Reboot Alberta

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Hancock Pushing Hard for Smoking Ban In Alberta

UPDATE APRIL 24: I have ameneded this post to correct a factual error. The original post indicated the new tabacco tax was $5 per pack of cigarettes. It is not. I am told the new tobacco tax is $5 per carton. I have changed the original post but thought people should be advised of the error.
The recent $5 per carton immediate tax increase in the April 19 Alberta Budget is the first step in an effort towards a province wide tobacco reduction strategy and is just part of the new Alberta Minister of Health and Wellness, Dave Hancock’s strategic efforts to promote wellness.

In addition to a tax increase, a proposal is being drafted by Hancock for a province-wide legislated ban on smoking in public places and work places. Further provisions will include a ban tobacco sales in pharmacies and to regulate so-called powerwall displays of tobacco products. Tax increases are as rare as hen's teeth in Alberta so this tobacco tax augers well for the political potential of a legislated ban of smoking in public and work places.
This public policy initiative is not new to Alberta. It has been tried 4 times before but never made it through the political policy development process. But with new leadership and the fact it is garnering significant public support, it may have a chance this time. It will still require the government Caucus support and there is still a hard core group of resistance to the policy. With good lobbying and good government, it could/should pass - ideally in this current session of the Legislature.

Premier Stelmach has said during the PC Leadership campaign that he agrees wit the ban but would support the Caucus decision on a legislated tobacco reduction policy. Four attempts in the past have failed primarily due to the objections of the former Premier and a block of MLAs who blocked the efforts. This time with new leadership and an evidenced based lobbying effort by a coalition of some 15 professional and advocacy groups (Smoke Free Alberta) and supported by polling showing 84% of Albertans support this policy it has a better chance of succeeding.

The Alberta Chambers of Commerce are first group off the mark in pushing the current lobbying effort for the Alberta government to implement smoke-free workplace and public place legislation. Ken Kobly, the CEO of the Alberta Chambers of Commerce, says tobacco use and its related illnesses impact worker productivity.Kobly, in a video interview that will be on The PolicyChannel (http://www.policychanel.com/) Monday April 23, 2007, says that the time has come for a legislated province-wide workplace ban on tobacco use.

Kobly says Alberta is one of the few provinces that has not yet enacted province wide smoke-free legislation. And he says, while tobacco places a tremendous strain on our health care system and taxpayers, a large cost burden falls on employers as well. This is in terms of lost productivity, more worker compensation claims and the loss of employees in their prime due to smoking related illnesses.

If you support this policy initiative please take the time to contact your MLA and ideally meet with them, write to them or email them with details of your support. Website links to book mark to keep current on this initiative are at:
1. www.smokefreealberta.com/
2. www.abchamber.ca/
3. http://www.policychannel.com/
Recomend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

37 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:22 pm

    A no smoking ban is interesting but is this really the biggest priority for Alberta Health? Why is Hancock screwing around with this issue. There are other issues which are more pressing.

    PM Harper has defined wait times as a priority. Why isn't Hancock doing something about that? Or increasing the number of doctors and nurses?

    Hancock was a do-nothing Justice minister and education minister. He is threepeating with a do nothing term at health.

    We need cabinet ministers that have an agenda not guys who have no other prospects and struting in empty suits.

    Tell your pal to do something real and stop futzing with low level issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. B-Bob - boy are you out of the reality loop.

    A week or so ago a three Ministry Health Summit with all stakeholders was held on recruiting professionals into the health care system dealing with recruitment, immigration and training issues.

    Alberta has numerous successful initiatives that have already proven to reduce wait times in various areas the most noted and now being copied in other jurisdictions and other practice areas are in the hip and joint replacements wait times project, but there are many others.

    Experiments are on-going and proving results on how doctors can better organize themselves to work together in a more integrated fashion with things like electronic records and better us of facilities and scheduling. These are only some of many but all are significant success stories in reducing wait times.

    Harper is very new to the issue of wait times and has not had much time to do very much except the typical Ottawa trick of paying cash for policy compliance in federal initiatives that interfere in provincial jurisdiction.

    Have you become so “Ottawa-ized” that you can’t see past Sparks Street - or Quebec? There are lots of good things happening here in “outer-Canada” that you should get up to speed on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have to admit that tobacco taxes and anti-smoking initiatives are the low hanging fruit nowadays. I feel sorry for the remaining smokers. They are highly addicted to a legal substance and there are surprisingly few resources to help them defeat their addiction. A pack a day smoker is going to get hit with an extra $255 in taxes. Probably not enough to force many smokers to quit but enough to make them feel even more powerless than they already are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Psychols - Sure a smoking ban is low hanging fruit - but one with big leverage in positive outcomes for people, the heath system and the economy. It is hard to believe Alberta is so far behind on this issue and has been for so long.

    Smoking is an addiction just like any other addiction and has to be treated as such. Smokers who want to quit need help to quit and we should provide it within the health care system.

    I remember Premier Klein was able to quit drinking cold turkey - and he was even criticized in some circles for doing it all by himself if you can believe.

    He never quit smoking though...perhaps that tells us something about the strength of the smoking addiction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:29 pm

    My concern is that this ends up being a tax on the poor. In my experience, there is a definite correlation between socio-economic status and smoking. It is mostly poorer people these days that smoke and they are addicted to smoking. Increasing their taxes is unlikely to significantly change their behaviour. It will more likely mean that there will be other health associated consequences from smoking, as people reduce their grocery budgets (by buying less healthy food), etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:47 pm

    AP - my understanding is tax increases have a positive impact on reducing smoking and preventing people from starting...a critical aspect for sustaining wellness...DON'T START.

    It is mostly youth who start and costs are a factor in that decision in such cases.

    Assisting people to quit has to be part of the deal too. If you are a libertarian who insists on your right to use a legal substance OK -just don't harm others with second hand smoke and pay the related health costs involved too please. Rights come with responsibilities.

    I am a conservative who believes there is some individual responsiblity at play here. One has to take the consequences of ones own behaviour and socio-economic status does not get nyone of that responsibility hook. A disability will absolve me of some personal responsibility but again not in all cases.

    Taht said, smoking is an addiction and treatment to help quitters has to be part of the health care system.

    Besides the costs to the rest of us in lost productivity and social and health related costs on all of us are enormous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:45 pm

    Personal responsibility is all well and good, but let's face it, there has been ample evidence that smoking is extremely bad for one's health for decades yet people still smoke and begin smoking. This suggests to me that there is a limit to what the government can do to stop people from smoking.
    Secondly, I think it would be quite hard to isolate increasing cigarette taxes as a reason that smoking rates have decreased. Smoking rates have been declining for 50 years in most of the western world and cigarette taxes have fluctuated during that time. Was there an increase in smoking rates after the federal government lowered taxes in the mid-90s? I don't know, but I doubt there was!
    Third, I doubt higher costs will influence young people who start smoking. Smoking is an interesting component of youth culture and has been for decades. I doubt higher taxes or a government anti-smoking campaign is going to stop that. If anything, youth's start smoking because it is dangerous/rogue/disapproved. It's called rebellion.
    Having said that, if the government wants to ban smoking in public, as a non-smoker I am all for it. I just think we should be realistic about the prospects of higher taxes and a public education campaign cutting smoking rates.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:08 am

    Ken:

    Check out today's Calgary Herald and Ipsos Reid poll.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This tax increase is blatant persecution of a social minority composed primarily of lower income survivors of childhood trauma & abuse as well as the elderly and disabled. Why should they feel any loyalty to a government and society that treat them this way?

    Even Les Hagen, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health stated - on Kerry Diotte's blog - that the Alberta government with a 2 billion dollar surplus obviously doesn't need the money to cover any expense. Tobacco taxes in Alberta already brought in more than twice the total cost of treating all smoking-related illness.

    And no, increased price doesn't cause lower income smokers to quit. A study commissioned by the UK ASH found that cessation rates in the highest income group increased by 22% from 1970 to 2000, but that cessation rates in the lowest income levels DROPPED from 5% to NIL during the same period.

    As for teen smoking, the last increase - of TWO DOLLARS a pack - caused a significant drop in teen smoking that lasted about 6 months. After that, the teen smoking rate fluctuated up & down until it reached a peak HIGHER than the rate before the tax increase, which represents teen smokers recruiting smoking buddies from among their peers to help carry the increased cost IN RESPONSE to the enormous tax increase.

    You & Hancock are pursuing an ideological goal, perhaps with good intent, but you don't understand these issues from the perspective of lower income smokers and you never will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Personally, I commend Hancock for taking on this issue at last.

    Alberta wants to be a leader and attract workers and families from across the province to join the labour force here. Quality of life is one factor people take into account when moving and a ban on smoking in public places increases public health and quality of life.

    Alberta desperately needs qualified health professionals. When recruiting, it is positive to stress that the province has public health in mind... by having a ban on smoking in public places.

    Alberta is behind in this respect. Other provinces and countries around the world have banned smoking in public. If one wants to smoke and hurt themselves, that is one thing. But in public they are affecting others as well.

    Smoking does place a big strain on the health sector and lung cancer is the leading cancer killer. We know smoking and second-hand smoke lead to lung cancer and yet we aren't doing anything to prevent this.

    As previously mentioned, wait times are being tackled as well. When attacking any problem it is prudent to tackle it at the source. Smoking puts a strain on health care services and by lessening the impacts smoking has on public health, wait times are being affected in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:41 am

    I am in total agreement with Ken and Elle Bee on this one. I find it hard to believe that a $5.00 PER PACK TAX INCREASE would not deter even low-income smokers.

    Kudos to you Ken for pushing this initiative; previous governments have caved on the issue.

    I will write to my MLA, asking him to support the policy, citing (paraphrasing if I may) some of your arguments. I also encourage others to do so as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Elle Bee said: "Alberta is behind in this respect. Other provinces and countries around the world have banned smoking in public".

    The "let's be lemmings" argument - "but simply everyone is doing it, dahling..." We invest all this time teaching our children that they don't have to, and shouldn't, do something just because "everyone else is doing it" - but we should institute oppressive measures against a social minority because it is fashionable and trendy? You may not have noticed that people who were born in Alberta have a strong tendency toward individualism.

    "If one wants to smoke and hurt themselves, that is one thing. But in public they are affecting others as well".

    Can I assume this means you are a bicycle commuter like me? Because if you are driving around spewing fine particle exhaust pollution linked to heart disease and lung cancer, then you are being a hypocrite.

    As for attracting new workers - I'd rather attract people who want "to live and let live" than people who believe they have a mission to nanny everyone around them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous1:02 pm

    Wow this might be quite the headline: 'progressive Hancock further marginalizes low-income addicts'! I think there is a large measure of hypocracy on the government's part here. There are lots of legal activities which are bad for human health which the government does nothing to discourage, and in fact, actively encourages. For instance, driving gasoline powered vehicles. What is this government doing, throwing tonnes of money into infrastructure (ie. building roads) while public transport continues to be underfunded. What's worse for human health in the long run? The world's leading scientists are predicting millions if not billions of deaths because of global warming. The people who die will not necessarily be the people who caused the problem. Smoking only kills those who smoke as well as a few people who are exposed to it second hand. Is smoking bad? Of course it is. Is it anywhere near the gravest health issue currently facing humanity? Not even close.
    I hope the government's next plan isn't to wage a campaign against heart disease. I just finished reading a study which indicates that the average age to die from heart disease is greater than societies average life expectancy. Lesson? Increasing rates of heart disease are because people are living longer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous1:43 pm

    Boy, from the vehemence of responses you can sure tell who the smokers in the crowd are ;-)

    Is it just me, or has it become law that every blog posting has to draw in climate change? The previous comment essentially said "Don't charge smokers more because the world is warming?"

    I certainly hope that the comment was tongue-in-cheek. Either that, or get back on your meds.

    And for bagdad bob, do you really want governments to think in a linear, serial fashion? That is, don't address small problems until we have the biggest problems solved? Ok, then. When you have determined in your wisdom which is the biggest problem facing mankind, let us know and we can set about fixing it to the exclusion of all else. Good luck putting a ranking together that everyone agrees with.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1:48 pm

    I support the tax increase on cigarettes and a smoke-free policy. Their are a great many avenues that smokers can take to assist themselves in quitting and hopefully the expense of cigarettes will assist them to make the healthier choice for themselves and those around them.

    As for the public transport issue, it seems that Alberta is a province that is run by the success of vehicle sales and usage. If more voters took a stance on the global warming issues as they have on the smoking issues that would be excellent. I support both the reduction of smoking and the reduction of the use of gasoline, water, electricity and other resources. I think these mentalities could go hand in hand for the health of Canadians.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:51 pm

    bagdad bob,

    One other thing. When I challenged you in a previous post about your apparent disrespect for Premier Stelmach, you had this to say (un-edited):

    [..."Hey, don't talk to me about disrespect. I ahve seen Ralph Klein in the legislature and he was utterly the most disrespectful man to the opposition. And I am not even going to mention throwing a book at the high school page.

    If you want the ultimate in disrespect? Here it is: how would you feel if your children grew up to be like Ralph Klein. If you are insulted by that then you know why I hold him in such low regard."]

    So you justify your disrespect for the current premier by referencing your distaste for the actions of the previous one? Very interesting... and chilling. I hope that you, sir, do not have children. For their sakes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5:31 pm

    Just to clarify - the new tobacco taxes do not legislate an additional $5.00 per pack. Rather, it's an additional $5.00 per carton, which equates to an additional $0.63 per pack. Even with the additional tax, four other Canadian jurisdictions charge significantly more for tobacco than Alberta.


    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous5:52 pm

    And to further add to this discussion, I agree that many smokers do come from marginalized socio-economic backgrounds. That's why, in my mind, the next phase of any tobacco reduction initiative has got to go after the big tobacco companies. That's where the money is and that's where the impetus to keep people smoking lies.

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sean,

    Eliminating the tobacco companies would simply drive tobacco smoking underground. If the Tobacco Control cabal were serious about helping people who smoke, rather than scapegoating and persecuting them, they would sanction development of effective alternatives for treating the PTSD induced anhedonia that many people who smoke, drink, or use illicit drugs suffer from. But the prohibitionist mentality of the medical establishment will never sanction alternative substances for self-medication because they would necessarily be "addictive".

    People smoke because smoking boosts dopamine levels in the brain, which causes the experience of "happiness" - and there is no legal substance capable of delivering that experience without unacceptable side-effects of intoxication, which smoking does not cause. There will always be smokers, one way or another.

    http://tinyurl.com/2ovtpt

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Son of Gaia... I am a bicycle/biped commuter, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous11:38 pm

    Sean,

    What you are saying makes a whole bunch of sense. A. If the tax increase is only $.63 per pack, which my quick research indicates is true, then this increase is not going to do anything to make people stop something they are addicted to. Thanks for clarifying that point. B. Huge increases will result hurt poor people most. C. You are absolutely right that the real target should be the cigarette companies. B.C has some very interesting legislation that Alberta could mimick, legislation which the SCC has upheld, and makes it easier for BC to sue the cigarette companies. If this government is serious about tobacco control, this may be an avenue that it would consider.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:51 pm

    As long as it's a legal product, the government has no business screwing around with people's rights like that.

    What I'd like to know is:

    How soon before special taxes are slapped on those engaging in extreme sports?

    How soon before special taxes are slapped on fast food?

    How soon before special taxes are put on stupid people because they're causing way too many problems in today's world?

    In short, all the rabid anti-smoke lobbyists will soon see some of their rights curtailed in different areas after the government has seen how easy it is to get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous12:24 am

    Not sure I buy that argument Werner, governments, by definition, have to tax legal activities. Every transaction you make, whether it is being paid, buying a product, is taxed. That's how government's raise money. Having said that, I'm opposed to taxes that due to socio-economic realities, end up having a greater impact on the poor. Smokers are an easy target. Still, if we were concerned about wellness then we should be more concerned about the health consequences of all those processing plants in Sherwood Park that probably cause more cancers and health problems in that community than smoking does, other pollutants, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ken said: "Besides the costs to the rest of us in lost productivity and social and health related costs on all of us are enormous".

    This obsession with how much various groups of our neighbors are allegedly "costing" us is a disgustingly selfish perspective that verges on being quasi-eugenicist.

    You'll be fascinated, no doubt, by this story running on CBC news site: "Overweight workers cost their bosses more in injury claims than their lean colleagues, suggests a U.S. study that found the heaviest employees had twice the rate of workers compensation claims as their fit co-workers."

    So, on the basis of "repay what you are costing us", shouldn't there be a special tax levied on "excessive body-mass index"? You'd send in a doctor's note with your tax return, and pay a special penalty for every pound (kilo?) you are deemed to be overweight - or something like that.

    That would be fair, wouldn't it Ken? I'll bet it would really motivate people to shed those excess pounds, eh? Or maybe drive them to suicide is more likely, but then they would stop "costing" us all so much expense.

    If I ever worry about how much someone in my community is allegedly "costing" me, I hope someone will shoot me in the head, because I will have become too despicable to go on living.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous9:33 am

    My "son" your misdirection on weight versus tobacco addiction is an obfuscation but a clever one.

    That said, I tend to agree with you in part. I would not tax excess body weight but perhaps a tax on fast food which contributes significantly to the cause. It may be tht we could alos provided an incentive on nutritious food as a way to go. I don't know if this is a god idea or not - but it is worth studying.

    On the job injury is not the same as addiction realted deaths.
    WCB is an employer-employee paid for system and not a charged on the public purse. It is insurance and the premiums are rated with higher costs for employers with bad records.

    Tobacco addiction is a pure health issue that impacts all of us and the workplace in productivity terms in a variety of ways. It is entirely preventable and tough to stop once an addiction has taken hold.

    It is not about injury induced industrial losses from accidents that may be avoidable by increaseing worker capacity - not the least of which would be through improved literacy skills...for all kinds for all of us fo that matter.

    Your comparison of overweight to drug addiction leaks logic.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous9:38 am

    AP: Exactly. We must go after the REAL problems.

    Look at downtown Calgary during rush hour (between 4 and 6pm): cars along 4th bumper-to-bumper. Every pedestrian inhales enough exhaust fumes to last him a lifetime. Yet, the main concern seems to be a person who stands on such a sidewalk enjoying a cigarette. To people like Hancock (and even our own Ken Chapman here), that little cigarette is more harmful than all those car exhausts. Instead of taking tough measures to calm traffic, boost public transit, levy congestion charges on drivers like in London and New York, these people go after a negligible risk compared to all that other rubbish.

    Plus, if Ken and others want people to pay for their "hobbies" that, supposedly, have such high costs for society, then I suggest we start making people who engage in extreme sports pay through the nose as well: those people endanger their health in a reckless manner, but then expect the rest of us to foot their medical bills. Skis and all other sporting equipment must be made subject to stiff taxes which will be used to cover those people's medical expenses when they get into accidents, etc. -- in the same way as smokers pay for any future medical bills (and then some!) through the tobacco taxes.

    Let's get real and focus on REAL problems, of which this country has plenty!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous9:53 am

    And if you want an example of what's costing us big time, look here:

    Only 25% of our immigrants are net tax payers; the rest of them cost us $18 billion a year. Immigration is supposed to get us the necessary funding for future pensions and such; instead, it is putting us in the hole by $18 billion every single year. Now, that's a real problem, one that I, as a taxpayer, am truly concerned about.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My allusion was satiric, whereas you are completely ducking the underlying point, Ken, which is that looking at your neighbors and calculating "how much are you 'costing' me"? is a very ugly obsession. It was the basis of American & British eugenics, the involuntary sterilizations that occurred right here in the Michener Centre of Red Deer up to the 1970s. That inhuman program was based on "reducing costs" that certain types of persons were assumed to burden society with.

    You claim to be a supporter of Public Healthcare, yet it is this very cost calculation obsesseion that undermines support for the basic concept - that we all agree to help shoulder the cost of each other's health care REGARDLESS of how those costs come about.

    It's so easy to be judgemental. Those WW2 vets who had to witness their buddies being blown to bits all around them, who were forced by necessity to become ruthless killers themselves for a period of time and were given cigarettes BY OUR GOVERNMENT during their terms of service - they should just quit smoking because you fear they may cost you big bucks in health care costs someday? The anti-smoker industry id full of ingrates, that's for certain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous1:45 pm

    My "son"...I am not ducking nor obssessed with your underlying point..I am rejecting it.

    Your examples of WWII vets being given cigarettes and eugenitic sterilizations of "the mentaly deficient" are true and well taken but they of another time and consciousness.

    Surely you don't suggest we are still in that mindset? I was once approached by a vet asking if they may have a class action agains the government for giving them cigarettes during WW2 and getting them hooked. Interesting question don't you think?

    This is more about what duty do we as individuals owe to each other. If you smoke in my space, be it in public or at work, you are risking my health. Why are you justified in doing that based on your personal choice and addiction? You are free to make our own choices with the use legal substances and about your own body, tobacco and alcohol being the most obvious.

    But when do you have to take on the personal responsibility for the consequences of those decisions as well? Especially as it impacts others.

    With our collectivitist health care system, that we are begin told we can no longer afford, but which we value highly as a fundamental Canadian value, where is the individual responsiblility on prevention and wellness?

    Here is where your earlier post about overweight comments have some validity as a comparison. BTW, what if I have an eating disorder and it is a mental health issue not gluttony or self indulgence.

    Lots to consider but mostly in terms of a health care context around prevention and wellness. We as individuals have a positive duty to each and that is where this action to ban smoking becomes justified.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous10:10 pm

    Werner @ 9:53 am - here is an email I received today from Jim Gurnett you will find interesting re celebrating immigration. If you have the time - come up to Edmonton and lets go to to this event together. Here is the email:

    We are only a few days away from the presentation of the 2007 RISE Awards. The presentation will happen at a special banquet on Sunday, May 6, at 5 PM.

    I hope you will be able to join us in this evening dedicated to celebrating the importance of immigration and the diverse and substantial contributions of immigrants to the lives of all of us in Edmonton.

    In addition to the presentation of the 11 awards, the evening offers a delicious multicultural buffet and some great entertainment. But perhaps most significant, this year we will be privileged to listen to some "words of wisdom" from three people who are respected elders in our city, people who have contributed themselves in many ways and been an inspiration and encouragement to many of us. Our three special presenters will be Baha Abu Laban, Zohra Huseini, and Robinson Koilpillai. I am always pleased to be at an event where I get to listen to even one of these distinguished citizens, but the RISE Awards banquet will give you the chance to hear from all three of them.

    The theme country for this year will be Vietnam.

    Tickets for the banquet are $80, with half being recognized with a tax receipt. You can order tickets by contacting Katrina Paufler at 423-9697 or kpaufler@emcn.ab.ca. The location is again at The Palace Conference and Banquet Centre at 3223 Parsons Road, just south of 34 Avenue at 99 Street.

    For more information about the RISE Awards you can visit our website at www.emcn.ab.ca.

    It is exciting to be having an evening to celebrate wonderful people. It will be even more exciting to have a good crowd of people come along to show appreciation to the award recipients and all the other nominees. Thanks for thinking about adding this activity to your full life. And please feel welcome to share information about the event with others you think may be interested.

    Jim


    WERNER: If you canmake it I will pay for your ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Without immigrants, our labour market would be in ruins since we would have even less people to work in this province. Our unemployment rate is already at disasterous levels, with companies relocating out of Alberta or closing because they can't find staff to work. We need immigrants.

    Also, smoking is something that doesn't just affect the smoker, but affects all the non-smokers as well. You don't get fat because other people are fat. You don't get hurt because extreme sport-lovers go out into the wilderness to do whatever they do. But you do get hurt by second hand smoke. A guaranteed fact. No speculation about it.

    To lessen the burden on the health care system re: obesity, it would be a good idea for gym memberships to be tax deductable. All food is good in moderation, it becomes a problem when people gorge on something constantly.

    For me, taxes for tobacco are not about lessening the health care costs of everyone else. It's about offsetting the danger you pose to the health of everyone else who does not smoke.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Elle Bee - "But you do get hurt by second hand smoke. A guaranteed fact. No speculation about it."

    No, that's false. It makes good propaganda though.

    I'll make you a deal. You find someone, anyone, who has ever been provably harmed in any way by my smoking...and I'll quit on the spot. My name is Roy Harrold and I've lived in Edmonton my whole life, smoking for 30 years. Shouldn't be too hard for you to find someone my smoking has harmed, if it's as serious a danger to everyone's health as you claimed.

    I'll be waiting...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous2:32 pm

    Roy my "son" - what is your point? If you are a responsible smoker and do not do it in the workplace or in any public places nor in a way that exposes other people to the harmful effects - you are my kind of smoker. Good for you.

    But your demands leads one to think that you must feel the world must revolve around you. To suggest that the rest of us have to satisfy you personally that you have never harmed anyone with your smoking misses the point. It is also a tad narcissistic and pre-adolescent don't you think?

    I have followed your Blog posts on comments on this Blog for months now. I know you can provide better observations and have better ideas and insights than indicated in this past comment.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nice try, Ken. Once again:
    "It's about offsetting the danger YOU pose to the health of everyone else who does not smoke".

    Prove that my smoking has ever harmed another person, or ever will. Your side of this discussion are the ones claiming that my liberty, happiness and financial security need to be infringed on because something I'm doing poses a danger to you.

    Prove it. Prove you've been harmed by my smoking.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Heather Crowe, a woman who never smoked a day in her life but worked in a restaurant, was the first person to get worker's compensation because she developed lung cancer due to second-hand smoke. Medical professionals, researchers and a judge determined the effects of second-hand smoke to be the cause of her illness.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Elle Bee - I'm absolutely certain I never met Heather Crowe or ever smoked around her, nor did anyone I know who smokes.

    But it's interesting you should raise her case, since I exposed it as a fraud a long time ago:
    http://tinyurl.com/2l8v3b

    You failed to mention that the "medical professionals" you refer to are all members of the Tobacco Control cabal, and that they had been actively searching for a martyr to their cause for YEARS before Crowe came to their attention.

    In a nutshell, Crowe developed adenocarcinoma tumors. Michael J. Thun, MD, director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, claims that SMOKERS stopped developing the squamous tumors they has almost exclusively developed before the advent of cigarette filters, and started developing adenocarcinoma tumors instead, because they were inhaling FILTERED cigarette smoke.

    In other words, unfiltered cigarette smoke causes squamous cell tumors and filtered cigarette smoke causes adenocarcinoma tumors - according the Dr Thun of the American Cancer Society. Heather Crowe only ever inhaled UNFILTERED cigarette smoke but developed adenocarcinoma tumors.

    Therefore, Crowe's cancer must have been triggered by some other form of irritant, such as vehicle exhaust fine particle pollutants.

    Unless you are calling Dr Thun a liar?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Just to fill out the picture a bit on Heather Crowe's case. No "researchers" ever "determined the effects of second-hand smoke to be the cause of her illness", and the "judge" you refer to was actually a Worker's Compensation (OWSIB) adjudicator, not a court justice. There was political intereference in that OWSIB ruling, which was handed down in a record-setting 6 weeks (there are firefighters still waiting to have their workplace-induced cancer claims settles after 3 or more YEARS):

    If the OWSIB ruling proved anything at all, perhaps it has proven that having very powerful political friends can result in having compensation board standards of evidence tossed out the window in your case; "Crowe drew up a list of important people she had waited on: Ottawa West MP Marlene Catterall, former Gloucester mayor Claudette Cain, Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli, Nepean-Carleton MPP and Energy Minister John Baird, former regional chair Peter Clark, councillor Alex Munter and former Ottawa mayor Jacquelin Holzman.
    She met with Dr. Robert Cushman, the city's medical officer of health, and asked him to help her write letters to these people asking for support for her claim."

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are