Monday, July 26, 2004
July 23, 2004
To: letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject: If it's a bad by-law, then it should be scrapped!!
Dear Editor,
Mr. Bourrett said, "the city is serious about enforcing the smoking by-law"
You better be serious about enforcing the by-law, because everybody will be 'watching you', and your smoke police.
If you don't do your job, a lot of people will be asking for your resignation.
That means without 'discrimination' every 'bar, restaurant, tavern, pub, business office spaces, including government offices(Federal, Provincial and Municipal), Pulp and Paper mills, Grain
elevators, construction workers any and every place that people occupy, whether it is for pleasure or otherwise.
We will be watching your 'smoke police' if they are checking every business vehicle including 18 wheelers, delivery cars or trucks who stop or are driving through the City of Thunder Bay.
If any person who is caught smoking should be punished to the full extent of the law
There shall be no discrimination--every place, person and vehicle shall be questioned and check thoroughly.
Every 'public' and 'work' place shall be inspected at least once a week.
There shouldn't have to be any grace period or warnings. The public had ample time(6 months) to be prepared. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If anybody complains at 12 or 1, or 2 o'clock in the morning, you must be 'Johnny on the spot.
Just like the thunder bay police, when a complaint comes in, you should be there just as fast as the police.
Just like any other crime that has been committed, you 'must respond quickly' or the offender will get away. And if that happens then it will be a little difficult to enforce the by-law
The 'smoke' police should be on duty 24 hours a day, just like our own Thunder Bay police.
e.g. if you happen to inspect an establishment and you spot a 'butt" on the floor, and you know the culprit. If you ask him his name and he refuses what are you going to do , haul him off to jail.
What if people go the bathroom, and they are sneaking a smoke and there are butts on the floor. should the owner keep checking the washroom and hope that he catches the culprit? Wouldn't the butt on the floor be circumstantial evidence?
What would happen if somebody was vindictive against an owner and 'planted' some butts in the washroom and then called the 'smoke' police??
You can't have the smoke police just working 16 hours a day and not the other shift.
That would be as if the thunder bay police would be just working 16 hrs a day and the other 8 hours have no police at all.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave.."
Tobacco Free knew of the ramifications of this bylaw, but they failed 'on purpose' to inform council.
Another 'lie' by omission!!
If this smoking by-law can't be enforced to the fullest, then obviously it is a bad bylaw and should be scrapped!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
July 22, 2004
Dear Editor.Concerning the law suit at Canadian tobacco company...
Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay, Ont.
My thoughts and opinions from many smokers concerning 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes.
We smoke 'mild and/or 'light' cigarettes because they were less 'harsh on your throat.
It had nothing to do with the tar or nicotine in cigarettes, in fact I could have cared less how much crap was in cigarettes.
I just thought I would set the record straight.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
http://my.tbaytel.net/snowbird/Tomsletters.htm
To: letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject: If it's a bad by-law, then it should be scrapped!!
Dear Editor,
Mr. Bourrett said, "the city is serious about enforcing the smoking by-law"
You better be serious about enforcing the by-law, because everybody will be 'watching you', and your smoke police.
If you don't do your job, a lot of people will be asking for your resignation.
That means without 'discrimination' every 'bar, restaurant, tavern, pub, business office spaces, including government offices(Federal, Provincial and Municipal), Pulp and Paper mills, Grain
elevators, construction workers any and every place that people occupy, whether it is for pleasure or otherwise.
We will be watching your 'smoke police' if they are checking every business vehicle including 18 wheelers, delivery cars or trucks who stop or are driving through the City of Thunder Bay.
If any person who is caught smoking should be punished to the full extent of the law
There shall be no discrimination--every place, person and vehicle shall be questioned and check thoroughly.
Every 'public' and 'work' place shall be inspected at least once a week.
There shouldn't have to be any grace period or warnings. The public had ample time(6 months) to be prepared. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If anybody complains at 12 or 1, or 2 o'clock in the morning, you must be 'Johnny on the spot.
Just like the thunder bay police, when a complaint comes in, you should be there just as fast as the police.
Just like any other crime that has been committed, you 'must respond quickly' or the offender will get away. And if that happens then it will be a little difficult to enforce the by-law
The 'smoke' police should be on duty 24 hours a day, just like our own Thunder Bay police.
e.g. if you happen to inspect an establishment and you spot a 'butt" on the floor, and you know the culprit. If you ask him his name and he refuses what are you going to do , haul him off to jail.
What if people go the bathroom, and they are sneaking a smoke and there are butts on the floor. should the owner keep checking the washroom and hope that he catches the culprit? Wouldn't the butt on the floor be circumstantial evidence?
What would happen if somebody was vindictive against an owner and 'planted' some butts in the washroom and then called the 'smoke' police??
You can't have the smoke police just working 16 hours a day and not the other shift.
That would be as if the thunder bay police would be just working 16 hrs a day and the other 8 hours have no police at all.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave.."
Tobacco Free knew of the ramifications of this bylaw, but they failed 'on purpose' to inform council.
Another 'lie' by omission!!
If this smoking by-law can't be enforced to the fullest, then obviously it is a bad bylaw and should be scrapped!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
July 22, 2004
Dear Editor.Concerning the law suit at Canadian tobacco company...
Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay, Ont.
My thoughts and opinions from many smokers concerning 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes.
We smoke 'mild and/or 'light' cigarettes because they were less 'harsh on your throat.
It had nothing to do with the tar or nicotine in cigarettes, in fact I could have cared less how much crap was in cigarettes.
I just thought I would set the record straight.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
http://my.tbaytel.net/snowbird/Tomsletters.htm
Thursday, July 22, 2004
July 21, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: The Majority of the Public is the Ulimate Authority??
Dear Editor,
I received a reply from an alderman(Mark Bentz) when I questioned him on the smoking issue. He said, "The City has just defined where it is appropriate to smoke."
"That decision was made by the majority of the electorate and was made for the greater good."
My understanding of his first sentence.
You cannot smoke on 'private property', you must go outside to smoke.
My understanding of his second sentence.
The majority of the population who never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector, is the ultimate authority on what the hospitality sector can and cannot 'use' (a legal product) on 'private' property.(with the owner's permission)
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay,Ont.
Ph 3457258
July 21, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
To: haherald@telusplanet.net
Subject: The smoking issue, Hanna Alberta.
Dear Mayor and council,
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time it MUST protect the rights of the minority.
Let's deal with undistputable facts.
The rights of the hospitality sector: People have the right to use a legal product on private property.
The smoker has the right to use a legal product on private property(with the owner's permission.)
If a referendum is used on the smoking issue, it is wrong and undemocratic!!
The majority of the public can NOT dictate their morality on the minority (hospitality sector) of the public.
The majority of the public never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector on any given day.
Just because a few people want a smoking by-law, that doesn't
mean you have to have a by-law.
Here are four statements that are left to the adults who are able to make choices (and not council).
If a healthy person enters a bar and he doesn't think it is a health problem.. he enters.
If a healthy person enters a bar and he thinks it's a health problem, then it is a health problem..to him. His choice, to enter at his own 'risk'
If an unhealthy person does not think it is a health problem, then it is not a health problem..to him... but he is free to enter if he wants.
If an unhealthy person thinks it is a health problem, than it is a health problem .. to him.. and shouldn't enter.
Council should not be making choices for grown adults.
Council is not in the 'Health' business and should not be.
Council was elected to run the town's business not the businesses of the town.
Last but not least, the issue is not 'health'
Any anti smoking Group is using Health as a disguise when their real agenda is to 'DE-NORMALIZE SMOKING' (Social Engineering). They admit this themselves in some of their published statements.
The big picture is "A Smoke Free Canada"
I might add..at the expense of the 'hospitality sector" and individual rights(rights to choose).
Any politician who uses the excuse that he wants to hold a plebiscite on the smoking issue, is actually using the demise of the hospitality sector as a stepping stone to his re-election.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:16:35 -0400
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: Minority 'rights' must be protected!!
Dear Mayor and council
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time it MUST protect the rights of the minority.
Let's deal with undistputable facts.
The rights of the hospitality sector: People have the right to use a legal product on private property.
The smoker has the right to use a legal product on private property(with the owner's permission.)
If a referendum is used on the smoking issue, it is wrong and undemocratic!!
The majority of the public can NOT dictate their morality on the minority (hospitality sector) of the public.
The majority of the public never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector on any given day.
Just because a few (Breathe Easy Group) wants a smoking by-law, that doesn't mean you have to have a by-law.
Here are four statements that are left to the adults who are able to make choices (and not council).
If a healthy person enters a bar and he doesn't think it is a health problem.. he enters.
If a healthy person enters a bar and he thinks it's a health problem,
Then it is a health problem..to him. His choice, to enter at his own 'risk'
If an unhealthy person does not think it is a health problem, then it is not a health problem..to him... but he is free to enter if he wants.
If an unhealthy person thinks it is a health problem, than it is a health problem ..to him..and shouldn't enter.
Council should not be making choices for grown adults.
Council is not in the 'Health' business and should not be.
Council was elected to run the town's business not the businesses of the town.
Last but not least, the issue is not 'health'
The Breathe Eay Group is using Health as a disguise when their real agenda is to 'DE-NORMALIZE SMOKING' (Social Engineering). They admit this themselves in some of their published statements.
The big picture is "A Smoke Free Canada"
I might add..at the expense of the 'hospitality sector" and individual rights(rights to choose).
Any politician who uses the excuse that he wants to hold a plebiscite On the smoking issue, is actually using the demise of the hospitality sector as a stepping stone to his re-election.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
To: rireland@town.jasper.ab.ca, mday@town.jasper.ab.ca, ins@incectre.net, memory3@telus.net, awalker@town.jasper.ab.ca, rosspugh@incentre.net
Subject: Longest study on second-hand smoke
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004
Dear Mayor and Council Jasper Alta
The longest,most comprehensive study on this very topic of hospitality
Workers exposed to second-hand smoke was conducted by the U.S.Department of Energy's labratory in Oak Ridge,Tennessee.The peer reviewed study,replicated the
long term exposure to second-hand smoke of 173 non-smoking waiters,waitresses, and bartenders. The Oak Ridge study used state of the art measureing
equipment.It was the longest,most extensive in the history of the world.
Here is what they came up with:NOTHING.No lung cancer,no heart disease,no asthma,no broncitus,no pneumonia,no inner ear infections,no leprocy,no heartbreak of psoricissis.Nothing.
Counter to the lies and propaganda claims of the antis they found hospitality workers in a sealed,non-ventilated restaurant or bar were exposed to the equivilent of 1-2 cigarettes a year not the half a pack per shift claimed by the antis.
The Oak Ridge study also accused the Journal of the American Medical Association of using studies with spiked levels of second-hand smoke to Push for smoking bans.
The Oak Ridge study concluded that hospitality workers were exposed to less than one-sixth of U.S.Occupational Safety and Health Administration allowable levels of"respirable suspended particulate matter"which includes second-hand smoke.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
July 19, 2004
Dear Mayor and Council,Smoking while driving a company vehicle violates the smoking by-law(workplace)Would a person get fined, whether he is smoking or not, if he has an ashtray in the car?Thomas Laprade480 Rupert St.Thunder Bay, Ont.Ph. 807 3457258
July 19, 2004
Hi Guys,Simon Hoad(the health promoter for the smoke free-by law)Said,'anybody who is driving a vehicle while on the job is breaking the by-law if he is smoking(Taxi drivers, Pizza drivers Truckers )etc.Tom
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: Re: Seek the 'Truth' smoking issue!!
Hi Guys,
Here is an answer I got from the Deputy Mayor of Jasper, Alberta
Would anyone would like to answer him. I will and will bcc to everyone.
God bless
Tom
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Mike & Cyndi Day" <mcday@telusplanet.net>
To: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Seek the 'Truth' smoking issue!!
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:32:35 -0600
Mr. Laprade,
Thank you for your letter. I am encouraged by your desire to engage the public and expose alternate points of view into the anti smoking debate.You emphasized many points that disenfranchised smokers are facing today.
My question is how do you justify the exposure to second hand smoke, that service industry employees must endure, in a smoke friendly restaurant/bar?
I, for one, cannot come up with a plausible argument to support the toxic environment in which these workers are forced to perform, while at the same time protecting the "minority rights" of smokers and enabling establishments. Ideally, I believe, a larger constituency should determine whether or not our society is willing to accept the sacrifice of employee health at the expense of business considerations. In good conscience, I cannot find a counterpoint to the position of the anti smoking lobby.
My vote, if brought to a municipal referendum, will be to protect Employees from the hazard of second hand smoke, at the same time allowing businesses to establish comfortable, self catered, smoking areas for their patrons.
Thank you for your time with this matter.
Mike Day
Deputy Mayor, Jasper
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: Breaking the law if driving a vehicle(smoking)
Hi Guys,
Simon Hoad(the health promoter for the smoke free-by law)
Said,'anybody who is driving a vehicle while on the job is breaking the
by-law if he is smoking(Taxi drivers, Pizza drivers Truckers )etc.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
Mon, 19 Jul 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: Negative side of 'Referendums!! Marathon
Dear Mayor and Council,
Negative side of Referendums
1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy
2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.
3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question
and determine campaign rules.
4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.
5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with
difficult issues.
6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in
consensus-building.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph.807 3457258
Sat, 17 Jul 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade" <thomaslaprade@hotmail.com>
Subject: Referendums
Hi Guys,
Negative side of Referendums
1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy
2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.
3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question and determine campaign rules.
4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.
5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with difficult issues.
6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in consensus-building.
I picked this up on a government website
It was announced on TV that The Breathe Easy Group from Marathon are going to push for a referendum in the fall elections.
Am trying to sharpen my teeth again. It sounds like the mayor likes the idea. I lambasted him before
In fact one of the aldermen phoned me and asked permission if he can use my letter to be published in the Marathon Mercurey newspaper 'Desire Versus Rights'
Can anybody add to the' list'against referendums.
Much appreciated
God Bless
Tom
July 16, 2004Sent letter to the Windsor Star
Dear Editor,85,000 teens smoke pot every day, according to the Dept. of Health Canada.Make pot legal and you will see those numbers drop drastically.Hasn't anybody learned anything from Prohibition?You can put restrictions on a product if it is made legal, just like booze and smokes, otherwise you can't restrict an illegal product.Availability is not the issue, it is the restrictions that are the issue.Thomas LapradeThunder Bay, Ont.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Laprade [mailto:thomaslaprade@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:41 AM
To: mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Subject: Break up of cigarette taxes
Dear Mr. Gravelle,
Is it possible to e-mail a breakdown of the taxes from cigarettes go to,e.g. health care, general funds, schools etc.
Thank you kindly
Tom Laprade
REPLY:
From: emcgoey@liberal.ola.org
To: thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Break up of cigarette taxes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:54:15 -0400
Dear Mr. Laprade;
Mr. Gravelle asked me to look into your question, and get back to you.
Ispoke with staff in the office of the Minister of Finance, who told me thatrevenue from cigarette taxes go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and arenot specifically allocated to certain areas. As a result, it is not possible to get a breakdown of what the revenues are spent on.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. If you have any other questions that I can help you with, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Thank you very much,
Eric McGoey
Executive Assistant to
Michael Gravelle, MPP Thunder Bay -Superior North
Government Caucus Chair
416-325-1559
Friday, July 16, 2004
July 16, 2004
Here is an article in The Chronicle Journal written by the editor on the Editorial page.
He is trying to fulfill a 'predication' that the anti's have been predicting for years.
And if the prediction fails somebody has egg on their face or it is a one 'big' lie.
It amazes me how the anti's know this, But on the other hand, how can they say anything otherwise.
The chickens are coming home to roost:)
-----------------------------------------
NON-SMOKERS ABSENT
A surprising twist on the recent Euro 2004 soccer final was that pubs in Thunder Bay were nearly empty for the world's most popular sporting event. Bar owners blamed the then three-day old public places smoking band and nearly two weeks later many licensed premises are still suffering a loss of business.
Which poses a question for all those non-smokers who said they avoided night spots because of stinky, toxic cigarettes smoke: Where are you?
The no-smoking by-law was put in place in this blue collar town in your favor and against stiff opposition from those now saying we told you so. We told you the righteous non-and former smokers who said ban it and we will come, would not.
You got your way and now it is time for you to prove the theory advanced by ban advocates that business in bars and restaurants actually picks up when the air is cleared for the majority.
Come out and enjoy a smoke-free evening of dinner, drinks and dancing. Don't let your new benefit linger and be the downfall of local establishments out to show you a good time
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004
"Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Lighting up in the 'park'
Here is a letter to the Editor July 14/04 The Chronicle Journal
By the jist of the letter, you can pretty well tell where the 'no smoking' situation is going to(out side parks) it is just a matter of time
I was at the 'Wed. in the park' last nite Five bands every Wednesday.
There must have been about 900 people there.
I was dying for a smoke, and I looked around and nobody was
smoking(outside park).
I decided to take the plunge and pulled out a smoke.:)
Within a minute, there were eight other people starting to light up.
They must have thought a had real 'guts' to light up in the park. LOL
Here is the letter..
--------
I would like to respond to the Thumbs Down July 10/04 regarding smoking at Marina Park on Canada Day. I can't believe some one would be so petty as to write and complain about a person smoking outside. According to our city by-law, smokers are now expected to step outside for their cigarette; they cannot smoke in any workplace or public attended buildings.How many pictures and articles have been in our paper about smoking outside, now this person i objecting to smoking at Marina Park? The last time I checked that is an outdoor facility and therefore smoking is an option.
If a person gets physically ill from smelling cigarettes then they have two options as I see it. One is to nicely ask the person smoking to stand a bit away from them, explaining the reasons and therefore no feelings get hurt or arguments ensue. Second, move yourself.
I am wondering if these people who insist on complaining about smokers will they ever be happy.
Now, can you guess if I'm a smoker or not? I bet most of you would be wrong.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
Here is an article in The Chronicle Journal written by the editor on the Editorial page.
He is trying to fulfill a 'predication' that the anti's have been predicting for years.
And if the prediction fails somebody has egg on their face or it is a one 'big' lie.
It amazes me how the anti's know this, But on the other hand, how can they say anything otherwise.
The chickens are coming home to roost:)
-----------------------------------------
NON-SMOKERS ABSENT
A surprising twist on the recent Euro 2004 soccer final was that pubs in Thunder Bay were nearly empty for the world's most popular sporting event. Bar owners blamed the then three-day old public places smoking band and nearly two weeks later many licensed premises are still suffering a loss of business.
Which poses a question for all those non-smokers who said they avoided night spots because of stinky, toxic cigarettes smoke: Where are you?
The no-smoking by-law was put in place in this blue collar town in your favor and against stiff opposition from those now saying we told you so. We told you the righteous non-and former smokers who said ban it and we will come, would not.
You got your way and now it is time for you to prove the theory advanced by ban advocates that business in bars and restaurants actually picks up when the air is cleared for the majority.
Come out and enjoy a smoke-free evening of dinner, drinks and dancing. Don't let your new benefit linger and be the downfall of local establishments out to show you a good time
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004
"Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Lighting up in the 'park'
Here is a letter to the Editor July 14/04 The Chronicle Journal
By the jist of the letter, you can pretty well tell where the 'no smoking' situation is going to(out side parks) it is just a matter of time
I was at the 'Wed. in the park' last nite Five bands every Wednesday.
There must have been about 900 people there.
I was dying for a smoke, and I looked around and nobody was
smoking(outside park).
I decided to take the plunge and pulled out a smoke.:)
Within a minute, there were eight other people starting to light up.
They must have thought a had real 'guts' to light up in the park. LOL
Here is the letter..
--------
I would like to respond to the Thumbs Down July 10/04 regarding smoking at Marina Park on Canada Day. I can't believe some one would be so petty as to write and complain about a person smoking outside. According to our city by-law, smokers are now expected to step outside for their cigarette; they cannot smoke in any workplace or public attended buildings.How many pictures and articles have been in our paper about smoking outside, now this person i objecting to smoking at Marina Park? The last time I checked that is an outdoor facility and therefore smoking is an option.
If a person gets physically ill from smelling cigarettes then they have two options as I see it. One is to nicely ask the person smoking to stand a bit away from them, explaining the reasons and therefore no feelings get hurt or arguments ensue. Second, move yourself.
I am wondering if these people who insist on complaining about smokers will they ever be happy.
Now, can you guess if I'm a smoker or not? I bet most of you would be wrong.
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Seek the 'Truth' smoking issue!!
Dear Mayor and Council of Jasper, Alberta This happened in Thunder Bay, Ont., before the last municipal electionsAs for opinion polls, these are the biggest scam of all.
The main question asked is always along the lines of "Are you in favor of a 100% smoking ban in public places?" A majority of those polled vote "Yes" because they are under the impression that "Public Places" means schools, libraries, shopping malls, government buildings and the like. Most have no idea at all that, under the provisions of the by-law, "Public Places” also includes the local corner bar or billiard hall. If another question is asked such as "Are you in favor of arrangements to accommodate smokers in bars?" again the answer will be an overwhelming "Yes". Thus this second question is rarely posed. It was asked in the Ottawa poll, but when over 70% voted 'Yes' to special arrangements for smokers, the medical officer of health kept this a secret from both the public and Council. PUBCO eventually obtained the truth through access to information proceedings - but by then the damage had been done.
These are the kind of dirty tricks that public servants - people whose wages you are paying - are up to. A classic example of this subterfuge is now underway in Thunder Bay. That City Council, not having the guts to make an honest decision on the smoking issue, voted instead to have it dealt with by plebiscite in November’s municipal election. “Fine” we hear you say “let the people be heard” – but first take a look at the question! "Do you support a ban of smoking in public places and in work places in the City of Thunder Bay?" As explained, average voters will have no idea “public places” includes the local pub and even if they do, how are they supposed to decide when a “No” vote technically means agreeing to smoking in day care centers? It’s a lose-lose situation for owners, and demonstrates the skullduggery and trickery that we face every day when fighting the Antis. In this case, obviously a “No” vote has to be cast, thus kicking the issue back to council to be dealt with honestly – an unusual approach to a lot of our elected politicians. We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior.
They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa. 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! A truly democratic government obeys the will of the public, but at the same time they 'must' protect 'minority' rights. In this case, 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 smoker to use a legal product on 'private property(with the owner's permission!!)
Learn what is true, in order to do what is right!
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
July 15, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent to The Saskatoon Star Phoenix Newspaper
Dear Editor,
We do not elect Provincial and Municipal people so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
Thomas Laprade
July 14, 2004
Dear Editor,
We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior.
They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
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
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Seek the 'Truth' smoking issue!!
Dear Mayor and Council of Jasper, Alberta This happened in Thunder Bay, Ont., before the last municipal electionsAs for opinion polls, these are the biggest scam of all.
The main question asked is always along the lines of "Are you in favor of a 100% smoking ban in public places?" A majority of those polled vote "Yes" because they are under the impression that "Public Places" means schools, libraries, shopping malls, government buildings and the like. Most have no idea at all that, under the provisions of the by-law, "Public Places” also includes the local corner bar or billiard hall. If another question is asked such as "Are you in favor of arrangements to accommodate smokers in bars?" again the answer will be an overwhelming "Yes". Thus this second question is rarely posed. It was asked in the Ottawa poll, but when over 70% voted 'Yes' to special arrangements for smokers, the medical officer of health kept this a secret from both the public and Council. PUBCO eventually obtained the truth through access to information proceedings - but by then the damage had been done.
These are the kind of dirty tricks that public servants - people whose wages you are paying - are up to. A classic example of this subterfuge is now underway in Thunder Bay. That City Council, not having the guts to make an honest decision on the smoking issue, voted instead to have it dealt with by plebiscite in November’s municipal election. “Fine” we hear you say “let the people be heard” – but first take a look at the question! "Do you support a ban of smoking in public places and in work places in the City of Thunder Bay?" As explained, average voters will have no idea “public places” includes the local pub and even if they do, how are they supposed to decide when a “No” vote technically means agreeing to smoking in day care centers? It’s a lose-lose situation for owners, and demonstrates the skullduggery and trickery that we face every day when fighting the Antis. In this case, obviously a “No” vote has to be cast, thus kicking the issue back to council to be dealt with honestly – an unusual approach to a lot of our elected politicians. We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior.
They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa. 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! A truly democratic government obeys the will of the public, but at the same time they 'must' protect 'minority' rights. In this case, 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 smoker to use a legal product on 'private property(with the owner's permission!!)
Learn what is true, in order to do what is right!
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
July 15, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent to The Saskatoon Star Phoenix Newspaper
Dear Editor,
We do not elect Provincial and Municipal people so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
Thomas Laprade
July 14, 2004
Dear Editor,
We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior.
They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
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
Saturday, July 10, 2004
July 8, 2004
Subject: Re: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Hi Rebecca,
It would have been a 'slam dunk' deal if you would have run for Mayor.:)
You are the second person from council in the last five years that ever answered my e-mail.
The 'I-don't-care-attitude is prevalent among the Mayor and Council about the 'smoking issue.'(which was told to me from a former alderman)
I like your attitude on council. It seems that you 'think' things out and make a definite stand on issues of the day. You are not 'wishy-washy' on issues.
You are a 'people' person who listens to everybody's thoughts and feelings.
Gary Shchepanik was the only alderman who had the 'guts' to speak out
and tell the 'truth', about the smoking issue, for that he was voted out of office.
'I rather be right than President' Gary would rather be 'right' than alderman.
We do not elect the Mayor and Council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
I have a passion for telling the 'truth' about the smoking issue as opposed to the lies, half-truths innuendos, slanted surveys etc. that Simon Hoad and his "Crusaders" are feeding the public.
'Fear and Doubt' are the Crusader's weapons.
More to come.
God Bless :)
Thomas Laprade
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
To: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Re: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:51:25 -0400
Thank you for forwarding information re smoking. Appreciate you Taking the time to do so. Have three email from you on the subject. Take time to read the material.
Rebecca
Rebecca Johnson
Councillor-at-Large
City of Thunder Bay
Phone: 807.577.2807
Fax: 807.577.4837
Email: rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
Address: 3236 Feaver Road, Thunder Bay, ON P7J 1B1
Subject: Re: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Hi Rebecca,
It would have been a 'slam dunk' deal if you would have run for Mayor.:)
You are the second person from council in the last five years that ever answered my e-mail.
The 'I-don't-care-attitude is prevalent among the Mayor and Council about the 'smoking issue.'(which was told to me from a former alderman)
I like your attitude on council. It seems that you 'think' things out and make a definite stand on issues of the day. You are not 'wishy-washy' on issues.
You are a 'people' person who listens to everybody's thoughts and feelings.
Gary Shchepanik was the only alderman who had the 'guts' to speak out
and tell the 'truth', about the smoking issue, for that he was voted out of office.
'I rather be right than President' Gary would rather be 'right' than alderman.
We do not elect the Mayor and Council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
I have a passion for telling the 'truth' about the smoking issue as opposed to the lies, half-truths innuendos, slanted surveys etc. that Simon Hoad and his "Crusaders" are feeding the public.
'Fear and Doubt' are the Crusader's weapons.
More to come.
God Bless :)
Thomas Laprade
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
To: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Re: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:51:25 -0400
Thank you for forwarding information re smoking. Appreciate you Taking the time to do so. Have three email from you on the subject. Take time to read the material.
Rebecca
Rebecca Johnson
Councillor-at-Large
City of Thunder Bay
Phone: 807.577.2807
Fax: 807.577.4837
Email: rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
Address: 3236 Feaver Road, Thunder Bay, ON P7J 1B1
July 8, 2004
Subject: An alderman response to my letter to council.
If you want to sharpen your teeth on the Mayor and Council.
This is one response I got from an alderman, since the smoking by-law took effect as of July 1/04
Alderman..Mark Bentz
-------------------------------------------------------
letters@chroniclejournal.com
www.tbsource.com
www.thunderbayonline.com
If you do respond please bbc a copy of your response to me
Much appreciated
God Bless Tom
Mr. Laprade,
Thank you for your thoughtful emails on the topic of smoking in public places - it is a topic you are very passionate about and I do respect your point of view.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the situation and I for one, am grateful that such smoking restrictions have been put in place. Deaths aside, the question basically is: "do smokers have the right to impose their habit on non-smokers in public venues"?
Why do you think it is ok to put others in contact with this habit? - to non-smokers, the smoke is an irritant and has an odour which is not pleasant. No one is saying that people can no longer smoke, the City has just defined where it is appropriate to smoke. That decision was made by the majority of electorate and was made for the greater good.
Mark Bentz..alderman
Mayor and councils e-mail addy's
lpeterson@thunderbay.ca
iangus@thunderbay.ca
mbentz@thunderbay.ca
tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca
lrydholm@thunderbay.ca
bscollie@thunderbay.ca
ltimko@thunderbay.ca
rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca
jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca
jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca
dwaddington@thunderbay.ca
July 7, 2004
Subject: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Dear Mayor and Council
This obsession with regulating behaviour for the sake of the 'public good' is a dangerous trend that can only end in the complete removal of individual liberty by 'concerned citizens.'
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
July 7, 2004
Subject: Sent this letter to CTV(smoking in movies)
Dear Sir,
Verda Peters of the Canadian Lung Ass., says "It gives children especially a false impression of what's normal and what's acceptable."
Wars, violence, murder, stealing, riots is 'normal' but unacceptable to you.
What is not normal and unacceptable to you may be normal and acceptable to me.
Giving a 'R' rating to a film because there is smoking in the film?
Would you give Popeye cartoons a 'R' rating because he has a 'pipe' in his mouth??
What you are trying to say is, “ou are trying to de-normalize smoking.”
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
July 7, 2004
Subject: sent this letter to CTV.'teens smoking 'pot'
Teens who smoke are more likely to smoke 'pot' according to a 'study'
You don't have to be a 'rocket' scientist to figure that one out!!
You could have asked me, and you could have saved all that 'money' on 'that' study!!
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
Subject: An alderman response to my letter to council.
If you want to sharpen your teeth on the Mayor and Council.
This is one response I got from an alderman, since the smoking by-law took effect as of July 1/04
Alderman..Mark Bentz
-------------------------------------------------------
letters@chroniclejournal.com
www.tbsource.com
www.thunderbayonline.com
If you do respond please bbc a copy of your response to me
Much appreciated
God Bless Tom
Mr. Laprade,
Thank you for your thoughtful emails on the topic of smoking in public places - it is a topic you are very passionate about and I do respect your point of view.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the situation and I for one, am grateful that such smoking restrictions have been put in place. Deaths aside, the question basically is: "do smokers have the right to impose their habit on non-smokers in public venues"?
Why do you think it is ok to put others in contact with this habit? - to non-smokers, the smoke is an irritant and has an odour which is not pleasant. No one is saying that people can no longer smoke, the City has just defined where it is appropriate to smoke. That decision was made by the majority of electorate and was made for the greater good.
Mark Bentz..alderman
Mayor and councils e-mail addy's
lpeterson@thunderbay.ca
iangus@thunderbay.ca
mbentz@thunderbay.ca
tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
rjohnson@thunderbay.ca
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca
lrydholm@thunderbay.ca
bscollie@thunderbay.ca
ltimko@thunderbay.ca
rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca
jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca
jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca
dwaddington@thunderbay.ca
July 7, 2004
Subject: Smoking issue! ' for the greater good'
Dear Mayor and Council
This obsession with regulating behaviour for the sake of the 'public good' is a dangerous trend that can only end in the complete removal of individual liberty by 'concerned citizens.'
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 3457258
July 7, 2004
Subject: Sent this letter to CTV(smoking in movies)
Dear Sir,
Verda Peters of the Canadian Lung Ass., says "It gives children especially a false impression of what's normal and what's acceptable."
Wars, violence, murder, stealing, riots is 'normal' but unacceptable to you.
What is not normal and unacceptable to you may be normal and acceptable to me.
Giving a 'R' rating to a film because there is smoking in the film?
Would you give Popeye cartoons a 'R' rating because he has a 'pipe' in his mouth??
What you are trying to say is, “ou are trying to de-normalize smoking.”
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
July 7, 2004
Subject: sent this letter to CTV.'teens smoking 'pot'
Teens who smoke are more likely to smoke 'pot' according to a 'study'
You don't have to be a 'rocket' scientist to figure that one out!!
You could have asked me, and you could have saved all that 'money' on 'that' study!!
Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights
http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
July 5, 2004
Subject: No documentary evidence of any 'deaths' from second-hand smoke!!
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will no doubt be disappointed to learn, that the Tobacco Control department of Health Canada possesses no documentary evidence of any kind, that 1000 Canadians were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke during the last year - despite their national campaign to incite social panic about second-hand smoke, which repeatedly cites that number.
I personally challenged the Director-General of Tobacco Control to provide me with any such documentary evidence they might possess; I requested a list of the names of the Canadians who died during the last year for whom they possess either certification of death or autopsy reports which list exposure to second-hand smoke as either the primary or secondary cause of that person's death.
In a four page reply from Dawn Hachey, who is apparently the acting Director General, there was not one single name of such a person. Not one, gentlemen. Zero. There was, however, a confession that the numbers used by Tobacco Control are derived solely from Kaisserman's risk factor studies based on 1994 and 1996 data. Kaisserman's studies re themselves NOT based on certification of death nor on autopsy reports.
THERE ARE NO BODIES. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence and risk factor studies. There is nothing that could hold up in a court of law. To be absolutely certain of that, I have sent this letter to RCMP headquarters in Ottawa;
[Sir or Madam,
The Tobacco Control department of Health Canada has made numerous public statements that thousands of Canadians die from exposure to second-hand smoke every year. I will quote one of a great many, for an example;
"More than 1,000 non-smokers will die this year in Canada due to tobacco use -- over 300 lung cancer deaths and at least 700 deaths from coronary heart disease will be caused by second-hand smoke."
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/health_facts/second_hand.html
Presumably, they would not make such statements unless they possessed hard evidence that at least 1000 Canadians were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke during the last year - irrefutable evidence such as ertificates of death or autopsy reports which list exposure to second-hand smoke as either the primary or secondary cause of death.
I wrote to Helene Goulet, Director-general of Tobacco Control, and asked her to provide me with a list of the Canadians for which shepossesses such information. I allowed her 30 days to gather such information. She has failed to provide me with a single name.
If over 1000 Canadians were killed in this manner last year, shouldn't some of those deaths be the result of prosecutable instances of Involuntary Manslaughter? Has anyone from Tobacco Control provided you with the documentary evidence necessary for you to lay charges in those cases? If they possess such evidence, why have they not turned that evidence over to you?
Please investigate these allegations by Tobacco Control. Our nation needs to know, with certainty, if multiple cases of murder are taking place without prosecution and it appears that only you will be able to find out if this is actually the case or not.]
Please, don't take my word about this! Contact Dawn Hachey, yourselves, and ask her to provide you with the names of the Canadians who were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke last year.
When she fails to provide you with a single name, because you will finally comprehend that;
You have been LIED TO.
You have been intentionally and deliberately DECEIVED.
You have been turned into and exploited as shills and carnival barkers for a national campaign of deliberately incited social panic.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
Subject: No documentary evidence of any 'deaths' from second-hand smoke!!
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will no doubt be disappointed to learn, that the Tobacco Control department of Health Canada possesses no documentary evidence of any kind, that 1000 Canadians were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke during the last year - despite their national campaign to incite social panic about second-hand smoke, which repeatedly cites that number.
I personally challenged the Director-General of Tobacco Control to provide me with any such documentary evidence they might possess; I requested a list of the names of the Canadians who died during the last year for whom they possess either certification of death or autopsy reports which list exposure to second-hand smoke as either the primary or secondary cause of that person's death.
In a four page reply from Dawn Hachey, who is apparently the acting Director General, there was not one single name of such a person. Not one, gentlemen. Zero. There was, however, a confession that the numbers used by Tobacco Control are derived solely from Kaisserman's risk factor studies based on 1994 and 1996 data. Kaisserman's studies re themselves NOT based on certification of death nor on autopsy reports.
THERE ARE NO BODIES. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence and risk factor studies. There is nothing that could hold up in a court of law. To be absolutely certain of that, I have sent this letter to RCMP headquarters in Ottawa;
[Sir or Madam,
The Tobacco Control department of Health Canada has made numerous public statements that thousands of Canadians die from exposure to second-hand smoke every year. I will quote one of a great many, for an example;
"More than 1,000 non-smokers will die this year in Canada due to tobacco use -- over 300 lung cancer deaths and at least 700 deaths from coronary heart disease will be caused by second-hand smoke."
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/health_facts/second_hand.html
Presumably, they would not make such statements unless they possessed hard evidence that at least 1000 Canadians were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke during the last year - irrefutable evidence such as ertificates of death or autopsy reports which list exposure to second-hand smoke as either the primary or secondary cause of death.
I wrote to Helene Goulet, Director-general of Tobacco Control, and asked her to provide me with a list of the Canadians for which shepossesses such information. I allowed her 30 days to gather such information. She has failed to provide me with a single name.
If over 1000 Canadians were killed in this manner last year, shouldn't some of those deaths be the result of prosecutable instances of Involuntary Manslaughter? Has anyone from Tobacco Control provided you with the documentary evidence necessary for you to lay charges in those cases? If they possess such evidence, why have they not turned that evidence over to you?
Please investigate these allegations by Tobacco Control. Our nation needs to know, with certainty, if multiple cases of murder are taking place without prosecution and it appears that only you will be able to find out if this is actually the case or not.]
Please, don't take my word about this! Contact Dawn Hachey, yourselves, and ask her to provide you with the names of the Canadians who were killed by exposure to second-hand smoke last year.
When she fails to provide you with a single name, because you will finally comprehend that;
You have been LIED TO.
You have been intentionally and deliberately DECEIVED.
You have been turned into and exploited as shills and carnival barkers for a national campaign of deliberately incited social panic.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258
July 5, 2004
Subject: Where are the 'bodies'??
Honored Councilors,
Where are the bodies?
We are being told that "X" number of persons die every year from exposure to second-hand smoke, and that a portion of these persons worked in the hospitality sector and were exposed to second-hand smoke therein. However, the numbers we have been provided are estimates based on risk factors. They are estimates of how many persons "ought" to die as a result of ETS, based on risk factor formulas. But, where are the bodies? Who, specifically, has died in the last year as a resulty of exposure to second-hand smoke? Can you provide a list of names? If not, how do you know for certain how many persons might have died from this cause? Have you contacted the people who compile cause of death statistics for Thunder Bay and asked them how many people died as a result of exposure to ETS? I have. Guess what they told me.
Heather Crowe -
Heather Crowe's situation is indeed tragic, but Heather Crowe is far from being a typical hospitality worker. According to an article about her that I pulled from an Ontario newspaper; "For 40 years, Heather Crowe waited on the grumpy and the grateful, some years working three shifts a day, at three different restaurants, from 6 a.m. until 2 a.m."
Is a forty-year career as a waitress, typical for hospitality workers? No. The average length of employment in fast-food restaurants, for example, is 6 months. The very best restaurants can rarely brag of employee length of service lasting a decade.
Is it typical for hospitality workers to work "three shifts a day, at three different restaurants, from 6 a.m. until 2 a.m."? Absolutely not!
Later in the same article, Cynthia Callard - executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada - is describing how she was contacted by Heather Crowe;
"What I remember feeling was not knowing what to say. She took ownership of the conversation. I'm very bossy, but she was the one in control. There wasn't an ounce of emotion in her voice. She was composed, sanguine, analytical." Callard immediately realized that Crowe might be the "face" that the anti-second-hand smoke forces were searching for, in the same way a flight attendant in the mid-'80s had been instrumental in getting smoking banned from aircraft in Canada."
Now, why would the "anti-second-hand smoke forces" be SEARCHING for someone like Heather Crowe? This search apparently took almost five years. Does it take five years to locate a typical hospitality worker? Not at all - throw a pebble into any crowd and you are likely to hit someone who has worked in that business at some time in their lives.
On the other hand, if you were searching for a hospitality worker so far from typical, that they had actually managed to contract lung cancer as a result of their work - that might take five years. If hospitality workers contracting fatal illnesses as a result of second-hand smoke are as common as we've been led to believe, shouldn't there be a "Heather Crowe" in every community across our country? Well, then - where are they? Where is Thunder Bay's Heather Crowe? Sudbury's? Kenora's? Winnipeg's? And why drag Heather Crowe across the country, if there are "Heather Crowes" in every community?
Causes of Death
Presumably, your motivation for passing Smoking ban bylaws, is to "save lives" and "prevent deaths". Regretably, "preventive health measures such as smoking bans, CANNOT do either of those things.
So-called "preventive health measures" DO NOT "save lives". "Saving someone's life" can only occur if the person in question is in an acute crisis threatening imminent demise. It is a deceptive mis-use of the terminology "saving lives", to apply those terms to "preventive measures", as all members of the medical profession are aware - even though some of them continue to mis-use the terminology themselves.
"Preventive health measures" DO NOT "prevent deaths", either. No person's death ever has been or ever will be, "prevented" (although they may be postponed). We are all going to die, after all, and nothing can "prevent" that. The only thing that measures such as smoking ban bylaws can do, is reduce the probability of certain causes of death and increase the probability of other causes of death.
Is that your goal, then? To reduce the probability of certain causes of death, in the hope that more people will eventually die quietly in their sleep, from "old age"?
The reality is, that "dying of old age" is a myth. Every person who does not die of accident or violence, is killed by some kind of disease process. Most people are not aware of this, and there are surprising reasons why some members of the public health community go out of their way to ensure that the myth about "dying of old age" never gets publicly confronted. You can verify for yourself, however, the truth of what I've just told you, by reading this study;
American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2001;22:150-
http://www.amjforensicmedicine.com/ [online archive - June, 2001 - page 150]
from which I quote; "There is a common conception that the very old die of old age, John and Koelmeyer write. But these findings show otherwise, the researchers conclude. The elderly, they write, die of disease not old age."
But, if fewer people smoke, fewer people will contract cancer and heart disease, and live longer lives in good health - is that what you are thinking? Unfortunately, that idea is also wrong.
There is a little-known study, conducted for Stats Canada, which concluded that if deaths attributed to cancer and heart disease were eliminated, the result would be an even greater occurence of chronic degenerative illnesses amongst the elderly. The study is this one;
The Elimination of Disease: A Mixed Blessing [StatsCan] Health
Reports 1995, Vol. 7, No. 3
Wayne J. Millar and Gerry B. Hill
From which I quote;
"Historically, the view has been that disease prevention will reduce the need for health care, but the experience of the last 50 years indicates that as the importance of some diseases as causes of death declines, others- typically chronic diseases and conditions- take their place and entail higher health care costs. Thus, if health promotion programs successfully reduce the prevalence of some leading causes of death,[cancer & heart disease specifically] there is potential for an increased burden of chronic illness..."
David B. Hogan, M.D., says;
"Society has been perversely rewarded for its defeat of the past's most threatening diseases. We added almost 30 years to life expectancy. That's the good news. The bad news is that we now die of even more horrible illnesses later in our lives. The eradication of infectious disease made it possible for us to die from heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's. As death from acute infection decreased, there were sharp increases in death from chronic diseases. The rising prevalence of these illnesses has been a constant theme in the middle part of this century."
"Part of the reason for the rising cancer death rate is the falling heart disease death rate. People who don't die of a heart attack in their sixties die of cancer in their seventies. If we conquer cancer, Alzheimer's disease is behind that. The advances in treatment resemble peeling the layers of an onion. The outermost layers were the diseases of childbirth and infancy. Peel them back and underneath were the infectious diseases of childhood. Underneath that were the infectious diseases of adulthood like syphilis and pneumonia. Underneath that was heart disease, underneath that was cancer, and underneath that was Alzheimer's. Every time you peel back a layer, you get a few more years of life expectancy-and a more bitter taste in your mouth."
The truth of the matter is, the large percentage of persons in our society dying of cancer and heart disease is a sign, not of how sickly and diseased we are, but of how fit and healthy we are. With the exception of some genetic abnormalities, cancers and heart disease very rarely cause the deaths of persons under the age of 35. Cancers and heart disease take years to develop, which means that a person must live long enough to become susceptible to them. In societies where illnesses that typically strike down children and young adults have not been conquered - due to poverty, lack of clean water, lack of medical training and facilities, social upheaval or culturally imbedded poor hygiene and public safety practices - the percentage of deaths attributable to cancers and heart disease will be much lower than in our society, EVEN IF smoking rates and consumption of "unhealthy" foods are comparable to those of our society. More people will die as children and young adults, in such a society, and fewer will live long enough to even become susceptible to developing cancers and heart disease.
We have developed a society that is so wealthy, so medically advanced, so clean and safe (for the vast majority of persons), that we live long enough in good health to develop and die from "socially advanced" causes of death like cancers and heart disease. If we continue along this trajectory, by eliminating the major causes of cancer and heart disease, will we eventually conquer death entirely?
No. The process of cell regeneration is not unlimited in any living beings. As we get older, our capacity for cell regeneration naturally declines, which creates vulnerability and susceptibility to an ever greater array of disease processes. Some of these, which rarely strike persons under the age of 55 in our society, typically entail much longer periods of decline - and subsequent suffering - before death occurs, than do most cancers and heart disease. The fewer people in our society there are who die of cancers and heart disease, the more people in our society will eventually succumb to these other disease processes. As the StatsCan study demonstrates, this is an inevitable and inescapable consequence, should we succeed in the current goal of eliminating the major causes of cancer and heart disease.
You have been deceived and manipulated by persons who are determined to generate a social panic about smoking in our society.
They have been working on this goal for many years. They have vast resources of money and personnel which are committed to this goal, which they call "de-normalization". Some of the groups involved in this project, operate almost like masonic secret societies - manipulating people in public office as well as members of the general public without ever revealing their membership in such a group. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), for example, has 300 members in Alberta. Do you know who they are? Do you know which public health officials belong to ASH? Do you know which provincial government officials belong to ASH? Do you know if any of your fellow councillors belong to ASH?
Denormalization
What is de-normalization? According to documents created by participants in a Health Canada denormalization conference; "Denormalization, in the context of social behaviour, aims to change attitudes toward what is generally regarded as normal or acceptable behaviour, including through social marketing. When attitudes change, behaviour will also change because humans generally want to act in ways that are acceptable to others."
In other words, de-normalization is about turning previously acceptable behaviors into socially unacceptable behaviors. This is acheived by manipulating people's attitudes toward the behavior through "social marketing".
What is "social marketing"? It is a polite way of saying that professional public relations and advertising companies will be (have been) hired, to manipulate people into "buying" new attitudes toward smoking, just as they create campaigns which manipulate people into buying new products. As we all know, this is not done by extolling the virtue of the product itself (or the real facts about the health dangers of second-hand smoke), but by associating the product with other desirable thing in people's minds. Cars are sold byassociating them with freedom, independence, sexual attractiveness,power, and other "values" that the target audience might hold.
Public smoking bans are "sold" TO MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES, in a similar manner - by associating them with "leadership", "saving lives", "preventing deaths", and other values held by the target audience of municipal representatives.
YES! You were deliberately targeted by professional public relationscampaigns in exactly this manner. If you don't believe this, followthis link;
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/roundtable/appendices.html
There, you will find the Health Canada conference on de-normalizationof smoking, and within that discussion you will find this statement;"Target politicians (narrow casting)."
TARGET POLITICIANS ! to receive a public relations campaign speciallydesigned to manipulate them, based on professional research into whatvalues are of greatest importance to public office holders!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
July 5, 2004
To various media
Subject: Smoke free Thunder Bay..Survey deliberately misleading!!
I just got a copy of the Gallup Poll on smoking today in my email. It has a couple of items that are VERY relevant to the smoking survey that was done in 2003 by Smoke Free Thunder Bay.
For one thing, note the difference in answers between when people are asked "ban smoking in all workplaces" and "ban smoking in bars." 36% favor the former while only 23% favor the latter. That difference shows CLEARLY that a referendum asking only about workplaces while intending to include bars is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING and should be declared invalid or outright illegal.
Note also the difference when people are asked if there should be "No Restrictions" on smoking. Only 3% feel there should be No Restrictions on general workplace smoking while 31% feel there should be no restrictions in bars... a difference in understanding of 1,000% (i.e. ten times).
Given those differences, no responsible public official should propose a referendum that does not make the distinctions explicit in the questions.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Subject: Where are the 'bodies'??
Honored Councilors,
Where are the bodies?
We are being told that "X" number of persons die every year from exposure to second-hand smoke, and that a portion of these persons worked in the hospitality sector and were exposed to second-hand smoke therein. However, the numbers we have been provided are estimates based on risk factors. They are estimates of how many persons "ought" to die as a result of ETS, based on risk factor formulas. But, where are the bodies? Who, specifically, has died in the last year as a resulty of exposure to second-hand smoke? Can you provide a list of names? If not, how do you know for certain how many persons might have died from this cause? Have you contacted the people who compile cause of death statistics for Thunder Bay and asked them how many people died as a result of exposure to ETS? I have. Guess what they told me.
Heather Crowe -
Heather Crowe's situation is indeed tragic, but Heather Crowe is far from being a typical hospitality worker. According to an article about her that I pulled from an Ontario newspaper; "For 40 years, Heather Crowe waited on the grumpy and the grateful, some years working three shifts a day, at three different restaurants, from 6 a.m. until 2 a.m."
Is a forty-year career as a waitress, typical for hospitality workers? No. The average length of employment in fast-food restaurants, for example, is 6 months. The very best restaurants can rarely brag of employee length of service lasting a decade.
Is it typical for hospitality workers to work "three shifts a day, at three different restaurants, from 6 a.m. until 2 a.m."? Absolutely not!
Later in the same article, Cynthia Callard - executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada - is describing how she was contacted by Heather Crowe;
"What I remember feeling was not knowing what to say. She took ownership of the conversation. I'm very bossy, but she was the one in control. There wasn't an ounce of emotion in her voice. She was composed, sanguine, analytical." Callard immediately realized that Crowe might be the "face" that the anti-second-hand smoke forces were searching for, in the same way a flight attendant in the mid-'80s had been instrumental in getting smoking banned from aircraft in Canada."
Now, why would the "anti-second-hand smoke forces" be SEARCHING for someone like Heather Crowe? This search apparently took almost five years. Does it take five years to locate a typical hospitality worker? Not at all - throw a pebble into any crowd and you are likely to hit someone who has worked in that business at some time in their lives.
On the other hand, if you were searching for a hospitality worker so far from typical, that they had actually managed to contract lung cancer as a result of their work - that might take five years. If hospitality workers contracting fatal illnesses as a result of second-hand smoke are as common as we've been led to believe, shouldn't there be a "Heather Crowe" in every community across our country? Well, then - where are they? Where is Thunder Bay's Heather Crowe? Sudbury's? Kenora's? Winnipeg's? And why drag Heather Crowe across the country, if there are "Heather Crowes" in every community?
Causes of Death
Presumably, your motivation for passing Smoking ban bylaws, is to "save lives" and "prevent deaths". Regretably, "preventive health measures such as smoking bans, CANNOT do either of those things.
So-called "preventive health measures" DO NOT "save lives". "Saving someone's life" can only occur if the person in question is in an acute crisis threatening imminent demise. It is a deceptive mis-use of the terminology "saving lives", to apply those terms to "preventive measures", as all members of the medical profession are aware - even though some of them continue to mis-use the terminology themselves.
"Preventive health measures" DO NOT "prevent deaths", either. No person's death ever has been or ever will be, "prevented" (although they may be postponed). We are all going to die, after all, and nothing can "prevent" that. The only thing that measures such as smoking ban bylaws can do, is reduce the probability of certain causes of death and increase the probability of other causes of death.
Is that your goal, then? To reduce the probability of certain causes of death, in the hope that more people will eventually die quietly in their sleep, from "old age"?
The reality is, that "dying of old age" is a myth. Every person who does not die of accident or violence, is killed by some kind of disease process. Most people are not aware of this, and there are surprising reasons why some members of the public health community go out of their way to ensure that the myth about "dying of old age" never gets publicly confronted. You can verify for yourself, however, the truth of what I've just told you, by reading this study;
American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2001;22:150-
http://www.amjforensicmedicine.com/ [online archive - June, 2001 - page 150]
from which I quote; "There is a common conception that the very old die of old age, John and Koelmeyer write. But these findings show otherwise, the researchers conclude. The elderly, they write, die of disease not old age."
But, if fewer people smoke, fewer people will contract cancer and heart disease, and live longer lives in good health - is that what you are thinking? Unfortunately, that idea is also wrong.
There is a little-known study, conducted for Stats Canada, which concluded that if deaths attributed to cancer and heart disease were eliminated, the result would be an even greater occurence of chronic degenerative illnesses amongst the elderly. The study is this one;
The Elimination of Disease: A Mixed Blessing [StatsCan] Health
Reports 1995, Vol. 7, No. 3
Wayne J. Millar and Gerry B. Hill
From which I quote;
"Historically, the view has been that disease prevention will reduce the need for health care, but the experience of the last 50 years indicates that as the importance of some diseases as causes of death declines, others- typically chronic diseases and conditions- take their place and entail higher health care costs. Thus, if health promotion programs successfully reduce the prevalence of some leading causes of death,[cancer & heart disease specifically] there is potential for an increased burden of chronic illness..."
David B. Hogan, M.D., says;
"Society has been perversely rewarded for its defeat of the past's most threatening diseases. We added almost 30 years to life expectancy. That's the good news. The bad news is that we now die of even more horrible illnesses later in our lives. The eradication of infectious disease made it possible for us to die from heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's. As death from acute infection decreased, there were sharp increases in death from chronic diseases. The rising prevalence of these illnesses has been a constant theme in the middle part of this century."
"Part of the reason for the rising cancer death rate is the falling heart disease death rate. People who don't die of a heart attack in their sixties die of cancer in their seventies. If we conquer cancer, Alzheimer's disease is behind that. The advances in treatment resemble peeling the layers of an onion. The outermost layers were the diseases of childbirth and infancy. Peel them back and underneath were the infectious diseases of childhood. Underneath that were the infectious diseases of adulthood like syphilis and pneumonia. Underneath that was heart disease, underneath that was cancer, and underneath that was Alzheimer's. Every time you peel back a layer, you get a few more years of life expectancy-and a more bitter taste in your mouth."
The truth of the matter is, the large percentage of persons in our society dying of cancer and heart disease is a sign, not of how sickly and diseased we are, but of how fit and healthy we are. With the exception of some genetic abnormalities, cancers and heart disease very rarely cause the deaths of persons under the age of 35. Cancers and heart disease take years to develop, which means that a person must live long enough to become susceptible to them. In societies where illnesses that typically strike down children and young adults have not been conquered - due to poverty, lack of clean water, lack of medical training and facilities, social upheaval or culturally imbedded poor hygiene and public safety practices - the percentage of deaths attributable to cancers and heart disease will be much lower than in our society, EVEN IF smoking rates and consumption of "unhealthy" foods are comparable to those of our society. More people will die as children and young adults, in such a society, and fewer will live long enough to even become susceptible to developing cancers and heart disease.
We have developed a society that is so wealthy, so medically advanced, so clean and safe (for the vast majority of persons), that we live long enough in good health to develop and die from "socially advanced" causes of death like cancers and heart disease. If we continue along this trajectory, by eliminating the major causes of cancer and heart disease, will we eventually conquer death entirely?
No. The process of cell regeneration is not unlimited in any living beings. As we get older, our capacity for cell regeneration naturally declines, which creates vulnerability and susceptibility to an ever greater array of disease processes. Some of these, which rarely strike persons under the age of 55 in our society, typically entail much longer periods of decline - and subsequent suffering - before death occurs, than do most cancers and heart disease. The fewer people in our society there are who die of cancers and heart disease, the more people in our society will eventually succumb to these other disease processes. As the StatsCan study demonstrates, this is an inevitable and inescapable consequence, should we succeed in the current goal of eliminating the major causes of cancer and heart disease.
You have been deceived and manipulated by persons who are determined to generate a social panic about smoking in our society.
They have been working on this goal for many years. They have vast resources of money and personnel which are committed to this goal, which they call "de-normalization". Some of the groups involved in this project, operate almost like masonic secret societies - manipulating people in public office as well as members of the general public without ever revealing their membership in such a group. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), for example, has 300 members in Alberta. Do you know who they are? Do you know which public health officials belong to ASH? Do you know which provincial government officials belong to ASH? Do you know if any of your fellow councillors belong to ASH?
Denormalization
What is de-normalization? According to documents created by participants in a Health Canada denormalization conference; "Denormalization, in the context of social behaviour, aims to change attitudes toward what is generally regarded as normal or acceptable behaviour, including through social marketing. When attitudes change, behaviour will also change because humans generally want to act in ways that are acceptable to others."
In other words, de-normalization is about turning previously acceptable behaviors into socially unacceptable behaviors. This is acheived by manipulating people's attitudes toward the behavior through "social marketing".
What is "social marketing"? It is a polite way of saying that professional public relations and advertising companies will be (have been) hired, to manipulate people into "buying" new attitudes toward smoking, just as they create campaigns which manipulate people into buying new products. As we all know, this is not done by extolling the virtue of the product itself (or the real facts about the health dangers of second-hand smoke), but by associating the product with other desirable thing in people's minds. Cars are sold byassociating them with freedom, independence, sexual attractiveness,power, and other "values" that the target audience might hold.
Public smoking bans are "sold" TO MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES, in a similar manner - by associating them with "leadership", "saving lives", "preventing deaths", and other values held by the target audience of municipal representatives.
YES! You were deliberately targeted by professional public relationscampaigns in exactly this manner. If you don't believe this, followthis link;
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/roundtable/appendices.html
There, you will find the Health Canada conference on de-normalizationof smoking, and within that discussion you will find this statement;"Target politicians (narrow casting)."
TARGET POLITICIANS ! to receive a public relations campaign speciallydesigned to manipulate them, based on professional research into whatvalues are of greatest importance to public office holders!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
July 5, 2004
To various media
Subject: Smoke free Thunder Bay..Survey deliberately misleading!!
I just got a copy of the Gallup Poll on smoking today in my email. It has a couple of items that are VERY relevant to the smoking survey that was done in 2003 by Smoke Free Thunder Bay.
For one thing, note the difference in answers between when people are asked "ban smoking in all workplaces" and "ban smoking in bars." 36% favor the former while only 23% favor the latter. That difference shows CLEARLY that a referendum asking only about workplaces while intending to include bars is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING and should be declared invalid or outright illegal.
Note also the difference when people are asked if there should be "No Restrictions" on smoking. Only 3% feel there should be No Restrictions on general workplace smoking while 31% feel there should be no restrictions in bars... a difference in understanding of 1,000% (i.e. ten times).
Given those differences, no responsible public official should propose a referendum that does not make the distinctions explicit in the questions.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
July 1, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent to Jasper Booster Alberta
Dear Editor,
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix.
Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes
to "dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is
taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this
extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.
Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.
The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.
The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.
Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?
The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did, they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants. That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health.
It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places? What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
June 30, 2004
To:
Subject: Minority 'rights'
Dear Editor,
I always thought that Americans were Gung Ho on minority rights.
It is the right' of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on private property.
It is the 'right' of the smoker to use a legal product on private property(with the owners consent)
If it's not broken, then don't fix it!!
The Crusaders are using 'Health' as a guise, but in fact they are trying to de-normalize smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Canada
June 30, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The 'rights' of the hospitality sector(smoking)
Dear Editor,
Suppressing minority rights, finally caught up to Mr. Glen Murray.
(The 'rights' of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on private property.)
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 30, 2004
Subject: The Volcano ATS
Dear Editor,
You don't see or smell second hand smoke.
What is your problem Mr. Mark Lubosch??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
June 28, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: A fair and democratic questions on the ballot!
Dear Mayor and Council,
If a question should be put on the ballot next election, this question is a fair and democratic question.
"How many people would support the need for complete smoking bans in pubs, if state- of- the-art ventilation were introduced instead?"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Feeling good about something, not necessarily public policy
Dear Editor,
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix. Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes to "dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.
Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.
The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.
The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.
Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?
The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did, they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants. That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health.
It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places? What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants
just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: It is up to the business owners!!
Dear Mayor and Council,
Consider this thought when you are dealing with the smoking issue!
From a legal and common sense standpoint, how can city councils dictate what goes on inside restaurants, bars, taverns and bingos, especially when they
are dealing with a legal product, such as smoking? If management has the right to refuse service to anyone for various reasons, then it should be up to individual owners what is allowed in their place of business (provided it is not a criminal offence).
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent this statement to Jasper on-line
Ms. Marcoux-Frigon is trying to denormalize(social engineering) smoking at the expense of the hospitality sector.
I would advise very strongly to investigate this web-site before she
gets her 'foot' in the door.
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
June 15, 2004
Dear Editor,
Dr. Morris said, this is a work-place smoking by-law. If you have workers, then you can't smoke.
If all the workers smoked, I would assume that, that establishment is exempt from the by-law.
To take this situation to another level, owners will then be forced to
discriminate and hire 'smokers only'.
Thomas Laprade
June 10, 2004
TO: The Dryden Observer
Dear Editor,
I noticed an article in the Chronicle Journal(Thunder Bay) "Students
question value of city's smoking bylaw"
Mr. Christopher Button said British Columbia, Toronto and Winnipeg have gone smoke free.
I would like to set the record straight, British Columbia, Toronto and
Winnipeg are not 100 per cent smoke free.
Ms. Miller states 75 per cent of the patrons "Suffer" from second hand smoke in that bar.
Does Ms. Miller represent the 75 percent of the "sufferers"?
If the 'sufferers' are suffering so bad, why do they enter that bar?
Don't the 'sufferers' have a 'choice' of NOT entering that bar?
Doesn't the smokers have a 'right' to smoke in that establishment, providing the owner gives them permission, after all it's his business isn't it?
Doesn't the owner have the 'right' to let smokers smoke in 'his' bar?
If the sufferers don't want to suffer so much 'suffering' they will not
enter that bar.
It is obvious to me that the suffering of the suffers are not as suffering as you may think they are suffering, because of the fact the sufferers are enjoying themselves more in the bar in spite of their 'suffering.'
Does that make sense??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
May 7, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Figure this one Mr. Smitherman!
Quote of the year.
'If there were any other product out there which leaves this kind of trail of death and destruction, we would have banished it a long, long time ago."
According to the Department of Health, 85,000 teens smoke 'dope' every day.
Are you going to 'ban' dope too?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent to Jasper Booster Alberta
Dear Editor,
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix.
Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes
to "dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is
taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this
extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.
Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.
The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.
The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.
Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?
The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did, they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants. That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health.
It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places? What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
June 30, 2004
To:
Subject: Minority 'rights'
Dear Editor,
I always thought that Americans were Gung Ho on minority rights.
It is the right' of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on private property.
It is the 'right' of the smoker to use a legal product on private property(with the owners consent)
If it's not broken, then don't fix it!!
The Crusaders are using 'Health' as a guise, but in fact they are trying to de-normalize smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Canada
June 30, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: The 'rights' of the hospitality sector(smoking)
Dear Editor,
Suppressing minority rights, finally caught up to Mr. Glen Murray.
(The 'rights' of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on private property.)
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 30, 2004
Subject: The Volcano ATS
Dear Editor,
You don't see or smell second hand smoke.
What is your problem Mr. Mark Lubosch??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
June 28, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: A fair and democratic questions on the ballot!
Dear Mayor and Council,
If a question should be put on the ballot next election, this question is a fair and democratic question.
"How many people would support the need for complete smoking bans in pubs, if state- of- the-art ventilation were introduced instead?"
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Feeling good about something, not necessarily public policy
Dear Editor,
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix. Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes to "dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.
Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.
The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.
The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.
Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?
The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did, they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants. That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health.
It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places? What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants
just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: It is up to the business owners!!
Dear Mayor and Council,
Consider this thought when you are dealing with the smoking issue!
From a legal and common sense standpoint, how can city councils dictate what goes on inside restaurants, bars, taverns and bingos, especially when they
are dealing with a legal product, such as smoking? If management has the right to refuse service to anyone for various reasons, then it should be up to individual owners what is allowed in their place of business (provided it is not a criminal offence).
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont..
Ph. 807 3457258
June 25, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Sent this statement to Jasper on-line
Ms. Marcoux-Frigon is trying to denormalize(social engineering) smoking at the expense of the hospitality sector.
I would advise very strongly to investigate this web-site before she
gets her 'foot' in the door.
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
June 15, 2004
Dear Editor,
Dr. Morris said, this is a work-place smoking by-law. If you have workers, then you can't smoke.
If all the workers smoked, I would assume that, that establishment is exempt from the by-law.
To take this situation to another level, owners will then be forced to
discriminate and hire 'smokers only'.
Thomas Laprade
June 10, 2004
TO: The Dryden Observer
Dear Editor,
I noticed an article in the Chronicle Journal(Thunder Bay) "Students
question value of city's smoking bylaw"
Mr. Christopher Button said British Columbia, Toronto and Winnipeg have gone smoke free.
I would like to set the record straight, British Columbia, Toronto and
Winnipeg are not 100 per cent smoke free.
Ms. Miller states 75 per cent of the patrons "Suffer" from second hand smoke in that bar.
Does Ms. Miller represent the 75 percent of the "sufferers"?
If the 'sufferers' are suffering so bad, why do they enter that bar?
Don't the 'sufferers' have a 'choice' of NOT entering that bar?
Doesn't the smokers have a 'right' to smoke in that establishment, providing the owner gives them permission, after all it's his business isn't it?
Doesn't the owner have the 'right' to let smokers smoke in 'his' bar?
If the sufferers don't want to suffer so much 'suffering' they will not
enter that bar.
It is obvious to me that the suffering of the suffers are not as suffering as you may think they are suffering, because of the fact the sufferers are enjoying themselves more in the bar in spite of their 'suffering.'
Does that make sense??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
May 7, 2004
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Subject: Figure this one Mr. Smitherman!
Quote of the year.
'If there were any other product out there which leaves this kind of trail of death and destruction, we would have banished it a long, long time ago."
According to the Department of Health, 85,000 teens smoke 'dope' every day.
Are you going to 'ban' dope too?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
