Comments

THE CITY'S new smoking bylaw has no teeth and isn't being enforced, bar staff say. Bar and restaurant staff who phoned the city's new smoking inspectors' hotline to report the bylaw was being broken were told to call the police.

"I was told to treat someone smoking in my establishment like you would a drunk and call the police. This is par for the course. It's the city," Vic Salerno, owner of Upfront Bar and Grill, said yesterday after calling inspectors to say the bylaw was being broken in his pub.

The city has assigned eight bylaw inspectors to enforce the smoking prohibition, which went into effect at midnight on June 1.

Other inspectors are supposed to enforce the bylaw as part of their daily routine.

"If we find someone smoking, they don't have to give us any ID like they would for the police. We can't charge them if we don't know their name," said smoking bylaw inspector John Coleman.

"If people want something done to stop someone from smoking they will have to phone the police and, honestly, I don't know if they would come."

Cops will not be enforcing the municipal smoking bylaw, said Toronto Police spokesman Const. Kristine Bacharach.

"It's the bylaw officers' job to enforce this bylaw, which doesn't appear to be thought through," Bacharach said.

A person who illegally lights a smoke is liable to be fined $255 -- a $205 fine, plus a $50 victim surcharge for the first offence. Repeat offenders could face fines of up to $5,000.

"There already is a lot less smoking in bars. Some folks are thumbing their nose at us but we will get to them," said Joe Mihevc, chairman of the Toronto Board of Health.

"We need to find a balance without being heavy-handed and let people get their heads around this.

"The best bylaws happen with education. There is a curve here and we will meet the curve."

IN THE PROVINCIAL Liberal government's first year in office, no cabinet minister was under the media microscope more than "Furious" George Smitherman. The Ontario health minister was given the herculean task of taming a system where annual inflation runs upwards of 5%.

His enthusiastic efforts to transform the system eventually led to the NDP-imposed nickname "Furious" George for his rumoured tantrums with hospital execs.

"I see that people are characterizing me like a pit bull," Smitherman told reporters.

Smitherman suggested he was more "poodle" than pit bull. (A good thing since his government is ordering all pit bulls leashed and neutered.)

Smitherman's attempts to curb spending set off the province's hospital cleaners, who were not amused when he mused they could be paid less.

Hospital CEOs were told to balance their books, or else, and to stop building "Taj-ma hospitals."

The province's doctors went nose-to-nose with Smitherman over a derailed compensation deal.

He also suggested his coming provincewide smoking ban would take on private clubs and Legion halls, setting off smoker alarms across the province.

All in all, a busy year for the surprise standout in Premier Dalton McGuinty's cabinet.

    OTTAWA, Jan. 1 /CNW Telbec/ - Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh marked New Year's Day 2005 by congratulating Saskatchewan on its new province-wide smoking ban, which takes effect today. The new law bans smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants, and prohibits the use of designated smoking rooms. This legislation follows on the heels of similar bans in Manitoba and New Brunswick, which took effect in October 2004.
    "I'm very encouraged that provinces and municipalities are taking steps to protect Canadians from the dangers of second-hand smoke," said Minister Dosanjh. "I would like to congratulate Saskatchewan. This strong smoking ban sets a positive example for the rest of the country. Early this year Health Canada will launch a new round of anti-tobacco advertising which will target the effects of second hand smoke."
    Heather Crowe, a longtime advocate of smoke-free workplaces, also welcomes the new legislation. Heather never smoked a day in her life, but spent her career working in the hospitality sector. She now has lung cancer - a result of her exposure to second-hand smoke. Heather has been a vocal non-smoking activist, attending numerous engagements in municipalities working towards smoke-free by-laws. "I am delighted that smoking will now be banned in
all public places in Saskatchewan," said Ms. Crowe.
    Every year, more than 45,000 Canadians die from disease or illness caused by using tobacco and at least 1,000 are non-smokers. Cigarette smoke is the number one cause of visible indoor air pollution and second-hand smoke exposes people to cancer-causing pollutants. The financial costs associated with employee smoking are also significant. The most recent conservative estimates from 1995 show annual costs per smoking employee can be up to $2,565 per year due to increased absenteeism, decreased productivity, increased life insurance premiums, and smoking area costs. The most recent figures from 1991 estimate that smoking costs the Canadian health care system approximately $3.5 billion
every year.
    The primary goal of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) is to reduce disease and death among Canadians. It recognizes that the key to success is comprehensive, integrated and sustained action, carried out in collaboration with all partners and directed at Canadians of all ages. Federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Health are committed to working together to reduce tobacco consumption in Canada.
    Health Canada has resources available to help workplaces go smoke-free, including "Smoke-free Public Places: You Can Get There" and "Towards a Healthier Workplace: A Guidebook on Tobacco Control Policies". "Smoke-free Public Places" offers hands-on, easy-to-use resources to help municipalities and communities through the various stages of planning, implementing and evaluating non-smoking by-laws and policies in public places in their community. The "Guidebook" is designed to help employees and employers who are preparing to create or strengthen tobacco control policies in their workplace.
    These and other resources on second-hand smoke and help on how to quit smoking can be found at: www.GoSmokefree.ca or by calling 1 800 O-Canada     (1 800-622-6232).
Egalement disponible en français

For further information: Media Inquiries: Paul Duchesne, Health Canada, (613) 954-4807; Adèle Blanchard, Office of the Minister of Health, (613) 957-0200; Tricia Geddes, Office of the Minister of State (Public Health), (613) 941-8081; Public Inquiries: (613) 957-2991; Health Canada news
releases are available on the Internet at http://media.health-canada.net
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/January2005/01/c9474.html

MELFORT -- A co-owner of a hotel in Melfort fears the upcoming province-wide smoking ban could cut her business by 60 per cent.

Waneta Goldstein at the Chances R Hotel says she's giving early notice to two employees so they can take full advantage of their employment insurance.

Starting Jan. 1, smoking will be banned in all indoor public places, including restaurants and bars.

Goldstein says if business is better than expected, she'll rehire the two workers.

Lilian Campbell -- one of those facing a layoff -- says she understands the move by her employer, but finding a new job won't be easy at this time of year

A convict out of jail on statutory release is being hunted by police after he allegedly shot a man in the leg following a dispute about smoking in an apartment building hallway. Ottawa police have released a photograph of Rabih Ahmed Hamade, 25, who is wanted on weapons-related charges.

The firearm, which might have been a shotgun, was not recovered by police, said Staff Sgt. Anda Pember.

"(Hamade) is to be considered armed and dangerous," said Pember. "If the public sees him they are to call 911 immediately."

The shooting occurred at about 8:40 p.m. Monday after a 39-year-old man staying in a ninth-floor apartment at 1365 Bank St. asked his neighbour not to smoke in the hallway.

The suspect went into his apartment and a woman who was with him had words with the victim before also going inside. Soon after, the suspect opened his door and shot the victim in the leg below the knee. The victim fled inside his apartment for safety and the suspect escaped.

A tactical unit tried to flush the suspect out of the apartment before discovering he was long gone.

Hamade had been released on statutory release while serving a four-year sentence for attempted murder and weapons-related charges in connection with a nightclub shooting in 2001.

Hamade is described as 5-foot-10, about 200 lbs., and was last seen wearing a white top, blue jeans and a grey winter jacket. He might be with a white female who has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Anyone with information about Hamade's whereabouts is asked to call police at 236-1222, ext. 3212 or 3566.

Simcoe Reformer — It’s not like we didn’t see it coming.
The anti-smoking legislation tabled by the province on Wednesday is one of the few election promises the provincial Liberals have managed to keep.
Still, the Liberals’ tough stance on smoking wasn’t something they created in the last election.
During a whistle stop in Simcoe during the 1999 election campaign, Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty didn’t shy away from letting his views on the subject be known. This, despite the fact he was seeking votes in Ontario’s tobacco belt.
At the time, many local political watchers speculated his comment lost his party the local vote.
In last year’s provincial election, McGuinty didn’t need the Norfolk vote to get his majority. Problem is this area could certainly use the $50 million he pledged prior to the election.
Some have speculated that the new anti-smoking law - that will basically make all public spaces in Ontario smoke-free - will be the final nail in the coffin for this province’s tobacco industry. However, the writing has been on the wall for some time. Fewer users means less product is needed. It’s reasoning that shouldn’t be that shocking, after all, similar logic is at play with schools - fewer students means fewer schools.
But, while it is easy to understand about the downturn in the industry, it is not easy to understand why the government is dragging its heels on giving tobacco growers the $50 million they were promised not so long ago.
Few can argue against the hazards of smoking. And the issue of rights and freedoms of some individuals over others will likely rage in reference to this issue, at least in the near future. But, throughout it all, the plight of the farmers has been lost.
Certainly, the tobacco industry has been lucrative for growers in past years, and continues to add a great deal to the local economy. But, the decline has been steady and grows worse with each passing year.
All the while, governments have reaped the rewards of high taxation on the product - even as they targeted the product as being a “killer” or in the words of Health Minister George Smitherman “the No. 1 killer in Ontario.” This despite the fact it is a legal product. The province pats itself on the back for introducing the toughest smoking ban in the country, but stops short of declaring the product illegal. Go figure.
While we commend our MPP Toby Barrett for calling for a public hearing on the smoking ban we feel his energies might be better spent on making sure the Liberals stick to their campaign promise of providing $50 million for the growers.
“At this point, we are getting a little tired of hearing help is on the way,” tobacco board chair Fred Neukamm said after Wednesday’s announcement. “It’s time we got concrete action.”
“We’ve got farmers wanting and needing to exit the industry. We need to dollars to do that.”
We agree.
We also agree with Barrett’s assessment that tobacco growers “just want to make ends meet for their families. They want to pay off their debts. They want to move on.”
Funds from the province would go a long way in reaching that goal.
Still, we have to realize that tobacco growers are pawns in a political game. There’s no way the Liberals would announce $50 million in aid to farmers before they announced a tobacco ban. And there’s no way they’d announce the $50 million in aid at the same time as the smoking ban.
We don’t expect a big press conference by Mr. McGuinty to announce the funding. We don’t even expect a photo op with Agriculture Minister Steve Peters.
We just expect the money.

Lloydminster Meridian Booster — Officials at the Prairie North Health Region say enforcing Saskatchewan’s new Tobacco Control Act could present enforcement challenges for public health inspectors as they monitor eateries and bars on the Saskatchewan side of Lloydminster.
The TCA comes into effect on Jan. 1, 2005 and prohibits smoking in all restaurants and bars in Saskatchewan.
“In the context of Lloydminster it presents an enforcement challenge for us and one may argue that it may become a public relations challenge for us at the regional health authority,” said Fan. “Within the confines of the city of Lloydminster, the Prairie North Regional Health Authority and the public health inspectors who we employ have the inherent responsibility to enforce the public health act, in this case the Tobacco Control Act, but only on the Saskatchewan side.”
On the Alberta side, there is no similar legislation. Fan said when it comes to enforcement, applying the law differently within the same city could be more challenging than anticipated.
“That is something we believe will be a very difficult task for us,” said Fan.
Glennys Uzelman, vice-president of primary care services at the health region, agrees with Fan. She said inspectors will be out in pairs, usually on evenings and weekends when they’ll be able to blend easier with the crowd at bars.
“The fines are meant to be a deterrent and the public health inspectors will have a solid presence in Saskatchewan,” said Uzelman. “They will be doing inspections and responding to complaints and if need be, they will be ticketing establishments that are not working within that law. It will create some dilemmas with some businesses who won’t be terribly happy because of the differences in the city.”
Within the scope of municipal politics, city officials have the ability to pass a bylaw that would make the whole city smoke-free.
“We have had some very preliminary discussions with city officials, but a bylaw is certainly up to the politicians and the municipal government for that community,” she said.

JAMES MCCARTEN, Jan. 3, 2005.
CANADIAN PRESS
If the old adage about strength in numbers is true, then the countless ranks of Canada's estimated 4.7 million smokers who plan to kick the habit for good in 2005 should take heart.

The province of Ontario is trying to quit, too. So are Newfoundland and Saskatchewan.

Canada's most populous province is poised to join the growing ranks of provincial governments that are banning smoking virtually everywhere, from bars and restaurants to casinos and Legion halls. "There's been more progress this year than in any other single year at the provincial level," said Michael Purley, director of Ontario Campaign For Action on Tobacco, an organization founded by five health agencies, including the Ontario Medical Association, in 1992.

"This has been a huge year for progress right across the country, but Ontario's been leading the way at the local level, and now is poised to pick up a leadership role at the provincial level as well."

Manitoba and New Brunswick both went smoke-free in October, and Saskatchewan butts out for good in public places Jan. 1. Newfoundland announced just weeks ago that it would follow suit in the spring.

Ontario's legislation, introduced Dec. 15, would force everyone to butt out almost everywhere other than at home or outdoors starting May 31, 2006. It was billed as the most comprehensive in North America. Quitting still has its side effects, though: exiled smokers, irritable pub owners, a dip in revenues at blackjack tables and video lottery terminals and the costs of heated patios.

In Newfoundland, where smoking has long been banned in restaurants but permitted in pubs, bar owners are incensed.

"These are small businesses in every sense of the word," said Luc Erjavec, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association's vice-president for Atlantic Canada.

"With average annual revenues of just $205,000 and razor-thin profit margins of just 4.4 per cent, a smoking ban will devastate the pub and bar sector in this province."

In a survey of New Brunswick pubs, taverns and nightclubs, the association found that nearly three-quarters of establishments have seen business drop off with the smoking ban.

"It has simply driven smokers out of pubs and bars, and into homes and cars," Erjavec said.

Not even jail offers a safe haven any more. Prisons across Canada have been embracing the trend toward smoke-free.

Canada ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global public-health treaty, and is moving forward on banning the words "light" and "mild" from tobacco product labels and introducing "fire-safe" cigarettes, which self-extinguish when left unattended.

"It's been more negative than positive, although there have been some positive things," said Garfield Mahood, executive director of the Non-Smoker's Rights Association.

Mahood acknowledged the provincial bans and hailed Ontario's law as a major step forward, but said he won't celebrate until the law is passed.

It was also the year smokers started standing up for themselves — even if it was with the help of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, which pays for mychoice.ca, an Internet-based lobby for smokers. "It's not that you want to turn back the clock to pre-smoking ban days or force yourself on non-smokers," the website tells members, "but a little balance that allows for reasonable compromise would be nice."

As well as the many tobacco lawsuits winding their way through the courts, next year's main event against Big Tobacco is expected to centre on so-called "power walls" — the massive cigarette displays that loom over virtually every convenience store counter in the free world.

"In 2002, the industry paid $77 million to retailers across the country for retail promotional space, so it has a very, very vested interest in fighting these bans as far as it can," Purley said.

Saskatchewan was the first province to try to ban the displays with a controversial 2002 law that is scheduled to be challenged in the Supreme Court in January. Manitoba is holding off on its proposed law until then.

- US border crossings18.1% decreased since 2002 (before sars), decreased 1.3% in the first 3 quarters compared to Jan- Sept. of 2003

- travel to US increased 6.3% for Jan- Sept. of 2004 compared to Jan- Sept 2004. When compared to Jan -Sept of 2002 increased 2.9%

By Jean Lian — While businesses across Saskatchewan butt out when the province-wide smoking ban kicks in on Jan. 1, the same cannot be said for casinos on Indian reserves.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) does not intend to comply with the smoking ban, citing the Constitution Act of 1876 which puts Indian reserves under federal jurisdiction as a reason for exempting Indian-run casinos from the provincial smoking ban.
FSIN First Vice-Chief Morley Watson reiterated in its Dec. 20 press release that “the issue is jurisdiction, and within that, the ability of First Nations to create their own laws that are truly reflective of their communities.”
He cited the Lac La Ronge Indian band which enacted a complete smoking ban in public places and the Saskatoon Tribal Council which has been making its buildings smoke-free since 1993 as examples of communities around the province enacting their own rules.
“In any situation where federal legislation, including a First Nations bylaw, is inconsistent or at odds with provincial legislation, the federal legislation takes precedent in any cases where division of powers allow for this,” said Watson.
Nevertheless, Watson indicated FSIN’s willingness to engage in a dialogue with the provincial government as there are “often areas in which federal and provincial legislation ends up, often quite unintentionally, at cross purposes.”
FSIN’s position on the smoking ban has drawn rile from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) who criticized this as a “two-tier smoking ban”.
It stressed that if the provincial government is to be “perceived as fair and equitable”, provincial laws must apply equally to all and not “treat its citizens differently based on their ancestry”, said CTF director Tania Fiss.
CTF also cited Section 88 of the Indian Act that allows for all laws of general application in any province to be applicable to Indians in the province, a point that Canadian Cancer Society’s senior policy analyst and lawyer Rob Cunningham agrees with.
“It is clear legally that the provincial law of general application does apply to reserves,” Cunningham said.
He cited the Highway Traffic Act and laws regulating gambling as well as occupational health and safety as examples of provincial law of general application being implemented across the board.
“We’re very concerned about the high rate of cancer and smoking among the First Nations community in Saskatchewan,” said Cunningham. “Everyone should be protected from health effects of smoke regardless of where they work.”
The cancer society who sees the smoking ban as “a health issue” is adopting a wait-and-see attitude and hopes the matter can be resolved before Jan. 1.
“We’re disappointed,” said the cancer society’s Donna Pasiechnik on the FSIN’s position.Continued from front page
“One of the most important aspects of the smoking ban is to protect workers from second-hand smoke,” especially those working in the hospitality industry, added Pasiechnik.
The cancer society is partnering with regional health authorities across the province to launch a media campaign to support smoke-free businesses.
Drawing a moderate voice of concern with regards to FSIN’s position is the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan.
“I think FSIN realizes the smoking ban is going to be very damaging to their position,” said the hotel association’s executive vice-president Tom Mullin.
He is “not surprised” that FSIN decided not to comply with the smoking ban but is concerned about the issue of “level playing field” and the impact on other casinos and businesses if the smoking ban is not applied to Indian-run casinos such as those in Prince Albert, Yorkton and North Battleford.
“Right now, it’s in the government’s hands,” said Mullin who describes the smoking ban as “an economic issue”.

The bylaw banning smoking in bars came into effect as revellers rang in the new year at midnight Friday.

"I think it's crap," said one bar patron. "I don't smoke but ... a bar is a smoking place with beer or liquor drinkers. Take it away – it's people's choice. You either go to a bar or you go to a non-smoking bar, but people should have the choice, not rules."

A woman in a corner shook her head as she blew a grey cloud of smoke into the air. "I ain't gonna butt out for nobody."

That attitude may change over the next few months as bar owners remove ash trays and post non-smoking signs.

The smoking bylaw will be enforced on a complaint-driven basis. Bars and smokers who fail to comply could face a fine from the City of Whitehorse.

Barb's Miracle, an up-close chronicle of the dying days of anti-smoking activist Barb Tarbox, demands a lot from the reader. In this instance, forewarned is forearmed.

The book asks us to witness, in unvarnished words and pictures, Tarbox's agony as she succumbs to lung and brain cancer. It asks us to sympathize with the less savoury aspects of her blunt anti-tobacco campaign, which she famously and heroically took to some 50,000 students in Canada between November 2002 and April 2003.

Most significantly, Barb's Miracle asks us to believe that Tarbox's firebrand speeches, her unflagging energy and single-mindedness were not simply the courageous legacy of a rueful chainsmoker but a real miracle; a palpable act of God played out on Earth for all to see.

If the first two demands are surmountable for most, the last stumped even author David Staples, an Edmonton Journal reporter and an admitted agnostic. "I'm a newspaper journalist," Staples states in his foreword, "and I work to be objective and skeptical, qualities essential to succeeding at my craft ... In the final months of Barb's life, I did witness something ... If a miracle is to be believed, it must withstand scrutiny. This one does."

With that, we embark shotgun style with Staples and Journal photographer Greg Southam as they shadow Tarbox and her best friend Tracy Mueller through the horrible yet strangely affirming passage of terminal illness. It's a bumpy ride.

By now Tarbox's story is familiar. A lifelong smoker, the Edmonton homemaker was diagnosed with terminal cancer in late 2002. Determined to use her suffering as a means of scaring others away from the demon tobacco, Tarbox began giving warts-and-all lectures to students in schools.

Her dramatic delivery resonated, and soon Tarbox was fielding speaking offers from across the country and making appearances on radio and TV. Tarbox was front page news in Canada, and Staples produces copious correspondence from the public suggesting her missives hit the intended targets. Smokers quit smoking and kids vowed never to begin.

But Tarbox, who died in May 2003 at age 42, was not without controversy. She smoked to the very end, refusing to add nicotine withdrawal to her list of ailments (stopping wouldn't have saved her anyway). She placed enormous demands on her friends and family, especially Mueller, who took an extended leave of absence from work to act as Tarbox's ad hoc road manager.

It was a Herculean job by anyone's measure, especially since Mueller was also was required to buy cigarettes for Tarbox, who feared the bad publicity such a purchase would inevitably bring.

Tarbox chose to accept speaking engagements rather than using her final months to, say, write a journal to her coming-of-age daughter or husband. Moreover, Tarbox plainly lacked the humility we've come to prefer in our homegrown heroes. When the media came calling, she was gussied up and ready with a sound bite.

Which brings us to Barb's Miracle and some pretty germane questions, namely: Can the author or photographer offer something we haven't already seen before? And who exactly is this book for?

The answer to the former is a decided draw. Southam and Staples had remarkable access not just to Tarbox but to her family, friends, physicians, clergy and the thousands of kids who attended (and were irrevocably moved by) her powerful lectures. Yet the presentation of stories and anecdotes is surprisingly dry.

"On the way home, we stopped at a restaurant," Staples writes. "I sat next to Barb. As she ate, I saw the white goo she had previously mentioned at the corner of her mouth. I also caught a whiff of medicine from her, a hospital smell, one I associated with disease. I lost my appetite."

While one applauds Staples' reluctance to court overt sentimentality, a story like this cries out for emotional ballast, especially when set against Southam's unusually intimate black and white portraits. Barb's Miracle gives us straight recitation of fact.

To his credit, Staples keeps the proselytizing in check, sparing us the ubiquitous statistics about tobacco use and death, instead focusing on Tarbox. He even suggests Tarbox's continued smoking actually bolstered her message, underscoring the nefarious power of cigarette addiction.

Just what kind of reader this book is for is more debatable. Certainly, anyone who witnessed one of Tarbox's lectures or those who found the strength to quit smoking based on her testimonials — used to full affect by the Alberta government in its anti-smoking campaigns — will cherish the behind-the-scenes glimpses of this most astonishing woman.

But even supporters might feel uneasy with the author's submission that Tarbox was somehow imbued with strength from the beyond. Maybe she was just an amazingly focused woman. Maybe Staples, despite his journalistic defences, was simply swept up by the power of Tarbox's performances. Certainly, the author makes clear that's exactly what her speeches were — polished, well-executed performances — despite the altruistic message at their core.

Or maybe, as Staples also ultimately suggests, we as a society need to revisit our notions of what miracles are. But, as stated, that is asking a lot of a reader, especially one at the end of a story about a woman who, good deeds notwithstanding, died an awful, premature death. One is reluctant to give credit for Tarbox's remarkable feat to anyone but the woman herself.

Toronto freelance writer and editor Kim Hughes is a lead reviewer for amazon.ca.

Pincher Creek Echo — As of Jan. 1, patrons of the Husky restaurant at Pincher Station will have to leave their cigarette cravings at the door, as the establishment is implementing a no smoking policy.
“We’re going to try it out and see how it goes,” says Margaret Afdahl, Husky restaurant manager. “I have nothing against smokers or non smokers (but) it’s very hard on the staff to work in that environment.”
Afdahl says she has fielded several complaints about the smoky atmosphere from both customers and staff, noting the poor ventilation system in the building makes it difficult for the workers who are exposed to the smoke for eight hour days.
While as of Jan. 1, 2005 the Town of Pincher Creek is enforcing a bylaw, which bans smoking in any enclosed public premise where minors are allowed, Afdahl notes that, as part of the MD, she isn’t subject to the bylaw.
“Nobody’s forcing me to do this,” states Afdahl.
“I’m going to try it out, if I don’t lose too much business, I’m going to stay that way.”
However, Afdahl says response she’s received from some of the customers has been “terrible.”
“One guy went up to the waitress and told her to get a different job if the smoke bothers her,” says Afdahl.
While Afdahl says she can sympathize with the smokers, she says the smoking in the restaurant has become excessive.
“One day I counted 28 cigarettes in an ashtray,” says Afdahl.
“Even some of the smokers are complaining.”

Health Committee

13th May 2004 (Session 2)

Evidence Received for
The Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill

SUBMISSION FROM IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED

General comments

Imperial Tobacco Limited welcomes this first opportunity to submit evidence on the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill provided by the Health Committee.

Whether or not to ban or severely restrict smoking in public places is an issue for debate. We recognise that other people's tobacco smoke can be unpleasant or annoying, and raises health concerns for many. We also accept that some non-smokers would prefer not to be exposed to other people's smoke, and that therefore some sensible accommodation is required.

Whilst it may be sensible to place some restrictions on where and when people can smoke, we do not believe that unjustifiable restrictions or wholesale bans are necessary. We believe that an accommodation to satisfy both smokers and non-smokers can be found through sensible arrangements, defined by local needs and circumstances.

The Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill is an example of unjustifiable and excessive regulation. The Bill seeks to ban smoking in any enclosed public space where food is supplied or consumed. In practical terms, it will impose a ban on smoking in a wide variety of establishments, including restaurants, pubs and bars. It will also impose potentially unworkable restrictions upon some clubs, hotels, village and community halls or centres and other similar facilities.

This Bill sets out a `reasonable' and balanced approach to the issue of public smoking, but in effect will impose a ban on public smoking across a wide range of establishments. Whilst the preparation and consumption of food is used as the basis for the proposed restrictions, the Policy Memorandum fails to put forward a single argument linking the issue of food and smoking.

General principles behind the Bill

The debate about the regulation of smoking in public places, including the workplace, has intensified in recent months with a number of national and local organisations publicly stating their support for further regulation. Imperial Tobacco believes that such calls are misplaced and unfounded for a number of reasons:

The science

The scientific evidence, based upon around sixty studies, does not demonstrate that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) causes lung cancer, heart disease or other diseases in non-smokers when considered as a whole. The five largest studies produced inconsistent findings with one reporting a small increase in risk, three reporting no statistically significant increase in risk, and one reporting a statistically significant decrease in risk.

Where a statistically significant association was reported, the magnitude of relative risk reported was so small (typically below 2.0) that it would generally be regarded as too weak by conventionally accepted epidemiological standards to form the basis for public health policy 1. The UK Government has provided its own view on relative risk factors: "A stronger association - of greater than 2 - is more likely to reflect causation than is a weaker association - of less than 2 - as this is more likely to result from methodological biases or to reflect indirect associations which are not causal" 2.

Small increases in relative risk are sometimes reported in percentage terms. A relative risk of 1.2, for example, is often popularised as a 20% increase in risk, giving an impression that if 100 people were exposed to the risk, 20 of them would contract the disease. This is highly misleading. A 20% increase in a number that is small produces a number that is still small. To put it simply, a relative risk of 1.2 for a disease for which the incidence is 10 per 100,000 per year in a non-exposed population implies that the incidence is 12 per 100,000 per year in an exposed population.

Consequently the studies that have been conducted, when combined, show a relative risk to lung cancer of about 1.2 for spouses of smokers and of 1.1 for colleagues of smokers at work. This compares with diesel exhaust fumes (2.6) and electromagnetic fields (3.2), which in line with normal statistical practice on such studies are treated as not significant and within experimental error. Similar numbers are produced for population studies on ETS and heart disease.

Although the views of many in the medical and regulatory communities are unequivocal, there are notable exceptions. The editor of the British Medical Journal, which is strongly anti-tobacco, recently stated: "We are certainly interested in whether passive smoking kills, and it's clear to us that the question has not been definitively answered. Indeed it may never be answered definitively. It's a hard question, and our methods are inadequate". 3

In general, however, it is extremely difficult to achieve any rationale dialogue on the science, as regulators have adopted the position they wish to for political purposes from the highly inconclusive data and do not engage on the statistical and rather esoteric scientific issues.

To summarise, we do not believe that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease. The population studies which have led to claims of any health risk are subject to methodological flaws, but at most indicate a very small risk. As a result we do not believe that prohibitions on smoking in an "enclosed public space" where food is supplied and consumed are justified by the scientific/health arguments.

Choice and fairness

Central to this debate are the concepts of choice and fairness. Smokers and non-smokers are reasonable people who are looking for fairness and balance. This issue can be resolved through common sense and courtesy, and by introducing practical solutions such as well-ventilated smoking and no-smoking areas. The bottom line is about giving people choice and information, and letting them decide.

It is clear that ventilation and air filtration can provide substantial improvements in air quality, and do so in many situations including operating theatres, electronic manufacturing sites, and elsewhere. Thus even the annoyance of other people's smoke can be eliminated or reduced to a minimum.

It is often portrayed that a majority are in favour of bans - this is not the case. Recent evidence from the largest surveys presently conducted suggest that a large majority - somewhere between 57 and 76% of people are against a ban on smoking in bars and pubs. These are not figures produced by the tobacco industry, but rather the London Health Commission's `Big Smoke Debate'4, MORI/the Greater London Authority poll 5 and MORI/SmokeFree London UK poll 6.

Whilst an undisputed majority of people wish to see the provision of non-smoking areas increased, it has not expressed a view that this should be achieved by prohibiting smoking when voluntary, self-regulation is proving to be increasingly effective.

Significant progress has been made by the Scottish Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places, which mirrors the agreement with the hospitality industry operating in England and Wales. Whilst further and more rapid progress is always desirable, it would be nonsense to reject the Scottish Voluntary Charter outright at a time when the UK Government is negotiating with the hospitality industry in England and Wales for higher compliance levels within an accelerated timeframe.

The Bill defines restaurants and other places were food is served and consumed and `communicating spaces' as being "public places". However, these are not generally public places or spaces. They are privately owned premises. Authorities should not have a natural right to control how they are operated. Whether an establishment permits, prohibits or otherwise regulates smoking is rightly a matter for the owner/operator to determine. They know what makes good business sense to provide what their customers want. Where there is a demand for a smoking ban, or for separate areas for smokers and non-smokers, commercial operators will and do respond with appropriate local initiatives. If they do not respond to local concerns, then their trade will suffer.

The Bill assumes that consumers or customers are somehow compelled to eat food in areas that may also permit smoking. This is clearly not the case. Consumers are in no way compelled to give their custom to an establishment if they do not care for some aspect of the place. Smoking may only be one out of many and varied reasons for customers to choose not to patronise a particular establishment.

The Bill supposedly only prohibits smoking in certain enclosed public spaces. However the definition of a regulated area is written in such terms as is likely to lead to much dispute and argument and in many instances would effectively ban smoking throughout in certain establishments. The definitions of `regulated area' and the inclusion of `connecting spaces' including stairways and passageways as a public space will force very many establishments, particularly the smaller ones, to choose between the serving of food or allowing smoking. This is not a reasonable measure but rather the introduction of a part smoking ban under the guise of considered regulation.

One of the suggested principles behind the Bill is that food must not be served or consumed in the same area as smoking. Whilst some customers may not find this desirable, no evidence or argument is put forward making any link between the consuming of food and smoking.

Practical implications

The Bill will impose potentially unworkable restrictions upon some clubs, hotels, village and community halls or centres and other similar facilities. The requirement that an enclosed space must be smoke free for five days before food is provided should be of particular concern to hotels where the use of conference and private rooms may need to be varied from day to day. The rule itself is wholly unwarranted and not justifiable on any sensible grounds.

The Bill legislates for all premises where food is supplied and consumed, taking no account of the vast variety in premises. This single regime for such regulated areas will have significant cost implications for proprietors. The costs of compliance for any person providing food and wishing to provide facilities for smokers outside the area where the food is provided would, in many instances, be high and for a great many would be prohibitive, potentially involving design, layout and structural changes to the premises that in cost would far exceed any possible savings.

There have been high-profile public smoking bans in New York and Ireland in recent months. It will be some time before the true economic cost of these bans is known. Surveys do show mixed results - with those claiming no or a positive impact receiving more publicity. Others do show a negative impact. For instance, the Vinters' Federation of Ireland commissioned ICR (International Communications Research) to conduct a study exploring the effects of the smoking ban in New York City on 300 businesses in September and October 2003.

Two-thirds of responding establishments said they were seeing fewer customers now than when the ban went into effect.

Consultation

Imperial Tobacco did not make a submission to the Member's consultation in 2001 on the proposal of Ken Gibson. Consequently we were not invited to submit evidence in the 2003 consultation undertaken by Stewart Maxwell. As a result, this is the first time that Imperial Tobacco has submitted evidence to the Scottish Parliament's consideration of this issue.

Imperial Tobacco does not make any excuses for opposing a ban or unreasonable restrictions on public smoking. As a company producing a controversial product, we are willing to accept sensible and practical regulation and will participate in dialogue with governments and regulators to achieve this. However, we do not regard this measure as reasonable.

We do have a commercial interest in this issue - the fact is that millions of people like to smoke with a meal or when they are having a drink. But we also believe we have a legitimate right to defend the rights of these customers - over one million of whom live in Scotland. We do not believe that it is fair or just to make potential criminals out of these one million smokers.

Concluding remarks

The key issue on public smoking is how large (if any) is the risk, and what should be done to protect non-smokers from the small risk (if any) or at least the very real annoyance which is caused to