HOW ABOUT AN 'APCBO'?

The death this week of Dana Reeve, the actor, singer and inspiring
wife of Christopher Reeve, from lung cancer must have been profoundly
disturbing to many of us, including the medical community.

One thing we learned was that she, a nonsmoker, was not alone in
succumbing to a disease most of us thought was caused by smoking.
Apparently, about 15 per cent of the women who die of lung cancer in
the United States had either never smoked or had long since given up
the habit.

We'll likely never know what caused the tumors in Mrs. Reeve's lungs,
but her career could have been a factor, since she likely encountered
a lot of "second-hand smoke" while singing in nightclubs.

We suppose that what needs to be stressed is that most of the lung
cancer in both men and women can be traced to the "cancer stick," as
evidenced by the deaths of such prominent men as Humphrey Bogart,
Edward R. Murrow and, more recently, Peter Jennings.

On a more personal level, it was interesting to learn, upon
discovering in 1999 that I, like my father and a great uncle, had
developed bladder cancer, that this form of the disease is also
usually associated with smoking. In fact, the first question put to me
by the specialist was: "Are you a smoker?"

"Not since I was 14," was my reply. And as I thought about it, I
recalled that Dad had stopped smoking many years before that awful day
when he first found blood in his urine.

In our case, one thing Dad, Uncle Bert and I shared was exposure to a
lot of potential carcinogens found in print shops of the day. And
although I clearly had not been exposed to them for several decades,
one doctor said it was entirely possible that the disease had been
developing that long!

Whatever the case, the point to be made is that smoking clearly isn't
a healthy habit, and we as a society should be doing everything
possible to dissuade teenagers from getting hooked on nicotine.

Having already banned cigarette advertising in newspapers and on
television and billboards, governments are now moving to ban the huge
displays found at the main counters in our convenience stores. In less
than two years, those displays are to disappear, with the products all
being placed beyond the eyes of all customers, under counters.

It will be interesting, indeed, to see what effect, if any, this
latest move will have on cigarette sales, and particularly on the
number of new teenaged smokers.

In one convenience store the other day, the clerk expressed her clear
annoyance with the approaching ban on the displays. "Why don't they
just ban cigarettes?" she asked, no doubt rhetorically.

"They still need the taxes," I suggested.

The brief encounter got me to thinking about how we currently and
historically dealt with our Big Three of potentially addictive
commodities - tobacco, drugs and alcohol.

Historically, tobacco products were to be found, and could be
consumed, just about everywhere, and the smoke they produced was seen
by most of us as nothing more than a nuisance.

Fifty years ago, the newsrooms of the nation, along with restaurants,
theatres, intercity buses and virtually every workplace had few, if
any, rules against smoking. Ashtrays were everywhere, and you'd even
encounter people smoking in elevators.

Back then, alcohol was something found only in places like Loretto and
Hepworth that for some reason had never gone for "Local Option,"
Ontario's compromise in the wake of the Prohibition movement that
swept North America in the early 20th Century.

It was only in the 1950s that towns like Orangeville and Shelburne
began holding plebiscites that initially approved Liquor Control Board
of Ontario outlets and later permitted the licensing of bars and
restaurants.

Today, alcohol is nearly as freely available and openly consumed as
tobacco products once were.

As for drugs, those deemed addictive are generally either banned
outright or available only on prescription. Marijuana stands out as
the great exception, the law treating it in much the same way as it
once did alcohol despite claims that it, like red wine, it isn't very
addictive and may actually have some health benefits.

As was the case during Prohibition in the U.S., Canadians are
generally less concerned about marijuana than our friends south of the
border, and our courts are far less inclined to mete out heavy
sentences to those found in possession of small amounts. Even major
traffickers tend to get relatively short penitentiary sentences in an
era when life sentences are routinely handed down by U.S. courts.

It remains to be seen whether the new Conservative government at
Ottawa will do anything similar to the moves contemplated by its
Liberal predecessors, which would have made possession of small
amounts of the weed a misdemeanour that did not give offenders a
criminal record.

However, my suspicion is that before too long a need to fund medicare
will drive Ottawa to decriminalize marijuana, a move that will mean
enormous new tax revenue, both from the commercial sale of the product
and from the ability to tax the income of those who grow the plants
and manufacture the final product.

When that day finally arrives, it will likely be up to the provinces
to decide what rules will be followed in controlling the sale (and
advertising?) of marijuana products.

Perhaps in Ontario we shall one day see our familiar LCBO stores
converted into new retail outlets for the controlled disposition of a
whole variety of addictive products.

Instead of just beer, wine and liquor they could dispense tobacco
products, marijuana and some other mildly addictive drugs, thereby
raising huge revenue for the provincial treasury.

The stores would be owned and operated by the new Addictive Products
Control Board of Ontario, the APCBO.