How would you spend $100 million If you're federal Health Minister Allan Rock, Canada's number one nanny, you badger your Liberal colleagues to throw $100 million at arts and sports groups and hope that that buy-off means they won't sue you for interfering in free speech.

As of October 1, tobacco companies are barred from using their logos or brand names in promotional advertising at sporting or cultural events such as the Montreal Grand Prix or Du Maurier Open tennis tournaments. This is the Liberal government's latest attempt to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling that said tobacco companies have the right to advertise.

While tobacco companies will be barred from sponsoring the events, they will still be allowed to advertise at the events - sort of. Thanks to a bureaucrats' attempt at Solomon-like wisdom, tobacco brand names will be limited to the bottom 10 per cent strip of promotional signs at such events.

Naturally, arts and sporting organizations are worried about the loss of tobacco money. In total, 250 arts and sporting groups across the country could be affected. So Mr. Rock wants his colleagues to send another $100 million of your money down another drain - rather than reduce the debt or reduce taxes - because Ottawa's confiscate-and-spend-crowd has a never-ending urge to nanny us all to death.

Arguing that Ottawa should take it easy on tobacco interests is a bit like defending the devil in some people's view, but let's keep this in perspective. Ottawa wants to protect you from, hold your breath - advertising. In Ottawa's view, it is not acceptable if you as a consenting adult buy a package of cigarettes after you see a billboard or a logo advertising cancer sticks. It is not acceptable for mutually consenting non-profit groups - arts groups - to cut a deal with mutually consenting private companies - a tobacco company - to engage in exchanges of dollars for decals, billboards or a logo here or there.

Of course, it's still perfectly OK for Ottawa to overtax you all of your working life.

Ottawa being Ottawa much prefers to screw up a perfectly amicable arrangement where private companies sponsored sporting and cultural events and no taxpayer got hurt, or stiffed.

Oh - Ottawa claims their trespass over free speech is justified, citing health concerns and the protection of children. Right. And if that's their concern, then they should have the guts to make tobacco illegal and stop wasting our collective time with half measures.

Of course, they won't do that because they would then have to amend the criminal code to protect us from other unhealthy, fatty, and cancerous products such as fast food and alcohol. Not that Ottawa isn't aware of the potential political flack resulting from censoring advertising of a legal product and interfering in commerce. Nick Discepola, a Montreal-area MP, was quoted last week as saying "We will face real repercussions unless we see some flexibility on the financing issues."

Of course, these "financing issues" would not have arisen had not Ottawa chosen to sneak around the Supreme Court ruling. One can dislike smoking, agree that is harmful in the extreme, and hope that it disappears one day without also agreeing that the nanny state should fund anti-smoking activists, interfere in commerce, and restrict free speech.

If Mr. Rock and his Liberal colleagues want to give $100 million to arts and sports groups, they can ask the Liberal Party of Canada to cut the cheque, not taxpayers. Better yet, they just should get the nanny state off the raceway before a Formula One car careens around the bend.