worked on morality and drug cases. I attempted to implement a program similar to Sullivan's proposal more than 25 years ago when pharmacies were being burglarized at an alarming rate. Pharmacists were violently attacked by addicts seeking drugs. Like Sullivan's proposal, most of the objections to my program were along the lines put forward by St. Germain. His contention that drug addiction is just like alcoholism, and you don't give an alcoholic more alcohol, reflected the feelings of many people at that time. But now to many people this is as ridiculous as saying that drug addiction is just like diabetes, and you don't give more insulin to a diabetic. St. Germain's same-old, same-old proposals for more police and abstinence-based treatment programs are self-admittedly based on hope. But are they founded on evidence-based reality? Frank M. Archer, Delta Frank Archer is the former CEO of the BC Pharmacy Association http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story.
Sweeping smoking ban in B.C. Last Updated: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 | 5:39 PM ET CBC News The B.C. government has introduced new legislation that will ban smoking in all indoor public spaces and take aim at how tobacco products are marketed and sold. Health Minister George Abbott introduced the bill in the legislature on Tuesday. B.C. smokers face more restrictions on where they can light up. (CBC) "This amendment bans smoking in restaurants, pubs and private clubs, offices, malls, conference centres, sports arenas, community halls, government buildings and schools," he said. It will also be illegal for smokers to light-up in a public doorway, or near windows and air intakes — to protect indoor air quality. The bill will ban smoking in schools and on school grounds this September; in other places, it takes effect next year. The new legislation also allows regulations that would ban outdoor advertising of tobacco products, and limit the display and promotion of cigarettes inside stores. Abbott said that means cigarettes may have to be kept out of sight in B.C. stores at some point in the future. "That will be determined by regulation, but my expectation is that the racks of cigarettes will actually be behind a plain covered surface. So there won't be the advertising, there won't be the cigarette packs sitting out in the open," said the minister. Abbott said B.C. is not yet ready to ban smoking altogether. But he says the government is determined to fight smoking and discourage young people from taking up the habit. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/03/06/bc-smoking.html
Physician group welcomes B.C.'s proposed anti-tobacco legislation -BC .MARCH 6, 2007 - 14:48 ET Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada Attention: Health/Medical Editor, News Editor OTTAWA--(CCNMatthews - March 6, 2007) - Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (PSC) today congratulated British Columbia's health minister, the Honourable George Abbott for introducing proposals to strengthen British Columbia's tobacco laws. "The proposals in Bill 10, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, will improve the health of British Columbians in three important ways," said Neil Collishaw, PSC's director of research. "Firstly, they will ensure that everyone who lives or works in British Columbia can go to work or can gather in a public place without risking their health from second hand smoke. Secondly, they will make it easier for children to remain non-smokers by banning smoking in school yards and community centres and removing retail promotions for tobacco, thus protecting them from both peer pressure and from tobacco industry marketing. Thirdly, by banning the sale of tobacco on government properties and public institutions, they will give British Columbians a clear message that their government is consistent in its efforts to reduce tobacco use." "British Columbia has played a leadership role in tobacco control since the early 1970s," said Neil Collishaw. "This has benefited British Columbians, who now have the lowest smoking rates in Canada. It has also benefited other Canadians, when their governments have followed British Columbia's example." British Columbia was the first Canadian jurisdiction to ban tobacco advertising, the first to take a hard line against tobacco companies, and the first to sue tobacco companies for the health care costs associated with tobacco use. It was the only province which presented the Supreme Court with arguments that tobacco advertising should not be protected by the Charter during last month's hearing on the federal Tobacco Act. "This law will address the flaw that has resulted in British Columbia being one of the few Canadian jurisdictions that still allow smoking in some bars and hospitality venues." said Neil Collishaw. "By moving to protect all hospitality workers, this legislation will restore British Columbia to the forefront of tobacco control initiatives. Once the neighbouring jurisdictions of Alberta and Yukon territories follow with improvements to their laws, Canada will be very close to completely smoke-free." IN: HEALTH Neil Collishaw, Research Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease
More young people smoke pot than tobacco, survey finds -BC Average age of first marijuana use is 14.7 years, compared to 13.9 years for tobacco and 14.1 years for alcohol Tuesday, March 06, 2007 GlennBohnVancouver Sun vancouver I A Vancouver Coastal Health survey has found that most youth in Vancouver start smoking marijuana before their 15th birthday, not long after their first whiff of tobacco or sip of beer. The city-wide survey of youth aged 16 to 24 shows cannabis sativa is the illicit drug of first choice for today's young people. Almost seven out of every 10 of those surveyed (68 per cent) said they had tried marijuana at least once. That climbs to a whopping 80 per cent for those aged 19 to 24, suggesting that just 20 per cent of the city's younger residents have never experimented with the illegal plant. Overall, 54 per cent of all those surveyed told researchers they had used marijuana during the past year. Some 24 per cent had used cannabis during the past week; eight per cent said they smoked marijuana daily. The average age they first used marijuana was 14.7 years, compared to 13.9 years for tobacco and 14.1 years for alcohol. These are some of the key findings of a drug use survey based on confidential interviews with more than 600 teens and young adults. Between May and August last year, researchers sought out those young people in Vancouver shopping malls, coffee shops, beaches and parks. They looked for subjects in all six community health areas of the city, using census data to seek a representative sample that broadly reflected the drug experiences of youth from all age and ethnic groups in both rich and poor neighbourhoods, not just kids on the streets in the drug-troubled Downtown Eastside. Researchers gave youths a $20 gift card in exchange for a 45-minute interview. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority hasn't yet released the publicly funded drug survey, but the lead researcher outlined some of the results at a lecture last week at the downtown Vancouver campus of Simon Fraser University. "What's really ironic here in Vancouver is that we have more people reporting cannabis use than tobacco use," Dr. Cameron Duff, manager of research and youth addiction services at Vancouver Coastal Health, told a small audience of substance abuse experts. "With the exception of daily cannabis use, the young people we spoke to were very much of the view that there wasn't a great deal of risk associated with this drug. "There's a very different view for other kinds of drugs -- cannabis really stands alone." Ecstasy, a psychoactive drug that has both stimulant and hallucinogenic properties, was originally produced as an appetite suppressant. It has been illegally made and sold since the late 1980s, often at late-night parties, "raves" and concerts. Duff said the survey showed ecstasy is in a second category or tier of drugs that are less popular and less available than marijuana. He put crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and heroin in a third tier of drugs -- drugs that are used even less frequently by Vancouver youth. Of the young people surveyed, 33 per cent reported trying ecstasy at least once; 18 per cent used the drug in the past year; seven per cent in the last month. Duff noted almost two-thirds reported ecstasy was "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain. "Ecstasy is the drug that high school kids are using, the drug they anticipate using more in the future, the drug they regard as the most interesting and fashionable drug to be using at the moment," he said. Of the 604 youths surveyed, 11.8 per cent reported they had tried crystal meth at least one time. Four per cent had used the drug once in the past 12 months; two per cent in the last month. The scientific name for crystal meth is methamphetamine hydrochloride. Methamphetamine increases the heart rate, causing irreversible damage to blood vessels in the brain, and sometimes triggering strokes and fatal heart problems. gbohn@png.canwest.com http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story
Smokers to be pushed from doorways Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Jeff Rud Times Colonist CREDIT: Bruce Stotesbury, Times Colonist PROVINCE TO BAN IN-STORE TOBACCO ADS, DISPLAYS: Retailer Gurmeet Singh Purewal says cigarette sales account for half of the income generated at his Gorge Road convenience store. He says the B.C. government's new anti-smoking legislation, which includes banning all in-store promotion of cigarettes and smoking-related products, will likely hurt his profits. "To cover the whole [display], that would be hard for us. I'm losing money," he says. Advertising tobacco products or even displaying them openly in any business frequented by children will be banned under sweeping new B.C. anti-smoking legislation introduced yesterday. As it promised last fall, the Liberal government introduced an amendment to the Tobacco Sales Act that will prohibit smoking in all indoor public spaces by 2008. But Health Minister George Abbott added another twist: Making in-store promotion of cigarettes and even outdoor tobacco signs illegal once regulations are introduced "in the months ahead." Smoking-related products such as lighters and even hats emblazoned with tobacco brand names will have to be hidden from sight. All tobacco ads, countertop displays and self-serve areas in any store accessible to minors will be prohibited. "I think there is a growing understanding of just how dangerous tobacco consumption is and how important it is that our kids not take up the habit," Abbott said. British Columbians will have to butt out in all public indoor spaces by next year and tobacco use in B.C. schools or on school grounds will be disallowed by September. The amendment will also ban tobacco sales in all public hospitals, health facilities, universities and colleges, sports and recreation facilities and provincial buildings, including the B.C. legislature. The changes aren't as big in the Capital Regional District which initiated the first smoking ban on indoor public and work spaces in 1999. But the new amendment extends that to ban smoking in "public doorways, near public doors, windows and air intakes to protect indoor air quality." Dr. Richard Stanwick, chief medical officer for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, was thrilled with that aspect of the bill. "It's going to provide a level of protection and it will move B.C. right into the mainstream in terms of tobacco control as a province," he said. Specifics of just how far away a smoker must be from a doorway or air intake will be provided in the coming regulations, as will rules for patios, Abbott said. He added that smoking in places such as bus shelters or near patients on hospital grounds will not be permitted. Stanwick said he will still push for an amendment to a CRD bylaw to ban smoking on all patios. But he said the prohibition of smoking near doors and windows may eliminate many of these facilities anyway. The Canadian Cancer Society was pleased with the changes but still wants to see a ban of the sale of tobacco in pharmacies, something already in place in eight other provinces or territories. It also wants to see increased taxation on cigarettes and the elimination of smoking patios. "We are delighted," said Barbara Kaminsky, CEO of the society's B.C. and Yukon division. Less pleased with the announcement were retailers like Gurmeet Singh Purewal who said the new advertising rules will cost him a lot of money. "I never sell to under-19s because I don't want a fine. To cover the whole [display], that would be hard for us. I'm losing money." Cigarette sales account for half the income of his convenience store, he said. Young people don't smoke cigarettes anyway, he said. "They buy lighters so they can smoke marijuana." Benjamin McDougall, a smoker for 20 years, thinks the legislation that bans smoking at outdoor areas like bus stops is a good thing. "It might be good because it's a place where people congregate together," said McDougall as he smoked at a Douglas Street bus stop yesterday. But Tamara Codner is defiant, saying that she feels free to light up at bus stops. "If I'm in a public place, I make sure that I don't interfere with anybody else. If it bothers them, they can tell me and I can move away." -- With files from Sandra McCulloch http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story
B.C. government cracks down on smoking in public Miro Cernetig Vancouver Sun Wednesday, March 07, 2007 CREDIT: Ian Smith, Vancouver Sun MAKING IT A LITTLE LESS CONVENIENT TO SMOKE: New rules for public smoking and cigarette sales will require shops like John Luu's Blue Angel convenience store on West Pender to change their displays. VICTORIA - The days of smokers huddling around the doorways of public places are numbered after the provincial government announced Tuesday it will ban lighting up in public places or near the entrances to such places by 2008. The new regulations, which the Canadian Cancer Society has been demanding for years, will also ban smoking in school yards by September. The government will also place further restrictions on tobacco advertising in stores, to help prevent children falling into the habit. Reversing the government's earlier view that such a smoking ban would be hazardous to the province's hospitality industry, Health Minister George Abbott said that by early 2008, no-smoking buffer zones will be established around windows, entrances and air intakes to public places. The goal is to limit second-hand smoke, which the government estimates kills about 140 British Columbians annually. The government, which in 2001 rejected a proposal by the Workers Compensation Board for a similar crackdown, says it will consult the public over the next few months to determine how far smokers will need to stand away from entrances. But Abbott noted a three-metre buffer zone is required in some provinces. "We're delighted," said Barbara Kaminsky, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society's B.C. and Yukon division. "I wouldn't say these are the toughest regulations in Canada but it certainly allows us to catch up with the other provinces." New Democrats criticized the government for not banning the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies, as other provinces have, or banning smoking on the patios of bars and restaurants. "It's a mid-range effort," said NDP health critic Adrian Dix. "Other provinces have done better." Smokers, 14 per cent of B.C.'s population, aren't likely to be happy, given the wet winters. The regulations will ban workplace smoking rooms. But they get little sympathy from the Canadian Cancer Society or the government, which estimates smoking kills 6,000 British Columbians a year and sucks $2.3 billion out of the economy. "Where are the smokers going to go?" asked Kaminsky. "There's still the outdoors. Their homes. Their cars." Abbott, a non-smoker, agrees smokers will still be able to use tobacco on sidewalks and on patios in bars and restaurants, providing they aren't around doors or windows. But, he added, there are limits to smokers' rights. "In society, these things are a balancing act," he said. "You don't want to have those who choose to smoke imposing the health consequences of their choice on others." The government will also outlaw the display of tobacco products in any retail space accessible to anyone under 19. It will ban tobacco ads from store ceilings or countertops and will ban tobacco-related ads anywhere outdoors. The rules will also end smoking on school property. "Schools need to be healthy and safe places for students and staff," said Education Minister Shirley Bond. "By banning smoking on all school property, the province is teaching our young people about the dangers of tobacco use and encouraging them to make healthy choices that will last them a lifetime." Perhaps the only smokers who won't be taking Tuesday's crackdown too hard are those at the B.C. Automobile Association. When the organization made its building smoke-free in 1992, it found some employees headed to the sidewalk and into a nearby bus shelter when it rained. Bus drivers and passengers weren't amused. "When it was raining they went to the bus stop," said Terry Switzer, who manages the building. "The drivers would think there would be half a dozen people waiting to get on the bus and it was just our people smoking. So we built them a 120-square-foot cedar shack. It's pretty nice and out of the way and you can't see anybody inside, except for the smoke that's billowing out of the top." The government said that "smoking shack" may be permissible because it is outside the BCAA building. mcernetig@png.canwest.com TARGETING TOBACCO USE AND SALES Amendments to B.C.'s Tobacco Sales Act will ban smoking in: - All indoor public spaces, including restaurants, pubs, private clubs, offices, malls, conference centres, arenas, community halls, government buildings and schools. - In public doorways, and "near" the doors, windows and air intakes of any building accessible by the public. - Tobacco sales will be barred in public hospital and health facilities, universities and colleges, public athletic and recreational facilities and provincial buildings. - The display of tobacco and related products will be banned in stores accessible to anyone under age 19. Ran with fact box "Targeting Tobacco Use and Sales", whichhas been appended to the end of the story. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story
B.C. declares all-out war on tobacco -BC Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Ian Bailey, with files by David Carrigg and Andy Ivens CanWest News Service Health minister 'would like to see smoking rates around zero' Tough anti-smoking legislation introduced yesterday is aimed at making tobacco products invisible in B.C. stores by next Jan. 1 and available only by request. The new law will also ban smoking in all indoor public places and on school grounds. "People won't see the tobacco products, nor will they see any advertising attempting to induce them to purchase those tobacco products," said Health Minister George Abbott. "There will be limited, if any, visibility of tobacco products in any retail outlet. 'Invisible' would be our objective." Premier Gordon Campbell announced the plan last November and Abbott talked in detail yesterday about how it will work. The ban on the display of tobacco products will also cover lighters, caps with tobacco brands, ads, self-serve displays and outdoor signs. The tactic is part of a sweeping plan to counter the use of tobacco, blamed for $2.3-billion a year in health-care costs and the deaths of 6,000 British Columbians each year. B.C. is already suing several tobacco companies, seeking financial compensation for health-care costs. About 14% of British Columbians smoke. "I would like to see smoking rates around zero," said Abbott, a smoker in his student days. "That's a longer-term project." The government wants the tobacco ban in schools and on school grounds in place by September. The ban on smoking in all indoor public spaces, as well as near public doorways, air intakes and windows, will be introduced next year, along with a ban on tobacco sales at public hospitals and health facilities, public universities and colleges, public recreational facilities and provincial buildings. Abbott promised consultation on regulations for where smoking can occur, but added: "There won't be any backing down from this." Penalties for violating the retail controls on tobacco will be drafted soon, he said. The NDP supports the legislation. "It's a step in the right direction," said health critic Adrian Dix. The move has sparked concerns from restaurant and bar operators, especially those who spent tens of thousands of dollars to construct ventilated smoking rooms to meet previous smoking regulations. "A lot of members have invested in smoking rooms in good faith," said Kurt Pyrch, a hotel operator in the Cowichan Valley and spokesman for the Alliance of Beverage Licensees of B.C. "Now they can't have them. A lot of them are very upset." Pyrch spent $150,000 on a smoking room he opened in 2000 that will soon be obsolete. "I am not angry," he said. "I got my value out of it." Zahoor Yunus, operator of the Tanoli Convenience Store at Cordova and Carrall streets in Vancouver, said he has no space for cigarettes under the counter. The wall behind the counter is covered with cigarette displays. Yunus said it is unlikely the new rules will affect sales. "Look at these pictures," Yunus said, referring to the image of a diseased lung on a cigarette pack. "If you're smoking, you're smoking." Kayla Christopher, enjoying a puff with a friend outside a Davie Street cafe, said: "I think it is obnoxious for non-smokers to be around this sort of smoking. I don't think it is fair, really. "But outside, it's tricky," she added. With "tonnes of noxious gases" from vehicles, "I think they have to give us some place," she said. Rob Cunningham of the Canadian Cancer Society said the law will reduce smoking and protect people from second-hand smoke. "It's a huge day for public health in British Columbia," he said. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.
Thank you for not smoking -BC Published: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Denise Ryan, Vancouver Sun Many smokers are preparing for another round of being told where they can'tlight up -- and realize they're in a losing battle with legislators The argument Dina Del Bucchia, a 28-year-old Vancouver bookseller, has with legislators who want to ban smoking in all public places is not about rights and freedoms. "It's about pleasure," said Del Bucchia. Del Bucchia, an "on and off" smoker, said in an interview that contrary to West Coast stereotypes, she doesn't "wear Lululemon, or buy organic veggies" and she enjoys having a cigarette from time to time. She finds the proposed amendments "distressing." Even if smoking on restaurant patios -- at least at tables close to doors, windows and air intakes -- is curtailed, it's not going to make her give up her guilty pleasure. "I don't want to blow smoke on people, but I do want to sit on a patio, have a delightful drink and a smoke and wear big sunglasses on a sunny day. For me, smoking is about enjoyment. This is going to infringe on my fun." "We'll all commit suicide," said Lena Carlsson dryly, as she lounged next to an air intake on the unofficial outdoor smoking lounge of Simon Fraser University's Harbour Centre campus downtown. Carlsson, who was taking advantage of a break to smoke a cigarette and read a book, is typical of Vancouver's already beleaguered smokers -- not enraged, and not surprised by new amendments to the Tobacco Sales Act. Asked how the new rules will affect her, or whether it might prompt her to quit the habit, she replied with a sigh, "In order to quit, you have to have the desire to stop smoking." This time next year, if Carlsson is still smoking, she will have to do it far enough away from the building that the smoke her cigarette generates is far, far away from any public doorway, window or air intake. That may be a relief for non-smokers who have had to get used to passing through a cloud of second-hand smoke when they enter a building or cross a restaurant patio. But it won't stop Carlsson from smoking. "I think it's ridiculous," she said. "I'll just go out on the sidewalk. I've had to got out in minus 25-degree weather in Alberta." Her resolve, like that of many smokers, has less to do with any moral or political position, and everything to do with the nature of smoking itself -- it's addictive. "What options does that leave us? They'll have to open up government-funded clinics to help smokers quit," said William Trudel, a student having a quick cigarette break on the SFU property. "Or at least some kind of place we can go to smoke like the safe sites for drug addicts." Like Carlsson, Trudel won't be rushing to butt out. "I can't see them enforcing it," he said as he tossed his cigarette to the ground and crushed it. "The building where I work won't let me smoke outside our doorway so I come down here," said Tony Barmachi as he huddled in the service doorway of Malone's bar and grill at Seymour and Pender. "I've been smoking for a long time. It's not a hobby. I'm addicted." For Barmachi, the government is interfering too much while not doing enough to help smokers either change their habit or find acceptable refuges in which to smoke. "The government is making money off my cigarettes. If you believe it's harming people, then don't try to make a profit off it. Give us a place to go. I'll go there." Winston Landin, proprietor of Studio Six-Thirteen Hair Design on Seymour, had a different take. "I've got to quit smoking anyway. It's one more incentive." He shrugged as he pulled on a smoke. "If you want to smoke, you'll always find a way." When smoking rooms disappear from local watering holes in 2008, Landon will miss some of the camaraderie smokers share. "The smoking room is always the most social place in a pub. It's usually a small room, you have to sit close together, it's the busiest and most fun place to be." "My business will do very badly," said Blue Angel convenience store proprietor John Luu. Luu estimates the majority of his Pender Street clients are smokers who come in for a pack and pick up other things along the way -- a lottery ticket, a phone card, a package of chips. Faced with the prospect of regulations eliminating outdoor tobacco signs, countertop displays and even the display of tobacco products,Luu expressed frustration with legislators. "And they still want to tax us? It's like you give them a massage and they hit you. Whack." Del Bucchia, like most smokers, is sympathetic to non-smokers who want to stay healthy. "Everybody knows it's not healthy and that we want to protect service workers. Of course. "But the point, for me, is pleasure. I get pleasure from it. I don't mind smoking in alleyways. I'll just go further to do it now." dryan@png.canwest.com http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/
Province hopes out of sight will mean out of mind forteen smokers -BC POSTED ON 07/03/07 PATRICK BRETHOUR With a report from Canadian Press VANCOUVER -- Cigarettes will be out of sight and, the province hopes, out of mind for would-be teen smokers under new restrictions that ban displays of tobacco products in any store that opens its doors to minors. Following the lead of several other provinces, British Columbia is prohibiting any display of cigarette packaging in most retailers, including so-called power walls -- massive retail displays of cigarette packages -- that tobacco-industry critics say are a thinly veiled form of advertising. Under the restrictions announced yesterday, any display of tobacco products is banned in places that are open to young people age 18 and younger, including lighters and caps with tobacco-brand logos. The province is also specifically banning outdoor tobacco signs and several types of indoor advertising. It is the latest manifestation of a tougher take on tobaccoby the B.C. government. Last month, the province argued in a brief to the Supreme Court of Canada that tobacco companies that lure smokers with advertising do "violence" to tobacco addicts -- the equivalent of preacher Jim Jones inducing his followers to commit mass suicide by drinking a cyanide-laced beverage. Last November, Premier Gordon Campbell said he planned to ban all indoor smoking -- a dramatic reversal for a government that had previously loosened smoking restrictions. Yesterday, the government confirmed those plans, saying it will: ban smoking in all indoor public places, beginning next year; prohibit all tobacco use on school grounds as of September; limit smoking near public doorways, windows and air intakes; and bar the sale of tobacco products in public hospitals and other health facilities, universities and colleges, public athletic and recreational buildings. Anti-tobacco groups applauded the tighter restrictions, saying B.C. is catching up with many other parts of the country. Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut are in the process of putting in place restrictions that bar the display of tobacco products in all retail outlets, while Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have slightly looser rules that, like B.C., prohibit such displays in stores accessible to minors. The head of the Canadian Cancer Society in B.C. and Yukon said she particularly welcomed the ban on power walls. "There's a temptation staring at you," Barbara Kaminsky said. However, the province is not banning the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. And it is not banning smoking on the patios of bars, meaning the current patchwork of municipal regulations on patio smoking will persist. Ms. Kaminsky said she hopes the province moves on both those fronts. NDP health critic Adrian Dix said the opposition would like to see the government change the bill to include outlawing pharmacy sales. Karen Bodirsky, spokeswoman for Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc., said the restrictions create a "risky situation" for retailers, since they will have to take their eyes off customers to fetch cigarettes from storage areas. That means the province's thousands of retail workers will then be more at risk for theft or violence, she said. The new B.C. restrictions also take away the rights of consumers to make an informed purchase, Ms. Bodirsky added. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070307
Ban on tobacco ads will curb demand, marketing prof says -BC Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Glenn Bohn Vancouver Sun A University of B.C. professor who has studied tobacco marketing for 20 years says new provincial restrictions on the promotion and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products are a critically important way to curb demand. Rick Pollay, a professor of marketing in the Sauder School of Business at UBC, said tobacco companies have found many creative ways to promote their products in stores in the wake of government bans on direct advertising. He cited "point-of-sale displays" such as price signs, clocks and coin change containers that include the colours or logos of tobacco brands. "Retail merchandising can be a very intense form of advertising -- one that's encountered by adolescents who drop in to convenience stores for an after-school soft drink or candy bar," Pollay said during an interview Tuesday. "It has the effect of normalizing tobacco because kids see this stuff frequently, every time they go in and out of stores." In 2001, Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to ban the display of cigarettes in stores that children can enter. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Nunavut then followed suit. B.C. Tobacco Sales Act amendments promised Tuesday would allow for regulations that ban "the display of tobacco products in all places where tobacco is sold that are accessible to youth under 19, including products like lighters and caps with tobacco brands on them." Victoria also plans to ban "ads that hang from the ceiling, countertop displays, self-serve displays and outdoor tobacco signs." Pollay, who has testified at many tobacco-related trials, recently did work for the governments of Great Britain and Ireland, which have passed similar restrictions on tobacco marketing that were challenged in court by tobacco companies. "In both places, the constitutional right of the government to regulate this was upheld," he said. In Ireland, cigarette dispensing machines in stores are literally going under the counter. Customers won't see any cigarette packs or cartons on display until they say they want to buy cigarettes. "You ask for a pack, the clerk pushes a button and into the clerk's hand pops the appropriate pack," Pollay said. "There's nothing to be seen by the customer." Lindsay Meredith, a professor of marketing in the business faculty at Simon Fraser University, said further restrictions on the display of tobacco products in places where tobacco is sold to youth may not affect hard-core smokers. But he said they will likely curtail tobacco use by beginning smokers, because brand packaging helps to trigger tobacco sales. "You want to get the people on the introductory edge and remove all visual cues," Meredith said. "That's where you want to break the linkage, before they get hopelessly hooked on nicotine. You're knocking down the linkage for desire for the product." Other promised changes to the B.C. Tobacco Act include amendments to ban tobacco sales in schools, public universities and colleges, public athletic and recreational facilities and provincial hospital and health facilities. The head of the student union that represents more than 42,000 students at the University of B.C. said he supports that public health initiative. "Our student population here is not full of a lot of heavy smokers, so I don't think you'll find a lot of outrage here," said Jeff Friedrich, president of the Alma Mater Society at UBC. Friedrich said a ban on tobacco sales on campus will affect some concessions or small stores that sell cigarettes -- including a kiosk in the Student Union Building. Freidrich said the society made a decision last year to phase out the selling of cigarettes in the society-run pub and only has a small inventory of cigarettes left. "Our policy is pretty in line with where the province is heading," he said. Tara Black, associate director of health promotion and prevention at Simon Fraser University, says the proposed ban on tobacco sales on campus is a "positive initiative. "It's another step towards creating a healthy community for our students," Black said. gbohn@png.canwest.com http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/
Researchers looked for pot smoker Published: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Re: More young people smoke pot than tobacco, survey finds, March 6 A Vancouver Coastal Health survey has found that most youth in Vancouver start smoking marijuana before their 15th birthday. The reader is led to believe that these statistics reflect the entire population of young people in Vancouver. How shocking! Oh, but then we discover that the researchers sought out their subjects in shopping malls, coffee shops and at beaches and parks. Hmm. What if the researchers had sought out their subjects on soccer fields, in libraries, in music classes, or in gyms? The results would have been entirely different, I'm sure. I hope that young people reading these headlines don't feel they're missing out on something. Shelley Hrdlitschka North Vancouver http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story
Kind of a drag -BC Mar 07 2007 By Richard Rolke The provincial government is cracking down further on smoking, but all it really does is reveal the hypocrisy of the issue. On Tuesday, Health Minister George Abbott announced that the Tobacco Sales Act is being amended to limit the promotion and sale of tobacco productsand ban smoking in all indoor public places. “Our government continues to act to address preventable diseases and deaths and the steps taken today will help build a healthier future for the people of our province,” said Abbott. As a lifelong non-smoker, I support any measure that discourages people from lighting up. But if government was truly interested in saving lives, it wouldn’t just prohibit tobacco advertising that hangs from ceilings because that won’t do anything. Want people to stop? Cut off the source. Make tobacco products illegal. Obviously smokers will claim their personal rights are under attack and they will seek blackmarket sources. But I find it extremely hypocritical of the provincial and federal governments to spend multi-millions of dollars fighting the evils of tobacco when those same jurisdictions are the ones who give it legal authority. And when Abbott talks about Victoria’s commitment to fight cigarette use, he points out that tobacco-related illness costs B.C.’s economy $2.3 billion a year. But he neglects to reveal that the government’s financial coffers are also fattened by the sale of cancer sticks. According to Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada, B.C. accumulated $690 million in tax revenue from tobacco sales in 2005/06. For all senior levels of government in Canada, it was a staggering $7 billion. Government could completely back away from its relationship with tobacco and take the moral high-ground. But that won’t happen because of the financial implications. Like a three-pack-a-day smoker, government is addicted to the money. I don’t want to be too hard on the province, though, because it has been proactive in assisting people to butt out. Funding goes towards stop-smoking programs such as QuitNow.ca which provides an array of resources and access to experts. But there is one critical area missing from the strategy and that is dollars and cents. For most of us, a financial incentive is often the only way to get us to do something. And from talking to smoking friends of mine, quitting isn’t cheap when you consider the cost of nicotine patches and gum. If government is truly interested in getting people to stop, why wouldn’t it provide tax credits to purchase the appropriate products or to get counselling? And the precedent has already been established. In January, Victoria designated $1.2 million to help people on income assistance access cessation items. That’s good news for those on welfare, but that carrot could also be dangled in front of other British Columbians. Whether it’s the $690 million in tobacco-related tax revenue or the $2.3 million that smoking costs the economy, the price tag of gum and patches is a drop in the bucket. In the end, restricting tobacco advertising and keeping people from lighting up in front of schools and hospitals is positive. But I’m still still left thinking government is being extremely hypocritical and it has smoke coming out of both sides of its mouth. http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/portals-code/list.cgi
Welcome steps on smoking -BC Published: Thursday, March 08, 2007 Times Colonist Yes, it's legal to smoke tobacco. But that doesn't mean people should be able to smoke whenever and wherever they want. Smoking causes health problems.It causes death. It creates a massive burden on the health care system. So it's only sensible for the provincial government to place further limits on the sale and use of tobacco products. Limits are placed on all sorts of things that are legal, because we recognize the harm that can result if we don't set limits. We can drive, but we face speed limits, for example. The government should have moved sooner on the smoking issue, but felt it prudent to take some time to reflect on what it should do. Health Minister George Abbott announced several new anti-smoking measures, including a complete ban on smoking in indoor public areas and a move to shift smokers away from doorways, windows and air intakes. Stores will eventually be barred from displaying smoking products or promotional material where children might see them. Greater Victoria has been a leader in anti-smoking efforts, banning indoor smoking in public areas since 1999, so the impact here will be less than elsewhere in B.C. But the doorway and advertising provisions will be welcome additions to the anti-smoking effort. The naysayers have worried about the economic impact of smoking bans -- how we'll drive away cigar-puffing tourists or empty bars and restaurants. That economic harm pales when compared with the high costs of smoking, measured in the human toll and in dollars. The Canadian Cancer Society blames smoking for 6,000 deaths annually in British Columbia. Ailments related to smoking cost the health system more than $2 billion a year. Smoking is not an issue of individual freedom. Smokers have a huge impact on the people around them -- both on their health and their pocketbooks. http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story
Give PCI students a place to smoke, neighbour requests -MB BY ANGELA BROWN The Daily Graphic Thursday March 08, 2007 A Portage la Prairie resident is fuming over high school students who grab a puff after class and drop their butts on her property. Joani Barnett recently delivered a letter to Portage Collegiate Institute administration outlining her concerns. She said PCI students know they are not allowed to smoke on school property, so they come into the neighbourhood and smoke there instead, leaving cigarette butts on area streets. The butts are starting to building up. Barnett regrets seeing students harm their health by smoking, but believes it’s time for the school division to set up a place where they can smoke rather than leave them to discard their butts around the neighbourhood. “When you are at a workplace, there is a designated area for (smokers), so ... there should be a designated (area for students also),” she said yesterday. Barnett added staff and parents who see teens smoking should instruct them to clean up the butts instead of leaving a mess for neighbouring residents. Barnett plans to continue her talks with the school staff until there is a resolution to the problem. “I want to work with the school,” she said. PCI principal Jim Pehura said staff frequently monitor the area to ensure students are not smoking outside on school property and in the vicinity. “If we have a student across the street and we can see them from the school,we will suspend them ...,” he said. Pehura conceded smoking is a problem for some students at the school and saidthere are many suspensions as a result. “Some just don’t get it,” he said. “We’ve had a number of suspensions .… We deal with it on a day-by-day basis. Of course, with the weather warming up, it’s certainly going to be more of a problem than it has been in the winter.” However, Pehura said, a designated smoking section would be contrary to PCI’s health policies. “What does it say about a school that delivers a health curriculum andwarns about the dangers of smoking in health classes and then says: ‘OK,now go outside and have your cigarette on school property’ ?” Pehura asked. Portage School Division superintendent Larry Taylor said the division is notable to create a designated area for smokers outside the school. “The board passed a policy about 12 years ago banning smoking of any typeon school property or in schools,” he said. “So, for us to revertback to designating an area would be, in effect, condoning smoking and all ofthe health issues that are associated with that. The board isn’t just goingto do anything like that at all.” Taylor said the neighbour who made the complaint to the school should keep incontact with school administration whenever litter becomes a problem and arrangementswill be made to clean it up. Pehura noted there are plans to have students spend a few days in April cleaningup the neighbourhood as a community project and hopes that will help remove someof the litter. “We know there is a lot of litter,” he said. “We have 1,100people that come and go and not everybody puts away their garbage. The snow hascovered that and we’re going to do our best to help spruce things up, andwe’re hoping the students in turn will take a little more pride in theirschool and their neighbourhood and pick up after themselves.” http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=33&x=story&xid=292670
As a non-smoker, I say this smoking ban goes too far, and not far enough -BC Lydia Lovric, The Province Published: Friday, March 09, 2007 The B.C. government is declaring war against tobacco, but the legislation proposed by the Campbell contingent is flawed because it goes too far. It also doesn't go far enough. Health Minister George Abbott, a reformed smoker, would "like to see smoking rates around zero," but admits that that's a longer-term project. "We are acting on government's commitment to fight tobacco use and reduce the damage of second-hand smoke in society," affirms Abbott. The Tobacco Sales Act will be amended to ban smoking in all indoor public spaces beginning next year. It is ridiculous to ban cigarettes -- a legal product -- from all restaurants, pubs and private clubs. And I say this as a non-smoker who detests cigarette smoking. While it would be wonderful to have some smoke-free restaurants and pubs, is there anything wrong with allowing a few restaurants to remain available to smokers? Non-smokers can avoid such places, and workers who object to second-hand smoking can find a job at a non-smoking establishment. It's also the only fair solution to business owners, especially those who have invested tens of thousands of dollars in ventilated rooms. Such a compromise would cater to both smokers and non-smokers, without jeopardizing the livelihood of small-business owners. The proposed legislation is also extremely short-sighted because it fails to address the true victims of second-hand smoke: children. Frankly, I don't care if adults want to expose themselves to the dangers of smoking. Everyone has a vice. Some people drink. Some overeat. Some over-exercise. Some people vote Liberal. But there is no excuse for people who smoke in the presence of children. The sight of a parent or grandparent smoking in a car with kids in the back should make even an amoeba cringe. We need legislation to protect kids from parents and relatives who don't love them enough to refrain from smoking in the home. If the government truly gives a damn about kids, adults would be forced to smoke outside, on the balcony or in the garage. And if the government truly wants to discourage kids from this filthy habit, it would make it mandatory for middle and high-school students to visit hospitals or long-term care facilities once a year to see first hand the devastating effects of lung cancer and emphysema. Kids pick up smoking because of peer pressure, curiosity, boredom or rebellion. Tobacco displays are rarely (if ever) cited as the reason someone decides to try cigarettes. I suspect the government isn't as altruistic as it would like us to believe. If it really wants to save us from ourselves, it would ban cigarettes outright. And if politicians were completely honest, they would admit that the revenue from tobacco sales is far too addictive to quit cold-turkey. Lydia Lovric is a freelance writer and broadcaster. www.lydialovric.com http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story
Editorial: Time for Council to grow a pair
Matt Frehner, Editor-in-Chief Thursday, 8 March 2007 With all the hullabaloo surrounding Students’ Union Executive elections this week, it’s easy to forget that the SU’s real governing body, Students’ Council, has kept on keepin’ on. And by “keepin’ on” I of course mean charging full-steam ahead without any regard for fiscal responsibility or rational decision-making. In a year where the Powerplant will likely post over $200 000 in losses, drastic action needs to be taken to pull Council’s lemmings off course before they plunge into the fiery abyss of insolvency. With this in mind, the Budget and Finance Committee outlined a number of cost-cutting proposals, including eliminating councillor pay, resuming tobacco sales and cutting ECOS’ budget. Coincidentally enough, each measure would result in a $30 000 boon for the SU, give or take a few bucks—not exactly chump change. But after a lengthy debate, Council felt it was inadvisable to make any of the cuts suggested, and so sent BFC back to the drawing board—an action that committee chair Theresa Chapman said may lead to a fee increase for students. Perhaps the budget proposals were unacceptable—and true, it wouldn’t look very good to back out on the smoking ban students voted in favour of last year—but until there’s a concrete plan in place, flat-out rejecting any proposals that might stem the bleeding is entirely irresponsible. Never mind the fact that everyone knew this year’s budget was unsustainable: last year’s vice-president (operations and finance) came flat out and said it. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the SU could have seen the budget was unrealistic, especially if you look at the ’Plant, which was slated to turn a profit this year despite a clear history of declining sales and patronage. Put down the crack pipe, guys. Nobody wants to be on the Council that cut services or compromised its ethics in the face of practical necessity, but nonetheless, being the Council that shuffled deck chairs on the Titanic doesn’t look so hot, either. When faced with a budget crunch, Grade 6 math can show that there are but two options: raise income, or reduce expenditures. For the SU, income can be raised through either business profits or students fees—unfortunately, attempts at the former have thus far only driven the SU further into the red. But still, Council seems unwilling to look at the prospect of cutting expenditures, no matter how superfluous they may be. There’s a slight reek of impropriety (or maybe that’s horse shit?) when Council mulls over a student fee increase rather than eliminating the already questionable councillor pay scheme. Don’t get me wrong: I’m in favour of providing incentive for hard-working councillors when cash flow permits. I’m also not opposed to fee hikes, if necessary to keep afloat the services that students value. What I can’t abide is a Council that continually, year after year, pisses away hundreds of thousands of dollars on a business that students don’t care about. If the ’Plant attracted even a slightly acceptable client base, perhaps its continuing operation as a money-sucking service could be justified. As it stands, however, students should be very worried about the seemingly careless way in which Council handles their money. Fortunately for them, we go to the University of Alberta, so most likely no one will notice. http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/editorial-time-for-council-to-grow-a-pair
Posted at 11:57 pm by looped_ca
Friday, October 21, 2005
Who’s standing up for tobacco farmers? -ON
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Linda Duguay - Ont. Monday October 17, 2005
Woodstock is in Oxford County, one of the few counties that grows tobacco in Canada. There is a need for this product obviously. There are smokers.
Ignoring the farmers who are caught in the middle of the debate shows a complete lack of compassion by the newspaper for the families and friends and neighbours being devastated by these events.
The Flue board was forced to accept 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. 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 is still at least 20 per cent 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. There are pesticides and different curing process in foreign tobacco, which may endanger the smokers.
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," Brian Edwards, president of Tobacco Farmers In Crisis, said in April. Since June OCAT (Ontario Coalition Against Tobacco) has asked people to "contact MPPs in your province/riding to ask that funding be restored to Health Canada’s tobacco control program prior to funding being given to tobacco farmers."
It’s obvious that OCAT cares more about its continued government funding than reasonable legislation and supportive funding to productive, taxpaying farmers and citizens.
It’s also obvious 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 its highly paid executives is obviously more important to them, than providing support for the farmers in your area who are being forced into bankruptcy.
I agree with Nancy Daigneault of mychoice. We do need honest and factual information from both sides of the issue.
The president of Action on Smoking and Health said in January that banning smoking in workplaces doesn’t hurt businesses. "Five provinces and territories have already brought in universal smoking bans,’’ he said. "The only industry that is affected by smoking bans is the tobacco industry.’’
All of the evidence from areas already subject to smoking bans proves that the actual damage to the economy is widespread and negatively effects the jobs of people in many different walks of life.
The damage to farmers is just the tip of the iceberg; we should all worry about.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2083
**http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=190348
McGuinty Government Establishes Smoke-Free Ontario Campaign Committee -ON
Health Care Experts And Community Leaders To Champion A Smoke-Free Ontario
TORONTO, Oct. 17 /CNW/ - Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson today announced a new committee that will help the McGuinty government carry out its Smoke-Free Ontario campaign.
"Our Smoke-Free Ontario campaign is protecting people from second-hand smoke, preventing young people from starting and giving people the tools they need to quit," Watson said. "We've put together a group of health care experts and community leaders to help us move toward a smoke-free province."
The goal of the campaign is to reduce tobacco consumption by 20 per cent within two years by combining strong provincial legislation with community programs in schools, workplaces and other settings. The McGuinty government is investing $50 million in the Smoke-Free Ontario campaign to prevent premature death and many chronic diseases associated with smoking.
The 15-member committee, chaired by Minister Watson, will provide advice to the government as it:
- Develops regulations for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act
- Prepares for enforcement of the new act on May 31, 2006
- Rolls out educational programs this fall, aimed particularly at young people
- Creates a provincial smoking cessation system
- Evaluates the results of the campaign.
The Ministry of Health Promotion was established in June 2005 to promote healthy, active living in Ontario. It is responsible for improving and delivering programs that contribute to healthy living and wellness in this province. Key priority areas include Ontario's anti-smoking strategy, nutrition, physical activity, injury prevention and mental health and addictions.
www.healthyontario.com www.mhp.gov.on.ca.
Backgrounder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The new Smoke-Free Ontario Campaign Committee will provide expert advice to help Ontario reduce tobacco consumption by 20 per cent by 2007. Jim Watson, the Minister of Health Promotion, chairs the Committee.
John Beaucage (North Bay)
John Beaucage was formerly Chief of the Wasauksing First Nation near Parry Sound and is presently Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief and President of the Union of Ontario Indians. He is a strong advocate of reducing the non-ceremonial use of tobacco products.
Dr. Ted Boadway (Toronto)
Dr. Ted Boadway, executive director of health policy for the Ontario Medical Association, received the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal in 2003 for exemplary work in tobacco control. He has led the OMA fight against tobacco.
Peter Goodhand (Toronto)
As CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society's Ontario Division, Mr. Goodhand leads an organization that has one of the longest-standing tobacco-control commitments in the province.
Steve Goren (Toronto)
Steve Goren, past president of the Ontario Dental Association has played a significant role in the initiation of the Clinical Tobacco Intervention
program which offers continuing education to dentists, physicians and pharmacists to help their patients quit smoking.
Marc Kealey (Toronto)
Marc Kealey is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and a strong supporter of the Clinical Tobacco Intervention program.
Michael Perley (Toronto)
Michael Perley, executive director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco has been a leader in tobacco control for more than a decade. He joined OCAT in 1993 as it supported the passage of tobacco control acts in Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia.
Dr. Andrew Pipe (Ottawa)
Dr. Andrew Pipe is head of the Division of Prevention and Rehabilitation at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and Founding Chair of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. Dr. Pipe is a researcher in smoking cessation, a strong advocate for tobacco control policies and a leader in the campaign to end tobacco sponsorship of amateur sport.
Manu Malkani (Toronto)
As president and CEO of the Ontario Lung Association, Manu Malkani has been instrumental in developing public education campaigns that warn young people about the dangers of smoking.
Isabelle Michel (Sudbury)
Isabelle Michel, manager of professional practice and development at the Sudbury & District Health Unit has experience and understanding of the role of public health in addressing tobacco control.
Merle Nicholds (Ottawa)
Merle Nicholds, former mayor of Kanata, is an active community volunteer for asthma and cancer awareness campaigns. Nicholds also has a background in public health nursing.
Jenny Rajaballey (Cambridge)
Jenny Rajaballey is the integrated vice-president of Mental Health and Community Services at Cambridge Memorial Hospital and Grand River Hospital in Kitchener. She brings expertise in tobacco control compliance and implementation to the committee.
Rocco Rossi (Toronto)
Rocco Rossi, CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, is a key player in the fight against tobacco use. He has been a leading advocate against tobacco advertising aimed at young people.
Dr. Terry Sullivan (Toronto)
Dr. Terry Sullivan, president and CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, is a leader in developing tobacco control policy and has headed up previous government committees dealing with anti-smoking initiatives. In 2003, he chaired the committee that produced the landmark report, Cancer 2020, in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society and public health authorities which laid out targets for cancer prevention.
Michelle Tham (Mississauga)
Michelle Tham, a second-year student at Ryerson University, has been involved in youth tobacco activities since the age of 15. She was part of a group of young people that helped develop the Ministry's STUPID.CA campaign which is aimed at turning youth away from tobacco use.
Carol Timmings (Toronto)
Carol Timmings, director of chronic disease prevention at Toronto Public Health has more than 20 years of experience in developing a broad range of public health promotion programs including a comprehensive tobacco control strategy for the City of Toronto. Timmings served on the advisory board for the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit.
www.healthyontario.com www.mhp.gov.on.ca.
Version française disponible
For further information: Rui Manuel Estevao, Minister's Office, (416) 326-8497; Julie Rosenberg, Communications Branch, (416) 326-4360
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/17/c1955.html
Stuff that in your pipe!
By Anthony Oluwatoyin Monday, October 17, 2005
You probably have it committed to memory by now, and without any effort on your part. I speak of the best piece of gross, crossover propaganda since that porn film classic with that actress who used to be on the Ivory Snow box ads.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
Here’s to butting out -NS
Editorial October 17, 2005
THE Nova Scotia government deserves strong praise for its far-sighted decision to ban smoking in all indoor public spaces by December of 2006.
The legislation to do so, introduced by Health Promotion Minister Rodney MacDonald last week, would ban smoking in bars and restaurants, including sidewalk cafes and patios, private clubs, casinos, legions and in all workplaces. Mr. MacDonald says the smoking ban would be the toughest in the country, making Nova Scotia a national leader in putting legislative muscle behind health promotion rhetoric.
The rationale behind this decision is unassailable. Smoking, both for those doing the puffing and those breathing in their secondhand smoke, is a health care scourge, linked to increased incidence of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and many other ailments. Those who loudly proclaim the government should not impede their “right” to smoke have it backwards; non-smokers have every right to be able to move about in society freely without their health being jeopardized by the actions of smokers. Since all of us pay the costs of treating smoking-related illness, the state certainly has the right, if not the duty, to prohibit that harmful activity in places under its jurisdiction. It’s also worthwhile pointing out that dire predictions of economic calamity due to the current restrictions on smoking have not materialized. Smokers will still have the right to puff away on their own property, but not in public places where points of view other than their own, and clear medical evidence, must be considered.
Some critics say the ban should come more quickly, but that hardly seems fair to those, like restaurants, bars and legions, that will need some time to adjust. The timetable for a total ban, which the government had already indicated was coming, has already been moved forward from the suggested original date of 2008. Others question if such a ban is enforceable. We believe that, while there’ll always be those who bend and break the rules, most people will comply; businesses will certainly hear from patrons about those diehards who ignore the message.
Health promotion officials say that while smoking on school grounds is already prohibited, they’ll be working with school boards to ensure that youth receive the consistent message that taking up smoking is a deadly habit.
Going forward, at least one native leader has questioned the province’s stance that the new law will also apply to First Nations reserves. While there’s obviously the potential for legal disputes over this issue, we urge both sides to work together to tackle what is undeniably a serious health problem, with serious repercussions, everywhere, including reserves.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorial/459420.html
Ruling on tobacco opens Pandora's box
What ever happened to freedom of choice, mutual respect and taking responsibility for your choices and actions?
Where will it end? First, suing tobacco companies for expenses incurred by the health-care system for people who choose to smoke.
This is a legal and taxed product. One would think the taxes received would help to offset the use of the health-care system. How much is the lawsuit going to cost the taxpayers?
What happens to the health-care system when someone decides to drink and damages their liver? Are we going to sue the breweries?
What next? Are we going to sue the makers of televisions and video games because someone needs to use the health-care system due to obesity?
Where will it end, and how much is it going to cost the taxpayer?
Living in a free country should mean you have the freedom to choose and if the choices are unwise ones, suffer the consequences -- but in this country, everyone should have access to the health-care system.
This letter is written by someone who never smoked but believes everyone has the right to choose.
Wilma Douglas London
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
Don't just complain -ON
Deborah Canne-Leon Monday October 17, 2005
Editor:
I would like to take a few moments to talk about Canadians. Hopefully, more than just a few will take the time to read this letter.
Every few days I take the time to read letters and opinions from your readers. It totally astounds me how quickly people get over these little irritants that they write of -- cigarette prices, gas prices, no smoking law and so on.
Well I have just one thing to ask these complainers … why don’t you do something other than just complain? For instance, smoke cheaper cigarettes, cut back, or whatever it takes to hurt the government money pool. Gas prices? Walk, take a bus, ride a bike or carpool, just for a few months, just long enough for the money loss to kick in. No smoking laws? Well, even as a smoker myself, I really don’t mind the inconvenience, but as an adult I do mind being told what to do!
So come on Canadians, we really can do more than just complain.
Deborah Canne-Leon St. Thomas
http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/story.php?id=190446
Pot less of a cancer risk than tobacco, study suggests
By ANDRÉ PICARD PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Page A23
Nicotine in cigarettes appears to boost carcinogenic properties, researchers find
Marijuana smokers are less likely to contract cancer than cigarette smokers, new research suggests.
While cannabis and tobacco smoke are chemically similar, the key difference is that cigarettes contain nicotine, which appears to bolster the cancer-causing properties of tobacco, while cannabis contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the active ingredient in pot), which may actually reduce the carcinogenic properties of some chemicals.
"Current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke," said Robert Melamede, chairman of the department of biology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
The new study, published in today's edition of the medical journal Harm Reduction, is a review and analysis of research that has already been published.
The research has important political implications in the ongoing debate about medical marijuana.
One of the principal reasons public-health officials and medical experts oppose the use of marijuana as a prescription drug is the belief that the risks outweigh the benefits, and the fear that endorsing medical marijuana undermines anti-smoking campaigns.
Marijuana contains about four times the level of tar found in cigarettes, and is believed to place smokers at risk of lung cancer and other cancers related to smoking.
But Dr. Melamede said there is no solid evidence that cannabis smoking increases the risk of lung cancer or other cancers related to tobacco smoking such as breast, colon and rectal cancer.
He said there is evidence from studies done on laboratory rats that the THC in cannabis smoke "exerts a protective effect" against potential carcinogens and evidence that nicotine found in cigarettes activates the growth of tumours.
"While both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly," Dr. Melamede said.
But Roberta Ferrence, director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit and professor of public health at the University of Toronto, expressed grave doubts about the research, likening it to splitting hairs.
"It may be that cannabis is slightly less carcinogenic but tobacco smoke is extremely carcinogenic so that doesn't tell us very much," she said.
Dr. Ferrence said that most carcinogens are a byproduct of combustion, so "anything you burn and inhale is going to be carcinogenic -- including tobacco and cannabis. There is no way, based on this research, that you can say that smoking cannabis is safe."
She also noted that many people who smoke marijuana mix it with tobacco, and that makes the chemical distinctions moot. "From a public-health perspective, smoking is smoking," Dr. Ferrence said.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, dozens of which are known carcinogens.
An estimated 5.1 million Canadians, or 20 per cent of the population 15 and older, report smoking cigarettes regularly, according to the Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey. More men (22 per cent) smoke than women (17 per cent).
By contrast, an estimated three million people, or 12.2 per cent of those 15 or older, reported that they smoked marijuana at least once in the past year, according to Statistics Canada.
Nearly half (47 per cent) of those who had used cannabis in the previous year smoked less than once a month, 10 per cent reported weekly use, and another 10 per cent said they smoked pot daily.
Canada has had a medicinal marijuana program since 2001. Since then, Health Canada has issued about 750 licences for people to smoke marijuana for the treatment of chronic pain and other ailments.
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051018/HSMOKE18/TPHealth/?query=cancer
Question dangers of second-hand smoke
Dr. Asselbergs - Ont. Tuesday October 18, 2005
Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (letter to the editor, Oct. 5)
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Michael Perley believes, like I do, that smoking isn’t necessarily good for one’s health.
However, the debate over SHS (second-hand smoke) or more accurately ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is far from settled.
There have been many studies done on ETS. A vast majority of these studies have found ETS to be an insignificant risk. Most studies assign a relative risk factor, or RR. Anything over 3.0 is considered significant.
Most studies indicate a RR factor of less than 2.0
The landmark study into ETS was carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, through the World Health Organization in 1998.
This study found no evidence of ETS being harmful. Again, it concluded insignificant risk.
The economic impact caused by smoking bans cuts deep.
All these studies and/or their abstracts can be found in libraries or on the Internet.
I suggest each and every citizen in Ontario concerned with this issue to educate themselves.
I would also like to challenge Michael Perley to specify how many people are actually receiving WSIB compensation, due to illnesses caused by ETS.
This sort of statistic is not published by the WSIB.
It is time to allow the hospitality industry to decide for itself as to its smoking policy.
It is known as letting the market forces decide, without interference from lobby groups which have only their self-interest at heart.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=190683
N.S. passes law to sue tobacco firms
Broadcast News Tuesday, October 18, 2005
HALIFAX - A bill that gives Nova Scotia the legal authority to sue big tobacco companies has been approved in principle.
The legislature last night passed second reading of the Conservative government's proposal to recover billions of dollars in smoking-relating health care costs from the industry.
The measure was given speedy passage by all three parties.
Government house leader Ron Russell says he's not surprised by the absence of debate.
He says across the country smokers are creating a drain on the health care budget and MLAs realize that.
New Democrat Howard Epstein says the government shouldn't even bother with legislation and just present the tobacco companies with a bill.
Kevin Deveaux, the NDP house leader, says Premier John Hamm's government let British Columbia do all of the heavy lifting when it fought the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In passing it quickly, Deveaux says the Conservatives now sees dollar signs and the potential of improving the province's bottom line.
The bill will be rubber stamped by a committee and faces one more vote.
http://www.canada.com/maritimes/globaltv/story.html?id=4bb1c6e1-bcc0-4be1-9a18-8a190337fc82
RE: PAT Dube's Oct. 15 letter about smokers not going to bingo anymore because of the smoking bylaw. Pat, have you ever thought that maybe those smokers aren't as addicted to bingo as you are?
Vicki Baird
(Ouch.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/18/1267311.html
Smoke-free, safe psych wards are possible: expert... but alternatives must be available -AB
By ELIZA BARLOW, EDMONTON SUN October 19, 2005
An Alberta psychiatrist who's an expert in tobacco addiction says it's possible to ban smoking in psychiatric facilities without putting staff or patients at risk.
Dr. Charl Els said most evidence shows smoking bans on psych wards don't lead to an increase in violence - as long as patients get nicotine patches, gum, inhalers and, in some cases, smoking cessation drugs like Zyban.
"We do know they can go through it in a very comfortable fashion," said Els, speaking yesterday at a Capital Health lecture on helping patients cope with smoking bans.
Capital Health's ban on smoking on all its property came into effect Oct. 3. But the six smoking rooms remaining in the region - most of them used by psych patients - will be phased out with a target date of April to have them all shut down.
Els said the ban is being done more gradually for psychiatric patients because their physical addiction to smoking is stronger than that in the general population.
About 50% of psychiatric patients are smokers, compared to about 20% of the general Canadian population - and up to 90% of schizophrenia patients are daily smokers, said Els. Nicotine seems to relieve some of the effects of mental illnesses, he said.
Dr. James Talbot, associate medical officer of health for Capital Health, said the priority is to help as many patients as possible kick the habit before the rooms are shut down.
For those who aren't able to quit by then, some psych patients will leave the property to have a smoke like everyone else. Those in lockdown will need some type of escort to take them out for a smoke, said Talbot.
Dennis Anderson, founding chair of the Alberta Alliance on mental illness and mental health, yesterday urged caution in bringing a smoking ban into any psychiatric facility.
Anderson said many mental health patients find that smoking not only calms them down, but gives them something to depend on when they can't depend on anything else.
"There's no doubt that it has a calming effect, and if you take away that effect, you've got to be able to replace it with something."
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2005/10/19/1268933-sun.html
Craving cons get creative since ban -AB
By CARY CASTAGNA, EDMONTON SUN Wed, October 19, 2005
Who needs du Maurier and Players when you can puff on pencil shavings, dry soup mix and banana peels?
That's exactly what inmates at the Edmonton Remand Centre have been doing to skirt the 13-month-old smoking ban, the Sun has learned.
"It's all related to the smoking ban," confirmed Dan MacLennan, president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, which represents remand centre guards and staff.
"It speaks to the fact that the (tobacco) ban must be working."
Since smoking was banned in all provincial prisons last September, creative inmates have been puffing on anything they can get their hands on - no matter how absurd.
The list of bizarre tobacco substitutes also includes orange and apple peels, grass, leaves, tree bark, toast crumbs, pepper and nicotine patches, said one inmate.
Tea bags are no longer available at the remand centre because the leaves were being smoked, said Andy Weiler, spokesman for the Alberta Solicitor General and public security.
Rolling paper isn't hard to come by, as prisoners use newspapers, wrapping from toilet paper rolls and pages ripped from jail-issued Bibles.
Need a light? That's not a problem, either.
Smokers behind bars fashion long slow-burning wicks by tightly twisting and braiding toilet paper.
They then light the wicks with a spark created from sticking staples, paper clips and nails into electrical outlets.
"It's tragic and it speaks to addictions," MacLennan said. "Visually, it speaks to my favourite episodes of The Three Stooges."
The union head said there has been some concern about the fumes from artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches.
At least four guards recently filed health claims after experiencing breathing difficulties, MacLennan said.
Air quality was tested at the remand centre in September. Readings found the air was generally clean and contained only low levels of contaminants, Weiler said, adding the situation is being monitored.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2005/10/19/1268934-sun.html
Appeal tobacco ruling, officials urge Ottawa
By GLORIA GALLOWAY Wednesday, October 19, 2005 Page A12
Health coalition wants top court to hear arguments against corporate sponsorships
OTTAWA -- Public health officials are demanding action as time runs out for the federal government to launch a Supreme Court challenge of a ruling that permits tobacco companies to attach their names to sporting and cultural events.
More than 40 representatives from health organizations across the country -- including 19 medical officers of health -- wrote this week to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, urging them to appeal the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal before a Friday deadline.
"Only such an appeal can provide the clarity and certainty needed to put an end to the tobacco industry's long history of deceptive and predatory marketing," the letter states.
In mid-August, the Quebec court upheld most of the provisions of the Tobacco Act after a challenge by four large tobacco companies, but struck down a prohibition on advertising sponsorships. The court ruled that, while cigarette brand names could not be attached to events like jazz festivals and Grand Prix racing, there is no reason to prevent corporate names being used for that purpose.
"This appears to open the door to a return to lifestyle advertising for tobacco products," the letter states. "For example, Imperial Tobacco could rename itself Cool Tobacco, sponsor the Montréal Jazz Festival and advertise the Cool Tobacco Jazz Festival coast-to-coast, year-round."
Mr. Cotler's office said the choice to appeal is in the hands of Mr. Dosanjh, who has said a Supreme Court action is "most likely." But no decision had been made by late yesterday afternoon.
"The minister's credentials as a champion of tobacco control are a matter of record," said Ken Polk, a spokesman for Mr. Dosanjh. "He has also made it clear that it is from the perspective of maintaining a robust Tobacco Control Act that he will view the decision to appeal. He appreciates the input of those who signed the letter, and he will announce the government's decision before the deadline."
But there is apparently some concern within the Health Ministry that a federal appeal would allow the tobacco industry to appeal as well, effectively reopening all parts of the original ruling, including sections upholding the Tobacco Act.
"Government lawyers tend to be more cautious than they need to be about many things," said Francis Thompson, a policy analyst with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, which is one of the signatories to the letter.
When tobacco companies are allowed to assign their names to sporting and cultural events, "they know, in the long term, the result of that is that people of the right age and the right psychological profile will be attracted to that brand," Ms. Thompson said.
While upholding a prohibition on false and misleading advertising, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a section of the act that prevents tobacco companies from creating "an erroneous impression about the characteristics, health effects or health hazards of the tobacco product or its emissions."
The phrase is repeated in a number of Canadian laws and foreign accords signed by Canada, including the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which commits Canada to ensuring that tobacco packaging does not leave a false impression.
"If they strike it out here, for legal reasons, does that mean that our courts don't consider it enforceable or legal in all of these other areas?" asked prominent Ottawa lawyer David Hill.
Tobacco companies are permitted to conduct limited advertising campaigns in print media. The letter suggests that a Supreme Court appeal could make the argument for a total ban.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has twice ruled unanimously against the tobacco industry, the letter states.
"Canadian views on tobacco have evolved considerably over the last decade; the Supreme Court should have the opportunity to update its jurisprudence accordingly."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051019/TOBACCO19/TPNational/
Smoking ban important because of health issues -ON
Letter Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Bill Hunter, in his letter Put Smoking Ban On Hold, proposes that the provincial government should delay the legislation that will come into effect May 31, 2006.
He wants compromises that provide public protection without putting the economy and jobs into jeopardy.
I do not know where Mr. Hunter has been for the past 10 years.
These issues have been studied and various compromises proposed over and over again. The only right and reasonable answer is a complete ban. The issue, Mr. Hunter, is a health issue, not an economic one. The ban ensures the health of those workers who are and would continue to be exposed to second-hand smoke will be protected.
If Mr. Hunter wants to persist with the economic argument, then he needs to take into account the potential savings in health care costs as fewer people are exposed to second-hand smoke and more people are provided with incentives and support to quit smoking.
GORD SMITH Windsor
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=9ac97112-394f-45e8-b96f-d3b5254fa616
*my sound off :In Ontario they have hidden the fact that there is 250- 350 Million in lost revenues for casinos due to ban. Revealed through Freedom of information request only. What the public requires is a discussion on what the ban really means to the voters. Make the public aware of all the ramifications of the decisions. Allow the public to be heard. In Ontario they held four days of consultations, and 137 groups didn't get heard. 70% of Ontarians don't know the smokefree law was passed. The law now allows as restrictive of legislation as health unit wants, only applies minimum, not maximum. There still isn't any consistent way to allow public to know where rules apply locally. You could have a ban smoking in the park in one town, but still allow it in another. Now there's level and clear legislation for the public to see. Get your voice heard is the only way to tell the gov't your opinions. if there are no discussions we are living in a dictatorship, where there's no voices heard.
Canada's Aboriginal Policy Questioned at United Nations
OTTAWA, Oct. 17 /CNW Telbec/ - Today and tomorrow, October 18, 2005, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva will be examining representatives of the federal government on Canada's report on its compliance with its international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/17/c1680.html
Sponsorship scandal only one in an endless series of government failures: review of reports from the Auditor General predicts more problems
VANCOUVER, Oct. 17 /CNW/ - Canadians have been shocked by the revelations of the Gomery Inquiry but these scandals will occur with predictable regularity unless government begins to prioritize and reform its activities, according to Government Failure in Canada, 2005 Report, released today by The Fraser Institute.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/17/c1521.html
Posted at 2:16 pm by looped_ca
Bingo Bingo at risk of closing doors for good -ON
Michael Power - Oct 11, 2005
The president of the Lindsay Bingo Bingo Charities Association hopes a proposal to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission will fly so the hall can operate past the next two months.
Gary Preston said both revenue and attendance at the Needham Street establishment have fallen this year.
Bingo Bingo's estimated revenue for this year - at $300,000 - comes in at about $100,000 less than previous years, says a news release from the Association.
Bingo Bingo is in danger of closing by Dec. 1 due to the falling revenues, the release says. The establishment's owners gave the Association notice of its financial situation on Oct. 1.
The hall has been operating with a deficit for several months.
The Lindsay Bingo Bingo Charities Association, an umbrella group that represents 34 not-for-profit organizations, has proposed that the alcohol and gaming commission allow Bingo Bingo's owners to pocket more of the revenue, said Mr. Preston.
"We're asking the commission if we could alter the percentage rate," he said.
Currently, Bingo Bingo's owners keep 40 per cent of profits, while not-for-profit organizations get 60 per cent. The money kept by the Association is shared between organizations based on how many games each operates.
Mr. Preston said that a final ratio hadn't been decided yet.
More consumer cash going to casinos has eaten away at the bingo hall's profits, he noted. That, combined with the higher costs of doing business, has kept revenues down this year, he said.
Mr. Preston also urged players to keep their bingo dollars in Lindsay, instead of making the trek to other halls in Peterborough or Oshawa.
Among the 34 local groups that benefit from bingo revenues are:
·Academy Theatre Foundation, City of Kawartha Lakes Boys and Girls Club, Women's Resources, Epilepsy Ontario, Community Care Victoria County.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1922
*http://www.mykawartha.com/ka/news/kawartha_lakes/story/3088070p-3582161c.html
Smoking bans do create financial losses -ON
Mr. Perley, please do not insult the readers’ intelligence. If there were no financial losses due to smoking bans, do you think that in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, bar owners would be paying thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees to fight the government on these laws?
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2196
Misguided attack on tobacco industry
By Michael Taube Tue, October 11, 2005
Some Canadians were pleased to hear the B.C. government can potentially sue tobacco companies for causing health problems and running up its health care bills.
But their enthusiasm is completely misguided. The tobacco industry is not the main culprit. Rather, it's smokers who ignored warnings and took huge risks with their own health.
Recently, Canada's Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold existing B.C. legislation that allows its provincial government to seek damages for health care costs caused by tobacco use. B.C. can now attempt to collect damages from as far back as 50 years ago, as well as any projected future health care costs.
Obviously, the B.C. government will go after tobacco companies. It seems hypocritical, considering the revenue the province generates from tobacco sales. But it's an easy target -- tobacco companies sold the product that reportedly caused poor health in some patients.
That's step one.
Step two is for the anti-tobacco forces to align all Canadian provinces, including Ontario, behind the strategy of going after the tobacco industry. By doing this, there could be huge numbers of lawsuits trying to collect billions and billions of dollars in damages.
The ultimate goal is rather obvious: Bankrupt the tobacco companies and create a smoke-free environment.
But from where I stand, this strategy completely disrespects the free market and a person's freedom of choice.
Why are we accusing tobacco companies of helping rack up health care costs? All they do is sell a product to consumers with a visible warning label on the package that describes the health risks for adults, children and pregnant women. You may not like the product, but it certainly admits there could be harmful side effects if you try it.
I'm a non-smoker, but I recognize that tobacco appeals to some people. Tobacco companies should be allowed to sell cigarettes and cigars for profit, and people should be allowed to have the option to purchase -- or not purchase -- these items.
Meanwhile, the role of smokers in racking up health care costs in B.C. (and beyond) has barely been discussed.
Smokers didn't have to buy a pack of cigarettes or a box of cigars, and no-one forced them to do so. The vast majority certainly knew the risks involved in using tobacco products, but chose to ignore them.
And for the small amount of people who didn't realize the health risks, well, they should have.
It's been proven that factories, chimneys, cars and airplanes blow unhealthy smoke and fumes in the air that contaminate your lungs. Did you really think a cigarette or cigar pressed to your lips wouldn't have the same effect, or worse?
So, if you want lay blame for rising health care costs on tobacco usage, look no further than the tobacco users themselves.
Maybe non-smokers should just go out and sue smokers for helping pollute our air and water. You would get less money out of them, but you would be making a valid point.
Or perhaps smokers should just pay their own health care bills out of pocket. Yes, I know this isn't possible due to our bloated and inadequate public health care system. But it only seems fair when you consider the wasted tax dollars that have been spent on their treatment.
I concede that tobacco companies have sold a product that has severe health risks. But smokers aren't innocent little lambs; they have hurt -- and keep hurting -- the financial health of taxpayers. I hope the B.C. government considers this before launching a full-scale and wrong-headed attack against the tobacco industry.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Taube_Michael/2005/10/11/1257280-sun.html
N.S. prepares to sue tobacco companies -NS
Murray Brewster Canadian Press October 13, 2005
HALIFAX -- Nova Scotia's Conservative government began clearing the way Thursday for a lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover billions dollars spent on smoke-related illnesses in the province.
The move came on the opening day of the fall legislature session and less than a month after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld similar legislation from British Columbia.
The bill, introduced by Nova Scotia's justice minister, would give the province legal authority to sue for past and future health-care costs related to smoking.
"It's time to say enough is enough," said Michael Baker. "This legislation is about holding the industry accountable for its marketing practices."
The proposed tobacco legislation would waive the statue of limitations, giving the province the ability to go back as far as 50 years in preparing its legal claim.
While the government did not include the amount of damages it would seek in the lawsuit, officials were quick to point out that the direct cost of treating cancers and other smoking-related diseases in Nova Scotia is estimated at $170 million annually.
The high court ruling on Sept. 29 applied only to British Columbia but opened the door for all the others to take similar action. Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have since said they are also considering lawsuits.
A spokesman from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council described the move by Nova Scotia as "yet another cash grab by yet another province."
"It certainly stacks the deck in favour of the province and removes our normal defences in a court of law," said John MacDonald.
He said governments in Canada that go down this road risk losing the $9 billion they collect annual in tobacco taxes.
But Baker said the initiative is not about tax revenue.
"I know from speaking with my colleagues in cabinet, if every Nova Scotian would quit smoking, we would gladly give up every penny and dollar in smoking taxes."
The government also introduced anti-smoking legislation it described as "the toughest in the country".
It would ban smoking in all public places -- including outdoor patios -- by 2006, replacing regulations that allow smoking at bars and restaurants, in designated areas and at certain times.
Baker said the proposed tobacco suit and smoking ban complement each other, and should lead to fewer smokers in the province.
Anti-smoking groups and the opposition parties in Nova Scotia applauded both initiatives.
"We need to make the tobacco industry accountable for the 50 years of misleading and downright lying," said Dr. Robert Strang, president of Smoke-Free Nova Scotia.
Meg McCallum, the director programs for the Canadian Cancer Society, said the province should sue for both the direct and indirect costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
When the economic costs of smoking illnesses, such as lost productivity and absenteeism are considered, McCallum said the annual economic loss to the province is in the range of $500 million.
Health Promotion Minister Rodney MacDonald said the proposed anti-smoking legislation goes well beyond the current partial ban.
"If you take a look at pieces of legislation across the country, you'll see our act is quite broad. It goes into areas such as (outdoor) patios. It goes well beyond," said MacDonald.
Dave Wilson, the opposition health critic, said the government's current legislation on smoking bans was inadequate.
"This government has never lived up to its responsibility in terms of smoke-free places and in terms of jumping on the bandwagon in suing tobacco companies," said Liberal health critic Dave Wilson.
"This government has lagged behind for six years."
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=e3737499-9615-4532-ad08-174a532c01ac
Put smoking ban on hold -ON
Letter Thursday, October 13, 2005
So all this time, the Ontario government has been sitting on reports that show the province will lose up to $350 million in gaming revenues if its smoking ban law goes ahead next year.
According to Brian Cross's story in The Windsor Star, the government may have more information spelling out the specific share of the damage to Windsor and its casino, which is expected to be particularly hard hit because of cross-border competition from Michigan.
No wonder the Liberals didn't want to come anywhere near Windsor when they were holding public hearings on their smoking ban legislation last spring.
Kudos to Nancy Daigneault and her group for sticking with this issue and for posting the documents they have so far managed to pry free on their website for all to see.
But shame on the government for keeping it secret for so long.
The government should put its law on hold and give us new hearings so we can look at all the facts and come up with compromises that provide public protection without throwing our economy and jobs into jeopardy.
Now that we know casinos will be taking such a big hit, it is pretty obvious that charity bingos, pubs, legions and everyone else who has warned that banning smoking will drive away their patrons were telling the truth after all.
There has to be a way to protect non-smokers from unwanted exposure to second-hand smoke without removing all choice for smokers and in doing so hurting the economy, destroying jobs and hurting charities.
Bill Hunter Windsor
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=c5edc1ca-fd2d-43ec-acfd-108f257537e1
No noise, please, this is Ottawa -ON
Kelly Egan The Ottawa Citizen Friday, October 14, 2005
Teens, publicans latest bylaw targets
Ottawa is not yet the most boring place on Earth, but another bold stroke or two from City Hall might just get us there.
It seems patrons coming out of bars along Elgin Street are making too much noise on the way home, possibly waking the slumbering apartment dwellers in the Golden Triangle.
This will never do in Coma Central.
Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes would like Ottawa's bylaw officers to aggressively monitor the nuisance problems associated with the city's downtown bars, then hand the enforcement bill back to the poor publican.
She introduced a resolution to that effect this week. An astonishing document it is, too.
This effort was immediately followed by a suggestion that city staff explore the possibility of implementing a curfew for anyone 17 years or younger, a proposal moved by Councillor Glenn Brooks.
Stay home, shut up and lock up your children seems to be the short-hand version of council's foray into regulating social behaviour.
The attack on bars in the city, for one thing, is discriminatory. Why not charge the convenience store owner for the skateboarders making noise in his parking lot? Because they're not loaded?
More importantly, what of the concept of personal responsibility?
Imagine the bylaw officer arriving on Elgin at 2 a.m. to find a group on a street corner singing Waltzing Matilda. How to determine whether they are drunk? (By the way, what do we mean by "drunk"? The standard used for impaired driving, or something higher?)
Secondly, how would the bylaw officer determine where they've come from?
Bars are already among the most regulated businesses in the private sector.
There are many, many rules about the sale of liquor, rules about the age of admittance, rules about opening and closing, mandatory training for staff, rules about over-serving customers.
It bears mentioning that outdoor patios, which appear to be a source of some of the trouble, are, in part, a government creation.
The government, recall, threw all the smokers outside. To make them more comfortable, many bars are heating patios to make them usable into early winter. So we legislate patrons outside; now we're asking them to be extra quiet.
Absurd.
The city has certainly opened itself to the accusation that it's madly off in opposing directions.
It wants to encourage small business, a vibrant entertainment sector, a humming night life, a jumping Elgin Street. It wants to support the tourism industry and attract big conventions of out-of-towners. Can it seriously expect this to happen with a noise inspector on every corner?
I had a coffee with a bar operator yesterday to talk about these proposals. (Bless the city's efficiency: I got a parking ticket on the way out.) I would tell you his name, but the man is actually afraid to speak out. A second operator had the same attitude.
So wary are they of the powers of liquor licence authorities and the city's inspectors, they're afraid to rock the boat. What a terrible climate in which to conduct a legitimate business.
Imagine that during a May blitz, officials from four agencies -- police, bylaw services, alcohol and gaming, and the fire service -- swooped through the area.
There is also a widespread feeling, true or not, that Ms. Holmes has it in for the bar sector and would prefer to see hardware stores and quaint boutiques in their stead. A nice idea, but the marketplace is the final, ruthless judge of what pays the rent.
Lawyer Brian Karam owns a 12-storey hotel on Elgin and a restaurant-bar called MacLaren's, that seats 390. It is a big place, with 40 television screens and 21 pool tables.
Elgin Street, he argues, has become Ottawa's main street, not just for nightlife, but for its connections to City Hall, the courthouse, the police station and as a gateway to the National War Memorial and the parliamentary precinct.
It is still "a very, very safe street," even at 2 a.m., he says, and does not have a fraction of the problems of bar strips in other major Canadian cities.
In 10 years of running his bar, Mr. Karam said he's never had to throw anyone out for misbehaviour. He says the Holmes initiative is not constructive.
"My whole point is there's an unspoken implication that the bars are over-serving these kids, and they're getting drunk, and that's why they're making noise. I don't believe that's the case," he said.
"I believe they're making noise, whether they have one beer or 10. That's just the way young kids are."
Mr. Karam says there's no doubt that noise -- from music and patrons -- has been a problem near the Gladstone end of the strip, to the dismay of nearby apartment dwellers.
Surely this can be addressed with existing regulations and some well-aimed coaxing on the part of bar operators. There is no need to beat them with a stick, then hand them a bill for the whuppin'.
Worse still is the impression of the capital as an enclave of dull, pulseless spirits, who like nothing better than an evening with one whole, entire beer, followed by a lot of whispering.
What price, this?
Contact Kelly Egan at 726-5896 or by e-mail, kegan@thecitizen.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=fd03a365-769f-4c34-ae80-d0d4fb7cccc4
Make tobacco companies cover costs -ON
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Jim Bender - Woodstock Friday October 14, 2005
I felt completely ill after reading this letter from Nancy Daigneault, the president of the mychoice.ca campaign.
I’ve watched two strong uncles wither away to shells of their former selves before issuing their death rattles.
To have the fools from the tobacco lobby pressuring government to finance cessation products is ridiculous.
If the tobacco lobby really wanted to help the thousands of people who are dying as a result of smoking, then it would finance these cessation products themselves.
The evidence against tobacco is huge. I’m sure that every person reading this knows someone, or knows of someone, who has suffered the long-term effects of smoking either cancer, lung disease, or heart disease.
Perhaps the government should be held accountable for the slaughter of its citizenry as well, as it is the one that permitted this poison in our marketplace.
Tobacco addiction is a silent killer, but not faceless. Tobacco companies are working hard on finding new markets, as most of their North American customers have become too smart for them and realize that they are being murdered by their brand, or have died. Now we find mass quantities of cheap cigarettes flooding Third World nations.
People who cannot afford to feed themselves are smoking cigarettes for they are cheap and easy to come by. People who cannot read have no idea that what they are consuming is poison. Third World countries short on rules and regulations make it easy for big tobacco to make profits.
Third World nations comprise the largest segment of growth for big tobacco.
They will take advantage of the lax regulations in these countries in order to pollute them and their people now that they have run out of North American customers.
Perhaps it is time for the government to ban the production of these things. If the tobacco lobby is asking taxpayers to fund the addiction recovery of their customers, then the taxpayers should be given the option of having their killer product banned.
Perhaps smokers should be denied access to medical care from the province and perhaps the tobacco companies should open treatment centres for diseases they’ve helped to spread around the globe.
Tobacco is a killer; it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out. Make the tobacco companies pay the costs, not the taxpayers.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/archives.php
Tobacco ruling OKs blatant hypocrisy
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for British Columbia to sue tobacco companies for the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses. This opens the door, of course, for all provincial governments to follow suit.
Let me understand this. Provincial governments have been collecting corporate tax revenues from tobacco producers and tobacco companies, based on profit, for years. Provincial governments have been collecting sales taxes on tobacco products. Now they want to recoup health costs for tobacco related illnesses. That is the epitome of hypocrisy from government that really wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
Can someone on the Supreme Court please phone me to advise how I can sue my neighbour in the suite below, who smokes on the balcony so that his or her smoke comes up on my balcony and into my open window? I think I feel a second-hand-smoke-related sore throat coming on. I hate tobacco smoke.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for government hypocrisy. Should we laugh or cry at such stupidity?
Mary E. Spry London
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
Nova Scotia prepares to sue tobacco firms
By MURRAY BREWSTER Canadian Press Friday, October 14, 2005 Page A7
HALIFAX -- Nova Scotia's Conservative government began clearing the way yesterday for a lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover billions of dollars spent on smoking-related illnesses in the province.
It made the move on the opening day of the fall legislature session and less than a month after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld similar legislation for British Columbia.
The Nova Scotia bill, introduced by Justice Minister Michael Baker, would give the province legal authority to sue for past and future health-care costs related to smoking.
"It's time to say enough is enough," Mr. Baker said. "This legislation is about holding the industry accountable for its marketing practices."
The statute of limitations would be waived for the proposed tobacco legislation, giving the province the ability to go back as far as 50 years in preparing its legal claim.
While the government did not include the amount of damages it would seek in the lawsuit, officials were quick to point out that the direct cost of treating cancers and other smoking-related diseases in Nova Scotia is estimated to be $170-million annually.
The top court ruling on Sept. 29 applied only to British Columbia but opened the door for other provinces to take similar action. Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have since said they are also considering lawsuits.
A spokesman from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council described the move by Nova Scotia as "yet another cash grab by yet another province."
"It certainly stacks the deck in favour of the province and removes our normal defences in a court of law," John MacDonald said.
Governments in Canada that go down this road risk losing the $9-billion they collect annually in tobacco taxes, Mr. MacDonald added.
But Mr. Baker said the initiative is not about tax revenue.
"I know from speaking with my colleagues in cabinet, if every Nova Scotian would quit smoking, we would gladly give up every penny and dollar in smoking taxes."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051014/TOBACCO14/TPNational/
N.S. Liberals want smoking ban now -NS
Broadcast News Friday, October 14, 2005
HALIFAX - There is no reason for Nova Scotia to wait until December 2006 in order to go totally smoke free, according to the opposition Liberals.
Health critic Dave Wilson says the Tory government has dragged its feet on the issue and should institute a total ban immediately.
Health Promotion Minister Rodney MacDonald introduced legislation Thursday that will ban smoking in all public areas, including workplaces and at bars and restaurants.
He says, once passed, Nova Scotia will have the toughest anti-smoking law in the country.
He says it's the toughest because it makes no exceptions.
Right now, the province has only a partial ban.
Dr. Robert Strang, of Smoke-Free Nova Scotia says 100 per cent ban makes things less confusing for citizens.
*http://www.canada.com/maritimes/soundoff/story.html?id=8a7110b4-2673-4649-afb3-d5adeac34729
Increased taxes don't help to curtail smoking
Oct. 14, 2005. 01:00 AM
RE:Keep raising taxes to curb smoking Editorial, Oct. 10.
Please allow me to point out a number of flaws in this editorial calling for a combination of lawsuits against companies and increased taxes on smokers.
First, both approaches would hit smokers in their wallets. When any company has increased costs, it passes them on to customers. This happened with the $250 million settlement agreed to by U.S. tobacco companies. The money for this payment is coming from increased prices for cigarettes.
Second, your editorial correctly notes that simply banning tobacco will not work as it will lead to smuggling and a black market, but it fails to point out that trying to ban tobacco products through the back door by tax gouging will have the same effects.
Third, the idea that the increased taxes would provide funds to pay for measures to help people quit smoking would be attractive if there was reason to believe this would happen. There is not.
Our federal and provincial governments already collect a combined total of nearly $9 billion a year from smokers in taxes on their tobacco purchases.
Canadian Press last week reported Health Canada estimates smoking costs the country's health-care system $4 billion each year.
This leaves an almost $5 billion surplus, before factoring in the income taxes and health-care premiums smokers pay like everyone else. Yet governments do not use any of this tobacco profit to help with the ridiculously high costs of nicotine gum, patches and other cessation aids.
One might wish that no one smoked, but they do, and legally. They are equal citizens deserving of fair treatment. Trying to tax and abuse them into submission is an attempt to impose prohibition without actually prohibiting. It is not fair and it is not practical.
Education and sensible health promotion programs have worked to bring down smoking rates and will continue to work. Perhaps not as quickly as some would like, but a balanced, sensible, fair approach to smokers is vastly superior to attempting brute force.
Nancy Daigneault, President, mychoice.ca, Aurora, Ont.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article
_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1129240216989
Nova Scotia sets out health-care lawsuit proposal against big tobacco -NS
Murray Brewster Canadian Press October 14, 2005
HALIFAX (CP) - Nova Scotia's Conservative government began clearing the way Thursday for a lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover billions dollars spent on smoke-related illnesses in the province.
The move came on the opening day of the fall legislature session and less than a month after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld similar legislation from British Columbia.
The bill, introduced by Nova Scotia's justice minister, would give the province legal authority to sue for past and future health-care costs related to smoking.
"It's time to say enough is enough," said Michael Baker. "This legislation is about holding the industry accountable for its marketing practices."
The proposed tobacco legislation would waive the statue of limitations, giving the province the ability to go back as far as 50 years in preparing its legal claim.
While the government did not include the amount of damages it would seek in the lawsuit, officials were quick to point out that the direct cost of treating cancers and other smoking-related diseases in Nova Scotia is estimated at $170 million annually.
The high court ruling on Sept. 29 applied only to British Columbia but opened the door for all the others to take similar action. Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have since said they are also considering lawsuits.
A spokesman from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council described the move by Nova Scotia as "yet another cash grab by yet another province."
"It certainly stacks the deck in favour of the province and removes our normal defences in a court of law," said John MacDonald.
He said governments in Canada that go down this road risk losing the $9 billion they collect annual in tobacco taxes.
But Baker said the initiative is not about tax revenue.
"I know from speaking with my colleagues in cabinet, if every Nova Scotian would quit smoking, we would gladly give up every penny and dollar in smoking taxes."
The government also introduced anti-smoking legislation it described as "the toughest in the country".
It would ban smoking in all public places - including outdoor patios - by 2006, replacing regulations that allow smoking at bars and restaurants, in designated areas and at certain times.
Baker said the proposed tobacco suit and smoking ban complement each other, and should lead to fewer smokers in the province.
Anti-smoking groups and the opposition parties in Nova Scotia applauded both initiatives.
"We need to make the tobacco industry accountable for the 50 years of misleading and downright lying," said Dr. Robert Strang, president of Smoke-Free Nova Scotia.
Meg McCallum, the director programs for the Canadian Cancer Society, said the province should sue for both the direct and indirect costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
When the economic costs of smoking illnesses, such as lost productivity and absenteeism are considered, McCallum said the annual economic loss to the province is in the range of $500 million.
Health Promotion Minister Rodney MacDonald said the proposed anti-smoking legislation goes well beyond the current partial ban.
"If you take a look at pieces of legislation across the country, you'll see our act is quite broad. It goes into areas such as (outdoor) patios. It goes well beyond," said MacDonald.
Dave Wilson, the opposition health critic, said the government's current legislation on smoking bans was inadequate.
"This government has never lived up to its responsibility in terms of smoke-free places and in terms of jumping on the bandwagon in suing tobacco companies," said Liberal health critic Dave Wilson.
"This government has lagged behind for six years."
http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/atlantic/story.html?id=6c0f1b89-e837-4242-96fb-94663dc2cc12
Tobacco companies call lawsuit a cash grab
Broadcast News Friday, October 14, 2005
HALIFAX - A group representing big tobacco companies says Nova Scotia's plan to sue over smoking-related illnesses is nothing more than a cash grab.
John McDonald, of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, says the province is stacking the legal deck against the industry.
He says Ottawa and the provinces collect $9 billion a year in tobacco taxes and if the province needs money it can raise those levies.
But Justice Minister Michael Baker says his government would be willing to give up every cent of tobacco revenue, if every smoker in the province gave up the habit.
The Conservative government began clearing the way Thursday for a lawsuit against big tobacco companies.
A bill that would give the province the legal authority to sue for smoking-related health care costs was introduced in the legislature.
No dollar figure has been attached to the planned lawsuit.
But Meg McCallum, of the Canadian Cancer Society, says the government can start with the$500 million a year that smoking costs the provincial economy.
http://www.canada.com/maritimes/soundoff/story.html?id=9b428bd2-f63b-44c0-86f3-0d0e35decad8
Inmate wins smoke suit
TRACEY TYLER LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER Oct. 15, 2005. 01:00 AM
Killer gets $5,000 in damages Allergic man not kept `safe'
Canada's correctional service has been ordered to pay $5,000 in damages to a convicted murderer who was exposed to second-hand smoke in an Ontario prison.
The Correctional Service of Canada had a duty to incarcerate Vlado Maljkovich in conditions that were "healthful and that did not cause him to suffer physical discomfort" and it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its non-smoking policy was enforced, the Federal Court of Canada ruled yesterday.
Enforcement of the policy depended at least in part on inmates complaining to prison authorities about illicit smoking, which was "unreasonable" and placed Maljkovich in an "unenviable" position of having to inform on fellow prisoners, the court said.
It is believed to be the first time a Canadian court has ruled on a second-hand smoke complaint from an inmate and the implications may reach beyond prisons, said John Hill, Maljkovich's lawyer.
"I think the non-smoking public won a big victory here as well," he said.
If inmates can recover damages for being thrust into a smoke-filled environment, it could lead to lawsuits from other citizens exposed to second-hand smoke, he said. There could also be more lawsuits from inmates, Hill added.
The correctional service has announced plans to ban smoking in all federal prisons and halfway houses by Jan. 31, 2006.
But Hill said it will be up to individual prison wardens to enforce the policy.
Maljkovich is serving a life sentence for the 1995 murders of his wife and daughter in Etobicoke. His lawsuit concerned conditions at Fenbrook Institution, a medium-security prison near Gravenhurst, where he was incarcerated for three years.
Maljkovich told prison authorities he has an allergy to tobacco smoke, which leaves him with headaches, nausea and an irritated throat.
At Fenbrook, which opened in 1998, the ventilation system circulated air from smoking areas into non-smoking areas, the court said.
Inmates are housed in four separate buildings and have their own rooms with windows that open. While some living quarters were non-smoking, inmates in other parts of the building could smoke in their own rooms. Smoking was also permitted outside.
Inmates were disciplined for violating the non-smoking policy only if their offences were brought to the attention of correctional officers.
The correctional service violated sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that require it to house inmates in safe and healthy conditions, said Martha Milczynski, who heard the case as a Federal Court prothonotary, or judicial officer.
She awarded him $5,000 in general damages for stress and physical discomfort, but rejected his claim that exposure to smoke was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Charter of Rights.
Suzanne Leclerc, a correctional service spokesperson, said that starting Nov. 1, inmates will be provided with smoking cessation aids such as patches and gum. After three months, they must buy their own.
Maljkovich, is now incarcerated at Pittsburgh Institution, in Joyceville, near Kingston.
The judge who sentenced him said that while the crimes involved "senseless brutality," Maljkovich had lived an otherwise exemplary life. Before the murders, he was treated for depression, his marriage was breaking down and he was convinced his wife was having affairs.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2059
*http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article
&cid=1129329907013&call_page=TS_Ontario&call_pageid=968256289824&call_pagepath=News/Ontario&p
ubid=968163964505&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Tories promise native leaders say in smoking ban
CBC News Last updated Oct 14 2005 11:29 AM ADT
Nova Scotia's Conservative government says it will negotiate with native leaders before imposing an all-out smoking ban on reserves.
On Thursday, the government introduced a bill to ban smoking in indoor public places by Dec. 1, 2006. The minister of health promotion, Rodney MacDonald, said the ban would apply to all communities.
But Justice Minister Michael Baker is softening that hard line.
"We expect all bars in Nova Scotia as of the date of the ban to comply with the law of Nova Scotia," said Baker. "That is quite simply what our plan is. On other issues we are prepared to sit down with First Nations leaders and talk with them. But there's not going to be a different standard for a bar no matter where it is in Nova Scotia."
Baker said native communities are not being singled out for special treatment and they deserve to be consulted on any decision affecting them.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2187
***http://novascotia.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ns-native-smoke20051014
Smoking ban killed bar: owner -NL
CBC News Last updated Oct 14 2005 04:12 PM NDT
The owner of a bar in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is blaming its closure on the provincial government's new indoor smoking ban.
Rumours night club shut down last week after serving customers for nearly 26 years.
Owner Mike Lethbridge says there was a dramatic drop in business after the new smoking regulations came into effect this summer:
"After the smoking ban, it was like somebody turned on a light. It was just nobody there – absolutely nobody," said Lethbridge.
Before the ban, Lethbridge says he employed eight people each Friday night.
After the ban, Lethbridge dropped the number to three.
"Last Friday night, we had two staff," he said.
The Beverage Industry Association says four other bars across the province have shut down since the ban came into effect July 1.
*FROM JUNE 30, 2005: Bar owners brace for smoking ban
The provincial Alliance for the Control of Tobacco says it regrets the layoffs, but executive director Kevin Coady says the health of people – not businesses – is its top priority.
"In no way is it our intention to hurt people – this is all about protecting people."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2184
**http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=nf_smoking_bar_20051014
Nova Scotia natives seek legal advice in battle over smoking ban
Murray Brewster Canadian Press Saturday, October 15, 2005
HALIFAX (CP) - Nova Scotia could end up in a legal quagmire if it tries to impose a provincewide smoking ban on First Nations communities, a prominent native leader warned Friday.
"We are certainly going to be seeking legal advice," said Membertou Chief Terry Paul in an interview from Sydney, N.S. Eliminating smoking at native-operated bars and restaurants would have a drastic impact on those businesses and the overall economy of First Nations communities, said Paul.
The legislated ban, which doesn't take effect until Dec. 1, 2006, was announced Thursday as the fall session of the legislature began.
Smoking in all indoor and outdoor public places will be prohibited.
The legislation replaces a partial ban, instituted in 2002, which allows for smoking at bars and restaurants in designated areas and at specific times.
The province's justice minister said Friday he believes the ban would apply to reserves, even though native land falls under federal jurisdiction.
"These are considered laws of general application," said Michael Baker, who is also responsible for aboriginal affairs.
"These laws are applicable anywhere in the province."
But Baker admitted the limits of the province's power by saying the government will have to negotiate with individual bands about how the law is implemented and enforced.
Paul said he's open to negotiation, but will not sacrifice the economic gains made over the last few years by native business owners.
Other provinces which already have total smoking bans have found it impossible to enforce the prohibitions in native communities.
In Manitoba, lighting up is outlawed in all areas except reserves, a fact that prompted a lawsuit earlier this year by a non-native bar owner.
After being charged with letting patrons puff away, Robert Jenkinson challenged the provincial ban under the charter.
He claimed he was being discriminated against because his customers are avoiding the Treherne, Man., bar and going to two neighbouring reserves where they can smoke all the time.
Last month, a judge disagreed and fined Jenkinson.
In Saskatchewan, which has a similar ban, the federal government has refused to quash any band smoking bylaws that were weaker than the provincial legislation.
Given the court battles elsewhere, Nova Scotia's opposition Liberals were dismayed Premier John Hamm's government had not tried to cut a deal with native communities ahead of time.
"The justice minister should have thought of this before and had everything ready and set to go," said health critic Dave Wilson.
"To me it indicates the government hasn't done its homework. When you know there are groups that are going to oppose it, why haven't you consulted with them? Why haven't you talked to them beforehand?"
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2187
***http://www.canada.com/health/fromthewires/story.html?id=9642a2d2-18be-4c52-ba66-d7c29fb83a56
Vancouver smokers in the line of fire again -BC
DANIEL GIRARD WESTERN CANADA BUREAU Oct. 15, 2005. 01:00 AM
City sets its sights on outdoor ban
Proposed rules among strictest
VANCOUVER—In the mid-1990s, smokers here fumed as City Hall snuffed out their ability to light up indoors.
Now, nearly a decade after Vancouver became a Canadian pioneer by banning smoking in restaurants, food fairs, public lobbies and office buildings, city officials are determined to lead the way again, taking their battle against cigarettes into the great outdoors.
The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is preparing a report for city council on expanding the municipal smoking ban. Among the initiatives under consideration are stopping people from lighting up on outdoor patios as well as in bus shelters, near entrances to buildings and even at beaches and around sports fields where kids play.
Such stringent rules would not only be seen as the toughest in Canada, they would rank among the most restrictive in North America, along the lines of San Francisco, which in July banned smoking in most city-run open spaces such as parks, squares and gardens.
"I'd like to see us back in the forefront again," says Nick Losito, regional director of health protection for the health authority, which includes about one-quarter of British Columbia's 4 million people from the Vancouver suburb of Richmond to Whistler.
Proponents of this latest get-tough approach say Vancouver has become complacent over the past decade in getting people to butt out. Its once-controversial initiatives have not only been replicated in most cities in the country, they have been exceeded in many.
Although the health authority is to soon deliver its report to city council, it's unlikely to be discussed until early next year, after next month's municipal election. However, with an increasing number of citizens complaining about smoking on patios and in other areas, it's likely something will be done, especially as the number of smokers dwindles.
Exactly how far they ultimately go will depend on the political will of city politicians. But those calling for more restrictions say it's more than just bragging rights on the line.
Recent statistics say the number of smokers in the Vancouver area has fallen to about 15 per cent of the adult population from one-quarter in the mid-1990s. That, advocates say, is proof a further crackdown would not only be good health but good for business, too.
Losito says he hopes the report's recommendations, which he's not prepared to reveal in detail, will prompt other municipalities to revisit their smoking bylaws, especially in the run-up to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games to be held in Vancouver and Whistler.
"Ideally, what we would have going forward is that this wouldn't be just a Vancouver initiative but convince others to look at it as well," Losito says. "The (provincial government) wants to have the healthiest population to ever host the Olympics and further restricting smoking is a way to do that."
But, in a city dubbed Vansterdam by many because of its look-the-other-way approach to marijuana and other drugs, critics condemn talk of throwing the book at those using a legal product. How can city politicians open a so-called supervised injection site for heroin addicts but close down rooms for those who indulge in tobacco, they ask.
`The way this is applied would make us the policemen again'
Richard Floody, chairman of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association
"We smokers have already compromised to ease the `nuisance' of our second-hand smoke by using smoking rooms or patios," Melanie Delaine of the suburb of Surrey wrote in a recent letter to the Vancouver Sun. "If the government sees fit to ban smoking because it's so harmful, it should stop the sale of cigarettes.
"As long as tobacco remains legal, I will smoke in any establishment that permits me to, and wherever I choose. I'm entitled to the same freedoms as anyone else in Canada."
Other critics question how such a bylaw would be enforced. The notion of city staff running around to bars, bus shelters, public buildings, beaches and playing fields to hand out tickets seems far-fetched in an age of ever-scarce public resources. And, if it's left to people to simply obey signs posted nearby, who's to say they will, especially given how readily ignored are signs reminding dog owners to stoop and scoop.
Restaurant and bar also owners worry a piecemeal approach that sees Vancouver get tougher than surrounding municipalities will cost them business. With many having spent up to $30,000 to build patios to cater to smokers, they see that as a wasted investment.
"The way this is applied would make us the policemen again," says Richard Floody, chairman of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association. It will be tough to enforce the law against people on beaches or at parks, so "the only bad guy in this thing is going to be the restaurant owner who has someone who breaks the rules on their property.
"That seems to be an unfair bylaw."
Floody says if there's a move to further crackdown on smoking in public it should be done province-wide as a Workers Compensation Board (WCB) initiative.
"If it really is a health issue, like we're told it is, then it should be done under the WCB," he says. "Otherwise, we're saying to people in other municipalities: `We don't care about your health.'"
While most anti-smoking advocates would agree with a province-wide move, recent history suggests that's unlikely, especially under Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberals.
In 2000, the WCB implemented a sweeping smoking ban in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. But within three months, it was tossed out by the B.C. Supreme Court, which ruled that it had not received enough public consultation.
The then-New Democrat government planned to bring back the blanket ban in September 2001 but was ousted by the Liberals in May of that year. Responding to pleas from the hospitality industry, particularly in northern communities with no municipal bylaws, they promptly shelved plans for that province-wide no-smoking law.
In 2002, the Liberals introduced new legislation allowing bars, restaurants and other hospitality spots to set aside up to 45 per cent of their seating to smokers as long as it's separated from the no-smoking area and ventilated to the outside.
`I'd like to see us back in the forefront again.'
Nick Losito, regional director of health protection for the health authority
Those provincial rules take a backseat to municipal bylaws. So, even though anti-smoking advocates say they'd prefer a wider ban, they say toughening rules one city at a time is a start.
"It's one more thing that needs to be done because the majority of people don't smoke," says Veda Peters of the B.C. Lung Association.
"Although nobody questions anybody's right to smoke, we need to differentiate between what's a right and what's a privilege.
"Where and when people smoke is a privilege, not a right."
Peters says restricting the places people smoke typically means they light up less often and then "they tend to think about the possibility of giving it up all together."
While smokers interviewed by the Star were split on whether more stringent bans would help them kick the habit, they were unanimous in their belief it's another case of them being persecuted for using cigarettes, which are legal and taxed heavily by government.
"Inside, I see how it bothers people," says retired sawmill worker Jagat Chahil, 60, as he smokes a cigarette while waiting for a bus. "But on the street, outside on the sidewalk?
"How is that bugging anyone?"
Barb, a grocery store employee in her 40s who declined to give her last name, says she's more conscious of smoking on a patio if surrounded by non-smokers and will abstain if others are made uncomfortable. But banning it is "going too far," she says.
"I just think it's taking away human rights," she says while enjoying a coffee and cigarette on a restaurant patio. "If I can't have a smoke outside, then where?
"A lot of patios were created for smokers in the first place."
But that's an argument Losito struggles with. Why, if non-smokers are in the overwhelming majority, should they have to be held captive by the minority, he asks.
"Crowds of smokers on patios make it impossible for non-smokers to enjoy the patio experience," he says.
"That makes them second-class citizens."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1129240216309
Why won't city stigmatize crackheads? -ON
ROSIE DIMANNO Oct. 17, 2005. 08:15 AM
But smokers seen as social pariahs, public health risk
New drug strategy eschews term `drug abuse' as pejorative
So let me get this straight: I can't smoke cigarettes in Toronto but I can smoke crack?
The former is a public health risk, nipped in the butt at nearly every indoor venue, with bossy and vilifying interdiction campaigns that have transformed smokers into social pariahs. But the latter is a personal choice that ought not to be stigmatized by a judgmental society.
I am not making this up. I am merely taking to their presumptive conclusions some of the recommendations advanced in a drug strategy scheme unveiled at city hall on Friday.
So very non-condemnatory of drug use is the report by the Toronto Drug Strategy Advisory Committee that its members have quite deliberately eschewed even the term "drug abuse'' as inherently pejorative. The word "abuse,'' the report states upfront, "perpetuates social stigma and judgment which can marginalize and alienate people from the very supports they need."
These supports could, come the day, include "supervised injection sites or inhalation rooms'' in Toronto — inhalation rooms because crack cocaine is the most frequently used street drug in this city — as posited by Recommendation No. 55. That recommendation does not overtly call for the establishment of such 100 per cent toleration zones. It merely asks the city, in partnership with the Centre for Addiction & Mental Health and community groups, to further study that option in developing strategies to address the "stigma and discrimination toward people who use substances.''
The report's authors do acknowledge that supervised consumption sites — a 50-cent euphemism for what most of us would call a crack house — would provoke tremendous controversy, as indeed the matter did, does, within the committee's own membership. Clearly, there was not enough agreement from within its ranks to make a bold, unambiguous proposal. But it's just as clear, from reading this section, that the committee wants to venture further in the direction of what I can only describe as legal crack arcades, which can only be created, in this country, after obtaining formal exclusion under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
It's been done already in some 50 jurisdictions around the world, and, as of this past July, in Vancouver, where the issue is heroin rather than crack.
It is not that I wish to see drug addicts busted, because the last thing a crackhead needs is the burden of a criminal record, or incarceration in penal institutions where drugs are so easily obtained. There was a time when I believed that decriminalizing all drug use was the wisest approach — treating abuse as a health issue, not a matter for law enforcement. But I was taken aback, on my last trip to Amsterdam — where soft drugs are legal, marijuana and hash for sale in drug cafés — at how very stupid much of the mellowed-out adult populace had become, so sluggish, slack, slothful. The potency of these "soft drugs'' has increased dramatically, as laced as they are with THC.
This is not your father's ganja, as I discovered while on assignment for a story about legalizing drugs. (It took me three days to recover from my "research'' and I may very well be the only Canadian reporter who has charged spliffs and hash brownies to her expense account.)
Further, despite assurances that this wouldn't occur, the use of hard drugs in Amsterdam has skyrocketed, the city crawling with wasted junkies.
There are compelling social reasons, I now concede, for rejecting the whole premise of legalizing drugs as the lesser of two evils. And, as Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted last week — he is utterly opposed to the notion of crack sanctuaries — no one in this country gets charged for possession of small amounts of marijuana and hash any more. The personal use rule of thumb is being respected, largely because police forces have bigger drug problems to deal with, particularly the gun violence and organized crime that is driven by the drug appetite.
It is troubling that the drug advisory committee pays minimal attention to that drug-perpetuated violence in Toronto, especially after the lethal summer we've just been through. Or frames it within the context of how neighbourhoods could be made safer if some of this activity was more properly supervised — yes, even in a smoke-up drop-in environment, envisioned as a one-stop shopping emporium where addicts could also obtain clean needles and condoms and counselling, provided that counselling was non-invasive and moral-neutral.
"Effective harm reduction approaches are pro-active, offer a comprehensive range of coordinated, user-friendly, client-centered and flexible problems and services and provide a supportive, non-judgmental environment.''
The report does make many sound recommendations — from providing better addiction services in prisons to reinstating addiction as an eligible disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program — even if this does all boil down to a great deal more public money spent on intervention and the mushrooming of the anti-drug bureaucracy, indeed with the added creation of a new drug secretariat for Toronto.
But it's the tone of the thing that I find most objectionable — the de facto premise that our society has no right to project any judgmental values because, if you follow this logic, it's this very disapproval that prevents addicts from straightening out.
I would think it's the other way around. Making it easier to obtain and use crack, for instance (which, unlike heroin, doesn't involve the shared use of flesh-piercing implements that spread HIV and Hepatitis C), would not discourage such ruinous drug use. Rather, the message would seem to be that we, as a community, are prepared to facilitate your drug problem.
It's perfectly reasonable for any society to express its opprobrium for a drug scourge that makes victims of us all, be it the destruction of residential neighbourhoods or by wayward bullets that strike children.
And it's hypocritical to say that public revulsion is counter-effective in stigmatizing drug abuse when these are the very same people — check the public health authorities involved in preparing the report — who sanctioned such bullying tactics against smokers, and who claim their campaign has been marvellously effective.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1129499412423&call_
page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505Eric&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Who’s standing up for tobacco farmers? -ON
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Linda Duguay - Ont. Monday October 17, 2005
Woodstoc Posted at 2:06 pm by looped_ca
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Ban a kick in casinos' butts -ON
Province Faces $350 Million a Year Loss in Gaming Revenues from Smoking Ban Confidential Government Report Warns -ON
mychoice.ca 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)
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=535
The gluttony of government intrusion
Wednesday October 05, 2005
Lloydminster Meridian Booster — While the tobacco industry is still feeling the hit of government regulations, taxes and the innumerable multi-million dollar lawsuits, junk food is already being called the new tobacco by its opponents.
We had to see this coming.
But the issue of banning harmful substance – be it food or smokes – isn’t nearly as clear cut as it seems.
Anyone with half a brain can – and often do – tell us what is wrong with our bad habits.
We are told on an almost-daily basis we are all too fat, too lazy and that smoking is a death sentence.
And for many of us, these critics have our number.
But an American columnist, Jacob Sullum, while speaking at a recent conference, raised a point that seems almost too obvious to have any merit. Simply put, some Canadians prefer to be fat, and the decision to delve into those fries should be theirs to make, for better or for worse, and the government should mind its own business.
“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),” Sullum told the CBC.
And he contends it isn’t the government’s place to say this isn’t a legitimate trade-off.
It is such a simple observation that it evades us in a time when the government seems bent on having a parent-like grip on everything we do.
Smoking and fast food is, of course, bad for us. We all know this and and there is no amount of government controls that will likely change the habits of those who choose either of these vices.
Maybe, just maybe, we can make decisions on our own – even if they kill us.
http://www.meridianbooster.com/index.php?id=525
Smoke vendors diligent -ON
By Times-Journal Staff Thursday October 06, 2005
For the first time in a decade Tobacco Control Act compliance reached the 90 per cent mark in Elgin county.
Although the rate slipped to 85 per cent in St. Thomas the overall figure represents a four per cent increase over compliance figures obtained this spring.
The Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit completed the mandatory enforcement checks of area retailers in August and found 90 per cent of tobacco vendors refused to sell cigarettes to under-age test shoppers.
Compliance in the city dropped by five per cent while all other areas showed an increase of at least five per cent with West Elgin jumping from 72 per cent in March to 100 per cent this summer.
“Research has shown that if a 90 per cent compliance rate is maintained,” noted Kathy Daniel, tobacco education and compliance officer, “that it will begin to impact on youth smoking rates.”
She was at a loss however to explain the decline in compliance with city retailers.
“Traditionally the summer time has a lower compliance rate overall. And I think that’s because there are more student employees. But it was only St. Thomas (figures that declined) and I really don’t have any idea why that is. St. Thomas has always been one of the higher (compliance areas).”
The purpose of the testing is to determine whether tobacco retailers are asking for identification before selling cigarettes to young people.
Across the county, test shoppers ages 15 to 17 visited 93 retailers. Supermarkets were the most compliant with a 100 per cent record and gas stations improved to 85 per cent.
Charges of selling tobacco to a person under the age of 19 were issued to a pair of St. Thomas area retailers.
http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/story.php?id=188613
Some of the new regulations facing tobacco retailers are just plain ridiculous. -ON
The Ingersoll Times Jennifer Vandermeer Wednesday October 05, 2005
One section of the Ontario Tobacco Control Act of 1994 refers to preventing children from starting to smoke. The aim of this section is commendable. It’s the ways in which the section is being put into action that are questionable.
There are some reasonable aspects to this law. Since it is against the law to sell cigarettes to anyone under 19, retailers have to ask for identification. That’s fair.
But there are only five acceptable pieces of ID: an Ontario drivers’ licence, LCBO ID card, Canadian passport, Canadian citizenship card or Canadian Armed Forces ID card.
So if your 20-year-old cousin from Michigan needs cigarettes on his visit to Ontario, he’d better bring his own. And even though our new health cards have photo and date of birth, they’re no good either.
Now tobacco retailers are in business to make money, not lose it paying fines. They aren’t going to take too many chances with this law. The fines are pretty steep.
If someone wants cigarettes and the retailer knows they are over 19 but sells them cigarettes without asking for ID, the retailer can still be charged for not asking because the customer doesn’t appear to be at least 25.
And forget the friendly gesture of giving a customer a pack of matches to light their cigarettes. Federal law says no free giveaways.
We’re all in favour of keeping kids from taking up smoking, but these laws are taking advantage of the retailer as the static quantity in this equation.
There is no accountability on the part of the youth. So while a retailer is inside his store being charged, the 16-year-old smoker can stand outside the door, laughing and thumbing his nose at the clerk.
There needs to be an enforcement system in place for the young smokers. If it’s illegal to sell smokes to minors, it should be illegal for them to smoke.
http://www.ingersolltimes.com/story.php?id=188380
Police doing good job on combating PDHS trespassers, says resident -ON
To the Editor:
This serves as a follow-up to the June 14, 2005 community meeting held at the Fire Hall, regarding problems at the PDHS area; smoking on school and surrounding areas, trespassing, obstruction of traffic and garbage on the school premises and blowing onto nearby properties, were some of the valid concerns brought to the attention of the police and school officials.
Smoking was a concern to some in attendance and with it concerns of fires as a result of smoking. I would never support any efforts establishing a smoking area on school property or surrounding areas as we have fought long and hard to have such health issues to be properly and responsibly governed. Tax dollars are spent each year to support programs in school to stop youth from smoking. Further tax dollars are spent on health care for cancer treatment and other smoking related illness. I would suggest another course of action. If everyone with concerns would write to the powers that be for changes to the ludicrous existing law of not purchasing cigarettes until 19 years of age to include not smoking until 19 years of age, it seems this would be a more permanent solution to our problems as most students graduate before the age of 19 and this new law would give the officers power to enforce the law.
The garbage on the school and surrounding properties is an eyesore. Could a program be established at the school whereby the students could volunteer to pick-up garbage as part of their 40 hours of community service to graduate? Take some of the money that is now used to pay a student employed to pick up garbage at the school and organize a “Butt Out” contest (to foster a positive quit smoking attitude) where students try to stop smoking for a cash reward. Student body could be involved as a smoke watch. Could it be part of the health curriculum? Maybe student council could look into something like this (same idea as the weight loss programs) and come up with some ideas or consider some of these suggestions and be present at the next tentative meeting in October. It would be an asset to have the student body involved in all these issues.
There were concerns over the time to respond to a complaint and confusion of location from callers. With sometime perseverance and a little patience, the new 911 civic address changes will be complete and many of the bugs worked out from the amalgamation and duplicate street names, etc. in the same municipality, allowing bylaws to be made to charge one or more persons impeding traffic.
Trespassing should not be tolerated and reported to police. Perhaps the public could be informed as to our rights and proper procedures for dealing with such an offense. On May 31, 2005, I had a trespassing complaint, within a very short time I had two police cruisers and four police officers in my drive. Office Hicks was the first to respond with a phone call followed up within 24 hours and Officer Anita, the school liaison officer, did a follow-up the next day. You couldn’t have asked for better police service.
Vice Principal Jay introduced himself at the meeting and I wouldn’t hesitate to bring any of my concerns involving the school to him. It is time we let go of the old Paris Police Department (which served us admirably) and embrace the O.P.P. and the system now in place. If the school, police and public work together, I’m sure we will have very positive results.
My other ideas or solutions to these problems could be addressed at the next meeting. To contact police call 1-888-310-1122.
Beverly Golan
http://www.parisstaronline.com/story.php?id=188314
Never a better time to end smoking habit
The Doctor Game - W. Gifford-Jones MD Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
AN interesting psychological reaction happens to non-smokers who develop lung cancer.
It occurs over and over again. When told someone has breast cancer friends often say, "How sad! Is there anything we can do to help?" But when informed a person has lung cancer, the first response is, "Is he or she a smoker?" The remark often stigmatizes non-smokers afflicted with this disease.
Dana Reeve, the widow of actor Christopher Reeve (Superman), who has never smoked, recently announced she has been diagnosed with lung cancer. It's a frightful tragedy for a young woman who dedicated so many years to help her stricken husband. But her plight has made everyone aware that non-smokers develop lung cancer more often than suspected.
Dana Reeve's announcement came just two days after ABC news anchor Peter Jennings died of lung cancer. Unfortunately, Jennings was a big-time smoker early in life, gave it up, but temporarily started again during the weeks of reporting the 9/11 disaster.
Despite their different smoking histories, Dana Reeve and Peter Jennings shared the most common cancer in the world and the deadliest. This year in North America about 100,000 men and 80,000 women will die of this disease. Of this number 10 per cent of the men and 20 per cent of the women have never smoked. Lung cancer kills more women than breast, ovarian and uterine cancer combined.
There's no good news about lung cancer. Even if confined to the lung, only 49 per cent of victims are alive in five years. And if the tumour has already metastasized, a mere two per cent survive that long.
The problem is there's no way to diagnose early lung cancer. X-rays, CT scans and MRIs only detect a malignancy when it has already been present several years.
Why non-smokers develop this malignancy is still not known. Some researchers speculate it's more prone to develop in people whose lungs have been scarred by recurring bouts of pneumonia, tuberculosis and other illnesses. Others say that genetics and atmospheric exposure to a variety of products may be responsible.
For instance, a Swedish study found an increase in lung cancer in people exposed to residential radon gas, a breakdown product of uranium. However, other studies failed to show this linkage.
The great medical frustration is that nothing known could have prevented Dana Reeve from developing this malignancy.
But the greater frustration is that we can prevent lung cancer in 90 per cent of men and 80 per cent of women. All it takes is the cessation of smoking or better still, avoidance in the first place.
ABC reports a huge, unexpected response from Jennings' fans: that they are now committed to stop smoking. I hope the effect lasts. And that this column will help to convince smokers of the huge benefits of tossing away cigarettes.
Fortunately, smokers do not have to wait years for good things to happen. Within minutes of a final cigarette, the body begins a series of recuperative changes that continues for years. For instance, 20 minutes after a cigarette is smoked, blood pressure falls, heart rate drops, and body temperature of hands and feet increase to normal.
Eight hours later, carbon monoxide level in the blood drops to normal and oxygen level increases to normal. Within 24 hours, the chance of a heart attack decreases. And after 48 hours, nerve endings start working again and the ability to smell and taste is enhanced.
During three months after cessation, circulation improves, walking becomes easier and lung function increases up the 30 per cent. Smokers also notice that within nine months, there's less coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue and shortness of breath, and their energy increases.
Just one year later, the risk of coronary attack has been decreased by an amazing 50 per cent. The five-year lung cancer death rate for a one-pack-a-day smoker decreases almost by half and in 10 years, the lung malignancy rate is similar to that of a non-smoker.
Faced by such overwhelming benefits, how can any sane person not strive to toss away cigarettes?
I'll miss Jennings' nightly broadcast as I've missed other friends who have needlessly died from this addiction. Surely, there's never been a better time to discuss ways of stopping smoking with your doctor.
www.winnipegfreepress.com
What's to stop groups from Suing?
October 6, 2005
I got to thinking, after reading all the letters about the Supreme Court decision to allow lawsuits against tobacco companies, how much this could hurt the government.
If they allow lawsuits against tobacco companies what's to stop groups from suing the government?
After all did it not allow the sale of this product and reap huge profits through taxes, all the while knowing it is bad for people? This could surely open up a new can of worms -- at the taxpayers' expense of course. Sober as a judge? Give me a break, one too many cognacs deciding that ruling.
Claude Sauve
(The plaintiff in this case is the province of B.C. ... we doubt it's going to sue the feds)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/06/1250340.html
Quit smoking! -AB
By LYN COCKBURN Thu, October 6, 2005
It's a good thing Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1618) is dead because if the famed explorer (and scalawag) was alive today he'd kill himself.
He'd read a few stats about smoking, realize how many deaths it causes and, overcome with remorse for making smoking popular first in England and then worldwide, he'd leap from the top of the nearest skyscraper - after taking a moment to appreciate the view, of course, because there was nothing so high in the London of his day.
And if he refused to jump voluntarily, there are those of us who'd happily give him a helpful push. We'd be the ones who quit smoking on the second, third or 54th attempt - in an agony of anxiety, bad temper, overeating and other pleasant withdrawal symptoms.
Speaking of withdrawal, more than one expert on the topic of smoking likens the power of nicotine to more than that of heroin and cocaine. Thanks a lot, Walt. Better you should have stuck to throwing your cloak over puddles so that your buddy Queen Elizabeth I wouldn't get her shoes dirty. (They were more than buddies, but this is a column about smoking, not sex).
I can attest to the power of nicotine. By the time I quit smoking some 15 years ago, I was up to three packs a day.
And the actual quitting nearly drove all my friends away. I was that cranky. I didn't talk for three weeks - I snarled.
A friend who ordinarily has nerves of titanium, confessed during his quitting smoking hell, "Lyn, I can't believe I did it. I saw a cigarette butt on the street yesterday and I picked it up." He paused, looking miserable and added, "What's more, I smoked it."
My friend and I are among the lucky ones who smoked heavily for years and yet remain in good health. Millions of people around the world are not so fortunate.
Here are just a few charming statistics from recent studies and publications from such institutions as the Mayo Clinic and the World Health Organization:
* There were nearly five million smoking-related deaths worldwide in 2000.
* In the United States, 440,000 people die each year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour from smoking related illnesses.
* Over 47,000 Canadians die each year from diseases caused by smoking.
* Worldwide expenditures each year on health issues related to smoking are estimated at $200 billion US.
* In Canada the federal Health Department estimates the cost of caring for people with smoking-related diseases to be over $4 billion per year.
So it is with no sympathy whatsoever that I listen to the snivelling of big tobacco companies that are crying potential poverty over the recent Supreme Court decision to permit the provinces to sue them to recover costs.
"It may well bankrupt us," whined a spokesman for Rothmans.
"I weep for you, the walrus said ..." is my answer. And Lewis Carroll's, too.
B.C. will be the first to sue the tobacco companies (in Canada that is - Florida received $200 billion over 25 years in 1998) with other provinces close behind.
To make all of this non-smoking stuff work in the long run, everybody, governments and tobacco companies alike, have to be prepared to suffer in the short run. Governments will have to suffer withdrawal from their dependence on tax money from the sales of tobacco - $9 billion in Canada last year.
In other words, governments cannot have it both ways. They cannot reap the tax profits from the sale of tobacco and at the same time sue the tobacco companies.
And tobacco companies will have to realize this is 2005, not 1615. There is no excuse for foisting a noxious substance upon the populace when it is known that the substance in question is highly toxic and dangerous to our health.
Get over it, guys. Give it up. Desist. Hopefully, your days are numbered. I know you've got all those investments in tobacco farming, so I suggest you start planting and promoting soy. I can see the ads now: "Macho men drink soy milk" or "Ladies! Soy is good for your skin." Big market, lots of profits.
And for my fellow Canadians who puff, I have two words: QUIT SMOKING. If I and my friend who picked up butts from the street can do it, so can you.
Finally, Sir Walt may have been a favourite of Elizabeth I, but he was not in her successor's good books. James I kept him imprisoned in the tower for years and finally had him beheaded in 1618.
Rather fitting, I think.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Cockburn_Lyn/2005/10/06/1250296.html
If I die, blame me
By Jose Rodriguez October 7, 2005
Since 1970, federal and provincial governments have collected an estimated $150 billion in tobacco taxes.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2148
False claims and vindictive actions -ON
Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (letter to the editor, Oct. 5). - in last weeks newsletter
Eric Boyd - Waterloo, Ont. Friday October 07, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — If it wasn’t such a serious issue, director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco Michael Perley’s claim that mychoice.ca president Nancy Daigneault’s column "tried hard to deflect the debate on the province’s new Smoke-Free Ontario Act to any subject other than health,’’ as he then tried to deflect debate away from the severe economic harm caused by smoking bans, would have been laughable.
There is no doubt, except perhaps in the minds of those with extreme tobacco control views, that smoking bans cause economic harm. Rather than rehash them here, I’d invite Sentinel-Review readers to talk to those in the hospitality industry - bingo operators and the charities they support - to hear the truth.
If allowed to continue, the damage anti-smokers are foisting on our society in the name of health - and the anti-obesity groups following in their footsteps - will destroy freedom and democracy as we know it today. Their false claims and vindictive actions against those who oppose them seek, not to identify the truth, but rather convince us by deceit.
Ever hear the one about ventilation will not work because "tornadic winds’’ wouldn’t be strong enough to ventilate tobacco smoke from a restaurant or bar?
Now that’s laughable.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188830
Cancer’s devastating effect on young adults
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review Lorna and Rob Larsen - Woodstock Friday October 07, 2005
Remove the compassion of nurses and the love and support of family and friends from the patients on our in-patient cancer treatment centre units and the stark reality of cancer is there - shaved head, restricted nutritional intake, excessive weight loss, daily pain and branding by a central line for chemotherapy. This insidious, devastating disease strikes young and old. Despite five decades of cancer research and treatment, we have made little progress fighting the disease that was to be eradicated by 2000.
Some treatment is helping. Your chances of survival are greater if your cancer is detected early, shared by many and profitable for the drug companies. But confronted with rare forms of the disease, your odds are greatly reduced.
Contrary to the myth that cancer is a disease of aging, young adults face the disease daily - lymphomas, leukemia, bone cancer, breast and testicular cancer. There also exists a medical paradox for young adults. Twenty-five years after Terry Fox tried to raise awareness that young people get cancer, family physicians still are not looking for it.
They see the wellness in the young patient and often misdiagnose their symptoms. Once diagnosed (often months after the onset of symptoms), many physicians at the treatment centres see only the cancer and fail to work with the strengths, the "health" the young people still have including a strong heart, the vitality of youth, will to live and extensive support network.
Young adults are often painted with the same brush and protocols as our older patients facing cancer, but do not have the luxury of time. Due to their hormones, the disease is more aggressive and often fatal. They have hopes and dreams for career and family, but their potential and that for society is lost.
Changes need to take place within our health-care system to alter the outcomes and statistics for our young adults.
Awareness and physician education is critical. Medical care and policies need to improve. Hospital weaknesses in communication, pain management, medication delivery and on-call systems have to be strengthened. Tracking and research into the cause of cancer affecting young adults is essential.
Survivors and their families, friends, concerned individuals and health-care professionals interested in making a difference need to speak out. Questions need to be asked. The Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association, Regional Cancer Treatment Centres and politicians need our help. Where are all the fundraising dollars going? How are dollars being used to target cancer in young adults? Who is tracking cancer affecting young adults and possible causes? How are family physicians being educated to be more aware of cancers in young adults? How are issues for young adults being addressed in the provincial Cancer 2020 report (the blueprint for cancer care in Ontario for the next 15 years)?
The future for young adults, our future depends on it.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188829
Wrong to shoot the messenger -ON
Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (letter to the editor, Oct. 5). -in last weeks newsletter
Nancy Daigneault, - President mychoice.ca Friday October 07, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Why is it that whenever anti-smoking lobbyists read something they don’t like, they just attack it? Mr. Perley clearly does not like latest reports obtained under Freedom of Information from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. But instead of dealing with the issues, he criticizes mychoice.ca and myself for obtaining these documents and making them public.
We did not produce these reports. It is the MEDT that says the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission had already lost $131 million in gaming revenues as of last spring because of existing municipal smoking ban laws. It is the MEDT that states the province stands to lose $250 million to $350 million a year in OLGC revenues under a province wide ban.
And contrary to his allegation, mychoice.ca does not miss the point about health. In fact, a third of our members list quitting as a key issue and one of our campaigns involves pressuring governments to help pay for the high cost of cessation products.
It is Mr. Perley who is missing the point. He has every right to believe total smoking bans, which even deny smokers the choice of clubs or designated smoking rooms where they can go without bothering others, are justified no matter what impact they have on provincial revenues, or on bars, Legions or the thousands of needy causes in Ontario that depend heavily on charity bingos. But he should be up front about this, as should the government. They should not simply dismiss any points raised by others - or hide damaging reports until after a law has been passed.
Mychoice.ca’s main concern with new provincewide law is that it is part of an offensive campaign against smokers and is designed not to protect the public at large, but to arbitrarily force the will of one group upon another. That said, there is no doubt taxpayers in general have a stake in this. Who does Mr. Perley think will be asked to make up any shortfalls in OLGC revenues, or in funding for charity groups?
Mr. Perley might not like having to talk about these issues, but they are valid ones.
Mychcoice.ca is very open about the fact that it is funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council. But it is a registered non-profit organization and represents the interests of its 23,000 individual registered members - almost 14,000 of whom are from Ontario. We do not represent companies or other organizations.
Mr. Perley’s organization is funded entirely by governments and other organizations, that receive funding from governments and receive support from pharmaceutical companies that produce cessation products. Does this mean anything he says is suspect, because he has to support the governments that fund him and not upset drug companies by complaining about the high cost of quit smoking gum and patches?
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188831
Supreme folly
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing government to sue tobacco companies misses one important point that seems to be missing more and more in our society, personal responsibility.
This a legal product that everyone knows eventually kills its users. We have all known this for years and years. Now the government can sue a company over a product that is legal to sell and from which the government makes a bundle in taxes, because there are still people who smoke. What is next, alcohol? You can drink yourself to death, too.
The real addict here is the government which is addicted to money and will use any means, even one as absurd as this, to get their "fix."
Scott G. Miner Winnipeg
(Running a government's costly. There are fat bureaucrats to feed, old pals to reward, votes to buy and lies to print in high gloss.)
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/07/1251813.html
Canada's tobacco health warnings to be showcased at Museum of Modern Art
OTTAWA, Oct. 7 /CNW Telbec/ -
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh said "I am very proud that these labels have been recognized as being among some of the most innovative contemporary designs in the world."
Building on the success of the first set of health warnings, Health Canada is currently working towards the development of new requirements. Research shows the effectiveness of the health warnings; however, Canadians may be getting accustomed to the images displayed on tobacco packaging. The warnings will lose impact over time if left unchanged.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/07/c8858.html
Toronto Still Being Swamped with Litter -ON
Board of Trade says City can't win the fight alone
The Toronto Board of Trade says new figures from City Hall show that the Toronto government cannot win the fight against litter alone. Mayor David Miller says litter was improved by 4% this year. The Board of Trade is concerned that this rate of improvement may not be enough to reach Toronto's litter reduction goal.
The Downtown Yonge Street B.I.A. and the Little Italy B.I.A. have also played active roles in reducing the amount of litter found on our streets. As part of their Cigarette Butt Pilot Project, they will be installing 17 cigarette receptacles in the Downtown Yonge area between Dundas and Gerrard Streets within the next two weeks.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/07/c8896.html
Cigarette tax will be Big O's lasting legacy -QC
Levy was instituted in 1976; Quebec noted new plans for post-debt cash in August, finance ministry official says
KEVIN DOUGHERTY The Gazette October 8, 2005
Smokers who might have been expecting a break on the provincial tobacco tax when the debt for Montreal's Olympics facilities is paid off are in for a letdown.
The $1.5-billion bill for the Olympic Stadium, the Velodrome (now the Biodome), the twin pyramids of the Olympic village and other facilities for the 1976 games will be paid off next June - 30 years after they were built.
But the special tax on tobacco, instituted in 1976 to pay for Montreal's Olympic facilities is staying in force.
With interest, the final cost of the facilities is closer to $2.3 billion.
Yesterday, Michel Rochette, spokesperson for Finance Minister Michel Audet, first denied there ever was a special tax, then said the government has already announced the added revenues will go into Quebec's consolidated revenue fund.
Rochette recalled Education Minister Jean-Marc Fournier, who is also responsible for recreation and sport, declared in August he wanted to use the $81 million the Olympic tobacco tax generates for sporting facilities, such as new soccer fields.
"I'm a bit surprised because we already talked about that a month and a half ago," Rochette said yesterday.
"The tobacco tax has existed for years and years," he said, adding that in 1976 then-Liberal Finance Minister Raymond Garneau "decided to take part of the (tobacco) tax and assign it to the Regie des installations Olympic for the stadium."
In fact, in his 1976-1977 budget, delivered May 11, 1976, Garneau announced a "special tax on tobacco" of two-fifths a cent per cigarette, doubling Quebec's tax on a carton of 200 cigarettes from 80 cents to to $1.60.
Quebec smokers now pay $15.85 in federal excise a carton, on top of the $20.60 provincial tobacco tax, GST and Quebec sales tax.
Garneau, who is pictured in the budget document puffing on a pipe, presented a $9.730 billion budget that year, carrying a $630-million deficit. By comparison, the current Quebec budget calls for spending of $55 billion.
Garneau announced, "we have decided to tax a luxury item in order to finance what may be called luxury installations."
The Olympics were originally estimated to cost $250 million and would be "self-financing," said then-Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau.
"The Olympic Games can no more lose money than a man can have a baby," Drapeau posited.
But by 1975, with the games less than a year away, poor soil conditions that no one bothered to check, a sophisticated design by French architect Roger Taillibert - which bedeviled Montreal engineers assigned to build the stadium - and a five-month construction strike on the site, pushed costs into the stratosphere.
Quebec stepped in, taking over construction and delivering the facilities in time, but leaving the 175-metre stadium tower and Taillibert's parachute roof unbuilt until the late 1980s.
Garneau said the Olympic tobacco tax would bring in $75 million the first year and $88 million the following year.
The RIO's special Olympic fund from cigarette taxes has actually fallen over the years as a percentage of the total tobacco tax, from 50 per cent originally to about nine percent of the current year's estimated $902-million tobacco-tax take.
Garneau also projected in 1976 that RIO's borrowings to build the Olympic facilities would be "completely reimbursed by 1982-83."
kdougherty@thegazette.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=93c739b4-cc89-42e9-8bf0-3b1959f1cc15
'It's never my fault'
Scott Miner (Supreme folly, Oct. 7) hit the nail squarely on the head. More and more people these days take zero responsibility for their actions and choices. And unfortunately they are teaching their children the same lack of ethics. "It's never my fault, must be someone I can blame."
I've made some pretty poor choices in my time and have had to live with the consequences because that is what my mother taught us growing up. The tobacco companies will just sue their insurance companies for money to pay out compensation and of course that will be passed on to Joe Public whether he smokes or not. Great system, eh?
Cathy Gilmore Winnipeg
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/08/1253377.html
City to install ashtrays to control litter -ON
By PAUL CHOI Saturday, October 8, 2005 Page A17
In an effort to cut down on unsightly discarded cigarette butts, the city will install shiny, new public ashtrays in the Yonge Street and Little Italy areas.
The three-month pilot project was announced this week by Mayor David Miller along with results of the city's latest litter audit, which found a slight improvement on last year.
"We're pleased to announce that this year's litter audit shows a continuing drop in the amount of litter on our streets," Mr. Miller said of the program.
"But there's still some recurring problems. And some of the very significant problems are cigarette butts and gum."
The small metal receptacles, to be installed on the walls of buildings, will cost about $110 each, the tab being split between the city and the two business associations.
James Robinson, executive director of the downtown Yonge business improvement area, said the project will help pretty up one of the busiest streets in the country.
"There are few places to properly dispose of cigarette butts," Mr. Robinson said. "Those who still do smoke, smoke outdoors. And the consequence is that litter and cigarette butts accumulate on our streets."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051008/TORBRIEFS08-2/TPNational/?query=smoking
Smoking ban blamed for job losses -SK
Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post Neil Scott October 8, 2005
REGINA -- Saskatchewan's 17-month employment growth winning streak went up in smoke last month, partly because of job losses linked to a smoking ban in bars.
The job losses were tabulated in data released Friday by Statistics Canada that show the total number of people employed Saskatchewan declined by 3,300, to 479,700 last month from 483,000 in September.
In another comparison, 12,500 fewer people were employed last month compared to August of this year.
Labour Minister Deb Higgins said the job decline was a "glitch," coming in the aftermath of a 17-month period in which employment had consistently increased on a year-over-year comparison.
"This decline may be as a result of the smoking ban in drinking establishments," Higgins said.
But Higgins said she is confident employment in bars and in the accommodation and food industry will stabilize as customers become more accustomed to the ban on smoking, introduced earlier this year.
The ban on smoking in bars "has been very popular" with the public, Higgins told reporters.
Data released Friday indicate there were 27,200 people employed in the accommodation and food services industries which includes bars) last month, down 4,600 compared to September last year.
What that means is that Saskatchewan would have had a 1,300 overall increase in jobs last month (compared to September 2004) if it had not been for the job losses in those industries.
That sector was not the only one suffering losses, as jobs in the "trade" and in the "fi nance, insurance, real estate and leasing sectors" also dropped.
But Higgins noted that jobs were up in several other key sectors including manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, resources and public administration. The overall decrease in jobs "is obviously disappointing to us," Higgins said.
But the September numbers "are solid, paling only by comparison to last year's record employment in September," Higgins added.
Opposition Saskatchewan Party MLA Lyle Stewart said the job statistics provide further evidence the province is going in the wrong direction under the NDP government.
"It's time for the NDP to admit that they are poisoning the business climate and driving people, jobs and opportunities out of the province," Stewart said.
A new approach that would involve lowering taxes, reducing government involvement in the economy and creating a more investment-friendly atmosphere is needed, Stewart said.
Stewart stopped short of calling for a repeal of the legislation that banned smoking in bars.
"I'm not saying that they (the government) should back off completely," Stewart said, adding there may be some possibility for modifi cations to accommodate bar owners as well as customers who like to smoke.
Mary Ann McFadyen, executive director of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, said there is no question the smoking law has created problems, particularly for bars and hotels in rural areas.
Higgins is only partially correct in claiming that the job numbers in Saskatchewan have been positive for 17 consecutive months prior to last month, MaFadyen said.
It's true that job numbers have been increasing, she said. But the slow job growth in Saskatchewan compared to nearby provinces is a concern, she said.
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=6c83af2c-64d9-48ae-8de6-cdbee14c4a91
Ruling rightly blames adults for teen addictions, says Linda McQuaig
LINDA MCQUAIG Oct. 9, 2005. 01:00 AM
The tobacco industry and its supporters have long insisted that smoking is simply a matter of "individual choice."
They note that the dangers of smoking are well-known, and yet people choose to smoke anyway — just like people choose to drive cars even though they realize many die in car accidents, and people eat junk food even though they know that can cause heart problems.
But cigarettes are in a class by themselves when it comes to their sheer killing power. Fully half the people who take up smoking on a long-term basis will die from it. That can't be said of driving cars or eating potato chips.
Furthermore, is it meaningful to talk of "individual choice" with a product notorious for its addictiveness?
Many a child made the "choice" to become a lifelong smoker at the age of 13 or even younger, when offered a cigarette in a schoolyard or hanging out at a mall, long before he or she could possibly appreciate the consequences to be faced 30 or 40 years later.
A recent Canadian study showed more than 90 per cent of adult smokers say they regret their decision to start smoking.
Getting young people hooked on smoking has long been the bread and butter of the tobacco industry.
Companies have gone to great lengths to present smoking as the symbol of coolness and rebellion — something highly seductive to teenagers. When governments have blocked marketing and selling to teenagers, the industry has figured out other ways to get their logos in front of young eyes; like sponsoring music and sports events.
Internal tobacco company documents have shown that targeting teens has been a key industry strategy.
So the notion of "individual choice" in becoming a lifelong cigarette addict is dubious.
Even more dubious is the notion of "individual choice" when it comes to paying the $4 billion health-care bill of smoking-related diseases, which kill 47,000 Canadians a year.
Clearly this financial burden isn't shouldered just by individual smokers, but by all Canadians, whose taxes pay for our public health-care system.
So it's encouraging that the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously upheld a B.C. law allowing the province to sue cigarette makers to recover smoking-related health care costs. The court saw evidence showing that for decades the tobacco industry actively covered up its own research showing how lethal smoking is.
The ruling could direct some badly needed cash into our health-care system.
More importantly, it could pave the way for far-reaching reforms that would make it difficult for cigarette manufacturers to profit from hooking young smokers. One option urged by Non-Smokers' Rights Association would be to penalize tobacco companies based on the number of customers under the age of 19.
Ultimately, the court ruling clarifies that the blame for the nation's overflowing cancer wards belongs not on uninformed 13-year-olds, but on the well-informed adults mapping out marketing strategies in the boardrooms of the tobacco industry.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1128723024909&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Do we really want private decisions regulated, asks Rondi Adamson
Rondi Adamson Oct. 9, 2005. 01:00 AM
I do not smoke. But I accept, as part of living in a country with taxpayer-subsidized health care, that I have to pay for other people's stupid choices, as well as their misfortunes. And likewise. That people make stupid choices may well be at least one argument in favour of privatized health care. But those same stupid choices don't strike me as being much of an argument in favour of governments (or, for that matter, individuals), suing tobacco companies for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses.
A choice is just that. For more than 40 years the perils of smoking have been known to us. An emphasis on personal responsibility in this country would be refreshing.
How far would we like to take things? It is indisputable that smoking causes illness.
It is also true that all kinds of illnesses could be avoided — the cost of them, as well — if people would control their weight. Cirrhosis of the liver could be avoided if people wouldn't drink, high blood pressure if one exercised more and stayed away from aggravating situations.
Careful use of condoms can prevent all manner of disease and unwanted babies, the former causing pain and costing money now, the latter sure to cost a bundle right now, and to develop bad, pricey habits of their own down the line.
But just how much do you want your private decisions regulated by others, snitched-on by your neighbours or used by your government so they can make some money?
It is not inconceivable that junk food will be next.
A report released this week by the Ontario Medical Association found obesity rates in Canadian children had nearly doubled between 1981 and 1996. Thirty years from now, those kids will be making us pay through the nose for stomach staplings. Will the government tax their chips, and sue Ruffles?
The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't just set a dangerous precedent.
It represents an utterly transparent double standard. Our governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold, and collect taxes on cigarettes. They also sell liquor and promote gambling. Should Canadian citizens sue them, then, for encouraging and profiting from such deadly endeavours?
Or perhaps tobacco should simply be banned. That would be less hypocritical than suing a tobacco company whose product you tax.
But banning tobacco would be a mistake, depending on the kind of society you want to live in. I want one where adults are free to take risks and indulge in their own selection of vices, within reason.
Adults, in turn, should then be held responsible for whatever those vices bring about. And a government that taxes cigarettes to high heaven, and then claims tobacco companies owe it money to cover treatment for emphysema and lung cancer, is not being held responsible for its own policies.
But that would suit them fine, since, while they decry smoking, the last thing any government that taxes cigarettes wants, is for its citizens to stop the deadly puffing.
Rondi Adamson is a Toronto writer whose work has been published in the Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal Europe and USA Today
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&
c=Article&cid=1128723024912&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Addiction and Illness
Warning: Tobacco use can be very profitable for your government, and used for or against its citizens (you, dummy), depending on the spin needed in order to maximize cash for said government. (Government of Canada, the same guys who created that fairy tale called Health Canada.)
Glenn Schneider
(Our governments are addicted to tobacco taxes.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ministry of health claims smokers cost the health-care system millions if not billions of dollars. Once and for all, for the public's benefit, could the ministry of health break down those figures, and show exactly how the smokers and second-hand smoke cost the government? If the ministry of health can't 'back' up those figures then it is not an issue.
Thomas Laprade
(Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of illness.)
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/09/1254633.html
A duty to ban tobacco products
Oct. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM
Suing Big Tobacco
Is there any greater hypocrisy than governments suing tobacco producers? They argue that our health-care system is burdened with additional costs, resulting from people who make a choice to smoke tobacco. These folks are effectively supported by government through its unwillingness to pass laws banning the sale or use of tobacco. Let's just stop and weigh this up. Our government, whose job is to make laws to protect society, fails to do that while raking in billions of tax dollars from the sale of this harmful substance.
In civil law, to be held liable, a person's or a company's actions must cause damage and those damages should have been foreseen by a reasonable person. From my vantage point, it is the federal and provincial governments who have a duty of care and their failure in that duty has resulted in the damages they are seeking to recover.
Even if manufacturers were found to be liable, is it not fair that we consider all of the taxes taken in from the sale of tobacco as an offset credit against these added costs? If our government really feels that tobacco use has a net cost to the treasury, then banning its use and forgoing the tax revenue should not be an issue. Or could it be that the use of tobacco brings in more tax revenue than the additional cost it imposes on the health system?
Michael H. Williams, Waterloo, Ont.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1128723023427&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Keep raising taxes to curb smoking
Oct. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM
If the provinces can get together to sue tobacco companies, they can get together to do something more immediately effective: raise their taxes.
A Supreme Court ruling in late September gave the province of British Columbia the right to sue tobacco companies under its Hospitals Act to recover costs incurred in treating illnesses caused by smoking.
Other provinces, including Alberta, were interveners in the case, supporting British Columbia's arguments. B.C. asserted the right to sue not only for damages caused by tobacco companies in the past 50 years, but for costs to be incurred in the future. Clearly British Columbia and its fellow-travelling provinces have no intention of doing what would be truly principled and ban tobacco sales completely.
It's more than a little unseemly for provinces to demand billions of dollars now, and the prospect of more in the future for products whose sale they permit, intend to permit in the future, and whose taxes pour millions into their treasuries.
The key issues here are more about tactics than principle. Is it more effective to sue tobacco companies out of existence, tax them out or legislate them out? The third option is the principled one, but regrettably, it would likely not succeed.
Every province knows that if it banned cigarette sales, the smuggling floodgates would open with contraband supplies crossing its borders from the U.S and other provinces.
Suing the tobacco companies might succeed, but it promises to be a very long and expensive haul. The Supreme Court ruling only endorsed B.C.'s right to sue; it didn't comment on the likelihood of a lawsuit succeeding.
The tobacco companies will fight any lawsuit to the final gasp, using every legal tactic to string it out as long as possible. The legal bills of the provinces will mount into the millions. So sue if you like, but don't do that alone.
Tax and sue together, increasing levies more than enough to cover the legal costs of the lawsuit, to pay for extra police to fight smuggling, and to encourage smokers to quit. Better still, announce a long-term plan to steadily ramp up tobacco taxes over time.
Smokers, especially young ones, respond to prices. The higher they rise, the more people quit. In 2001, Alberta tax hikes led to a 24 per cent reduction in the number of smokers.
The provinces seem to have no problem getting unanimity on a wide range of issues — generally when it to comes to demanding more from the federal government. Here's an area where they can come together and do something good for all Canadians, without creating a fight with the feds: strangle the tobacco companies by choking off demand.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1128723023385&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Roseau River expands casino -MB
By Matt Goerzen Tuesday, October 11th, 2005
Will hold 60 VLTs when finished
THE Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation is cashing in on the popularity of its recently built gambling centre by constructing an addition and expanding its VLT operation from 20 to 60 machines, says band Chief Terry Nelson.
Nelson said a week after the facility opened Aug. 19, band members found it was too small to accommodate the large volume of customers from the surrounding communities.
"The revenue has been there," said Nelson. "But it wasn't a big enough facility. It looked like it was kind of small when we were building it. It's way too small for what we wanted to get done."
The reserve made headlines this summer by being the third native community in Manitoba to open a gaming facility that allows its patrons to smoke.
Non-native communities came under a province-wide smoking ban in all public places, including restaurants, bars and hotels one year ago yesterday, a ban that was upheld late last week in a Manitoba court.
The province says it may not have jurisdiction over smoking on reserves, however, so casinos on reserves allow smoking, which irks competing casinos that can't let customers smoke.
Renovations at Roseau River, 100 kilometres south of Winnipeg, are already underway to enlarge the facility from its current 6,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet in what Nelson said is the first stage of planned expansions. The facility houses a Bingo hall and a restaurant, but the 20 VLTs in the building have been the biggest cash cow.
"It's just a response to demand," said RRAFN Gaming Consultant Curtis Jonnie. "Bingo is always in a break-even situation. It's the VLTs that are really driving the business. The current facility was built with expansion in mind."
Under its existing licensing agreement with the Province, the gaming centre is permitted up to 60 VLTs.
In addition to the 40 new machines, the $140,000 expansion will also accommodate a lounge area, and space for the band's planning office.
While he admits business has been good, Nelson was hesitant to elaborate on community support in the region.
"That's a national secret," laughed Chief Nelson. "It's doing good. That's all I want to say about that."
The expansion is scheduled for completion by the end of October.
www.winnipegfreepress.com
Bingo loss Analysis -AB
I'm a non-smoker and I've played bingo for years with smoke blowing in my face, sticking to my hair and clothes, filling up my lungs and making my eyes water. Even in halls with non-smoking rooms, guess where the bathrooms, food service, bingo sheets, entrances and exits were? Out in the smoking section! So it makes me mad to hear that bingo halls are losing business now that the smoking bylaw is in place. The bylaw doesn't say they can't smoke, just limits where they can smoke. If smokers are going to be such addicted babies and refuse to go to bingo now, then blame them, don't blame the city or us non-smokers! You're blaming the wrong people!
Pat Dube
(Under the N: non-smoking.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/10/1256745.html
Smoking bans do create financial losses -ON
Re: Province faces $350M annual loss in gaming revenue from smoking ban (guest column, Sept. 29).
Irene Cyr - Boisbriand, Que. Tuesday October 11, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (Oct. 5 letter to the editor from Michael Perley, director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco).
Mr. Perley, please do not insult the readers’ intelligence. If there were no financial losses due to smoking bans, do you think that in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, bar owners would be paying thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees to fight the government on these laws?
If there was any sound and scientific evidence in the second-hand smoke harm, don’t you think that the two Quebec class action lawsuits would also include non-smokers that were subjected to it? It would be interesting if you could produce the proof that the WCB has paid casino employees for ailments due to second-hand smoke.
If that were the case, the lawyers and courts would be submerged with customers demanding the same compensation. If you continue altering the facts as you do, you and your organization will lose all credibility. Too bad, as before these abusive bans, the smoking rate was declining steadily. It now might take the exact opposite direction.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=189103
Posted at 2:57 pm by looped_ca
|
|
|
