The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter
A Section of The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
Issue 509 - December 26, 2008
Stabbing victim, 25, attacked over
cigarettes -AB
Ready, Fire…Aim! -ON
Tobacco revenue goes up in smoke
-ON
Stimulus Package for Underground Economy: -ON
THE FIX IS IN
-ON
Taxes go up in smoke -ON
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO SET TO FURTHER FUEL
CONTRABAND TOBACCO NETWORKS AND ECONOMIC LOSS: -ON
ONTARIO’S NEW LAW ON
CIGARILLOS TO FINANCE DRUG TRAFFICKING, WEAPONS TRAFFICKING AND VIOLENCE IN
THE PROVINCE -ON
Ont. says tobacco taxes are federal jurisdiction
-ON
Ruling against Schmidt is a grave injustice -ON
Tough times for 'Mom
and Pop' corner stores -ON
Tobacco research has its place -AB
Tobacco
Display Bans Don't Work, Says Canadian Convenience Stores Association
QUESTION:
Current alcohol and licensing policy could be making things
worse for young drinkers -ON
Feds need to protect kids from chemicals:
group
2 OPP get reprimand for bad traffic stop -ON
U of A right to take
tobacco cash for research -AB
Ban on tobacco funds doesn't threaten
academic freedom -AB
No safe alternative -AB
It can't hurt to make
smokers aware -ON
A letter sent to The Edmonton Journal -AB
Ontario's
buck-a- beer days are over -ON
Just whose ethics should be in question?
-AB
Anti-smoking law forces retailer to phase out pharmacy -AB
Re: "No
one has any use for drunk drivers" (Dec. 19).
Chris Selley: The inherent
absurdity of government booze -ON
Tobacco takes another hit -AB
Alliance
hospitals tighten smoking restrictions -ON
Tighter tobacco laws lauded
-AB
Stabbing victim, 25, attacked over
cigarettes -AB
Ben Gelinas, The Edmonton
Journal
Published: Tuesday, November
11
EDMONTON - Family have identified
Andrew Stephen Frang as the city's latest homicide victim, the second man
stabbed to death in unrelated weekend fights.
Frang, 25, was stabbed after he and
his girlfriend refused to give cigarettes to two strangers who approached them
on 118th Avenue near 124th Street, Frang's father
said.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4136
Ready, Fire…Aim! -ON
November 27,
2008
How Bill 124 will be good for bad
people and bad for good people
As the Ontario Legislature
introduces Bill 124 for second reading and debate, one really has to wonder if
politicians in Ontario haven’t completely lost their sense of honesty and
integrity” says Luc Martial (in charge of government affairs with Casa Cubana
and formerly with the Non- Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Council
on Smoking and Health, the Nationa Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, and
the Tobacco Control Programme at Health Canada). Mr. Martial, a 17 year
veteran to the tobacco control file in Canada, warns that the Bill, which is
completely unfounded, unjustified and unwarranted – will come to cause more
harm than any actual good. Bill 124 - An Act to amend the Smoke-Free
Ontario Act with respect to cigarillos - was sponsored by Ms. France
Gelinas and Mr. Dave Levac and proposes to (1) further define “cigarillos”;
(2) set a minimum packaging requirement for cigarillos; and (3) ban flavours
in tobacco products.
Bill 124, if passed, would not only
come to symbolize a complete breakdown in public trust and respect for all
Ontarians – it would also come to greatly reward those criminals and their
accomplices currently responsible for minors’ access to tobacco products in
the province. Effectively, Bill 124 could be expected to provide much cheaper,
much more and much more accessible tobacco products to tobacco consumers in
Ontario – especially kids. In the process, legitimate business owners across
Ontario would be needlessly hurt; the rights of legal age consumers across the
province would be severely undermined; and the government would be redirecting
tens of millions of dollars in current government revenue into the waiting
hands of a criminal underground.
It is very important to note that
Bill 124 is largely leveraged on rumors, innuendos, anecdotal evidence and
skewed /limited research data - strategically promoted by government-funded
antitobacco groups whose publicly-funded mandate includes (1) shaming smokers
into quitting; (2) stripping a legal industry of its legitimacy; and (3)
eradicating tobacco and smoking at any cost. These government-funded
“paid-to-hate” groups have been hard at work since 2006, trying to convince
any unsuspecting politician or government to ban flavored cigarillos. The
factualization of their self-serving agenda, within the media - has since
secured the uniquely emotional and less than scrutinizing response from some
well-respected NGOs and politicians that they desperately needed. What we are
witnessing here is the direct result of a well planned strategic campaign
based on orchestrating public outrage, creating fear and promoting hate.
Period. The vast majority of what has been said about flavoured cigarillos is
tantamount to an outright lie – with regard to the industry, the market and
the product. That politicians in Ontario nonetheless seem to overwhelmingly
favour political symbolism above actual public accountability is the greatest
threat to Ontarians.
Casa Cubana is a Montreal-based
importer of quality cigar products. Established in 1998, the company’s reach
extends throughout Canada with a sales force servicing approximately 10,000+
direct accounts – to include wholesalers, retail chains, independent
retailers, gas bars, grocery stores and the duty-free channel. Since 2003, the
company has imported and distributed a variety of flavored cigarillos, to
become a relevant and knowledgeable stakeholder in this marketplace. In
Ontario, Casa Cubana actively partners with approximately 2,000 legitimate
tobacco wholesalers and retailers.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
Tobacco revenue goes up in smoke
-ON
Posted Dec 4,
2008
Runciman says illegal sales cost
province millions
Posted By IAN ELLIOT, WHIG-STANDARD
STAFF WRITER
Bob Runciman says the illegal tobacco trade is costing Ontario
taxpayers a half-billion dollars a year in lost revenue.
And the leader of the opposition at
Queen's Park says the province should be getting as tough on those who sell
illegal cigarettes - often openly - as it is on policing merchants who sell
the legal variety.
"We should be enforcing the laws of
the land," the longtime Leeds-Grenville Tory MPP said yesterday.
"There's this politically correct
silence on behalf of anti-smoking groups that is ignoring this issue, and in
any event, we've listened to this kind of hypocrisy for too long."
Runciman's figure of $500 million
in lost revenue will be revealed in a report next week from the provincial
auditor, and backing it up is third-party research that suggests that half of
all cigarettes being smoked in Ontario are contraband.
They are manufactured in native
tobacco factories, some in the Brantford area and some in Cornwall and in the
United States, and sold on native reserves for as little as $8 a carton.
The smoke shacks do a thriving
trade, as do bootleggers who buy them by the carton and sell them at a markup
out of their homes, the trunks of the cars or duffle bags on the streets.
Runciman said vendors are becoming
more blatant as police and health units are reluctant to take action against
the native-run trade. The untaxed cigarettes are now being openly sold in
stores far from reserves - and he says in some cases, even in shacks on
Ontario government land.
He accused the government of
turning a blind eye to the booming trade in illegal tobacco, even as sellers
put legitimate merchants out of business and those selling the cigarettes on
the street provide them to minors.
"In tough economic times, with
families and communities suffering, food bank lineups growing, this government
is looking the other way as illegal activities siphon off at least $500
million a year," he said.
He wants to see the existing laws
governing tobacco enforced on those selling off-reserve and illegal smoke
shacks shut down by provincial authorities.
At the same time, Runciman said he would be open to provincial
discussions with native groups leading to self-taxation.
He said such a scheme has been
implemented in British Columbia in which native groups levy taxes sold on
tobacco sold on their reserves and split the proceeds with the government.
While natives are free to sell
their own cigarettes within their own territories, exporting them off reserve
is illegal.
Runciman is one of the few
politicians to openly call for a crackdown on the illegal tobacco trade,
although the nature of the business, involving both provincial, federal and
municipal regulation, will probably require a co-ordinated response from the
different levels of government involved.
Article ID#
1328996
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1328996
Stimulus Package for Underground Economy:
-ON
An Early Christmas Gift from the
Ontario Government
December 5th,
2008
Although no bail-out was necessary,
since the tobacco contraband market has shown itself recession-proof, the
government of Ontario recently delivered what is tantamount to a financial aid
package for criminals.
The Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment
Act (cigarillos) – became law yesterday, although no date for implementation
or enforcement has yet been set by the government. The Act sets a minimum
packaging requirement for cigarillos (20) and bans the use of flavours in
tobacco products. In her statements before the Legislative Assembly,
while introducing her Bill (124) for Third Reading, Ms. Frances Gélinas said
that for her, “today is a day of celebration”. She’s not the only one – for
criminals in Ontario, “today” was also a day of celebration. For legitimate,
hardworking, tax-paying retailers in Ontario, though, it was
not.
“Aside from the fact that the Act
is not based on any sound research or understanding about the flavoured
cigarillo industry or market in Ontario – it can be expected that the proposed
prohibition will come to further stimulate the black market for these
products. Flavoured cigarillos, like other tobacco products, are already
present in the illegal networks. The Ontario government’s ban on flavoured
cigarillos will now only come to further open the provincial market to
criminals and increase the demand and price for this commodity”, says Luc
Martial (in charge of government affairs with Casa Cubana and formerly with
the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Council on Smoking and
Health, the National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, and the Tobacco
Control Programme at Health Canada).
Within the context of the current
tobacco contraband crisis in Ontario and the longstanding societal issues
peripheral and relevant to minors’ access to age-restricted/illegal products –
to assume that banning these tobacco products will lower overall prevalence or
consumption rates is simply misguided. There is every reason to believe that
the overall prevalence and consumption rates for tobacco products will
actually increase as a result of this Act.
As importantly as relinquishing our
control of tobacco products to blackmarketeers - the Act is unfair and
unjustified from both a policy and regulatory standpoint. Alcohol is another
age restricted product with the exact same flavours found in cigarillos – and
yet the government is not calling for a ban on these products (sold at over
600 government-run liquor stores across the province every day). And at a time
when alcohol use is 4-5 times greater than tobacco use among Ontario kids, one
has to wonder how the government can justify their policy in this regard. This
seems to be a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do”. It is important to
remember that the market for flavoured cigarillos is less than 0.5% of the
overall tobacco market in Canada and that the vast majority of consumers are
of legal age (CTUMS 2007).
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada,
a supporter of the Bill (124) which became law, is now calling on the
government to bypass the regulatory process and immediately recall and destroy
these products. Since the government did not respect the democratic process in
the first place (by rushing the legislation without any public consultation) –
perhaps asking them to not respect the regulatory process either may not be
such an insurmountable task. Our hope remains that common sense, honesty and
integrity can once again find their way to the Ontario
Legislature.
Casa Cubana is calling on the
Ontario government to (1) ask Health Canada to actually undertake research on
flavoured cigarillos through their Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey
(CTUMS) ; and (2) ensure that legitimate, expert-base stakeholders to the file
will actually have a meaningful opportunity to consult with the government
throughout the regulatory process.
Casa Cubana is a Montreal-based
importer of quality cigar products and actively partners with approximately
2,000 legitimate tobacco wholesalers and retailers across
Ontario.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
THE FIX IS IN -ON
December 8th,
2008
How the Ontario Government went
about hurting Ontarians, Ontario business owners, legal age consumers and
kids
Recently, the government of Ontario
introduced new legislation that will eventually come to set a minimum
packaging requirement for cigarillos (20) and ban the use of flavours in some
tobacco products. The Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act (cigarillos) – the
legislative brainchild of MPPs Frances Gélinas and Dave Levac – will
unfortunately only come to hurt the Ontario economy and Ontario
children.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
Taxes go up in smoke -ON
December 9th,
2008
Reports from government auditors,
whether at the provincial or federal level, can be illuminating things.
Take for example the annual report
released yesterday by provincial Auditor General Jim McCarter.
Among other things, McCarter
criticized the government for its inaction in collecting taxes on tobacco and
gasoline.
The auditor's report revealed that
the province fails to collect $500 million each year in tobacco taxes.
Interestingly, he first pointed out this problem in 2001.
"Quite frankly, this whole area of
tax enforcement, especially in the tobacco area, they have definitely got to
strengthen up enforcement procedures," McCarter said. "I mean $500 million is
a lot of money anytime, but especially when we're going into a recession and
revenues will be tougher to come by."
The opposition parties were quick
to pounce on the information, saying the government lacks the 'political will'
to take action since the shortfall is tied to tobacco sales on native reserves
and the smuggling of illegal cigarettes.
That's not surprising given the
province's dealings with the native standoff in Caledonia.
The same government that chooses
not to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco tax revenue has said
no to tobacco growers hoping for a buyout to leave the beleaguered industry.
Tobacco growers whose crop brings the government millions in tax dollars every
year. Tobacco growers who also pay taxes themselves.
This past summer, Ontario
agriculture minister Leona Dombrowsky said the province would not be helping
with a buyout. The government, she said, wouldn't help the farmers by using
any of the $157 million it received as part of court-imposed fines against
tobacco companies for their involvement in smuggling products into Canada.
That money would be used for health care, education and the like.
Her comments came on the heels of a
$300-million buyout commitment by the federal government. At the time it was
hoped that the province would add another $190 million to the buyout plan.
Yet, now we learn the province can
let $500 million go down the drain each year. That's money that could not only
potentially help tobacco growers but also everyone else in the province as
well.
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1336770
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO SET TO FURTHER FUEL CONTRABAND
TOBACCO NETWORKS AND ECONOMIC LOSS: -ON
December 9th,
2008
AUDITIOR GENERAL REPORT JUST LATEST
RED FLAG
“As the Ontario Auditor General’s
annual report which was released yesterday clearly confirms – the government
cannot control or stop the flow of illegal tobacco products in the province.
In the process, the government is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in
much needed, legitimate government revenues every year; encouraging more
people to actually start and continue smoking; and providing for less
controlled, cheaper and more accessible tobacco products to Ontario kids”,
says Luc Martial (in charge of government affairs with Casa Cubana and
formerly with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Council on
Smoking and Health, the National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, and the
Tobacco Control Programme at Health Canada).
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
ONTARIO’S NEW LAW ON CIGARILLOS TO FINANCE DRUG
TRAFFICKING, WEAPONS TRAFFICKING AND VIOLENCE IN THE PROVINCE
-ON
December 10th,
2008
Recent information released by the
RCMP clearly confirms (again) that the illicit tobacco trade presents a
serious threat to public safety and health in Canada. According to the RCMP,
there are currently 105 organized crime groups of various levels of
sophistication known to be involved in contraband tobacco. More troubling is
that 69% of these criminal networks are also involved in drug trafficking
(marijuana / cocaine) and/or weapons trafficking. 30% of these criminal
groups, according to the RCMP, are also known to have violent
tendencies.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
Ont. says tobacco taxes are federal jurisdiction
-ON
Dec 10,
2008
The federal government should take
most of the blame for Ontario's failure to collect $500 million in tobacco
taxes each year because a large part of the problem is centred on aboriginal
reserves that are Ottawa's responsibility, Premier Dalton McGuinty said
Tuesday.
Ontario Auditor General Jim
McCarter's noted Monday in his annual report that the province misses out on
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tobacco taxes, and he blamed a lack of
political will to deal with the issue.
McGuinty insisted that isn't the
case.
"The biggest challenge of course
has to do with activities taking place on reserves, and those are properly a
federal jurisdiction," McGuinty said. "We would be pleased to work with them,
but they've got to take the lead on the reserves."
The Progressive Conservatives said
the province must crack down on illegal smoke shacks operating near reserves,
including three near the Six Nations reserve in the Caledonia area, the site
of a long-running occupation of a former housing development by aboriginal
protesters.
"They're harassing some of the
convenience-store operators while letting some of these illegal operations
flourish," said Opposition Leader Bob Runciman.
"What kind of message does that
send out to the public who are buying these illegal cigarettes? Fifty per cent
of cigarettes purchased in Ontario now are illegal, and they're being
encouraged by the government turning a blind eye to illegal operators and
illegal sales."
http://www.recorder.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1339786
Ruling against Schmidt is a grave injustice
-ON
Posted Dec 12,
2008
It is our public institutions that
are in contempt of the court of democracy
Editor:
As an elected representative in the
provincial parliament, I find the decision handed down on Dec. 2 by Justice J.
Boswell to be a grave injustice and without regard for our traditions of
British common law.
Michael Schmidt is a peaceful man,
a man of conscience and conviction and a productive member of our community.
In contrast to other protests, Michael's protests over milk are defined by the
absence of force or of the threat of violence, and without destruction of
private property. These peaceful characteristics explain Mr. Schmidt's
widespread support in the community and throughout the province.
It is beyond question that Michael
has worked endlessly and enduringly, and with respect for the law. He has
often requested for full and proper hearings and an airing of "The Milk Act"
and the science that supports the legislation. However his every attempt at
legislative reform has been blocked or dismissed by special interests.
Furthermore, it is clear to all,
that any disobedience he may have shown has always been peaceful, respectful
and civilized, and in the very best of our traditions, dating back to Henry
David Thoreau, of civil disobedience to unjust laws and unjust men.
Justice Boswell delivered a strong
message to Mr. Schmidt in an effort to coerce respect for the law, however
would not the admonishment of the Ontario Legislative Assembly and the public
health authorities for their failure to respect the convictions and conscience
of people not been a more appropriate response? Justice Boswell may have
missed or chosen the wrong target, and this case demonstrates that in reality,
it is our public institutions that are in contempt of the court of democracy.
Although Justice Boswell refused to
hear arguments regarding the public safety of milk, he allowed this un-argued
factor to justify the penalty. If indeed Mr. Schmidt's milk places the safety
of the public at risk or in jeopardy then incarceration would be a most
appropriate penalty. Furthermore, Justice Boswell indicates another
aggravating factor was Mr. Schmidt's deliberate and planned actions, by
deduction this argument implies if Mr. Schmidt's actions were unplanned,
irrational or without deliberations the penalty would be lessened. Our courts
ought not to be encouraging or providing incentives for irrational thought or
rash behaviour.
In addition the amount of the fines
and costs levied against Mr. Schmidt are grossly disproportionate to his act
of civil disobedience, and therefore violates his right, under section 12 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "not to be subjected to any cruel
and unusual punishment."
The Ontario government has failed
to review the benefits and/or potential harm of raw milk since 1939 and has a
fundamental obligation to the people to act upon their legitimate requests.
The creating and keeping of laws by the legislature inherently requires the
timely updating of these laws based on new science, technology and the
principles of natural justice.
Justice Boswell's decision
compounds the problems created by the legislature, and serves to bring the
administration of justice into disrepute. Justice would be best served had the
case against Mr. Schmidt concluded with a dismissal and an exhortation to
parliament for a parliamentary review of "The Milk Act." I will continue to
voice my opposition until these wrongs are set right.
Randy Hillier Lanark, Frontenac,
Lennox and Addington MPP
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1340790
Tough times for 'Mom and Pop' corner stores
-ON
Dec 14, 2008 04:30
AM
- Lesley Ciarula
Taylor
New rules on cigarette sales
hurting even the scrappiest of variety store operators, who already work long
hours and see tiny profit margins
Comments on this story (42)
Lesley Ciarula Taylor IMMIGRATION
REPORTER
The clock with the lavender plastic
rim on the back wall of H&H Convenience is an hour and 18 minutes fast.
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/553525
Tobacco research has its place
-AB
December 16, 2008 7:55
AM
Re: "Universities fail the test,"
by Les Hagen, Letters, Dec. 11.
Les Hagen has followed a common
approach of narrow-minded special interest groups, creating a "report card" to
measure how much others obey their demands. In this case, they demand that
universities prohibit research that is funded by tobacco companies, and
thereby abandon their most cherished ethic, academic freedom. What Hagen does
not tell us is that this is done to protect his extremist political agenda
from competing ideas.
Hagen's complaints about the
industry are outdated, as are his anti-tobacco tactics. Most of the new and
promising ideas for substantially reducing the health effects from smoking and
nicotine use are coming from the industry itself.
As a recipient of one of the
research grants Hagen condemns, I work to tell smokers who are not quitting
that they can still reduce their risks by 99 per cent by switching to
smokeless tobacco or other low-risk sources of nicotine (see
TobaccoHarmReduction.org for details).
This is perhaps the greatest
untapped public health measure available in our
society.
Hagen's goal is to eliminate all
tobacco use, even if that means letting smokers die without realizing they
have an alternative. Thus, it is good news for public health if smokers learn
that they can use tobacco and nicotine with very low risk, but it is bad news
for anti-tobacco extremists.
Those of us in public health want
to help people. But anti-tobacco extremists would rather just punish smokers
with high taxes and other regulations, as well as by letting them
die.
By trying to persuade or blackmail
universities into cutting off research they do not approve of, Hagen and his
friends hope to keep smokers from learning there are low-risk
alternatives.
This might succeed in reducing
total tobacco use, but it will also cause hundreds of thousands of unnecessary
deaths in North America. It is important for universities to resist attacks on
academic freedom and for the real public health community to resist such
anti-health activism.
Carl V. Phillips, associate
professor, University of Alberta School of Public Health,
Edmonton
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/Tobacco+research+place/1079703/story.html
Tobacco Display Bans Don't Work, Says Canadian
Convenience Stores Association
Article Date: 15 Dec 2008 - 2:00
PST
Main Category: Smoking / Quit
Smoking
Following the UK Department of
Health's announcement on 9th December that cigarette displays in shops would
be removed, Dave Bryans, the President of the Canadian Convenience Stores
Association said:
"I have watched with interest the
development of the UK Government's strategy to follow the Canadian market by
banning the display of tobacco products. Retail display bans were first
introduced to the Canadian market in the province of Saskatchewan in 2004.
There is no evidence that the removal of tobacco displays from retail stores
in Saskatchewan has had any impact on the sale of tobacco. Tobacco sales
volumes have remained consistent in the four years since the ban was
introduced. Teen smoking rates are reportedly on the rise -- the result of
rampant illegal contraband tobacco sales. In fact the only measurable outcomes
of the retail display ban in Saskatchewan appear to be negative impacts on the
convenience store industry itself."
Retailers in Canada subject to
tobacco display bans have seen:
- Increased safety concerns for
retail employees from theft
- Increases to capital costs as
retailers must now install and maintain covered shelving units
- Operating cost increases as
employee training requirements grow
- Increased regulatory burden to be
born by retailers who must now ensure that their products are never in
sight
"What does have a great effect on
reducing youth smoking is a zero-tolerance approach to age verification. Our
association has been vigilant in introducing and applying a strict program of
age checks in convenience stores to stop youth from getting access to a
product they should not have. Our We Expect ID program is among the world's
best in this regard."
"While government is acting with
good intentions, by failing to address the economic impact of retail display
bans on small businesses, many family-run stores are being consigned to a
bleak future. Bans may work well in principle, but when in place, they do not
produce the intended effect."
"In my role as president of the
Canadian Convenience Stores Association, I speak for the small retailer and
take exception to government placing new regulatory burdens on an important
segment of small business, that's already under great strain. As the UK walks
down this road that Canada has already taken, there should be pause to reflect
on both the absence of any measurable benefits from tobacco display bans and
also the great likelihood that this action will mean many small convenience
stores will soon be forced to shutter their doors."
In Canada (since the inception of
display bans) we have seen unprecedented growth of contraband/illegal tobacco
and now one in every two cigarettes sold are sourced through the black market.
The CCSA represents the economic
interest of over 25,000 convenience store operators in Canada on an array of
issues and interests affecting the channel.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/132994.php
QUESTION:
Luc Martial
Is the government of Ontario using
these flavours as a way to entice kids to start consuming
alcohol?
Since minors are getting
significant, illegal access to alcohol products - will the government be
banning flavours in alcohol in response?
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3014
Current alcohol and licensing policy could be making
things worse for young drinkers -ON
TORONTO, Dec. 16 /CNW/ - In a new
"for debate" piece published online today in the January issue of Addiction,
researchers question whether current licensing policies have contributed to a
rise in the phenomenon of "pre-drinking" amongst young people.
"Pre-drinking" or "pre-gaming"
involves planned heavy drinking, usually at someone's home, before going to a
social event, typically a bar or nightclub. As defined by young people
themselves (see online dictionary of slang at www.urbandictionary.com) pre-drinking is "(the)
act of drinking alcohol before you go out to the club to maximise your fun at
the club while spending the least amount on extremely overpriced alcoholic
beverages". Drawing on scientific evidence from various countries as well as
information from media and popular internet vehicles, the authors suggest that
pre-drinking is symptomatic of a "new culture of intoxication" whereby young
people are drinking with the primary motive of getting drunk. Recent research
suggests that a large proportion of young people pre-drink and that
pre-drinkers are more likely to drink heavily and to experience negative
consequences as compared to non-pre-drinkers. Pre-drinking often involves the
rapid consumption of large quantities of alcohol which may increase the risk
of blackouts, hangovers and even alcohol poisoning. It may also encourage the
use of other recreational drugs such as cannabis and cocaine as drinkers are
socialising in unsupervised environments.
The authors argue that the policy
of banning drink promotions or specials such as "happy hour" in bars and clubs
may have the unintended consequence of encouraging young people to drink
cheaper alcohol in private settings before going out, especially when alcohol
is offered at much lower prices in off-premise outlets. The authors also point
out that while later closing times have been justified as a way of reducing
problems associated with large numbers of young people being on the street
after bars and clubs close, they may encourage private drinking to precede
rather than follow public drinking, producing different social dynamics and
possibly increasing the potential for violence and other alcohol-related
problems.
<< To discourage or reduce
pre-drinking, the authors suggest a comprehensive strategy including:
- Developing policies that reduce
large imbalances between on and off premise alcohol pricing - Attracting young
people of legal drinking age back to the bar for early drinking, where alcohol
consumption is monitored by serving staff and drinks are served in standard
sizes - Addressing young people's motivations for pre-drinking, including
being able to socialize with friends and saving money - for example bars might
expand their social function and create an attractive atmosphere for more
intimate socialising - Forming effective strategies to reduce planned
intoxication - for example policy and programming could be aimed at changing
drinking norms and promoting moderation >>
Lead author Dr. Samantha Wells, a
researcher at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Canada
says, "Many young bar-goers have found a way to avoid paying high alcohol
prices in bars: they pre-drink. And we have begun to see that this intense and
ritualized activity among young adults may result in harmful consequences.
Therefore, we need to look closely at the combined impact of various policies
affecting bars and young people's drinking and come up with a more
comprehensive strategy that will reduce these harmful styles of drinking among
young people."
For editors: Wells S., Graham K.,
Purcell J. Policy implications of the widespread practice of "predrinking" or
"pregaming" before going to public drinking establishments - are current
prevention strategies backfiring? Addiction 2009; 104: 4-9 The authors would
like to state that the research that inspired this article was funded by the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Addiction (www.addictionjournal.org) is a monthly
scientific journal, read in over sixty countries and publishing more than 2000
pages every year. Owned by the Society for the Study of Addiction, it has been
in continuous publication since 1884. Addiction publishes peer-reviewed
research reports on alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco, bringing together
research conducted within many different disciplines, as well as editorials
and other debate pieces.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2008/16/c2242.html
Feds need to protect kids from chemicals:
group
Last Updated: 17th December 2008, 2:38am
By KEVIN CONNOR, SUN MEDIA
The federal government must do more
to protect children from hazardous chemicals in products that are making them
sick, environmental and medical groups say.
The Canadian Partnership for
Children's Health and Environment -- which has been studying the problem for
10 years -- said Ottawa must change how it regulates chemicals in products.
"Products we bring into our homes
-- from toys to furniture to cleaning products and electronics, from
pesticides to air fresheners -- too often contain substances that do or could
disrupt the normal development of the brain and other organs of a fetus or
child," said Dr. Lynn Marshall, an environmental physician at Women's College
Hospital.
"Children are more vulnerable than
adults to environmental contaminants because their bodies are undergoing rapid
development and their behaviours -- such as crawling on the floor and putting
things in their mouths -- put them in contact with contaminants found in the
home, including many that are in ordinary dust."
There are too many unknowns about
the risks of the thousands of chemicals on the market today, the CPCHE said.
The group wants new laws so the
producer or importer of a chemical products must prove the product is safe
before reaching the marketplace. It also wants the government to have the
power for mandatory recalls. Too many have not been tested for the dangers
they pose, said Barbara McElgunn, a health policy advisor.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/17/7774951-sun.html
2 OPP get reprimand for bad traffic stop
-ON
Reasons given not enough
Posted By SCOTT DUNN, SUN TIMES
STAFF
Posted Dec 18,
2008
Three years after a judge scolded
two Grey County OPP officers for not understanding the limits of their powers
to pull over cars, two more officers have been reprimanded for doing something
similar.
Two Grey County OPP officers pulled
over Shawn Giilck's car about 11:50 p. m. on Dec. 8. Police said they were
checking for drinking and driving and asked him for his driver's licence and
vehicle registration, which he gave them.
"When I protested about why I was
stopped (in a raging snowstorm), I asked whether I was speeding or driving
erratically or doing anything else other than being on the road," Giilck wrote
in an e-mailed response to Sun Times questions.
"She brought her partner back with
her and (he) told me they could stop me for anything they wanted."
Giilck told them they needed a
reason to stop him, "and they acknowledged they really had none . . . except
they were supposed to be checking for drinking and driving and the weather was
too bad for them to want to stand outside to do it.
"I suspect they didn't like my
attitude."
The officer didn't ask him if he
had been drinking or to perform other tests.
Giilck, a former contributor to The
Sun Times who now reports for the Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin, had been on
his way home after a six-hour Collingwood council meeting when he was stopped
along Highway 26, west of Meaford.
He noticed the police cruiser,
which had been sitting by the Earth Power dealership at the 7th Line, pull out
and follow him for about two minutes before the stop. He was travelling at 70
kilometres per hour because it was snowing heavily.
Giilck made a formal complaint
because, he said in an interview Wednesday, he was annoyed the officer would
pull him over even though he was doing nothing wrong, especially given the
storm and that he was nearly home.
He was also troubled that nothing
appears to have changed since Ontario Court Justice Julia Morneau criticized
the Grey County OPP for similar stops, which she found violated the
constitutional rights of the drivers. Giilck sent police a copy of a July 30,
2005 Sun Times story about that decision along with his
complaint.
Giilck said he's satisfied with the
way the police handled the complaint. But he doubts he's the only one being
stopped improperly.
"I would say the OPP locally need
some training in the constitutional issues and the Highway Traffic Act as to
what is an improper detention of a motorist. They simply can't stop you
because you happen to be on the road and they're looking for something to do."
Giilck said the rules don't exist
to handcuff the police. "It's because they have shown repeatedly and
collectively that without a lot of structure in place, and clear rules, that
some officers' judgment cannot be trusted in order to apply those rules."
Giilck also said average citizens
need to be more aware of their rights and of limits on police powers.
In this latest incident, Staff-Sgt.
Rick Sinnamon of the Grey County OPP said the officers, who are "new to the
area" were reprimanded for stopping the vehicle the way they did. A shift
supervisor reviewed their error and discussed what they should have done, he
said.
But that's as far as it goes,
Sinnamon said. There's no larger issue to deal with among his officers, he
said. He knew of no similar complaints this year.
"In my mind they really didn't do
anything wrong in stopping and checking for drunk driving or whatever. It all
comes down to the way you articulate the reason for the stop."
Sinnamon said instead of saying
they were checking for drunk driving -- which requires reasonable grounds,
such as poor driving -- the officers simply could have said they were stopping
the vehicle to check the licence and registration, or if there was a problem
with the vehicle, such as a headlight out.
"They are valid within the law
reasons for stopping a person and they don't go against anything, bringing the
administration of justice into disrepute."
Also, had they been conducting a
proper drunk-driving spot check, commonly called a RIDE, they'd have done
nothing wrong either, he said. His officers should know that, he said.
Sinnamon stressed police can't stop
citizens for any reason because that would infringe on people's constitutional
rights. "We don't want people to think that we're just out there stopping
people willy-nilly."
But it should also be a comfort to
people to know that police are out there ensuring their safety on a snowy
night, Sinnamon said.
The Highway Traffic Act allows
police to stop vehicles if they see driving that concerns them, if they get a
report of a suspected impaired or unlicensed driver, or if the vehicle has
recently left a bar or licensed event, Justice Julia Morneau wrote in her 2005
decision.
The decision dealt with a 2003
incident in which $400,000 worth of marijuana was found in a van which was
stopped, as was a car, along Grey Road 31 about 3:15 a. m. Police testified
during a four-day trial they stopped the vehicles while investigating a break
and enter, to check for drunk driving and because of the lateness of the hour,
none legitimate in the circumstances, she found.
By stopping the drivers, police
violated the drivers' rights not to be arbitrarily detained or to be subject
to unreasonable search and seizure, the judge ruled in acquitting the two men.
The Crown did not appeal.
Insp. Mark Van Landuyt, the Grey
County detachment commander, said in an interview immediately after Morneau's
decision that he would use the incident as a training tool, but his officers
had good intentions.
Article ID#
1351701
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1351701
U of A right to take tobacco cash for research
-AB
December 20,
2008
Re: "Universities fail the test,"
by Les Hagen, Letters, Dec. 11, and
"U of A's double standard," by Dr.
Charl Els, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada," Letters, Dec.
13.
If we can all be allowed to make up
our own little report cards, I would like to submit my own and since mine
grades the degree of academic integrity, I award As to the University of
Alberta and its president, Indira Samarasekera. High marks to all for not
kowtowing to special-interest groups.
As I see it, the university can
either forgo all industry support, which would mean a billion-dollar bill
being passed onto taxpayers, or continue the tradition of accepting help from
those who can best afford it, but within well-established
guidelines.
And how were the report cards for
Action on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada? When
marking for integrity and for advocating in the public interest, I am afraid
no more than a C. (It would have been a D, but I gave them a few points for
effort.)
Paul L. Bergen, research associate,
public health sciences, University of Alberta
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/right+take+tobacco+cash+research/1099703/story.html
Ban on tobacco funds doesn't threaten academic freedom
-AB
Re: "Tobacco research has its
place," by Carl V. Phillips, Letters, Dec. 16.
December 21,
2008
Prof. Carl V. Phillips's letter was
an entertaining -- as opposed to enlightening -- read because he confuses the
issue substantially.
As a U of A graduate student who
has raised concerns, in my capacity as a representative on the General
Faculties Council (GFC), about the university's continued acceptance of
considerable sums of money from the tobacco industry, I feel compelled to
respond.
Phillips makes a strong case for
academic freedom. The interesting thing is that, in fact, no one is trying to
interfere with the freedom of Phillips or any other academic to study, write,
or speak publicly about research on smokeless tobacco, or
tobacco.
The concern is that the funding for
this research is, in part, being provided by the tobacco industry itself.
Questioning the appropriateness of this source of funding does not compromise
academic freedom.
Researchers in the sciences are
generally well-funded, and there are many avenues through which they can seek
funding, without resorting to accepting money from companies that make a
living (or, more accurately, a killing) by selling products which are
directly
responsible for the deaths of
millions of people each year. Academic freedom simply has nothing to do with
it.
True academic freedom, of which
Phillips speaks highly, can only be achieved if the source of the funding does
not have a strong vested interest in the outcome.
Kent Cameron,
Edmonton
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/tobacco+funds+doesn+threaten+academic+freedom/1101729/story.html
No safe alternative -AB
December 21,
2008
It's hard to understand why the
University of Alberta still employs apologists for Big
Tobacco.
Prof. Carl V. Phillips's
unimaginative defence of "new and promising ideas" that can "reduce ... risks
by 99 per cent" would be laughable if he wasn't serious. He directs us to his
website, TobaccoHarmReduction.org for details, where one can find a link to
another website, smokersonly.org, which contains the wisdom of another
academic, Dr. Brad Rodu.
Rodu is another proponent of
smokeless tobacco and is also joined at the hip with the tobacco industry.
Unfortunately for Rodu, he has attracted the attention of the American Cancer
Society as well as the American Dental Association. Greg Connolly, director of
the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program said, "to say that one form
of
tobacco is safer than the other at
this point in the debate is just irresponsible" and that, "tobacco is tobacco.
It's like telling someone to jump from the fifth floor instead of the 10th
floor."
The Oral Surgeons Association went
further, saying "suggesting this switch is like telling someone to use a rifle
instead of an Uzi." Further to the point, Phillips himself notes that oral
cancer is a major, well-established health risk associated with the use of
smokeless tobacco.
Phillips also says in his letter
that the goal of Les Hagen, of Action on Smoking and Health, is to "eliminate
all tobacco use, even if that means letting smokers die without realizing they
have an alternative." Hmm, I'm not quite sure about that one. I can't remember
the last time someone died from quitting smoking.
One can only hope that reason will
ultimately prevail. Phillips may moan about "attacks on academic freedom" and
creatively call legitimate concerns "anti-health activism," but the
end
result will be the same -- an
industry that peddles death and disease will one day cease to
exist.
M.G. Winter,
Edmonton
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/safe+alternative/1101730/story.html
It can't hurt to make smokers aware
-ON
Posted Dec 21,
2008
Editor:
When it comes to anti-smoking, I
can't count the times that I've heard someone complain about "preachers," and
"do-gooders," as well as some slightly more off-colour names for these
activists. Many smokers feel nagged and even targeted by nonsmokers to change
their entire lives, but is this really the case?
In his article "Smoke, Smoke, Smoke
That Contraband" Jim Merriam supports the sale of contraband cigarettes and
attacks the anti-smoking community as being too preachy. To be fair, the
article did bring up some interesting points about the effectiveness of
non-smoking ads. However, it also thoroughly bashed things like the health
warnings on cigarettes and the Health Unit.
Let me explain. Last fall, Finance
Minister Dwight Duncan stated that Ontario is facing a half-billion dollar
deficit. The paper printed a letter by Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Grey Bruce Medical
Officer of Health, stating that, among other things, the sale of illegal
contraband cigarettes results in the government losing tax money. Mr. Merriam
had an interesting take on this statement: "If no taxes were paid on them,
none of that tax money was wasted on fancy buildings and totally unneeded new
furniture for public bodies such as the Health Unit."
Let's take another look at that. A
half-billion dollars in taxes has been lost because of illegal cigarette
sales, but that's ok because some of that money might have gone to a public
body whose purpose is to keep people healthy.
A few additional points brought up
in the article not so much reflect the opinion of the writer, but rather the
opinion of the tobacco-using community at large.
Many people who use tobacco seem to
feel that parading the effects of tobacco, like putting warnings on the
cigarette packs, is not effective.
Mr. Merriam states: "In all the
times I've watched people light up over the years, I've never seen a single
one slow down to read the list of toxic ingredients and emissions."
While there are people who don't
take time to read this list, most people have glanced at it at some point, and
it only takes one read to get it. So no, you're not very likely to see someone
standing in the local convenience store, or wrapped up in their bed by a
reading lamp, reading the long list.
Let's explore a more important
topic: Whether or not health activists are "preaching," and if it's really
such a terrible thing.
Attending high school exposes me to
more anti-tobacco advertising than any other age
group.
People know that my age group is
the prime target for picking up a cigarette. I am generalizing of course, but
as a group we are easily influenced by peer pressure, we will experiment to
find out for ourselves and, in some topic areas, we are slightly ignorant. We
are told the dangers of smoking by articles, health class, mandatory
presentations, posters, events, and of course, other people. And while that
may seem like a lot, it's really not. We have so much going on in our lives
that sometimes it's OK to have frequent reminders. I don't hear the youth
complaining about preaching the non-smoking word.
But what if you're not my age?
Everyone knows the simple equation Smoking = Bad. Many of us have heard the
phrase, "Cigarettes are the only product that when used as directed WILL kill
you," so there's no need to go over that again here. But why is this flaunted
so much? It's because people still don't get it! Yes, there are people like
Jim Merriam who have seen how bad tobacco products are and have had the sense
to quit, but others are so uneducated on the subject that organizations like
Public Health have to continue to find new ways to reach out to them.
For example, I recently attended
the International Plowing Match in Teeswater. Public Health set up a display
with a pig lungs demonstration.
Most of you have seen these before,
but for those who haven't, the general concept is this: two lungs are hung up,
one is perfectly healthy, and the other has had chemicals added to exactly
mimic the lung of a 15-year smoker, tumours and all. The passer-bys generally
all greeted the display with: "Obviously the black lung is a smoker. Yes it's
bad. We get it."
However, many people wrongly seemed
to believe that if they quit they would be fine in a few weeks. I was
astounded by the sheer number of people who knew no more than that "smoking is
bad." It was quite sad to hear a hint of plea or desperation when people
asked: "It'll look like the good lung eventually, right?" It was even more
depressing when the person was told that they would have to live with black
stained lungs for the rest of their lives, even after they had reached the
half-decade recovery point. This is just one of the many examples of why the
anti-smoking campaign has to advocate so vigorously. People still don't get
it!
Is it really so bad to have blatant
advertising about the dangers of smoking?
Yes, smoking is bad.
If you recognize that and know you
will never touch a cigarette, then you have my personal congratulations and
respect.
But even if you think the topic has
been beaten to death, surely you can find some comfort knowing that your
children, your parents, your friends or any one that you care about, is being
taught to keep themselves healthy and alive? What is really so bad about
trying to educate?
There will always be people who
simply don't care enough to stop smoking, and that's fine. People who use
tobacco products are under the common misconception that they are being
attacked, but that is not the case. If you listen to any professional, the
message is: "Smoke if you want to, just know how bad it is, and please be
considerate of others." Personally, I have no problem with people who smoke,
unless they blow smoke where everyone gets a lung full. People might think
that it's interfering to be told not to smoke outside or in bars or in their
vehicles, but smoking hurts everyone that comes in contact with it. Much like
standing there whacking people in the shins with a baseball bat every time
they walk by; of course people are going to complain.
The point I'm trying to make is
that while advertising is occasionally annoying, it is also still necessary
health advocates are not trying to preach or tell you to be more like them.
They are trying to educate people to understand the choices, not telling them
which choice to make.
I am not what people like Jim
Merriam may call a preacher or a goody two-shoes.
I'm a typical 17-year-old working
at a fast food chain, listening to loud angry music at home, flirting with
girls, and generally acting out. I've smoked a cigarette before. I've done
many things that I wouldn't dare to put in print. It's not just paid
government officials or uptight snobs who want smokers to be more aware. We
all do.
Nathan Wise a youth Peer Leader
with the
Grey Bruce Health
Unit.
Article ID#
1355797
http://owensoundsuntimes.com/PrintArticle.aspx?e=1355797
A letter sent to The Edmonton Journal
-AB
Dec 22,
2008
To the editor:
A short comment on the letters from the
virtuous anti-tobacco activists who have written in indignation to Prof. Carl
V. Phillips's letter about tobacco funded research studies.
The day universities will stop accepting Big
Pharma money to finance research, the alleged ''not-for-profit''
anti-tobacco crowd might be taken seriously on their stance against
Big Tobacco funding. In the meantime, smokers who wish to quit, should
indeed be given the informed choice between using smokeless and a
dangerous drug such as Chantix/Champix.
This blatant ''do-gooder'' hypocrisy must be
exposed at every
turn.
Iro Cyr Vice-President -
C.A.G.E.
www.cagecanada.ca
Ontario's buck-a- beer days are over
-ON
December 22, 2008
The Canadian Press OTTAWA (Dec 22,
2008)
Say goodbye to buck-a-bottle beer
in Ontario.
The provincial government last
month quietly hiked the minimum price that can be charged for beer, to $25.60
from $24 for a case of 24 bottles.
That 6.7 per cent increase in the
floor price of a case, bottle deposit excluded, has nothing to do with
supply-and-demand, production costs, overhead or distribution
expenses.
Instead, the Liquor Control Board
of Ontario sets minimum prices as part of its "social responsibility" mandate
established in 1993. Translation: If alcohol is too cheap, you may abuse
it.
The buck-a-beer concept got its
start in Hamilton when Teresa Cascioli was looking for a way to revive
Lakeport brewery. The price was 24 for $24 plus
deposit.
Now out of the business, Cascioli
said last night she's not against the new
increase.
"I think that it's important to
continue to ensure that people drink responsibly and to encourage them doing
that," she said.
"They shouldn't be able to get a
bottle of beer cheaper than a soft drink. There's something not right about
that."
The last time the minimum price for
regular-strength beer was adjusted was October
2005.
The board made no public
announcement of the price change, which affects about 40 of the 400 beer
brands for sale at LCBO outlets and The Beer Store. A notice appeared a week
after the Oct. 15 meeting on a section of the LCBO website directed to
suppliers.
Most other provinces also set
minimum prices for alcohol, whether for sale in retail outlets or in bars and
taverns. Last week, for example, the Nova Scotia government set a minimum
price of $2.50 for a serving of wine, beer or spirits in licensed
establishments.
Beer sales in Ontario are estimated
to be worth $2.5 billion annually.
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/485580
Just whose ethics should be in question?
-AB
Vince sent this letter: Edmonton
Journal
Dec.
22/08
Re;The whole chain of letters
started by Les Hagen
One thing that should be remembered
is that organizations like ASH are pretty well one man entities with
comparatively few followers. This is why they attempt to scare people into
agreeing with them. Most of them, at least, simply hate smokers and do
not actually care about anyone's health. They are not "saving" anyone
from anything. As you may know, their claims have been shown to be wrong
very many times by the best "anti-tobacco" researchers in the business (which
this actually is). However these groups waste large amounts of
money just in the grants they receive. They do care about this
money. If they were actually concerned with anyone's health, they would
disband so that this money could be used for actual health
care.
As a society, we would be better
off if so called "tobacco control" didn't exist. Most of it should lose
it's funding. (I say "most" because hopefully there are some researchers
that are still doing credible, useful work.) We already know that there is a
risk from smoking. That is why so many had been quitting the
habit. This alone would free up much money to use for other research or
something useful like cancer screening. We would also lose the costs of
their inane policies that they somehow coerce governments into using.
Their high tobacco tax policy alone costs society billions each year and
benefits no one but criminals and so called "tobacco control". Other
policies, like smoking bans, actually cost lives. Bailey Zaveda was
another person killed recently because of the existence of these bans.
Just what happened to "tobacco control's" ethics, especially the medical
people? What happened to their Hippocratic oath? What happened to "I shall do
no harm"? Some are causing a great deal of harm, both financial and
physical. So called "tobacco control" is nothing more than a form of
ethnic cleansing.
As for the U of A accepting tobacco
money, so what? Many researchers have no qualms taking money from other
industries with what may be worse reputations in regards to the standards of
their studies. Some "tobacco control" organizations will refer research
inquiries to tobacco companies. M.G. Winter, I can recall one
"antismoker" zealot like Les Hagen in the U.S. that was all for smoking
bans. His motive though was to push his smokeless
tobacco.
Vince
Anti-smoking law forces retailer to phase out pharmacy
-AB
December 22, 2008 11:00
AM
By Florence
Loyie
Tobacco and health care can't mix
under legislation taking effect Jan. 1
With the final phase of Alberta's
Tobacco Reduction Act set to take effect on New Year's Day, Stadium Drug and
Food Mart owner Jack Au had a business choice to
make.
Either keep his grocery store where
more than 50 per cent of sales come from tobacco products or hang on to the
less lucrative pharmacy and watch his former smoking customers buy their
cigarettes elsewhere.
"So I closed up the pharmacy. It
made no sense to continue with that business when over 50 per cent of the
business is tobacco here," Au said.
Au now uses the corner where the
pharmacy once stood to rent out videos.
When Jan. 1 rolls around, he will
permanently seal up the double doors leading to the pharmacy which moved next
door.
There will be no access from his
store. He intends to be in compliance with the province's anti-smoking
legislation, considered by some to be among the toughest in the
country.
Under the legislation, all
pharmacies, stores that have a pharmacy in them, health-care facilities and
post-secondary institutions in Alberta will no longer be allowed to sell
tobacco products as of Jan. 1.
It is the last phase of the Tobacco
Reduction Act which came into effect last Jan. 1 with a ban on smoking in all
public and workplaces.
It also banned smoking within five
metres of any door, window or air intake vent of a public
place.
The ban was extended to retail
power walls or displays, advertising and promotion of tobacco products last
July 1.
Contravention of the act can result
in a fine ranging from $1,000 to $100,000 or a ticket from $250 to
$500.
Independent pharmacist Urban
Bogusz, who sells cigarettes out of his drug store, said he will comply with
the legislation, but that doesn't mean he is happy about
it.
"I think the legislation is full of
holes," said the owner of Imperial ARP Drug. "I see two issues with smoking -
one is health and one is economic. I certainly support the health issue. I am
a non-smoker, my wife is a non-smoker and we have two sons who are
non-smokers.
"What I am not supportive of is the
economic aspect in that I will be forced not to sell tobacco, but places like
Safeway and Superstore will be selling tobacco through separate doors or a
subsidiary and that is wrong," Bogusz said. "If we are going to have
legislation to reduce tobacco use, then people or corporations holding a
pharmacy licence should not be allowed to sell tobacco, be it through a
service station or a kiosk in a mall."
Allen Langdon, spokesman for the
Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which represents about 85 per cent
of all major grocery chains in Canada, said its Alberta members intend to
comply with the legislation.
Those that have pharmacies will
likely shift their cigarettes sales to their gas bars if they have them. "If
they don't, they may consider building a kiosk in a mall or maybe ceasing
tobacco sales altogether," he said.
Sobey's spokesman Michael Lupien
said 20 of the company's 70 stores in Alberta have pharmacies. Those stores
will no longer sell tobacco products.
"It will be more of an
inconvenience for customers, but I don't think it will have any impact on
sales," Lupien said.
While some grocery stores will be
able to circumvent the law using tactics like shifting their cigarettes
outside to gas bars or kiosks outside their premises, big chain pharmacies
will have no choice but to stop selling tobacco
products.
In the early days, we evaluated
whether to sell them separately, but we have long since decided against that
because it is just not in the spirit of the legislation that the government is
trying to get at," said Clint Mahlman, senior vice-president of London
Drugs.
An unfortunate aspect is the
company will no longer have ready access to smoking customers who are on the
verge of quitting, he said.
"We were very successful in
targeting smokers with our smoking cessation programs, cessation products and
the professional counselling that our pharmacists can provide to these
customers," Mahlman said.
"However, we respect the
government's decision and we will continue to offer our cessation clinics in
Alberta and continue to try and be one of the premier retailers in helping
customers to stop smoking through education and access to products and
professional counselling."
Tammy Smitham, Shoppers Drug Mart's
director of communications, said the company has been reducing tobacco
inventory in its Alberta stores in preparation for the
change.
What impact the ban will have on
revenue "is immaterial" since Shoppers announced earlier this year it would be
phasing out tobacco sales in all its stores across Canada, Smitham
said.
Health professionals and public
institutions should not be involved in the sale and promotion of "a deadly and
addictive product," said Les Hagen, executive director of Action on Health
& Smoking.
Come Jan. 1, "pharmacists will no
longer be required to contradict their professional code of ethics by selling
tobacco products. Post-secondary institutions will no longer be facilitating
the sale of tobacco products to their students and staff," Hagen
said.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Anti+smoking+forces+retailer+phase+pharmacy/1103598/story.html
Re: "No one has any use for drunk drivers" (Dec.
19).
Dec 22,
2008
There is one simple reason why the
various levels of government are slow to crack down on drunk drivers -- money,
as in lots and lots of it. I'll bet you a double-double that if alcohol money
wasn't filling the government's coffers with so much tax money and whatnot,
the police would be everywhere cracking down on these murderers on wheels.
But unfortunately for us, our
elected officials are always in need of more money, so you won't see them
biting the hands that feed them.
Michel Trahan Verdun, QC
(We hope no one is so greedy they
don't want to wipe out drunk driving; but you do remind us of the relationship
between cigarette taxes and anti-smoking legislation)
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Letters/2008/12/22/7823216.html
Chris Selley: The inherent absurdity of government booze
-ON
Posted: December 22, 2008, 8:07 PM
by Chris Selley
Chris
Selley
In Nova Scotia, it's now illegal
for taverns to sell a drink for less than $2.50. In Ontario, the minimum price
of a case of beer is now $25.60, up from an even $24. This, I maintain, is
unnecessarily cruel. Sin taxes I understand, but the Prime Minister recently
used the word "depression" in reference to the economy. Who wants to think
about that at Christmas? These days, I'd argue alcohol is no more sinful, no
more luxurious, than Prozac.
In absence of reasonably priced
beer, it's always enjoyable to see the LCBO, Ontario's alcohol monolith, make
a fool of itself. (It's equally frustrating to see that nobody in this
province gives a damn, but I digress.) Dean Beeby's Canadian Press report
notes that the Ministry of Finance directly requested the price hike of the
ostensibly arm's-length LCBO, and that it provided board members with "no
explanation of why the new minimum was required, how it fit with the social
responsibility mandate, how the increase was calculated [or] why it was
required by Nov. 24." Despite the paucity of background information, the board
spent less than a half an hour discussing the issue before approving it. Even
still, a spokesperson had the gall to tell Beeby that the decision was most
definitely the LCBO's, and not the Ministry's.
Among those background materials,
board members might have considered a new Canadian study, which explains the
various deleterious effects of "pre-drinking"—i.e., drinking at home in order
to attain the desired level of intoxication, at a reasonable price, before
hitting the town. The Toronto Star breathlessly reported on it last week as a
"new form of binge drinking" that "even has its own buzzwords—'pre-drinking'
or 'pre-gaming'"—which elicited much snickering among my peer group, and I'm
sure many other peer groups as well. Drinks have cost more at the bar than
they do at the supermarket or state-sanctioned bottle shop forever, and people
have been taking advantage of it forever. I don't recall my university friends
ever using the expression "pre-drinking" or "pre-gaming," or thinking there
was much novel about what we were doing at all. I think we just called it
"Saturday night."
But it's certainly worth thinking
about the price gap and how it affects people's decisions. The study even
suggests enforcing lower prices at bars to reduce all the unfortunate effects
of pre-drinking, which are much the same as the effects of drinking in
general—fights, alcohol poisoning, drinking and driving, etc. Nova Scotia is
doing the exact opposite with the exact same intent. Ontario, meanwhile, seems
to be mucking around with prices for no reason except to boost profits, with
absolutely no regard to what they might make people do.
Every time the price of a pint at
the bar goes up, there's an increased incentive to drink at home, with all its
attendant problems. And every time the price of beer at the supermarket or
state-sanctioned monopoly goes up, there's an increased incentive to hit the
town, with all its attendant problems. I don't know where the right balance
lies, and I don't know who's best positioned to make that determination. But I
know who isn't: the LCBO. To say that a body charged with both selling alcohol
to Ontarians and preventing them from drinking too much of it—that's the
so-called "responsibility mandate" mentioned in the CP report—is in a conflict
of interest is to insult conflicts of interest everywhere. The LCBO's mandate
is an inherent impossibility. Knowing the Ministry of Finance is directly
calling the shots rather than just hovering over the board, demanding ever
greater profits, just hammers the point home even
harder.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/22/chris-selley-the-inherent-absurdity-of-government-booze.aspx
Tobacco takes another hit
-AB
December 23, 2008
05:36
VICTORIA HANDYSIDES/ METRO EDMONTON
Local anti-tobacco activists feel
the smoke is finally starting to clear, and they are steps closer to winning
the war on smoking in Alberta.
Results from the provincial
government’s quarterly fiscal update released last month indicate that tobacco
sales have been on a steady decline since implementation of the Tobacco
Reduction Act, which came into effect almost one year
ago.
“This is world class legislation,”
said Action on Smoking and Health executive director Les Hagen. “Only a
handful of jurisdictions globally have implemented the same measures as
Alberta.”
Projected tobacco tax revenue is
short $50 million for the current fiscal year, and tobacco shipments are on a
five per cent decline.
The reductions follow a provincial
smoking ban, erasing of powerwalls, and a 63 per cent tax increase on tobacco
in 2007.
The final steps in the Tobacco
Reduction Act — banning tobacco sales in pharmacies, supermarkets, and
post-secondary institutions — commences on New Year’s Day.
“Health professionals should not be
engaged in the sale of a deadly and addictive product,” Hagen
said.
“And a public institution should
not be facilitating the sale of this product to their students and
staff.”
It’s estimated that over 1,000
tobacco retailers will be eliminated when the legislation takes
effect.
http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/local/article/158817
Alliance hospitals tighten smoking restrictions
-ON
December 23rd,
2008
Effective Jan. 1, smoking will only
be permitted within a single outdoor designated area at the Louise Marshall
Hospital in Mount Forest and the Palmerston and District Hospital. Smoking
will not be permitted anywhere on Groves Memorial Community Hospital property
in Fergus, including parking lots or vehicles and The Wellington Health Care
Alliance (WHCA) hospitals made the announcement “in a demonstration of their
ongoing commitment to providing safe and healthy hospital environments.” “This
move to smoke-less and smoke-free environments confirms for the community and
our staff our aim to support good health practices including reducing the
exposure to smoke at or near the hospitals,” said President and CEO Jerome
Quenneville . Currently, smoking is allowed externally on all sites as long as
it takes place at least nine meters from an entrance. The new change in policy
means that The Wellington Health Care Alliance move to smoke-less and
smoke-free environments is keeping with a trend among hospitals in Ontario and
supports the health care mandate of hospitals. “We thank our community members
in advance for complying with our new policy, Mr. Quenneville
said.
http://www.mountforest.com/index.php?article=875
Tighter tobacco laws lauded
-AB
Dec 23,
2009
By DAVE DORMER, SUN
MEDIA
Anti-smoking activists praise
stricter rules as Reduction Act enters final
phase
Anti-smoking activists are
applauding tighter restrictions coming into effect on where cigarettes can be
sold in the province.
And they say a $50-million hit to
government tobacco revenues shows newer, existing regulations are cutting into
smoking.
Under the final phase of the
provincial government's Tobacco Reduction Act, which comes into effect Jan. 1,
2009, cigarette sales will be banned in all stores with a pharmacy as well as
all post-secondary institutions.
The first phases of the act saw
smoking banned in public buildings and workplaces, along with limits placed on
how cigarettes can be advertised and displayed in stores.
The result so far, said Robyn Hauk,
spokeswoman for Action on Smoking and Health, has been a reduction in the
number of smokers in Alberta, a trend she sees continuing with the new
regulations.
"It's usually what you see after
jurisdictions start to implement more tough tobacco legislation," she said.
"Certainly in Vancouver, that was
the case years ago when they went smoke-free and that's the whole goal with
tobacco legislation, to help people quit."
But fewer people smoking means
lower cigarette-tax revenues flowing into provincial coffers.
According to numbers released by
the Campaign for a Smoke Free Alberta -- a coalition of provincial
anti-smoking organizations -- tobacco tax revenues are $50 million below
expectations for the current fiscal year.
That's 6% below forecasts --
something Hauk called a direct result of the rules.
"Three-thousand Albertans every
year die from tobacco-related diseases and close to 40,000 Canadians die," she
said.
"If we saw that many people die
from something else in a single year, there would be an outrage, so I think
it's a positive thing because it means people are quitting and consumption is
down."
Plenty of smokers were furious when
bans were first put in place, but Hauk said most people are now getting used
to butting out when in public.
"There's a lot of people who are
really against what we're doing," she said.
"But I think (the legislation) is
such a positive thing because it could save one life or it could save 100.
The coalition is also pushing for a
$4 per pack tax increase in cigarettes and a ban on flavoured tobacco
products.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2008/12/23/7834776-sun.html
Back to The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter