Cigarette Deposit Return
Updated: Apr 15
The attached PDF is to a Cigarette Deposit Return proposal I first developed with Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada in 2014. It has since been advocated for by (now former) North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto.
I post it here in order to ensure it is publicly available, in the hope that someone will take up the mantle with this.
It is again of interest because of a Apr 2026 editorial in The Globe and Mail titled "How to stamp out the scourge of cigarette butts" that unfortunately advocates "work on smokers’ attitudes, then provide enough cigarette-specific disposal spots that doing the right thing is easy and convenient. A receptacle should always be nearby in well-used public spaces. The more the better."
I reponded with the following letter, which has not been published:
Dear Editor,
As a director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (PSC) and long-time advocate for the elimination of cigarette butt litter, I read the recent editorial in the Globe and Mail with mixed emotions. While I generally applaud all clean-up efforts, there are major theoretical and practical problems with the solution of "plenty of smoking-specific garbage cans" proposed.
At PSC, we support methods that reduce litter without increasing tobacco's visibility. Public ashtrays are ineffective and send the wrong public health message; towards re-normalizing smoking. They serve as free advertising, a reminder to smoke on every street corner. For this reason dedicated butt bins are the tobacco industry's preferred method, and they are often behind funding such projects, allowing them to appear as if they are being good corporate citizens.
Practically, while these may collect some unsightly butts in densely developed urban areas, the more environmentally damaging butts littered in rural or undeveloped areas won't be collected.
Much better options include a cigarette-deposit return project, which we proved effective in a pilot, or the mandatory requirement of carrying a portable personal ashtray for purchase of a pack of cigarettes.
Sincerely,
Dr Stuart Kreisman
Director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
the below is the same as the PDF, other than my poor editing:
A Provincial Deposit – Return Program for Cigarettes
A well structured program can protect the environment and overcome the deficiencies of public ashtray programs.
Cigarette butts are the leading source of litter, both by number and weight, both in Canada and worldwide, where billions are littered daily. They are unsightly, non-biodegradable and toxic to the environment. They are increasing getting the attention that they deserve as an environmental concern.
Awareness and enforcement campaigns are ineffective and/or impractical, therefore recently public ashtray-equivalent-based programs have been proposed. This tactic is supported by the tobacco industry and clean-up groups, who often do not see any problem in partnering with them.
A pilot program of such is currently underway in Vancouver, yet is not succeeding (estimated 3% to 6% efficacy) with multiple butts seen not only meters away from the “receptacles”, but even directly below them. \
A properly designed deposit-return program will likely be much more effective as it relies only on personal financial self-interest, and not any plea to “do the right thing”.
Ashtray programs are bad for public health.
By nature, these programs counter a principal public health tenet - the denormalization of tobacco use.
Government programs should aim to lessen the visibility
and acceptability of the tobacco industry and smoking.
The widespread presence of ashtrays (Vancouver’s
ultimate plan was for 2000 of them) imply tacit
government consent, acceptance and even approval of
widespread smoking in public. They strengthen the
impression that smoking is common, and create smoking
zones in public places. Such re-normalization of smoking is
directly aligned with the strongest interests of the tobacco
industry.
Many of these ashtrays are placed within no-smoking buffer zones around doorways etc. This ridicules and encourages violations of, hard-fought for, City Health Bylaws.
These programs often involve partnering with the tobacco industry (as initially was the case in Vancouver, albeit indirectly).
This is inappropriate and runs counter to government obligations under Canada’s participation in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control .
Deposit-Return Programs can support public health objectives.
Tobacco litter serves as free, albeit perverse, advertising for the tobacco industry, possibly just the sort that appeals to rebellious teenagers, the highest risk
group for starting.
2 . Tobacco litter serves as withdrawal triggers/reminders to all smokers, and especially those trying to quit.
3. Tobacco litter in places where smoking is prohibited (eg: building entrances, park benches) is used as an excuse by the next potential smoker to break the bylaw as
well, knowing that so many others have previously ignored it.
Although (in this proposal) fully refundable, the increased up-front cost of purchasing a pack, as well of the inconvenience of needing to return it to a depot, will likely dissuade some smokers/potential smokers from the purchase.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES:
Deposit: this must be large enough to dissuade most
smokers from actually littering. I’d suggest $1 per package
or $0.05 per cigarette butt.
Fully Refundable: on return of the pack with all 20
used (or preferably unused!) filters. It is important to be
able to state that this is not an additional tobacco tax in
order to help foster public consent for the program.
Return: this should be done at central depots. This will
decrease the visibility of smoking and of tobacco litter,
thereby furthering the public health mandate of
denormalizing the tobacco industry.
(In British Columbia, Encorp Pacific, http://www.return-
it.ca is a federally incorporated, not-for-profit, product
stewardship corporation with beverage container
management as their core business, who are also charged
with collecting multiple other products. They have 172
locations across the province and would seem an obvious
fit. It is likely that individuals will spontaneously design
business arrangements whereby they collect and return
multiple packs from other smokers for a small percentage
of the return; we see no reason to discourage such.)
Recycleability: it should be recognized that being able
to recycle the butts is an added bonus, and not necessary
to the usefulness of the program. Even if all the butts
were to end up being placed en-masse in a landfill, this
would be infinitely better than billions entering sensitive
areas of the environment individually.
(Currently, to our knowledge, TerraCycle is the only
company recycling cigarette butts, and they do so in open
partnership with the tobacco industry. I’d recommend
that the government either develop their own recycling
facility, or consider partnering only with private
companies willing to forgo all ties with the tobacco
industry. Whether TerraCycle would have the capacity to
handle the considerably increased volumes that would be
generated via a deposit-return program is unknown. )
Portable ashtrays: these cost very little, and their use
can be encouraged as a means to extinguish and transport
the butts before placing them in the packs. In reality a few
seconds care in extinguishing the butt and a plastic baggie
is all that is required. Alternately the packs could easily be
redesigned with a foil pocket in order to serve as their
own portable ashtrays from the beginning.
Marking of packs eligible for return: cigarette
packs are already marked by provincial origin and multiple
options are available to enhance such including stamps,
bar codes, and other electronic means. This will lead to
the packs themselves as the functional holders of most of
the deposit value, and therefore any littered packs will
become quite valuable, as they could be filled up with any
20 littered butts for a full refund (such is not a problem as
ultimately the same end will result).
Return of “orphaned” littered butts: these should
also be considered for refund, however at a much lower
rate, I’d suggest 1¢/butt. This should be done in bulk by
dry weight.
A pilot project run by WestEnd Cleanup June 18, 2013
proved that this will work, and gathered widespread
media attention and approval (as proof of principle for a
deposit-return program and a call for such), collecting 60
000 butts in several hours by paying $20/ pound of butts,
calculated to be 1¢ each.
Including this component will virtually guarantee that
almost all cigarette litter will rapidly disappear one way
or the other. This also provides a small source of income
for many disadvantaged individuals, although such should
not be viewed as the principal goal of the program (having
the butts not be littered in the first place is). The lower
rate of return is necessary in order to prevent a degree of
inevitable cheating from bankrupting the system, as we
see no way to prevent such cheating (both attempts to
mix in non-cigarette litter, and the return of non-eligible
butts from other sources).
There should also be a maximum weekly return of these,
such as 7lbs/wk/individual, and names/addresses should
be recorded in order to discourage organized cheating.
We would also suggest that the roll-out of this aspect of
the program occur only following a 3-6 month delay for
two reasons: Firstly, so that the percentage of marked
packs being returned can be assessed; if it is very high
(~95%?) then there would be less need for this
component, and also both a tendency for a greater
percentage of cheating, and less available funds to cover
such. Secondly there should be time for an attempt to
clean up butts pre-existing from before the deposit
program was initiated as, of course, all such butts will not
have been covered by any deposit.
Funding: with the above details the program would be
ahead 4¢/ littered butt, this should be enough to both
cover cheating (even if an unimaginable 50% by weight,
the program would still be ahead 3¢/ littered butt), and
administration costs. Therefore, after start-up, the
program should be self-funding. There also will be some
income from the temporary holding of funds. Should the
above calculations fail, the program could be modified to
claw back a small percentage of the deposit. Current
efforts to clean up tobacco litter are quite expensive-
estimated at over $7 million/yr by the City of San
Francisco.
Anticipated Volumes: according to Propel’s
Tobacco Use in Canada 1 British Columbia has 515,000
smokers, who smoke an average of 12.9 cigarettes per
day, suggesting a daily consumption in this province of 6.6
million cigarettes or 330,000 packages.
The following calculations obviously make multiple
assumptions, but should serve as a useful guide:
If all eligible and returned in full packs, the above
would translate to $330,000 in deposit funds
collected daily, or $120 million in a year.
If there were 172 depots, each would be expected to
handle on average 1,900 packages per day, providing
$1,900 in refunds.
Most customers could be assumed to batch packs and
return them on an infrequent (say monthly) basis,
resulting in about 65 transactions per depot per day.
The tobacco industry should not be involved:
other recycling programs do involve the source industry,
via the notion of Extended Producer Responsibility.
However as a pariah industry which has repeatedly shown
that its intentions are not in-line with the good of society,
and the sole to be affixed the relationship status of
“denormalization” by the government, the tobacco
industry should be allowed no role in this program.
Deposit funds awaiting return should be held either by the
government, the collecting corporation, or one of their
proxies.
The industry’s views on this program are not known at
this time. Given that it would lessen the visibility of their
product, their opposition could be anticipated.
Pilot projects are not advisable: The feasibility of a
deposit-return model has already been demonstrated by
the success of B.C.’s beverage container recovery system.
Additionally any smaller pilot jurisdiction would face
challenges that would be less daunting province-wide,
including the incentive for smokers to just buy their packs
outside the region and the marking of packs eligible for
deposit-return.
However if a pilot project is viewed as politically
expedient, we believe that if designed properly such could
be successful. It would be most feasible in isolated
communities such as islands (Haida Gwaii?) or up north
(or if larger is desired an entire health region could be
considered, such as Island Health or Northern Health)
where the closest tobacco vendor outside the region
would be quite far, and hopefully local leaders would sign
on and help instil a sense of pride in the community at
being pioneers in this fully refundable environmental/
health initiative. We advise against including any return for
"orphaned" littered butts in such a pilot as there would be
too great a potential for butts being brought in from
elsewhere.
British Columbia's beverage container
recovery system, enacted in 1970, is the
oldest legislated deposit-return system
in North America, and has been highly
successful, and widely copied.
British Columbia can again take the
environmental lead with a bold and
innovative approach to fighting
cigarette litter.
It must do so in a manner that is
consistent with public health objectives.
Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman
Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada
British Columbia
June, 2014
1 Propel Centre for Population Health Impact. Tobacco
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
134 Caroline Avenue Ottawa Ontario K1Y 0S9
Tel: 613 600 5794 www.smoke-free.ca psc @ smoke-free.ca
Comments