Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba3/27/00 Response to Mr. Kevin Connor of the Winnipeg SunI am the acting President for the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba. The Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba attempts to be an ear for the Membership to the various governing bodies within our industry. We offer ourselves to the government as a proactive organization desirous of reaching common goals and objectives and solving issues of concern through open dialogue. The Alliance is also intended to be the collective voice of cabaret operators. Although I may refer to other similar associations, I speak only officially for the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba. The following is our Association’s response to Councillor Lubosch’s representation of the industries’ position (or apparently lack thereof) as it appeared in the Winnipeg Sun on Saturday, March 25th. It is disturbingly lacking of fact or reality. Our Association is surprised by several comments made by Mr. Lubosch, but in many ways we are not. We have noted what appears to be an obvious bias of the committee and the chair apparent as early as the initial letter submitted to stakeholders inviting us all to present our concerns and data. Mr. Connor, we hope you will take the time to print a follow up correcting the real position(s) of the industry and the question of whether we support a ban; Mr. Lubosch’s strange interpretation needs amending. Basically, through our mutual discussion of common interest and concern, I am accurate in stating we are in unison in NOT supporting a proposed ban. We suggest you clarify in greater detail the positions of both the Manitoba Hotel Association and The Manitoba Restaurant Association. The “hypothetical” response to a ban if it were to be forced upon us is a dangerous and varied one that will find a life and direction of its own. It will most definitely include a legal challenge by several segments of the industry amongst other scenarios. Let us be totally clear on one simple question.... Is a ban supported? The collective position is that we all do not support such a ban. Period! This has been repeated often! We have all made presentations to the committee in opposition to a ban and this position should certainly be clear enough. I have been in attendance for the majority of presentations made over the length of the hearing timetable. Not only the associations, but many others outside have spoken out against a ban including union representatives etc. Where is the mention of those “against” and why is Mr. Lubosch disregarding and misrepresenting the position of industry stakeholders such as ourselves? Again, Mr. Connor, we feel the positions of groups other than the Cabaret Alliance are better presented to you by the various organizations directly as we do not speak for these associations in any official manner regardless of the truths presented. As indicated, our Association is a little disturbed by the evident lack of impartiality by the committee. In the initial letter of invitation to the various stakeholders, Councillor Lubosch made several assertions about the dangers of E.T.S. and the data that supports this assertion. The statements in the letter preceded the actual presentation schedule. This is of serious concern to us and undermines the legitimacy of this process. It is our hope that all members of this committee listen carefully to the stakeholder groups and make a decision based on the material presented, relevant factual research and not that which supports just a single position. Paragraph 2 of the letter of invitation to participate dated December 10, 1999 from the Councillor’s Office states: “As you may know, there is now convincing scientific evidence that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also known as second-hand smoke is dangerous to people’s health.” It goes on to say: “In no other situation is involuntary and preventable public exposure to a toxic substance with proven adverse health effects permitted”. Given the fact that this letter came out with such statements prior to stakeholder meetings actually taking place, we can only ponder as to what data is being referenced. A position is being stated as fact prior to any fact being presented in support of, or against a ban and the data or statistics that support either. Councillor Lubosch has made comments to the media (including at least one in my direct presence), which seem a little biased. Comments specifically indicated that the ban was inevitable; all that was missing was the actual specifics on the timing. These statements are publicly available. Where is the objectivity? Where is the legitimacy of such hearings? It is our sincere hope that the process does not disregard data that contradicts some preconceived position or intention of some of the committee’s membership. Such a situation would draw parallel to the “Faulty Science” presented in studies including that of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA) where data was manipulated or ignored to reach a predetermined outcome. We won’t go into how these reports come into serious question, but they have been challenged and struck down in U.S. Federal Court. Many presenters with extensive detail have covered these and other items. This is not science but “Tobacco Politics”. The Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba's position is that a "total ban" or any increased restriction in the cabaret setting would be detrimental to the industry as experienced in other markets (B.C. and elsewhere) that have attempted to implement such an unenforceable ban. We liaise with others in the industry throughout North America on these issues (see web links further on). We also feel data regarding secondhand smoke is inconclusive at best and is represented by faulty scientific procedures intended to arrive at a preconceived conclusion to eliminate smoking, and service the ‘Smoke Free’ agenda. We (and others including the Manitoba Hotel Association) have supplied piles of data to the committee regarding substantial and inevitable job loss in other markets, and credible data that supports our position that secondhand smoke is not the health issue it is made out to be. In fact, not even close. The same anti smoking lobbyists that are telling us about the so called “lethal” dangers of secondhand smoke are also trying to “factually” tell us that a ban has no affect on the hospitality industry and employment. They even state as fact that business has gone up. I find this appalling! This is insulting in the most extreme degree, and representative of the lengths to which this movement will go. Jobs, livelihoods, and businesses will be lost. That is the real fact! Is our industry supposed to be so inept regarding knowledge of its own business and the data generated? Why is an entire industry up in arms in B.C. and elsewhere? Falsehoods and lies are the backbone of a much higher agenda. Make no mistake about it! Data is presented and regurgitated by these anti smoking lobbyists as quickly as someone is willing to conjure it up in their favor. They just as easily disregard anything to the contrary. Our position has always been forthcoming. It has been very public. It has been discussed in open forums including the local C.B.C. News, with Mr. Lubosch contributing and in attendance as one of the guests. As a side note, remember the message that once mentioned that a "60 something-ish Swede is healthier than a 20 something-ish Canadian" comment that was widely publicized in the past? If Health Officials reported it, it must be true. Well, it turns out that this was not true and was intended as a message to all Canadians to get off their butts but really wasn't supported by any meaningful data... yet it got reported and accepted as true. The government has acknowledged this mistruth in the press. We suggest that there are parallel untruths that are coming to light regarding the initial data pushing the dangers of secondhand smoke. We have been in contact with various stakeholders in B.C., and a letter was sent by the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba to the British Columbia W.C.B., to which they responded regarding the ‘facts’ supporting the ban there. (This ban was overturned by the B.C. Supreme Court on 22 March 2000) We feel this is some of the most worthwhile reading to be done on this topic. We supply the following two related links with some extensive resources: http://www.forces.org/canada/wcb/intro.htm http://www.forces.org/canada/wcb/index.htm We in the hospitality industry suggest that Ventilation, Filtration, and Air Exchange are the answer. Give the industry and those in the business of "Air Quality" a chance to present their case. Evolving technologies and emerging entries into the marketplace have been outstanding in this regard. The data just doesn’t support the present conclusions regarding secondhand smoke and open minds need to evaluate the entire premise of a ban in general. We will say that the end (stopping smoking in general) does not justify the means (on the basis of protecting the public from the alleged ‘dangers’ of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) at the expense of business and labor. Smoking is a legal activity. Our position is secondhand smoke cannot ever reach a dangerous level, as long as a minimum of inexpensive ventilation is provided. But, what is a dangerous level? Pressed by the ever-growing proof that the concentrations of ETS are so infinitesimally small as to approach ridiculousness, this anti-smoking lobby wants us to believe that even the slightest amount of ETS can harm the body of the person exposed to it. This is the basis of smoking bans and these lobbyists are so committed to the total elimination of smokers they allow and even sustain the scientific fraud concerning ETS regardless of evidence to contrary. Smoking is a hot button for many and it makes smoking bans o.k. Well, it's not O.K.! What is a dangerous level for ETS? So far, it has never been defined by anyone. Yet smoking bans are based on the concept of dangerous exposure, showing once again the schizophrenia about this issue. There are all the carcinogens in outside air due to automotive smoke and other environmental influences as there is from secondhand smoke minus the nicotine. Are we to believe that if any level of ETS is no good then we should all stop breathing? “Zero tolerance” is not realistic in view of the ventilation industry’s current expertise. Scientifically, what is the level that is dangerous and what is not? Is this really such an unreasonable question? Perhaps this is where time should be spent and not on bans but air quality standards and measurements. Determine and define realistic goals based on actual facts and data, not emotion, fiction, and loose generalities that can cause an industry to be thrown into turmoil based on a higher agenda. As a final note, the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba and the Manitoba Hotel Association are in the process of developing a joint website dedicated to the issue of a smoking ban and will further present our position in print. Thank you! Ron Ledohowski, Acting President Email: friends@hospcorp.com |
|
|