The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter
A Section of The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
Issue 350 - October 14, 2005
Ban a kick in casinos' butts -ON
The gluttony of government intrusion
Smoke vendors diligent -ON
Some of the new regulations facing tobacco retailers are just plain ridiculous. -ON
Police doing good job on combating PDHS trespassers, says resident -ON
Never a better time to end smoking habit
What's to stop groups from Suing?
Quit smoking! -AB
False claims and vindictive actions -ON
Cancer’s devastating effect on young adults
Wrong to shoot the messenger -ON
Supreme folly
Canada's tobacco health warnings to be showcased at Museum of Modern Art
Toronto Still Being Swamped with Litter -ON
Cigarette tax will be Big O's lasting legacy -QC
'It's never my fault'
City to install ashtrays to control litter -ON
Smoking ban blamed for job losses -SK
Ruling rightly blames adults for teen addictions, says Linda McQuaig
Do we really want private decisions regulated, asks Rondi Adamson
Addiction and Illness
A duty to ban tobacco products
Keep raising taxes to curb smoking
Roseau River expands casino -MB
Bingo loss Analysis -AB
Smoking bans do create financial losses -ON
Bars shut doors across province to protest smoking ban -NL
Financial Burden
Penalize rowdy bars: councillors -ON
Mychoice.ca has gone country
For sale: Tobacco kilns, and lots of them -ON
Top Ontario Air Polluters Revealed -ON
Top New Brunswick Air Polluters Revealed -NB
Top Quebec Air Polluters Revealed -QC
Top Alberta Air Polluters Revealed -AB
Ban a kick in casinos' butts -ON
Province Faces $350 Million a Year Loss in Gaming Revenues from Smoking Ban Confidential Government Report Warns -ON
mychoice.ca September 28, 2005
The Ontario government stands to lose $250 million-$350 million a year in gaming revenues as a result of its new province-wide smoking ban, according to official government documents obtained by mychoice.ca under the Freedom of Information Act. (FOI)
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=535
The gluttony of government intrusion
Wednesday October 05, 2005
Lloydminster Meridian Booster — While the tobacco industry is still feeling the hit of government regulations, taxes and the innumerable multi-million dollar lawsuits, junk food is already being called the new tobacco by its opponents.
We had to see this coming.
But the issue of banning harmful substance – be it food or smokes – isn’t nearly as clear cut as it seems.
Anyone with half a brain can – and often do – tell us what is wrong with our bad habits.
We are told on an almost-daily basis we are all too fat, too lazy and that smoking is a death sentence.
And for many of us, these critics have our number.
But an American columnist, Jacob Sullum, while speaking at a recent conference, raised a point that seems almost too obvious to have any merit. Simply put, some Canadians prefer to be fat, and the decision to delve into those fries should be theirs to make, for better or for worse, and the government should mind its own business.
“People may very well choose to trade off years of their life, or the possibility of disease or injury, in exchange for the current pleasure, excitement or stress relief they get (from food),” Sullum told the CBC.
And he contends it isn’t the government’s place to say this isn’t a legitimate trade-off.
It is such a simple observation that it evades us in a time when the government seems bent on having a parent-like grip on everything we do.
Smoking and fast food is, of course, bad for us. We all know this and and there is no amount of government controls that will likely change the habits of those who choose either of these vices.Maybe, just maybe, we can make decisions on our own – even if they kill us.
http://www.meridianbooster.com/index.php?id=525
Smoke vendors diligent -ON
By Times-Journal Staff Thursday October 06, 2005
For the first time in a decade Tobacco Control Act compliance reached the 90 per cent mark in Elgin county.
Although the rate slipped to 85 per cent in St. Thomas the overall figure represents a four per cent increase over compliance figures obtained this spring.
The Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit completed the mandatory enforcement checks of area retailers in August and found 90 per cent of tobacco vendors refused to sell cigarettes to under-age test shoppers.
Compliance in the city dropped by five per cent while all other areas showed an increase of at least five per cent with West Elgin jumping from 72 per cent in March to 100 per cent this summer.
“Research has shown that if a 90 per cent compliance rate is maintained,” noted Kathy Daniel, tobacco education and compliance officer, “that it will begin to impact on youth smoking rates.”
She was at a loss however to explain the decline in compliance with city retailers.
“Traditionally the summer time has a lower compliance rate overall. And I think that’s because there are more student employees. But it was only St. Thomas (figures that declined) and I really don’t have any idea why that is. St. Thomas has always been one of the higher (compliance areas).”
The purpose of the testing is to determine whether tobacco retailers are asking for identification before selling cigarettes to young people.
Across the county, test shoppers ages 15 to 17 visited 93 retailers. Supermarkets were the most compliant with a 100 per cent record and gas stations improved to 85 per cent.
Charges of selling tobacco to a person under the age of 19 were issued to a pair of St. Thomas area retailers.
http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/story.php?id=188613
Some of the new regulations facing tobacco retailers are just plain ridiculous. -ON
The Ingersoll Times Jennifer Vandermeer Wednesday October 05, 2005
One section of the Ontario Tobacco Control Act of 1994 refers to preventing children from starting to smoke. The aim of this section is commendable. It’s the ways in which the section is being put into action that are questionable.
There are some reasonable aspects to this law. Since it is against the law to sell cigarettes to anyone under 19, retailers have to ask for identification. That’s fair.
But there are only five acceptable pieces of ID: an Ontario drivers’ licence, LCBO ID card, Canadian passport, Canadian citizenship card or Canadian Armed Forces ID card.
So if your 20-year-old cousin from Michigan needs cigarettes on his visit to Ontario, he’d better bring his own. And even though our new health cards have photo and date of birth, they’re no good either.
Now tobacco retailers are in business to make money, not lose it paying fines. They aren’t going to take too many chances with this law. The fines are pretty steep.
If someone wants cigarettes and the retailer knows they are over 19 but sells them cigarettes without asking for ID, the retailer can still be charged for not asking because the customer doesn’t appear to be at least 25.
And forget the friendly gesture of giving a customer a pack of matches to light their cigarettes. Federal law says no free giveaways.
We’re all in favour of keeping kids from taking up smoking, but these laws are taking advantage of the retailer as the static quantity in this equation.
There is no accountability on the part of the youth. So while a retailer is inside his store being charged, the 16-year-old smoker can stand outside the door, laughing and thumbing his nose at the clerk.
There needs to be an enforcement system in place for the young smokers. If it’s illegal to sell smokes to minors, it should be illegal for them to smoke.
http://www.ingersolltimes.com/story.php?id=188380
Police doing good job on combating PDHS trespassers, says resident -ON
To the Editor:
This serves as a follow-up to the June 14, 2005 community meeting held at the Fire Hall, regarding problems at the PDHS area; smoking on school and surrounding areas, trespassing, obstruction of traffic and garbage on the school premises and blowing onto nearby properties, were some of the valid concerns brought to the attention of the police and school officials.Smoking was a concern to some in attendance and with it concerns of fires as a result of smoking. I would never support any efforts establishing a smoking area on school property or surrounding areas as we have fought long and hard to have such health issues to be properly and responsibly governed. Tax dollars are spent each year to support programs in school to stop youth from smoking. Further tax dollars are spent on health care for cancer treatment and other smoking related illness. I would suggest another course of action. If everyone with concerns would write to the powers that be for changes to the ludicrous existing law of not purchasing cigarettes until 19 years of age to include not smoking until 19 years of age, it seems this would be a more permanent solution to our problems as most students graduate before the age of 19 and this new law would give the officers power to enforce the law.
The garbage on the school and surrounding properties is an eyesore. Could a program be established at the school whereby the students could volunteer to pick-up garbage as part of their 40 hours of community service to graduate? Take some of the money that is now used to pay a student employed to pick up garbage at the school and organize a “Butt Out” contest (to foster a positive quit smoking attitude) where students try to stop smoking for a cash reward. Student body could be involved as a smoke watch. Could it be part of the health curriculum? Maybe student council could look into something like this (same idea as the weight loss programs) and come up with some ideas or consider some of these suggestions and be present at the next tentative meeting in October. It would be an asset to have the student body involved in all these issues.
There were concerns over the time to respond to a complaint and confusion of location from callers. With sometime perseverance and a little patience, the new 911 civic address changes will be complete and many of the bugs worked out from the amalgamation and duplicate street names, etc. in the same municipality, allowing bylaws to be made to charge one or more persons impeding traffic.
Trespassing should not be tolerated and reported to police. Perhaps the public could be informed as to our rights and proper procedures for dealing with such an offense. On May 31, 2005, I had a trespassing complaint, within a very short time I had two police cruisers and four police officers in my drive. Office Hicks was the first to respond with a phone call followed up within 24 hours and Officer Anita, the school liaison officer, did a follow-up the next day. You couldn’t have asked for better police service.
Vice Principal Jay introduced himself at the meeting and I wouldn’t hesitate to bring any of my concerns involving the school to him. It is time we let go of the old Paris Police Department (which served us admirably) and embrace the O.P.P. and the system now in place. If the school, police and public work together, I’m sure we will have very positive results.
My other ideas or solutions to these problems could be addressed at the next meeting. To contact police call 1-888-310-1122.Beverly Golan
http://www.parisstaronline.com/story.php?id=188314
Never a better time to end smoking habit
The Doctor Game - W. Gifford-Jones MD Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
AN interesting psychological reaction happens to non-smokers who develop lung cancer.
It occurs over and over again. When told someone has breast cancer friends often say, "How sad! Is there anything we can do to help?" But when informed a person has lung cancer, the first response is, "Is he or she a smoker?" The remark often stigmatizes non-smokers afflicted with this disease.
Dana Reeve, the widow of actor Christopher Reeve (Superman), who has never smoked, recently announced she has been diagnosed with lung cancer. It's a frightful tragedy for a young woman who dedicated so many years to help her stricken husband. But her plight has made everyone aware that non-smokers develop lung cancer more often than suspected.
Dana Reeve's announcement came just two days after ABC news anchor Peter Jennings died of lung cancer. Unfortunately, Jennings was a big-time smoker early in life, gave it up, but temporarily started again during the weeks of reporting the 9/11 disaster.
Despite their different smoking histories, Dana Reeve and Peter Jennings shared the most common cancer in the world and the deadliest. This year in North America about 100,000 men and 80,000 women will die of this disease. Of this number 10 per cent of the men and 20 per cent of the women have never smoked. Lung cancer kills more women than breast, ovarian and uterine cancer combined.
There's no good news about lung cancer. Even if confined to the lung, only 49 per cent of victims are alive in five years. And if the tumour has already metastasized, a mere two per cent survive that long.
The problem is there's no way to diagnose early lung cancer. X-rays, CT scans and MRIs only detect a malignancy when it has already been present several years.
Why non-smokers develop this malignancy is still not known. Some researchers speculate it's more prone to develop in people whose lungs have been scarred by recurring bouts of pneumonia, tuberculosis and other illnesses. Others say that genetics and atmospheric exposure to a variety of products may be responsible.
For instance, a Swedish study found an increase in lung cancer in people exposed to residential radon gas, a breakdown product of uranium. However, other studies failed to show this linkage.
The great medical frustration is that nothing known could have prevented Dana Reeve from developing this malignancy.
But the greater frustration is that we can prevent lung cancer in 90 per cent of men and 80 per cent of women. All it takes is the cessation of smoking or better still, avoidance in the first place.
ABC reports a huge, unexpected response from Jennings' fans: that they are now committed to stop smoking. I hope the effect lasts. And that this column will help to convince smokers of the huge benefits of tossing away cigarettes.
Fortunately, smokers do not have to wait years for good things to happen. Within minutes of a final cigarette, the body begins a series of recuperative changes that continues for years. For instance, 20 minutes after a cigarette is smoked, blood pressure falls, heart rate drops, and body temperature of hands and feet increase to normal.
Eight hours later, carbon monoxide level in the blood drops to normal and oxygen level increases to normal. Within 24 hours, the chance of a heart attack decreases. And after 48 hours, nerve endings start working again and the ability to smell and taste is enhanced.
During three months after cessation, circulation improves, walking becomes easier and lung function increases up the 30 per cent. Smokers also notice that within nine months, there's less coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue and shortness of breath, and their energy increases.
Just one year later, the risk of coronary attack has been decreased by an amazing 50 per cent. The five-year lung cancer death rate for a one-pack-a-day smoker decreases almost by half and in 10 years, the lung malignancy rate is similar to that of a non-smoker.
Faced by such overwhelming benefits, how can any sane person not strive to toss away cigarettes?
I'll miss Jennings' nightly broadcast as I've missed other friends who have needlessly died from this addiction. Surely, there's never been a better time to discuss ways of stopping smoking with your doctor.
What's to stop groups from Suing?
October 6, 2005
I got to thinking, after reading all the letters about the Supreme Court decision to allow lawsuits against tobacco companies, how much this could hurt the government.
If they allow lawsuits against tobacco companies what's to stop groups from suing the government?
After all did it not allow the sale of this product and reap huge profits through taxes, all the while knowing it is bad for people? This could surely open up a new can of worms -- at the taxpayers' expense of course. Sober as a judge? Give me a break, one too many cognacs deciding that ruling.
Claude Sauve
(The plaintiff in this case is the province of B.C. ... we doubt it's going to sue the feds)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/06/1250340.html
Quit smoking! -AB
By LYN COCKBURN Thu, October 6, 2005
It's a good thing Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1618) is dead because if the famed explorer (and scalawag) was alive today he'd kill himself.
He'd read a few stats about smoking, realize how many deaths it causes and, overcome with remorse for making smoking popular first in England and then worldwide, he'd leap from the top of the nearest skyscraper - after taking a moment to appreciate the view, of course, because there was nothing so high in the London of his day.
And if he refused to jump voluntarily, there are those of us who'd happily give him a helpful push. We'd be the ones who quit smoking on the second, third or 54th attempt - in an agony of anxiety, bad temper, overeating and other pleasant withdrawal symptoms.
Speaking of withdrawal, more than one expert on the topic of smoking likens the power of nicotine to more than that of heroin and cocaine. Thanks a lot, Walt. Better you should have stuck to throwing your cloak over puddles so that your buddy Queen Elizabeth I wouldn't get her shoes dirty. (They were more than buddies, but this is a column about smoking, not sex).
I can attest to the power of nicotine. By the time I quit smoking some 15 years ago, I was up to three packs a day.
And the actual quitting nearly drove all my friends away. I was that cranky. I didn't talk for three weeks - I snarled.
A friend who ordinarily has nerves of titanium, confessed during his quitting smoking hell, "Lyn, I can't believe I did it. I saw a cigarette butt on the street yesterday and I picked it up." He paused, looking miserable and added, "What's more, I smoked it."
My friend and I are among the lucky ones who smoked heavily for years and yet remain in good health. Millions of people around the world are not so fortunate.
Here are just a few charming statistics from recent studies and publications from such institutions as the Mayo Clinic and the World Health Organization:
* There were nearly five million smoking-related deaths worldwide in 2000.
* In the United States, 440,000 people die each year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour from smoking related illnesses.
* Over 47,000 Canadians die each year from diseases caused by smoking.
* Worldwide expenditures each year on health issues related to smoking are estimated at $200 billion US.
* In Canada the federal Health Department estimates the cost of caring for people with smoking-related diseases to be over $4 billion per year.
So it is with no sympathy whatsoever that I listen to the snivelling of big tobacco companies that are crying potential poverty over the recent Supreme Court decision to permit the provinces to sue them to recover costs.
"It may well bankrupt us," whined a spokesman for Rothmans.
"I weep for you, the walrus said ..." is my answer. And Lewis Carroll's, too.
B.C. will be the first to sue the tobacco companies (in Canada that is - Florida received $200 billion over 25 years in 1998) with other provinces close behind.
To make all of this non-smoking stuff work in the long run, everybody, governments and tobacco companies alike, have to be prepared to suffer in the short run. Governments will have to suffer withdrawal from their dependence on tax money from the sales of tobacco - $9 billion in Canada last year.
In other words, governments cannot have it both ways. They cannot reap the tax profits from the sale of tobacco and at the same time sue the tobacco companies.
And tobacco companies will have to realize this is 2005, not 1615. There is no excuse for foisting a noxious substance upon the populace when it is known that the substance in question is highly toxic and dangerous to our health.
Get over it, guys. Give it up. Desist. Hopefully, your days are numbered. I know you've got all those investments in tobacco farming, so I suggest you start planting and promoting soy. I can see the ads now: "Macho men drink soy milk" or "Ladies! Soy is good for your skin." Big market, lots of profits.
And for my fellow Canadians who puff, I have two words: QUIT SMOKING. If I and my friend who picked up butts from the street can do it, so can you.
Finally, Sir Walt may have been a favourite of Elizabeth I, but he was not in her successor's good books. James I kept him imprisoned in the tower for years and finally had him beheaded in 1618.
Rather fitting, I think.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Cockburn_Lyn/2005/10/06/1250296.html
If I die, blame me
By Jose Rodriguez October 7, 2005
Since 1970, federal and provincial governments have collected an estimated $150 billion in tobacco taxes.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2148
False claims and vindictive actions -ON
Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (letter to the editor, Oct. 5). - in last weeks newsletter
Eric Boyd - Waterloo, Ont. Friday October 07, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — If it wasn’t such a serious issue, director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco Michael Perley’s claim that mychoice.ca president Nancy Daigneault’s column "tried hard to deflect the debate on the province’s new Smoke-Free Ontario Act to any subject other than health,’’ as he then tried to deflect debate away from the severe economic harm caused by smoking bans, would have been laughable.
There is no doubt, except perhaps in the minds of those with extreme tobacco control views, that smoking bans cause economic harm. Rather than rehash them here, I’d invite Sentinel-Review readers to talk to those in the hospitality industry - bingo operators and the charities they support - to hear the truth.
If allowed to continue, the damage anti-smokers are foisting on our society in the name of health - and the anti-obesity groups following in their footsteps - will destroy freedom and democracy as we know it today. Their false claims and vindictive actions against those who oppose them seek, not to identify the truth, but rather convince us by deceit.
Ever hear the one about ventilation will not work because "tornadic winds’’ wouldn’t be strong enough to ventilate tobacco smoke from a restaurant or bar?
Now that’s laughable.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188830
Cancer’s devastating effect on young adults
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review Lorna and Rob Larsen - Woodstock Friday October 07, 2005
Remove the compassion of nurses and the love and support of family and friends from the patients on our in-patient cancer treatment centre units and the stark reality of cancer is there - shaved head, restricted nutritional intake, excessive weight loss, daily pain and branding by a central line for chemotherapy. This insidious, devastating disease strikes young and old. Despite five decades of cancer research and treatment, we have made little progress fighting the disease that was to be eradicated by 2000.
Some treatment is helping. Your chances of survival are greater if your cancer is detected early, shared by many and profitable for the drug companies. But confronted with rare forms of the disease, your odds are greatly reduced.
Contrary to the myth that cancer is a disease of aging, young adults face the disease daily - lymphomas, leukemia, bone cancer, breast and testicular cancer. There also exists a medical paradox for young adults. Twenty-five years after Terry Fox tried to raise awareness that young people get cancer, family physicians still are not looking for it.
They see the wellness in the young patient and often misdiagnose their symptoms. Once diagnosed (often months after the onset of symptoms), many physicians at the treatment centres see only the cancer and fail to work with the strengths, the "health" the young people still have including a strong heart, the vitality of youth, will to live and extensive support network.
Young adults are often painted with the same brush and protocols as our older patients facing cancer, but do not have the luxury of time. Due to their hormones, the disease is more aggressive and often fatal. They have hopes and dreams for career and family, but their potential and that for society is lost.
Changes need to take place within our health-care system to alter the outcomes and statistics for our young adults.
Awareness and physician education is critical. Medical care and policies need to improve. Hospital weaknesses in communication, pain management, medication delivery and on-call systems have to be strengthened. Tracking and research into the cause of cancer affecting young adults is essential.
Survivors and their families, friends, concerned individuals and health-care professionals interested in making a difference need to speak out. Questions need to be asked. The Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association, Regional Cancer Treatment Centres and politicians need our help. Where are all the fundraising dollars going? How are dollars being used to target cancer in young adults? Who is tracking cancer affecting young adults and possible causes? How are family physicians being educated to be more aware of cancers in young adults? How are issues for young adults being addressed in the provincial Cancer 2020 report (the blueprint for cancer care in Ontario for the next 15 years)?
The future for young adults, our future depends on it.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188829
Wrong to shoot the messenger -ON
Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (letter to the editor, Oct. 5). -in last weeks newsletter
Nancy Daigneault, - President mychoice.ca Friday October 07, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Why is it that whenever anti-smoking lobbyists read something they don’t like, they just attack it? Mr. Perley clearly does not like latest reports obtained under Freedom of Information from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. But instead of dealing with the issues, he criticizes mychoice.ca and myself for obtaining these documents and making them public.
We did not produce these reports. It is the MEDT that says the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission had already lost $131 million in gaming revenues as of last spring because of existing municipal smoking ban laws. It is the MEDT that states the province stands to lose $250 million to $350 million a year in OLGC revenues under a province wide ban.
And contrary to his allegation, mychoice.ca does not miss the point about health. In fact, a third of our members list quitting as a key issue and one of our campaigns involves pressuring governments to help pay for the high cost of cessation products.
It is Mr. Perley who is missing the point. He has every right to believe total smoking bans, which even deny smokers the choice of clubs or designated smoking rooms where they can go without bothering others, are justified no matter what impact they have on provincial revenues, or on bars, Legions or the thousands of needy causes in Ontario that depend heavily on charity bingos. But he should be up front about this, as should the government. They should not simply dismiss any points raised by others - or hide damaging reports until after a law has been passed.
Mychoice.ca’s main concern with new provincewide law is that it is part of an offensive campaign against smokers and is designed not to protect the public at large, but to arbitrarily force the will of one group upon another. That said, there is no doubt taxpayers in general have a stake in this. Who does Mr. Perley think will be asked to make up any shortfalls in OLGC revenues, or in funding for charity groups?
Mr. Perley might not like having to talk about these issues, but they are valid ones.
Mychcoice.ca is very open about the fact that it is funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council. But it is a registered non-profit organization and represents the interests of its 23,000 individual registered members - almost 14,000 of whom are from Ontario. We do not represent companies or other organizations.
Mr. Perley’s organization is funded entirely by governments and other organizations, that receive funding from governments and receive support from pharmaceutical companies that produce cessation products. Does this mean anything he says is suspect, because he has to support the governments that fund him and not upset drug companies by complaining about the high cost of quit smoking gum and patches?http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=188831
Supreme folly
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing government to sue tobacco companies misses one important point that seems to be missing more and more in our society, personal responsibility.
This a legal product that everyone knows eventually kills its users. We have all known this for years and years. Now the government can sue a company over a product that is legal to sell and from which the government makes a bundle in taxes, because there are still people who smoke. What is next, alcohol? You can drink yourself to death, too.
The real addict here is the government which is addicted to money and will use any means, even one as absurd as this, to get their "fix."
Scott G. Miner Winnipeg
(Running a government's costly. There are fat bureaucrats to feed, old pals to reward, votes to buy and lies to print in high gloss.)
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/07/1251813.html
Canada's tobacco health warnings to be showcased at Museum of Modern Art
OTTAWA, Oct. 7 /CNW Telbec/ -
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh said "I am very proud that these labels have been recognized as being among some of the most innovative contemporary designs in the world."
Building on the success of the first set of health warnings, Health Canada is currently working towards the development of new requirements. Research shows the effectiveness of the health warnings; however, Canadians may be getting accustomed to the images displayed on tobacco packaging. The warnings will lose impact over time if left unchanged.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/07/c8858.html
Toronto Still Being Swamped with Litter -ON
Board of Trade says City can't win the fight alone
The Toronto Board of Trade says new figures from City Hall show that the Toronto government cannot win the fight against litter alone. Mayor David Miller says litter was improved by 4% this year. The Board of Trade is concerned that this rate of improvement may not be enough to reach Toronto's litter reduction goal.
The Downtown Yonge Street B.I.A. and the Little Italy B.I.A. have also played active roles in reducing the amount of litter found on our streets. As part of their Cigarette Butt Pilot Project, they will be installing 17 cigarette receptacles in the Downtown Yonge area between Dundas and Gerrard Streets within the next two weeks.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/07/c8896.html
Cigarette tax will be Big O's lasting legacy -QC
Levy was instituted in 1976; Quebec noted new plans for post-debt cash in August, finance ministry official says
KEVIN DOUGHERTY The Gazette October 8, 2005
Smokers who might have been expecting a break on the provincial tobacco tax when the debt for Montreal's Olympics facilities is paid off are in for a letdown.
The $1.5-billion bill for the Olympic Stadium, the Velodrome (now the Biodome), the twin pyramids of the Olympic village and other facilities for the 1976 games will be paid off next June - 30 years after they were built.
But the special tax on tobacco, instituted in 1976 to pay for Montreal's Olympic facilities is staying in force.
With interest, the final cost of the facilities is closer to $2.3 billion.
Yesterday, Michel Rochette, spokesperson for Finance Minister Michel Audet, first denied there ever was a special tax, then said the government has already announced the added revenues will go into Quebec's consolidated revenue fund.
Rochette recalled Education Minister Jean-Marc Fournier, who is also responsible for recreation and sport, declared in August he wanted to use the $81 million the Olympic tobacco tax generates for sporting facilities, such as new soccer fields.
"I'm a bit surprised because we already talked about that a month and a half ago," Rochette said yesterday.
"The tobacco tax has existed for years and years," he said, adding that in 1976 then-Liberal Finance Minister Raymond Garneau "decided to take part of the (tobacco) tax and assign it to the Regie des installations Olympic for the stadium."
In fact, in his 1976-1977 budget, delivered May 11, 1976, Garneau announced a "special tax on tobacco" of two-fifths a cent per cigarette, doubling Quebec's tax on a carton of 200 cigarettes from 80 cents to to $1.60.
Quebec smokers now pay $15.85 in federal excise a carton, on top of the $20.60 provincial tobacco tax, GST and Quebec sales tax.
Garneau, who is pictured in the budget document puffing on a pipe, presented a $9.730 billion budget that year, carrying a $630-million deficit. By comparison, the current Quebec budget calls for spending of $55 billion.
Garneau announced, "we have decided to tax a luxury item in order to finance what may be called luxury installations."
The Olympics were originally estimated to cost $250 million and would be "self-financing," said then-Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau.
"The Olympic Games can no more lose money than a man can have a baby," Drapeau posited.
But by 1975, with the games less than a year away, poor soil conditions that no one bothered to check, a sophisticated design by French architect Roger Taillibert - which bedeviled Montreal engineers assigned to build the stadium - and a five-month construction strike on the site, pushed costs into the stratosphere.
Quebec stepped in, taking over construction and delivering the facilities in time, but leaving the 175-metre stadium tower and Taillibert's parachute roof unbuilt until the late 1980s.
Garneau said the Olympic tobacco tax would bring in $75 million the first year and $88 million the following year.
The RIO's special Olympic fund from cigarette taxes has actually fallen over the years as a percentage of the total tobacco tax, from 50 per cent originally to about nine percent of the current year's estimated $902-million tobacco-tax take.
Garneau also projected in 1976 that RIO's borrowings to build the Olympic facilities would be "completely reimbursed by 1982-83."
kdougherty@thegazette.canwest.com
'It's never my fault'
Scott Miner (Supreme folly, Oct. 7) hit the nail squarely on the head. More and more people these days take zero responsibility for their actions and choices. And unfortunately they are teaching their children the same lack of ethics. "It's never my fault, must be someone I can blame."
I've made some pretty poor choices in my time and have had to live with the consequences because that is what my mother taught us growing up. The tobacco companies will just sue their insurance companies for money to pay out compensation and of course that will be passed on to Joe Public whether he smokes or not. Great system, eh?
Cathy Gilmore Winnipeg
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/08/1253377.html
City to install ashtrays to control litter -ON
In an effort to cut down on unsightly discarded cigarette butts, the city will install shiny, new public ashtrays in the Yonge Street and Little Italy areas.
The three-month pilot project was announced this week by Mayor David Miller along with results of the city's latest litter audit, which found a slight improvement on last year.
"We're pleased to announce that this year's litter audit shows a continuing drop in the amount of litter on our streets," Mr. Miller said of the program.
"But there's still some recurring problems. And some of the very significant problems are cigarette butts and gum."
The small metal receptacles, to be installed on the walls of buildings, will cost about $110 each, the tab being split between the city and the two business associations.
James Robinson, executive director of the downtown Yonge business improvement area, said the project will help pretty up one of the busiest streets in the country.
"There are few places to properly dispose of cigarette butts," Mr. Robinson said. "Those who still do smoke, smoke outdoors. And the consequence is that litter and cigarette butts accumulate on our streets."
Smoking ban blamed for job losses -SK
Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post Neil Scott October 8, 2005
REGINA -- Saskatchewan's 17-month employment growth winning streak went up in smoke last month, partly because of job losses linked to a smoking ban in bars.
The job losses were tabulated in data released Friday by Statistics Canada that show the total number of people employed Saskatchewan declined by 3,300, to 479,700 last month from 483,000 in September.
In another comparison, 12,500 fewer people were employed last month compared to August of this year.
Labour Minister Deb Higgins said the job decline was a "glitch," coming in the aftermath of a 17-month period in which employment had consistently increased on a year-over-year comparison.
"This decline may be as a result of the smoking ban in drinking establishments," Higgins said.
But Higgins said she is confident employment in bars and in the accommodation and food industry will stabilize as customers become more accustomed to the ban on smoking, introduced earlier this year.
The ban on smoking in bars "has been very popular" with the public, Higgins told reporters.
Data released Friday indicate there were 27,200 people employed in the accommodation and food services industries which includes bars) last month, down 4,600 compared to September last year.
What that means is that Saskatchewan would have had a 1,300 overall increase in jobs last month (compared to September 2004) if it had not been for the job losses in those industries.
That sector was not the only one suffering losses, as jobs in the "trade" and in the "fi nance, insurance, real estate and leasing sectors" also dropped.
But Higgins noted that jobs were up in several other key sectors including manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, resources and public administration. The overall decrease in jobs "is obviously disappointing to us," Higgins said.
But the September numbers "are solid, paling only by comparison to last year's record employment in September," Higgins added.
Opposition Saskatchewan Party MLA Lyle Stewart said the job statistics provide further evidence the province is going in the wrong direction under the NDP government.
"It's time for the NDP to admit that they are poisoning the business climate and driving people, jobs and opportunities out of the province," Stewart said.
A new approach that would involve lowering taxes, reducing government involvement in the economy and creating a more investment-friendly atmosphere is needed, Stewart said.
Stewart stopped short of calling for a repeal of the legislation that banned smoking in bars.
"I'm not saying that they (the government) should back off completely," Stewart said, adding there may be some possibility for modifi cations to accommodate bar owners as well as customers who like to smoke.
Mary Ann McFadyen, executive director of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, said there is no question the smoking law has created problems, particularly for bars and hotels in rural areas.
Higgins is only partially correct in claiming that the job numbers in Saskatchewan have been positive for 17 consecutive months prior to last month, MaFadyen said.
It's true that job numbers have been increasing, she said. But the slow job growth in Saskatchewan compared to nearby provinces is a concern, she said.
Ruling rightly blames adults for teen addictions, says Linda McQuaig
LINDA MCQUAIG Oct. 9, 2005. 01:00 AM
The tobacco industry and its supporters have long insisted that smoking is simply a matter of "individual choice."
They note that the dangers of smoking are well-known, and yet people choose to smoke anyway — just like people choose to drive cars even though they realize many die in car accidents, and people eat junk food even though they know that can cause heart problems.
But cigarettes are in a class by themselves when it comes to their sheer killing power. Fully half the people who take up smoking on a long-term basis will die from it. That can't be said of driving cars or eating potato chips.
Furthermore, is it meaningful to talk of "individual choice" with a product notorious for its addictiveness?
Many a child made the "choice" to become a lifelong smoker at the age of 13 or even younger, when offered a cigarette in a schoolyard or hanging out at a mall, long before he or she could possibly appreciate the consequences to be faced 30 or 40 years later.
A recent Canadian study showed more than 90 per cent of adult smokers say they regret their decision to start smoking.
Getting young people hooked on smoking has long been the bread and butter of the tobacco industry.
Companies have gone to great lengths to present smoking as the symbol of coolness and rebellion — something highly seductive to teenagers. When governments have blocked marketing and selling to teenagers, the industry has figured out other ways to get their logos in front of young eyes; like sponsoring music and sports events.
Internal tobacco company documents have shown that targeting teens has been a key industry strategy.
So the notion of "individual choice" in becoming a lifelong cigarette addict is dubious.
Even more dubious is the notion of "individual choice" when it comes to paying the $4 billion health-care bill of smoking-related diseases, which kill 47,000 Canadians a year.
Clearly this financial burden isn't shouldered just by individual smokers, but by all Canadians, whose taxes pay for our public health-care system.
So it's encouraging that the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously upheld a B.C. law allowing the province to sue cigarette makers to recover smoking-related health care costs. The court saw evidence showing that for decades the tobacco industry actively covered up its own research showing how lethal smoking is.
The ruling could direct some badly needed cash into our health-care system.
More importantly, it could pave the way for far-reaching reforms that would make it difficult for cigarette manufacturers to profit from hooking young smokers. One option urged by Non-Smokers' Rights Association would be to penalize tobacco companies based on the number of customers under the age of 19.
Ultimately, the court ruling clarifies that the blame for the nation's overflowing cancer wards belongs not on uninformed 13-year-olds, but on the well-informed adults mapping out marketing strategies in the boardrooms of the tobacco industry.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1128723024909&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Do we really want private decisions regulated, asks Rondi Adamson
Rondi Adamson Oct. 9, 2005. 01:00 AM
I do not smoke. But I accept, as part of living in a country with taxpayer-subsidized health care, that I have to pay for other people's stupid choices, as well as their misfortunes. And likewise. That people make stupid choices may well be at least one argument in favour of privatized health care. But those same stupid choices don't strike me as being much of an argument in favour of governments (or, for that matter, individuals), suing tobacco companies for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses.
A choice is just that. For more than 40 years the perils of smoking have been known to us. An emphasis on personal responsibility in this country would be refreshing.
How far would we like to take things? It is indisputable that smoking causes illness.
It is also true that all kinds of illnesses could be avoided — the cost of them, as well — if people would control their weight. Cirrhosis of the liver could be avoided if people wouldn't drink, high blood pressure if one exercised more and stayed away from aggravating situations.
Careful use of condoms can prevent all manner of disease and unwanted babies, the former causing pain and costing money now, the latter sure to cost a bundle right now, and to develop bad, pricey habits of their own down the line.
But just how much do you want your private decisions regulated by others, snitched-on by your neighbours or used by your government so they can make some money?
It is not inconceivable that junk food will be next.
A report released this week by the Ontario Medical Association found obesity rates in Canadian children had nearly doubled between 1981 and 1996. Thirty years from now, those kids will be making us pay through the nose for stomach staplings. Will the government tax their chips, and sue Ruffles?
The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't just set a dangerous precedent.
It represents an utterly transparent double standard. Our governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold, and collect taxes on cigarettes. They also sell liquor and promote gambling. Should Canadian citizens sue them, then, for encouraging and profiting from such deadly endeavours?
Or perhaps tobacco should simply be banned. That would be less hypocritical than suing a tobacco company whose product you tax.
But banning tobacco would be a mistake, depending on the kind of society you want to live in. I want one where adults are free to take risks and indulge in their own selection of vices, within reason.
Adults, in turn, should then be held responsible for whatever those vices bring about. And a government that taxes cigarettes to high heaven, and then claims tobacco companies owe it money to cover treatment for emphysema and lung cancer, is not being held responsible for its own policies.
But that would suit them fine, since, while they decry smoking, the last thing any government that taxes cigarettes wants, is for its citizens to stop the deadly puffing.
Rondi Adamson is a Toronto writer whose work has been published in the Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal Europe and USA Today
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&
c=Article&cid=1128723024912&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Addiction and Illness
Warning: Tobacco use can be very profitable for your government, and used for or against its citizens (you, dummy), depending on the spin needed in order to maximize cash for said government. (Government of Canada, the same guys who created that fairy tale called Health Canada.)
Glenn Schneider
(Our governments are addicted to tobacco taxes.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ministry of health claims smokers cost the health-care system millions if not billions of dollars. Once and for all, for the public's benefit, could the ministry of health break down those figures, and show exactly how the smokers and second-hand smoke cost the government? If the ministry of health can't 'back' up those figures then it is not an issue.
Thomas Laprade
(Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of illness.)
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/09/1254633.html
A duty to ban tobacco products
Oct. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM
Suing Big Tobacco
Is there any greater hypocrisy than governments suing tobacco producers? They argue that our health-care system is burdened with additional costs, resulting from people who make a choice to smoke tobacco. These folks are effectively supported by government through its unwillingness to pass laws banning the sale or use of tobacco. Let's just stop and weigh this up. Our government, whose job is to make laws to protect society, fails to do that while raking in billions of tax dollars from the sale of this harmful substance.
In civil law, to be held liable, a person's or a company's actions must cause damage and those damages should have been foreseen by a reasonable person. From my vantage point, it is the federal and provincial governments who have a duty of care and their failure in that duty has resulted in the damages they are seeking to recover.
Even if manufacturers were found to be liable, is it not fair that we consider all of the taxes taken in from the sale of tobacco as an offset credit against these added costs? If our government really feels that tobacco use has a net cost to the treasury, then banning its use and forgoing the tax revenue should not be an issue. Or could it be that the use of tobacco brings in more tax revenue than the additional cost it imposes on the health system?
Michael H. Williams, Waterloo, Ont.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
Keep raising taxes to curb smoking
Oct. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM
If the provinces can get together to sue tobacco companies, they can get together to do something more immediately effective: raise their taxes.
A Supreme Court ruling in late September gave the province of British Columbia the right to sue tobacco companies under its Hospitals Act to recover costs incurred in treating illnesses caused by smoking.
Other provinces, including Alberta, were interveners in the case, supporting British Columbia's arguments. B.C. asserted the right to sue not only for damages caused by tobacco companies in the past 50 years, but for costs to be incurred in the future. Clearly British Columbia and its fellow-travelling provinces have no intention of doing what would be truly principled and ban tobacco sales completely.
It's more than a little unseemly for provinces to demand billions of dollars now, and the prospect of more in the future for products whose sale they permit, intend to permit in the future, and whose taxes pour millions into their treasuries.
The key issues here are more about tactics than principle. Is it more effective to sue tobacco companies out of existence, tax them out or legislate them out? The third option is the principled one, but regrettably, it would likely not succeed.
Every province knows that if it banned cigarette sales, the smuggling floodgates would open with contraband supplies crossing its borders from the U.S and other provinces.
Suing the tobacco companies might succeed, but it promises to be a very long and expensive haul. The Supreme Court ruling only endorsed B.C.'s right to sue; it didn't comment on the likelihood of a lawsuit succeeding.
The tobacco companies will fight any lawsuit to the final gasp, using every legal tactic to string it out as long as possible. The legal bills of the provinces will mount into the millions. So sue if you like, but don't do that alone.
Tax and sue together, increasing levies more than enough to cover the legal costs of the lawsuit, to pay for extra police to fight smuggling, and to encourage smokers to quit. Better still, announce a long-term plan to steadily ramp up tobacco taxes over time.
Smokers, especially young ones, respond to prices. The higher they rise, the more people quit. In 2001, Alberta tax hikes led to a 24 per cent reduction in the number of smokers.
The provinces seem to have no problem getting unanimity on a wide range of issues — generally when it to comes to demanding more from the federal government. Here's an area where they can come together and do something good for all Canadians, without creating a fight with the feds: strangle the tobacco companies by choking off demand.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1128723023385&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Roseau River expands casino -MB
By Matt Goerzen Tuesday, October 11th, 2005
Will hold 60 VLTs when finished
THE Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation is cashing in on the popularity of its recently built gambling centre by constructing an addition and expanding its VLT operation from 20 to 60 machines, says band Chief Terry Nelson.
Nelson said a week after the facility opened Aug. 19, band members found it was too small to accommodate the large volume of customers from the surrounding communities.
"The revenue has been there," said Nelson. "But it wasn't a big enough facility. It looked like it was kind of small when we were building it. It's way too small for what we wanted to get done."
The reserve made headlines this summer by being the third native community in Manitoba to open a gaming facility that allows its patrons to smoke.
Non-native communities came under a province-wide smoking ban in all public places, including restaurants, bars and hotels one year ago yesterday, a ban that was upheld late last week in a Manitoba court.
The province says it may not have jurisdiction over smoking on reserves, however, so casinos on reserves allow smoking, which irks competing casinos that can't let customers smoke.
Renovations at Roseau River, 100 kilometres south of Winnipeg, are already underway to enlarge the facility from its current 6,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet in what Nelson said is the first stage of planned expansions. The facility houses a Bingo hall and a restaurant, but the 20 VLTs in the building have been the biggest cash cow.
"It's just a response to demand," said RRAFN Gaming Consultant Curtis Jonnie. "Bingo is always in a break-even situation. It's the VLTs that are really driving the business. The current facility was built with expansion in mind."
Under its existing licensing agreement with the Province, the gaming centre is permitted up to 60 VLTs.
In addition to the 40 new machines, the $140,000 expansion will also accommodate a lounge area, and space for the band's planning office.
While he admits business has been good, Nelson was hesitant to elaborate on community support in the region.
"That's a national secret," laughed Chief Nelson. "It's doing good. That's all I want to say about that."
The expansion is scheduled for completion by the end of October.
Bingo loss Analysis -AB
I'm a non-smoker and I've played bingo for years with smoke blowing in my face, sticking to my hair and clothes, filling up my lungs and making my eyes water. Even in halls with non-smoking rooms, guess where the bathrooms, food service, bingo sheets, entrances and exits were? Out in the smoking section! So it makes me mad to hear that bingo halls are losing business now that the smoking bylaw is in place. The bylaw doesn't say they can't smoke, just limits where they can smoke. If smokers are going to be such addicted babies and refuse to go to bingo now, then blame them, don't blame the city or us non-smokers! You're blaming the wrong people!
Pat Dube
(Under the N: non-smoking.)
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/10/1256745.html
Smoking bans do create financial losses -ON
Re: Province faces $350M annual loss in gaming revenue from smoking ban (guest column, Sept. 29).
Irene Cyr - Boisbriand, Que. Tuesday October 11, 2005
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (Oct. 5 letter to the editor from Michael Perley, director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco).
Mr. Perley, please do not insult the readers’ intelligence. If there were no financial losses due to smoking bans, do you think that in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, bar owners would be paying thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees to fight the government on these laws?
If there was any sound and scientific evidence in the second-hand smoke harm, don’t you think that the two Quebec class action lawsuits would also include non-smokers that were subjected to it? It would be interesting if you could produce the proof that the WCB has paid casino employees for ailments due to second-hand smoke.
If that were the case, the lawyers and courts would be submerged with customers demanding the same compensation. If you continue altering the facts as you do, you and your organization will lose all credibility. Too bad, as before these abusive bans, the smoking rate was declining steadily. It now might take the exact opposite direction.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=189103
Bars shut doors across province to protest smoking ban -NL
By BRADLEY BOUZANE, The Telegram Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Many members of the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador (BIANL) followed through on their threat to protest the province’s smoking ban by shutting the doors to their establishments Monday.
BIANL president Marcel Etheridge said as many as 100 bars across the province took part in the protest in an attempt to convince government to allow licensed establishments to construct designated smoking rooms.
“This was a symbolic protest,” Etheridge said Monday, “first against the government, and the other thing was this was the bar owners’ way of saying to the smoking customers — which is still the largest majority of our patrons — that we appreciate their business and are going to protest to try and get a smoking room for smokers.
“In many cases, when laws are put in place, people protest and then give up and accept it … but we can’t give up protesting because this is our livelihood, it’s not simply an inconvenience. If we do not get a designated smoking room, we’re out of business and that’s the way it is.”
Etheridge, who operates a number of bars, said three bars — one in Gander, another in Traytown and a third near Bonavista — have already fallen as a direct result to a reduction in business to the smoking ban.
He said many bar owners are hanging on by the skin of their teeth until they are allowed to get a designated smoking room to stay afloat, hoping it would keep them in business and bring back some lost customers.
Evelyn Glavine, owner of a nightclub and billiards lounge in Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as a pub in Gander, took part in the protest and shut the doors to all three establishments Monday.
She said since the July 1 smoking ban for licensed establishments and decks, business has been in a tailspin. The ban, she said, has spawned problems near the bars that owners never had to deal with before.
“We did this (protest) on behalf of the smokers because no one is out there speaking for them and we know they’re there,” Glavine said.
“The government want them to go away in the bushes to have their cigarettes and we don’t think it’s fair. The only thing we’re asking for is a room where they can go and have a cigarette.
“What we’re finding now, where everybody is outside having their cigarette, they’re basically using the club for entertainment and listening to the music from the outside. They don’t (come into) the club, they just stay out and party in their vehicles.”
Glavine said her sales were down 40 per cent in July, about the same in August, and while month-end figures for September haven’t been tallied, she said they definitely didn’t increase.
Considering the ban started in the warmer summer months, Glavine is dreading the sales figures she’ll face this winter when having a cigarette outside becomes more uncomfortable.
She said bars in smaller areas are at a further disadvantage because due to less tourism traffic that would bring extra dollars to the businesses.
“There’s a lot of tourism in centres like St. John’s, but we don’t get that,” Glavine said.
“Pretty much everything in regards to festivals is over now that would bring tourism, but (we depend on regulars).
“We’re not saying we should go back to putting ashtrays out in the bars. All we’re saying is we want a comfortable place (people) can have a cigarette. Ninety per cent of our customers are smokers, and all we’re saying to government is to give us 10 per cent of our space for a smoking room. We think it’s a reasonable request.”
Etheridge said his patrons were not upset that he shut his doors during the holiday long weekend. Most of his customers, he said, appreciated his willingness to lose money to defend the rights of smokers.
He said some bars in the province are taking measures to construct smoking rooms in defiance of the law. There are two designated smoking rooms being built, Etheridge said. A third is already up and running in central Newfoundland. He government has not stepped in to shut down that room.
The setup of a designated smoking room is not an option Glavine has ruled out for either of her three businesses.
She said something must be done by government to save countless bars that have lost money since the smoking ban came into force.
Financial Burden
I admit Jose Rodriguez's arguments are not without merit, but he fails to discuss the financial burden on all taxpayers caused by the millions spent on additional health care secondary to smoking. ("If I die, blame me," Oct. 7.) Smoking contributes to about 32 diseases. I would come to his side if all smokers were made responsible for smoking-related health issues. I realize this is not practical. Smoking is a horrible addiction that controls its victims. Counselling and other help should be more available. The legal actions against tobacco companies should be prosecuted.
Gary J. McLaughlin
(Governments make more profits than tobacco companies.)
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/12/1258522.html
Penalize rowdy bars: councillors -ON
Carly Weeks The Ottawa Citizen Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Holmes, Bedard would recover costs from repeat bylaw offenders
Ottawa's downtown councillors want the city to crack down on bars they say are allowing late-night noise and drunken carousing to get out of control.
Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes will ask city council today to pass a motion requiring bylaw officers to be more aggressive with bars that allow or create problems.
"This is ridiculous, and it's time to now start charging the bars," Ms. Holmes said yesterday. "When people come out of the bar drunk and there's behaviour that the city is trying to control ... that cost should be transferred back to the business owner."
Ms. Holmes' ward contains the strip of bars along Elgin Street. She said while most establishments don't cause problems, "there are a few that are out of control."
While the city already has cost-recovery bylaws that allow it to bill bars for enforcement costs, they have not been used. And, according to Ms. Holmes, that's only because Ottawa has a dismal record of enforcing its own bylaws. "We have very weak enforcement at the city."
But some businesses say the city's bylaws already go too far. Fines for noise violations and other infractions make sense, but it's unfair for the city to threaten businesses with having to pay bylaw enforcement costs, said Robert Peterson, manager of the Whiskey Bar in the Byward Market.
"We pay business tax. Any business pays a lot more tax than the average individual, for the most part. To go above and beyond that, I think is a little excessive," he said. "I don't think there should be any reason to double-tax."
Ottawa and Mississauga could be the only Canadian cities with bylaws that allow the municipality to charge bars for enforcement costs, said Susan Jones, the city's director of bylaw services.
So far, though, Ottawa's bylaw department has chosen to negotiate with bar owners, instead of billing them for enforcement costs.
But if Ms. Holmes' motion is approved today, bars can expect to be billed when they repeatedly violate bylaws. "If they don't comply, then they may have to pay for the cost of the additional enforcement resources needed to address problems," said Ms. Jones, adding that those costs would be over and above fines the bar would pay for bylaw violations.
"Quite often, a ticket might be, for a noise charge, $200 on a ticket. We might have spent $1,000 in staff time having to deal with that ticket," Ms. Jones said.
Ms. Holmes isn't the only council member complaining about noisy bars. The situation is much the same in the Byward Market, said Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges Bedard, who represents that area.
Mr. Bedard supports Ms. Holmes' motion because he said taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for repeat violators.
"It's very costly for all of us," he said. "We have some establishments that, unfortunately, we end up going and visiting on a constant or regular basis. We somehow have to say to these people, 'What you're doing is unacceptable.' "
Ms. Holmes said enforcing the bylaw will make bar owners realize they have to be responsible when it comes to those they serve and how much they allow people to drink in their bars.
There are about 400 licensed establishments in Ottawa's central area, according to Ms. Holmes' motion.
During a crackdown on downtown bars in the spring, 318 charges were laid. The operation was conducted by police, bylaw and fire services, as well as Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission. Several people were caught with open liquor in parks near Elgin Street and 30 noise bylaw charges were laid.
The Fire Station Bar, for example, was charged for overcrowding on its patio. Privilege Bar was charged twice for the same offence.
The Bulldog Pub faces a licence suspension for serving a minor, according to statements in Ms. Holmes' motion.
Mychoice.ca has gone country
Mychoice.ca has gone country and sponsored the recording and national promotion of an original smoker’s protest song “My Choice.”
All that’s needed now is for a few people in every place with a country station to make a few quick calls. Just phone in and request “My Choice” by “Too Drunk to Fish.” If they have haven’t heard of it, tell them it was sent out Sept. 27 and to check with their music director. Keep calling till they play it.
Link added to our music section http://www.smokersclub.com/audio/srmusic.html
For sale: Tobacco kilns, and lots of them -ON
Jeff Helsdon - Staff Writer Wednesday October 12, 2005
Tobacco troubles affecting many
The Tillsonburg News — A small market has developed for used tobacco kilns.
One of the issues tobacco farmers were concerned about with the now-past buyout was the loss of capital on their tobacco-specific assets, such as kilns and priming machines.
The tobacco buyout removed 279 quota holders from the province. If each had an average of six kilns, that leaves more than 1,800 kilns across the tobacco belt. The buyout didn’t address those assets and kilns are rusting away in kiln yards across tobacco country.
While there isn’t a huge demand for kilns, the good news is some are selling.
Colin Decker of Colin Decker Builders specializes in moving buildings, but didn’t plan on moving buildings this year because of the red tape involved. However, the number of calls he received from people asking if he would move bulk kilns, changed all that.
“We just go so many calls that we inquired about getting the proper insurance and permits,” he said. “It took us six weeks to get all the paperwork in place. As soon as we got set up we were non-stop and we have been non-stop ever since.”
He teamed up with Eric Taylor, whose father Don was one of the original movers in the area. Decker said he is moving anywhere from one, two or three kilns up to 14 for each farmer. By the end of the season he expects to have moved 50.
Decker isn’t surprised there would be used kilns around at a reasonable price.
“It would be like 50 per cent of Norfolk County losing their driver’s license,” he said. “There would be some bargains on cars around. It’s unfortunate, but the ones who stuck with it are making the best of a bad situation.”
Simcoe-area farmer Rick Kichler is one of the farmers who took advantage of the excess kilns on the market. He added two to increase curing capacity, and wished in hind sight he bought more.The price was right, with each costing $5,000. That’s much less than the $30,000 cost of new kilns.
Otterville-area grower Hugh Zimmer took the buyout package and wishes he could unload some of the 50 kilns he has.
“The problem simply is how do you market something when there’s such a surplus,” he said.
Zimmer still used some of the kilns this past year to honour sharegrowing contracts he had for this year. What will be grown on the farm next year is still a big unknown.
Zimmer said corn was selling at $3 per bushel when he started farming in 1973. Now it’s $2.30 to $2.40 per bushel. He said tobacco isn’t a lot better with natural gas and electricity costs going up and the tobacco price going down on B grades.
Even getting rid of the the kilns isn’t always a money maker, Zimmer said. To remove a kiln, the electricity has to be disconnect, gas disconnected and then the farmer pays to dispose of the concrete pad.
“When it’s gone you still have nothing,” he said. “Then you have to figure out how to get the property taxes down to the point where you can make a living off 100 acres of sand.”
The downturn in tobacco has also hit home for DeCloet Ltd. The manufacturer of bulk kilns, automatic harvesters and other tobacco equipment didn’t build a harvester this year. It was the first year in a long time where there were no orders.
Kiln sales also took a hit.
“It’s very difficult to sell new when there’s so much used available,” said Len Erdelac of the company’s sales department.
DeCloet used to sell a fair amount of equipment into the United States. But a quota buyout there and the high Canadian dollar have curtailed sales in that direction.
As a result, the company has downsized considerably. It has diversified somewhat into the manufacture of construction heaters and is still servicing its harvesters and kilns.
http://www.tillsonburgnews.com/story.php?id=189588
Top Ontario Air Polluters Revealed -ON
Latest data show most reported pollution in Ontario is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Ontario emitted more than 888 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Ontario pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Ontario No. 2 in Canada, after Alberta, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9853.html
Top New Brunswick Air Polluters Revealed -NB
Latest data show most reported pollution in New Brunswick is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in New Brunswick emitted more than 175 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new New Brunswick pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9864.html
Top Quebec Air Polluters Revealed -QC
Latest data show most reported pollution in Quebec is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Quebec emitted more than 727 million kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Quebec pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Quebec No. 3 in Canada, after Alberta and Ontario, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9846.html
Top Alberta Air Polluters Revealed -AB
Latest data show most reported pollution in Alberta is dumped into the air
OTTAWA, Oct. 12 /CNW/ - Companies in Alberta emitted more than 1 billion kilograms of air pollution in 2003, most of it associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, says a new Alberta pollution overview released today by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That ranks Alberta No. 1 in Canada, followed by Ontario and Quebec, for reported air releases in Canada.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2005/12/c9856.html
Back to The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter