BC Suing Big Tobacco

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a lawsuit by British Columbia against Big Tobacco could continue.

BC created a law allowing it to sue Big Tobacco for the recovery of health care costs incurred in treating individuals exposed to tobacco products. 

Anyone who reads my column regularly knows what I think about smoking.  It’s a scourge on society.  You might think I support BC’s initiative.  I don’t.  Here’s why.

Big Tobacco, attempting to avoid liability, challenged the law, arguing that BC does not have the constitutional authority to enact it.  Four and a half years later, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the law as constitutional.

At the Supreme Court, there were 17 lawyers for Big Tobacco, 4 for BC and 12 for other provinces who intervened. 

This does not mean that Big Tobacco is liable.  It only means that the law is valid.  There are many large legal hurdles (too many to discuss here) to leap before there could be a finding of liability.

There will be bazillions of dollars spent on legal fees.  It will take years to get to the end of the litigation, as you can bet that Big Tobacco will appeal every adverse ruling. 

I’ve got a better way.  BC must have a number that it is claiming in damages.  Let’s assume that BC claims that tobacco-related health costs amount to a billion dollars a year.  The also know how much money that they get from taxes on tobacco.  The solution:  raise the taxes on tobacco so that they will get an additional billion each year. 

This solution is not only simple, it achieves many good results.   First of all, they have the legislative authority to raise taxes and there can be no legal challenge to the increase. 

Secondly, the legislative authority also means that the increase is immediate, resulting in cash coming in right away, instead of after years of litigation.

Thirdly, raising taxes (and therefore the price of cigarettes) has been proven, time and time again, to reduce the number of smokers.  Not only will they be raising enough money to pay for the health care costs, they will also be reducing smoking.

Fourthly, the reduction of smokers will also mean a reduction in health care costs.  Fewer smokers will reduce the amount of additional money collected to pay for health care, in a proportionate amount to the decrease in the number of smokers.  How cool is that?

 There are other things that would need to be done.  They would have to end the ability to buy cigarettes “duty-free”.  Cigarettes imported from anywhere would have to be subject to taxes to make importing economically useless.

 There would have to be money spent to provide law enforcement to prevent smuggling.  Instead of being intimidated by the gun-toting smugglers, as we saw years ago in the St. Lawrence River area, law enforcement would have to step it up and be more aggressive. 

 I should send BC a bill for my advice!