LONDON (November 21, 1996) - In the wake of the Ontario Medical Association's (OMA) call for a legal ban on smoking in the private homes of pregnant women or small children, Fp president Robert Metz was invited to square off against Dr. Terry Polovoy of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, on 'Hot Talk', Radio 98's daily open-line program hosted by Gord Harris.

"I think the (OMA's) suggestions are a little bit outrageous, to say the least," opened Polovoy in a surprising dig at the medical association, "because they'll never be implemented. It's just blowing in the wind, as far as I'm concerned."

When asked why the OMA would act in this fashion, Polovoy replied, "Because they're angry at the government for not collecting enough taxes and putting (money) back to the healthcare system. They're angry at the cigarette lighters that are being sold now with tobacco logos at your local convenience stores. They're angry at the other doctors maybe, who are taking tobacco company money and no one's saying anything. They're just basically angry."

Referring to the OMA's proposal as "unconscionable", Metz did however agree that smoking increases risk to health.

"I can understand the frustration of the OMA, in trying to accomplish an impossible goal, and that's controlling a 'disease of choice'. Diseases of choice fall into the category of alcoholism, drug addiction, smoking. It's a natural impulse, I suppose, for those who somehow believe that it's their prerogative to restrict the choices of others, to resort to the force of law to do so --- even when the evidence consistently shows that this approach does not work.

"What makes the OMA's proposal unique," continued Metz, "is that they themselves have openly admitted that (their proposal) cannot work. So to whom is the OMA accountable? Do their ends justify any means? There is no natural conflict between civil libertarians and those who would like to see a reduction of smoking or its harmful effects. These are often the same people, as I can personally attest to."

"But there certainly is (a conflict) NOW, because the OMA is recommending a law that in effect would infringe on a person's right to do what they want to do in their own home," observed Harris.

Polovoy challenged Metz's concept of 'diseases of choice' arguing that "the nicotine level in tobacco is not a choice, it's an addiction. It's perpetrated by the people who own the tobacco companies who lied to people (for) many years, and lied to Congress, and have lied to our government. So it's not a disease of choice. You don't choose to smoke. You're addicted to smoke and it's a physical dependence."

"But you choose to begin (smoking)," retorted Harris.

"Yes, you choose to begin," agreed Polovoy.

"But that doesn't contradict what I said at all," countered Metz. "When you make choices, there are consequences to those choices. As rational human beings, we're all aware of this."

Polovoy evaded Metz's argument by accusing the government of promoting tobacco because "the government is addicted to taxes."

"Why are you worried about the government being addicted to taxes when you've just said that what the physicians are angry about is that they don't want to see taxes cut?" asked Metz. As the debate progressed, it became clear that the OMA's call for a smoking ban in the home was really about cutbacks in government funding to healthcare.

"I think doctors do want dollars for hours worked," said Polovoy. "That's the most important issue. They need to have a guarantee that if they work for 90 hours a week, that they'll be paid for it."

At this point, Harris pulled the focus back to the smoking ban proposal. Polovoy suggested that "to be outrageous, maybe we should have a sign in pediatricians' offices (saying) 'If your parents smoke, call this number'."

To illustrate the danger of the OMA's proposal, Metz entertained their notion: "Here are some rhetorical questions for you. What would be the appropriate sentence or fine to levy against an offending smoker? Should it be a fine? If so, how much? Should it be a jail sentence? If so, how long? What's the charge? Child abuse? Do you base this on a one-time single occurrence, or do you have to prove habitual constant exposure (to second-hand smoke)? What if the pregnant woman herself is the smoker? How do you stop her? Our justice system can't even prevent a glue-sniffing pregnant woman from stopping HER habit even when the evidence of her actions have already been demonstrated! What if the offending smoker is a relative, guest, or friend? Would they be charged, or would the owner in the home be charged? Or should the CAS (Children's Aid Society) remove the children from the custody of their parents? Even if the kids show no immediate signs of abuse or ill health? On what grounds would you base a charge of harm? Should we force drug rehabilitation? Should we force smoking parents into drug rehabilitation centers?

"And then there are the questions of enforcement. Who pays? Smokers or taxpayers? Who enforces it and how? Is it a complaint-driven system? If so, who files? Should we have a forced collection of data like the census, so we could find out where all the smokers are and place increased surveillance on their homes? (What about) powers of entry? Do we need a warrant? Do we have the right to seize children or assets? Perhaps if someone had a collection of tobacco pipes we could seize them.

"We need to REDUCE PROHIBITION in society, not increase it," concluded Metz. "I think prohibition increases any problem that we're trying to deal with."

"Robert, it's child abuse, cut and dry," retorted Polovoy.

"Well, some people think abortion is worse than child abuse," responded Metz. "They think it's murder, and your profession carries them out. So should we invade the homes of doctors?"

"Here's my solution," countered Polovoy. "Every doctor in Ontario (should) find out where tobacco salesmen live and start picketing their (homes) and their wive's social clubs. Start knocking on the doors of their kids at school and tell them that their parents are murderers. That's what we have to do."

"I think the doctors are bang on the money," said Garfield Mahood of the Non-Smokers Rights Association, who joined the debate at this point. "I've heard several things that suggest to me strongly that people do not understand how law works as it relates to the protection of innocent parties. Our rights are determined by both statutes and the common law. There is no statute or common law anywhere that allows any adult to inflict a health hazard on some other individual, and certainly not on kids.

"So what is the purpose of law? The mistake that people make (is that) they assume that laws are only to create an enforceable sanction, and that's not true. That's a very limited look at the law. In many cases the law is designed in order to point society in a new direction, to set a new social norm. That's a very legitimate purpose of law and you do not have to have enforceable sanctions in order to achieve that."

Mahood justified the use of law as a form of "social pressure" that could be brought to bear upon individuals in order to change their behaviour.

"The purpose of law is to protect individual freedom of choice (amongst) consenting people," began Metz in addressing Mahood's perspective. "But having said that..."

"That's NOT the purpose of law," interrupted Mahood.

"Excuse me, I think it's my turn to respond to what you said earlier," re-interrupted Metz. "I understand that (you) disagree with what I would argue is the purpose of law. That's the fundamental difference between us. We have different philosophies, and it's a matter of philosophy. I do not believe it is the right of any government to force your philosophy on me. Or to force my philosophy on you."

Needless to say, there was no resolution to the disagreements between debaters on the show. Readers interested in obtaining an audio cassette copy of the debate are invited to contact Freedom Party for more information!

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002