smoking rights

Friday, October 21, 2005

the shift 2

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
Make a comment

the shift

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.

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.

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.