Reboot Alberta

Monday, December 22, 2008

Alberta's Tobacco Ban Legislation is Working

Last year I worked with a consortium of NGO health agencies in Alberta. We were successful in getting legislated smoking bans in public and work places, elimination of tobacco sale power walls and as of Jan 1, no tobacco sales in pharmacies.

Reports indicate this new legislation is working. Tobacco tax revenues are down in spite of a recent tax increase. This kind of prevention measure will save the health system money and improve the quality of life for everyone. Well maybe not for those poor souls who are freezing on the sidewalks at -30 and still puffing away. I wonder if the recession will help some more Albertans to get serious about quitting?

Alberta was one of the last provinces to get on the ball with this kind of legislated health prevention effort. With the change in Progressive Conservative Party leadership we have seen some interesting progressive policy efforts like this...and my other favourate public funding of midwifery. Again Alberta was a laggard. Better late than never.

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:40 am

    It seems to me that a larger proportion of Albertans smoke than in other provinces. Do you know if this is the case, Ken?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:37 pm

    According to the latest Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey commissioned by Health Canada, 21% of Albertans aged 15 and over were regular smokers in 2007 compared to 19% nationally. See http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/_ctums-esutc_2007/ann-table2-eng.php

    Hopefully the new Tobacco Reduction Act which came into effect January 2008 will help to close this gap. However Alberta cigarettes remain more affordable than most provinces and a major tax increase is needed to help drive down smoking rates further--especially among adolescents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, that's an interesting admission. The Social Marketing used to "sell" the public on legislation like this always touts it as being about "protecting non-smokers from SHS", and not about forcing smokers to quit. Yet, when the legislation does force more smokers onto smoking cessation products owned by multinational pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer - which always was the true objective, as unpublished documents by people like Paul MacDonald revealed years ago - the Social Marketing changes to "this legislation is working". How odd.

    The few of us who have chosen to stay true to the principles of social justice, who understand & have documented the unjustifiable abuses that Tobacco Control continues to commit against poor, elderly and socially disadvantaged persons who happen to smoke, will never forgive or forget what you have done and how you have done it. Everything has been carefully documented, right from ATRA to the present day. Eventually, there will come a reckoning through the courts. Count on it.

    Roy Harrold

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, that's an interesting admission. The Social Marketing used to "sell" the public on legislation like this always touts it as being about "protecting non-smokers from SHS", and not about forcing smokers to quit. Yet, when the legislation does force more smokers onto smoking cessation products owned by multinational pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer - which always was the true objective, as unpublished documents by people like Paul MacDonald revealed years ago - the Social Marketing changes to "this legislation is working". How odd.

    The few of us who have chosen to stay true to the principles of social justice, who understand & have documented the unjustifiable abuses that Tobacco Control continues to commit against poor, elderly and socially disadvantaged persons who happen to smoke, will never forgive or forget what you have done and how you have done it. Everything has been carefully documented, right from ATRA to the present day. Eventually, there will come a reckoning through the courts. Count on it.

    Roy Harrold

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:28 pm

    Sounds like someone needs to go on "the Patch" ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:27 am

    How about banning flavoured tobacco?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:07 pm

    For a provincial government that is as right wing as the American Republicans, I'm really impressed with this. Shows you that something simply has to be done to reduce tobacco use and it's not a left/right issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's interesting that when tobacco tax revenues (and presumably the rate of smoking) were increasing, ASH demanded that taxes on tobacco be raised. Yet, now, with tobacco tax revenues declining (and presumably the rate of smoking - that's the reason for claiming "this legislation is working", right?) ASH continues to demand that taxes on tobacco be raised:

    http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/2008/12/ash-smoking-is-up-raise-taxes-smoking.html

    There are no conceivable circumstances under which ASH and its allies would not be demanding massive increases in tobacco taxes, which demonstrates that their demands for increased taxation are not about youth smoking rates as they suggest.

    Fortunately, public statements by ASH representatives do reveal the true purpose of tobacco tax increases - which is to keep the poorest Albertans who smoke in a state of financial crisis, to perpetuate and maintain the level of poverty these most vulnerable of citizens exist within:

    http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/2008/12/tobacco-control-reveals-purpose-of.html

    I understand that anti-smoking fanatics don't consider unrepentant smokers to be human persons deserving of the same fundamental human rights guaranteed to "real people" in the UN Charter, but this callous & deliberate persecution of society's most powerless and vulnerable members clearly demonstrates that anti-smokers who claim to be "humanitarians", "socialists", "progressives" or defenders of social justice, are hypocrites of the first order.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous12:44 pm

    legalised bigotry

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...to help drive down smoking rates further--especially among adolescents."

    And what's an acceptable rate? When will enough be enough? Is there a reason for only targeting people with lower income?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Most of the comments against the tobacco ban miss the point. It is a public health and juman rights issue where damage is being done to third parties and the increased shared cost of our health care system due to the actions of a few. Check this out for some facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ken, this: "the increased shared cost of our health care system due to the actions of a few" is simply a falsehood. The direct cost of treating all smoking-related illness in Alberta was calculated, by health promotion advocates themselves, to be $295 million/year in 1996. The revised figure is $420 million (that’s from Alberta Health) In 2005, the Alberta government collected over $660 million in tobacco taxes. The cost of smoking-related illnesses is more than covered by the taxes collected on tobacco sales.

    This idea: "the increased shared cost of our health care system due to the actions of a few" is Social Marketing spin intended to manipulate the public's thinking. I know you have a good heart and mean well, Ken, but I can't understand the mental gymnastics you must undergo to justify participating in perpetuating manipulative falsehoods. If a corporate entity was doing this, you'd be the first to condemn them - right? How is it any more justifiable when not-for-profit corporations do it? And what about your soul, Ken? Do you believe in such a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  13. One last point (and thanks for your patience)..
    You began this posting with a claim that legislation which you and your Tobacco Control cohorts caused to become law in Alberta has resulted in a decline in the rate of smoking. I responded to that.

    Later, you state that I and other commentors have "missed the point", which you now say is that the legislation will reduce health care costs and protect the health of non-smokers. But, you haven't cited any data connecting the legislation to a drop in health costs or improved health of non-smokers. If you did, I'd happily respond to it - but since no such data exists for you to cite, your "real points" are rendered moot.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are