Dear R** F**:

Thank you for what I feel is a fairly accurate summation of the situation.  Not mentioned though is the possibility of removing nicotine from tobacco so that smoking is not addictive.  In fact, it could be removed and put back in.  I would like to see international cooperation in setting the level of nicotine lower and lower over a few years until it is not present in legally sold tobacco.  This combined with the gross taxation and education efforts that you mention would certainly do the trick--not to mention the developments in litigation regarding the subject.

Dave Bedford
www.LivingSmokeFree.com


At 02:34 AM 4/17/02 -0400, you wrote:

I apologize in advance for the length of my e-mail, but once I get writing
on an issue... well, you know how it goes.

First of all, I'd like to say that I am a lifetime non-smoker. I never have
smoked before and I sure don't plan to start now. Smoking is an unhealthy,
addictive, and exceedingly expensive habit with pretty much no merit
whatsoever. I find smoking (especially of cigarettes) extremely annoying and
impolite. In addition, I fully agree that convincing youth of the dangers
involved in smoking is an important and valid goal.

However, that being said, we must remember one important thing- smoking is,
at this time, not illegal. As I see it, trashing tobbacco companies for
doing something that is completely within the boundaries of the law is
nonsense. There is no denying that tobbacco can kill people, and producing
it is therefore somewhat immoral. However, the same can be said of alcohol
producers. Or knife manufacturers. Or, for that matter, automotive
companies. Those products kill thousands upon thousands every single year as
well. Obviously, any change must come from the direction of the government,
since a profitable company is unlikely to shut itself down simply because
people feel it may be immoral in nature. Look at the pornography industry-
why do you think that Hugh Heffner and Lary Flynt are still in business
after all these years despite frequent and repeated outcries from one
organization or another? Because they continue to make money, and their
publications operate within the boundaries of the law.

So now the argument should move away from incessant "big tobbacco" bashing,
which really serves little purpose in the grand sense of the ultimate goal
of tobbaco reduction (or elimination), and towards the entity who holds the
real power of change in this issue, the government. What can the government
do?

The most extreme measure, as you advocate on your website, is a complete ban
of public smoking as well as the sale of tobbacco products. However, as much
as hyppocrites like Allan Rock would have you believe, the government would
avoid this solution like the plague. Why? First and foremost, I believe that
the taxes involved with the sale of tobacco products are far too lucrative
to give up. This is not simply a cut and dry tale of greed, however; nothing
is ever black and white. These incredible revenues that the government
collect go towards all kinds of government spending- most notably, health
care. So let us suppose that the government were at this point in time to
completely ban the sale of tobbacco products. What would be the outcome?
Well, the most immediately felt outcome would be less money in the pockets
of governments in every province, as well as in Ottawa. This reduction in
funds has to be made up somehow- since most provinces aren't enjoying huge
surpluses these days, that would likely mean a reduction in spending,
something which is even more unpopular than smoking these days. Raise taxes?
The same holds true- don't expect too many happy voters at election time.

But let us assume that the issue of revenue was ironed out. What about
enforcement? Essentially, if this action were to be taken, tobbacco would
become a substance similar to marijuana- perhaps not outright illegal, but
illegal to purchase, import, or use without authorization in an official
location (such as is the case with medicinal marijuana). Say someone visits
Canada from the United States, and brings a package of cigarettes with them.
This would have to be treated similarly to someone bringing a bag of
marijuana into the country- a serious offense. If the government had any
intention of seriously enforcing their law, they would have to increase the
number of customs agents and border guards at points of entry to mammoth
levels, to screen out potential tobbacco "smugglers". Lets face the facts-
if it were not to be stringently enforced, importing tobbacco could become a
lucrative illegal enterprise, not unlike the smuggling of narcotics into the
country. Since tobbacco would still be readily available just accross the
border, it would simply be a matter of ferrying the tobbacco accross the
border and selling it at inflated prices (of which the government would get
no share). This isn't even to mention the increased levels of police, prison
guards, etc. that would be needed if any serious enforcement of this issue
were to be undertaken.

Not to mention the fact that the government would potentially have a lawsuit
on their hands that they may not be able to win. If the government were to
ban tobacco, but not other life-threatening products such as alcohol, are
they not singling out a particular industry and showing favoritism? Could
this not be deemed as unconstitutional? Sure, it's obvious that more people
die from tobacco than alcohol every year, but alcohol still kills its fair
share. Why is it okay to sell a product that only kills X thousands of
people a year, but not a product that kills Y thousands of people a year? I
don't pretend to be an expert on these issues, but it would appear, on the
surface at least, that the potential for legal trouble exists.

And what of the ongoing campaign to legalize marijuana? If that campaign
were to gain any solid support from the government, what kind of message
would it be sending if they were to legalize one potentially harmful
substance while banning another?

Now, these problems aside, what are some real solutions? As I hope I've made
it clear, I don't believe that a complete ban of the sale (or importation,
etc.) of tobacco products is feasible, even if it could be argued as being
desirable. But obviously, it would be nice to be able to come up with a
solution that decreases tobbacco use to the point that someday, hopefully
the  overwhelming majority of people in the country would be smoke-free for
their entire lives.

One obvious solution is the education of children. This is already being
undertaken by the government (as well as governments in other countries). Do
I think that it is effective? Yes, but only to a certain degree. I feel that
kids who are perhaps smarter or more self confident will gain the most from
these advertisements, as they help to remind them why exactly it is that
smoking is shunned to the extent that it is. However, education alone will
not stop it altogether.

Another method that I think is even more effective is gross taxation (which,
like education, has also been in effect for some time). As I see it, high
taxation on tobbacco is generally a win-win situation. Although the smoker
will be poorer overall, increase in the overall price of tobacco will almost
certainly dissuade some individuals to discontinue their purchase of it for
the sake of neccesity, if not frugality. More importantly, however, is the
fact that high prices of tobbacco have the potential to dissuade children
and teenagers the most. Sure, not completely, but there aren't too many kids
who could afford to plop down $10-$15 for a small package of cigarettes
(yes, when I say gross taxation I mean it). At the same time, this added tax
income flows into government coffers. In my opinion, money collected from
the taxation of tobacco products should be diverted mostly into the
preventative education of children of the dangers of tobacco, as well as the
health care sector to cover the additional burdens that tobacco use place on
our health care system.

I suppose that to sum my thoughts up more precisely, governments should
continue to do what they have been doing for a while now- steadily raise
taxes on tobbacco products, and increase spending on educational campaigns
aimed at stopping children from smoking (hopefully funded by that increased
excise tax revenue). I would even go as far as saying I would support
municipal governments in bans of smoking in certain public areas, as some
have already begun to do. I must point out that pretty much every study
performed in Canada over the last few decades have shown a steady decrease
in tobbacco usage rates- just last year, a study revealed that tobbacco
usage rates were at an all time low in practically every area of the
country. I find this very encouraging to hear.

I realize that some such as yourself would prefer a quick, overnight
solution that ends the problem in the blink of an eye. However, I just don't
think that that type of approach is realistic or feasible. I applaud the
fact that you stand up for what you believe in, and I think I share your
ultimate goal of the reduction of tobacco use levels to zero (or as low as
possible), but I would tend to take a much more realistic approach to the
issue. I like to believe that anything worth fighting for is also worth
waiting for, and while I certainly hate to see people die in the meantime, I
really think that we are on the proper course. If governments do more of
what they are doing right now, we can hopefully speed up the process.


Regards,

-R** F**