The Snowbird

Subject: Peace River Record Gazette smoking bylaw

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:45:44 -0400
The smoking ban dilemma Peace River Record Gazette — I am writing this regards to the proposed by-law and its repercussions. As a young ex-smoker, I can say I now understand both points of view of both non-smokers and smokers. Those of you reading may remember a previous letter of mine thanking Georgina Lovell for giving me the help and inspiration to quit smoking. I have been successful for two months now and still counting. I felt that in order for many people to understand the conflict over this proposition, it may be easier if they heard the other side's feelings. I must say that as a smoker I often felt outcast and unworthy of friendly company simply because I smoked, and I am sure that I was not the only one. I feel that over the years, advertising has somehow convinced people, even smokers themselves, that they are "bad people" when this is just not the case. Smokers are neither weak nor are they tainted in some way. Smokers are simply misled individuals who have succumbed to false advertising. I feel that allowing this smoke ban will cause more of the smoking public to feel disgusted with themselves, and is that really fair when they are not actually disgusting? On the other hand, non-smokers pose an extremely good point too. Why should they be exposed to second-hand smoke, which does kill, in restaurants where they want to eat? This poses an exceptional problem for pregnant women. It is recommended by doctors that these women should not be exposed to second-hand smoke during any term of their pregnancy. Even if there are designated smoking areas, does it really make a difference if the two sections are placed side-by-side? In conclusion, it is my understanding that the public do not know what to do...or what they want. I feel, and so do others like myself, that the Town Council should either discover some kind of 'happy medium' or think themselves up a third option. If not then this will just progress into a larger conflict. In the end, one question must be answered fairly: How can both sides be happy? Alyson Sheehan, 16 Peace River back “No” to non-smoking bylaw Peace River Record Gazette — The proposed bylaw is not about smoking, or health. It’s really about rights and the freedom to choose. If a business owner chooses to disallow smoking in their place of business, common sense people will respect the owner’s right to choose. If a business owner chooses to permit smoking in their place of business, then those opposed to smoking have the right to choose whether or not they want to enter that business. Plain and simple. If airborne particles harmful to one’s health are really the issue, then I submit the exhaust fumes emitted into the atmosphere from vehicles is far more dangerous than both first and second hand smoke from cigarettes. Perhaps those who wish to impose their beliefs on me, who wish to take away my right to choose whether or not I want to drink beer in a pub, or eat in a restaurant where smoking is permitted, should also petition for a ban on vehicles within our town limits. Put me in a confined space with a lit cigarette in one hand, and the keys to turn off my vehicle while in my garage in the other, guaranteed I’ll turn off my vehicle first – the exhaust fumes will kill me where the cigarette will not. This proposed bylaw is dangerous. Imposing a law that takes away the right of someone to choose who they do business with, where they go to drink refreshments, or eat meals is bad. As stated before, if a business owner wishes to permit smoking his business premises, and has the right to choose to do so, then those who wish not to smoke or inhale second hand smoke have the right to choose not to patronize that business. In any event, it boils down to the right to choose. I suggest three points to consider: First, I strongly suggest that citizens who vote in this upcoming election on this non-smoking issue vote "no". Vote "no" to a provision which allows a segment of society to impose their beliefs on others which takes away their right to choose. Second, should this bylaw be passed, I strongly suggest that those responsible for having it placed on the ballot become the "smoking police" – they should be the ones handing out arrest warrants. Allow them to be the draconian tyrants they are. Third, consider the bylaw which prohibits the use of off-road vehicles on Misery Mountain. Nice bylaw, but it is not enforced. What’s the use of having a bylaw which may be enforceable but not executable? Look at Yellowknife – the courts are backed up nine to 10 months with smoking violators because most people there absolutely refuse to obey ridiculous legislation. Dave Horner Peace River For smoke ban Peace River Record Gazette — As an individual who was born and raised in Peace River I keep up with all the local news via the Record Gazette web page and I am finding the controversy over the proposed smoking bylaw quite interesting. I have been a resident of Grande Prairie since 1985 and have witnessed the growth of a lot of businesses in this city over the years. We recently went through the non smoking controversy and we have been a non smoking city in places where minors can visit for a few years now. It is interesting to note that many of the views expressed by your smoking public were the same views expressed by our smoking public prior to the bylaw taking effect. The fact is since the bylaw has become effective, the food service industry in Grande Prairie has prospered and, if you talk to the business owners they will say sales have increased, even though there is a proliferation of eating places. In fact, a number of restaurants went non smoking before the bylaw was even passed. Grande Prairie even has a couple of non smoking lounges that do very well. I have read that in other centers that went non smoking, the businesses continue to be successful and, in fact, grow as more people will visit the establishments because of the reduced health risks to their families. It is interesting to note that in all the articles I have read in your local paper not one has ever mentioned researching the results of and effects the bylaw has had on businesses in other towns and cities. Every article works on the assumption business will suffer, while, in fact, it is totally the opposite that happens. It is time Peace River moves forward in its desire to be a progressive modern town attracting new business, and institutes a bylaw which has not had any negative effects anywhere else. Wayne Zack , former resident back New group is formed to oppose total smoke ban “This is an issue with two sides... a good exercise in democracy” - Don Good Peace River Record Gazette — Terry Hartz, General Manager of Travellers Motor Inn is looking to “educate” Peace River on matters related to the non-smoking plebiscite that will be on the ballot in the October election. Hartz has put together the Freedom of Choice group to inform the citizens of the town about the potential detrimental nature of banning smoking in all public places. "People are not aware of the rigidity of the bylaw," Hartz said. "If someone puts $2 million into a facility and you have people without a vested interest in that business telling them how to run it, it’s not fair." Hartz believes the proposed bylaw will be crippling for the business community. "I liked what the town’s council proposed...making buildings that we can not aviod going into nonsmoking. For example Casey Realty and Insurance where you have to renew your insurance or places like that." Hartz maintains the Freedom of Choice Group will do whatever they can to prevent this bylaw from passing. The group is a loose association that is collecting quotes from various citizens to present the business communities stance that this bylaw is not economically feasible. Hartz also argues that if they make all restaurants nonsmoking and allow smoking in the bars people will routinely eat in the pubs and take away business from the various eating establishments around town. "Is it fair when someone wants to eat in a smoke free environment that they demand all restaurants will be nonsmoking?" Hartz questioned. "We don’t have the time or resources to go door to door or anything like that but when we are ready we will release our finding so that the community can make an informed decision." Deputy Mayor Don Good sees this as an important step in figuring out what to do about this very complex and difficult issue. "This is an issue with two sides and I think this is a good exercise in democracy. It will be interesting to see it play out."

Question..Why do you need somebody to run for alderman who represents the hospitality sector??

Re: Upcoming civic election« Reply #11 on: Today at 01:34am »
Aug. 30/04
To represent the hospitality sector.
To influence the banning of a smoking bylaw.
To fight smoking bylaws.
A smoking bylaws means..it is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property!! Think about what I just said. Forget about the word or thought of 'smoke' or smoking.' When 'that' door is open, think about what any anti can do with the wording of the bylaw. It is mind boggling!! Peanut butter? Perfume? Would you believe that there is an anti group active in the states that is working on banning alcohol. It is called 'prohibition' drip by drip

www.forces.org

www.antibrains.com

To :
"edsun sun"
Subject :
Some thoughts for Mr. Les Hagen!!
Dear Editor, Aug.11/04
Concerning the smoking issue, I have some thoughts about Mr. Les Hagen.
Does he believe in 'minority rights'?
The rights of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on 'private'
property?
Does he believe that Fascism is running amuck across Alberta?
Does he believe that only the hospitality workers and customers should be
the only people who should vote on a plebiscite concerning the 'smoking'
issue?

# posted by Samantha : 7:26 PM

CC : letters@edm.sunpub.com Subject : Charities fight Edmonton's smoking by-law

| | | Inbox

Dear Editor, Aug. 26/04

What in name is wrong with the Mayor and Council?

The cure is worse than the disease.

Leave the smokers and their friends enjoy themselves.

Their money is going for a good cause!

Leave the adults alone.

Go back to your knit picking and run the business of the city, not the businesses of the city!

These bingos are saving the city money.

Instead of the city picking up the tab for funding these non-profit organizations, the smokers and their friend are doing the city a favor.

Wake up and smell the coffee!!

mayor@airdrie.ca Aug. 28/04
Subject :
The negative side of referendums

Dear Mayor and Council

Here are the reasons why a plebiscite or a referendum is undemocratic and wrong.

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 The Smoker's Rights Website: http://thesnowbird.tripod.com/Visit my Blog for Current Letter Writings: http://thesnowbird.blogspot.com

# posted by Samantha : 10:18 AM

Dear Editor Aug.23/04

Has the Mayor and aldermen been to the bottom 10 of the hospitality sector, to find out first hand how they are doing since the by-law took effect July 1/04? Is the Mayor and Aldermen interested in these places that are just hanging on by their 'finger tips'? Has Simon Hoad and Dr. Jim Morris been down to talk to this people and possible give them good advice on how to survive under these conditions, or do they really care if they survive or not. I challenge Simon Hoad and Dr. Jim Morris to talk to these people and asked them 'how are they doing since the bylaw has been in place, or are they afraid they might be told the 'truth'. Where are all the non-smoking people who will come to their businesses when they went smoke free? Council is trying to promote business and create jobs. Do they think that this smoking by-law will help these struggling businesses. These businesses have been around a long time. They have families to feed, bills to pay, mortgages to pay etc. Or do they really care?..The CITY WITH THE BIG HEART!!!!

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Subject: This pisses me off!!!!

Is this the second person who died in Toronto because of a smoking by-law?? I remember a Doctor saying, " if one person is 'saved from dying' the smoking bylaw is worth it"

.Where is that Doctor now???

Stabbed bartender dies By GABRIELLE GIRODAY With a report from Katherine Harding
Friday, August 20, 2004 - Page A8 The Globe and Mail

An altercation that left the bartender of the Jupiter Sports Bar and Café stabbed to death could have been caused by memberships in the bar that he was selling in an effort to get around the city's smoking ban, grieving employees said yesterday. Forty-nine-year-old Jayantha Peiris died at Sunnybrook Hospital of stab wounds after a dispute with three young patrons at about 11:30 Wednesday night. No arrests have been made. The tiny, bespectacled man who ran the bar at Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue worked with his partner, Linda Karunarathna, to develop a respectable establishment in a crime-ridden strip mall. Mr. Peiris, who had one child, had recently recreated Jupiter, not only with renovations to encourage restaurant traffic during the day, but changing it on July 1 to a private club so patrons could smoke. Memberships cost $5. Employees said Mr. Peiris was often the sole front-of-the-house staff member to enforce the card rule. Bylaw enforcement officers policing Toronto's tough new smoking bylaw were unaware that the restaurant was illegally allowing patrons to smoke under the guise of operating as a private club, a public-health spokeswoman said. The city has had problems with the Jupiter. On July 12, inspectors charged the bar with breaking a smoking bylaw. Employees spoke fondly of Mr. Peiris. "Jay didn't even drink, and he was a really good guy," Garry Aphan, a former employee, said. "When I did not have any money, he would let me work in the kitchen and wash dishes for food. "Friend Mark Snary said Mr. Peiris had great business skills. "When he bought the building, he wanted to make it a comfortable place where everyone could hang out, so he put in big screens and pool tables and played variety music.

Subject: Charities fight Edmonton's smoking by-law

Dear Editor, Aug. 26/04

What in name is wrong with the Mayor and Council? The cure is worse than the disease. Leave the smokers and their friends enjoy themselves. Their money is going for a good cause! Leave the adults alone. Go back to your knit picking and run the business of the city, not the businesses of the city! These bingos are saving the city money. Instead of the city picking up the tab for funding these non-profit organizations, the smokers and their friends are doing the city a favor. Wake up and smell the coffee!!


Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Dear Editor
Wpg. Sun Aug. 18/04

The higher the taxes on cigarettes, the availability of cheap smokes that will be on the 'black market'. The Manitoba Government is doing us smokers a big favor. We smokers are saving a bundle, thanks to the Manitoba Government! Keep up the good work. Am telling all my friends in Winnipeg to vote for you again.

In ashes?
Published 28-Jul-2004 The Publican

Tom Sandham finds out how Irish licensees are faring four months on from the smoking ban. Ireland’s honeymoon period on the smoking ban is officially over. After enjoying a month of reasonable business in April when there seemed to be a novelty value for customers, the drinks trade is suffering the fall-out. For licensees the Celtic tiger is looking more like a tabby by the day. This was widely expected, of course, and reports that takings have dropped by anywhere between 15 per cent and 50 per cent come as no surprise. From the outset, licensees warned that the gung-ho method of implementation from the Irish department of health was guaranteed to hit trade hard. They felt they had been left out of the loop in the decision-making process. If they had been asked it would have been agreed that a gradual introduction rather than an overnight one was required to protect businesses. There is also a widespread belief in Ireland that the government used the ban to paper over other, more serious cracks in the health service in a bid to sustain public support. But unfortunately for the government, it seems the move was not a vote winner, as the party responsible – Fianna Fáil – lost more than 20 per cent of its local constituency seats and also a European seat in recent elections. This comes as no consolation to licensees, however, who have been left reeling by the bashing the trade has taken. When the ban came in on March 29, business was already declining and when Diageo put drink prices up in May it seemed inevitable that by July the situation would look bad. For some it is even worse than their most vivid nightmares predicted, whether they operate in a busy town centre, a working class suburb or the countryside. “It’s a disaster, my trade is easily down 20 per cent,” said Frank O’Connell who owns MacTurcails, a pub in the centre of Dublin that was popular with tourists and locals alike. “Some blame the price increases but that’s simply not true, I haven’t raised my prices at all.” Many felt Dublin city centre was not the correct barometer for the decline but the fact that there has been a constant level of trade from tourists during the last decade means the drop in trade is even more apparent. “Our best tourists came from the UK,” added Mr O’Connell. “When they heard about the ban they started looking elsewhere for their weekend breaks. We’re losing them fast.” Out in the country the story is the same. Seamus O’Donoghue is president of the Vintners’ Federation of Ireland, an organisation that represents the interests of more than 800 Irish licensees who operate outside of Dublin. He also owns a pub in the town of Portlaoise, in the middle of the country. “Trade is down,” he said in his pub, O’Donoghue’s. “At first we survived because customers were happy to give it a go, but people who have been smoking all their lives aren’t going to stop because it’s banned in pubs, they’ll just stop coming to pubs. I’ve not seen any new customers and trade in my pub is down 20 per cent. Our members are telling us it’s down at least by 15 per cent on average so all we can hope is that they re-open the debate.” Donall O’Keeffe, chief executive of the Licensed Vintners’ Association, whose members are Dublin licensees, has also had his worst fears realised. “The category most affected is the ‘landlocked’ pub,” he said. “For these licensees there is no way of accommodating the smoker. It’s not as noticeable in the summer but when the weather turns bad in the winter we expect to see trade drop.” Although the scene in Ireland seems to be one of doom and gloom, not everyone is struggling. John Hoyne has recently paid €5.5m for the Brazen Head, one of Ireland’s oldest pubs, which is a stone’s throw from the Guinness brewery. The pub is one of the few places in Dublin with a beer garden, which explains his decision to buy it at such a tough time for the trade. “There’s no doubt that the ban has damaged trade,” he said. “But with a shelter and some heaters my business is up 10 per cent.” David L’Estrange, a leading accountant who provides services for 200 licensees, believes there is more to the problems than just the smoking ban. He explained: “We’re nearly at full employment and have a very well-educated population. The ban has had an effect but we have a lot more people here who are thinking of better ways to spend their time than sitting in pubs all day.” Meanwhile, Dave Molloy at the Office of Tobacco Control steers the argument away from the loss of trade towards the benefits of improved health for staff who work in Irish pubs. He said: “This was always about protecting workers, it wasn’t an anti-smoker law. It’s impossible to argue against this medically. As for the timescale used to enforce the ban, we have been talking about it for 10 years. To say it came in overnight is not true.” The health argument will not stop the rogue element, however, and while trade associations and most licensees would not advocate breaking the law, one or two in recent weeks have run the gauntlet. The highest profile case was Ronan Lawless at Fibber Magees in Galway, who was eventually forced to back down when threatened with legal action. And news that another licensee in Galway was recently fined €1, 200 for allowing smoking might put people off repeating the stunt. Probably not, though. As a countryside licensee who preferred to remain anonymous summed up the situation perfectly for these characters. “I’m letting people smoke in my pub, whatever the law, and will continue to do so,” he said as he sat in a particularly smoky pub. “My staff are smokers, I’m a smoker and the majority of my customers are smokers. Where’s the choice for them?” Pictured top: The Temple Bar area of Dublin has lost tourist trade since the ban. Facing staff cutbacks John Smith, a licensee in the working class Walkinstown, Dublin, is preparing to lay off staff as a result of the smoking ban. Mr Smith’s pub, the Submarine, attracted plenty of custom before the ban and in an effort to accommodate everyone he spent a fortune on state-of-the-art ventilation. “We were advised to do this by the government – and then they enforced a ban anyway,” he declared. “The health service is in chaos and it decided to divert attention with this draconian measure. I’m not saying it is not right to protect workers, but it is the way it has been done. My trade is down and I’m facing staff cutbacks.”

MANITOBA SEES SMOKE-FREE PROBLEMS

The Chronicle Journal
Aug. /04

The following is from a June 28the article by Sun Media regarding some of the problems Manitoba is facing with their one-year old smoking ban. Faced with slumping profits due to smoking bans, Manitoba Lotteries--corporation that runs Winnipeg's two casino and the fleet of video lottery terminals in the province's bars--is offering voluntary buyout packages to its 2,000 employees. Casino employees who chose to leave will receive one week's pay for every 15 weeks of employment, up to 26 weeks' pay. Bar and hotel operators in Winnipeg and Brandon have seen their revenues drop by as much as 20 per cent since smoking was banned indoors.Manitoba Lotteries profits declined $20 Million since the smoking ban has been put in place.

Jason Bruce

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Dear Editor, CanmoreLeader Sask.
Aug 18/04

It is none of councils business to interfere with the hospitaliy sector whether to use a legal product on 'private' property. Council was elected to run the business of the town, not the town's businesses. We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa. Council is not in the health business, and shouldn't be. It is about time to take back control of your own businesses. You are not paying taxes to council to have them tell you how to run your business. When council starts to pay your taxes, then and only then, they can tell you how to run your business. Until then,

BUTT OUT!!!

Butt-out bylaw hurting Sault bingo business
Dear Editor,
Aug. 14/04

Did council think of the ramifications of a smoking bylaw on bingos. I think not. Who is going to fund these non-profit organizations, if the bingos fold? Since council passed the by-law, it should be councils obligation to fund these organizations. And where is council going to get the money to fund these organizations? Raising property taxes? Yes, that way everybody pays!! Protect the workers and the non-smokers you say? There won’t be any workers or non-smokers to protect if the bingos fold! It sounds like the ’cure’ is worse than the disease. Swallow your ’pride’ council, admit you ’goofed’!! Simple solution..Make an exemption for ’Bingos’ If it wasn’t broken, then don’t fix it!!

Sault Ste Marie Aug. 19/04

Bingos and the smoking issue.

If 80% of the public smoked, would council have passed a smoking by-law? No they would not have passed it. Why? Because council would have been voted out of office. The Dept of health knew this,so they went through the back door of council and had council pass a smoking by-law. The Dept.. of Heath were very cagey, they instigated the by-law and then had council pass it. Now who is getting the flack? Dept. of Health? NO. Council is getting the flack and the Dept of health is chuckling up their sleeves. The Dept. of health have conned, duped, scammed, told half-truths. possibly used slanted surveys, and have told the biggest lie to council and the public. They have used the 'Health' card. They have used their favorite weapons 'Fear and Doubt' 'There is no safe level from second-hand smoke you say. Here is a scenario. If one person lights up a smoke in a hall and their are 300 people(non-smokers) in that hall, would every body be at risk from acquiring cancer? If you believe that, than I have a bridge I would like to sell you!! If everything being equal,and you couldn't see or smell second-hand smoke, would you have still passed a smoking by-law? The main agenda of the Health dept. is not about Health but is to de-normalize(social engineering) smoking. Check these websites out, if you don't believe me!! www.forces.org www,antibrains.com

Sault Ste. Marie
Aug. 19/04
Name:
April Turco
Comment:
In regards to the no smoking by law I believe that if businesses want to have smoking it should be up to the owners to post that this venue has a smoking environment there for if you do not smoke you have the right not to venture into the establishment. The population consists highly of smokers rather than non smokers, and if it is causing a big decline inprofits for businesses and charities than this is one bylaw that should be changed and left up to individuals. What happened to the Bill of Rights?

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

Edmonton Sun

Aug. 19/04

HAVE been dealing with restaurants for many years now and have found the smoking bylaw to be the most wasteful use of city council's time. What happened to personal choice? This bylaw was created because council questions our intelligence. I am a non-smoker and when I entered into a smoke-filled restaurant I just turned around and leave. Council's job is to make the city services run smoothly. It's time to get back to work.
Matthew Barnes
(It's divided the city.)

The right to use a legal product on private property!


The simple answer is yes of course it is. This has been the reason that anti smokers have had to attempt the restriction of a law abiding persons freedom to carry out a legal pastime where they choose, by the back door. They cannot stop people carrying out a legal pastime so they try to get it banned through health and safety at work legislation which simply put says an employer has an obligation to protect their employees health whilst at work. They are attempting to do this despite their not being able to show there is a risk to employees health from secondry smoke. The only way this will be decided is by an employee taking their employer to court for damages and there proving the damage cause. Whilst the anti's advocate and threaten this they have been unable to carry it through. A prossecution would be welcomed by the trade as it would prove there is no possible justification for the removal of basic rights of smokers.

The Publican..------------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 19/04

To put this in a proper perspective... When government mandated smoking bans are not imposed the vast majority of drinking establishments that attempt to go smoke-free will return to allowing smoking. Pubs and restaurants are not created equally. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand. Though the majority of people in today's society are non-smokers... The vast majority of regular pub goers are smokers or are non-smokers who do not mind if smoking is permitted there. The anti-smoking lobby fears without an all-out government imposed smoking ban, most pubs and other venues that serve alcohol will return to allowing smoking. Their fears a completely justofied by the truth: Smoking bans imposed by government decree are bad for most hospitality businesses. Without the government to back their selfish wants, the anti-smoking lobby knows that they could NEVER convince the majority of publicans to make their businesses smoke-free. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig , 19th August 2004

This is nothing new. It's happened countless times all over North America. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby and government polls may claim... There is simply not the the need or call for smoke-free businesses in most drinking establishments even in a free-market. This is exacyly why the anti-smoking lobby want the governments to ban smoking everywhere. Many businesses that actually choose to go smoke-free will return to allowing smoking when their profits dwindle and their customer bases shrink under smoke-free policies. If a total ban is imposed by government order, the affected businesses do not have the choice to save themselves by re-allowing smoking. The anti-smoking people's agenda is a selfish one, purely based on their hatred for second-hand tobacco smoke. Smoking bans have nothing to do with public or worker's health.

Dear Editor, Wpg.Sun Aug. 19/04

Gov't greed the problem!

Governments' greed instigates "hijacking" (Cig pirates strike, Aug. 18). Common-sense solution -- lower taxes and everybody wins.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

To : star@whitehorsestar.com
Dec. 8/03
Subject : Rights swept away!!


Dear Editor,

Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them. Do they not recognize the importance of respecting people’s right to control their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom? The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the rights of private citizens. When one person’s desires are allowed to trump another person’s rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority. A truly democratic government obeys the will of the people, but at the same time the 'rights' of the minority must be protected. The 'rights' of the 'minority' --The hospitality sector has the 'right' to use a legal product on private property.

July 21/03

Dear Mayor and council,

How would you feel if legislators said you could no longer drive your car on town streets because it endangers pedestrians? What if lawmakers decided you can't eat dessert at public restaurants because it can lead to health problems, including high cholesterol and obesity? Or if they outlawed sunbathing at public beaches, because such exposure might cause skin cancer? Legislators would never pass such laws, because too many people drive cars, eat dessert and sunbathe, despite the well-documented dangers and the high number of deaths each activity has caused. Banning adults from engaging in a legal activity is a dangerous precedent to set, as is banning a private business owner from allowing a legal activity to occur within his establishment. Let's assume, for a moment, that the lawmakers have good reason to ban smoking. Let's assume that second-hand smoke actually causes lung cancer. If it does, then lawmakers are trying to protect innocent individuals from that danger. They are saying, in effect, that my right as a non-smoker to hang out in a local bar and not be put at risk by smoking is greater than a smoker's right to engage in this legal activity. But where does the bar owner's right enter into this equation? As the proprietor of a business, doesn't he or she have the right to decide how to operate that business? Where do personal choice and the rule of the marketplace enter into the equation? Nowhere does Canadian law stipulate that I must visit local bars. I choose to do so, and if that means putting up with smokers, that's my choice. Anyone who does not want to be exposed to smoke at a bar or restaurant should not patronize that bar or restaurant. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to eat out. If non-smokers stopped patronizing establishments that allowed smoking, then more and more owners of bars and restaurants would choose on their own to ban smoking. Such market forces are the heart and soul of capitalism and a free market economy. Look at it another way: I don't enjoy loud dance music or hip-hop. Many people I know don't enjoy it either. We would enjoy going to a dance club, but don't because of that music. Should we lobby our legislators to ban loud music and hip hop at dance clubs because we don't enjoy it? You may say loud music doesn't create a health risk, as second-hand smoke does. But the volume at which most dance clubs blast their music has been proven to damage hearing, and yet no legislation is being passed to ban that health threat. I also have a problem with the state telling local bar owners to restrict their patrons' right to smoke. Banning a legal activity in select places smacks of an abuse of power. Lawmakers supposedly are banning smoking in bars to protect non-smoker's health, both for patrons and bar workers. (Banning people from driving to bars would save far more innocent lives, but of course that is politically untenable.) Second-hand smoke may slightly increase health risks to non-smokers, and smoking itself is certainly a dangerous habit we should urge people to quit. But before lawmakers start restricting citizens' behavior by banning legal activities in privately owned establishments, they should make sure that such a dangerous, Orwellian precedent is based on fact, not fiction.

To: cal-letters@calgarysun.com

Subject: Sin taxes and health care!!
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004
Dear Editor,

If all the taxes that are collected from cigarettes and alcohol, were put towards Health Care, the health care system would be over-funded. If all the sin-taxes are not put towards the health care system, then you must ask your local MP..Why Not?? Isn't your health the most important thing on this planet. If you don't have your health you have 'nothing'.

Aug 11/04

Councilor Gord Lawder says there is ample proof of the dangers of second-hand smoke. I challenge him to prove it, not rumors, gossip, hearsay but hard core proof. If he can't prove it, then it is not an issue! Mr. Lawder, would you agree with me If I said this to you. We do not elect councils so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

---

Dear Editor Aug. 18/04
Winnipeg Free Press

The higher the taxes on cigarettes, the availability of cheap smokes that will be on the 'black market'. The Manitoba Government is doing us smokers a big favor. Us smokers are saving a bundle, thanks to the Manitoba Government! Keep up the good work.
Am telling all my friends in Winnipeg to vote for you again.

Dear Editor Winnipeg Free Press

Aug. 18/04

The higher the taxes on cigarettes, the availability of cheap smokes that will be on the 'black market'. The Manitoba Government is doing us smokers a big favor. Us smokers are saving a bundle, thanks to the Manitoba Government! Keep up the good work. Am telling all my friends in Winnipeg to vote for you again.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807- 3457258

Dear Editor, Aug 18/04

It is none of councils business to interfere with the hospitaliy sector whether to use a legal product on 'private' property.
Council was elected to run the business of the town, not the town's businesses
We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa.
Council is not in the health business, and shouldn't be.
It is about time to take back control of your own businesses.
You are not paying taxes to council to have them tell you how to run your business.
When council starts to pay your taxes, then and only then, they can tell you how to run your business.
Until then, BUTT OUT!!!

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Subject: cancer causing toxins in daily household items Guide Helps
Consumers Track Toxins at Home
By gail johnson Publish Date: 12-Aug-2004
Illustration: Lori Joy Smith
Every time someone lights a cigarette, dozens of carcinogens get released into the air--substances like hydrogen cyanide and ammonia and formaldehyde. If the word carcinogens has a nasty ring to it, that's for good reason: they're known to cause cancer. Besides inMarlboros, toxic ingredients also exist in dozens of day-to-dayhousehold products, everything from laundry detergent to oven cleaner to pet-flea control. And toxins are also present in the food we eat, in the form of residue from pesticides used on fruits and vegetableslike apples, peaches, snow peas, and spinach. Problem is, most consumers don't have a clue. Just as not smoking can reduce the risk of lung cancer, not using harmful chemicals to clean your countertops could help decrease the chance of acquiring other forms of the disease. According to the Vancouver-based Labour Environmental Alliance Society, the link between human health and the environment is commonly overlooked. Tohelp people better understand what's in the products they buy--and help them find safer options--the organization recently published the Cancer Smart Consumer Guide. The easy-to-read booklet goes into comprehensive detail about a vast array of chemicals, such as 2-butoxyethanol--a suspected cardiovascular, developmental, endocrine, liver, kidney, and reproductive toxicant found in products like Fantastic Lemon Scent Cleaner and Tilex Total Bathroom Multipurpose Cleaner--and ethoxylatednonylphenol, a suspected endocrine toxicant, which is in Purex Liquid Laundry Detergent and VIP Regular Detergent."People really do want to know what's in common products, and they have a right to know," Mae Burrows, LEAS's executive director, said in a phone interview. "People generally have a vague sense of the chemicals in pesticides. But when they look at this book, they're shocked to find out that there are known human carcinogens in all these other products."In Canada, Burrows explained, manufacturers do not have to label carcinogens on their products. In some states, like California, and in the European Union, however, such labelling is mandatory. Furthermore, in Europe, if manufacturers are unsure whether or not certain ingredients are harmful to human health, they are required to do tests to find out."We have no rights as consumers in Canada--in this age of information--to know what's in a product," Burrows said. "There are70,000 chemicals on the market that haven't been tested for their effect on human health. They are innocent till proven guilty."According to the Canadian Cancer Society, about five percent of cancers can be directly linked to environmental contaminants. That's about 6,400 cases across the country each year. Among the organizations that test substances for detrimental health effects are the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a division of the World Health Organization), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. LEAS drawsits information from these and other groups to form its list ofharmful chemicals. (The 24-page guide, $5, is available by contacting LEAS [www.leas.ca/] at 604-669-1921, info@leas.ca.) Take ingredients in some cleaning products. According to Scorecard.org--a Web site that's operated by the New York ­based Environmental Defense and that provides information on more than 11,000 chemicals--silica is a known carcinogen and is suspected of being toxic to the gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney, and respiratory system. The Cancer Smart Consumer Guide lists silica as an ingredient in Ajax Cleaner With Bleach, Comet Powder With Chlorinol, and Twinkle Copper and Brass Cleaner. Then there's trisodiumnitrilotriacetate, a known carcinogen, found in All, Sunlight, and Wisk laundry detergents.The CancerSmart Consumer Guide includes dozens of other products, from paint thinners to fungicides, as well as their active ingredients and what type of "toxic classes" they fall under: endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, or reproductive toxins. According to the booklet, Hartz2-in-1 Flea and Tick Powder for Dogs and Cats contains the carcinogentetrachlorvinphos, which can also be toxic to the kidneys and skin. As an alternative, the guide suggests insecticidal soaps. Xylene--oftenfound in paints, some adhesives, and graffiti and scuff removers--is, according to Scorecard.org., suspected of being a developmental toxicant, which means it could have adverse effects on growing children. It's also potentially harmful to people's cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immunological, neurological, and reproductive systems. There's also the hazardous effect on the environment to consider. All these products end up flushed away and carried via groundwater into rivers. There they can have devastating impacts on animals, birds, and fish. Many people might not expect to find such toxic compounds in the food they eat. The CancerSmart Consumer Guide refers to the CFIA, which screened hundreds of food samples for contaminants between 1994 and 1998. According to the guide, some fruits and vegetables were contaminated with residues from 10 or more different pesticides. Fresh grapes, for example, were found to have residue from such substances as: carbaryl, a suspected carcinogen and endocrinetoxicant; chlorpropham, which can cause nosebleeds and inflammation of the stomach and intestinal lining; dichloran, which is suspected of causing heart, blood, liver, and skin damage; and phosmet, which can lead to eye and skin irritation, dizziness, and sweating. The listgoes on.LEAS's guide lists the 15 most contaminated fruits andvegetables--including grapes, lettuce, apples, and cherries--and the 15 least likely to be contaminated, like asparagus, avocado, beets, corn, and eggplant. FoodWatch (www.foodwatch.ca/), a program ofToronto-based Environmental Defence Canada, takes information from the CFIA for its Toxic Tracker, which enables people to click on a various foods and learn what chemicals they have been known to carry. The guide urges people to use safe cleaning products, lobby regulatory bodies to reduce the number of contaminants in our food supply, and support local, organic farming. As for the scrubbing part, there are always the methods grandma used: vinegar to kill mould and germs, and borax to clean the toilet. http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=4278

Sent :
August 11, 2004 2:40:46 AM
To :
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca

Subject :
They don't really care!! The City with the BIG HEART!!

Dear Editor ,

Aug.10/04

Has the Mayor and aldermen been to the bottom 10 of the hospitality sector, to find out first hand how they are doing since the by-law took effect July 1/04? Since the Mayor and Aldermen are high on their perch do you think they are interested in these places that are just hanging on by their 'finger tips'? Has Simon Hoad and Dr. Jim Morris been down to talk to these people and possible give them good advice on how to survive under these conditions, or do they really care if they survive or not. Council is trying to promote business and create jobs. Do they think that this smoking by-law will have an opposite effect on these struggling businesses. These businesses have been around a long time. They have families to feed, bills to pay, mortgages to pay etc. Or do they really care..The CITY WITH THE BIG HEART!!!!

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

To: Letter Globe and Mail Editor

(letters@globeandmail.ca)
Subject:
Smoke clearing in fight over bans.

Michael Perley, director of the non-profit Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco claims 'In the last three years, there has been this sea change in public opinion' in support of smoking bans that has 'penetrated to the point of broad social consensus.'Perley's statement highlights the problem with information spewing fromanti-smoking radicals. It differs significantly from reality.

Witness a 1999 The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) survey showed only 12% of Ontario residents 18 or older support a total smoking ban in bars with only 28% supporting a total smoking ban in restaurants. OTRU's 2002 follow-up survey, showed only 19% of Ontario residents 18 or older support a total smoking ban in bars and only 35% supporting a total smoking ban in restaurants. A Canada-wide survey to compare Ontarians' preference for a total smoking ban on smoking in restaurants and bars with other provinces revealed consistent results. Only 24% of Canadians supported a total ban smoking ban in bars; only 37% in restaurants. A study published in the January 2003 issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health found only 14% of Ontarians support a complete ban in bars and taverns. Only 37% of Canadians support a complete ban on smoking in restaurants. Gallup polling in July 2003 suggests similar sentiments are also held by Americans. Only 25% favour a total smoking ban in hotels. While 45% favour a total ban smoking in restaurants and 52% favour areas that are set aside for smoking. Similar research shows a strong lack of support for smoking bans by the British public where only 17% of all adults believe smoking should be banned in pubs, clubs, and bars. Eric Boyd
507A Rosemeadow Cr. Waterloo, Ontario Work 519 888-4567 Ext 2163Mobile 519 -503-0280 Email eboyd@uwaterloo.ca

Sent :
August 15, 2004 11:54:23 PM
To :
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca

Subject :
Set the record straight!!

Dear Mayor and Council
Aug. 14/04

Concerning the survey that Tobacco Free did during Dec/02, Jan./03.
There are some questions that still linger in my mind. 82% of the population wanted a smoke free bylaw! Myself and two owners of the hospitality sector went to the Dept of Health and asked,"what was the exact question they asked the people who they surveyed"? They would not tell us the wording of the question. "If they're trying to hide and twist what they even ASKED... then why should we believe any of the actual NUMBERS that they're claiming?" Could the question have been 'slanted' in their favor? Was their a neutral government body presiding over that survey so everything was on the 'up' and 'up'? Since Tobacco Free wanted that smoking by-law do you think they did NOT hype those figures in order to influence the public? If you think that they did NOT hype those figures, I have a bridge I would like to sell you! Would it be a fairer survey if they just surveyed the people who patronized the hospitality sector.?

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. Witness a 1999 ,The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) survey showed only 12% of Ontario residents 18 or older support a total smoking ban in bars with only 28% supporting a total smoking ban in restaurants. OTRU's 2002 follow-up survey, showed only 19% of Ontario residents 18 or older support a total smoking ban in bars and only 35% supporting a total smoking ban in restaurants. A Canada-wide survey to compare Ontarians' preference for a total smoking ban on smoking in restaurants and bars with other provinces revealed consistent results. Only 24% of Canadians supported a total ban smoking ban in bars; only 37% in restaurants. A study published in the January 2003 issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health found only 14% of Ontarians support a complete ban in bars and taverns. Only 37% of Canadians support a complete ban on smoking in restaurants. Gallup polling in July 2003 suggests similar sentiments are also held by Americans. Only 25% favor a total smoking ban in hotels. While 45% favor a total ban smoking in restaurants and 52% favor areas that are set aside for smoking. Similar research shows a strong lack of support for smoking bans by the British public where only 17% of all adults believe smoking should be banned in pubs, clubs, and bars. I have set the record straight!! 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 they try to make us do as they think!!

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 -3457258

Sent :
August 17, 2004 3:07:44 PM
To :
a.j.hill@sasktel.net, chriswyatt@sasktel.net, lj.arnelien@sasktel.net, mayor@city.yorkton.sk.ca, prairie.investments@sasktel.net, rmaloney@sasktel.net, tourismyorkton@sasktel.net
CC :
editor@yorktonnews.com, prepress@yorktonThisWeek.com
Subject :
Yorkton, Sask... smoking by-law

Dear Mayor and Alderman

I have been watching your smoking issue for some time. Something bothers me about the whole situation. I'm compelled to voice my humble opinion on this controversial matter. In a democracy, the will of the majority must be obeyed, but at the same time the rights of the minority must be protected. Concerning the rights of the minority, in this smoking issue are,

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). As the bylaw stands, it means, it is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property. I find that this is quite ludicrous. If you take this by-law to another level, it can apply to a person's home, the way it stands right now. Council was elected to run the business of the town, not the town's businesses. Council is not in the health business, and they shouldn't be. The public did not elect council so they can control and manipulate their behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa. I get the impression that this is a workers' bylaw. (to protect the workers). If that be so, why are the workers petitioning council? Has council talked to the owners, workers and patrons of the hospitality sector before passing this smoking bylaw? Who was behind this smoking bylaw? The Health Dept.? If so, I have researched this smoking situation quite thoroughly and I found out that it is NOT a Health issue, it is about denormalizing(social engineering) smoking. I also noticed Coun. Janet Hill mentioned that 73 per cent of people in the city are in favor of the by-law. I would like to question that figure.(73%). If there was a survey done I would think that the bulk of the people who were surveyed were people who never, or very seldom patronized the hospitality sector on any given day. Having said that ,don't you think the survey was slanted 'against' the hospitality sector. Wouldn't you think that a more truer survey would be taken if it just consisted of the owners, workers and customers(only) of the hospitality sector, since they have a bigger interest in this situation?

I trust this information will help you in the near future.

God Bless,

Thomas Laprade

www.forces.org www.antibrains.com

To: editor@stoneycreeknews.com Subject: Smoking 'dope' to-day normal?? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:07:19 -0400
Dear Michael ,

I agree with you, discouraging teens from smoking. No argument there. Consider this, what was 'normal years ago' is 'not' normal to-day. Having said that, Dept of Health has stated 85,000 teens smoke 'dope' every day. Would you consider that to be normal today??

God Bless
Tom '

---

Aug.15/04

Dear, Mayor and Council,

Did Sault Ste. Marie city council think of the ramifications of a smoking bylaw on bingos?

I think not (Smoking ban drives business from Greenbelt, Aug. 13).

Who is going to fund these non-profit organizations, if the bingos fold? Since council passed the bylaw, it should be council’s obligation to fund these organizations. And where is council going to get the money to fund these organizations? Raising property taxes? Yes, that way everybody pays. Protect the workers and the non-smokers you say? There won’t be any workers or non-smokers to protect if the bingos fold. It sounds like the “cure” is worse than the disease. Council should swallow its pride and admit it goofed. Simple solution: make an exemption for bingos.

If it wasn’t broken, then don’t fix it.

:
a.j.hill@sasktel.net, chriswyatt@sasktel.net, lj.arnelien@sasktel.net, mayor@city.yorkton.sk.ca, prairie.investments@sasktel.net, rmaloney@sasktel.net, tourismyorkton@sasktel.net
CC :
editor@yorktonnews.com, prepress@yorktonThisWeek.com
Subject :
Yorkton, Sask... smoking by-law

Dear Mayor and Alderman Aug.16/04

I have been watching your smoking issue for some time. Something bothers me about the whole situation. I'm compelled to voice my humble opinion on this controversial matter.
In a democracy, the will of the majority must be obeyed, but at the same time the rights of the minority must be protected. Concerning the rights of the minority, in this smoking issue are; 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). As the bylaw stands, it means, it is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property. I find that this is quite ludicrous. If you take this by-law to another level, it can apply to a person's home, the way it stands right now.
Council was elected to run the business of the town, not the town's businesses. Council is not in the health business, and they shouldn't be. The public did not elect council so they can control and manipulate their behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa.

I get the impression this is a workers' bylaw. (to protect the workers). If that be so, why are the workers petitioning council? Has council talked to the owners, workers and patrons of the hospitality sector before passing this smoking bylaw?

Who was behind this smoking bylaw?

The Health Dept.?

If so, I have researched this smoking situation quite thoroughly and I found out that it is NOT a Health issue, it is about denormalizing(social engineering) smoking.

I also noticed Coun. Janet Hill mentioned that 73 per cent of people in the city are in favor of the by-law. I would like to question that figure.(73%) . If there was a survey done I would think that the bulk of the people who were surveyed were people who never, or very seldom patronized the hospitality sector. Having said that ,don't you think the survey was slanted 'against' the hospitality sector. Wouldn't you think that a more truer survey would be taken if it just consisted of the owners, workers and customers(only) of the hospitality sector, since they have a bigger interest in this situation? I trust this information will help you in the near future.

God Bless,
www.forces.org

www.antibrains.com

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Dear Editor,
Letter published Edmonton Sun

Aug.11/04

Concerning the smoking issue, I have some thoughts about Mr. Les Hagen.

Does he believe in 'minority rights'?

The rights of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on 'private' property?

Does he believe that only the hospitality workers and customers should be the only people who should vote on a plebiscite concerning the 'smoking' issue?

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

---

Dear Editor,

Sault Ste Marie

Bingos!!

Aug. 14/04

Did council think of the ramifications of a smoking bylaw on bingos.
I think not.
Who is going to fund these non-profit organizations, if the bingos fold? Since council passed the by-law, it should be councils obligation to fund these organizations.
And where is council going to get the money to fund these organizations?Raising property taxes?
Yes! that way everybody pays!!
Protect the workers and the non-smokers you say?
There won't be any workers or non-smokers to protect if the bingos fold!
It sounds like the 'cure' is worse than the disease.
Swallow your 'pride' council, admit you 'goofed'!!
Simple solution..make an exemption for 'Bingos'
If it wasn't broken, then don't fix it!!

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

---

Dear Editor,
Aug. 14/04
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
Editor-- ssmstar@saultstar.com

Did council think of the ramifications of a smoking bylaw on bingos. I think not. Who is going to fund these non-profit organizations, if the bingos fold?Since council passed the by-law, it should be councils obligation to fund these organizations. And where is council going to get the money to fund these organizations? Raising property taxes? Yes , that way everybody pays!! Protect the workers and the non-smokers you say? There won't be any workers or non-smokers to protect if the bingos fold! It sounds like the 'cure' is worse than the disease. Swallow your 'pride' council, admit you 'goofed'!! Simple solution..Make an exemption for 'Bingos' If it wasn't broken, then don't fix it!!

---

Jan. 12/03

An article in the local fish wrap and the thunder Bay Post Oct. 11 2002

Ron Bourret a city administrator.and chair of the committee, Thunder Bay has a unique opportunity to look at other municipalities who have enacted similar legislation, learn from their mistakes amd profit from their successes. "The Victoria Chamber of Commerce said after nine months it was a little rough, when it first started, but no one went out of business and they were able to come out the other side because it was a level playing field,"Bourret.(this Ron Bourret is 100 per cent for a smoking by-law) The bylaw in Ottawa was put in place on Aug.1 of 2001, and police began enforcing it a month later. According to Bourret, after three months, EI claims in the hospitality sector were down 6.5 percent, while total EI claims were up 9.5 per cent, remarkable considering bars and restaurants are often hit hardest in tough economic times. I sent this letter and got it published then a couple of days latter I was hammered.

October 29, 2002 An Open Letter to Ron Bourret and Simond Hoad ,

Let's set the record straight. In B.C.,a study into the economic impact of the first 80 days of the 1998 smoking ban revealed that 730 jobs were lost, nine businesses were forced to close and more than $16 million was lost.

Thomas Laprade

---

Dear Editor, Jan. 13/04

85,000 teens smoke 'Pot' every day according to the Dept of Health.

Biggest 'pot' heist in Canadian(Barrie) history.

Why isn't more tax dollars spent on this situation rather than promoting smoking-bylaws(preventing adults from using a legal product on 'private property.

How ludicrous!!

What hypocrisy!!

Dear Mayor and Aldermen, June 23/04

The Hazards of a Smoke Free Environment!!

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbors. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbors, and only his own judgment can guide him through it. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behavior. That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favorite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. The tobacco bans bulldoze all the barriers to intrusive regulation, establishing the precedent that the rights of the individual can be violated whenever the local city council decides that the "public good" demands it. No crusade to purge our air of any whiff of tobacco smoke can take precedence over a much more important human requirement: the need for the unbreached protection of individual rights. Sincerely Yours, Thomas W. Laprade

Exagerated claims will only erode the credibility of Doctors

July 22/04

Dear Mayor and Council

In trying to understand the risks posed to human health by environmental contaminants, we have a limited range of research methodologies at our disposal. We cannot do randomized trials to test the effects of smoking, lead poisoning or the use of cell phones in cars. We're stuck with observational studies: always messy, confounded, susceptible to passion and open to dispute. Do you think we are sometimes overzealous in our attempts to publicize and regulate small hazards. It is impossible to control completely for confounding variables in observational studies. The smaller the risk estimate, the greater the chance that confounding factors will distort it and invalidate it. This is not to say that observational studies should be abandoned. Faced with the results of the recent study we can, as individuals, elect to change our behaviours and possibly our risk exposures. But, when interpreting the results and then championing public policy and legislation to regulate exposure, we must be doubly wary of tailoring statistics to fit the current fashion. We must be open with our doubts, honest in our interpretations and cautious in our recommendations. Exaggerated claims of risk will only erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health. - CMAJ

From: Craig <roxxon@shaw.ca>Date: 23 July 2004Title: Andrea Andrea: The truth is quite different. The fact is no one is forced to work in a smoking permitted hospitality establishment. The vast majority of a pub or clubs regular customer base that are smokers is usually between 50%-90%. Government imposed smoking bans within the private hospitality sector have nothing to do with worker's health. In fact by employing the bastard, phantom dangers of second-hand smoke the anti-smoking lobby are using this tactic as a means to strip private property owner of their rights and civil liberties. If smoke-free hospitality venues really were "good" for business, there would be no need for government imposed smoking bans. The vast majority of pub and nightclub owners would go smoke-free of their own choice. It is also a fact that smoking bans are very, bad for business virtually anywhere they have been forced upon the hospitality industry by government decree in this world. The anti-smoking lobby falsely claims otherwise, if they told the truth there would be no smoking bans imposed by government order.

From: Craig <roxxon@shaw.ca>Date: 23 July 2004Title: Andrea Andrea: The truth is quite different. The fact is no one is forced to work in a smoking permitted hospitality establishment. The vast majority of a pub or clubs regular customer base that are smokers is usually between 50%-90%. Government imposed smoking bans within the private hospitality sector have nothing to do with worker's health. In fact by employing the bastard, phantom dangers of second-hand smoke the anti-smoking lobby are using this tactic as a means to strip private property owner of their rights and civil liberties. If smoke-free hospitality venues really were "good" for business, there would be no need for government imposed smoking bans. The vast majority of pub and nightclub owners would go smoke-free of their own choice. It is also a fact that smoking bans are very, bad for business virtually anywhere they have been forced upon the hospitality industry by government decree in this world. The anti-smoking lobby falsely claims otherwise, if they told the truth there would be no smoking bans imposed by government order.

July 23/04

Most smokers want to stop.Do they really? Another anti-smoking sound-byte. There is no valid proof that government imposed smoking bans help smokers who want to give up their habits to quit smoking. Most smokers simply change their smoking habits when bans are imposed by government mandate. They stay home and entertain instead of frequenting the hospitality industry as they had in the past. They also take their families and friends with them. In most cases non-smokers do not replace lost smoking customers. The mythical "hordes" of non-smokers that the anti-smoking lobby claim will show up once smoking is banned never materialize. The anti-smoking lobby can release whatever untruthful anti-smoking lies and manipulated statistics, the fact remains they are not telling the truth. No lie is too large in order to champion their cause. Which is: Forcing their selfish will upon everyone. Right now there is a large market share available for businesses that allow smoking. There is also a niche market for non-smokingbusinesses. Those people who wish to work in smoke-free workplaces and those people who wish to run smoke-free businesses are free to do so. Without government mandated smoking bans. Just because a hospitality industry business goes tobacco smoke-free does not automatically make it a healthier or safe workplace. Improved ventilation should be mandated by government order for ALL hosptality industry establishments. This would effectiely negate the need for blanket, indoor smoking bans. In the first place second-hand tobacco smoke is so diluted that it poses no proven health risks, minor or major to the vast majority of the population. With modern state-of-the-art ventilation that is good enough to be used by hospitals to control the spread of infectious dieases, the hospitality industry in the U.K. can logically avoid a complete indoor smoking ban. It seems quite obvious, Andrea that you dislike the smell of tobacco smoke. However, that is not good enough reason to ban it across the nation indoors.

From: Craig <roxxon@shaw.ca>Date: 24 July 2004 Title: The antis are also lying about the phantom dangers of ETS! Lies about stunted penis-sizes to stop Swedish kids from smoking Mon Jul 19, 2:45 PM ETSTOCKHOLM (AFP) - The Swedish organization A Non Smoking Generation covered Stockholm in posters claiming that smoking stunts penis growth and that cigarette filters are filled with mouse excrements, along with other lies aimed at getting kids to stop smoking. "We wanted to raise awareness about how the tobacco industry always promotes its products -- through lies," head of the organization Anne-Therese Enarsson told AFP. "Our lies are so exaggerated that we hope they will make people stop and think, and then come to our website to find the truth," she added. Other lies plastered across the Swedish capital included that second-hand smoke is killing birds and that girls usually start smoking because they're stupid. Yet more proof of the fact that the whole anti-smoking agenda has nothing to do with the truth, ethics or health.It's all about a small minority who hate the smell of tobacco smoke. A tobacco smoke-free planet must become a reality no matter how many lies must be told in order to have their agenda realized.

From: Craig <roxxon@shaw.ca>Date: 23 July 2004Title: Highly paid liars...More lies from the "ethical" anti-smoking lobby...http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=751&e=9&u=/afp/20040719/hl_afp/sweden_health_smoking[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=751&e=9&u=/afp/20040719/hl_afp/sweden_health_smoking]Nothing is more illustrative of the entrenchment of institutionalizedlying than the antismoking movement, of which this Swedish episode isthe umpteenth example. An organization called Non-smoking Generation isplastering the streets of Stockholm with antismoking posters that arechock full of lies - and they're proudly boasting about it: "Our liesare so exaggerated that we hope they will make people stop and think,and then come to our website to find the truth," says an organizationspokesperson. But the "truth" of anti-smokers is itself a colossal lieupon which a skyscraper of frauds and distortions is built at theexpense of freedom and the public coffers. Now the spinmeisters haveapparently decided that trumpeting the lies is clever reverse-spin PRtactic, a way to make the public cosy with the mendacious propaganda ofthe therapeutic state.This social-political problem is in fact enormous and goes well beyondsmoking, involving the campaigns of healthism in general andenvironmentalism. The fact is, when we come to accept fraud andmisinformation even at the state level for the "social good", we arriveat the logical and moral paradox: a political culture that is -increasingly proudly and unashamedly -- based on fraud. And when we areall cons, it is the honest person who becomes the alien, the enemy andeven the criminal. History has abundantly demonstrated that suchinverted "values" systems always collapse, often with devastatingeffects. But we have learned very well that we don't learn well fromhistory.The anti-smoking lobby has no reputable credibility whatsoever.They cannot speak without lying.One day those foolish enough to blindly follow the anti-smoking liarswill clue in.Smoking bans have nothing to do with public or worker's health.The second-hand smoke sham is one of the largest frauds in the historyof this planet.References:[1]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=751&e=9&u=/afp/20040719/hl_afp/sweden_health_smoking

Dear Mayor and Council,

July 19/04

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.

A 'loop' hole in the bylaw?? Aug. 8/04

The taps at Dutch's bar in Greeley flowed with congratulatory rounds this week after owner Dutch Klinginsmith was found not guilty of violating the city's smoking law. A loophole in the voter-approved ordinance allowed 67-year-old Klinginsmith to escape the distinction of being the first Greeley bar owner to be convicted of allowing a customer to light up. Trouble started for Klinginsmith the evening of Jan. 9 after someone called police to report a customer was smoking at Dutch's Bar & Grill, 813 9th St. Greeley's smoking law forbids smoking in any enclosed public place -- and makes bar managers and owners responsible for enforcing the rule. Police officers showed up at Dutch's and saw James Madsen puffing a cigarette with Klinginsmith sitting next to him at the bar. Madsen shoved the ashtray and cigarette off the bar when officers walked in and both men were issued citations for violating the smoking ordinance. Madsen pleaded guilty in February and was ordered to pay $125 in fines and court costs. But Klinginsmith decided to fight his citation with some help from defense attorney Shannon Lyons, who took on the case pro bono. "Dutch always does nice things for other people: He has fish fries for poor people and stuff so I thought he deserved it," Lyons said. Lyons initially argued that the Greeley smoking ban is unconstitutional in part because it doesn't clearly specify whether bar managers have to both post no smoking signs and ask patrons who light up to stop. Lyons argued that the law could be interpreted to mean that business owners and managers could do one or the other. He also argued that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it tells owners and managers to "ask" patrons who smoke to stop -- but doesn't specify if posting a "No Smoking" sign qualifies as asking customers not to light up. Municipal Judge Linda Goff rejected Lyons' arguments that the law is unconstitutional. So Lyons came back to court with a different legal tactic on Wednesday. Klinginsmith took the stand to say he fulfilled both of his legal requirements under the law: He posted a "No Smoking" sign and told Madsen to stop smoking. The catch: Klinginsmith told Madsen to put his cigarette out only after he saw police officers filing into the bar. Lyons then pointed out that the law does not specify that a bar owner has to ask a customer to put out a cigarette as soon as the customer lights up. Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Wells tried to snuff out that argument. The city would be in big trouble if people obeyed the law only when the cops show up, Wells said. "If we're going to say that the timing for complying with the law is only when police are present, we'll have utter breakdown in society," Wells said. Judge Goff agreed -- and then she found Klinginsmith not guilty. "I agree that preventing chaos is the foundation of law," Goff said. "But finding loopholes is also a pretty big basis of law, and I believe that Mr. Lyons has found one. So I am going to find Mr. Klinginsmith not guilty." Frank Fronek, a smoking-ban supporter, said he understands why Goff came to her ruling -- and expects that the city council will quickly tweak the law to close the loophole. "It's nothing to be worried about," Fronek said. "If there's a couple points we need to clean up, it's no big deal." Meanwhile, Klinginsmith will savor a minor victory in what he sees as a larger war. "We won in a sense but in a way we didn't," he said from behind the bar at Dutch's on Thursday. "You still can't smoke legally in this building. And I would say 90 percent of people in here smoke."

editor@stoneycreeknews.com
Subject :
Smoking 'dope' to-day normal??


Dear Michael, Aug. 12/04

I agree with you, discouraging teens from smoking. No argument there. Consider this, what was 'normal years ago' is 'not' normal to-day. Having said that, Dept of Health has stated 85,000 teens smoke 'dope' every day. Would you consider that to be normal today??

Dear Editor, May 1/04

I can see the headlines now, from the Manitoba Legislature. Smoking in parks 'downwind only.' No smoking closer than 9 feet from a non-smoker---18 feet from children!

Parties snuffed out By Cathi Arola - The Chronicle-Journal July 05, 2004

Thunder Bay bar owners got a slap in the face yesterday as dedicated soccer fans abandoned sports bars, halls and lounges in favour of private gatherings for the Euro 2004 soccer finale. In past years, these licensed establishments were swollen with fans of Europe’s most treasured sport. Bartenders and the few patrons who were out for yesterday’s championship game weren’t surprised at the low turnout, citing the city’s new smoke-free bylaw. “It’s very quiet,” a bartender at the Italian Cultural Centre, who asked to remain nameless, said. “If there was smoking it would be busier in here — the sales here in the last two days are low.” The City of Thunder Bay’s smoke-free bylaw, that bans smoking in any public or work place, kicked in on July 1. “Where’s all the non-smokers that said we can’t go to the bar because there’s smoking,” she added. “We stop the smoking — where are they?” Halfway through the Portugal-Greece soccer game, only half a dozen fans were gathered at the bar. Last year the bar had between 50 and 60 patrons on hand for the big game, the bartender said. The Da Vinci Centre also attracted only a handful of people to watch the tilt. The Portuguese Association hall on Mapleward Road wasn’t even open. “You have (the game) on TV, you may as well watch it on TV at your own house, sit back and relax and have a few beers and smoke,” Benny Arella, who joined friends at the Italian Cultural Centre, said.

Sent :
July 5, 2004 2:37:51 PM
To :
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
Subject :
No documentary evidence of any 'deaths' from second-hand smoke!!

Dear Mayor and Council,

July 5/04 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 are 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 certificates 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 she possesses 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.

Sent :
July 5, 2004 3:18:59 PM
To :
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
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.

Honored Councilors, July 5/04

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 things in people's minds. Cars are sold by associating 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 relations campaigns in exactly this manner. If you don't believe this, follow this link; http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/roundtable/appendices.html There, you will find the Health Canada conference on de-normalization of smoking, and within that discussion you will find this statement; "Target politicians (narrow casting)." TARGET POLITICIANS ! to receive a public relations campaign specially designed to manipulate them, based on professional research into what values are of greatest importance to public office holders!