Skip to content

Help to kick the habit

Most Canadian governments are in a fog when it comes to addressing nicotine addiction.
Our_View_March_2009
Array

Most Canadian governments are in a fog when it comes to addressing nicotine addiction.

That’s the assertion made by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which said in a recent editorial that provinces and territories should cover the costs of smoking-cessation programs and products that help tobacco users butt out.

And why not?

Opponents maintain that smokers have made a poor judgement call in their lifestyles, and ask why should that burden fall upon the health care system.

Does that also mean we should quit funding the treatment of others who have made poor lifestyle choices — poor diet, obesity and physical inactivity?

It’s time the governments recognize that all Canadians do not follow perfect lifestyles, and smokers should not be placed in a separate “suffer the consequences” category.

It’s been repeated umpteen times that tobacco addiction is worse than heroin and alcohol addiction. Then why is nicotine addiction not afforded the same government-funded programs addressing heroin and alcohol addiction?

Provincial health ministries already reimburse the cost of pharmacotherapy for other drug addictions, such as methadone for heroin addiction, or the drug naltrexone for alcohol dependence.

“Perhaps funding for smoke cessation lacks political and public support because of the social stigma associated with smoking, ironically a deliberate achievement of tobacco prevention campaigns,” said the medical journal’s editorial.

Drug addicts and alcoholics have gained public sympathy. They are victims of a horrible disease, and government-funded programs are rolled out at their feet.

Yet, when it comes to smokers, they are punished for their addiction through laws that paint them to be the bad kids on the block by prohibiting them from lighting up in or near workplaces and public areas.

The enforcement of such laws must be pretty expensive, and they do nothing to help the nicotine addict. The laws subject smokers to finger-pointing and demeaning posturing, missing the whole point in resolving nicotine addiction.

The medical journal rightfully asks that if the governments are so willing to invest huge amounts of dollars in anti-smoking laws, “Why then, do most provincial governments provide little or no direct funding for smoking cessation?”

Should the provinces be sinking money into keeping smokers five, 10 or 15 metres away from entrances to public buildings, or would that money be better spent in educational programs and treatment?

The anti-smoking movement sounds like a broken record, whining about how the high costs of treating smoking-related illnesses are placing a burden on the health care system.

The medical journal points out that a decrease in smoking rates would “undoubtedly save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives and reduce associated health care costs.” It continues: “Effective public health strategies for tobacco control must incorporate both population — and individual-level interventions.”

Most Canadian provinces are blinded by an antiquated mentality of intolerance that sets them apart from other areas of the world that have taken affirmative action in addressing the addiction.

There are exceptions in Canada: Quebec provides funding for drugs to treat the addiction; the Yukon and Prince Edward Island reimburses for at least one medication.

Elsewhere in the world, in Australia and the United Kingdom, where drug insurance is provided to all citizens, smokers trying to kick the habit are reimbursed for all cessation products, including prescriptions and over-the-counter nicotine replacements. In the U.S., assistance is also available.

Given the personal and public health consequences of tobacco use, “why are most Canadian governments lagging behind?” the medical journal rightfully asks.

Rick Zemanek is an Advocate editor.