The title should read "Trying to Smoke in British Columbia". To start off 1999, on January 01st the Capital Regional District (CRD), Vancouver Island, implemented Canada's first regional smoking ban, euphemistically called the "Clean air" bylaw. This ban was introduced to "protect" workers from the effects of second-hand smoke; more on that subject later.

Smoking is prohibited in all restaurants, bars, pubs, bingo halls, casinos, hospices, and until CRD policy was "adjusted" for a 5-year period, all care homes for the elderly as well. The Victoria Freedom of Choice Coalition (FOCC) was formed to try and combat this bylaw, and includes businesses, associations, and private individuals concerned with ever increasing government intervention and social engineering. FORCES Canada has been active in trying to assist their endeavours.

A survey was conducted regarding the financial impact of this bylaw during the initial 3-month period. (January - March 1999) One hundred responding establishments suffered a combined loss of $2.04 million year over year - from $13.034 million to $11.029 million. Bear in mind that this period included the "draw" of the Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit in Victoria, which would normally have produced an increase.

Enforcement proved too difficult for the CRD, so they amended the bylaw to make the owners of establishments responsible for ensuring that their customers butt out. Despite media reports to the contrary, co-operation isn't exemplary. A "blind eye" is turned to those businesses that provide accommodation for their smoking customers without drawing attention to the totalitarian aspect of the bylaw, but the full force of the law has been applied against 6 businesses that publicly defied the CRD. BC Supreme Court action has been initiated against them, and is currently proceeding to the discovery stage. Simulated obedience is evidently preferable to speaking out for one's right as a business owner to make your own decisions.

At the time of writing, tobacco companies are engaged in BC Supreme Court action against the BC Provincial Government. This is a constitutional challenge to legislation passed (Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act) which states that evidence presented by the government in their lawsuit to "recover health care costs" must be accepted - without challenge.

Needless to say, this strikes at the very foundation of the law and if allowed to stand, will establish a precedent that no industry, or individual, will be safe from; you "are" guilty if the government says so. Determination of the legitimacy of this legislation must be made before the government lawsuit can proceed. How substantial is evidence that needs this kind of protection?

The "dangers of second-hand smoke" - the myth that just won't die. Although there isn't any validated scientific evidence to support this theory, the BC Workers Compensation Board will prohibit smoking in all workplaces on 01 January 2000. Most affected of course will be the hospitality industry. BC prisons will phase in a smoke-free environment in November 1999. It should not be necessary to remind the WCB that they have an obligation to ensure the safety of workers, but they do not have a mandate to advance the "Smoke Free Canada" agenda. FORCES Canada has been trying since November 1997 to find out from the Federal Health Ministry, and for years prior to that from the Provincial Health Ministry, just exactly what scientific studies they've based their positions on regarding this issue.

1. The main evidence supporting this "public safety" measure, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992 Report on second-hand smoke was thrown out by a USA Federal court of law in July 1998. Judge Thomas Osteen remarked, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements, adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilised the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion." The anti-smoking faction has ignored the judgement and presses on as though the Report was validated.

2. The largest study ever made on this issue was conducted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) extending over 10 years and 7 countries. In October 1998, the results were published, showing no statistical relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer. Not much effort was made to bring this to the public's attention. Had results been the reverse, every newspaper, radio and TV station would have been sporting headlines.

   The medical demographer for the Cambridge-based European Science and Environment Forum spoke out on this WHO/IARC second-hand smoke study:

   "... It is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide -- 0.93 to 1.44 -- that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit."

3. A major decision by the Australian Federal Court was issued on December 20, 1996, predating the decision by the US Federal Court, on the corrupted science about ETS. The Australian National Health & Medical Research (NH&MRC) Council was taken to task by the tobacco industry for deliberately suppressing scientific evidence. Justice Finn's findings were eloquent: he said in part:

   " It is clear that the NH&MRC has fallen well short of meeting "the obligation to have regard to submissions received to take them into account and to give positive consideration to their contents as a fundamental element in its decision making."

   " The community is not to be excluded from that participation simply because, for whatever reason, the NH&MRC does not wish to give consideration to some part of the contents of submissions. It had unilaterally excluded from consideration material, which it previously had determined to be relevant by virtue of the Terms of Reference it had approved."

   " What was objectionable in what the Working Party did was to adopt this exclusionary discriminator without bringing to the notice of the public that this was what they were going to do. They misled the public. "

In fact a Working Party member, an associate professor at the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at Sydney University and member of ASH (what is a member of a fanatical lobby group doing working in a National Health & Medical Research Council project?) and his associates were caught while deleting information that would have exonerated passive smoke from association with disease. (April 20, 1997 - SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Report: Research massaged to push anti-smoking recommendations)

Any health risks associated with the use of tobacco are born by the consumer who most definitely cannot be said to be uninformed. Those adults who choose to take the stated risks in pursuit of personal pleasure have every right to do so; tobacco is a legal product, and this is supposed to be a free country.

The use of manipulated science in order to accuse smokers of harming others, reducing them to the status of a pariah in order to advance an agenda, is despicable. It is repugnant as well that this same unsubstantiated argument is being used to compel private businesses to submit to laws that are detrimental to their interests.

Undermining law, corrupting science... what a wonderful legacy we're preparing to leave "the children" as we move on to the new millennium.

Pat Hagen,

FORCES CANADA