Alonzo
06-26-2006, 12:56 PM
Turning the tobacco industry into a non-profit or Crown agency could end tobacco marketing, some public health officials say.
The number of people smoking in Canada is down to about 22 per cent from 35 per cent a decade ago, but millions of Canadians remain hooked on cigarettes.
Public health officials are looking for ways to stop marketing that draws new smokers and undermines anti-smoking messages.
It's reasonable for corporations to use marketing and other tools to maximize profits, but not for companies that sell a harmful and addictive product, said Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. The group aims to reduce tobacco-caused illness by cutting smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.
Callard suggests it's time government buy out the tobacco industry and change its mandate from profit to public health.
"We anticipate by taking over the companies, voluntarily or involuntarily, and running them in the public interest, we would actually save governments and save the economy more money than it would cost to do this," Callard said in Halifax on Friday.
A non-profit agency, charged with ultimately putting itself out of business, would not try to increase the market for cigarettes the way the tobacco industry does.
Benjamin Kemball, president and CEO of Imperial Tobacco, isn't taking the idea seriously.
"I'm not sure that there's much support for governments taking over businesses, particularly businesses which are already heavily regulated by the government, and particularly business which are willing and eager to work with government on a lot of the issues that we face," Kembell said.
Tobacco companies now acknowledge the dangers of their product and share the concerns of anti-tobacco advocates on reducing the harm caused by smoking, he said.
There are precedents for the idea, such as in France and China, where governments own the tobacco industries.
If the change resulted in more people quitting, the initial cost to governments would pale compared to the billions now spent in health-care costs for smokers, agreed Dr. Robert Strang, the medical officer of health in Halifax.
"There'd have to be clearly a lot of political will to do that," said Strang. "But I think in the best interests of the health of the nation, I would certainly support. I think it would be reasonable that the government would take over an industry. "
Tobacco companies face a shrinking market and costly lawsuits, conditions that might make the idea more imaginable, Callard said.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/23/tobacco.html
Too bad this won't succeed and spread to the u.s.[b]
The number of people smoking in Canada is down to about 22 per cent from 35 per cent a decade ago, but millions of Canadians remain hooked on cigarettes.
Public health officials are looking for ways to stop marketing that draws new smokers and undermines anti-smoking messages.
It's reasonable for corporations to use marketing and other tools to maximize profits, but not for companies that sell a harmful and addictive product, said Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. The group aims to reduce tobacco-caused illness by cutting smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.
Callard suggests it's time government buy out the tobacco industry and change its mandate from profit to public health.
"We anticipate by taking over the companies, voluntarily or involuntarily, and running them in the public interest, we would actually save governments and save the economy more money than it would cost to do this," Callard said in Halifax on Friday.
A non-profit agency, charged with ultimately putting itself out of business, would not try to increase the market for cigarettes the way the tobacco industry does.
Benjamin Kemball, president and CEO of Imperial Tobacco, isn't taking the idea seriously.
"I'm not sure that there's much support for governments taking over businesses, particularly businesses which are already heavily regulated by the government, and particularly business which are willing and eager to work with government on a lot of the issues that we face," Kembell said.
Tobacco companies now acknowledge the dangers of their product and share the concerns of anti-tobacco advocates on reducing the harm caused by smoking, he said.
There are precedents for the idea, such as in France and China, where governments own the tobacco industries.
If the change resulted in more people quitting, the initial cost to governments would pale compared to the billions now spent in health-care costs for smokers, agreed Dr. Robert Strang, the medical officer of health in Halifax.
"There'd have to be clearly a lot of political will to do that," said Strang. "But I think in the best interests of the health of the nation, I would certainly support. I think it would be reasonable that the government would take over an industry. "
Tobacco companies face a shrinking market and costly lawsuits, conditions that might make the idea more imaginable, Callard said.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/23/tobacco.html
Too bad this won't succeed and spread to the u.s.[b]