PARTING THE HAZE OF B.C.'S ANTI-SMOKERS

April 14, 1998

PARTING THE HAZE OF B.C.'S ANTI-SMOKERS

IF GOVERNMENTS WERE HONEST, SMOKERS ARE PROBABLY PROFIT CENTRES

By Diane Francis -- The Financial Post The British Columbia government's ongoing attack against tobacco companies is nonsense.
I must declare my conflict of interest. I'm a smoker and have a right to be one as long as cigarettes are legally sold in Canada. I don't, however, have a right to blow smoke in anyone's face and I agree with constraints on smoking areas.
But the politics of puff is totally ridiculous. The only intelligent debate governments should indulge in is whether smoking should be legal or illegal. If it is legal, they should butt out because their arguments, like their advertising restrictions and lawsuits, are unjust and based on pacifying a vocal and tiresome anti-smoking lobby.
Smoking should remain legal, even though I agree it is an unhealthy habit. But so is driving fast cars or eating fast food or drinking alcohol or watching too much television. We can't make all the indulgences of life illegal because, quite frankly, they will become black market items anyway. That's why I also believe marijuana should be legalized and hardcore narcotics users should be registered as addicts, given a daily dosage, put into treatment and regarded as the sick persons they are.
Instead, we have meddlesome and misguided governments.
It's not surprising leading the attack would be Canada's most inept politician, B.C.'s New Democratic Premier, Glen Clark.
His government has copied the actions of several U.S. states and in January instigated a class-action lawsuit against tobacco companies to get back some of the province's estimated $1.5 billion in smoking-related health costs. This is rubbish and anti-smoker lobby propaganda.
The $1.5 billion is questionable and should be proven. Is an overweight smoker who dies of a heart attack a victim of cigarettes or doughnuts? Is an alcoholic smoker who dies of a heart attack a victim of cigarettes or booze? There are a great deal of phoney figures in all theseestimates.
There's also the issue of double counting. For instance, a lung cancer victim who dies prematurely at age 55 would die anyway, presumably older and after racking up exponentially greater medical costs by the age of 77 or more than he or she racked up at 55 years. Or would Clark and the anti-tokers have us believe non-smokers live forever, never costing the medical system a dime?
Then there is the issue of obscene profits earned by tobacco companies selling a product, albeit legal, that is harmful.
How about governments like the one in B.C. that have collected obscene tax revenues over the decades from the sale of a product, legally allowed by their own edict, that is harmful?
Here we have governments suing companies for distributing a product governments allow (even though warnings are required by governments) and that has reaped a windfall for governments. Does that not make governments a co-defendant?
Glen, get a grip.
Last, but far from least, is the fact these political rocket scientists who would battle against the weed -- but not against other more harmful products and services -- fail to do their arithmetic in another important way.
To be maudlin, anti-smoke folk and litigous governments fail to publicize the other, revenue-enhancing side of the equation. Smokers die prematurely, which saves governments billions in future pension entitlements. What is the estimate of that amount?
That figure should be added to the total tax take on tobacco and deducted from the true cost of medical attention. To get the true cost, the exponential and hypothetical expenses of someone living to 77 instead of dying of lung cancer at 55 should be deducted from the cost of treating the cancer.
If governments were honest, smokers are probably a profit centre.
On top of all this, federal Health Minister Allan Rock flip-flopped recently on banning tobacco sponsorships of sports and cultural events. He gave a two-year reprieve for high-profile car races and proposed $100 million of taxpayers' money to replace the sponsorships.
Anti-smoking lobbyists are upset and claim: "Boys who enjoy watching Formula One motor racing on television are almost twice as likely to start smoking than boys who do not follow racing."
Yeah, and boys who enjoy watching Formula One racing on television will all drive fast cars, thus contributing to the single-biggest cause of death each year in Canada.
And taxpayers must pay $100 million for absolutely no reason.

Previous Story: DEMOCRACY'S DANGEROUS DEFORMITY

CANOE / LFP homepage / Feedback
Local News / Sports / Business / Today / Opinions / Classifieds