The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter
A Section of The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
Issue 349 - October 7, 2005
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has Ruled that Big Tobacco can be sued for Health Costs going back as far as 50 years.
Complaint to the CRTC
The Canada Revenue Agency Strengthens its Measures to Prevent the Sale of Illegal Tobacco Products
What's the deal with nicotine?
Manitoba judge upholds provincial smoking ban, convicts bar owner -MB
Top court allows tobacco lawsuits
Tobacco Company Will Continue to Defend Lawsuit
Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Challenge of B.C. Legislation
Canadian Cancer Society applauds Supreme Court of Canada ruling upholding B.C. tobacco legislation
Hotels and bars suffering -SK
EDITORIAL: Utterly hypocritical
Editorial - Natives excluded -MB
Hamilton to province: butt out over smoking legislation -ON
Let them eat junk food
Cigarette makers play down ruling
Rothmans Inc. Announces Further Details Regarding Supreme Court of Canada Decision
Smoke ban upheld
Growers caught in the middle of governments' war on tobacco -ON
Smoking ban will hurt casino revenue -ON
Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations Now in Effect
Tobacco companies hit with two massive class-action lawsuits from Que.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month - One woman in nine will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. One in 27 will die from it
Tobacco taxes best spent on health
Governments 'hypocritical,' say tobacco companies
Our cartoon federal taxmen
The way of government
Shaky, two-faced fence
A flawed ruling on tobacco
An unseemly money grab
Accounting needed
But could it break the bank at Big Tobacco?
Province urged to go after tobacco money
More clouds gathering over tobacco firms -AB
So what else is new?
Cigarettes Worse
Teens not sold on butt law: Study -ON
Point taken
Very dangerous precedent
Big Tobacco doesn't owe a penny
Lawsuit smokescreen
Star Phoenix stance champions government intrusion -SK
Close the factories
McGuinty Government Helping Students Kick The Habit -ON
If Government Cared
Smokers get prod from Capital Health -AB
Family defends tobacco crown
I'm ready to sue
Depressing options
Deaths from diabetes expected to soar 44%
Both legal and lethal
Let's sue everyone!
No sympathy for tobacco companies -ON
Many inaccurate claims in column
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
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: Utterly hypocritical
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 most 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/enhttp://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/30/c6267.html
Smoke ban upheld -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
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month - One woman in nine will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. One in 27 will die from it
MONTREAL, Sept. 30 /CNW Telbec/ - October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the Canadian Cancer Society takes this opportunity to reiterate that many women are alive and well today because their breast cancer was detected and treated early.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/01/c6426.html
Tobacco taxes best spent on health
Top court clears way for lawsuits Sept. 30.
It's laughable that the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. How do they plan on collecting? How will they determine which of the thousands of annual cancer patients are victims of tobacco and second-hand smoke? Perhaps the government should first volunteer to redirect all sales taxes collected on the sale of tobacco products to the health-care system of that province before they initiate lawsuits. Not doing so would be enormously hypocritical since they are making money off the backs of addicts just as the tobacco giants are.
Jennifer Chalklin, Brampton
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1128117012241
Governments 'hypocritical,' say tobacco companies
Jeff Rud Times Colonist staff Friday, September 30, 2005
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council says the B.C. and federal governments have been like "senior partners" in their industry over the last three decades.
That means British Columbia's lawsuit to recover health-care costs related to smoking is hypocritical, council spokesman Dave Laundy said Thursday.
Laundy's comments followed a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision that clears the way for the B.C. government to go to trial with a multibillion-dollar civil suit against tobacco companies.
"Governments are the senior partners really in this industry,'' Laundy said, adding that last year the federal and provincial governments collected more than $9 billion in cigarette taxes.
Since 1970, governments in this country have reaped more than $150 billion in tobacco taxes -- about 13 times more than tobacco manufacturers combined have earned on their products, Laundy said. A settlement between tobacco companies and governments in the U.S. produced a $245-billion settlement in the late 1990s. But Laundy said the situation is different in Canada because governments are much more "proactive" in regulating the tobacco industry here.
"We have a right to operate as legal companies under the rules and regulations that are set by government,'' Laundy said. "It's somewhat hypocritical for governments to be setting these ground rules and then turning around and suing the industry which basically complies with the law.''
"Governments have been much more proactive in Canada in overseeing the tobacco industry,'' he added. "So the role of governments in the development and implementation of tobacco policy will be relevant to this lawsuit and will be fully explored.''
But B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal said the lawsuit is really "about how we can attempt to hold the tobacco companies liable for their misrepresentations and all of those things that we heard about from the 1950s onward.'' However, the council believes that the B.C. legislation cleared by Thursday's ruling essentially stacks the deck against tobacco manufacturers.
"Government should not be able to change rules in advance of a lawsuit to make it easier for them to win and harder for the defendant to defend [itself,] " Laundy said.
But B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said that's not the case with this legislation.
"The Supreme Court of Canada, by a 9-0 margin, has concluded that the deck is not stacked against the tobacco industry, that there's every reason to expect that tobacco will get a fair trial in future civil action,'' he said.
The B.C. suit includes three major Canadian companies -- Imperial Tobacco, JTI-Macdonald and Rothmans, Benson and Hedges. It also names the tobacco manufacturers' council and nine foreign companies.
"We have understood from the tobacco industry themselves that the potential consequences of these type of lawsuits would put them out of business in Canada -- that it would bankrupt them,'' said Canadian Cancer Association spokeswoman Barbara Kaminsky. "I don't know if that's an exaggeration or whether it's the truth and I guess we'll just have to see what happens as the months and years go by.''
http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/story.html?id=06d20769-7afd-4e67-bf02-3850f46fb941
Our cartoon federal taxmen
Re "They just don't know how to quit," (Editorial, Sept. 30): You are so right when you wrote, "This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry." Just what does the government do with the billions they already receive in taxes?
I was under the impression the ridiculous amount of tax on cigarettes was to: 1) discourage people from smoking, and; 2) help offset the cost of health care.
Guess I was wrong.
Another tax grab in the billions is the gas tax. Our highways are falling apart and something has to be done about it. Again, I was under the impression that the ridiculous amount of tax on gas, along with my yearly plate renewal, tire tax, etc., etc. was for the upkeep of our highways and roads. Guess I was wrong on this also. When it was said that $1 billion of the gas tax should be set aside for highway improvements, I heard politicians say a user fee should be implemented instead. All this makes me think back to watching cartoons where the tax man comes to the village demanding the people pay taxes to the king. When the people say they have no more to give, they are promptly held upside-down and shaken for any last coins they may have in their pockets.
Dave Podres
(Canadians have been held upside-down for a while)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243510.html
The way of government
Sue the tobacco companies for health costs with one hand, rake in taxes selling the product with the other. Hypocrisy, thy name is government.
Michael Knight Orillia
(They like to have it both ways)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243510.html
Shaky, two-faced fence
I couldn't agree more with your Sept. 30 editorial, Utterly hypocritical.
The governments are sitting on a shaky, two-faced fence. They need to finally make tobacco illegal and find new sources of revenue or just get into the business already. They're not fooling anyone -- except perhaps the Supreme Court -- with their hypocritical position. And, hey, imagine the fat surpluses we'd hear about if they cut out the middle man and became Big Tobacco.
Tom Buller Winnipeg
(Then they would have to sue themselves.)
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/01/1243574.html
A flawed ruling on tobacco
The Gazette Saturday, October 01, 2005
The law, in other words, shamelessly stacks the deck in favour of the province. It allows the government to launch an "aggregate action," meaning it can attempt to bill 14 domestic and foreign tobacco companies for costs the health system had to absorb as a whole.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
An unseemly money grab
Saturday, 1 October, 2005
Given broad public awareness of how deadly cigarette smoke is, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling giving British Columbia the go-ahead to sue tobacco companies may sit well with a majority of Canadians.
But that doesn't make it good public policy.
B.C. is suing a number of cigarette makers to recover smoking-related health-care costs going back to the 1950s. The province took the extraordinary step of passing a law that sets the ground rules for its court case. That is something like challenging someone to a duel and claiming the right to make the rules for the fight.
Neither Ontario nor any other province has said yet whether it will follow British Columbia's lead -- so far. But how likely is it that hard-pressed finance ministers will be able to resist such a tempting cash cow? They can look to the south for a precedent. Litigation in the United States led to a 1998 out-of-court settlement requiring tobacco companies to pay out $246 billion US over 25 years.
While mimicking the litigious fervour of the United States, B.C.'s attempt to extract money from tobacco reeks of hypocrisy. Dave Laundy of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council summed it up neatly five years ago:
"They (the government) decide it's legal, they set the rules and regulations under which the industry operates, and they collect their share of the revenues. And now they're suing us for doing what they give us a licence to do."
Indeed, governments' role in overseeing, and taxing, the sale of tobacco products makes them, in effect, willing accomplices in the distribution of a product known to be lethal.
As more than one editorialist has pointed out, British Columbia's next logical step should be to sue itself.
It must be acknowledged that government is in a bit of a no-win position with respect to the legality of cigarettes. The experience of Prohibition in the United States has shown that a ban on smokes would be unenforceable and would create a fertile ground for organized crime. To date, government has handled this conundrum by steering a middle course: regulating advertising, banning sports sponsorships, requiring manufacturers to print stark warnings on their packages, and collecting hefty taxes.
Together, taxes and public information have been doing their work. The rate of smoking in Canada stands at 20 per cent, down by about half from 1964, when a U.S. surgeon general's report definitively established tobacco smoke as a cause of death and disease, exploding the issue into the public spotlight.
The road ahead is unclear, as always, but the ruling was bad news for cigarette manufacturers, as well as for smokers concerned about the ever-rising cost of feeding their habit. There has been speculation that tobacco company losses could range into the hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly forcing makers into bankruptcy.
The essential point is that government should not conduct itself in such a two-faced manner.
"The government has made a lot of money through taxes and if they want more money through this product they can simply raises the taxes," Laundy said.
That would be a proper way of moderating corporate behaviour.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2005/10/01/1243506.html
Accounting needed
I agree wholeheartedly with John Day's letter, Cancer funds all seem to go down pit (Sept. 24).
I, too, have always wondered where the money from the Terry Fox runs for more than 25 years have gone. It seems to me the Cancer Society and the researchers who receive these funds have no incentive to find a cure or improve the survival rate of victims.
This is big business and the more money that is raised the further away the cure is.
Helen Van Gassen, Delaware
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
But could it break the bank at Big Tobacco?
SHARDA PRASHAD BUSINESS REPORTER Oct. 1, 2005. 10:27 AM
Tobacco manufacturers could be dealt a devastating blow by an onslaught of litigation after their setback at the Supreme Court of Canada this week.
The court's unanimous ruling paved the way for provincial governments to pursue billions of dollars in restitution for tobacco-related health-care costs.
Analysts believe tobacco companies will eventually settle out of court in Canada, and that settlements could be large. The companies, in turn, say they will defend themselves vigorously in court and that they have done nothing wrong.
In addition to Rothmans, Canadian manufacturers Imperial Tobacco Canada and JTI-MacDonald Corp. and other foreign manufacturers, including Philip Morris, were also named in the legal action.
Certainly the markets took a dim, although not devastating view, of the ruling, which allows British Columbia to sue tobacco manufacturers for related health-care costs dating back 50 years and for future related costs.
Shares of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., the only manufacturer with stock trading on a Canadian exchange, sank yesterday and its credit rating was put under review.
Rothmans stocked dropped $1.38, a fall of 6.0 per cent, to close at $21.62.
Dominion Bond Rating Service, meanwhile, placed the company's commercial paper and senior unsecured debt "under review with negative implications."
The ratings service indicated in a statement that litigation represented a "material risk and concern to the company." The debt review should be completed within a month, said spokesman Paul Macciacchera.
Other observers sounded similar warnings. Blackmont Capital Inc. analyst David Hartley said in a research note that a large settlement could "create tremendous financial hardship for industry participants."
The stock price of U.S. tobacco companies have recovered because of a "more favourable litigious environment and other company-specific factors," Hartley said.
Dundee Securities analyst William Chisholm lowered his stock rating to "market underperform" from "market neutral" and cut the target price by $6.50 to $20.
Hartley expects the stock price to drop to below $20. He used the $246 billion (U.S.)1998 Master Settlement Agreement in the United States with 46 states and the U.S. tobacco industry and a 1999 trial which was overturned.
In those cases, stocks plunged by 40 per cent within six months after each outcome was known.
Estimates for the B.C. claims are $10 billion.
In his note, Hartley said observers have estimated the case could take at least five years to reach a conclusion and total national claims could reach $80 billion.
Analysts, including Hartley and Marc Marzotto of Merrill Lynch, expect an out-of-court settlement will eventually be reached.
Marzotto pointed to the Master Settlement Agreement, where "not a single trial reached a jury verdict." The massive settlement is being paid out over 25 years.
Rothmans spokesperson John McDonald stated emphatically that the company would not settle out of court. Christina Dona of Imperial Tobacco Canada agreed.
Both pointed to Health Canada studies that indicate British Columbia collects more in tobacco-related revenue than it spends on related health care.
"We know the facts are on our side," said McDonald, adding the ruling found no fault or liability with the manufacturers and that "we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and challenge these allegations."
When asked about the potential impact of any payout by Imperial, Dona said answering the question would be a "presumption of guilt" and the company had done nothing wrong.
But, she said, "we don't have a hidden vault of cash."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1128117013219
Province urged to go after tobacco money
By BILL LAYE, CALGARY SUN Sat, October 1, 2005
The husband of late anti-smoking crusader Barb Tarbox says Alberta should seek cash compensation from cigarette companies.
In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada said B.C.'s government is within its rights to sue cigarette makers to recoup the costs of treating diseases linked to smoking.
The verdict has opened the door for legal action by other jurisdictions and Alberta Health officials say they will be looking into the ruling's implications.
An while he approves of the court's decision, Pat Tarbox said his wife, the former model diagnosed with terminal cancer who spent the last months of her life convincing Alberta youth to butt out, never considered suing the tobacco firms herself.
"She was of a generation that knew it was bad for them, but there's generations before us that were told otherwise," Tarbox, himself a former smoker, said yesterday.
"But these lawsuits will straighten the companies out from all the lies they told for years ... anybody who blatantly lies to the public should be held accountable."
Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit seeking $17.8 billion in damages against Canada's three tobacco giants has been filed by a Quebec woman on behalf of nearly 1.8 million smokers in that province. It targets Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson and Hedges and JTI MacDonald, and follows a February decision by a Quebec Superior Court judge that upheld Cecilia Letourneau's right to go ahead with her giant action.
The case is not related to Thursday's Supreme Court decision.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2005/10/01/1243915-sun.html
More clouds gathering over tobacco firms -AB
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005
EDMONTON -- Other provinces are considering siccing their lawyers on tobacco companies, after the Supreme Court decided this week to allow British Columbia to sue the companies for smoking-related health care costs.
Alberta Health Minister Iris Evans said the Klein government will decide by Christmas whether it too will sue the tobacco industry.
Anti-smoking lobbyists in Saskatchewan are also urging their provincial government to introduce legislation that would also allow it to sue.
Evans said smoking is related to about $1.5 billion of the province's $9 billion in annual health costs.
Lawyers for Alberta Health have been asked to quickly review B.C.'s Supreme Court win. Manitoba is also looking at the court decision.
"I hope before Christmas that we'll have something in front of caucus to talk about whether or not the justice minister and the health minister should aggressively carry it one step further," Alberta's Evans said.
Evans said Alberta law lets the province try to recover costs from tobacco makers, but admitted it has never been applied to smoking-related illness.
"This (Supreme Court) decision is a first step and a major victory for the health-care system in terms of trying to recover some of the health costs associated with smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke and for those concerned about the health of Canadians," said Alex Taylor, president of the Canadian Health Care Association and head of the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO).
It would make sense and save the provinces a lot of money if they jointly sued the tobacco companies, he said.
So what else is new?
RE "Smoking gun for suits," (Sept. 30): What in hell is going on? The federal government and the Supreme Court of Canada are going to allow lawsuits against tobacco companies because of health issues.
The Supreme Court hasn't got a clue or an ounce of intelligence to allow this kind of lawsuit unless they include the government of the day. Why? Because the government allows the sale of cigarettes to consumers and that brings in billions of dollars, and allows our citizens to suffer from diseases such as lung cancer. Until the Liberals ban the sale of products that cause this serious problem, this issue is utter stupidity.
So what else is new?
Nick Evanoff Kanata
(It's also utter hypocrisy)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1245768.html
Cigarettes Worse
HAVE always thought it is interesting that the federal government can make marijuana illegal, and spend a lot of time and money fighting it with police raids and so on, but they won't do the same thing with cigarettes, which are totally worse for your health than marijuana. I don't smoke cigarettes or marijuana, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the hypocrisy of government.
Matthew Alexander
(See today's editorial.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/02/1245565.html
Teens not sold on butt law: Study -ON
By SHARON LEM, CP Mon, October 3, 2005
The laws dealing with selling cigarettes in Ontario to underaged teens aren't effective at preventing them from buying smokes, says a recent study.
Ontario minors are easily able to buy cigarettes by themselves or through a friend, a study of 737 occasional smoking teenagers and 2,050 regular smoking teens under the legal age of 19 indicates.
The study suggests a more comprehensive approach to restricting access may be required, including upping the price of cigarettes to discourage teen use, said Dr. Terry Sullivan, president and CEO of Cancer Care Ontario.
The study found the majority of occasional smokers (69%) and regular smokers (64%) say they were asked their age less than half of the time when trying to buy cigarettes.
The paper said occasional smokers usually buy their own cigarettes from a friend (60%) whereas the majority of regular smokers said they usually buy their own cigarettes (60%).
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Health/2005/10/03/1245868-sun.html
Point taken
So the thrust of your argument in your Sept. 30 editorial "They just don't know how to quit," is: If the government really cared about the effects of tobacco, then like marijuana, it would ban the sale of tobacco thus stopping its effects. Additionally, anyone seen smoking a tobacco product must be using an illegal substance. No government has the balls to do that! But your reasoning is valid.
Scott Ellison Bowmanville
(Let's not even get into which is more dangerous, pot or tobacco ...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the next target?
As a non-smoker, I applaud the government for going after the legally operating entities of Big Tobacco through big lawsuits. How dare this legally produced, legally distributed, legally consumed and legally taxed product be so bad for us? What is the governments' timetable to go after Molson's, Seagram's, McDonald's, Pepsi and Frito-Lay? Will these industries be deemed illegal and shut down because they are all so bad for us? It's very clear that government is rapidly spinning out of control. How long before you or your business land in their sights?
G. Williams Toronto
(We predict the next step will be junk food taxes)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1245763.html
Very dangerous precedent
Re: Utterly hypocritical (Sept. 30 editorial).
If the government is genuinely concerned about the ill-effects of smoking on the public's health -- taxes be damned -- they should just make tobacco use illegal. Period.
As your editorial points out, the ruling in B.C. sets a very dangerous precedent for other legitimate companies selling legal products, such as alcohol.
I made a personal choice to smoke and I am certainly not going to sue the tobacco company for a decision I made and I really don't see any reason why the government should do so -- I would think that the taxes I have spent (and continue to spend) on cigarettes would cover any health issues I may suffer in the future.
Mrs C. McLeod Winnipeg
And then some.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make smokers pay, too
I agree that the tobacco companies should be held financially responsible for health-care costs associated with smoking (first hand as well as second hand). But they should not be totally responsible financially. Why not charge the client (smoker) for part of the costs as well, as they are ultimately responsible for putting that cigarette in their mouth and inhaling and exhaling? If adults can say, "Oh, the tobacco company made me smoke so make them pay for my health care," then how are we to teach our children about being responsible for everything they do?
Stacey Derkson Winnipeg
Smokers are paying through their teeth.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/02/1245597.html
Big Tobacco doesn't owe a penny
National Post Monday, October 03, 2005
The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in a major tobacco case, decided Thursday, is not so much a victory for governments, patients and anti-smoking crusaders as it is a vindication of the right of legislatures to make public policy.
The justices, who were unanimous, did not pass judgment on the merits of British Columbia's planned litigation against tobacco companies to recover the health care costs of smokers. They merely said that if the B.C. government wanted to pass a law giving itself the right to sue, it was within Victoria's constitutional power to do so. The court did not presume to prejudge what the outcome of such suits would be.
Now it will be up to the B.C. government -- which initiated this court case four years ago, and which has been trying for nine years to win the right to sue tobacco manufacturers -- to prove successfully to a court that cigarette companies deceived British Columbians into smoking and that, as a result, the province incurred at least $10-billion in additional health costs for duped smokers.
Proving that case will be no easy task. Unlike B.C.'s first tobacco lawsuit act, which was struck down nearly five years ago, the one upheld on Thursday does not stack the deck against the tobacco companies. Under the current law, the rules of evidence have not been changed -- as they had been in the first version -- to make it harder for cigarette makers to defend themselves. The most recent version does not attempt to extend the B.C. government's grasp beyond provincial boundaries, nor does it permit suits on behalf of people the government cannot demonstrate had been made ill by smoking or second-hand smoke, as its first law did.
Other provincial governments have rushed to line up behind B.C. with plans of their own to sue for billions, now that the Supreme Court has spoken. But like the B.C. government, they are being disingenuous.
In the United States, where tobacco taxes have traditionally been low, state governments may have been justified in seeking compensation from tobacco companies for past health costs -- as they did successfully in the 1990s. But in Canada, governments have always made more money from the sale of cigarettes than the tobacco manufacturers themselves -- many times more. Last year, for instance, Ottawa and the provinces took in more than $9-billion in taxes on smokes; the combined profits of Canada's cigarette companies were just over $1-billion. (Most years, the ratio is on the order of eight-to-one.)
In other words, Canadian governments are already the biggest beneficiaries of Canadian smokers' addiction. And if they directed their excise and sales taxes on tobacco to health care, instead of general revenues, they would already have recouped any additional costs to the health system imposed by smoking-related illnesses. The B.C. government claims it is out of pocket $10-billion in health costs over the past 50 years. But in the past 35, Canadian governments have collected more than $170-billion in tobacco taxes. B.C.'s share of that is more than $25-billion, far more than it claims it's owed. It is not the tobacco companies' fault that successive B.C. governments have spent that windfall on other programs.
The Supreme Court of Canada was correct to uphold the principle of legislative primacy in policy-making. It will now fall to B.C.'s judges to deal fairly with tobacco companies in the litigation now set to follow. As we see it, those companies don't owe Victoria, or anyone else, a penny.
Lawsuit smokescreen
By Ezra Levant Mon, October 3, 2005
Government is senior partner in tobacco industry
Let's get something straight. The government does not want Canadians to stop smoking.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2133
Star Phoenix stance champions government intrusion -SK
RE: Gov't ignoring its own policy in gaming deal September 28, 2005
Monday October 3, 2005
A recent SP (StarPhoenix) editorial commenting on the Dakota Dunes casino agreement could not resist chastising the government for not taking the opportunity to bludgeon SIGA (Sask. Indian Gaming Authority) into abiding by the province's smoking ban.
The SP has shown itself to be an unrelenting apologist for the smoking ban and an unabashed cheerleader for government in its role as nanny. However, advocating government to take on the additional role of bully simply is wrong.
SIGA obviously has not been impressed by the exaggerated and largely unproven claims that secondhand smoke is a serious health concern and, judging by the success of its casinos, a large portion of the population remains similarly unimpressed.
The FSIN (Federation of Sask. Indian Nations) and SIGA have taken the position that most, if not all, bars and bingo halls would take, if only given the opportunity. In age-restricted venues, allow adults to make their own choices without intrusive government legislation.
The FSIN has made it quite clear that it has chosen to resist the wave of anti-smoking hysteria and will continue to do so.
Get over it!
Close the factories
My suggestion to the tobacco companies in Canada would be to simply stop the production and distribution of cigarettes. It can't possibly be a violation of the law to halt the sale of a legal product and it would be difficult to sue a company that has willfully withdrawn a substance that upsets so many people by its mere presence. The money saved by not having to pay the lawsuit(s) could be used in part to compensate employees until they find new jobs or subscribe to government assistance. As well, farmers have been exploring alternative crops for years so they shouldn't pose a problem. What could possibly go wrong?
Brian Marshall Pickering
(Why would they shut down when there's little chance of government suits succeeding?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your own choices
The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for people to sue tobacco companies because of the damaging effects. What's next? Lawsuits against liquor companies because of the hangovers and missed work time? Or, lawsuits against potato chip companies because their products make people fat? Unbelievable. If you make the choice to consume products that are bad for you, you live with the consequences.
M. Berry
(Governments are addicted to tobacco money)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1246946.html
McGuinty Government Helping Students Kick The Habit -ON
Leave The Pack Behind Program Builds On Proven Results
Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson today announced the McGuinty government is expanding the fight against smoking among post-secondary students by providing $600,000 to further support the Leave The Pack Behind program.
Thirteen per cent of smokers using the program have quit, -- twice the rate of five to seven per cent of smokers who quit unaided.
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/news100305.asp
If Government Cared
RE: "UTTER hypocrisy," editorial, Oct. 3. Well said. If governments truly cared about the health of the citizens they would have banned smoking years and years ago. What's next? The Big Liquor companies? When will governments take Big Liquor to court? After all, is it not the liquor industry's fault that there are drunk drivers?
D. McTavish
(Drunk drivers are to blame.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MOST recent study estimates the cost of treating smoking-related disease at $4 billion this year. This year the federal and provincial governments' combined take from tobacco taxes will be over $7.5 billion. So the myth of smokers being a huge drain on the heath-care budget can be replaced with the truth that smokers actually subsidize the system. The difference could pay for the patch or nicotine gum for every smoker in Canada with enough left over to fund increased educational programs.
Eric Harvey
(Coughing up cash.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1246931.html
Smokers get prod from Capital Health -AB
Tue, October 4, 2005
Capital Health is taking a "gentle" approach to enforcing a sweeping smoking ban that went into effect at all its properties yesterday, a spokesman said.
"Any individuals who continue to smoke on Capital Health properties are encouraged to review the Capital Health policy," Mark Dixon said.
"We don't have the ability to assign special staff to police that. It's very much an honour type of process."
Staff and security who notice people smoking are asked to point out the new smoke-free rules.
At the Royal Alexandra Hospital, which in July was the first health centre to go smoke-free, patient Joshua Damstrom yesterday said he has no plans to butt out on hospital grounds.
"I won't. I will keep coming outside for cigarettes," he said.
The 22-year-old was attached to an IV and wasn't able to walk off hospital property.
Damstrom ventured outside a few times for cigarettes yesterday, but by late afternoon had not been asked by hospital staff to butt out.
Dixon said response to the new smoke-free rules has largely been positive.
The policy bans patients, visitors and staff from lighting up outside on the grounds and in the parkades in the Capital Health Region's 16 hospitals, 34 continuing-care facilities and 22 public and community health centres.
Smoking rooms used by palliative care and psychiatric patients in some facilities will be phased out by the spring.
Free nicotine gum, patches and other smoking cessation aids are on hand for patients. Help is also available for hospital workers who want to quit smoking.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/04/1247625-sun.html
Family defends tobacco crown
Chris Thomas & Daniel Pearce - Times-Reformer Tuesday October 04, 2005
Rick and Nellie Verbruggen have the honour of being the Ontario Tobacco Champions in the 50th year of the competition.
The Verbruggens successfully defended the title they won last year during judging at the Norfolk County Fair. But it wasn’t easy.
The Tillsonburg area couple edged out former winners Brenda and Randy Godelie by a single point to retain their title.
“That was very close,” Nellie said. “My face is warm (from the tension).”
Although the competition was tougher, Rick said the result was even more satisfying. For their efforts, the Verbruggens won more than $1,500 in prize money.
Because the tobacco harvest is still going on, there were only seven entries.
But judge Mark DeVos of the Canadian Tobacco Research Foundation said the competition was close.
The Verbruggens grew a total of 93 acres, their largest crop ever. It was Nellie’s job to set aside promising looking tobacco during grading. Then it took Rick about 12 hours to pick out the samples for display.
“It was more difficult this year because we were so busy doing other things,” he said.
However, the Verbruggens said the competition is worthwhile.
“With the way things are going in our industry, this is the only place to show off something you enjoy doing,” Rick said.
A second-generation grower for the past 19 seasons, he acknowledged the uncertainty in tobacco growing. However, his sons want to follow in his footsteps.
“As long as there is a tobacco industry, I want to grow,” said the Verbruggens’ 19-year-old son Dennis.
The junior tobacco champion was Brad Deleye, RR 2 Delhi.
Tara Tanchak of Townsend Fruit Farm was named apple champion for the second year in a row.
The 30-year-old walked through her father’s 400-acre orchard northeast of Simcoe to select the best apples to put on display.
Growing a good crop wasn’t easy this year, Tanchak told the Reformer, because of the hot, dry weather and “a bit of hail” the farm received.
Fruit chairperson Lorraine Vogel said judges look for uniformity in size, shape, and colour. Apples, Vogel said, should also “be true to type” and without blemishes.
Entrants are also judged on the attractiveness of their display. Tanchak created a harvest scene using a human-sized doll she created and a bushel basket.
“It’s a lot of hours” to enter fruit in the fair, said Vogel, who has been a contestant in the past. “You have to keep disease and insects off the apples.”
Tanchak wins almost $900 for finishing first in all eight sections and second in two of those.
She was one of two adult competitors.
Winning in the junior categories were Brooke McKay, 12, of Waterford and Brad Vogel, 12 (Lorraine Vogel’s son).
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/story.php?id=188049
I'm ready to sue
I will watch with interest the outcome of the provincial claims against Big Tobacco. I sincerely hope they win huge amounts of cash through the courts by proving the "manufacturers and their lobby" deliberately and knowingly sold us on a product that was both harmful and addictive, so that I in turn can sue the provincial and federal goverments for a ton of money for keeping such a deadly product legally on sale -- even though, as per their own argument, this product was pushing the health care system to the brink of bankruptcy. As a non-smoker now, but one who was hooked on this dangerous product (kept legal by both governments) for over 30 years, I should be in for a bundle. Anyone care to join me?
Gerry Daniels Ajax
(Go for it)
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/05/1248867.html
Depressing options
WHEN ALL the lawsuits go through and the people who freely damaged their health put the tobacco companies out of business with multibillion-dollar settlements, are the smokers who can't find any more cancer sticks going to sue the newly rich upper class of hacking ex-smokers for robbing them of their right to hurt themselves? Or will they just be mad because they didn't get sick soon enough to cash in?
C. Cary
(Depressing options.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/05/1248845.html
Deaths from diabetes expected to soar 44%
By Melissa Leong Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
Of the 388 million who will die from chronic diseases over the next 10 years, about half will suffer needless deaths because they've smoked too much, exercised too little and ate unhealthily, according to a ground-breaking new report by the World Health Organization.
The analysis released today projects that in the next decade, deaths in Canada from chronic diseases will increase by 15 per cent to more than two million, and most strikingly, deaths from diabetes will soar by 44 per cent.
"The area that is changing the most and the most quickly is diabetes," said Dr. JoAnne Epping-Jordan, senior program adviser, chronic diseases and health promotion for the WHO.
"Diabetes is very closely related to (being) overweight and obesity and we are seeing in many countries including Canada, that despite the public health's successes, rates of overweight are continuing to rise."
The report entitled Preventing Chronic Diseases: a vital investment featured nine countries, including high-income nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, and low-income countries like Nigeria.
Its purpose, Epping-Jordan said, was to urge global action to prevent chronic disease which could save the lives of 36 million people who would otherwise be dead by 2015.
It showed how chronic disease hinders economic growth and reduces the development potential of countries.
"At the global level, we are undergoing a rapid transition," she said in an interview from Geneva.
"In many low- and middle-income countries, they are on the cusp of an explosion of chronic disease. We're seeing in the future, their health systems will be overwhelmed."
In China, for example, the country is projected to lose 80 million people to chronic diseases over the next decade and $558 billion in hindered economic growth from premature deaths due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
The report said Canada stands to lose $9 billion from premature deaths.
The WHO report acknowledged Canada has already made important gains in reducing chronic disease death rates. It estimates that from 1970 to 2000, more than a million cardiovascular disease deaths were averted in Canada.
"(Canada) is thought to be a sort of role model for many countries," Epping-Jordan said.
-- CanWest News Service
Chronic diseases around the world
Here are some facts about chronic diseases around the world.
Each year at least:
* 4.9 million people die from tobacco use.
* 2.6 million people die as a result of being overweight or obese.
* 4.4 million people die due to raised cholesterol levels.
* 7.1 million people die because of high blood pressure.
Both legal and lethal
SO FAR this year, Canadians have smoked almost 26 billion cigarettes. That’s what the running counter says on the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada website. For tobacco companies, the smoke-o-meter is a testament to galloping sales figures. For governments already alarmed by galloping health-care costs, the counter doubles as a doomsday clock.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the government of British Columbia – and by extension, other provinces – the constitutional clearance to try to recoup some of those costs from tobacco manufacturers. In a sweeping piece of legislation first drafted in 1998, B.C. declared open season on Big Tobacco, not only enabling a lawsuit but setting the ground rules for it. The companies appealed the legislation and now they have lost. This does not mean B.C. has won the fundamental argument; it has merely won the case that it has a case at all. So the real litigation is yet to begin in earnest.
The court decision has raised all kinds of questions of principle. Purists will argue governments are in no position to point the finger, since they, too, make a mint (in tax revenue) off smokers’ addictions. Besides, tobacco companies are selling a legal product and it’s not as if people haven’t had fair warning that cigarettes are bad for them. Banning the product, as opposed to bankrupting the suppliers, would seem to be the more principled stand.
Of course, we all know prohibition would be a bonanza for smugglers and no panacea at all for smokers. Keeping smoking legal – hypocritical as it may be – is by far the better course of action. The practical question is: How do we control the damage and the costs, and who should be responsible for them?
Arguably, smokers are already forking over a health premium of sorts by paying taxes through the nose every time they buy a pack. But that revenue comes nowhere near covering the cost of lung cancer and heart disease, just to name a couple of ailments linked to this bad habit. Hiking cigarette taxes is not an option. They are already as high as they can go without driving the lion’s share of the business into the arms of smugglers.
Governments – i.e. taxpayers, including the majority who don’t smoke – are paying through the nose, too. Between chronic care and critical care for smokers and former smokers, not to mention the lost productivity along the way, the bill is in the billions.
So is it fair that a third party – i.e. the manufacturer – should be held liable, as a matter of tort law, for some of the damage done by this product? Ultimately, that’s what this case is all about.
Naysayers like to draw comparisons between cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legally sold, heavily taxed and the source of untold ravages in our society. Shall we sue breweries next for abetting alcoholism? What about the fast-food industry? Will governments go after it as well to recoup the enormous health costs incurred by obesity? Whatever happened to personal responsibility in all this?
These are all fair questions. Yet, in our view, cigarettes belong in a league of their own. They have no health benefits whatsoever, even consumed in moderation. There is no safe level of smoking. The same cannot be said of alcohol. As for food, it is a necessity – unlike booze or smokes – although it, too, should be consumed in moderation. User error, or excess, is what makes alcohol and food deadly.
But in and of itself, the cigarette is a lethal product. That’s the difference. You might still argue that people already know this when they first take up smoking. Nobody makes them smoke. This is true, and smokers will pay all their lives, if not with their lives, for this decision.
Yet if smokers know the dangers of smoking, does it not follow that tobacco firms also know the perils of selling? Nobody makes them sell cigarettes. Shouldn’t they, too, have to pay the consequences? Or at the very least, expect lawsuits as an occupational hazard?
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorial/457427.html
Let's sue everyone!
Wed October 5, 2005
The decision by the Supreme Court to allow the B.C. government to sue tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health costs sets a precedent that could generate tidal waves for many industries.
How long will it take until some health ministry sues the fast food and snack food industries to recover the cost of treating obesity-related problems? Burger, fries, doughnut, sandwich, cola and candy providers, beware!
Car crashes kill hundreds and injure thousands, so the auto industry must be added. Beer, wine and whisky cause many medical conditions, so add the booze makers to the must-sue list. Why not go after the illegal drug trade while you're at it?
I do not dispute that tobacco products are a health hazard, but I think that the user (or abuser) of a product should bear some responsibility. The proof of tobacco's danger has been there for enough years that no one can say that they didn't know what they were doing.
He who diggeth his own grave should not feel that others are obligated to pull him out at no cost when he falleth in.
Robert Drummond Exeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is pesticides hazardous to health
In response to the letter, Pesticide Untruths (Sept. 23), by Henry Valkenburg, president of Great Lakes Lawn Care, Inc:
The truth is the Ontario College of Family Physicians (not exactly a pressure group of malcontent activists) recently conducted a thorough review of more than 250 in-depth studies around the world on the effects of pesticides and concluded that pesticides are linked to prostate, brain and pancreatic cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and many other ailments.
The truth is pesticide use for cosmetic purposes has already been banned in more progressive municipalities.
The truth is children are most vulnerable to health problems caused by pesticides.
The truth is government regulatory agencies rely on studies provided by the pesticide industry.
The truth is it's only common sense that spraying and spreading tonnes of these poisons throughout our neighbourhoods year after year can't possibly benefit any life form, except maybe lawn care company presidents.
Vic Roschkov London
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/
No sympathy for tobacco companies -ON
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review Brad Needham Tuesday October 04, 2005
Tobacco companies must be choking on their own false advertising after a Supreme Court of Canada ruling gave the B.C. government the go-ahead to sue to cover health-care costs related to smoking.
After years of suckering people into smoking and raking in massive profits, these companies are now on the hook for what could be billions of dollars.
The ruling is a longtime coming. The problem with the ruling is that it gives the money to the wrong group. The government has been making more money off of cigarette sales than the big tobacco companies, at least in Canada, for years.
Who the ruling should give the green light to sue tobacco companies for pain and suffering are the people who were tricked into smoking because of misleading and false advertising - not the government or those who chose to start smoking in the last 10 to 15 years when it was obvious that smoking could kill you.
While the ruling will hurt local tobacco growers - an unfortunate casualty - it will hit tobacco companies in the only place that seems to matter: square in the pocketbook. Contributing to the slow painful death of smokers obviously wasn’t enough.
Never in history has a product with such dire health effects been able to target such a wide audience, including kids and blatantly lie to them.
Here are just a few messages pulled from tobacco ads of days gone by:
q It is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six-month period by smoking the cigarettes provided. (This was after a six-month "scientific" study commissioned by a tobacco company.)
q The thorough test of any cigarette is steady smoking. Smoke only Camels for the next 30 days … And see how mild Camels are, pack after pack … how well they agree with your throat as you steady smoke.
q Mad as a wet hen? That’s natural when little annoyances ruffle you. But the psychological fact is: pleasure helps your disposition. That’s why everyday pleasures, like smoking for instance, are important.
Follow Young America’s lead. Enjoy Philip Morris in the convenient Snap-Open pack.
q Should you cut down now? Why cut down on the relief and enjoyment of extra smoking now, when you feel you need it most? Even chain-smokers find that new Julep Cigarettes banish unpleasant over-smoking symptoms. Unlike ordinary cigarettes, Juleps sparkle up your mouth, refresh your throat, keep your breath clean, inviting.
q Philip Morris brings you the delightful flavour and aroma of the world’s finest tobaccos - with never a worry about throat irritation. So, be smart! Be sensible.
Gee, if a six-month scientific study didn’t find any adverse effects, it must be OK. Besides, by the sounds of it, the worst that can happen is throat irritation.
Since 2000, tobacco companies have been forced to graphically label products, depicting images like smoke-damaged lungs, but it comes after years of hooking people on their highly addictive product. Too little, too late.
After a similar ruling in the U.S., a settlement was reached seven years ago that will cost tobacco companies $246 billion US over 25 years. To pay for that, cigarette prices were increased. Unfortunately, say tobacco companies in Canada, with the already-high price of cigarettes in Canada, that’s not an option.
While this decision will hit these companies hard, taking money out of executives’ coffers, maybe the injection of money into health-care costs will help keep some smokers out of coffins before their time.
Here’s a message to tobacco companies looking for sympathy: suck it up, just like smokers have been doing with your deadly product for years.http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188000
Many inaccurate claims in column
Re: Province faces $350M annual loss in gaming revenue from smoking ban (guest column, Sept. 29).
Michael Perley - Director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco Wednesday October 05, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — It’s to be expected that some of the smoke-free gaming story is missing from mychoice.ca Nancy Daigneault’s column.
Ms Daigneault and her tobacco industry-financed group have tried hard to deflect the debate on the province’s new Smoke-Free Ontario Act to any subject other than health.
This time, it’s predictions of economic hardship for Ontario casinos from the province’s own gaming commission.
It will be interesting to see, once this latest "estimate" of possible future impacts of new smoke-free legislation is scrutinized by independent experts, if it is any more accurate than the many unsubstantiated claims of economic doom that have been made over the years by a minority in the bar and tavern sector and other tobacco industry-financed front groups.
The most obvious evidence that these claims are inaccurate is the fact that of all the 100 per cent smoke-free bar, restaurant and gaming bylaws which have been implemented during the past five years in Ontario, none have been reversed. If municipal councils - the elected officials who are closest to the business life of their own communities - had received objective evidence that smoke-free bylaws were doing economic harm, you can bet they would have moved quickly to soften the blow. None have.
Ms Daigneault’s efforts to avoid the health issue are not surprising: each year, about 16,000 Ontarians die prematurely from tobacco use. Many more are made ill from second-hand smoke exposure in workplaces, public places and the home.
One group of workers who suffer perhaps the most serious health effects are bar workers and their colleagues in casinos and other gaming facilities.
One Casino Rama worker, Robert Boshaw, told April hearings on the Act about contracting pneumonia, lung and sinus infections, and finally adult asthma - a relatively rare occurrence - as a result of second-hand smoke exposure in Casino Rama. To protect his health, Mr. Boshaw was forced to quit his job and seek employment insurance, which he received.
Other workers in other casinos and hospitality venues in Ontario have received Workmen’s Compensation claims and many more are pending.
In some instances, Ontario casino workers have been told that if they speak out against their smoke-filled working conditions, they will be fired or subject to other discipline.
The move to smoke-free workplaces and public places in Ontario is supported by at least seven of 10 of Ontarians. While most people who smoke wish they didn’t, Ms Daigneault claims to speak on behalf of about 22,500 smokers or barely one per cent of people who smoke in Ontario.
In her column, she says her members "stay away from the venues that do not welcome them."
In fact, workers in bars, casinos and other venues whose health is at risk from second-hand smoke exposure would probably say that the people themselves are very welcome indeed - the effects on their health from products manufactured by the tobacco industry that finances Ms Daigneault are what is not welcome.http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188360
Back to The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter