Ottawa named as defendant in BC tobacco lawsuit

In an October post, I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of a lawsuit against Canada's tobacco companies launched by the Ontario government. I noted that the tobacco companies had been vilified for decades for putting profit before health, while government profiteering (in the form of tobacco taxation) was routinely ignored.

British Columbia was the first province to launch legal action against the tobacco companies. Their lawsuit was filed in 2001 to recover billions of dollars allegedly spent by the health-care system for treating “smoking-related disease”.

Since the BC lawsuit was filed, six other provinces, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, have jumped aboard the bandwagon and have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation that will allow similar legal action in their respective jurisdictions.

In March 2008, the tobacco companies petitioned the British Columbia Supreme Court to add Ottawa as a third party defendant arguing that the federal government should also be held liable “as senior partners” of the tobacco industry by keeping it legal and collecting tax revenue from it.

And, it's really hard to argue with their logic.

Both senior levels of government have been aware of the alleged health hazards of smoking for decades. The federal government could have legislated against the manufacture and distribution of tobacco at any time. Instead, they chose the course of action recommended by anti-smoker zealots: extortionist levels of taxation and draconian smoking bans. They chose to protect the billions of dollars they and their provincial counterparts collect annually from the sale of tobacco products.

Initial efforts to have Ottawa named as a third party defendant in the lawsuit were dismissed in court. But early in December, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed that decision, at least in part. Ottawa may now be held liable when the case goes to trial.

The latest ruling by the BC Court of Appeal will likely impact lawsuits pending in other provinces, setting precedent for naming the federal government as a third party defendant in those cases.

The ruling will also affect a class action lawsuit, filed in BC against Imperial Tobacco, which alleges consumers were misled into believing that cigarettes labeled "mild" or "light" were safer to smoke than regular cigarettes. Imperial Tobacco contends that Ottawa initiated and promoted the development and sale of low tar tobacco products.

This is also a reasonable claim. Starting sometime back in the sixties, the anti-smoker crowd (including the federal government) was indeed calling for the tobacco industry to reduce the tar and nicotine content in cigarettes. The tobacco companies voluntarily accepted those proposals, reduced tar and nicotine and added labels to their packaging indicating the levels of various components.

Naming the federal government as a third party defendant will complicate the proceeding in BC and subsequent lawsuits in other jurisdictions. If tobacco is the health hazard it's made out to be, both the federal and provincial governments are duplicitous in its continued sale and distribution And, they must also be prepared to accept a significant portion of health care costs.

Tobacco control strategies (graphic warnings on cigarette packages, for example) employed by government indicate that they were aware of the potential health hazards of smoking. If the tobacco companies can be held accountable for marketing a potentially hazardous product, the federal government should be held accountable for allowing it to continue long after they became aware of the possible dangers.

In addition, during the last two decades, government has extorted tobacco taxes from smokers that, annually, far exceed the profits of all three major tobacco companies combined. They are as guilty of exploiting tobacco consumers as the tobacco companies.

The British Columbia lawsuit, claiming unspecified damages, is not likely to be settled any time soon. Trial is not expected to begin until 2011. And, it is likely to be a lengthy trial, costing many millions of dollars. And, whatever the outcome of the trial, there will be the inevitable appeal.

Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see the outcome.

Welsh smoking ban leads to more heart attacks

Those anti-smoker brigands are a fine bunch, aren't they? One lies and the others swear to it.

Over the past year or so, there have been a number of “scientific studies” concluding that smoking bans reduce heart attacks. The main stream news media are quick to pounce on such studies, publishing the exaggerated claims as fact, without verifying the integrity of the information.

Of course, the same media is reluctant to publish any correction or retraction when the studies are found to lack scientific credibility. And, whether it's an inability to admit their own incompetence, or whether they merely wish to hide their complicity in the fraud being perpetrated by the anti-smoker zealots, the result is the same. A badly misinformed public.

Take, for example, a December 7, 2009 a article in the Daily Post in Wales. The article, written by Tom Bodden declared: “Smoking ban ‘sees fall in heart attacks’ in Wales”. The opening statement claimed that: “NEW figures this week are expected to reveal how the first full year of the public smoking ban in Wales heralded a steep decline in heart attacks. The findings will be contained in the Chief Medical Officer for Wales’ annual report showing hospital admissions have fallen since the ban came into force."

But, the only thing “new” about the claim was the spin.

In June, 2008 Mr. Bodden published an article in the Daily Post proclaiming: “Fewer heart attacks in wake of smoking ban”. The June article relied on cherry-picked data to claim an immediate positive impact of smoking bans on public health; a reduction in heart attacks. The subterfuge was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, in an August, 2008 blog entry.

In his latest article, Bodden sought to resurrect the questionable claims of his original story using the latest report from the Chief Medical Officer for Wales.

Author Christopher Snowdon (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist) picked up on the story and commented on his blog: “I will be intrigued if the Chief Medical Officer does make such a claim, because it is completely untrue. Not only is it untrue, it has become even less true - if such a thing is possible - since I last wrote about it.” (Snowdon analyzed the original data last year and found it lacking in credibility, as did Dr. Siegel.)

It's said that all propaganda contains an element of truth. And, the article by Bodden is no exception. Apparently, the data from Wales does reflect a decline in heart attacks in the year following implementation of their smoking ban. But, the devil is in the details.

And, Bodden, by omitting several pertinent details, turns his article into a propaganda piece; bullshit and bafflegab at its finest.

For example, he fails to mention that for two years prior to the ban, the rate of heart attacks had been declining at a similar pace as the year following the ban. This would indicate that the smoking ban had nothing to do with the decline in heart attacks. It was simply a result of a trend which had been ongoing.

And, Bodden also neglected to mention that, in the second year following the ban, heart attacks went up. So, the decline in heart attacks was not sustained and could not be attributed to the smoking ban any more than the subsequent increase in heart attacks could be attributed to the smoking ban.

Even the Chief Medical Officer contributed to the deception by ignoring the increase in the second year following the smoking ban. His report states that: “there is already some evidence that the ban is having a beneficial effect on health. Hospital admissions for heart attacks were reduced in 2008 and although this decline cannot be wholly attributed to the smoking ban, some studies suggest that at least some of the reduction is due to the legislation.”

No evidence is provided in the report to substantiate that claim.

But, the propaganda effort served its purpose. The public was left with the mistaken perception that smoking bans could reduce heart attacks and that the effect was both dramatic and immediate.

And, apparently, the politicians were also taken in. On Dec 7, Health Minister Edwina Hart announced new funding of more than £650,000 (over a million dollars) for smoking prevention.

Said Ms. Hart: "The Chief Medical Officer's annual report to be published later this week will show that hospital admissions for heart attacks were reduced last year. My announcement today builds on this good news and aims to prevent children from taking up smoking in the first place.”

ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) Wales also welcomed the good news. Said chief executive Tanya Buchanan: “Bans on smoking in enclosed public places have been demonstrated to effectively reduce heart attack rates so it is not surprising to see Wales following this positive trend.”

But then, ASH Wales stands to benefit handsomely from the new government funding. They'll get £143,000 a year over the next three years to enable the charity to continue raising awareness of the effects of tobacco and smoking and a further £30,000 a year to fund No Smoking Day activities and campaigns across Wales.

I guess none of them were aware that there was more recent data, publicly available, showing an increase in heart attack during the second year of the Welsh smoking ban. Or maybe they merely wanted to hide the increase in the same way climate scientists wanted to “hide the decline”.

You just can't trust anyone these days.

Additional reading:
Dr: Michael Siegels latest blog entry
The Chief Medical Officers of Wales report

Who stole my e-cig?

In an October 7 blog, I ranted about anti-smoker efforts to deprive smokers, wanting to quit or cut back, of access to the electronic cigarette. I noted that, since I had written several articles on the new device, it was time to give it a real test.

Health Canada has already banned the e-cig on the basis that the product hasn't been fully tested for safety (in Canada, at least). And, I had heard that Canada Customs was intercepting shipments of the device which originated outside the country.

But, despite the potential for losing my investment, I ordered two electronic cigarettes: one from a US supplier and the other (same model) direct from China. They were cheapie models, to be sure, but I figured they'd be good enough to conduct a decent evaluation. (You've gotta give me a break here people, I'm an old age pensioner on a fixed income.)

And, as I noted at the time, whether they were stopped at the border or not, I'd wind up with the material for a blog.

The one I ordered from the US, a supplier in upstate New York, arrived within ten days, making its way through customs with no problem. And, I must say I was pleasantly surprised.

After receiving my new e-cig, I fully charged the battery, inserted a cartridge and gave it a trial run. It performed much better than my expectations. It didn't have the full tobacco flavour I've come to expect from the real thing, but the taste was something to which I could become accustomed. I honestly didn't like the taste of scotch when I first tried it many (many) years ago.

In truth, the e-cig provided the whole smoking ritual in a satisfactory manner; the hand to mouth routine, the little puff of (make believe) smoke when I took a drag, etc. All in all, a satisfactory simulation of actually smoking a cigarette. And, by the time I had exhausted my supply of cartridges (roughly a week), I had cut my cigarette consumption by half.

Part of the reason for this was my habit of lighting up while working on my computer or working on a piece of music. Usually, after a few drags, the cigarette would be placed in the ashtray where it would burn away to nothing before I could get another drag. Wasteful. The alternative was to stop what I was doing and smoke the cigarette in it's entirety, whether I really wanted to or not. Throwing away half a fag is also wasteful.

With the e-cig, after a few drags, I could simply lay it down, or drop it into my shirt pocket, thus reducing waste and cigarette consumption.

I can see why many smokers might turn to “vaping” to help them quit or at least cut back on their smoking. And, it is possible to use it to beat some smoking bans.

But, it does have its drawbacks.

To some smokers (myself included), cost will be an issue. Cartridges for the electronic cigarette may be less expensive than store bought, highly taxed cigarettes, but they are two to three times the cost of cigarettes purchased from, er . . . unapproved alternative sources.

The second drawback is availability. In Canada, the e-cig is available only from mail order sources. So, if you run out of cartridges and you're in the throes of a nicotine fit, you'll have to revert to the real thing and make a run to the local corner store. That's bad news if your intention is to quit.

The Health Canada prohibition on the electronic cigarette, as well as similar action by the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), is the result of objections from anti-smoker groups. They are opposed to the e-cig, not because it has proven to be hazardous, but because it looks like you're smoking. And, I suspect there's a desire to protect the profits of their partners in the pharmaceutical industry. If the electronic cigarette were to catch on, the drug companies lose their monopoly on nicotine replacement products, nicotine gum and lozenges.

And, government bodies have been quick to jump on the ban-it-bandwagon, mostly because no-one has been able to work out how to levy taxes.

And, if you're wondering what happened to the second e-cig and extra cartridges I ordered, I've tracked it to a Canada Customs office in Mississauga, Ontario. It's been sitting there for the past month.

It's too bad. Those things actually have potential for smokers wanting to cut back or quit.

Climategate: objective science or fraud?

There was an Interesting article (Nov 26) by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun on Climategate. He opined that: “Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a shit about "the science”, before concluding, “They never have."

Said Goldstein: “What "climategate" suggests is many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve. “

Goldstein also had some criticism for the press: “Now they and their media shills -- who sneered that all who questioned their phony "consensus" were despicable "deniers," the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust -- are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.”

What struck me was the similarity between Goldstein’s appraisal of global warming and the science used to promote it, and my own evaluation of the anti-smoking cartel comprised of government, the drug companies and the anti-smoker industry (also known as tobacco control and/or public health).

For example, earlier this year, anti-smoker activists published an article in the European Journal of Public Health accusing those who do not accept the causal relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer/heart disease of being “denialists”. It equated those guilty of such scientific heresy to those who deny the Holocaust.

Authors publishing studies which are not in complete harmony with anti-smoker consensus are often subjected to attacks designed to discredit them on a personal basis, rather than an honest evaluation of the science they produce. Disagreeing with the “consensus” makes them tobacco company “lackeys” and their science suspect.

And, like Climategate, there is evidence the science surrounding secondhand smoke has also been manipulated; the EPA study from 1992 being a blatant example.

Another Toronto Sun columnist, Michael Coren, wrote in relation to Climategate: “What is extraordinary is how few other columns and articles have appeared in the press and how little attention this story is receiving on television and radio.”

The same comment could have been made about the complacency (complicity) of the press in parroting the claims of anti-smoker extremists who insist that: “The debate is over, secondhand smoke kills.”

It's become a matter of routine for the media to refer to anti-smoker claims as fact, with no effort made to verify the integrity of those claims. Earlier this year, the press hyped claims of a new-found threat called third hand smoke. The “scientific study” turned out to be a telephone survey soliciting public opinion.

Studies claiming that smoking bans prevent heart attacks are given widespread coverage. But, in many instances, the studies have not been peer reviewed or published. In some cases, the studies haven't even been completed (some never will be). Criticism of these studies is ignored, regardless of the credentials of those proffering a contrary viewpoint.

But, the media is apparently satisfied to accept the conclusions of such studies without question. As far as secondhand smoke is concerned, investigative journalism is dead. If journalists would do a little research, they would find that the debate on SHS as a health hazard is far from over, except in the mainstream media.

Whether the issue is global warming or secondhand smoke, the public has a right to be fully informed of the facts; all the facts, not just those which support a particular or popular position.

Lorrie Goldstein closed his column with the line: “What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.” Uh-huh.

The parallels between Climategate and the hoax of secondhand smoke are unmistakeable.

Outside influences, politics, industry profits and the concerns of special interest groups should not be permitted to corrupt the scientific process. The public should not be manipulated into believing something which is still open to debate in the scientific community.

Unfortunately, they have. The objectivity, and credibility, of science in general is now in question.