Why the double standard for smoking products?

Marijuana and tobacco rules reveal incoherent policy, says Eric Gagnon

On the eve of World No Tobacco Day (May 31), the federal health minister has an opportunity to explain why she is exhibiting a disturbing degree of incoherence with her recent approaches to the regulation of tobacco and marijuana.

Public explanation is needed as both marijuana and tobacco are addictive substances with known — and in some cases, similar — health risks.

This suggests that marijuana and tobacco should face a similar regulatory framework, but Health Minister Jane Philpott appears to be headed in the opposite direction, giving far more leniency to the marijuana industry.

For example, with tobacco the minister is proposing plain and standardized packaging, despite cigarette packages having a 75-per-cent health warning and being hidden from public view at point of sale.

However, with marijuana, the minister says all that is required is a restriction on packaging or labelling to ensure product packaging is not appealing to young persons.

There is clear policy incoherence here, which is even more apparent when you consider the minister claims her goal with both marijuana and tobacco legislation is to protect youth.

How can two legislative frameworks, for products that both carry known health risks, have the same stated goal yet vastly different approaches?

Moreover, the youth usage rate for marijuana is higher than that for tobacco, and the health minister acknowledges that Canadian youth have one of the highest rates of marijuana use in the world.

The federal government has also gone to great lengths to claim its goal is to eliminate the black market for marijuana.

The government has even suggested that taxes on marijuana will be kept low to allow competition with the illegal market.

Conversely, governments across Canada have and continue to tax cigarettes to such an extent that it contributed to the creation of an illegal market that now accounts for 20 per cent of the tobacco market in the country.

More remarkably, the health minister launched a consultation on raising the smoking age to 21 while at the same time arguing the legal age for marijuana should be 18.

If the minister truly believes her policy approach to marijuana is effective, then surely it can be applied to tobacco.

Instead, Parliament is about to have the spectacle of the minister arguing on one day that branding on tobacco packaging lures youth to smoking and should be banned, while on the next day suggesting branding should be allowed for marijuana.

And why is the tobaccocontrol community quiet in this debate? Vocal antitobacco advocates have been largely silent on the issue of marijuana legalization, despite studies that show smoking marijuana has similar health risks to smoking tobacco.

There is an opportunity for the federal health minister to demonstrate that she is serious about the health of Canadians and it isn’t by focusing on excessive and ineffective measures that will only make it easier for illegal traffickers to counterfeit legal products.

Rather, the health minister and Health Canada should acknowledge the importance of alternative products such as tobacco heated or vaping products, prioritize the introduction of clear regulations and making them known and available to adult consumers as soon as possible.

The minister must explain the policy discrepancies.