The DraftKings logo is displayed at the sports betting company headquarters in Boston.Charles Krupa/The Associated Press
Re “Athletes, celebrities still likely to feature in sports-betting ads” (Feb. 28): As Simon Houpt writes, the new regulations of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario do little to change the gambling ad landscape. Wayne Gretzky and Auston Matthews can still appear in ads if they are “advocating for responsible gambling practices.”
Elite athletes can still be paid to say something like, “Of course I gamble and gamble often, but I do it responsibly.” Just the message the Ontario government wants youth to hear.
The Alcohol and Gaming Commission’s initial announcement last August acknowledged the harm to youth from ads for gambling. It would have been much more effective if the agency had stipulated that elite athletes and sports broadcasters, both influencers, should not be permitted to promote sports betting in any way. Or, as our organization advocates, gambling ads should be prohibited altogether just as tobacco and cannabis ads are.
Bruce Kidd BanAdsforGambling.ca Toronto
Re “Censored documents reveal threat to Canada’s security” (Feb. 29): I once watched from a front-row seat at a major Canadian bank as a team of bank inspectors did their job.
Without warning, they came to the door of the branch on a Monday morning. Upon entry, they issued a “nobody move” directive and team members descended on the various elements of the operation – lending, bank accounts, vault procedures, cash management, employee dealings and more.
Their attention to detail was impressive, even down to the ink colour in the pens being used. After a two-week review, all was graded and revealed, and targeted remediation plans were put into effect. The events at ArriveCan and the Winnipeg lab tell us that Canada should have a similar inspection corps. Because having the Auditor-General check the barn after the horse has been stolen isn’t working.
John P.A. Budreski Whistler, B.C.
Re “Canadian Cancer Society urges Ontario to cover cost of take-home medication” (Feb. 28): A promise is only worth anything if it’s kept. For nearly two years, cancer patients in Ontario have been waiting for the government to fulfill its 2022 budget commitment to improve access to take-home cancer treatments. As a result, patients younger than 65 still face a maze of administrative challenges, stressful delays and expensive out-of-pocket costs.
When asked about this promise to improve the outdated cancer system in Ontario, the Ministry of Health offered patients vague platitudes of working with experts and identifying initiatives. Yet, we already know what needs to be done. There have been numerous reports, roundtables and meetings calling for this improvement in Ontario’s cancer system for nearly a decade.
Just like in the majority of other provinces, all cancer patients should receive their prescriptions for cancer medications taken at home without delay and at no cost, the same way that it’s done for patients prescribed intravenous therapies.
Robert Bick Co-chair, CanCertainty Coalition
MJ DeCoteau Executive director and founder, Rethink Breast Cancer Toronto
Re “If the U.S. ever erupted in civil war again, gun rights would likely be the cause” (Opinion, Feb. 28): Gun violence in the United States differs from that in Canada in four significant ways. There, the vicious wars against Indigenous peoples continued past 1900. They won the War of Independence partly because Americans carried muskets. An economy based considerably on slavery required white people to carry arms to enforce it, and then to enforce racism after its abolition. And a culture of individualism and personal freedom bred rights such as owning guns.
But two things cause much of the gun violence in both countries. Treating drug use as a crime leads to gangs who supply the addicts, and the gangs engage in gun violence to protect and enlarge their markets. Treating drugs properly as a health issue would destroy the raison d’être of the gangs. And the significant amount of violence among Indigenous peoples results from policies followed by the federal government.
Drug busts, gun control and comparisons with the United States divert attention from policies Canadian governments can and should take to significantly reduce gun violence in this country.
Ed Whitcomb Ottawa
Re “Rural Nevada bets big on cloud seeding, pitting fears of drought against doubts in the science” (Feb. 26): I would be interested to know if cloud seeding in one area would reduce precipitation in areas downwind from where it took place.
It would seem common sense that wringing moisture out of clouds in one area would mean having less to drop on adjacent ones. If so, then we may see the emergence of competitive geoengineering projects and a beggar-my-neighbour race to the bottom.
If the world is still capable of collective action, it would be a good idea to develop global protocols to prevent this from happening.
James Duthie Nanaimo, B.C.
Re “The better summer escape” (Pursuits, Feb. 24): In this story about renting cabins for a summer holiday, several attractive places were featured, and most if not all included a fire pit. What is this mania about burning wood and watching a fire whenever you’re on holiday?
While camping at Ontario’s beautiful Pancake Bay Provincial Park, one evening we found ourselves in a cleared area and could observe the many tall trees throughout the park in the distance. There was a whiteish haze over the trees: all campfire smoke. These are fossil fuels being burned for amusement, every evening, and often even during the day. Same thing where we have our summer cottage.
A fire pit seems to be an essential part of any summer vacation in a rural setting. Collectively, these fires produce a lot of CO2 emissions. Are so few people aware of what they’re doing? Do they care?
Susan Halliday Sarnia, Ont.
Re “Alberta to ban renewable projects on prime land” (Feb. 29): All responsible Albertans must be breathing a sigh of relief now that Premier Danielle Smith is protecting us from having to look at unsightly wind turbines or whatever other green-energy monstrosities those eco-terrorists are planning to inflict upon us.
We will now be able to continue enjoying our magnificent viewscapes safe from the intrusion of those hideous structures. Even if we must endure the presence of such eyesores in non-viewscape areas, we could perhaps lessen their noxious impact by disguising them as oil rigs. I would bet one could then be placed on the legislature grounds without arousing controversy.
J.L. Elliott Calgary
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
