Olympic-calibre hypocrisy

IN the bars, clubs and what-have-yous of Whistler, B.C., the home of Olympic gold medalist Ross Rebagliati, smoking marijuana is a lifestyle thing. You can buy it anywhere; everybody smokes it, and, like, you know, it's part of the snowboard scene and anybody who stands in the way of snowboarders having a good time is a traitor. From what we hear about the high life in Whistler, it may be easier to pick up an ounce of marijuana in the neighbourhood than a package of cigarettes.

A Health Canada survey, reported yesterday in The Globe beneath a picture of Mr. Rebagliati, found that 77 per cent of under-18 teenagers who tried to buy tobacco products in B.C. were turned away by retailers worried about breaking the law. Would teens have that much trouble buying marijuana? Apparently not. Maybe that explains why marijuana is so popular, and why demand is likely to soar now that our Olympic heroes are tokers and the entire sports establishment, most of the media and even federal cabinet ministers have rushed to defend Mr. Rebagliati. The mixed message: tobacco is bad, marijuana is cool. One can only imagine the wrath that would have descended on Mr. Rebagliati if he had been caught smoking tobacco.

There's also the Clintonesque integrity issue in which Canada's Olympic officials are now enmeshed. Mr. Rebagliati says he was recently in a room or at parties where marijuana smoke was thick, but he never actually had a relationship with a joint himself, and hasn't had such a relationship since last April. That helped get him off the hook with the officials, apparently, although toxicologists say that story is of unlikely veracity given the level of substance found in the urine test. Is the Canadian Olympic establishment -- indeed all of Canadian officialdom right up to the Prime Minister -- about to turn a blind eye on what appears to be a dubious display of integrity and character?

The point here is not that marijuana was smoked -- the stuff should be legalized and removed from RCMP work sheets. Nor is it that Mr. Rebagliati should have been stripped of his gold medal. The point is the double standard at play and the groundswell of official hypocrisy that engulfed the case. Anything goes, so long as the medal stays.

While we're on the subject of official hypocrisy, one wonders where Health Minister Allan Rock is going to take the tobacco issue over the next couple of weeks. One way or another, Mr. Rock and the federal government are expected to water down anti-tobacco legislation that prevents tobacco companies from sponsoring arts, cultural and sports events. The question is how.

One option is to impose a separate special tax on cigarettes, estimated at 50-cents a carton, that would be used to fund cultural and sports events all across the country. The promoter of this idea is Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who claims the new levy would raise $120-million a year. The money would go into a fund that would be used to support community-based activities and campaigns to discourage smoking among youth, support arts and sports events, and aid tobacco farmers.

The major sport event that wants to keep the flow of tobacco money is Grand Prix auto racing, but pressure exists from all parts of the culture and sports community. If the government ban on tobacco funding of events is lifted -- either by removing existing restrictions on tobacco company sponsorship or by running the money through Mr. Kenny's slush fund -- Mr. Rock will be butting up against some rough ethical edges. Whoever gets the money, through whatever means, the level of hypocrisy rises to Olympic calibre.

Either way, of course, it is smoking taxpayers who will pay the price, not tobacco companies. Under the Kenny proposal, the money will be laundered through Ottawa. When it comes to funding arts and sports, it looks like anything goes there, too. Who knows, tobacco money could soon be going to finance snowboard competitions across the country. Then money raised from tobacco smokers could be used to maintain the marijuana lifestyle of snowboarders.
A column on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment incorrectly identified trade lawyer Barry Appleton as acting for the Council of Canadians and Maude Barlow. While Mr. Appleton once visited The Globe and Mail's editorial board as part of Ms. Barlow's entourage, he does not, in fact, represent the Council or Ms. Barlow. My apologies.