Joy McPhail, Minister of Health,
B.C. Ministry of Health,
Rm. 306, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.
V8V 1X4

December 16th, 1996

Minister MacPhail:

Thank you very much for your answer to our letter of October 4th, 1996, and for acknowledging the existence of the FORCES movement.

Your point about the Ministry's intention of not creating a socially hostile place for smokers is acknowledged. However, we fail to understand how a place can be called socially non hostile when smokers are ostracized and marginalized everywhere, as well as being called addicted, and accused of killing people through secondhand smoke.

At any rate, I am not surprised -- though disappointed -- by your letter. In typically political fashion, you have avoided almost any other point addressed by my previous letter.

If your Ministry is so sure of the motivations of its conduct, we fail to see the reason for this avoidance. Unfortunately, the failure to address the points mentioned in our letter is now forcing us to take more of your valuable time.

With the above consideration in mind, we will reformulate our questions by using a well-proven method, widely used by government with the population: questionnaire format. We understand that this may appear outrageous and disrespectful, but we cannot think of any other way to pin down straight answers from your Ministry, and as citizens and taxpayers we believe that we are entitled to those answers in clear form. Since we are at it, we will further abuse your patience by asking some additional questions.

I hope that you will indulge us in this exercise.

1) Based on the statements 1A and 1B of our previous letter, is the B.C. Ministry of Health considering suits against the automobile manufacturers for knowingly polluting our air to the tune of hundreds of thousands of tons per year?

2) Are you aware that our country is rated first in the world for Hydrogen Sulphide emissions, and second for Nitrogen Oxide?

3) Do you acknowledge the existence of valid, independent scientific evidence demonstrating that secondhand smoking is a negligible risk factor for nonsmokers, as per bibliography sent by us to you with the preceding letter?

4) If the answer to (3) is YES, then do you agree with the statement that valid information to the public has been withheld, or at least ignored by your government?

5) Are you aware that EPA rates secondhand smoking at a relative risk factor of 1.13, and that only risks exceeding 2.5 to 3.0 are considered to be of any significance by the scientific community at large?

6) Are you aware that the EPA conclusions about secondhand smoking have been under attack by a large number of independent scientists since the time of their first publication because the evidence is considered inflated, and flawed in its methodology?

7) Are you aware that a class action law suit is presently in progress against EPA for misrepresentation of evidence?

8) Are you aware that about 50% of the 5,000 "premature" deaths attributed to tobacco use in B.C. occur at over 70 years of age?

9) Are you aware that in countries where access to tobacco products is not restricted to minors there is a much lower percentage of teen-age smoking than in Canada or the U.S.A, where access is forbidden?

10) Do you agree with the widely accepted assumption that what is forbidden attracts the attention, and stimulates the curiosity of teen-agers?

11) Do you agree with the statement that accommodation for smokers can be technically and easily achieved in most public and private places, while protecting the rights of nonsmokers who do not wish to inhale second hand smoke?

12) If the answer to (11) is YES, then do you agree that businesses such as restaurants and pubs have the right to establish their own smoking/nonsmoking policies?

13) Do you consider smoking a civil liberty and/or a human right?

14) Do you have evidence that the majority of the population of B.C. is intolerant of smoking in public places, and would like to see it totally banned?

15) Regardless of (14), do you believe that the ruling majority has the right to regulate and/or suffocate the habits and the rights of the minority, even when reasonable accommodation of the minority can be provided?

We will be grateful for specific answers to the specific questions above. We hope that we have not inconvenienced you too much, and that we have not taken too much time from your crusade against smokers.

Sincerely,

Gian Turci,
president

_________
cc.: various media