The Snowbird

Subject :
Prohibition not a crime!!
Sept. 28/04
Dear Editor,

Prohibition of a legal product has no place in our democratic country. "Prohibition..makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:52 AM

CITY OBLIGATED TO PAY SMOKING BYLAW LOSSES


The Chronicle Journal Sept 27/04

My letter was published in the chronicle journal

City obligated to pay smoking bylaw losses

When city council interferes with the decision making of private enterprise
resulting in the loss of business, council is morally obligated to the owner
and to the employees for that loss and the loss of wages.
.
If the owners decide to sell his business after a smoking by-law takes
effect, and finds he has to sell for less then he would have received prior
to the smoking by-law taking effect, council is morally obligated to the
seller to make up the difference.

Would council still travel the route of a plebiscite if all the taxpayers
knew they had to foot the bill for the loss in wages of employees and the
loss of business to business owners of Thunder Bay?

I think not!

The health unit instigated this smoking by-law and was against a special
fund to help the hospitality sector and therefore, council is obligated and
must be accountable to the hospitality sector for their losses.

Council and the health unit knew this plebiscite was a slam dunk situation (4 to 1 ratio) in favor of a smoking by-law.

As one owner said,"when council starts to pay my property taxes, then and
only then ,can they tell me how to run my business, especially when I am
dealing with a legal product on private property.

Smoking ban imposes majority values
DuluthNewsTribune Sept 26/04

Regarding the upcoming smoking referendum in Duluth: A referendum on any issue should only be used if that issue affects everybody on any given day.
In this case , the net results would be that nonsmokers (majority) can impose their morals on the hospitality sector (minority). Any politician who suggests a referendum is practically guaranteeing his re-election on the potential demise of the hospitality sector.

THOMAS LAPRADE
THUNDER BAY, ONT.

Sent :
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:56 PM
To :
ldunick@dougallmedia.com, news@dougallmedia.com
Subject :
A workers bylaw???

Dear Editor, June 15/04

Dr. Morris said, this is a work-place smoking by-law. If you have workers, then you can't smoke. If all the workers smoked, I would assume that, that establishment is exempt from the by-law. To take this situation to another level, owners will then be forced to discriminate and hire 'smokers only'.

Sent :
April 16, 2004 6:05:30 PM
To :
jj@onlink.net, manhotel@renegadeisp.com, mayor@twp.manitouwadge.on.ca
Subject :
[smokersrightscanada] The smoking bylaw??

Dear Mayor and Council
April 14/04
Shall we think about this issue.
How about some logic and common sense??
There are quite a few people who want a smoking bylaw who, on any given day,
do not or very seldom, patronize the hospitality sector.
Just because a number of people want a smoking bylaw, does not mean you have to have one.

What about the people who own businesses and the people who work in these
businesses, don't they have a say in the matter? It is their business and
their jobs are at stake!
How many workers from the hospitality sector has been pounding on your door
and saying," please pass a smoking bylaw and protect us??"

I have talked to many hospitality sector people, and they all said the same
thing to me, "Please don't do us any favors or I will be out of a job." I
know the 'risk' I am taking but that is my choice not councils choice.
"Live and let live"
"If it's not broken, then don't fix it"
These 'Crusaders" are hell bent on a 'smoke free Canada"
They do not care who they 'hurt'
It is not a 'health' issue and never was a health issue.
If people think it is a health issue, then nobody is forcing anybody to
enter the premises, they just don't enter the premises. Does that makes
sense??
Prohibition didn't work, and booze was illegal!!
Loss of business, people getting laid off. Don't they count in your final
analysis??
You were elected to run the business of the town not the town's businesses.
You are not in the health business, and you shouldn't be.
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the
same time they must protect 'minority 'rights'.
Minority rights are as follows..
It is the right of the hospitality sector to use a legal product on 'private
'property.
It is the 'right' of the smokers to use a legal product on 'private'
property(with the owner's permission.)
The objection to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they
do, but that they try to make us do as they think!

From: Warren Klass [mailto:warren.klass@3web.net]
Sent: February 9, 2004 7:50 PM
To: letters@chroniclejournal.com
Subject: Letter-Logic, Common Sense and Smoking-Toxicology 101"The Dose Makes the Poison"
To the Editor,
In my capacity as the president of the Canadian chapter of the world's largest smokers rights group, Forces International(Fight Ordinances &Restrictions to Control Eliminate Smoking.www.forces.org)someone from the Thunder Bay area forwarded me a copy of the recent letter:"Logic,Common Sense and Smoking"(Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal,Feb.9,2004)by correspondent Clifford Chambers. The correspondence lacks both logic and common sense. The first law of Toxicology is:" the dosage makes the poison." A cup of coffee for example contains 19 carcinogens and a thousand chemicals. Does this mean a cup of coffee is harmful?No.The amounts are so minute as to be harmless.Broccoli contains carcinogens. Does this mean broccoli is harmful?No.The reason is the same. Frying meat generates thousands of chemicals and carcinogens into the air, many of the very same ones as second-hand smoke. Does this mean someone frying a steak imperils the health of others?No.For the very good reason, that the dosage makes the poison. When the issue becomes second-hand smoke logic and common sense are dispatched and replaced with an organized campaign of scare mongering. Toxicologists have repeatedly quantified the "Threshold Level" of the 19 carcinogens in second-hand smoke. Here is a sample of cigarettes needed to reach" Threshold Levels"-assuming an 8-12 foot,sealed,non-ventilated room-per hour: Toluene-1,000,000 cigarettes per hour Polonium 210-750,000 cigarettes per hour 2-Toluidine-290,000 cigarettes per hour Benzo(a)Pyrene-222,000 cigarettes per hour. Without belabouring the point the absolute lowest is Benzene where ONLY 1,290 cigarettes PER HOUR are required to reach threshold levels. This would require 300 smokers each smoking 62 packs per hour in an 8-12 foot sealed,non-ventilated room. This is how ridiculous the propaganda about second-hand smoke has become.

Warren Klass(President Forces Canada.www.forces.org/canada)
29-7 Roslyn Rd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3L OG1
(204)488-1346

March 29/04
To :

Subject :
Mico-manage the hospitality Sector??

Dear Council

Let's try not to micro-manage the hospitality sector.

It is none of your business to 'dictate' to the hospitality sector, what they can, or cannot do with a legal product.

When you have perfected the 'running' of the cities business, then I can understand your concern of wanting to run the businesses of the hospitality sector.

Until you have the gift of 'walking' on water, I would suggest that you keep your 'noses' out of their business.

Does the hospitality sector tell you how to 'run' the city's businesses?

The Department of Health said,on live TV, "our agenda is a smoke free Canada"

Prohibition did not work, and booze was illegal.

Please give the public a break. What is wrong with, "Live and let live"?

# posted by Samantha : 11:49 AM

Feb 23/04
Subject :
Premature 'Death' of smokers

Dear Editor, That phrase is one of the most mis-used phrase in the Crusaders language. Every person on earth dies a premature 'death'. Nobody dies from 'Old Age'. If a person didn't have that certain affliction at the time of his death, he would have lived a little bit longer.

An open letter to Dr. D. Dhaliwal

In March of 2003, I made a deputation on a smoking by-law in Thunder Bay, Ont.... on live TV. Simon Hoad, the health promoter, Dr. J. Morris, Smoke free Thunder Bay, and you, Dr. D. Dhaliwal CEO of the Cancer Association, were sitting in the front row. In part I said, "Not 1 death has ever been etiologically assigned as cause by second hand smoke." "Dr. Ahmad and Dr. Morgan, from the Chest Clinic in London Ont.... has found no link between second hand smoke and lung cancer." In the weeks that followed, you and your colleagues did not rebuff me or called me a liar. Because of your silence, you knew I was telling the TRUTH!

Jan.29/04
Subject :
Second hand smoke and the immune system

Dear Editor,

The Department of Health vaccinates children in order to build up their immune systems to help prevent diseases that might occur in the future. Did it ever occur to health officials that children who breathe in second-hand smoke literally helps their immune system to prevent , in the latter years, from getting lung cancer from any cause. Would their immune system 'kick in' in their latter years and prevent cancer of the lungs. There are more lung cancer patients in non-smokers than smokers Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada, when he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, "which forms a protective layer stopping any(radioactive) cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue."

Jan 2/04
letters@globeandmail.ca
Subject :
An ounce of prevention

Dear Editor,

How to re-direct funds in the Health care, where it will do the most good. Eliminate the money that is going to 'Promoting smoking By-laws' Aim your 'big guns' on the 'An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of tobacco'

January 28, 2004 2:04:02 PM
To :
cal-letters@calgarysun.com

Hypocrisy??

Dear Editor,

How can the Federal and Provincial government be co-partners with the Tobacco Co.'s and at the same time, the other arm of the Government(Health Dept.) is instructed to interfere and instigate 'Smoking By-Laws' on adults who indulge in a legal product on private property.

To :

Subject :
Referendum on the smoking issue

Dear Editor,
Sept. 21/04


A referendum on any issue should only be used if an issue affects everybody
on any given day.
In this case , the net results would be, the non-smokers(majority) can
impose their morals on the hospitality sector(Minority)
Any politician who suggests a referendum is pratically guaranteeing his
re-election on the potential demise of the
hospitality sector.

# posted by Samantha : 10:26 AM

To :

Subject :
Smoking issue
St. Paul, Minn.


Dear Editor Sept. 7/04

The contentious smoking issue!!

The Mayor and council were not elected so they can control and manipulate our behaviour.

They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.

The objections to 'Crusaders' is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think!!

The issue has never been about 'Health', it is about denormalizing(social engineering)smoking

# posted by Samantha : 9:08 AM

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


Council is morally responsible!!

Sept. 23/04
Open letter to the Mayor and Council

Since the hospitality sector is obligated to pay taxes to the city, whether the owners make 'right' or 'wrong' decisions in running their own affairs, is understandable. When City council interferes with the decision making of private enterprise, directly or indirectly, council is morally obligated to the owner and to the employees for loss of wages and to reimburse the owner's loss of business. If the owners decide to sell his business after a smoking by-law takes effect and finds out he has to sell his business for less then he would have received it, prior to selling his business before the smoking by-law took effect, council is morally obligated to the seller to make up the difference in the selling price of his business.

Would council still travel the route of a plebiscite if all the taxpayers knew they had to foot the bill for the loss in wages of employees and the loss of business to business owners of Thunder Bay?
I think not!
The Dept of Health instigated this smoking by-law and was against a special fund to help the hospitality sector and therefore, council is obligated and must be accountable to the hospitality sector for their losses.
It is not a one way street!
Council and the Dept of Health knew this plebiscite was a slam dunk situation( 4 to 1 ratio) in favor of a smoking by-law.
As one owner said, "when council starts to pay my property taxes, then and only then ,they can tell me how to run my business, especially when I am dealing with a legal product on private property.

Give me second-hand smoke over this stuff

Dear Editor, Sept.23/04
The Chronicle Journal
Thunder Bay, Ont.

I question the good intentions of our city to save us all from second-hand smoke. At least if I went into an establishment that allowed smoking I would be doing so with the knowledge of what I was inhaling and the risks involved. On the other hand as I sit in my yard in Westfort, on a fine September day, I am treated to Bowater's finest! What exactly am I exposing myself too? They said the air quality in Dryden last year was acceptable for construction workers and look what's happening with that! The long-term ramifications of being exposed to whatever chemicals they spew out are unknown. I can only conclude that cities receive enough financial gain from these big companies to look the other way when it comes to the health of their citizens. Give me a bar full of second-hand smoke any day!!

M.H. Thatcher
Thunder Bay, Ont..

Legion comrades miffed over bylaw

An open letter to the Mayor and council
Sept. 18/04

The Chronicle Journal
Thunder Bay
Dear Editor,

As a spokesperson, thank you for your non-flexibility concerning the no-smoking by-law. My comrades and I used to gather at our favorite Legion branch for comradeship, a couple of beers and a cigarette. No longer! We will remember you and the fine citizens of Thunder Bay on Election Day and Canada Day, concerning our rights and freedoms.

L.R. Wismer
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Dear Mayor and aldermen Sept 22/04


I think the time has come, for the icing on the cake. If you don't already know who Paul W McDonald Ph.D. is - he's the lead reasercher for the Ontario Tobacco Control Unit and the primary strategist for all anti-smoking and tobacco-reduction organisations in our country. In a document titled; "A Recommended Population Strategy to 'Help' Canadian Tobacco Users", [the phrase "help smokers", in health promotion documents, translates into non-doublespeak as; 'force smokers to attempt to quit'], Paul W McDonald Ph.D. says; "3.1.1 Legislation for smoke free public places and workplaces - Given that the risk of illness is much greater in smokers THAN NON-SMOKERS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE, and given that NO-SMOKING RESTRICTIONS CAN SIGNIFICANTLY 'HELP' SMOKERS TO QUIT, it is conceivable that no-smoking restrictions in public places may ACTUALLY HAVE MORE POSITIVE HEALTH PROMOTION IMPACTS ON SMOKERS THAN NON_SMOKERS. In any case, greater efforts are needed to promote no-smoking restrictions as effective tools FOR SUPPORTING THE MAJORITY OF SMOKERS WHO WANT TO QUIT, former smokers who are trying to remain smoke free, and never smokers..." In other words, the real purpose of public smoking bans is NOT the protection of non-smoker's health, but to pressure current smokers into trying to quit! And by the way, when he talks about the "majority of smokers" who want to quit - he fails to mention that the primary reason given by those who state their desire to quit, is to ESCAPE THE CRIPPLING TAXATION on tobacco - NOT, because of health concerns. How do I know this is true? Because, he DOES state exactly that - later in the same document; "For example, in the 2001 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS), eight percent of former smokers over age 24 spontaneously suggested that the increased cost of tobacco was a major reason for their decision to quit (Health Canada, 2002). This is nearly three times the proportion who reported quitting because of a doctor's advice." There you have it - and from the ultimate "horse's mouth".

Sept. 21/04
To :
Andreas_Wesley@cbc.ca
Subject :
Two levels of child abuse??

Dear Ms. Andreas,

Doctors call it 'child abuse' when parents smoke at home in front of their children!!
Why aren't the same Doctors call it 'child abuse' when the children of parents suffer from obesity??

Read before you vote Smoking bylaw “too restrictive’ warns Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Commerce president Brian Reading says voters must inform themselves well before making any decision. Sydney Selvon/Record-Gazette Peace River Record Gazette — The board of directors of the Peace River and District Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the projected smoking bylaw No. 1761 that would impose a 100 per cent ban on smoking and second-hand tobacco smoke all over the town. The chamber has organized a public forum on that issue on September 22 in the Emerald Room at the Peace Valley Inns. Chamber president Brian Reading said that there had been two "emergency meetings" last week on the bylaw. He stated: "Though a smoking bylaw is needed, this one, as presented, is too restrictive with regard to both businesses and residences." Reading pointed out also that on September 22, at the public forum organized by the chamber, people will get an opportunity to know more about the bylaw and its implications before they vote. He pointed out that in several communities where such a bylaw has been voted, there are attempts currently by those communities to revoke it. He said that there are many issues that have to be cleared in the bylaw and if they are not, that would cause considerable difficulties to people, especially as there are fines of up to $10,000. In an official statement released by the chamber, the board states: "The Board of directors of the Peace River and District Chamber of Commerce would like to go on record as opposing the proposed Smoking Bylaw as presented." The chamber adds that it is not opposed, though, to a smoking bylaw and adds: "The chamber encourages the citizens to review this bylaw prior to voting." Bylaw 1761 will interdict smoking in all public establishments, including private business premises. Among places where smoking will be prohibited are enclosed walkways which, says the bylaw, "means any pedway, bridge, hallway, connecting stairway, or similar structure that is physically enclosed." However, even in places that are not totally enclosed there will a total prohibition. Thus, outdoor patios are included as, under section 2.13 of the bylaw, it is stated: "Outdoor patio means an area outside of a building intended for the consumption of food or beverages by patrons of a business providing food or beverages and includes: (a) a public premises where food or beverages are served that is not fully contained within an enclosed building; and (b) an outside extension of an eating or drinking establishment regardless of whether it is covered." All kinds of public buildings as defined in section 2.19 are included in the prohibition. This section stipulates that a public building is "any enclosed building or structure as defined in this bylaw to which the public does have access by right or by invitation." This will apply "whether or not all classes of the public are invited." This part of the law even interdicts, therefore, the opening of, say, a lounge reserved exclusively for smokers. It turns into public buildings all private business premises, irrespective of whoever is invited inside. In another part of section 2.19, the by law says, in relation to any building, that "if the public has access only to a portion of the building or structure, the entire building or structure shall be deemed to be a public building." Another clause states, "if an employee works in any portion of a building, the entire building shall be deemed to be a workplace" and therefore total prohibition will apply. You will not also be able to smoke within 18 feet "of an entrance or exit to a public building" or a Town building. Even if there is no prohibition sign, you cannot smoke in any building defined as a public building. The owner of a public building could be fined if he/she puts ashtrays inside or within 18 feet of the entrance or exit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special meeting held on no-smoking bylaw by Kevin Gill Jasper Booster — Jasper Municipal Council scheduled a special meeting to make a decision on how it would proceed with the no-smoking petition and attached bylaw it received during the summer. The meeting was held yesterday, after the Booster’s editorial deadline. During that meeting council was expected to decide whether it would put the bylaw to a public vote (on the municipal election ballot) or proceed on its own with the second and third bylaw readings. Council was unable to make a decision on the issue at its regular council meeting on Sept. 7 because it was still waiting for clarification from Alberta Municipal Affairs on the potential effects of its decision. Council gave the bylaw first reading at its Aug. 17 meeting, as it was required to do by law. Since then, council has struggled with whether to put the bylaw as a question to the public or go ahead and pass it on its own. Councillors would prefer to see the public decide the issue, but all members of council have expressed serious reservations about details of the bylaw. The problem is that once a bylaw is passed by a public vote, no substantial changes can be made that affect the intent of the bylaw, without another public vote being held on the amendment. Holding another vote, independent of the regular municipal election would be costly for taxpayers. Council has been waiting for an answer from municipal affairs about whether it would be able to make substantial changes to the bylaw if it went ahead and passed it on its own. While council had not received word from municipal affairs at its Sept. 7 meeting, several residents came out to voice their opinions on the proposed bylaw. Among them was Paul Butler, who spoke on behalf of the Jasper Hotel Association. He said that the association was in favour of a bylaw that dealt with the issue of second hand smoke in Jasper - something he said was probably overdue in town. But, he added that several provisions of the bylaw concerned the group he represented. Those provisions, he said, seemed to be less about addressing second hand smoke and more about declaring whether smoking is a good thing or not. The sections of the bylaw he referred to were: the prohibition of smoking on outdoor terraces of bars and restaurants, the ban on smoking on sidewalks (the bylaw includes a six-metre provision that would extend into sidewalks in many areas), and the prohibition on separate, ventilated and enclosed non-smoking areas in bars and restaurants (similar to the smoking area in the Downstream Bar). Butler said a bylaw must be consistent with its stated intent, be reasonable and enforceable, and that these three provisions all failed to meet one or more of those criteria. Leslie Dolan, who spoke on behalf of those who submitted the petition and bylaw to council, said the six-metre provision was one that the group would be willing to amend, and that changing that would not represent a change to the intent of the bylaw. She added that the section was included to prevent clusters of smokers from gathering outside the doorways to businesses on a regular basis. In addition the intent was to enforce the six-metre rule on a complaint basis only. But, she said the petitioners would still be in favour of a prohibition on smoking on outdoor terraces because the smoke wold still pose a health risk to employees serving in those areas. Check the Booster next week for an update on the issue and the results of the special council meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smoking Bylaw changes approved by council by Carla Victor Olds Albertan Olds Town Council clarified their position regarding a new smoking bylaw that will be put to voters at the next municipal election. “This is not a council initiative, once the petition was received we had no more options,” said Councillor Warren Smith, after minor wording changes were made to the proposed bylaw. That petition, which is calling for a smoke free community was initiated by Olds resident Grant Spence, earlier this year. Once deemed sufficient it forced council to put the question to voters in the form of a plebiscite. When the bylaw received approval for its first reading, Aug. 23, council had many questions. Answers to those questions and minor changes to the wording of the bylaw were presented and approved by council, Sept. 13. Keeping in mind the purpose of the bylaw is to protect workers and the public-at-large from the detrimental health effects of second hand smoke in confined places, the following amendments were accepted: •All areas within an outdoor patio and those areas within a six metre perimeter of an outdoor patio. •No proprietor or employer shall permit smoking in the designated public place, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted or visible. •The proprietor and employer of every designated public place shall ensure that no ashtrays are placed or allowed to remain in the designated public place. •The proprietor and employer of every designated place shall, if employees or members of the public from time to time gather to smoke at a location outside the designated public place , ensure any ashtrays are placed outside the boundaries of designated public places as specified in this bylaw. Council approved the second reading of this bylaw as amended. Further clarification as to what defines a workplace was also presented. A home is only a workplace if you operate a home office. Otherwise it is a private residence and excluded. Olds CAO Withage explained: The workplace means any enclosed area of a building or structure in which an employee works. Home offices that employ non-residents or that require public access shall be deemed a workplace. Home occupations that allow public access shall be deemed a workplace. The bylaw, in its entirety, will be available for public viewing on the Town of Olds Web site www.town.olds.ab.ca by the end of the week. Residents are encouraged to familiarize themselves with this bylaw before answering the plebiscite question Oct. 18. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed smoking bylaw is revisited Karen Lazaruk Senior Reporter Airdrie Echo — The issue of Airdrie’s proposed smoking bylaw was before city council once again last night and this time, discussion centred on the wording of the controversial second question. On the Oct. 18 ballot, voters will get their say on whether a 100 per cent smoking ban will be imposed in all city public spaces and workplaces – excluding home-based businesses – and a second, although not legally-binding question, will query whether or not a less-restrictive bylaw should be enacted. Although in recent weeks, the City of Airdrie and the Smoke-Free Airdrie Coalition have come to agreement over the exclusion of home-based businesses from the bylaw, division remains over the issue of the second question, which the coalition’s lawyer has said may cause confusion, while city officials say it is necessary in the event that the smoking bylaw is defeated by the electorate. "In my respectful opinion, it is at least arguable that by putting two questions on the ballot relating to precisely the same subject matter, smoking in public places, there is a distinct possibility that confusion would prevail," Fred Laux, of Shores Belzil Jardine, stated in a letter forwarded to city council. Added Laux: "It is inappropriate in a democracy to slant a question for voters that is aimed at eliciting a certain result in this case, the defeat of the bylaw as presented in the petition. Although council may not so intend, it seems to me that adding the question about the exemption could be seen as an attempt to split the vote so that a majority of voters would vote against the petition bylaw." But Airdrie Mayor Dan Oneil told the Echo that the second question is needed in case voters do decide against a 100 per cent smoking ban, essentially leaving council to assume that no manner of smoking ban is wanted by the majority of the electorate. "Council’s intent behind the second question," Oneil said, "was we were concerned that if the majority vote against (the 100 per cent smoking ban), then we have no option left." "I think everyone on council would like a smoking ban of some kind," he added. If the majority does vote against a 100 per cent smoking ban in favour of a less-restrictive ban, which could exclude bars and lounges, the mayor said, then that would give council a mandate to move forward in some fashion on the issue. During last night’s meeting, council was presented with a proposed wording for each question and if agreed to, the first question on the ballot will read: "The Council of the City of Airdrie has been petitioned to pass smoking bylaw no. B44/2004 that will require all designated public places .. and all workplaces ... to be completely smoke-free by July 1, 2005. Are you in favour of council passing this bylaw?" And, if agreed to by council members, the second question will read: "If the majority of voters are not in favour of smoking bylaw no. B44/2004, would you be in favour of council passing a less restrictive smoking bylaw?" At press time, council’s decision was not known.

editorial@theobserver.ca
Subject:
De-normalize smoking!!
Date:
Sat, 4 Sep 2004 11:36:44 -0400

Dear Editor,

Concerning the smoking issue in Lambton.

The real agenda of Tobacco-Free Lambton is not about health, but to de-normalize smoking.

This is a world wide phenomena, conducted by The World Health Organisation.

www.forces.org

www.antibrain.com

Subject :
Prohibition of a legal product has no business in a democracy!

Sept. 6/04

Dear Editor,

What a smoking bylaw means; it is against the law to use a legal product on 'private' property.

It puts every smoker and the hospitality sector in a criminal situation.

Prohibition of a legal product is a stake in the 'heart' of democracy.

# posted by Samantha : 1:23 PM

Dear Mayor and council

Aug. 26/04
A truly democratic government obeys the will of the majority, but at the same time it MUST protect the rights of the minority. Let's deal with undisputable facts. The rights of the hospitality sector (owners) have the right to use a legal product on private property. The smoker has the right to use a legal product on private property(with the owner's permission.) If a referendum is used on the smoking issue, it is wrong and undemocratic!! The majority of the public should not dictate their morality on the minority (hospitality sector) of the public. The majority of the public never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector on any given day. Just because a few people want a smoking by-law, that doesn't mean you have to have a by-law. Here are four statements that are left to the adults who are able to make choices (and not council). If a healthy person enters a bar and he doesn't think it is a health problem..he enters. If a healthy person enters a bar and he thinks it's a health problem, then it is a health problem..to him. His choice, to enter at his own 'risk'. If an unhealthy person does not think it is a health problem, then it is not a health problem..to him, but he is free to enter if he wants. If an unhealthy person thinks it is a health problem, than it is a health problem ..to him..and shouldn't enter. Council should not be making choices for grown adults. Council is not in the 'Health' business and should not be. Council was elected to run the town's business not the businesses of the town. We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa. Last but not least, the issue is not 'health' The coalition is using Health as a disguise when their real agenda is to 'DE-NORMALIZE SMOKING' (Social Engineering). The big picture is "A Smoke Free Canada" I might add..at the expense of the 'hospitality sector" and individual rights(rights to choose). Any politician who uses the excuse that he wants to hold a plebiscite on the smoking issue, is actually using the demise of the hospitality sector as a stepping stone to his re-election.

Mayor and council Edmonton, Alberta

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!!

Subject :
Peace River Gazette Alberta Tom's doc




Compromise should be the way to go Peace River Record Gazette —

The question to be put to Peace River voters at the upcoming municipal election on a proposed 100 per cent smoking ban in public places, including all private businesses open to the public without any distinction, is too summarily presented. While being a non-smoker and, personally, a partisan of the greatest number of non-smoking places as possible, my intellect refuses the concept of total prohibition and its implementation.
Total prohibition of smoking even as a social and cultural practice (which it has been for ages in some public places like pubs, taverns and many restaurants) smacks of heavyhandedness.

It is also tantamount to considering the human being as being incapable of discriminating between places where he/she should or should not go. The delimitation in law of smoking areas and places would be a better solution. I must recall that in my capacity as editor of this newspaper, I publish views from both sides of the divide, those of ASPiRe, the pro-100 per cent ban group, and those of the opposing side also. I have already pleaded for a democratic debate on the issue and our columns will remain open to both camps to voice their views in the truly democratic tradition that we all cherish. But many readers have asked me to state my own personal feelings and I have a duty to respond positively to that request after having perused the essential arguments put forward by both sides. What is troubling me is the nature of the proposed ban and the implementation of this total prohibition. A total ban means that voters will impose upon themselves and future generations a radical interdiction from even running businesses where people would gather to eat and/or enjoy drinks while being also permitted to smoke. Being against smoking should not automatically make of anyone a sort of fundamentalist over that issue. A total ban on a number of public establishments, including schools and government operated buildings is probably supported by most smokers. But outlawing smoking even in pubs and going to the extent of also refusing separate smoking lounges is going a step too far in my view. The town was right in voting a bylaw that imposes on businesses to put up a sign warning the public of the possible negative effects on their health of smoke in their establishments. Councillor Don Good did an excellent job on that issue and came up with this solution that has the merit of respecting the democratic fabric of our society and community. It was a genuine effort at compromise. Having said that, I have no problem adding that I agree with 90 per cent of the views of the anti-smoking lobby. They say that smoking is not good for health, and neither is second-hand smoke, they add with as much emphasis. They say optimal protection should be afforded to those who do not want to inhale the smoke of other persons and they are right. While being right, though, do they really believe that total prohibition is the solution? That it is proper to be intolerant to views from the other side of the debate? That they should imprison their own thoughts and opinions in what appears to many -- and to me -- a cold ideological mould excluding any kind of contradiction? The human intellect is not supposed to function that way. Why should the matter be treated in such a radical manner? The way non-smokers are being asked to behave reminds me of a straitlaced character called Alceste in the literary masterpiece “Le Misanthrope.” This is a play where the famous French playwright (1622-1673) depicts the utter sadness of a life dedicated to excluding oneself from the rest of society basically because society indulges too much in frolicking? The intention of the anti-smoking lobby is excellent when viewed at face value. The problem is that a positive vote leaves no room for any compromise, whereas a negative vote still allows a total prohibition to be implemented in publicly owned and operated buildings. While finding myself in agreement with much of what ASPiRe says about the ill effects of smoking, I find it difficult to accept total prohibition as the ideal solution as it could mean, for instance, sending to jail a business owner who may not have noticed one customer smoking in a remote corner of his or her business premises. That could backfire strongly against the anti-smoking lobby across the nation and give a bad conscience to many voters. “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 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 Ban to be total Peace River Record Gazette — In your August 3 edition of the Record-Gazette, a gentleman by the name of Wayne Zack made some comments regarding the smoking ban bylaw. I would like to remind Mr. Zack that the bylaw in Grande Prairie is much, much different than what is proposed for Peace River. The bylaw in Grande Prairie has restrictions on smoking in areas that allows underage patrons. The bylaw being proposed in Peace River is a total smoking ban. Absolutely total smoking ban. The only place you will be allowed to smoke is in your private residence provided that you do not have a nanny or housekeeper or babysitter. You can smoke on the street as long as you are 6 meters away from any doorway so that pretty well rules out main street. Mr. Zack also mentions that no one has mentioned researching the economic results of smoking bans nor reported them. I have spent literally dozens of hours researching the economic results and what I have found absolutely scares me. Perhaps with the economic boom Grande Prairie has had, the effects are not noticeable but if you wish to get an eye opener on this, please go to www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html. Not all communities have the benefit of the Grande Prairie economy. I have talked to dozens of business people from areas that have implemented total smoking bans and they confirm the facts as reported in the above Web site. I would be very skeptical about starting a business in a town where the bylaws governing business operation are developed by special interest groups with no financial investment in said business. Bylaws such as (the one) proposed by Aspire are draconian not progressive. Terry Hartz Peace River Question is one of ‘freedom of clean air’ Peace River Record Gazette — It is with interest that I have read the letters to the editor and feel the time has come to address a few issues raised. The letter by Dave Horner (Record-Gazette, August 10, 2004) states that the real issue is the "freedom of choice.” He goes on to say it should only be the business owner that chooses what people will inhale indoors. Freedom of patrons and employees are apparently of no importance to him. Again: a freedom is something to enjoy as long as it does not bother others. Smoking indoors takes away the freedom of clean air. In these letters we are exercising the "freedom of expression", but when this is used for example in a hateful manner, we lose this freedom. The same principle applies to indoor pollution. AsPiRe is asking the residents of the Town of Peace River if they want to have the freedom to breathe clean air indoors in all public places. This is democracy at its best, and use of the term "Draconian Tyrants" is misplaced. The life insurance industry is charging higher premiums for smokers than non-smokers. Why would it not be obvious that the same particles that cause illness in smokers will do the same for non-smokers? Later in the letter the point is raised that the by-law is dangerous. It states the by-law limits the business owner to do business. I fail to see where asking people to refrain from smoking indoors is dangerous or limits the conduct of business. Last, I would like to address the economic impact on business as mentioned in a letter by Terry Hartz. Numerous studies, looking at the effect before and after implementation of smoking by-laws have never demonstrated a negative impact on the hospitality business as a whole. It is my sincerest wish that this will be the case. Quoting that three businesses went out of business has little validity. The hospitality industry sees the highest number of business closures annually than any type of industry. We have had a bar/restaurant here in town close their doors just in this past year, and this was without a by-law restricting smoking indoors. ASPiRe hopes the residents of Peace River will benefit from this by-law, patrons, employees and business owners alike. Frits Dijk AsPiRe Spokesperson Peace River “Ramifications” of bylaw Peace River Record Gazette — Everyone has the right to choose. Smokers, and non-smokers, alike also exercise their right to choose either to smoke, or not. People who choose to work in a smoking environment have chosen to work there. Patrons of business establishments who do business there have the right to choose to do business there, or not. It’s all a matter of one’s right to choose what they want to do, or not. Dave Horner’s letter to the editor made some vary valid points. So did Frits Dijk’s letter. But there are some fundamental issues neither addressed in Mr. Horner’s letter not in Mr. Dijk’s letter, namel:. 1. Business owners do not need legislation or bylaws to regulate whether or not they allow smoking in their establishments. They self-regulate. Anyone (customers or employees) who violates their policy that prohibits smoking at their place of business is asked to either extinguish their cigarette, or leave. The proposed bylaw on penalties has it backwards. If a business owner has asked someone to put out their cigarette, or leave before they do business with him/her, and the smoker refuses and remains at that place of business, then the business owner will be fined a $10,000 penalty – the smoker gets a $1,000 fine! If this fine were reversed (as it should be), would any smoker risk $10,000 over one lousy cigarette? Not likely because they’re not that stupid. Besides, smokers respect the businesses’ right to establish their own policies. 2. Freedoms for clean air? Does this mean that if I want to breathe clean air while in line at the drive through at Tim Horton’s, I have the right to ask everyone to turn off their car engines so I don’t have to breathe their exhaust fumes? Does this mean that if I have the freedom to breathe clean air in Peace River than I have the right to ask DMI to shut down their mill when air inversions cause the mill’s smoke to saturate the air in the valley? Is another silly bylaw needed to cover my rights in these two scenarios? 3. Those who have instigated the initiative for the no-smoking bylaw, if passed, will create a fundamental flaw in our democratic process. If this bylaw is passed, then it leaves no recourse upon those who instigated it. In other words, those who instigated this bylaw can not be held accountable. Town counselors did not instigate this bylaw, so why would voters retaliate against them at the poles?
The provincial government did not instigate this bylaw, so why would voters retaliate against MLAs? But, when business (specifically restaurants and drinking establishments) lose business, they can not take political action against the instigators -- they are insulated because no one voted them into an office. They are not held accountable. 4. The right to choose is extended to everyone. If a non-smoker does not want to go into a bar or restaurant that permits smoking, then they can choose to go to one that does not; there are two liquor licensed restaurants in Peace River that prohibits smoking. Non-smokers can go there to enjoy their evening, or eat and drink at home, or go to some beach out in the fresh air to eat and drink. It is their choice. Maybe the bylaw should be relegated to non-smokers only. 5. The public has not been well informed on the extent of the provisions of the non-smoking bylaw. The ramifications, should this bylaw be passed, are far-reaching and unfair. For instance, if I have a home-based business, or employ a nanny or baby sitter, or a cleaning lady, then my home is a "public place" where, if I smoked, I would be fined $10,000 and my customer would be fined only $1,000. Further, smoking would be prohibited within 20 feet of my own home! If I didn’t smoke, but I allowed my customer to smoke, then my customer and I would be fined in the same manner. This is ironic because if I chose not to allow smoking at my home-based business, and a customer of mine was a smoker, and I asked him/her to refrain from smoking, my customer would respect my wishes (and my policy) not to smoke. I would not need a bylaw to impose my policy, and my smoking customer would respect my policy. Simple. AsPire is not a community friendly organization. They eagerly desire to attain some level of greatness that would see businesses that permit smoking lose business (this is a fact supported by statistics in many communities, which ASPiRe refuses to acknowledge). They don’t consider the intellect of business owners who choose to prohibit smoking at their place of business, but believe instead that it must be legislated even to the extent that people who choose to smoke cannot do so even in their own homes. They believe that they have to impose their own belief systems on others, and they do so without any recourse or taking political responsibility for their actions. They are supported by a national anti-smoking organization (ASH). Smokers are stupid for smoking. And those who violate business owner’s non-smoking signs are ignorant. Every smoker wishes he/she didn’t, except when they go out for a drink with friends -- both smokers and non-smokers who don’t care if their friends smoke or not. Smokers are addicted people who likely wish they didn’t smoke. But it’s not to ASPiRe to help them: ASPiRe should be going after the government and tobacco producers, not local businesses. If cigarette products were prohibited, then it would be reasonable that smoking anywhere should be prohibited. This is what smoker should want -- not to be told by do-gooders when and where to smoke. I will vote "no" on this question in October, and I don’t even smoke. David Waltdick Peace River “Bylaw 1761 is bad law” Peace River Record Gazette — The Charter of Rights was drafted to protect individuals and minorities from the majority; the petition plebiscite process was put in place to protect us from bad government. An eight-page smoking bylaw, however after careful examination of bylaw 1761 written and proposed by PR special interest group ASPiRe including three pages of "definitions" and section 3, (the bylaw itself) I cannot support this one. This bylaw is not only restrictive, it is intrusive. It could have people fined up to $41,000 who carry a burning cigarette while walking on sidewalks passing store entrances inside the six meter (20ft.) entrance perimeter smoke free zone. (Section 3.1b) Bylaw 1761 could have any business (smoking or non-smoking) fined up to $10,000 under penalties (Section 2.25 b and d) why not a total ban? If you employ a nanny, house keeper or have a home based business that permits access to the public, smoking could become against the law in your own home. (Section 2.25) It states that "for the purpose of this bylaw" your privately owned business and all business establishments are deemed to be public buildings in which smoking is not permitted. Bylaw 1761 offers no choice. It ignores that currently the vast majority of PR business establishments are already smoke free; including six restaurants, 22 of which are licensed to serve alcohol. Today, there is a choice for all life styles. Bylaw 1761 offers no choice for people who choose to smoke to remain part of the mainstream social life offered in Peace River. Rosa Parks wouldn’t go to the back of the bus; nobody should have to not even smokers. They need a place to go too! I further ask who should make policy in a privately owned business. Is it the public? If it is the public, let them come each business day; do the work and take the risk! If it is the private owner; the owner will make policy. The public if they wish can choose not to patronize a business that has policy they may disagree with. Bad law is bad law and bylaw 1761 is bad law. It displays a total disrespect for freedom of choice, the bylaw does not allow a choice to patronize smoke free or smoke friendly establishments based on preference. If you believe in fundamental freedom of choice, I suggest that before voting you study proposed bylaw 1761 closely and then vote with your conscience. Don Leikam Business Owner Peace River Compromise should be the way to go Peace River Record Gazette — The question to be put to Peace River voters at the upcoming municipal election on a proposed 100 per cent smoking ban in public places, including all private businesses open to the public without any distinction, is too summarily presented. While being a non-smoker and, personally, a partisan of the greatest number of non-smoking places as possible, my intellect refuses the concept of total prohibition and its implementation. Total prohibition of smoking even as a social and cultural practice (which it has been for ages in some public places like pubs, taverns and many restaurants) smacks of heavyhandedness. It is also tantamount to considering the human being as being incapable of discriminating between places where he/she should or should not go. The delimitation in law of smoking areas and places would be a better solution. I must recall that in my capacity as editor of this newspaper, I publish views from both sides of the divide, those of ASPiRe, the pro-100 per cent ban group, and those of the opposing side also. I have already pleaded for a democratic debate on the issue and our columns will remain open to both camps to voice their views in the truly democratic tradition that we all cherish. But many readers have asked me to state my own personal feelings and I have a duty to respond positively to that request after having perused the essential arguments put forward by both sides. What is troubling me is the nature of the proposed ban and the implementation of this total prohibition. A total ban means that voters will impose upon themselves and future generations a radical interdiction from even running businesses where people would gather to eat and/or enjoy drinks while being also permitted to smoke. Being against smoking should not automatically make of anyone a sort of fundamentalist over that issue. A total ban on a number of public establishments, including schools and government operated buildings is probably supported by most smokers. But outlawing smoking even in pubs and going to the extent of also refusing separate smoking lounges is going a step too far in my view. The town was right in voting a bylaw that imposes on businesses to put up a sign warning the public of the possible negative effects on their health of smoke in their establishments. Councillor Don Good did an excellent job on that issue and came up with this solution that has the merit of respecting the democratic fabric of our society and community. It was a genuine effort at compromise. Having said that, I have no problem adding that I agree with 90 per cent of the views of the anti-smoking lobby. They say that smoking is not good for health, and neither is second-hand smoke, they add with as much emphasis. They say optimal protection should be afforded to those who do not want to inhale the smoke of other persons and they are right. While being right, though, do they really believe that total prohibition is the solution? That it is proper to be intolerant to views from the other side of the debate? That they should imprison their own thoughts and opinions in what appears to many -- and to me -- a cold ideological mould excluding any kind of contradiction? The human intellect is not supposed to function that way. Why should the matter be treated in such a radical manner?
The way non-smokers are being asked to behave reminds me of a straitlaced character called Alceste in the literary masterpiece “Le Misanthrope.” This is a play where the famous French playwright (1622-1673) depicts the utter sadness of a life dedicated to excluding oneself from the rest of society basically because society indulges too much in frolicking? The intention of the anti-smoking lobby is excellent when viewed at face value. The problem is that a positive vote leaves no room for any compromise, whereas a negative vote still allows a total prohibition to be implemented in publicly owned and operated buildings. While finding myself in agreement with much of what ASPiRe says about the ill effects of smoking, I find it difficult to accept total prohibition as the ideal solution as it could mean, for instance, sending to jail a business owner who may not have noticed one customer smoking in a remote corner of his or her business premises. That could backfire strongly against the anti-smoking lobby across the nation and give a bad conscience to many voters. Question is one of ‘freedom of clean air’ Peace River Record Gazette — It is with interest that I have read the letters to the editor and feel the time has come to address a few issues raised. The letter by Dave Horner (Record-Gazette, August 10, 2004) states that the real issue is the "freedom of choice.” He goes on to say it should only be the business owner that chooses what people will inhale indoors. Freedom of patrons and employees are apparently of no importance to him. Again: a freedom is something to enjoy as long as it does not bother others. Smoking indoors takes away the freedom of clean air. In these letters we are exercising the "freedom of expression", but when this is used for example in a hateful manner, we lose this freedom. The same principle applies to indoor pollution. AsPiRe is asking the residents of the Town of Peace River if they want to have the freedom to breathe clean air indoors in all public places. This is democracy at its best, and use of the term "Draconian Tyrants" is misplaced. The life insurance industry is charging higher premiums for smokers than non-smokers. Why would it not be obvious that the same particles that cause illness in smokers will do the same for non-smokers? Later in the letter the point is raised that the by-law is dangerous. It states the by-law limits the business owner to do business. I fail to see where asking people to refrain from smoking indoors is dangerous or limits the conduct of business. Last, I would like to address the economic impact on business as mentioned in a letter by Terry Hartz. Numerous studies, looking at the effect before and after implementation of smoking by-laws have never demonstrated a negative impact on the hospitality business as a whole. It is my sincerest wish that this will be the case. Quoting that three businesses went out of business has little validity. The hospitality industry sees the highest number of business closures annually than any type of industry. We have had a bar/restaurant here in town close their doors just in this past year, and this was without a by-law restricting smoking indoors. ASPiRe hopes the residents of Peace River will benefit from this by-law, patrons, employees and business owners alike. Frits Dijk AsPiRe Spokesperson Peace River