Passive smoking has high relevance to the sociallyconcerned. An attack on the dibility of evidence presented to date may well provide the rational argument to soften their udes. At the same time, a halo would be created, bringing other undebated issues into question by inference, providing reassurance and reinforcement for the more emotionallydependent healthconcerned group [emphasis as in original].[125, p. 60] In seeking an advocate to make the case for the industry’s position, the report said “the challenge will be to find a sympathetic doctor who can be demonstrated to take a largely independent stance.”[125, p. 60] In 1987, during parliamentary hearings on the proposed Non mokers’ Health Act, the industry brought up its normal troop of experts to deny that ETS was a demonstrated health problem. When the Ontario legislature was considering the moking in the Workplace Act, CTMC submitted a detailed brief refuting the alleged dangers of ETS. When the new law came into effect — prohibiting smoking in workplaces except in designated areas — CTMC wrote to employers suggesting that each desk be designated a smoking section. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the law. To prevent the adoption of bylaws restricting smoking, the tobacco industry has nded local opposition. For example, in British Columbia in 1995, the industry funded the Lower Mainland Hospitality Industry Group to oppose proposed bylaws that would ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. A tobacco industry organizer traveled to the ovince to help establish the group, and CTMC provided the group with ongoing strategic advice. The next chapter, on taxation and smuggling, describes far more serious industry efforts to undermine the effectiveness of an antitobacco strategy.

Website: http://www.idrc.ca/