The Supreme Court of British Columbia has Ruled that Big Tobacco can be sued for Health Costs going back as far as 50 years.
Steve Hartwell
To get it, 'They' had to dispense with the 3 foundations that make our Justice System even remotely democratic.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
Complaint to the CRTC
I was shocked to see that there was a smoking sucks ad on the TV. The reason for the shock was that there was a picture of a "black lung" included in the ad. I have done some research and the only account I can find of a black lung is in Coal miners. This is false advertising from what I can see.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1900
The Canada Revenue Agency Strengthens its Measures to Prevent the Sale of Illegal Tobacco Products
MONTREAL, Sept. 27 /CNW Telbec/ - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Revenu Québec, is pleased to launch an awareness campaign, targeting all tobacco merchants and retailers in Quebec, reflects the federal government's desire to combat non compliance with tobacco related tax legislation.
In addition, in order to enhance CRA's ability to ensure compliance with federal tobacco legislation, the February 2005 federal budget allocated 8 Million dollars to the CRA over 5 years. These resources will be used to implement key initiatives at three different stages of the tobacco production and distribution system: enhancements to the stamping and marking regime for manufactured tobacco products, increased audit activities for tobacco manufacturers, and increased monitoring and tracking of raw leaf tobacco.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/27/c4453.html
Province Faces $350 Million a Year Loss in Gaming Revenues from Smoking Ban Confidential Government Report Warns -ON
September 28, 2005
The Ontario government stands to lose $250 million-$350 million a year in gaming revenues as a result of its new province-wide smoking ban, according to official government documents obtained by mychoice.ca under the Freedom of Information Act. (FOI)
The government was also told last year that existing municipal smoking bans in cities with gaming facilities had already cost the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp (OLGC) $131 million, and a second report indicated those existing losses might be as high as $165 million.
“While it was rushing Bill 164 into law this spring, the government steadfastly insisted there would be no serious impacts, but mychoice.ca has been saying from the beginning that smokers will not go where they are not welcome,” said mychoice.ca president Nancy Daigneault, whose association has almost 23,000 members, nearly two thirds of whom are from Ontario.
“This is a government that is still running a big annual deficit, despite having imposed new taxes on Ontarians, and it is about to impose big energy hikes on us – did it really think losing $250 million to $350 million year wasn’t worth mentioning?”
To put this dollar figure in perspective, it is two to three times the amount the government allocated in extra funding this year to cut classroom sizes.
Ms. Daigneault noted the documents state revenues will be lost because smokers will stay away, or seek alternative venues, or spend less time and money when they do go out.
“Our members have tried to make it clear to the government that as smokers they stay away from the venues that do not welcome them,” Ms. Daigneault said. “Charity bingos, bar owners and others have tried to make the government look at revenue losses in jurisdictions that already have total smoking bans, which prove smokers do stay away and that non-smokers do not take their place.
“Now we learn that all this time the government has been sitting on clear evidence from its own experts that shows there is a very big problem indeed,” Ms. Daigneault said.
Ms. Daigneault said that given the evidence on gaming revenue losses, the government can no longer pretend its punitive measures against smokers will not seriously impact those charity bingos, Legions and other establishments that depend heavily on adult smoking clienteles.
The documents, all prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, were produced before the government tabled its smoking ban legislation, Bill 164, last December.
Mychoice.ca’s initial FOI request was made last December, but these documents have only just been released – more than three months after the government passed Bill 164. The new law is scheduled to come into force May 31. 2006.
The most recent document is dated last Nov. 18 – just a month before Bill 164 was introduced. It states a preliminary spring 2004 assessment by the OLGC “determined that a Province-wide smoking ban could result in an impact of $250M-$350M in lost gaming revenues.”
A note dated Nov. 9 states that preliminary estimates of the impact on casinos alone would be at least $165 million and as much as $240 million.
A document dated Sept.8, 2004, states that existing municipal smoking bans had already cost the OLGC $131 million in lost revenues, although another undated page indicates this figure is in the $140-$165 million range.
Yet another document says the OLGC’s experience showed gaming facility revenues drop by 15%-20% after smoking bans are introduced and that any recovery experienced has been slow. Examples cited include a 20% loss experienced at the Ottawa-Carleton Racetrack Slots and an 18% loss at the Brantford Charity Casino.
There is also a “conservative” estimate that lottery ticket sales could drop by 5% as the result of “reduced convenience store traffic combined with less spare change for impulse purchases.” The government’s new tobacco control strategy has included tax hikes, and its new province-wide law includes a ban on in-store displays of tobacco products, as well as prohibiting smoking in all work or public places, and even bans separately enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms and private clubs.
Meanwhile, preliminary and final assessment reports by the OLGC on the impacts of the new province-wide smoking ban are still being withheld.
“This is all information that should have been available for public debate when this law was being considered,” Ms. Daigneault said.
Mychoice.ca was launched exactly one year ago, Sept. 28 2004, to give a voice to smokers and others who believe laws should be fair and balanced and that governments should not be allowed to intrude too far into legal adult lifestyles and choices.
It is funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, but is an independent, registered non profit organization. It pursues a wide variety of issues raised by the almost 23,000 people who have since become members. These issues range from calls for government assistance with the high cost of cessation products for those who want to quit, to mutually respectful and accommodating laws that allow smokers the choice of venues where they can smoke without bothering others.
Read the FOI documents obtained from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (PDF)
http://mychoice.ca/display_page.asp?page_id=561
What's the deal with nicotine?
Wednesday September 28, 2005
Clinton News-Record — I am a former smoker. I say this with the utmost caution because I know -- all too well -- the draw of my old friend, Player’s Extra Light.
We had a long relationship the two of us. It spanned back to 1990 while, as a second-year journalism student at St. Clair College, I picked up a cigarette one day.
I was feeling a bit stressed, you see, because a chain of unfortunate incidents -- starting with a car accident that rearranged my front teeth to the subsequent loss of my lucrative pizza delivery job, the untimely death of my cat at the claws of unkind hooligan tomcats and last, but by no means least, the death of my beloved maternal grandfather of a massive stroke at the age of 64.
His death was undoubtedly hastened by a penchant for Export A -- yes, the deadly green ones -- cigarettes. That addiction began when my grandpa was in the Merchant Marines in the 1940s. As us older folks know, giving cigarettes to military personnel was seen as a kindly gesture -- though, no doubt, one started by the wily tobacco industry that is always eager to hook a new nicotine fiend.
My addiction started when I was 21, which is -- according to statistics -- quite unusual. Though, truth be told, I’ve met many people who started to light up in their 20s and 30s.
And no, unlike what the anti-tobacco lobby will sometimes purport, these are not silly or uneducated folk. Indeed, the vast array of smoking friends I have include a book editor, an IT pro for McGill University, a teacher and an engineer.
Every one of them -- without fail -- has his/her own story as to why he/she picked up the addiction. For some, it started with peer pressure in grade or high school and for others a life event sent them heading for the match stick. Naturally, I have yet to meet anyone who says they took up smoking because it seemed like a healthy lifestyle alternative.
I managed to quit smoking last October following a nasty bout with bronchitis. I wasn’t “ready” to quit. In fact, I was in one of those spells -- that many smokers are likely familiar with -- when I felt a keen desire to smoke my brains out (and since the organ is so gigundoo, the project required a lot of time.)
But then, a couple of days passed by and I realized that if I was in for a penny, I was in for a pound. In short, I knew the hardest part of letting go had already gone by so I just went with it.That is not to say there weren’t a few rough days. Ah yes, I was ready to separate body parts from innocent passersby on more than one occasion. But, I frowned and bore the brunt of it.
After a few months, even the hints of a craving went away -- though I admit I missed the ritual itself.
Like most quitters, I’ve managed to pack on weight that is incredibly difficult to shed. I have a sneaking suspicion -- though I can’t prove it -- that there is something in multi-chemical-laced cigarettes that is designed that way. And yes, there have been occasions where I’ve been tempted to return to the cigarette counter in order to, ideally, lose some poundage. But, as I learned from my sister-in-law this past weekend, that doesn’t work.
And, as I also heard during a presentation by a tobacco education specialist at St. Anne’s on Monday, one would have to gain 100 pounds to offset the damage wrought by tobacco.
Mercifully, the weight issue isn’t that bad.
Now, I realize it’s different for everyone, but there are a few aspects of letting go of tobacco that deserve addressing.
For one, it’s been nearly a year, but I don’t “feel” like a new, rejuvenated Arnold Schwarzenegger type. Food doesn’t taste better, either, one just wolfs down more of it because of the oral ritual.
On the other hand, my teeth are noticeably whiter and my gums are as healthy as can be. Plus, my car doesn’t smell like smoke and I don’t have burn marks on my clothes. And yes, I don’t have to get up every hour or so to feed the need.
Still, I’m the same wacky cat as I’ve always been.
I absolutely refuse to send someone outside to smoke when they’re at my house and I wouldn’t dream of lecturing a parent about their habit as is rudely displayed in some TV commercials and shows.
After all, smoking is legal and it is something that -- up until very recently -- was shamelessly marketed and presented as a cool thing to do.
My beloved grandmother -- also a two-pack a day smoker -- adored her six children and growing brood of grandchildren but stomach cancer took her away at the age of 64. Recently, her youngest son -- my uncle who is only five years older than yours truly -- had his first child, a boy.
Grandma would’ve been so proud. But, thanks to tobacco, she has been out our lives -- though dearly missed -- since 1987.
I must admit I still get the occasional pang whenever someone speaks of their grandma because I feel mine should still be here. After all, she’d only be 82 today.
All of this, of course, leads me to the question I’ve been asking ever since my smoking days: Why is this stuff -- with all the evidence out there -- government approved?
I, and a lot of other grandparentless adults, am still waiting to find out.
http://www.clintonnewsrecord.com/story.php?id=187137
Manitoba judge upholds provincial smoking ban, convicts bar owner -MB
By MICHELLE MACAFEE September 29, 2005
WINNIPEG (CP) - Manitoba's sweeping smoking ban has survived a constitutional challenge that will set a precedent for other provincial governments that have, or are considering, similar measures.
On Thursday a provincial court judge rejected a rural bar owner's argument that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn't apply to native reserves.
Robert Jenkinson says he's being discriminated against and has lost lucrative VLT business at his bar in Treherne, Man., because his customers are flocking to two neighbouring reserves where they can puff away.
But Judge Murray Howell convicted Jenkinson of all 13 counts he faced, for letting customers smoke and other related offences under the law that came into effect Oct. 1, 2004.
He was fined $2,550, an amount well below the maximum penalty for each offence.
Jenkinson, who owns the Creekside Hideaway Motel, said he was disappointed with the ruling and will consider an appeal.
"I strongly believe as a Canadian that we don't have a two-tier system," Jenkinson said outside court, flanked by supporters wearing "Can the Ban" T-shirts.
"This is 2005, this isn't 1867. Let's put this country in the right direction and move forward and have everybody equal and start from there."
A coalition of rural Manitoba bar owners has raised more than $30,000 for Jenkinson's defence.
The group estimates non-native bar owners who do business close to reserves have lost up to 80 per cent of their revenues in the year the ban has been in effect.
Howell said he believed the law has financially hurt Jenkinson's business.
But he said governments regularly pass laws that can have "profound and varying" financial effects, pointing to taxation and licensing as examples.
"There must be more to a discrimination claim under Section 15 of the charter than a claimant pointing out that others are subject to differential treatment," said Howell.
Health Minister Tim Sale applauded the decision, saying it validates the government's goal to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace.
The law prohibits smoking in all public places, but can't be enforced in reserves, airports, federal prisons and other places under Ottawa's jurisdiction.
"We just keep going forward trying to reduce the level of tobacco use overall," said Sale.
"This is one step in a program that started many years ago when all of us knew tobacco was a serious issue."
But Sale said he'll take his concerns about smoking on native reserves to his federal counterpart, Ujjal Dosanjh, during next month's meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers.
"It's appropriate for the federal government to carry some responsibility in this area," said Sale.
So far, however, the federal government has been reluctant to wade into the debate.
In Saskatchewan, where a ban similar to Manitoba's went into effect in January, the federal government refused to quash any band smoking bylaws that were weaker than the provincial legislation.
Earlier this month, a judge threw out a discrimination lawsuit brought forward by the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan, saying such a challenge could only be launched by individual members.
New Brunswick's provincewide smoking ban went into effect at the same time as Manitoba's, while Ontario is planning a similar law for next year.
Crown prosecutors did not comment on Thursday's decision.
During Jenkinson's three-day trial in July, prosecutor Cynthia Devine argued the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are aimed at visible minorities and others who have been historically disadvantaged - not white male business owners such as Jenkinson.
Defence lawyer Art Stacey said he was disappointed Howell chose to take "a pretty narrow and mechanical approach" to the equality charter argument.
Jenkinson said his business, which opened in 2002, will continue to suffer under the ban.
"It's definitely hard now just to pay the bills," said Jenkinson.
"People aren't coming. They're buying their alcohol and going to people's garages. It's unfair."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/29/1240892-cp.html
Top court allows tobacco lawsuits
By JIM BROWN September 29, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - In a major blow to big tobacco, the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses.
The 9-0 judgment, handed down Thursday, applies for now only to one province. But it opens the door for all the others to take similar action - a course that could spark hundreds of billions of dollars in claims.
B.C. Health Minister George Abbott hailed the unanimous verdict as a "landmark ruling in our attempt to hold the tobacco industry responsible for its detrimental products."
His federal counterpart, Ujjal Dosanjh, expressed satisfaction as well but shied away from predictions about how many jurisdictions would follow suit.
"Whether or not other provinces want to pursue that avenue, I think that's a decision that they will make," said Dosanjh.
Most public health care in Canada is delivered under provincial medicare programs, but Ottawa is responsible for treating some people - mainly aboriginals, military personnel and prison inmates.
The court ruling appeared to leave room for the federal government to contemplate a lawsuit on that basis, but Dosanjh wasn't ready to speculate on the possibility.
"That's not an issue I have given any thought to at this point," he said outside the Commons. For now, he added, federal authorities are concentrating on educational, advertising and other programs aimed at preventing youngsters from starting to smoke.
"It was an enormous victory I think for us and for Canadians, and I think it's going to allow us to deal with some of the problems tobacco creates in people's lives," Premier Gordon Campbell said after speaking to a convention of B.C. municipalities in Vancouver.
"I think now the other provinces are now looking at carrying on with other suits as well so we'll continue to push it right now."
At issue before the Supreme Court was B.C. legislation that allows the province to seek damages to recover public health care costs dating back 50 years, as well as future costs for tobacco-related illness.
The law also curtails some of the legal defences available to tobacco companies and makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
The tobacco firms claimed the province was exceeding its legislative power, undermining judicial independence and violating the fundamental rule of law.
The high court flatly rejected all those arguments - and even suggested that B.C. was only trying to level the playing field rather than seek undue advantage.
The legal ground rules set out in the legislation are not as unfair as the tobacco firms claim, wrote Justice John Major on behalf of the court.
"They appear to reflect legitimate policy concerns of the British Columbia legislature regarding the systemic advantages tobacco manufacturers enjoy when claims for tobacco-related harm are litigated through individual common-law tort actions."
Canadians who want to claim personal damages from tobacco firms have long been free to file individual or class-action lawsuits and can still do so.
The new wrinkle in the B.C. law is that it lets the province file a so-called "aggregate action," in which it seeks to recover money to support the health care system as a whole.
That means the government doesn't have to prove specific harm to each individual.
British Columbia filed suit last year against the three major Canadian tobacco manufacturers, Imperial Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald and Rothmans, Benson and Hedges.
Also targeted were the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council and nine foreign firms, including such industry heavyweights as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris.
The suit was put on hold when the companies launched a constitutional challenge of the earlier enabling legislation that had set the stage for the court action.
The Supreme Court verdict means proceedings can resume in the lower courts - although lawyers say it will be years before the case is resolved.
John McDonald, a spokesman for Rothmans, was quick to emphasize that point in the wake of the ruling Thursday.
"This decision does not in any way find any tobacco company liable," said McDonald. "The merits of the case have yet to be argued."
Christina Dona of Imperial Tobacco echoed that view and said the company will vigorously defend the suit.
She also questioned why governments would want to sue for health costs now when they have heavily taxed cigarettes and other tobacco products for decades.
"This last year alone they collected more than $9 billion in taxes," said Dona. "Where do they think the money is coming from? There's not some hidden vault for them to loot that has cash in it."
Some analysts have suggested the major tobacco firms could be driven into bankruptcy if they have to assume a major share of health care costs.
But Dan Webster, a lawyer for the B.C. government, was skeptical of that claim.
"We hear the tobacco industry crying poor in the court of public opinion," said Webster. "I really seriously doubt whether British Columbians or Canadians are particularly sympathetic to them."
Rob Cunningham, a lawyer and policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society, said the financial impact on the industry pales compared to the impact its products have had on public health.
"I expect other provinces to adopt their own laws to recover health care costs," said Cunningham. "Finally the tobacco industry will be forced to account for its actions."
The B.C. initiative was modelled on similar lawsuits launched by many American states against tobacco manufacturers south of the border.
They led during the 1990s to a settlement in which the leading firms agreed to pay $245 billion U.S. over 25 years to defray health costs for illnesses linked to smoking.
There are no firm estimates of how high similar claims could go in Canada, but the federal Health Department has estimated the national cost of treating tobacco-related disease at $4 billion a year.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/09/29/1241295-cp.html
Tobacco Company Will Continue to Defend Lawsuit
MONTREAL, Sept. 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Today's Supreme Court of Canada's ruling reassures Imperial Tobacco Canada that it can have a fair trial and bring forward all the relevant information in any legal action undertaken by the B.C. government under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Recovery Act. The company intends to vigorously defend itself in any trial initiated by that province.
It must be remembered that the decision rendered today does not in any way find any tobacco company to be liable, but merely allows the action already taken by the provincial government to continue.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5855.html
Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Challenge of B.C. Legislation
No substantive court hearings have been held regarding the merits of the Province's claim as a result of the stay of the action which had been in place. RBH and Rothmans Inc. deny the Provinces' allegations and believe that they have good defenses to the Province's claim. RBH and Rothmans Inc. intend to vigorously defend themselves and anticipate that the Province's legal action will involve many years of complex litigation through the trial and appellate process.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5810.html
Canadian Cancer Society applauds Supreme Court of Canada ruling upholding B.C. tobacco legislation
"This decision represents an extremely important victory in the fight to control the tobacco industry," says Rob Cunningham, lawyer and Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society. "It clears the way for the tobacco industry to be held accountable at trial in a court of law for decades of wrongful behaviour. In light of this ruling, we urge other provinces to adopt legislation based on the B.C. model and to pursue similar lawsuits against the tobacco industry."
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/29/c5784.html
*Hotels and bars suffering -SK
Veronica Rhodes The Leader-Post Friday, September 30, 2005
Restaurant business in Saskatchewan is booming while tavern sales are tumbling, according to newly released data from Statistics Canada.
A report on the total sales for restaurants, caterers and taverns, released Thursday, showed a 1.5 per cent decrease in Saskatchewan industry sales in July 2005 compared to July 2004.
Total sales went from $81.7 million down to $80.5 million.
Full-service restaurants saw a big increase during the same time period, with $36.9 million in sales in July 2004 jumping to $40.4 million the following year. Conversely, sales for drinking places took a dive from $7.5 million in July 2004 down to $4.5 million a year later.
"They're verifying that the situation in bars or taverns in Saskatchewan is worse than we figured it is," said Tom Mullin, president and CEO of the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan.
The association has been vocal in opposing the province's ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, which came into effect Jan. 1. Mullin has often stated the ban has had a crippling effect on bars in Saskatchewan, mostly in rural areas.
Donna Pasiechnik, tobacco control co-ordinator for the provincial division of the Canadian Cancer Society, said it is too early to determine if the smoking ban directly affected taverns' sales.
At the time data collection for the report ended in July 2005, the ban had only been in place seven months. Based on the effect similar smoking bans have had on other jurisdictions, Pasiechnik said a decrease in sales was expected initially but it should come back over time.
However, she wasn't surprised to see restaurant sales go up.
"We knew for a long time prior to the smoking ban that it was coming. I think that businesses that embraced the smoking ban and got ready for it and marketed to 80 per cent of us who don't smoke are probably doing better than those who fought it tooth and nail months into it," said Pasiechnik.
Mullin said restaurants were never expected to be financially hurt by the ban.
"We never spoke on behalf of full-service restaurants. It was basically the smoking issue was going to effect the drinking establishments and the licensed lounges," said Mullin.
Data for the report was taken from a sample size and the presented sales numbers are estimates. The report notes that the amount of sales for drinking places in Saskatchewan for July 2004 should be used with caution because the quality of data used for the estimate was not ideal.
The hotels association filed a lawsuit against the provincial government earlier this year alleging the provincial smoking ban violated its members' equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because First Nations-run casinos do not comply with the legislation. The lawsuit was dismissed in August.
Mullin said the organization is still pushing the provincial government to meet with it to discuss changes to the ban.
http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=c6189fc0-a864-43de-a2e9-1401e4d723f4
EDITORIAL: They just don't know how to quit
Fri, September 30, 2005
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada paved the way for provinces to sue Big Tobacco for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
Provincial lawsuits that will now be launched due to this ruling are still years away from being decided in the courts. But if there's any justice, the provinces will lose every case.
We say this not because we are fans of smoking -- a deadly habit -- or of Big Tobacco, an ethically suspect industry.
But what's relevant here is that both our federal and provincial governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold legally in Canada -- and rake in billions of dollars in taxes from it.
Now the provinces, which pay for health care, are after even more money from the tobacco industry under the guise of caring about the well-being of their citizens. Of course, this is nonsense. If our governments truly cared about the health of their citizens, they would have banned the sale of tobacco decades ago, when its dangers became known.
This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry.
That said, this unanimous Supreme Court decision wasn't a surprise, given that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.C.'s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Ontario and Newfoundland have similar laws on the books and most other provinces are now expected to follow suit.)
The passage of similar legislation in Florida eventually led to a US $245 billion settlement, which the tobacco industry agreed to pay out to state governments over 25 years.
Obviously, the provinces will at some point attempt to reach a similar settlement with Big Tobacco here. While this move will be politically popular, it doesn't change the fact that it will also be wrong, bad public policy and utterly hypocritical.
Will the provinces, for example, then sue themselves to recover the added costs to our health care system caused by their own deep involvement in and promotion of the alcohol and gambling industries? Of course not.
Because what they're motivated by is the smell of money, not the health of their citizens. And when governments start to act this way, who knows where they'll strike next?
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/09/30/1242036.html
Utterly hypocritical-MB
Fri, September 30, 2005
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada paved the way for provinces to sue Big Tobacco for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Provincial lawsuits that will now be launched due to this ruling are still years away from being decided in the courts.
But if there's any justice, the provinces will lose every case.
We say this not because we are fans of smoking -- a deadly habit -- or of Big Tobacco, an ethically suspect industry.
But what's relevant here is that both our federal and provincial governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold legally in Canada -- and rake in billions of dollars in taxes from it.
Now the provinces, which pay for health care, are after even more money from the tobacco industry under the guise of caring about the well-being of their citizens.
Of course, this is nonsense. If our governments truly cared about the health of their citizens, they would have banned the sale of tobacco decades ago, when its dangers became known.
This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry.
That said, this unanimous Supreme Court decision wasn't a surprise, given that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.C.'s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Ontario and Newfoundland have similar laws on the books and most other provinces are now expected to follow suit.)
The passage of similar legislation in Florida eventually led to a US $245 billion settlement, which the tobacco industry agreed to pay out to state governments over 25 years.
Obviously, the provinces will at some point attempt to reach a similar settlement with Big Tobacco here. While this move will be politically popular, it doesn't change the fact that it will also be wrong, bad public policy and utterly hypocritical.
Will the provinces, for example, then sue themselves to recover the added costs to our health care system caused by their own deep involvement in and promotion of the alcohol and gambling industries? Of course not.
Because what they're motivated by is the smell of money, not the health of their citizens.
And when governments start to act this way, who knows where they'll strike next?
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2005/09/30/1242039.html ( published in all Sun editorials varying days )
Editorial - Natives excluded -MB
Friday, September 30th, 2005
THE province's smoking ban has been upheld as legal, and a Treherne bar owner has been fined $2,550 for permitting his customers to smoke in his business. The ruling will be heralded as a victory for non-smokers and for the health of all Canadians. In fact, it gives Manitoba's government a convenient excuse to ignore its responsibility to protect all Manitoba workers, regardless of where they collect their paycheques.
Provincial court Judge Murray Howell dismissed Robert Jenkinson's argument that Manitoba's Non-Smokers Health Protection Act was unconstitutional because it permitted a double standard in the province. Aboriginal businesses on reserves can ignore the legislation because the provincial government says it has no jurisdiction over them. Mr. Jenkinson argued that Sec. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected his right to equal treatment under the law and the smoking ban discriminates based on race. The judge dismissed this, noting there are all manner of licensing and taxing rules that apply differently, with varying financial effects, to groups of people and businesses.
Mr. Jenkinson's business has lost money -- something the judge accepted as factual -- due to the competition nearby at the bingos and gaming halls on the Swan Lake and Long Plain reserves, which permit puffers to light up with impunity. The province believes its anti-smoking law is good public policy because it protects the health of non-smokers. It then shrinks from imposing the ban on reserves where the NDP has traditionally held firm electoral support. It argues its legislation has no authority on reserves, which are under federal jurisdiction. In fact, as a function of good public policy, those most in need of protection from smoke-filled rooms are employees in bars, restaurants and gaming houses. Customers can always take their money elsewhere if they don't like the smell of the place or if their asthma is irritated, but finding another job can be tough. The province says regardless of what the air quality might be, workplace hazards on reserves fall under federal labour law. The federal labour department says Ottawa has such control over a First Nations commercial enterprise only if it is integral to cultural identity.
Gary Doer's government has ample authority to ban smoking and to protect First Nations workers. Deplorably, workers on reserves, where unemployment is highest, get no relief under the smoking ban, and no protection under provincial Workplace Safety and Health legislation.
In the end, Mr. Jenkinson's primary point was that there should be one law for everyone, and in the absence of good reason for a double standard, that is true in this case. If the NDP administration, for political reasons, doesn't want to pick a fight with First Nations over its smoking ban, it most certainly owes First Nations workers protection from smoke-filled rooms that may present a health hazard.
Hamilton to province: butt out over smoking legislation -ON
By Kevin Werner News Staff (Sep 30, 2005)
Hamilton politicians had harsh words for the provincial government's no smoking legislation that they believe penalizes local businesses who have followed the city's legislation.
"I find it repugnant the province has overturned municipal legislation," said Hamilton councillor Tom Jackson. "Honest businesses who have obeyed (Hamilton's) bylaw have invested thousands of dollars in designated smoking rooms."
Hamilton councillor Sam Merulla demanded that the provincial government compensate business who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on DSRs, but who will now, under the province-wide legislation, have to tear them down to become smoke-free by June 1, 2006.
"(The province) is treating us with disrespect," said Mr. Merulla. "It is usurping this city's authority. It is unfortunate, and unfair. The province should provide compensation."
But despite politicians' anger, there is very little they can do except inform the province about their disagreement.
At the urging of anti-smoking groups, Hamilton passed a non-smoking bylaw June 1, 2002, that allowed workplaces, restaurants, banquet centres and other private places to construct a DSR or become smoke-free.
On June 1, 2004, the legislation was extended to billiard halls, bingo halls, bars and nightclubs.
Smoke-free
The legislation allowed that all public and private places would, including establishments that erected DSRs, have to be smoke-free by June 1, 2008.
But the Liberals this June, passed legislation that designates all public and workplaces smoke-free by June 1, 2006.
There are about 80 Hamilton establishments that constructed DSRs instead of creating a smoke-free workplace under the city's bylaw.
About 30 establishments have still not complied to the city's no-smoking bylaw, and three operating licenses have been recently suspended.
Provincial officials believe that by establishing a June 1, 2006 date it will provide business owners enough time to comply with the provincial legislation.
Hamilton councillor Bill Kelly pointed out despite pressure from some councillors who advocated for a stricter no-smoking bylaw that would have eliminated the need for DSRs, the bylaw that was passed was "watered-down."
The province, he said, even threatened it would introduce an Ontario-wide no-smoking legislation. At the time, municipalities were approving varying degrees of no-smoking bylaws creating a crazy legislative quilt across the province.
"Other municipalities went further than us," said Mr. Kelly. "(Businesses in Hamilton) built DSRs of their own volition. I feel sorry they invested the money, but it was a decision they made."
Mr. Merulla countered, that at the time when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, there was no hint they would introduce province-wide legislation to ban smoking. Only after the Liberals took power in 2003 on the promise of introducing smoke-free workplaces, did the legislation become a reality.
"We developed a made-in-Hamilton solution," he said. "The Tories at the time did not indicate there would be province-wide legislation."
http://dundasstarnews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&c
=Article&cid=1128031105383&call_pageid=1069851996007&col=1073476868082
Let them eat junk food
By GREG BONNELL, THE CANADIAN PRESS Fri, September 30, 2005
The amount of junk food Canadians eat, and the pounds they pack on as a result, are personal choices the government has no right to discourage -- even if it means some lives will be shortened, a Toronto audience heard Wednesday.
"People may very well choose to trade off years of their life, or the possibility of disease or injury, in exchange for the current pleasure, excitement, or stress relief they get (from food)," said Jacob Sullum, a syndicated columnist and senior editor at Reason, a U.S.-based libertarian magazine.
'PROTECTING PEOPLE'
"It's not for the government to say that's not a legitimate trade-off to make. Canadians need to question the idea that just because something implicates health that government intervention is justified."
The same rationale that informed public health policy against smoking -- leading to higher tobacco taxes -- has set its sights on junk food, Sullum argued during a luncheon sponsored by the Montreal Economic Institute.
"You're talking about protecting people from their own decisions," Sullum said in an interview before the speech.
"What you put in your mouth and how much exercise you get, that's pretty personal. It doesn't get much more personal than that."
Faced with a so-called obesity epidemic -- 8% of children and 23% of adults were obese in 2004, according to Statistics Canada -- provincial governments are pursuing policies to separate people from their junk food.
Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
In Quebec, politicians are considering a junk food tax that would send a "healthy message" to citizens while helping fund athletic programs. British Columbia has shown interest in banning junk food vending machines from schools.
In Britain, a sweeping ban on junk food in the nation's schools-- including chocolate bars -- was announced Wednesday.
Sullum believes that while governments have every right to protect the public against health risks posed by communicable diseases and pollution, they have no authority to tell people what to eat.
"It's a question of what people want," Sullum said.
"What the anti-fat activists are saying is, people don't want what they ought to want, and therefore the government has to coercively change what they want."
But for Toronto-area dietitian Lynn Roblin, government-directed eating guidelines are key to a healthy society.
"Whatever government you're talking about, whether it's provincial or federal, they do have a role in promoting healthy lifestyles, definitely," Roblin said.
Skyrocketing health-care costs are among the possible repercussions of government inaction on healthy eating, she added.
"It would not be a responsible action for them to ignore this."
Sullum maintains that government policy aimed at restricting eating habits is not the answer.
"For some people the solution is, they prefer to be fat," he said. "That's their choice and they should be permitted to make it."
http://www.torontosun.com/Lifestyle/2005/09/30/1242249-sun.html
Cigarette makers play down ruling
DAVID PADDON CP September 30, 2005
First step in complex battle, they say; Stock market regulators halt trading of Rothmans on Toronto Stock Exchange
Rothmans Inc. played down the impact of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling against Canada's tobacco companies yesterday, saying it is just one step in what will be a long, complex legal battle with the B.C. government.
"This decision does not in any way find any tobacco company liable. This was a constitutional issue. It really just allows the action to continue in the province of British Columbia," Rothmans spokesperson John McDonald said.
"We very much deny the allegations that are made by the province and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges will be vigorously defending itself. And we anticipate many years of complex litigation ahead of us."
In Montreal, a spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco said the company is relieved the Supreme Court assured the company a fair trial.
"It's our intention to defend ourselves very vigorously," Christina Dona said.
"The health risks of tobacco have been known for decades. Ultimately, governments will have to be accountable for their own behaviour."
Big tobacco sees the British Columbia government's action as a cash grab, Dona added.
Analysts have said that Canada's major cigarette makers - Rothmans, Imperial Tobacco and JTI-Macdonald - can't afford the billions of dollars that could be sought by British Columbia and other provinces now that big tobacco's constitutional challenge has been rejected unanimously by the the country's highest court.
However, they also note that the provinces would have to prove many allegations and face numerous court challenges by the tobacco companies.
Merrill Lynch analyst Marc Marzollo wrote recently that the B.C. government "would still have to prove the tobacco products added to provincial health-care costs, what those costs were and that tobacco manufacturers should be the ones paying those costs."
Marzollo added that it's impossible to assess what the eventual damage awards might be.
"We believe that if the governments are ultimately successful in actions against the tobacco manufacturers, the manufacturers would have difficulty paying any amount that comes close to the billions that could potentially be sought."
Stock market regulators halted trading on Rothmans shares after the court's decision was made public in Ottawa late yesterday. The stock fell sharply this week, ahead of the court's decision, but remains well above where it was a year ago.
The 9-0 Supreme Court judgment upholds provincial legislation that allows the British Columbia to seek damages to cover public health-care costs dating back 50 years, as well as future costs for maladies linked to tobacco.
The law also curtails some traditional defences in civil suits, and it makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
Tobacco firms had claimed the law exceeded the province's legislative powers and said it stacked the deck against them.
Rothmans, the country's only publicly traded tobacco company, has fared well in the marketplace against its major rivals - Imperial Tobacco and JTI-Macdonald, both subsidiaries of foreign multinationals - thanks to its success with discount cigarette brands that cost less than its premium brands.
However, Marzollo said in his Sept. 28 research note that the consumption of cigarettes in Canada has been declining and "the significant market-share gains by Rothmans, Benson & Hedges in recent quarters will end as industry growth of discount category cigarettes slows."
Rothmans shares last traded yesterday at $23, up 21 cents for the day but down from $25.69 at the end of last week. Its 52-week low is $16.76, set about a year ago. Its 52-week high of $26.99 was set in May.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?s_id=
K4PxE9vw%2bhl%2bXA6Qr08%2fFEyBwpwP2Avqak4%2bPt0ixNGb8WSq%2fL3i6A%3d%3d
Rothmans Inc. Announces Further Details Regarding Supreme Court of Canada Decision
Studies prepared for Health Canada have already concluded that British Columbia receives more in tobacco tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products in the Province than it spends on related health care. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the Province's ability to recover monetary damages in excess of the taxes that it collects.
The Supreme Court of Canada judgment can be found at www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6267.html
Smoke ban upheld
By NATALIE PONA, COURTS REPORTER September 30, 2005
Letting patrons light up costs bar owner $2,550
A constitutional challenge of the province's butt ban went up in smoke yesterday when a judge convicted a rural bar owner of letting customers light up.
Provincial court Judge Murray Howell ordered Robert Jenkinson to pay $2,550 in fines and costs for 13 convictions of breaking the smoking ban.
"It's a very disappointing day for business owners in Manitoba," Jenkinson said outside court after the decision was heard.
Under provincial legislation, smoking is banned in most enclosed public places.
Jenkinson had argued the ban discriminates based on race because it doesn't apply to First Nations communities.
He said the ban, which took effect last year, has slashed his customer base by nearly half to his bar in Treherne, Man.
His patrons now go to bars on nearby reserves where they can smoke, he said.
"Something's got to change. All I'm looking for is an equal playing field," he said.
Howell dismissed Jenkinson's defence, saying the ban is "constitutionally valid legislation."
"The mere fact of differential treatment by the law between those on reserves and those off reserves does not in itself constitute a breach of ... the charter," Howell wrote in his decision.
Plans to appeal
Art Stacey, Jenkinson's lawyer, said he plans to appeal.
In light of yesterday's ruling, Health Minister Tim Sale said he plans to call on Ottawa to implement a similar smoking ban on reserves.
"I'll be putting it on the agenda with (federal Health Minister) Mr. (Ujjal) Dosanjh, but the laws that they frame will obviously be their responsibility," said Sale, adding he is equally concerned about smoking on reserves.
"I think there are many people in reserve communities and reserve leaders who feel that smoking is a real problem, and they are prepared to take action."
The minister also said the judge's decision vindicates the province's approach to the smoking ban.
The Manitoba Hotel Association helped pay some of Jenkinson's legal fees but it likely won't participate in any challenge to yesterday's ruling, president Jim Baker said.
Entrepreneurs have argued they're losing customers to casinos and other businesses on reserves that are exempt from the smoking ban.
"I think this issue has all but exhausted itself," said Brokenhead Ojibway Nation Chief Tina Leveque, whose band operates the recently opened South Beach Casino near Grand Beach.
"First Nations have no impact whatsoever in the making and creation of provincial laws. If the people of Manitoba have an issue with their lawmakers, there's avenues they can pursue."
By now, most operators have adjusted to the law, said Larry McLennan, president of the Manitoba Restaurant and Food Service Association.
"The ruling is almost anti-climactic," he said. "Whether they like it or not, they've moved on."
Now that the provincial bylaw has passed a court test, Mayor Sam Katz and some councillors are musing about snuffing out the city's smoking bylaw.
The ruling got them thinking the higher government law may make their two-year-old municipal clampdown redundant and an unnecessary expense to enforce, said Katz.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2005/09/30/1241966-sun.html
Letting patrons light up costs bar owner $2,550 -MB
He said the ban, which took effect last year, has slashed his customer base by nearly half to his bar in Treherne, Man.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2138
Growers caught in the middle of governments' war on tobacco -ON
TILLSONBURG, ON, Sept. 30 /CNW/ - The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, that clears the way for the Government of British Columbia and other provinces to sue cigarette companies for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses, could result in more devastation for tobacco farmers in southwestern Ontario, said Fred Neukamm, Chair of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.
Neukamm expressed concern that tobacco growers would suffer indirectly as a consequence of lawsuits that may be launched by provincial governments. "Growers are caught in the middle of the war between governments and tobacco manufacturers. We have already suffered disproportionately in this war in that we are facing decreasing crop sizes and shrinking margins. This adds up to pain and hardship for our growers and their families, not to mention the communities that we live in and support," he said.
The relentless assault against tobacco consumption in Canada has unintended consequences. Mr. Neukamm noted that in the current environment, crop size continues to slide, imports are on the rise and there is a resurgence of illegal product in the marketplace.
"The fallout of the war between government and big tobacco continues to erode the viability of our sector. As a result, we are looking to all industry partners, including government and manufacturers, to do the responsible thing which is to assist those who, through no fault of their own, are facing financial ruin," said Neukamm.
For further information: Fred Neukamm, Chairman
* full release
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6168.html
Smoking ban will hurt casino revenue -ON
Brian Cross Windsor Star Friday, September 30, 2005
An internal government prediction that gaming revenues will sink by $250 million to $350 million annually once the province's smoking ban goes into effect bodes ill for Windsor, a critic of the ban says.
On Wednesday, mychoice.ca, a smoker's rights group funded by the tobacco industry, released a series of briefing notes written in 2004 to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade Joe Cordiano. Acquired with an Access to Information request, the notes say:
- Municipal non-smoking bylaws in jurisdictions like Ottawa (which has racetrack slots) and Brantford (with a charity casino) had already resulted in $131 million in lost revenue;
- Tightened rules for selling smokes will lead to less foot traffic in convenience stores and a resulting five per cent drop in lottery sales; Revenue loss for casinos alone is estimated at between $165 million and $240 million annually;
- Overall drop in gaming revenue is estimated at 20 per cent, or $250 million to $350 million annually;
- Casinos at the border, particularly Casino Windsor with three strong Detroit competitors about to build flashy new smoking-allowed facilities, will suffer a "significant revenue drop."
The legislation to ban smoking in public places, including casinos, bars, service clubs and restaurants takes effect May 31.
PREDICTING LOSSES
"I do think Windsor, because of its casino and because of its close proximity, is going to be severely impacted," said Nancy Daigneault, president of mychoice.ca. "I think a big chunk of the $250 million to $350 million that the government is predicting in losses in gaming will be coming from Windsor."
And reduced revenues translate into reduced jobs, at the casino and at spinoff businesses, she said. "The economic impact will be huge."
Casino Windsor spokeswoman Holly Ward said it's too early to speculate on potential job losses at the 4,000-employee casino. "We'll just have to match our employment complement with business levels," she said.
She said the casino is working on a marketing campaign to cope with the smoking ban, and counting on renovations under way in the existing casino (as part of the $400-million expansion that won't be complete until the end of 2007) to come online prior to May 31.
"There's going to be new things attracting them to the casino, so it's not going to be the same place as it was," she said.
Casinos are controlled by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission, which used to report to Cordiano but now reports to David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.
A spokesman for Caplan, Wilson Lee, would not share a chart -- mentioned but not included in the documents provided to mychoice.ca -- that displays the effect of the smoking ban on casinos, including the expected impact when the three new Detroit facilities are completed in 2008. The smoking ban will definitely affect revenues, said Lee.
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=53847b06-bcfe-42e2-bf57-ae71367f0099
Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations Now in Effect
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh today announced all cigarettes manufactured or imported for sale in Canada must now meet the new national standard intended for ignition propensity which will reduce the risk of fire.
This new standard does not mean fire-safe; a burning object is never completely fire safe.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6106.html
Tobacco companies hit with two massive class-action lawsuits from Que.
By ROLLANDE PARENT
MONTREAL (CP) - A class-action lawsuit seeking $17.8 billion in damages against Canada's three tobacco giants has been filed by a Quebec women on behalf of nearly 1.8 million smokers in the province.
The lawsuit, filed in Quebec Superior Court on Friday, targets Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson and Hedges and JTI MacDonald. It follows from a February decision by a Quebec Superior Court judge which upheld Cecilia Letourneau's right to go ahead with her giant class-action suit against the cigarette manufacturers.
The suit is not related to Thursday's Supreme Court decision giving the British Columbia government the right to sue tobacco companies to cover health-care costs related to smoking.
Letourneau's lawsuit claims that she, along with every other smoker in Quebec, had been misled about the dependency caused by the nicotine in cigarettes.
The action is filed on behalf of all Quebecers over the age of 15 who smoked every day in September 1998, when Letourneau first sought permission from Superior Court to go ahead with her lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks $10,000 per person: $5,000 for moral damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. If the lawsuit is successful, the tobacco giants would also have to pay interest on half that amount retroactive to February 1998, a sum that could represent an additional $5 billion.
Among the arguments cited in the lawsuit, it's alleged that cigarette manufacturers had a responsibility to inform consumers about the dangers associated with using their product.
"All the knowledge acquired over the years on the dangers of cigarettes were despite efforts by the manufacturers of tobacco products to contradict, deny or hide the truth that they already had," the document reads.
The tobacco companies were hit with a second, separate class-action lawsuit, also filed Friday in Quebec Superior Court, seeking $5 billion, according to news sources.
That lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of some 49,000 Quebecers who have contracted emphysema, or cancer of the lung, throat or larynx from smoking.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/30/1243230-cp.html
