When we first started CAGE, we warned that
indoor smoking bans on private property (including privately-owned bars,
restaurants and cafes) were 1) Based on extremely exaggerated claims regarding
the dangers of second-hand smoke; 2) A violation of private property rights and
a violation of the principle that individuals’ are free to choose what kind of
venues they want to own, work in and patronize; and 3) Actually part of a
worrisome government and special interest group strategy of harassing people
who smoke rather than protecting the non-smoking public.
The real evidence that this is not about
protecting non-smokers, but rather about harassing people until they conform,
can be found in the increasing number of outdoor smoking bans now being advocated
and even enacted in some places. In California, for example, the town of
Calabasas enacted such a draconian ban that if a smoker is walking down the
street, he or she can smoke as long as there is no one within 20 feet. But if
someone suddenly enters that 20 foot zone, he or she must immediately
extinguish the cigarette, unless that person is also smoking, or unless they
quickly ask that person for permission and permission is granted. This
ban was justified with statements such as ‘’it is to protect the public from
smoking and tobacco-related litter and pollution’’, ‘’to affirm and
promote the family-friendly atmosphere of the City’s public places.’’ All
the while, the ‘’Commons’’ shopping center where large crowds congregate are
exempted from this ban (the city does not want to discourage shopping…).
There seems to be no end to this kind of
pettiness that over-paid activists appear willing to engage in. For
example, in the town of Bridgewater, Nova
Scotia,
councilors who are in favor of a total outdoor ban justify it with statements
such as: “secondhand smoke is a danger not just indoors, but also at
places such as parks, sidewalks, and roads, even while in a car.”Kevin Marlin, the councilor who proposed the
bylaw, states that "secondhand smoke, if it's in a public place, will be
on the sidewalk in most cases. People are walking right through that." In an effort to eliminate smoking from movies,
the Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails reports that 340 young
people die from smoking per day. This is patently absurd, since according
to the CDC, there are NO deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age
35, let alone 340 per day!
The outright lies and absurd claims also make
us worry about the fate of science in the public interest: it really requires a
complete suspension of disbelief to accept claims of some scientists like Georg
Matt, a professor at San Diego State University, who suggests that ‘’
babies may take in nicotine and other chemicals just by hugging their mothers —
even if their mothers never light up next to them’’. The absurdity of
such claims might seem comical, yet some judges are now awarding custody of
children based on which spouse smokes.People’s lives are being ruined on false pretenses.
This kind of nanny-statism is paid for with
our tax dollars, it distracts us from more appropriate issues that governments
need to address, and it should worry all of us. We should also have no
doubt that a very slippery slope exists. Tobacco control has already set
a number of precedents now being applied to the “obesity epidemic”, “alcohol
control”, and other issues. A perusal of this website’s sections for the
other issues CAGE is concerned about, particularly alcohol and obesity, will
make this crystal clear.
We at CAGE would like society to go back to a
system that was working quite well when it comes to reducing tobacco use:
Warning people of the true non-hyped health risks of tobacco use, and helping
those who want to quit do so. Since we began this approach in the 1970s,
tobacco use has steadily declined. Thanks to the natural influences of a
free market, many restaurants, cafes and bars were already either non-smoking
or extremely well ventilated. In other words, if allowed to continue functioning
normally, the free market would have left just the right amount of smoking and
non-smoking venues, without pushing people out of business, using up tax
dollars for public demonization and scare campaigns, or forcing smokers
(including people like the war veterans of Canada’s Legion Halls) out into the cold.
Society took a wrong turn in the 1990s, when
many of the more radical health activists, taking directions from the World
Health Organization and partnering with the pharmaceutical industry, decided
that the “carrot” of educating people honestly wasn’t yielding the results they
wanted. So they decided we needed the “stick” of government coercion, of
harassing people until they conform. There’s simply no other way to
describe outdoor smoking bans in places like automobile-plagued California. The hypocrisy stuns us. The new “health
professionals” somehow never produce any studies showing that second-hand smoke
isn’t dangerous, that bans hurt businesses, that smoking in movies isn’t why
teens start smoking, or that a safe-level of exposure to tobacco smoke can
conceivably exist, and yet media pretends that they are objective experts on
the issue. Most of society still accepts everyone who works in tobacco
control as credible, and governments still throw as much public money their way
as they can catch.
We should add that despite the hundreds, if
not thousands of studies on second hand smoke (SHS), none of these studies
found a risk ratio of 3.0 or above (a common threshold for establishing a
significant correlation – for example, studies have established a risk ratio of
1.5 for chlorinated water and 2.5 for whole-milk, compared to 1.19 for SHS
). They failed to come up with significant risk ratios even using the
common focus group of long-time spouses of smokers (rather than people exposed
more casually). So when anti-smoking activists then claim that “thousands
of studies have found a link between second-hand smoke and various ailments,”
they fail to mention that none of these studies were statistically
significant. In our minds, the continuing inability of these people to
produce a statistically significant study makes it more clear that there is no
significant risk from second-hand smoke (which smokers are exposed to all the time,
in addition to primary smoke, yet smokers themselves may only develop health
problems after 30-40 years). If SHS were a real, significant threat to
health (similar to asbestos, or similar to anything that meets the scientific
community’s usual standards of 3.0 risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals),
we wouldn’t oppose bans at all. In this case, the more statistically
insignificant studies the health activists produce, the more certain we are
that SHS is not a health risk... And when some activists insist that “the
evidence about the danger of SHS is indisputable,” then we really know they’re
lying – epidemiology doesn’t work that way.
The business of disease prevention and health
intervention is also a livelihood for the pharmaceutical industry, lobbyists
and government employees alike. No health crisis means accepting that we
are living longer, healthier lives than we have ever lived before. This
is difficult for these people to accept if it means there is little left for
them to do. This is also why the smoking ban will not be the last crusade in
which these militants engage.
Harassing smokers also forms a relatively easy
political agenda. While issues such as air pollution, banning cars from the
downtown or enforcing low fuel emission standards might be more pressing, they were
until very recently much more difficult to present to the public. Instead,
banning smoking became a milestone in the battle to "keep up with the
Joneses" on an international scale.
We at CAGE cannot accept such self-righteous
government legislators with no respect for individual freedoms. Whatever
one might think about smoking or other lifestyle choices, individual rights
must come first. To borrow from a related question, free speech means
supporting someone’s right to say something “unpopular” – otherwise the concept
is meaningless. The whole fundamental basis of western civilization –
individual rights – must likewise mean supporting people’s right to make
life choices that might seem “stupid’’ to others, without being harassed by
government. Otherwise it’s all meaningless.
A few people tried to vilify C.A.G.E. for speaking out on this
issue. Too thick or unwilling to recognize a perspective coming from
consistent, classic individual rights liberalism, they accused C.A.G.E. of
being a front for tobacco companies, and then when confronted with the fact
that they had zero evidence of such, the accusation became "acting like a
front group" [http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1222]
-- The "attack the person not the argument" approach mastered
by many in the tobacco control industry. As if just because tobacco companies
deployed the individual rights argument, the argument isn't valid or permitted
to others. This is like saying, "Oh, you want to help the poor! Communists
justified all the evil things they did in the name of helping the poor, so you
must be a communist." So let's be clear -- 1) we are not funded by
tobacco companies; 2) we're all unpaid volunteers -- civil society at its best;
3) we think the previous non-coercive approach to tobacco reduction was
steadily achieving results; and 4) we don't care who else pointed out the
slippery slope of coercive tobacco control -- it exists, both inside the
tobacco control movement and across to other health issues. That's how we
went from exaggerating the risks of SHS in a smoky bar to judges taking away
child custody from the smoking parent in a divorce case, and then new studies
suggesting that now obesity is somehow contagious. We think that's enough to be
very concerned about, however you feel about whatever unhealthy lifestyle
choice.
Frequently Asked Questions And Answers as to why
C.A.G.E. opposes government imposed smoking bans.
Lucy M. Brown
Q. If only 22 percent of Quebecers smoke, then the vast majority do not. Shouldn’t non-smokers have the right to frequent smoke free restaurants, cafés and bars?
A. They do: before May 31st 2006, there was no law stopping any restaurant café or bar owner from declaring itself smoke-free. In fact, a large (and growing) number of establishments had already decided to cater to the large non-smoking section of Quebec. In a free economy, demand begets supply. If a café wants to call itself "Smoker’s Café" and cater to smokers, it should be free to do so.
Government arguments on the smoking ban, particularly regarding bars, and the need for a level playing field are ridiculous. First of all, they seem to forget that in the hospitality business there is no such thing as a level playing field. To make it so, every café, bar or restaurant should have a terrace, or none should. Take it a step further, every restaurant should serve the same food – sushi is more popular than Ukrainian (example only, no studies have been conducted) which gives a restaurant which serves the former an unfair advantage.
Perhaps the reason that more bars did not choose to go smoke-free is that although only 22 percent of Quebecers smoke, a much higher percentage of Quebecers between the ages of 18 and 35 (the common denominator of the bar frequenting crowd) do.
Finally, non-smokers, despite being numerous, do not have the right to force their preferences on the rest of society. This is known as a tyranny of the majority and is one threat our democratic system is supposed to guard against.
Q. Even if patrons have the freedom of choice whether to enter a smoking establishment, what about the staff. Don’t they have a right to a risk-free work environment?
A. There is a minimum standard of safety to which every worker is entitled, however, accepting any job necessitates a cost-benefit analysis. A bicycle-messenger must decide whether near minimum wage pay is worth weaving in and out of Quebec traffic and inhaling car fumes all day. A construction worker should weigh the chances of falling off scaffolding or losing a thumb to a blade against the perks of the profession. Bar and restaurant staff must decide if they mind smelling of smoke when they get home, but also if long-term hearing loss (from blaring music) is a worry, unsightly varicose veins (from being on their feet all day) desired, or irregular sleeping patterns an issue.
Q. Second-hand smoke is a proven killer though. Doesn’t protecting workers from second-hand smoke fall under the "minimum standard of safety to which every worker is entitled?"
A. Second-hand smoke is not a proven killer. There have been no, ZERO, studies that can show second-hand smoke to have a risk ratio higher than 3.0 (the universally accepted epidemiological minimum needed to classify a substance as a health risk). Second-hand smoke rated as 1.19 (1 being no risk at all) whereas chlorinated water ranked at 1.5 and whole-milk at 2.5. Furthermore, the study that managed to prove second-hand smoke has a risk ratio of 1.19 has been discredited for "cherry picking" (the art of including only evidence corresponding to the outcome desired). Nonetheless, anti-tobacco activists stubbornly continue to use this study as evidence that second-hand smoke is deadly.
Q. Why do some scientists look at research and say that it proves that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is dangerous, and others look at the same research and say that it proves it is not dangerous?
A. The answer lies in how two things are interpreted: Confidence Intervals and Risk Ratios.
Confidence Intervals: This refers to the accuracy of the testing methods or in more scientif terms "the margin of certainty that errors are not made". For every other substance or topic or research, scientists require a minimum Confidence Interval of 95%. That means that even if a substance poses no danger at all, and 20 research teams conduct perfectly designed, honest, unbiased studies on the substance, then one team (1 in 20 = 5%) will probably come up with a result that shows the substance is dangerous, even though in fact it is not at all. Note – this 5% error rate occurs in a perfect, honest system, and does not account for human bias, "hot-topic" bias, sloppiness, or outright fraud.
At that high Confidence Interval, most research showed no risk of danger from ETS. So certain scientists had to reduce the Confidence Interval to 90% in order to come up with the numbers they needed to justify the financing they received. They did not justify this reduction in standards to the scientific community nor explain it to the public. The 'uneducated' public and the politicians and health organizations that sponsored the studies accepted the results as interpreted by these scientists. Others, with proper training in statistics, looked on and said "no, this does not prove our thesis", and so we have our present dichotomy where two scientists can look at the results and come up with two different conclusions.
Risk Ratios : In the type of research in question, Risk Ratios (RR) are what the scientists are trying to measure. Basically, it is a question of linking a substance or practice to a specific disease and asking "how likely is this stuff to cause this ailment?". The higher the RR, the greater the connection. Risk Ratios of ten (10.0), such as that linking Tuberculosis to Lung Cancer (Hinds, 1982), or of five point three (5.3) such as that linking a strong family history of lung cancer (Samet 1986) are pretty high and reliable. A risk ratio of below "one" indicates a negative correlation, so eating a vegetable diet would reduce your risk of obtaining lung cancer according to Le Marchand (1989, RR = 0.6). Low risk ratios, like the connection between drinking milk and getting lung cancer (RR = 2.1, Mettlin, 1989 or RR = 1.73, Rylander, 1996), are considered too insignificant and are dismissed outright. Generally, anything between 1 and 3 is considered too insignificant and too likely to be the result of errors, bias or confounding factors. Nobody takes such low risk ratios seriously. Nobody but those in the anti-tobacco movement, that is. Just like what they did with Confidence Intervals, scientists trying to obtain the results they were paid to get, took insignificant Risk Ratios for ETS and lung cancer and drew huge and frightening conclusions from insignificant results such as 1.19 (EPA, 1993), without explaining to the public how they were misleading them. When other scientists and people with statistical training tried to speak up about this blatant fraud, they were systematically attacked, slandered, and accused of being on the payroll of "Big Tobacco".
Below are a list of statements by people and organizations that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be "pro-smoking":
Sir Richard Doll (The "father" of the anti-tobacco movement) " ... when the relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect." (The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219).
WHO/IARC Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so. - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36.
FDA "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999.
IAQC "An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist.
New England Journal of Medicine "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."
National Cancer Institute
"In epidemiologic research, risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." National Cancer Institute, "Abortion and possible risk for cancer: analysis and inconsistencies," October 26, 1994.
Quoted in Reason Magazine (on an article about the risks of chlorinating drinking water):
"But these studies show very little increased risk, ranging from 10 to 75 percent. (By contrast, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 2,000 percent.) Typically such small increases are considered within statistical ‘noise,’ meaning there are just too many things that can throw a study off by that much.
Thus, in a response to a study linking breast cancer and abortion, the National Cancer Institute declared, ‘Relative risks of less than two are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret.. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.’ http://www.reason.com/news/show/29905.html
Q. I still don’t buy it. Heather Crowe recently passed away after developing a smoker’s tumour from working forty years in a smoky café. Didn’t you see the commercials?
A. Heather Crowe’s death was indeed tragic, and this makes it very difficult to lambaste the politics behind the commercials, worker compensation claim and her "smoker’s tumour" without appearing heartless. Disregarding emotion though, lets quickly look at her case.
The doctor who diagnosed Crowe with a "smoker’s tumour" has never publicly identified himself/herself. Perhaps this is because he/she is embarrassed to show his/her face in a medical community that doesn’t use the term "smoker’s tumour." There is no such medical diagnosis.
The series of commercials began running even before worker’s compensation had accepted her claim. Obviously certain powers that be were fairly certain that compensation would be issued. This seems odd when firefighters who applied for workers compensation after developing lung cancer from fighting toxic fires were rejected. Apparently it was not certain enough that it was the toxic fumes that caused the cancer rather than other external and unrelated environmental factors. Double standards usually indicate unequal access to power.
Q. Nonetheless, second hand smoking hasn’t been "proven" deadly there seems to be a commonsense link between the harmful effects of smoking (smokers often cough, get emphazima, heart problems, cancer etc. etc.) and second hand smoking. In light of the possible benefits of reducing smoke and its harmful bi-products, compared to the cons of banning smoking (government studies show no long term economic damage from bans and a satisfied public), wouldn’t it be prudent to support the ban?
First of all, what often appears in first light to be commonsense, examined more closely is discovered to be doctrine. Often one can be disguised as the other since both seem to jump to mind without much critical examination – it just seems obvious. Both can be dangerous in their own way. Rather, study the effects of second-hand smoke in a rational manner and try to set aside all previous bias. Please refer to the above mentioned studies to assist you in this.
The second assumption of the second question - the absence of any cons, specifically economic, in a smoking ban, must be vigorously refuted. Bar, restaurant and café owners have come out against the ban, before its enactment, vigorously after it, and have then gone strangely quiet. Here, we insist that this rather muted resistance before the ban stems not from the knowledge that a ban will not hurt hurt business, but a belief that the ban is inevitable. After its enactment, reality hits: the ban is not only hurting business but killing it. Too late the hospitality community begins to fight but not before the hardest hit go out of business. Thus the strange silence from the hurt establishments and the praise from those which now have the lion’s share of the business – so much for a level playing field! Bar owner associations from New York, Ontario, and Scotland, to name a few, have issued reports to this effect, listing bars, restaurants and cafes next to their drop in revenues since the ban as well as how many employees they have been forced to lay off. They also have long lists of bars which have had to close.
The government doesn’t use these reports, however, but commission their own. They make sure to conduct it well after the ban so that bars hit the hardest have by now gone to the grave. They also include the increased revenues seen by take-out restaurants in their statistics (funny that more people begin eating at home following a ban).
So, taking the word of the experts -the restaurant, bar and café proprietors- (whose motivation is purely financial) over the government (which has a political agenda), yes, there is a large economic impact which results from a smoking ban.
Q.Why does the government care then? If second-smoke is not dangerous, and they know it, and if a ban would have a detrimental economic effect, it doesn’t make sense that they would spend so much money on advertising campaigns and, now, to enforce the ban?
There are two important things to remember about government and the smoking ban. Firstly, the government is not a monolithic entity but is rather made up countless people with different ideologies, goals and intellectual abilities. Secondly, government often tackles politically correct and relatively simple problems rather than those that are really necessary but perhaps less popular and more complicated.
It is the bureaucrats of the Ministry of Health, encouraged by large lobby groups, that create and legislate health issues. They believe everything they say and truly believe that a smoking ban is an appropriate means to the ends of a healthier society. We are not trying to convince anybody that there is an evil conspiracy in the government to limit our enjoyment or to satisfy some strange and meaningless bureaucrat’s pleasure. However, too often people in this line of work begin to believe that health is the most important aspect of a happy life. Like religious fundamentalists, "sin" for them begins to encompass an expanding number of activities. These activities are perceived as unbearably attractive and addictive for society. Therefore, a higher authority, themselves, has to step in and make laws and punishments to dissuade such harmful behaviour.
Furthermore, the business of disease prevention and health intervention is a livelihood. Accepting that we are living longer, healthier lives than we have ever before becomes difficult for these government employees/lobbyists if it means there is little left for them to do. No health crisis means no job. This is also why the smoking ban will not be the last crusade in which these militants engage.
Banning smoking is also a relatively easy political agenda. While issues such as air pollution might be more pressing, banning cars from the downtown or enforcing low fuel emission standards, they are also more difficult to present to the public. On the other hand, smoking has been banned in a number of Canadian provinces as well as other developed countries. Banning smoking has become a milestone in the battle to "keep up with the Joneses" on an international scale. Tobacco has already been sufficiently demonized and the public has been convinced of its deadly qualities. What easier target?
The following is an excerpt from the provocative blog/site of Dr. Michael Siegel. Dr. Siegel is a physician who was very active in the anti-tobacco movement. The following blurb, and the material on his website speak for themselves.
It’s the story of a movement that can tolerate no dissent. It cannot listen to any "negatives." You are free to contribute to the discussion, but only if you discuss the "positives." You cannot criticize or suggest that anything we are doing or saying is wrong.
It’s the story of a movement where questioning the justification of policies or demanding scientific accuracy is viewed not as a valuable service to the movement, but as an intolerable distraction from the "important work" that needs to be done.
It’s the story of a movement where opinions that run against the prevailing dogma and wisdom of the movement are not tolerated, nor are the individuals who express such opinions.
It’s the story of a movement which is so self-righteous that it will allow no questioning of anything that is being done or said and any questioning is automatically described as supporting the tobacco industry or speaking for Big Tobacco. There is no possibility of dissent from within, because by definition, any dissent implies necessarily that the individual who opines thusly is on the side of Big Tobacco.
It’s the story of a movement in which any criticism, no matter how well-documented and argued, is viewed as a personal attack and as unacceptable, but any actual ad hominem attack on the critic is apparently acceptable.
It’s the story of a movement from which I am glad to finally be free. My conscience could just not tolerate it any longer. I don’t want to be associated with this kind of mentality and this kind of behavior. It’s not who I am and I will not go along
Stephen Siciliano has posted a novel, "The Sidewalk Smokers Club," on a web page for free (while he peddles it around for publication).
The idea was to escape the limitations of rhetoric and humanize smokers, while warning of further rights erosion.
The following illustrates how unethically and immorally the smoking ban was implemented in Ottawa, one of the pioneer cities to introduce it in Canada. Is the manner in which we the citizens want our government to function? As we keep repeating at C.A.G.E., "If they can do this to a large group of people, such as smokers who number over 20% or our population and are ostensibly backed by powerful financial interests such as Big Tobacco, then who will there be to stop them when they begin going after smaller and less empowered groups. We need a more accountable government, a smaller government, a less tyrannical government. Enough of this all-powerful, unstoppable state controlling our lives without our being able to do anything about it. This is where the real and present danger lies:
City buries the smoking gun
Ron Corbett
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, September 21, 2001
For several months, opponents of the city of Ottawa's smoking bylaw have alleged the city ignored any fact, argument or statistic that went against the health department's desire for a 100-per-cent ban on smoking in all public places.
They may now have proof.
This week, after repeated requests by the Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario, and only after being forced by a formal access to information demand, the city health department finally released a copy of a public opinion survey taken last year that measured public support for a 100-per-cent smoking ban.
The survey was conducted last October and November by Opinion Search. It polled 504 people in Ottawa, and is considered accurate within an associated margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. On January 15 of this year, the city held a press conference, to kick off national non-smoking week, and released the results of the survey. Mayor Bob Chiarelli and Dr. Robert Cushman, the chief medical health officer, spoke at the conference; the mayor said it was "time to assist in creating a smoke-free society"; Dr. Cushman said "the best way to protect people from the serious health hazards of second-hand smoke is to make all public places 100-per-cent smoke-free."
After the speeches, the city handed out a press release and a "backgrounder" on the Opinion Search survey. The city said, alternately, that there was "continuing growth in support"; "overwhelming support" and "significant support" for a total ban on smoking in public places. It was this survey, and those assertions, that helped convince city council to unanimously pass a bylaw that banned smoking in public places.
However, what no one was ever told, and what the full survey reveals, is this rather interesting fact: There was far greater support in the city for a limited bylaw.
Or as the survey puts it: "Respondents were asked if they would support a limited, non-smoking bylaw. Support for this bylaw is stronger than for a 100-per-cent smoke-free bylaw at every type of public place presented to the respondents, except the workplace."
Indeed, nearly three-quarters of respondents in the survey supported a limited bylaw -- which would allow for separate, ventilated smoking rooms -- in restaurants, bars, pubs, casinos, bingo halls and race tracks. This rather significant fact was completely omitted in the backgrounder and the press release, although it was a major component of the survey.
The city didn't stop with simple omissions either. In the press release there was also what seemed to be a rather glaring lie. And it's a big one.
"This new survey," says the City of Ottawa press release, "like numerous surveys done previously, shows that smoke-free bylaws will not hurt business, but will most likely increase patronage if the bylaws are applied fairly across the board."
The press release then gives some statistics from the survey, including the fact that "60 per cent of respondents stated they would frequent restaurants more often if they were 100-per-cent smoke-free, while a third of respondents declared that they would increase their patronage to eight of the 11 types of establishments mentioned in the survey."
Those figures are accurate. But what the city left out, however, was the next sentence from the survey: "Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the net positive effect or negative effect that the elimination of smoking would have on patronage to these types of establishments, as the respondents were not asked their current frequency of visiting these public places."
Stop and reflect on that one for a minute. The survey says you can make no conclusions on the effect the bylaw will have on patronage, because the right questions were not asked. The city then sends out a press release saying a total ban on smoking will be good for business.
"This survey, when you read it all the way through, is just amazing," says PUBCO spokesman Edgar Mitchell. "It clearly shows that more people supported a limited bylaw than a total ban, but the city just swept that under the carpet. Totally ignored it. The survey states you can't really say how it will affect business, and the city ignores that too."
Anyway, once again the truth is a little different from what was commonly believed. And at city hall today, some councillors should be asking pointed questions of the mayor and the chief medical officer of health, not the least of which should be, what is our legal exposure on all this?
Or put another way, if a business goes bankrupt in the next few months, and can show the ban on smoking was a contributing factor, and it can further be shown that the city misled, misrepresented or outright lied about the public support for the bylaw and its economic impact, then what should the damages be?
Just the facts, ma'am
By CLAUDETTE CAIN -- Ottawa Sun
I've got a real problem with lies. Or should I say I've got a problem with bureaucrats supressing information.
The poll was to measure, among other things, the support for a 100% smoke-free bylaw and one that allowed smoking in fully enclosed and ventilated areas. In order to make sure the respondents were put into the "right" frame of mind, the first questions asked were whether the "Tobacco kills" and "Tobacco kills kids" ads were effective. Those ads are disgusting for anybody to see, and so it's easy to figure out why staff chose them as the first questions on the list.
Nevertheless, for every type of hospitality establishment, a clear majority of people polled (almost three quarters), favoured a bylaw which provided for "smoking only in a section that is completely enclosed and separately ventilated."
That may surprise some people, especially since 420 of the 504 people polled were non-smokers. Funny how I couldn't find any reference to these two facts in medical officer of health Dr. Robert Cushman's report to council.
Another little interesting tidbit is that an overwhelming majority of persons polled stated they would frequent an establishment whether it allowed smoking or not. And remember, 83.5% of those who said that were non-smokers.
The health department's interpretation of those responses is that business establishments wouldn't lose revenue -- go figure! The staff report goes on to say "... the hospitality industry does not lose business when bars and restaurants go smoke-free ...." That's a pretty decisive statement to base your recommendation for a 100% smoking prohibition.
In fact, the poll said no such thing. Rather, it concluded that such projections were not possible. Of course, there was no mention of that in the report to council either. And so one has to wonder how staff reached their conclusion, especially since no economic impact study was done in Ottawa.
You can judge for yourself how scientific staff's analysis was, with this enlightening announcement in their report "... many people from Hull prefer smoke-free and will likely come to Ottawa instead ...."
Is that so? Then why are revenues down 20%, 30% and as much as 60% in some establishments on this side of the river? Why are bar and restaurant servers being laid off daily in Ottawa? Why did our charities make $250,000 less in revenue this August, as they did in August 2000? Rideau Carleton racetrack slots revenues are down 30% and so it too had to cut back on staff hours. It is the only racetrack slots establishment in the province which was not exempted from a smoking bylaw. It's hard to comprehend, since it spent $4 million for an air-cleaning unit in the facility. I'm told it's the only one of its kind in the country. Given the health department's thorough analysis, I'm surprised the Hull Casino patrons haven't flocked to Rideau Carleton by now.
No one should minimize the hazards of smoking. But it is legal for adults. So is drinking and eating too much. Are we to expect our city council to pass a prohibition in those areas too?
Want to Quit Smoking?
C.A.G.E. is in no way a "pro-smoking" organization. There is no denying that primary smoking damages you health. If anybody currently smokes and would like to quit, we encourage them to do so. Whether it is addictive or not, it is always difficult to give up something you enjoy, and sometimes you may choose to get a little help in doing so. On the web and on the government dole, there exist many organizations that are dedicated to helping people quit. We of know of one that uses most of the positive reinforcement principles that are recommended for the voluntary adjustment of any behaviour. If you live in Montreal, you may wish to look into the Smoking Cessation Program associated with the Royal Victoria Hospital, 3650, St-Urbain, 514-934-1934 x32503. Whether you want to quit, or decide you would rather smoke, it’s your choice. Either way, we still need your support at C.A.G.E.
MONCHOIX and MYCHOICE, as described in the text above: www.mychoice.ca .
Fair Air Assoiciation of Canada as described in the text above: www.faac.ca .
SMOKERS CLUB This website is a very large, well organised and professionally presented library of thoughts and ideas on smokers rights. It is a necessary stop for anyone researching smokers rights issues whether they are in favour of or against the cause. http://www.smokersclubinc.com/index.php .
GOTHIC REVUE is an online magazine, or "zine" as those folks in black refer to it. The link takes you to an article by Joe Jackson that is an excellent expression of the independent thinking that is necessary in analyzing the tobacco-health-science-rights issue. http://www.gothicrevue.com/smoking.html .
E.S.A.D. (European Smokers Against Discrimination) is an Irish organisation that is fighting discrimination against European smokers. Their mission is to safeguard the rights of all smokers and provide redress to discrimination against them. http://www.esadonline.org/index.htm
The Charity Defence Fund was established to communicate the true importance of bingo fundraising on the lives of every Albertan, and to preserve the dollars that charities receive so that they can continue their valuable contribution to our society. http://www.charitydefencefund.ca/index.html
C . A . G . E .
2005-4-28 Bingo Charity At Risk