Flavoured STLTH Vapes. Photo by Emma Wallace/The Concordian
Will Quebec’s vaping regulations work?
On Oct. 31, Quebec will officially ban flavoured e-cigarettes. After that point, only tobacco and unflavoured vapes will be sold. The move, intended to make nicotine products less appealing to youth and diminish vaping habits, has sparked a debate in Quebec. Is the province justified in their decision, or will the black market fill the demand once people are lacking legal means for their nicotine fix?
The government’s intentions are well-founded, but I do believe that vaping will continue to be an issue, especially amongst youth. Removing flavoured vapes will improve the situation in a superficial sense, but nicotine abuse in general will likely never go away entirely.
However, the removal of flavoured products is long overdue. While cigarettes have been required to advertise warning labels on their packaging since 2001, the packaging of e-cigarettes could not be more different. Walk into any vape shop and you’ll think it’s a candy store with their rows of brightly coloured boxes and endless list of absurd flavours. The fun fruity flavours can make a smoker forget what they’re actually doing. Being able to discreetly carry it anywhere makes vaping almost too easy, which can create a false sense of security and absent mindedness. Though vapes allegedly pose a lower risk due to the absence of tobacco, the chemicals in these products still have a negative effect on lung tissue. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health reported that vapers are more likely to become tobacco smokers.
The marketing and accessibility of vapes has undoubtedly led to an increase in nicotine consumption in young people. According to Health Canada, young Canadians aged 15-24 are more likely to vape than those 25 and older. I’m sure most young people can attest to this, whether they themselves vape or whether they have vivid memories of their high school bathrooms being filled with Watermelon Ice or Cotton Candy clouds.
You won’t stop seeing flavoured vapes just because they’re illegal—they’re too popular. I’m sure nearly everyone knows at least one person with a secret stash and stubborn teenagers will be crossing the border into Ontario just to stock up. It seems that smoking—and now vaping—will inevitably remain mainstream. Various authorities on the issue cited similar perspectives and the CDVQ, a coalition dedicated to vaping rights in Quebec, warned that vapers would either return to tobacco or else obtain vapes through illegal (and therefore unregulated) means.
As is true in many cases of substance regulation, the government’s intentions may not have their expected effect. Changing the legal age for cannabis consumption to 21 may have had seemingly logical reasons, but it certainly did not prevent youth from sourcing pot illegally. We can hope that the issue of nicotine abuse will improve, but I wouldn’t count on it.
We know it isn’t good for us, but do we care? Does smoking cigarettes still make someone cool?
A few weeks ago, I brought home a puppy. She’s cute as can be, sassy as can be, and, unfortunately for me, a canine vacuum. She will eat anything: leaves, rocks, you name it. The morning after my birthday party she threw up a piece of a balloon that I’m not even sure how she got a hold of. She was feeling celebratory I guess. But her favourite snack of all — the one she can’t seem to get enough of — is cigarette butts.
Having lived in Montreal for three years, I’m well aware that this is not the cleanest city in the world. I am even more acutely aware that, perhaps due to the city’s European influence, a great deal of its residents are cigarette smokers. I had just never realized quite how many cigarette butts are littered on our streets and sidewalks.
It’s left me wondering — my own dismay towards cigarette butts aside — is smoking cigarettes still cool?
The practice of tobacco smoking was, among other things, appropriated from Indigenous people by sailors returning to Europe from the Americas in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, according to Britannica. Over time, smoking began to be used less and less for medicinal and spiritual purposes, as it was originally intended, and more so as a symbol of wealth and elitism in western society.
While smoking did eventually become more affordable, the coolness factor brought about by the years it spent as something only rich people could do, took a good, long while to start wearing off.
It wasn’t until around the 1950s that research started suggesting a link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer; since then, its popularity has slowly but surely declined. According to the University of Waterloo, nearly half of all Canadians were smokers in 1965, compared to about 15 per cent of Canadians in 2017. Despite that decrease, tobacco continues to be the number one cause of preventable disease and death in Canada, according to BREATHE, the Canadian lung association.
So, Concordians — smokers and non-smokers alike — how do we feel about cigarettes today? Is smoking still cool?
The results from each poll will be published in the following edition of this column.
Last time, we asked readers if they think that Concordia should have made vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory for returning to classes in person. The results: 46.7% said yes and 53.3% said no.
Failure to follow new smoking regulations can result in a fine up to $750 issued by city officials. Graphic by Florence Yee
As per new regulations imposed by the Quebec government, those who disobey regulations can be fined up to $750
Concordia has introduced new smoking regulations on campus as of Nov. 26 in response to the Quebec government’s Tobacco Control Act. Failure to abide by regulations may result in a fine between $250 to $750.
“Concordia’s previous smoking regulations stated that smoking or the use of an electronic cigarette was prohibited in any exterior space within a nine-meter radius of the entrances of buildings, athletic facilities, tents and bus shelters,” said university spokesperson Chris Mota.
However, the nine-meter regulation now encompasses windows that open and building air intakes, either on the ground or upper levels, she said. “If the ground floor-level windows do not open but the second floor windows do open, you are required to stand nine meters away from the upper levels,” said Mota.
Mota said building air intakes refer to ventilation systems that provide an intake of fresh air into campus buildings. While these air intakes may be tricky to identify, Mota said they typically look like grates on the outside of a building.
Mota said to identify new non-smoking zones, stickers have been placed on the ground around buildings and building air intakes. They are light grey and six by 12 inches long. “Sandwich boards will also be out in areas where we see a lot of smokers congregate, such as outside the Hall building,” said Mota.
Concordia president Alan Shepard told The Concordian at a student media briefing on Nov. 25 he believes the new regulations are valid. “If somebody is smoking right outside the air vent, it sucks the pollutants all through the whole building,” he said.
There has been a casual discussion within Concordia administration if the university should be a smoke-free campus completely, said Shepard.
“We have not taken that step, I think it would be difficult with the urban nature of our campus,” said Shepard. “I think it would be difficult to enforce anyway and I’m not really in favour of rules that look great on paper, but nobody is actually going to abide by them.”
For students interested in quitting smoking, as detailed in the press release, Concordia Health Services provides free one-on-one smoking cessation counselling with a health promotion specialist for students, faculty and staff.
Not hiring smokers will push them to kick the habit
by Robin Della Corte
A new trend seems to be popping up across North America where employers, including several Canadian jobs posted on indeed.com, are refusing to hire smokers.
“Everyone knows smoking kills you and we prefer to work with very intelligent people who aren’t choosing to kill themselves with every puff,” Rob Hall, Momentous Corp’s president told CTV news in an interview last week.
Hall stated that by refusing to hire smokers, it has slashed half the cost of employee health benefits compared to five or six years ago.
According to Stewart Harris, a law professor at Appalachian State University, “smokers cost more money. Smokers miss more workdays, smokers have more health problems.”
A recent study conducted by the University of Nottingham showed that smokers are 33 per cent more likely to miss work, taking an average of 2.74 more sick days than non-smokers.
It has been estimated by the Conference Board of Canada that, on average, an employee who smokes costs employers $3,396 a year, as reported by Health Canada in 2008.
These costs are associated with increased absenteeism, lower productivity, unscheduled smoke breaks, maintenance of smoking areas, property damage and health and fire insurance costs.
The study also shows that smoke-free environments increased productivity, increased morale, lowered cleaning costs and lessened exposure to secondhand smoke for all non-smoking employees.
With these factors, many employers have introduced policies that restrict smoking in the workplace, limited certain types of jobs to non-smoking employees and offered programs designed to encourage and assist employees quit smoking.
From experience, I see that smokers generally take more breaks. From the five jobs I’ve worked, two of them were in restaurants—and if you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, you’d know that in most cases you can’t have a lunch break. However, smokers are allowed to step outside sometimes five or more times in a day, depending on the boss’s restrictions.
I would work like everyone else, a seven or eight hour shift, not having one single break and it would frustrate me more than anything being almost the only one working for those straight hours while almost all the workers would have the luxury of stepping out and taking their time with their cigarette.
Companies have the right to hire who they want as long as it doesn’t discriminate under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Although it does come down to a personal choice of lifestyle, smoking is not who you are; it’s a choice you made that does have negative consequences.
Instead of defending smoking, maybe smokers should take this as even further motivation to quit.
We’re already unproductive, smoking doesn’t change that
by Victor Barbaros
Do you smoke? You better think twice. Actually, more than twice or you might have trouble finding a job.
According to a recently published article on CTV, a growing number of private companies in Canada, as well as in the U.S. and abroad have begun to include the “non-smokers only” requirement when looking for new employees.
When I saw this article for the first time, I thought it was a joke; it’s ridiculously unfair to include the non-smoking status as a prerequisite for a job. I figured this was a discriminatory condition. Still, I decided to compare my thoughts with some official sources, mainly the Canada Labour Code.
A passage from the government of Canada’s website states that, “The Code does not provide for breaks over the work day. Most employers provide two paid ‘coffee’ breaks during the day. But to protect workers with unscrupulous employers, this practice needs to be enacted.”
Labour Standards in Quebec also allow for a coffee break, which is, “not obligatory, but when it is granted by the employer it must be paid and be included in the calculation of the hours worked”.
By law, during a working day we are allowed a minimum of 30 minutes for a lunch break, which is not paid. We also have a “coffee break”, which is defined by the employer when it comes to duration, but is paid.
Let’s be frank; during a full day shift, we don’t work each and every second. We take the time to talk to our colleagues, our bosses, get our coffee and so on.
So, you see, it’s not just the act of smoking that determines the quality and productivity of one’s employees. Smoking is not the only time-spending habit that is worth consideration.
This isn’t to say that smoking doesn’t decrease productivity. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, most smokers are addicts. This means that an employee-smoker wouldn’t smoke his “morning-cigarette” and “lunchtime” cigarette (like you do with your coffee). In most of the times the smoker would need a puff each one to two hours. What’s funnier, the smokers usually don’t like to smoke alone; they need a companion, a partner that shares the same habit, so don’t be surprised when you see that they are going in couples. The time spent by an employee enjoying his or her cigarette may vary from insignificant to substantial.
I don’t try to cover this counterargument, however, I don’t believe productivity is the issue that most people have against hiring smokers. I think that the antismoking attitudes in our society and the promotion of a healthy lifestyle are reinventing themselves.
Since the 1950s we’ve heard about legal trials lost by big tobacco producers based on the insufficient advertising of the negative effects on the population’s health.
We speak about the risks of smoking everywhere, however, according to the 2010 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey, 17 per cent of Canadians aged 15 years and older are smoking.
Smoking may not be good for you, but ultimately it’s not fair to favour job applicants who make different lifestyle choices. We are entitled to certain breaks and how employees spend them shouldn’t be controlled.
The provincial government is compelling Quebec residents to pay up on their bad habits through an increase of taxes on alcohol and cigarettes proposed in the new budget.
The Parti Québécois expects to generate $536 million over three years to help clear up the province’s debt. The budget proposed an 18 per cent increase on tobacco products and raise in 25 per cent on alcohol.
The goal of the tax being to rake in more money on items that are not considered essential but that people consume on a regular basis; its revenue will be key in reducing Quebec’s debt which Premier Pauline Marois hopes to erase within the end of the next fiscal year.
Although the tax was only announced last Tuesday, it will be applied retroactively. Restaurants and bars are expected to tally and pay the difference between what they have already paid in taxes on unopened alcohol and what the new increase would cost.
According to Paul Quinn, the owner of Montreal bar Irish Embassy, the tariffs are hitting at a tough time. Quinn emphasized that having to go through the inventory when bars are preparing for the holiday rush seems counterproductive.
“What harms us the most is that the tax is retroactive. It takes time before we can change the menus and all the prices so in the end, we’re losing money,” said Quinn. “They’re actually harming themselves in the long run. With the hockey lockout, there isn’t a lot of tourism and higher prices aren’t going to bring more people.”
Conversely, Tommy Nguyen, the manager at local bar La Station des Sports, isn’t worried.
“People will never be discouraged from buying alcohol or cigarettes,” said Nguyen.
Restaurants boasting wine cellars will lose the most due to the number of unopened bottles. The amount they will have to pay is significantly higher than bars where alcohol sells quickly and there is no storage of wines or spirits.
According to Finance Minister Nicolas Marceau, the last time Quebec saw a tax increase on alcohol was 15 years ago and on cigarettes, nine years ago in 2003.
For restaurants, beer will cost 82 cents per litre instead of 65 cents and will increase by $1.35 for other alcoholic beverages. For the folks at home, the tax on beer is up to 50 cents from 40 cents. The tax will add $1.12 per litre to the purchase of other alcoholic beverages, up from 89 cents per litre. As for cigarettes, the taxes are now worth 12.9 cents per cigarette from 10.9 cents.
There’s no doubt that one of the biggest mysteries in this world is why people deliberately smoke a substance that severely deteriorates their health. Right now, it seems impossible that one day cigarettes will no longer be a cause of concern for people, because it’s still such a serious problem today.
What we can do as a society, however, is discourage smokers and potential smokers by making sure that the risks associated with smoking are made loud and clear. This is the ultimate goal of the warnings we see on all cigarette packages.
In a recent report done by the Canadian Cancer Society for cigarette package warnings, Canada has jumped from 15th for fourth place internationally. According to Health Canada, warnings on cigarette packs sold in Canada now cover 75 per cent of the front and back of the box, up from 50 per cent.
Australia ranked first in the world in terms of effectiveness of tobacco warnings. Tobacco companies are banned from using any colours, logos or design elements on the branded part of the package, and the warnings cover a little over 82.5 per cent of the pack.
“Plain packaging would curb the industry’s use of the package as a promotional vehicle, would increase the effectiveness of package warnings, would curb package deception, and would decrease tobacco use,” the authors of the Canadian Cancer Association report told CBC.
Although Canada has done well, jumping 11 spots in only two years, we need to follow Australia’s example and seriously limit tobacco companies’ right to advertise. The study did, however, applaud the country’s efforts but maintained that more still needs to be done. After all, Canada was the first country in the world to introduce graphic warnings on cigarettes boxes, and they should renew their efforts to become leaders in this particular field once again.
“We urge the federal government to take steps toward implementing plain packaging in Canada,” said Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society, to the Globe and Mail. “If Australia can do it and other countries are actively looking at it, Canada can similarly make steps to move forward.”
Now, you may be questioning if the labels really have any kind of significant influence. The general reaction of most tobacco giants to larger warnings labels are lawsuits which is proves that these warnings help deter clients from using their products. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that they are effective at making a mark.
One of the recent studies was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. National Cancer Institute Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research, and the U.S. National Institute of Health.
Published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, the study put 200 smokers in a room and showed them static, text-only cigarette warnings. Then, they were exposed to graphic warnings. The results showed that 83 per cent of participants remembered the graphic ones, as opposed to the 50 per cent who remembered the plain ones.
As of now, Health Canada has no plans of following Australia’s lead and forcing cigarettes to be plainly packaged with bigger graphic warnings. However, more needs to be done to discourage smoking — it’s something that would benefit our society as a whole, and should be seriously considered for the future.
