Athée Canadien
Ontario government sponsors religious tobacco
By Zak
No. There is no difference between tobacco sold by big corporations and tobacco prepared for religious ceremonies.
And yet, the Aboriginal Tobacco Program is sponsored by the Ontario government. Worse, it’s sponsored by Smoke Free Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario, both provincial government agencies working with the ministry of health to prevent cancer.
Since traditional aboriginal tobacco isn’t meant to be smoked in cigarettes I doubt the practice is wide spread enough to be considered a problem on its own. Yet by sponsoring bad science claims like ‘traditional tobacco is a healer’, the government is placing the public at risk. The government has no place protecting specific religious practices, much less dangerous ones and our health officials, if they have any integrity, need to stand up and do their job. Stop sponsoring religious practices, cancel this silly program, and declare all tobacco to be equally dangerous.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Zak on January 25, 2012 at 8:58 am, and is filed under Science, Secularism, Skepticism. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 3 months ago
Wow. This post is horribly misguided. Did you even attempt to understand what this program is about?
The entire POINT of this website is to get indigenous people to stop smoking cigarettes. The reason why there is a difference between commercial tobacco and traditional tobacco is because you inhale commercial tobacco directly into your lungs whereas traditional tobacco is used more like incense.
Traditional tobacco is not being subsidized. Tobacco ceremonies are not being subsidized. This isn’t about “protecting specific religious practices”. This is about promoting religious practice as a safe alternative to a dangerous practice. The point is to serve the public well-being which is well-within the jurisdiction of government to do.
This post reads as very ethnocentric and some people might even see it as straight up racist and white supremacist. Next time try doing some research like contacting the people who run the program. They have both an email and a phone number listed on their website. Or you could even talk to pretty much any indigenous person and they could probably explain a few things to you.
about 3 months ago
Even after giving the website more time than it probably deserved, I can’t be that charitable. At the very least, they’re putting in the information across in a potentially misleading way by contrasting “commercial tobacco” and “traditional tobacco” as opposed to “commercial smoking” and “traditional smoking”. Use of the word “tobacco” makes it seem like the traditional stuff is a fundamentally different substance from the commercial stuff, which is like saying that communion wine is fundamentally different from a nice bottle of merlot. Given that the main difference is in how the tobacco is consumed, why not put that issue front and centre?
I can see the usefulness of distinguishing between a two-pack-a-day cigarette habit and the occasional use of tobacco in culturally important ceremonies, but the website doesn’t need to imply that “traditional tobacco” is inherently harmless – it could just point out that the dosage associated with ceremonial use is likely to be much lower.
Finally, the page describing traditional tobacco comes right out and says that “Sacred Tobacco [their caps!] can be used to communicate with the Spirit World and the Creator”. This is obviously bollocks, except perhaps in some rarefied metaphorical sense. The website could easily acknowledge the cultural importance of tobacco ceremonies without promulgating such nonsense.
about 3 months ago
Look, this website and this program aren’t about you and me and our culture and how we live or how we understand the world.
Indigenous people (in general) will know what is meant by the term “traditional tobacco” and they will know that it refers to how it is used.
I’m a secularist and an atheist, so I’m all for government staying out of the religion business. However, when it comes to people and cultures that the the Canadian state committed genocide against and continues to discriminate against, I’m willing to grant a little leeway.
about 3 months ago
Indigenous people (in general) will know what is meant by the term “traditional tobacco” and they will know that it refers to how it is used.
Maybe, but that “in general” allows a lot of wiggle room. Not all people who identify themselves as indigenous are closely connected to their traditional cultures, and there must be at least a significant minority who have only a vague idea of what ceremonies involving tobacco actually entail. More importantly, perhaps, a message that manifestly doesn’t say what it means is going to appear poorly thought out and is less likely to be taken seriously, even if its intended meaning is fairly obvious.
And yes, “traditional tobacco” and “commercial tobacco” are fundamentally different substances.
We could argue all day about whether the word “fundamentally” is fair in this case, but it’s a bit of a moot point given that you were saying earlier that the main difference is usage rather than the substance itself.
However, when it comes to people and cultures that the the Canadian state committed genocide against…
The word “genocide” is hyperbole. But however you want to describe what European settlers did to indigenous peoples – and I’m certainly not arguing that it was pretty – pushing mystical misinformation on their modern descendants is hardly going to help the situation.
It’s a good idea for an anti-smoking campaign targetted at indigenous people to point out that ceremonial use of tobacco is a different kettle of fish. I’m glad someone thought of that. But this website is going about it in a muddled, over-the-top way that flirts with irrationality.
about 3 months ago
And yes, “traditional tobacco” and “commercial tobacco” are fundamentally different substances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
about 3 months ago
That’s really quite amazing, and rather dishonest. Government anti-smoking campaigns in Canada can be overbearing, alarmist and nanny-ish, but this goes to the other extreme by implying that “traditional” tobacco causes no health problems whatsoever.
However… does Ernie Benedict have a point about the lack of additives making traditional tobacco less harmful than, say, an equivalent number of cigarettes? It might something of an exaggeration to say that all tobacco is “equally dangerous”.
about 3 months ago
All the information is available right on the website if you had taken the time to look. http://www.tobaccowise.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=44644&pageId=46570
about 3 months ago
And yes, if you smoked tobacco without all the additives that cigarette companies put in it then it would NOT be “equally dangerous” as traditional tobacco without additives. The most important thing, though, is that NO ONE smokes 2 packs of traditional tobacco cigarettes per day because that’s not how traditional tobacco is used.
about 3 months ago
This post is pretty dishonest and ignorant of how tobacco is traditionally used in many Ontario First Nations. Props to Rob for taking Zak to task on this.
I don’t always like the way native spirituality is handled by government agencies, but this is a good example of reinforcing First Nations beliefs while promoting an anti-smoking campaign. It’s not a great example of the state giving a thumbs up to a particular religion.
I was taught that tobacco is to be used as a gift for elders in exchange for their help or input. They are given a small sachet of tobacco which they can then use for ceremonies, return to the earth, bury under a tree, burn in a fire or yes occasionally smoke.
That said, there is no difference between tobacco for smoking and ceremonial tobacco in makeup. The difference that they are trying to emphasize in this poster is how it is used. Burn any plant matter and you’re going to get incomplete combustion and the production of noxious chemicals. If you are then foolish enough to inhale that chemical cocktail directly, on your head be it.
about 3 months ago
For anyone who is curious, here is a list of all the additives added to cigarettes that won’t be found in traditional tobacco used for ceremonial purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
about 3 months ago
I can pretty much guarantee that this is a harm reduction strategy. We’ve learned that saying “Bad—don’t do it!” has limited effectiveness in reducing unhealthy or dangerous behaviours, whether it be among First Nations people, or any other group of Canadians. Further, given the (deserved, in my opinion) mistrust of government among First Nations people (it’s certainly that way here in Alberta, at least), public health agencies do need to pay special credence to First Nations beliefs if they want to change behaviours.
about 3 months ago
Rob says, “All the information is available right on the website if you had taken the time to look. ”
However, since the poster is available as a pdf file, lets assume that it is designed to be posted in elevators or on the inside of doors in washroom stalls in schools and colleges. and lets examine the way commercial tobacco and traditional tobacco are contrasted:
Although the poster says “Commercial Tobacco Is A Killer” and “Traditional Tobacco Is A Healer,” the terms below each heading can not be contrasted. While commercial tobacco can cause cancer, strokes, heart disease etc., the poster does not go on to say that traditional tobacco prevents or heals any of these illnesses. The claim that traditional tobacco heals wisdom, love, respect etc. doesn’t support the attempt to contrast traditional tobacco with commercial tobacco. Cancer, strokes, heart disease etc. are concrete nouns and illnesses; wisdom, love, respect etc. are abstract nouns. The attempt to use the poster shown above to contrast contrast traditional tobacco with commercial tobacco is a failure, especially if the poster’s target audience gets a limited amount of time to read and absorb the message.
about 3 months ago
Rob, while some of your criticism is merited I’d have to say that the poster, at least, is very troubling.
Look at what is says – “Commercial tobacco is a killer…Traditional Tobacco is a Healer”
That is simply untrue, medically speaking. Even unadultered, tobacco contains nicotine (which is highly addictive) and when burnt will produce large quantities of carcinogens such as PAH’s (as will any other plant). Even in the small quantities used for ceremonial purposes the exposure levels are likely sufficient to cause harm.
Even from a historical/cultural standpoint, its an iffy statement. The traditional ceremonies in which tobacco was used are hardly magical – the tobacco could be replaced without any impact on the sociological effects of the ceremonies themselves. Moreover, there isn’t one native culture, but rather many. And some did not limit tobacco use to ceremonies. Iroquois men, for example, carried pipes with them wherever they went, and smoked them (at a minimum) during evening meetings.
I hope that their program reaches its end-goal, but basing it on falsehoods is hardly a good start.
about 3 months ago
This campaign started in 2006:
“In 2006–2007 a public education campaign
was developed and designed to provide culturally
specific messages to reach the urban
Aboriginal populations.”
See page 25 of this document https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=72830
I agree with Bryan (above), who says, “I hope that [the] program reaches its end-goal, but basing it on falsehoods is hardly a good start.”
about 3 months ago
The poster is a lie. All tobacco stinks!
about 3 months ago
I thought this was a joke. I’m dismayed to find it’s real.
The government of Ontario surely has no evidence that tobacco heals, and then that such healing leads to wisdom and bravery and “truth”, whatever that means. You can bet if there was any merit to these claims, commercial cigarettes would be reformulated to take advantage. I imagine there would be a market for “brain cigarettes” or “courage cigarettes”. If these are religious claims, the government of Ontario has no business stating them.
I believe this is what they call the soft bigotry of low expectations. Aboriginal people, like everyone else, deserve the truth, backed up by scientific evidence. Why don’t we trust them with the truth?
about 3 months ago
I’m from NC USA, used to be one of the high-producing tobacco states, and really, there’s a huge difference between corporate tobacco laced with macaroni-knows-what and tobacco used in native ceremonies. I have no idea if the native tobacco is laced with anything but I seriously doubt it’s laced with the garbage the tobacco industry is selling.
Having said that, I completely agree that they should not be using a religious message here. Of course, whatever works to get people to stop smoking is good…but lies? not sure that’s appropriate.
about 3 months ago
The smoke-free places act of Ontario has an exception allowing the smoking of tobacco for spiritual use indoors in certain facilities.
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-free/factsheets/aboriginal.asp
So if I was a smoker, I should be able to claim an exception on religions grounds for smoking Shisha, or perhaps opium, eating peyote, or just about anything else.
about 3 months ago
So … will the Ontario government next sponsor a program touting the benefits of organic arsenic?