C-4
N- C
November 15, 19719
(f"a
SMOKING ISSUES
I think analysis of this issue should distinguish between the
attitudes and roles of various regulatory bodies (federal, provincial
and municipal governments, transit commissions, etc.) and those of
society at large.
Federal and Provincial Governments
Health Departments genuinely believe that elimination of smoking
would significantly improve the nation's health. More importantly, e,e,y
have nc other ideas of how to deal with lung cancer. Another aspect to
the motivation of Health Departments is the conviction that a number of
diseases are largely a consequence of poor "lifestyle" - overeating,
poor diet, excessive drinking, lack of exercise, smoking, etc. A major
change in orientation of Ottawa health authorities occurred during the
regime of Marc Lalonde when it was decided to emphasize disease
prevention through better lifestyle ("Participaction') rather than cure.
This idea originated in Canada, as far as I know, and Canada got a good
deal of acclaim internationally.
Apart from a genuine concern for health, there's no doubt that the
cost of medical services to governments has a good deal to do with
governmental motivation. Interestingly a U.K. study showed that virtual
elimination of lunc cancer, sharp reduction in heart disease, etc., which
would theoreticallv be achieved by elimination of smoking, would hurt
overall government-finances through increased cost of medical care for
the aged, old age pensions, loss of tobacco tax revenue, etc.
Health Departments recognize the failure of their attempts to
stamp out smoking on health grounds. They now use the social acceptability
issue to reinforce their attempts to indoctrinate children with tho
"lifestyle" concept of better living. This is very evident in the anti
smoking spots on CBC TV. It seems clear that federal and provincial
Health Departments believe that the end justifies the means and that no
counter action from the industry on social acceptability would have any
effect on the activities of health departments. In fact Dr. Morrison
once warned Paul Park that any form of overt advertising in promotion
of smoking rather than brands would ensure inwediate goverrument
retaliation.
M.)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

Mun Governments
Although every conceivable argument is brought by the anti
sm ok qrours to influence city councils I would suggest there are twe
areas of real and legitimate concern to city councillors:
1) The views of their citizens about smoking regulation
in the areas over which city councils have jurisdiction.
2) Matters of fire prevention.
Fire prevention is clear cut and not really controversial.
City councillors are really quite close to their people. It's
quite easy (except with Mayor Drapeau!) to get a topic on a city council
agenda and with good organization it's not difficult to force a council
to deal with an issue. They can't bury it in the manner of senior
governments. An issue such as smoking in public places is of the kind
city councils hate to have. It's like dog by-laws. There are dog lovers
and dog haters, and a majority of tolerant people. City dog by-laws axe
seldom enforced literally a-id whenever they are the city makes an enemy
in the person of the dog owner, or of the dog hater if the law is not
enforced.
Given this situation I would think the most constructive action
on the part of CTMC would be to give well documented advice (behind the
scenes?) to city councils which are confronted with pressui$ to
legislate in the smoking area. The advice would consist the record
of what has happened elsewhere as a consequence of local laws. What has
been accepted, what has been rejected and proven unenforceable, what
problems have faced local law enforcement officers and courts, legal
problems fcr the city, what legislation has been accepted as "reasonable"
bv smokers, non smokers, owners of stores, restaurants, bars, etc.
The objective would be to help councils 'look good," and to
minimize attacks on the industry and smoking in general. In a nutshell
the 'Ottawa approach" applied at the municipal level.
The contrary approach: a public debate using the 'freedom of
choice' or "too much government" argument doesn't seem to me to have
credibility. The American thought of a grass roots movement against
local smoking restrictions sounds all right in theory provided there
really is a large support for this view in the society of concern to the
local council. But what has been the truth of the matter? Has there
ever been an example of successful mobilization of ordinary citizens to
express disapproval of local smoking restrictions on social acceptability
grounds? Winning a battle with expensive high power lobbying as in
California may be necessary at times, but what was the net impact on
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

-3-
Municipal Governments continued
social acceptability of smoking, or on the public assessment of the
tobacco industry?
Transport Comissions, Airlines, Railways, etc.
The notion of segregation of smokers and non smokers is becoming
widespread. I would argue that giving smokers a separate area, in many
cases does more to damage the public image of smoking and smokers than
would an outright ban. The smoking cars of the London tube system are
strewn with litter, have foul air and appear to be populated with rather
scruffy looking people. Demographically speaking smoking it primarily
a "lower class" habit heavily weighted with poorly educated people, so
public smoking areas inevitably communicate a poor image and reinforce
the social unacceptability views held by many non smokers.
Thus the proposed Quebec rules of either outright banning
smoking or of insisting on adequate ventilation in mixed smoking, non-
smoking areas would seem to be preferable to the establishment of
segregated smoking areas. The Montreal practise of no smoking in public
transport rather than the London provision of smoking areas on buses and
subways is preferable from the point of view of maintenance of social
acceptability.
One of the worst situations is that on Canadian airlines. Smokers
are treated as second class citizens (back of the aircraft or over the
engines). The ventilation systems don't really cope with a 100%
concentration of smokers. By contrast many foreign airlines separate
smokers from non smokers along the length of the aircraft. This practise
avoids the sharp contrast between smokers and non smokers and minimizes
the negative image created by a large concentration of smokers. To make
matters worse the former practise of banning cigars and pipes on air-
craft has been dropped. Aircraft ventilation doesn't cope with the heavy
concentration of highly aromatic sidestream smoke created by cigars and
pipes.
Anything that can be done directly with the management of public
facilities, having designated smoking areas, to foster the provision of
attractive well ventilated, clean smoking areas would help negate the
social unacceptability aspects of such places. To my mind this is a
genuine 'smokers rights' issue. I found the Vancouver-Victoria ferry
a most glaring example of communication of social unacceptability of
smoking.
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

-4-
Social Aspects of moking
Those people who decide to take up smoking do so because it is
socially acceptable at the time for them among their peers. They hav-e
at the time no appreciation of the benefits of smoking that later turn
them into confirmed (addicted?) smokers. Research into smoker
motivation among habitual smokers brings out a surprisingly high amount
of social or perhaps 'socializing' connotations to smoking. This is
particularly true of light smokers who smoke on social occasions. Much
of this kind of response to research questioning may be rationalization,
but it nevertheless demonstrates a human need to be accepted socially
and a conviction by many smokers that the smoking habit helps them in
interpersonal relations and constitutes a bond among their peers. I'm
paraphrasing research conducted in England and it may have considerably
less validity in Canada where the institution of the pub d@es not exist.
I would also think that the social aspect is very much a class
phenomenon and that this may change from a positive to a negative factor
as one moves up the social and/or the levels of education scale.
I think parallels can be drawn between smoking and drinking beer.
Beer is (or was) for young men, or the lower classes in unattractive
surroundings (beverage rooms and taverns). Beer advertising for a
number of years seems to be trying to change this image by making two
points:
1) Beer is socially acceptable among upper class people
or people who do things that may be envied.
2) Beer drinking is a highly social activity conducted
openly in the home.
Current cigarette advertising certainly communicates a high
class image of smoking, and that smoking constitutes a bond between male
and female. But it is also portrayed as taking place in isolation from
the rest of the world, and there is no connotation of the acceptability
of smokers among non smokers, in social gatherings, or in the real world
available to the average man.
I am personally involved in a good deal of outdoor activity and
I find that the people who are heavily into adult sports; skiing,
sailing, tennis, hiking, etc. are rarely smokers. I think advertising
that portrays a backdrop of the beautiful groat outdoors, with a fore-
ground of one or two people engaged in some sort of sports activity is
at odds with the real world, and certainly conflicts with the
'Participaction' concept that leads so many people to take up such
activities. The social acceptability dimension'confronting smokers is
how they can comfortably maintain their habit in the kind of social
environments they regularly encounter. Smoking alone or with one's
girl friend at the top of a mountain presents no problem of social
acceptability.
4b,
---.I
L.014
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

Social Aspects of Smoking
Fortunately for the industry, despite all the social and health
pressures, the rate of successful quitting seems to be fairly stable
and predictable among "addicted' smokers. There is a proportion of
light occasional smokers who may reduce their frequency of smoking
according to immediate social circumstances, but a more important aspect
of social acceptability will be its impact on young people who may be
experimenting with smoking.
Ottawa strategy is to incorporate anti smoking propaganda in a
total package of lifestyle education to be given children at a very
early age. To implement this program they must persuade provincial
education departments to incorporate such teaching formally into the
grade school education program, some-thing they have been unable to
achieve so
I don't see what the industry can do about this in a direct
sense. However I do believe that the industry must accept the fact that
there will be more and more regulations in public places that attempt
to deal with the smoking vs no smoking problem. Rather than object to
regulation on principle, our interest lies in having regulations that
reduce smoker non-smoker conflict and that do not tend to lower the
image of the smoking habit. I think our quarrel is more with the
organizations which implement regulations than with the regulations
themselves. As a smoker I would think twice about inviting a non-
smoking friend (including my wife!) to sit in an Air Canada smoking
section or ride in a CPR commuter smoking car.
I think that social acceptability as a public issue can only be
resolved by appropriate response by public regulatory bodies. When
this has been achieved the noise will die down and the "antis" will
find it difficult to get a hearing. If smoking is conducted in ways
that obviate the annoyance to non smokers at the level of their every
day experience, senior governments will find it more difficult to got
public support for what might be punitive action against smokers.
LJ-4
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999