Tuesday, April 27, 2004
April 26/04
To: news@dougallmedia.com
Dear Editor,
Compassion brings happiness says the Dalai Lama.
Where is your compassion, nurse Tracy Buckler?
Concerning Mr. Peter Eustance the quadriplegic, who wants a smoking room inside the St. Joseph's Hospital.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
April 26/04
To: news@dougallmedia.com
Dear Editor,
A quadriplegic in Thunder Bay will have to go outside the hospital to have
someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1/04
Smoke Free Thunder Bay must be chuckling when they heard that news!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
To: news@dougallmedia.com
Dear Editor,
Compassion brings happiness says the Dalai Lama.
Where is your compassion, nurse Tracy Buckler?
Concerning Mr. Peter Eustance the quadriplegic, who wants a smoking room inside the St. Joseph's Hospital.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
April 26/04
To: news@dougallmedia.com
Dear Editor,
A quadriplegic in Thunder Bay will have to go outside the hospital to have
someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1/04
Smoke Free Thunder Bay must be chuckling when they heard that news!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
20 Apr 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Smoking issue and 'bingos"
Mayor and Council.
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was 'perceived' that active smokers would injure those around them"
You have been deceived and lied to.
You have been blindsided by the self-righteous people who want to push their morals on everybody.
You were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
You are not in the 'health business', and you shouldn't be.
After the bingo's close, where do you think these organizations will get their funding in order to stay adrift?
From council,of course!
And where does council going to get these funds?
From the taxpayers of course!
Meaning the smokers, the non-smokers and the antismokers will 'pay'.
How many bingo players and workers from the bingos have been pounding on you door, "Please pass a smoking by-law to protect us from 'second-hand smoke'?
Protect the workers you say?
There won't be any workers to 'protect' Doesn't that make sense, or is that 'too' deep for you to understand?
Don't you you think the 'cure' is worse than the disease?
Don't you think the adults can make those 'big' decisions whether to enter or not enter a bingo hall.
Or as some people might call this council a "Nanny" council.
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do but that they try to make us do as they think!!
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
http://www.forces.org
19 Apr 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Tobacco Act does allow smoking areas in Hospitals
Dear Mr. Gravelle MPP,
Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Two recent news stories in the Thunderbay Chronicle Journal report 1)Thunderbay’s St Joseph’s Hospital is implementing a ban on smoking insidethe hospital that will force quadriplegic Peter Eustace outside the hospitalto have someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1 and 2) LakeheadUniversity is implementing a ban on smoking in outdoor and residential areasof its campus.
As Premier and MPP representing my riding I am asking you to urgently raisethis matter with the appropriate Liberal Minister(s) (Justice and Health?)with a view to having both smoking bans withdrawn for the following reasons:
Rather than the cruel new ban proposed by St Joseph’s Hospital the TobaccoControl Act does allow the hospital to designate smoking areas inside thehospital. In my view it should do so.
Thomas Laprade
19 Apr 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Quote of the week!!
From Ron Bourret, the head of the licensing dept. of Thunder Bay, Ontario,
Our by-law officers work days only.
If there is a complaint concerning the smoking by-law in the evening, we will deal with it the next day.
Thomas Laprade
April 17/04
Dear Editor,
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for everybody concerned, if the smoking by-law was 'complaint' driven?
If nobody complains--no problem!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Smoking issue and 'bingos"
Mayor and Council.
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was 'perceived' that active smokers would injure those around them"
You have been deceived and lied to.
You have been blindsided by the self-righteous people who want to push their morals on everybody.
You were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
You are not in the 'health business', and you shouldn't be.
After the bingo's close, where do you think these organizations will get their funding in order to stay adrift?
From council,of course!
And where does council going to get these funds?
From the taxpayers of course!
Meaning the smokers, the non-smokers and the antismokers will 'pay'.
How many bingo players and workers from the bingos have been pounding on you door, "Please pass a smoking by-law to protect us from 'second-hand smoke'?
Protect the workers you say?
There won't be any workers to 'protect' Doesn't that make sense, or is that 'too' deep for you to understand?
Don't you you think the 'cure' is worse than the disease?
Don't you think the adults can make those 'big' decisions whether to enter or not enter a bingo hall.
Or as some people might call this council a "Nanny" council.
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do but that they try to make us do as they think!!
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
http://www.forces.org
19 Apr 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Tobacco Act does allow smoking areas in Hospitals
Dear Mr. Gravelle MPP,
Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Two recent news stories in the Thunderbay Chronicle Journal report 1)Thunderbay’s St Joseph’s Hospital is implementing a ban on smoking insidethe hospital that will force quadriplegic Peter Eustace outside the hospitalto have someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1 and 2) LakeheadUniversity is implementing a ban on smoking in outdoor and residential areasof its campus.
As Premier and MPP representing my riding I am asking you to urgently raisethis matter with the appropriate Liberal Minister(s) (Justice and Health?)with a view to having both smoking bans withdrawn for the following reasons:
Rather than the cruel new ban proposed by St Joseph’s Hospital the TobaccoControl Act does allow the hospital to designate smoking areas inside thehospital. In my view it should do so.
Thomas Laprade
19 Apr 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Quote of the week!!
From Ron Bourret, the head of the licensing dept. of Thunder Bay, Ontario,
Our by-law officers work days only.
If there is a complaint concerning the smoking by-law in the evening, we will deal with it the next day.
Thomas Laprade
April 17/04
Dear Editor,
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for everybody concerned, if the smoking by-law was 'complaint' driven?
If nobody complains--no problem!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Saturday, April 17, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The smoking bylaw??
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:05:30 -0400
Dear Mayor and Council
Shall we think about this issue.
How about some logic and common sense??
There are quite a few people who want a smoking bylaw who, on any given day, do not or very seldom, patronize the hospitality sector.
Just because a number of people want a smoking bylaw, does not mean you have to have one.
What about the people who own businesses and the people who work in these businesses, don't they have a say in the matter.It is their business and their jobs are at stake!
How many workers from the hospitality sector has been pounding on your door and saying," please pass a smoking bylaw and protect us??"
I have talked to many hospitality sector people, and they all said the same thing to me, "Please don' do us any favors or I will be out of a job. I know the 'risk' I am taking but that is my choice not councils choice.
"Live and let live"
"If it's not broken, then don't fix it"
These 'Crusaders" are hell bent on a 'smoke free Canada"
They do not care who they 'hurt'
It is not a 'health' issue and never was a health issue.
If people thinks it is a health issue, then nobody is forcing anybody to enter the premises, they just don't enter the premises. Does that makes sense??
Prohibition didn't work, and booze was illegal!!
Loss of business, people getting laid off. Don't they count in your final analysis??
You were elected to run the business of the town not the town's businesses.
You are not in the health business, and you shouldn't be.
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time they must protect 'minority 'rights'.
Minority rights are as follows..
It is the right of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on 'private 'property.
It is the 'right' of the smokers to use a legal product on 'private'
property(with the owner's permission.)
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Subject: The smoking bylaw??
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:05:30 -0400
Dear Mayor and Council
Shall we think about this issue.
How about some logic and common sense??
There are quite a few people who want a smoking bylaw who, on any given day, do not or very seldom, patronize the hospitality sector.
Just because a number of people want a smoking bylaw, does not mean you have to have one.
What about the people who own businesses and the people who work in these businesses, don't they have a say in the matter.It is their business and their jobs are at stake!
How many workers from the hospitality sector has been pounding on your door and saying," please pass a smoking bylaw and protect us??"
I have talked to many hospitality sector people, and they all said the same thing to me, "Please don' do us any favors or I will be out of a job. I know the 'risk' I am taking but that is my choice not councils choice.
"Live and let live"
"If it's not broken, then don't fix it"
These 'Crusaders" are hell bent on a 'smoke free Canada"
They do not care who they 'hurt'
It is not a 'health' issue and never was a health issue.
If people thinks it is a health issue, then nobody is forcing anybody to enter the premises, they just don't enter the premises. Does that makes sense??
Prohibition didn't work, and booze was illegal!!
Loss of business, people getting laid off. Don't they count in your final analysis??
You were elected to run the business of the town not the town's businesses.
You are not in the health business, and you shouldn't be.
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time they must protect 'minority 'rights'.
Minority rights are as follows..
It is the right of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on 'private 'property.
It is the 'right' of the smokers to use a legal product on 'private'
property(with the owner's permission.)
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:29:07 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: No need of a smoking bylaw
Dear Mayor and Council,
We are well on the way to reaching a smoke-free environment. We just don't
need more government regulations to impose it on everyone.
In my view all smoking policies, should be set at the discretion of the private property owners.
This is where the radical ant-smoking faction misses the point. Smoking bans are an unreasonable intrusion into private enterprise.
Restaurants, bars and the like are not truly public spaces. They are private
property where the owner invites the public.
They think private restaurants and bars are no different than true public places such as civic pools, arenas, etc… But restaurants and bars that are on private property have a lot more in common with your own private residence.
Would many people support a law banning smoking in private residence? I think not!!
Tobacco is still a legal product in Canada and the U.S.A. from which the federal government earns billions of dollars in taxation.
How hypocritical is it when one level of government sells a product to the public and another level of government bans it's use?
A city council should not undermine such a basic, sacred right as a person's freedom to choose.
It could be very simple. If you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, stay away.
If you enjoy smoking before and after a meal, find a place that allows
it.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Dear Editor,
April 16/04
A quadriplegic in Thunder Bay will have to go outside the hospital to have someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1/04
Smoke Free Thunder Bay must be chuckling when they heard that news!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:22:38 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Lose money they never had??
Dear Editor,
The Provincial Government loses 200 million dollars because there is no tax on prepared meals under 4.00 dollars.
My question is--How can the government lose money they never had in the first place?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:28:24 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Desires versus Rights
Mayor and council April 14/04
When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it makes sense to protect and defend private individuals' rights to their property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then we should make a clear distinction between private property and public property.
Omitting legal jargon and using common sense, private property belongs to a private owner, and public property belongs to the public or to some government entity that represents the interests of the general public.
Those who favor smoking bans prefer to consider bars and restaurants to be public property simply because the public is invited to visit those establishments. However, opponents of smoking bans recognize that the invitations to the public are by the graces of the private owners, and theproperty remains private property.
Let's consider for a moment that you own a home and that you consider your home to be your private property. Do you give up your private property rights when you tell someone to, "Drop by any time?" What if you also tell that person to, "Bring some other folks along?"
Have you just issued a standing invitation to the public? Is your home no longer private and now considered to be public property? Where do we draw the line?
There is confusion between public property and private property primarily because some people, such as anti-smoking proponents, want to elevate their desires to the level of being legal rights. They choose to ignore what should be a clear distinction between private and public property so they can pretend that private businesses are actually owned by the public, thereby giving the public the right to control the use of the property while preventing the true property owner from controlling the use of his own property. Many business owners who take the risks and pay the price of ownership of their business property are suffering in areas of the country where smoking bans have been put into force. Those who promote smoking bans fail to see (or don't care) that their desires for sweeping smoke-free environments are causing hardships for honest, hard-working people and their families. They fail to see (or don't care) that their desires should be secondary to the rights of others.
Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them.
Do they not recognize the importance of respecting people's right to control their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?
The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the rights of private citizens. When one person's desires are allowed to trump another person's rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: No need of a smoking bylaw
Dear Mayor and Council,
We are well on the way to reaching a smoke-free environment. We just don't
need more government regulations to impose it on everyone.
In my view all smoking policies, should be set at the discretion of the private property owners.
This is where the radical ant-smoking faction misses the point. Smoking bans are an unreasonable intrusion into private enterprise.
Restaurants, bars and the like are not truly public spaces. They are private
property where the owner invites the public.
They think private restaurants and bars are no different than true public places such as civic pools, arenas, etc… But restaurants and bars that are on private property have a lot more in common with your own private residence.
Would many people support a law banning smoking in private residence? I think not!!
Tobacco is still a legal product in Canada and the U.S.A. from which the federal government earns billions of dollars in taxation.
How hypocritical is it when one level of government sells a product to the public and another level of government bans it's use?
A city council should not undermine such a basic, sacred right as a person's freedom to choose.
It could be very simple. If you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, stay away.
If you enjoy smoking before and after a meal, find a place that allows
it.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Dear Editor,
April 16/04
A quadriplegic in Thunder Bay will have to go outside the hospital to have someone help him smoke a cigarette after May 1/04
Smoke Free Thunder Bay must be chuckling when they heard that news!!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:22:38 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Lose money they never had??
Dear Editor,
The Provincial Government loses 200 million dollars because there is no tax on prepared meals under 4.00 dollars.
My question is--How can the government lose money they never had in the first place?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:28:24 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Desires versus Rights
Mayor and council April 14/04
When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it makes sense to protect and defend private individuals' rights to their property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then we should make a clear distinction between private property and public property.
Omitting legal jargon and using common sense, private property belongs to a private owner, and public property belongs to the public or to some government entity that represents the interests of the general public.
Those who favor smoking bans prefer to consider bars and restaurants to be public property simply because the public is invited to visit those establishments. However, opponents of smoking bans recognize that the invitations to the public are by the graces of the private owners, and theproperty remains private property.
Let's consider for a moment that you own a home and that you consider your home to be your private property. Do you give up your private property rights when you tell someone to, "Drop by any time?" What if you also tell that person to, "Bring some other folks along?"
Have you just issued a standing invitation to the public? Is your home no longer private and now considered to be public property? Where do we draw the line?
There is confusion between public property and private property primarily because some people, such as anti-smoking proponents, want to elevate their desires to the level of being legal rights. They choose to ignore what should be a clear distinction between private and public property so they can pretend that private businesses are actually owned by the public, thereby giving the public the right to control the use of the property while preventing the true property owner from controlling the use of his own property. Many business owners who take the risks and pay the price of ownership of their business property are suffering in areas of the country where smoking bans have been put into force. Those who promote smoking bans fail to see (or don't care) that their desires for sweeping smoke-free environments are causing hardships for honest, hard-working people and their families. They fail to see (or don't care) that their desires should be secondary to the rights of others.
Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them.
Do they not recognize the importance of respecting people's right to control their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?
The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the rights of private citizens. When one person's desires are allowed to trump another person's rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:42:05 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The Smoking issue!
Dear Editor, The Globe and Mail, April 9/04
The Ontario Government's Health Minister said, 'I didn't get into politics to meddle in people's lives.'
What he is really saying is,'I will make a difference by meddling into people's lives.
What we need is 'less' government, not 'more' government.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:06:45 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The inmates are already paying their 'dues'
Dear Editor April 9/04
Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of
circumstances, his future is bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organicallygrown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit.
Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.
Thomas W. Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont
Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:53:35 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The Smoking issue
What an idiotic prehistoric bylaw!!
It is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property'!!
It puts every smoker and every bar, pub and tavern in a criminal situation.
Second hand smoke is not a health problem and never was a health problem
Nobody ever died from second hand smoke.
Adults can make 'adult decisions' to enter or not enter an establishment.
Adults do no need council or bylaws to tell them what they can or cannot do with a legal product on 'private' property.
Wake up and smell the second- hand smoke!!
That is the reason why bylaws are in place, because people don't like the smell of 'second-hand 'smoke and whether you believe it or not that is the 'truth'.
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:00:22 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Smog, the highest in the Province!! Sault Ste Marie.
Sent this letter to The 'Soo"
Dear editor,
Smog, the highest in the province!!
Where are the Crusaders?, the clean air advocates who were demanding 'clean' air on the 'inside of a building.
Why are they not pounding on the doors of Government demanding 'clean' air on the 'outside' of buidings.
There excuse might be, the issue is too big.
At least they can make some 'noise' to show their concern, just like they were so concerned about 'clean' air on the inside of a building, or maybe, just maybe, they had a different agenda they were following?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay Ont.
Subject: LU SMOKING BAN IS OPPRESSIVE
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:51:12 -0400
The Chronicle Journal Ap. 5/04
The author is the editor..
While smoking is know to be highly detrimental to human health, as long as it's legal people are entitled to puff away to their damaged hearts'
content. The only limit nowadays is where.LU has has banned smokers to the nether regions of its huge campus. Students and its faculty together voted 68 per cent to ban smoking anywhere on the 140 hectare site.
Anyone craving a cigarette will now have to trudge or drive outside the
property onto Balmoral Street or Oliver Road or into the surrounding bush.
That's an oppressive expectation, especially during winter. And what female student, longing for a smoke, would be willing to venture out at night into an isolated area of the campus?
Why not instead designate areas on the property nowhere near an entrance or public walkway? That far outdoors, cigarette smoke will not endanger anyone other than than those who chose to indulge. And productivity will be far less severely impacted.
Moves like Lakehead's from select areas inside buildings,to just outside entrances, and finally off the property altogether, are reflective of society's growing contempt for smoking.
Smokers who ignore this trend--including those deluded souls who insist there is no evidence of health damage from smoking at all--need to own up and make plans to quit.
These societal attitudes are not going to go away. In fact, smokers will be facing even more restrictions when the city and province implement their prohibitions.
Leading medical authorities have put a high price tag on smoking. Its
financial repercussions on the struggling health care system are
considerable and the habit can no longer be condoned as an acceptable cost.
The city, province and country can simply not afford smokers who willfully stress the public health system. Stop-smoking programs are properly publicly funded but the dangers of tobacco have been well known long enough that sweeping smoking bans are a logical result.
Maybe walking a few hundred yards two or three times a day to have a smoke will convince some people at Lakehead University it's finally time to quit. Some students and staff have already indicted the ban will help them kick the habit. Surely others will follow.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: RE:Public smoking ban may cut heart attacks: study
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:02:27 -0400
Banning of eating meat in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of drinking in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of breathing in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of all Crusaders may also cut heart attacks!!
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:01:30 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Their Agenda..'A smoke free Canada'
Dear Editor,
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: Lower class to help balance the governments' budget?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:24:44 -0400
As usual, the government gets greedy.
They think they can raise taxes on smokes by 30% they will get the same percentage in return?
Guess again!
People go elsewhere to buy smokes.
The other province benefits without raising taxes one penny.Does the government think they have a monopoly on the spending habits of the consumer?
The middle and lower class have a tough enough time to balance their own budgets without trying to help balance the government's budget.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
April 2, 2004
The Lakehead University will be the first university to have a no smoking policy in Ontario. The first University in Canada to have referendum on a smoking policy.
Student and faculty voted on a 'campus wide smoking ban 'starting July 1(Canada day)
4000 thousand people voted and 68% voted for the ban.
Dalhousi-Nova Scotia.. edmonton Alberta have smoking banns
Smokers will have to be off the property
Non-smoker said it is ridicules to go into the bush and have a smoke
How can you control having a cigarette outside?
What's the harm of having a smoke outside, if somebody doesn't like it they can walk away from you.
Govn't makes lots of money and then they you can't smoke outside.--It's a big area
I can't even walk outside and have a smoke??
The V.P. said I don't think we will have the 'Gestapo police' out there(smoking in your cars.)
And if it will make the students to quit smoking, then it is well worth it
Those who oppose it, says the anti-smoking issue has gone to far.
It will be next to impossible to enforce it.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
March 31,2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Why would the Anti's lie to us??
Mayor and Council
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The Smoking issue!
Dear Editor, The Globe and Mail, April 9/04
The Ontario Government's Health Minister said, 'I didn't get into politics to meddle in people's lives.'
What he is really saying is,'I will make a difference by meddling into people's lives.
What we need is 'less' government, not 'more' government.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:06:45 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The inmates are already paying their 'dues'
Dear Editor April 9/04
Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of
circumstances, his future is bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organicallygrown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit.
Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.
Thomas W. Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont
Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:53:35 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The Smoking issue
What an idiotic prehistoric bylaw!!
It is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property'!!
It puts every smoker and every bar, pub and tavern in a criminal situation.
Second hand smoke is not a health problem and never was a health problem
Nobody ever died from second hand smoke.
Adults can make 'adult decisions' to enter or not enter an establishment.
Adults do no need council or bylaws to tell them what they can or cannot do with a legal product on 'private' property.
Wake up and smell the second- hand smoke!!
That is the reason why bylaws are in place, because people don't like the smell of 'second-hand 'smoke and whether you believe it or not that is the 'truth'.
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:00:22 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Smog, the highest in the Province!! Sault Ste Marie.
Sent this letter to The 'Soo"
Dear editor,
Smog, the highest in the province!!
Where are the Crusaders?, the clean air advocates who were demanding 'clean' air on the 'inside of a building.
Why are they not pounding on the doors of Government demanding 'clean' air on the 'outside' of buidings.
There excuse might be, the issue is too big.
At least they can make some 'noise' to show their concern, just like they were so concerned about 'clean' air on the inside of a building, or maybe, just maybe, they had a different agenda they were following?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay Ont.
Subject: LU SMOKING BAN IS OPPRESSIVE
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:51:12 -0400
The Chronicle Journal Ap. 5/04
The author is the editor..
While smoking is know to be highly detrimental to human health, as long as it's legal people are entitled to puff away to their damaged hearts'
content. The only limit nowadays is where.LU has has banned smokers to the nether regions of its huge campus. Students and its faculty together voted 68 per cent to ban smoking anywhere on the 140 hectare site.
Anyone craving a cigarette will now have to trudge or drive outside the
property onto Balmoral Street or Oliver Road or into the surrounding bush.
That's an oppressive expectation, especially during winter. And what female student, longing for a smoke, would be willing to venture out at night into an isolated area of the campus?
Why not instead designate areas on the property nowhere near an entrance or public walkway? That far outdoors, cigarette smoke will not endanger anyone other than than those who chose to indulge. And productivity will be far less severely impacted.
Moves like Lakehead's from select areas inside buildings,to just outside entrances, and finally off the property altogether, are reflective of society's growing contempt for smoking.
Smokers who ignore this trend--including those deluded souls who insist there is no evidence of health damage from smoking at all--need to own up and make plans to quit.
These societal attitudes are not going to go away. In fact, smokers will be facing even more restrictions when the city and province implement their prohibitions.
Leading medical authorities have put a high price tag on smoking. Its
financial repercussions on the struggling health care system are
considerable and the habit can no longer be condoned as an acceptable cost.
The city, province and country can simply not afford smokers who willfully stress the public health system. Stop-smoking programs are properly publicly funded but the dangers of tobacco have been well known long enough that sweeping smoking bans are a logical result.
Maybe walking a few hundred yards two or three times a day to have a smoke will convince some people at Lakehead University it's finally time to quit. Some students and staff have already indicted the ban will help them kick the habit. Surely others will follow.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: RE:Public smoking ban may cut heart attacks: study
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:02:27 -0400
Banning of eating meat in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of drinking in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of breathing in public may also cut heart attacks.
Banning of all Crusaders may also cut heart attacks!!
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:01:30 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Their Agenda..'A smoke free Canada'
Dear Editor,
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: Lower class to help balance the governments' budget?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:24:44 -0400
As usual, the government gets greedy.
They think they can raise taxes on smokes by 30% they will get the same percentage in return?
Guess again!
People go elsewhere to buy smokes.
The other province benefits without raising taxes one penny.Does the government think they have a monopoly on the spending habits of the consumer?
The middle and lower class have a tough enough time to balance their own budgets without trying to help balance the government's budget.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
April 2, 2004
The Lakehead University will be the first university to have a no smoking policy in Ontario. The first University in Canada to have referendum on a smoking policy.
Student and faculty voted on a 'campus wide smoking ban 'starting July 1(Canada day)
4000 thousand people voted and 68% voted for the ban.
Dalhousi-Nova Scotia.. edmonton Alberta have smoking banns
Smokers will have to be off the property
Non-smoker said it is ridicules to go into the bush and have a smoke
How can you control having a cigarette outside?
What's the harm of having a smoke outside, if somebody doesn't like it they can walk away from you.
Govn't makes lots of money and then they you can't smoke outside.--It's a big area
I can't even walk outside and have a smoke??
The V.P. said I don't think we will have the 'Gestapo police' out there(smoking in your cars.)
And if it will make the students to quit smoking, then it is well worth it
Those who oppose it, says the anti-smoking issue has gone to far.
It will be next to impossible to enforce it.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
March 31,2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Why would the Anti's lie to us??
Mayor and Council
Why would the anti-smokers lie to us? That is the question often asked when the science behind smoking bans is challenged. The answer is found in a summary of the 1975 "Third World Conference on Smoking and Health" where it was concluded that: "To eliminate smoking worldwide, it would first be essential "to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
March 30, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: Smoking bylaw Banff
Dear Editor,
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time it must protect minority 'rights'
The rights of the minority (Hopitality sector)
They have the right to use a legal product on 'private' property'.
The smokers have the 'right' to use a legal product on 'private' property(with the owners permission.'
Council were elected to run the business of the city, not the cities businesses.
Council is not in the health business, and they should not be.
It has never been a health issue.
If a person who is healthy and doesn't think it is a health, problem than its not a health issue.
If that same person thinks it is a health issue, then he shouldn't be in there in the first place. But if he stills wants to be in that location then that is his choice, not the councils choice.
If an unhealthy person thinks it is a health issue then he shouldn't be there in the first place. But, if he still wants to be in that situation, than that is his choice, not council's choice.
Just because a few people want a smoking by-law doesn’t mean you have to have a smoking bylaw.
If an unhealthy person does not think it is a health problem, than it is not a health problem.
The health dept. says 'there is no safe level"
Picture this, and use your common sense
In a crowded bar and nobody is smoking, but one person lights up a cigarette, do all the people in that bar are at 'risk' of getting some kind of disease?.
There are ventilation equipment that are used in operating rooms. That same system could be used in the bars and restaurants
What is wrong from, "live and let live"
If it not broken, then don't fix it.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
To:
Subject: Smoking bylaw Banff
Dear Editor,
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time it must protect minority 'rights'
The rights of the minority (Hopitality sector)
They have the right to use a legal product on 'private' property'.
The smokers have the 'right' to use a legal product on 'private' property(with the owners permission.'
Council were elected to run the business of the city, not the cities businesses.
Council is not in the health business, and they should not be.
It has never been a health issue.
If a person who is healthy and doesn't think it is a health, problem than its not a health issue.
If that same person thinks it is a health issue, then he shouldn't be in there in the first place. But if he stills wants to be in that location then that is his choice, not the councils choice.
If an unhealthy person thinks it is a health issue then he shouldn't be there in the first place. But, if he still wants to be in that situation, than that is his choice, not council's choice.
Just because a few people want a smoking by-law doesn’t mean you have to have a smoking bylaw.
If an unhealthy person does not think it is a health problem, than it is not a health problem.
The health dept. says 'there is no safe level"
Picture this, and use your common sense
In a crowded bar and nobody is smoking, but one person lights up a cigarette, do all the people in that bar are at 'risk' of getting some kind of disease?.
There are ventilation equipment that are used in operating rooms. That same system could be used in the bars and restaurants
What is wrong from, "live and let live"
If it not broken, then don't fix it.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
ph. 807 3457258
