The health department’s tobacco control bill, introduced Dec. 2, would curtail the sponsorship of sporting and cultural events by tobacco marketers – but stops short of calling for an outright ban on such activity.

That it stops short is unfortunate.

Tobacco manufacturers will still be permitted to display product brand names at events, albeit only on the bottom 10% of their ads.

One would have thought, considering the overwhelming medical evidence that tobacco products can debilitate and kill when used as directed, that the health department would have taken this opportunity to put an end to sponsorship.

The government’s argument in banning tobacco advertising on tv, radio, billboards, bus panels and countertop displays is that these measures are necessary to protect minors from the influence of tobacco marketing.

Perhaps the government is unaware that minors also attend, and watch on tv, cultural and sporting events. Indeed, in a bid to boost attendance, many event organizers have begun repositioning their events and adding programming to attract non-traditional patrons, including families with children.

Would a complete ban on sponsorship serve as a death notice to cultural and sporting events? Hardly.

Organizers have been doing their level best to convince government officials and the public at large that the survival of events depends on cigarette sponsorship money. But organizers made the identical argument about public funding several years ago when recession-ravaged governments began scaling back or eliminating operating grants.

By cutting back and tightening programs where necessary, and by applying the same energy and marketing ingenuity they used to succeed despite government cut-backs, most organizers will be able to find the new sponsorship dollars required to enable their events to thrive.

The outdoor media industry went through a similar experience after the ban on cigarette ads on billboards took effect in 1990. As a result of the ban, outdoor companies were forced to become more aggressive about promoting their medium to non-traditional advertising sectors, such as packaged goods. The efforts paid off handsomely – so handsomely, in fact, that by the time tobacco companies won back the right to advertise in 1995, the outdoor industry had regained all the lost revenue and then some.

Admittedly, some cultural and sporting events will probably be unable to adapt. In particular, those cultural events created by the tobacco firms through their arm’s length marketing organizations – organizations with names like the Matinee Ltd. Fashion Foundation and the du Maurier Arts Foundation – might have a difficult time surviving a ban.

As well, some sporting events, particularly in the auto racing field, are at risk because of heavy reliance on tobacco dollars.

But surely the government’s responsibility to shield children from cigarette advertising is the paramount issue at stake.

A full ban on sponsorship would have been preferable. Nonetheless, the current bill is a worthy effort and deserving of support.