The Snowbird

The Chronicle Journal
Oct. 30/04

Man. bar owner angry over reprimand for allowing smoking
The Canadian Press
BRUNKILD, Man.

A rural Manitoba bar owner says he got a reprimand from the province just days after he admitted on television that he allowed smoking in his establishment. Gary Desrosiers, owner of the Brunklid Bar and Grill, said the problem was that no one was smoking at his place when the inspector gave him a written warning this week for breaking Manitoba's ban on indoor puffing. "There was no one smoking in there." Desrosiers said Friday. "It's absolutely outrageous." When the health inspector came by on Wednesday, the proper no-smoking signs were posted and there were no ashtrays out on the table, said Desrosiers. He said the inspector told him he was getting the reprimand because he admitted in a television interview days earlier to allowing patrons to smoke inside the bar.

The Chronicle Journal

Oct. 31/04 Toronto (CP)---Workplace smoking bans can help both non-smokers and smokers, a new study has found. Smokers whose workplaces are smoke free consume on average five fewer cigarettes each day than those who work on environments where smoking is allowed, said researches from the University of Toronto's Ontario Tobacco research unit. "Usually the reason given for banning smoking in the workplace is to benefit non-smokers, and this is a valid and important reason," said Dr. Thomas Stephens. "What this study shows is that the bans also have health benefits for smokers themselves." It's often assumed smokers who can't smoke on the job compensate by smoking more at other times, such as during breaks or after work. But that's not generally the case, Stephens said. The conclusion was drawn using data from Statistics Canada's 2001 Canadian Community Health Survey. The findings were presented to the recent International Congress of Behavioral Medicine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mine..their next project is the sex life of a fly. Is that where my tax dollars are going??

Smoking ban losses have begun!!

The Chronicle Journal Oct. 30/04

So, the charity casino has all but admitted that the smoking ban has hurt them financially ("Casino slot revenues slide," Oct. 22/04). Have they thought of the additional effect winter is going to have? But not to worry, two years or so from now the slide may stop. I'm sure other businesses are starting to feel the loss caused by the ban. Bars, bingos and restaurants--do all these small businesses have the financial wherewithall to hold out for at least two years? Yet application of the by-law isn't even the same everywhere. I've seen signs that say 'No smoking, 'No smoking within 3 metres,' and 'No smoking within 9 metres.' And of course there's the arbitrary 'No smoking on property' imposed by the University and the new hospital. Isn't it interesting to know you'll get a larger fine ($5,000) for smoking in the wrong spot than if you're caught drunk driving or with 28 grams of marijuana. Let's not forget that one joint has the equivalent toxins of four cigarettes. And of course one drunk driver can kill a lot faster than second-hand smoke. Yet do police sit outside bars and nab the perpetrators before they can get out on out streets? No! Imagine if safety lanes were set up within a block of purveyors of alcohol. In hand with the loss of smokers, bars would dry up. But hey!, government is always floating the idea of neighborhood liquor stores. That will insure that the alcohol lobby will keep its coffers full. Right now we see the cigarette issue swing its pendulum far, far to extremes, but perhaps in the not too-distant future, we'll see it back to tolerance and back from frantic fear.

Jim Little

Thunder Bay, Ont.

'NANNYGATE' is next!! The Chronicle Journal

Dear Editor, Oct. 31/04

The next big issue in Ontario politics will be 'nannygate'--a charge the Liberal government is intent on running residents' lives from the cradle to the grave. Premier Dalton McGuinty's government is the most interventionist of recent times, although many will defend its intrusions as in the public interest(for the greater good) It is telling children what to eat(taking junk foods out of schools) how and when to exercise. (20 minutes exercise each day), tried to freeze raw fish, telling residents what dogs they can own. The Liberals are aiming to ban smoking eventually in almost all indoor public places. The Tories so far have made only scattered criticisms of some of McGuinty's interventions, but it will not be long before they gather them together and launch an attack on the theme he is meddling too much in residents' lives.

The Thunder Bay Source Oct. 28/04

LETTER OF THE WEEK

Public ignorant about smoke?

To the Editor:

The biggest weapon the Crusaders have, is the ignorance of the public about second-hand smoke. If the public was better and truthfully informed about second-and smoke, there would be far less smoking bylaws in this country.

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

'Crusaders' half-truths are the same as the difference between Lightning and the Lightning Bug.

Crusaders say a thing that you know isn't true, in the hope that if you keep on saying it long enough, it will be true!

Crusaders are people so addicted to exaggeration that they can't tell the truth without lying!

A Crusader is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things.

The only way to entertain some crusaders is to listen to them.

When the crusader says, "It ain't the money, butt the principle of the thing" It's the money.

In the first place God made idiots; this was for practice; then he made crusaders.

God created the crusaders as soon as he made the fool.

Morality is simpley the attitude the crusaders adopt towards smokers whom they personally dislike!

Don't be fooled by doctors just because they have a MD behind their name. That doesn't make his lies and half-truths any better than the next guy, he only thinks it does.

You can fool all the people some of......"

Prohibition of a legal product strikes a blow at the Heart of Democracy!

A Double 'Lock' situation a possibility??

Oct. 28/04

I attended an open public house meeting-night at Oliver Road Community Centre.

The subject was 'To consider proposed changes to the city of Thunder Bay business Licensing and Regulations by-law'

The first thing that crossed my mind was, would the antis try to change the 'small' print and say any body who applies or a transfer of license that person shall never have smoking(using a legal product on their premises ) when and if the smoking by-law might be rescinded in the near future.

The 'first' lock is the smoking by-law. the second 'lock' is you will never permit or use(smoking) on your premises now or in the future.

Ron Burret and the city lawyer said NO. That won't be on the license .

I wouldn't put it passed the antis to do a dirt trick like that, and they are capable of just about everything short of murder.

Conspiracy between the Dept. of Health and Thunder Bay Council??

You be the judge!!

The smoking plebiscite stated as follows__ "Do you support a ban of smoking in public places and in work places in the City of Thunder Bay"? I attended an open forum on live TV. I suggested a change in the 'wording' of the Plebiscite. Reasons - Clarity and Self-explanatory .I stressed that the 'word 'public' is not clear. The populations interpretation of 'public' means a library etc. They did not know that, in the Municipal Act, it states that public includes pubs, taverns etc. A person should not have to find out the definitions of 'public places' and 'work places'. The wording of the plebiscite should be self-explanatory. My proposal of the wording of the plebiscite should be-- 'Do you support a ban of smoking in the hospitality sector which would include pubs, taverns, bars restaurants, bingos and privately owned businesses? Council did not change the wording of the by-law. The led me to one and only one conclusion...CONSPIRACY!!! And to back up my conspiracy theory is-- Council agreed to go with a plebiscite which the Dept of Health had suggested. Which cemented my theory, knowing that 75% of the population were non-smokers. I pre-warned council to NOT go the plebiscite route for obvious reasons, but they turned a deft ear. Council liked the plebiscite issue. Why? it would get them 'off 'the 'hook' by making a 'big' decision. Meaning that they wouldn't be responsible for the possible demise of the hospitality sector. Their thoughts were. Let's have the public decide!!
Right then and there we were 'doomed.'

Chronicle Journal
Oct. 10/04
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Tom Laprade(letter, Sept, 27) proposed that the government should compensate businesses hurt by the smoking ban, and others criticized that proposal(letters, Oct. 3) If the government had been honest in its presentation of the smoking ban, admitting that it would likely cause grave economic harm to a number of small businesses, particularly small bars, then they might have a leg to stand on. However, prior to the introduction of the ban, the government advocates and anti smoking zealots consistently swore to the public that the ban would not hurt businesses and that anyone claiming it would was simply a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry. Well, it they were telling the truth then there should be almost no businesses hurting and almost no claims made against the government. Of course they were not telling the truth and that is why they would fight paying any such claims: the cost would be enormous. Far better to let the small unorganized businesses die and their owners suffer than to question the god of anti-smoking pseudo-science.
Michael J. McFadden
(Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains)
Philadelphia, PA.

One Doctors opinion

The Chronicle Journal
Jan.25/03

To many of us, tobacco is not an addiction, but a medicine used to combat the stress of fears and worries created by the selfishness and and materialism of our present generation. Concerning the so-called dangers of second-hand smoke, have you ever lived with a person under stress, and not been under stress, yourself? Stress from love of money and what money can buy causes anxiety and much illness, as the mind rules the body.

DR. MALCOLM H. C. DEAN
Longlac, Ontario

Dear Editor Oct. 24/04

The development of Light and Mild cigarette types was originally requested by Health Canada. It did not originate as a marketing ploy but, IMHO, it became a very successful marketing technique that probably increased cigarette consumption. Ottawa pretty much has to defend itself in this lawsuit as it was their idea to begin with.

To :
news@dougallmedia.com, ldunick@dougallmedia.com
Subject :
The World Health Organisation


Dear Editor, Oct. 12/04

First the smokers and smoking. The agenda is denormalization of smoking and all tobacco products on a global scale. The World Health Organization also plans to go after "unhealthy" foods and alcohol, next. The W.H.O. relies for most of it's funding and operational costs from "Big Pharma" the makers of all smoking cessation products. soon there will be anti-drinking drugs and many more dangerous diet drugs on the market, in order to forward the W.H.O.'s health elitist agenda. It's beyond sick that the W.H.O. chooses to ignore real causes of mortality or death in the third world, such as malaria, AIDS and the biggest causes of lung cancer: wood and stoves that are fuelled by animal dung. They choose to concentrate only on tobacco for the meantime. Soon the W.H.O. plans to expand their global war on alcohol, sugar and unhealthy foods. They are in the "pockets" of the big drug manufacturers. A "cure" for every ill or so-called addiction. The W.H.O.'s motto: "Don't do those dangerous drugs of tobacco or the alcohol industry. Do OUR dangerous drugs, instead!

Chronicle Journal
Oct. 10/04
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tom Laprade(letter, Sept, 27) proposed that the government should compensate businesses hurt by the smoking ban, and others criticized that proposal(letters, Oct. 3) If the government had been honest in its presentation of the smoking ban, admitting that it would likely cause grave economic harm to a number of small businesses, particularly small bars, then they might have a leg to stand on. However, prior to the introduction of the ban, the government advocates and anti smoking zealots consistently swore to the public that the ban would not hurt businesses and that anyone claiming it would was simply a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry. Well, it they were telling the truth then there should be almost no businesses hurting and almost no claims made against the government. Of course they were not telling the truth and that is why they would fight paying any such claims: the cost would be enormous. Far better to let the small unorganized businesses die and their owners suffer than to question the god of anti-smoking pseudo-science.

Michael J. McFadden
(Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains)
Philadelphia, PA.

letter was published in the Calgary Sun RE: OCT. 1

letter on smoking in prison.

Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate. He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends. Even under the best of circumstances, his future is bleak. And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, health-conscious new-ager? This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organically grown produce. The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses -- as most crusaders do -- want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit. Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life? Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke. Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the province invade someone's privacy? If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke. Thomas W. Laprade Thunder Bay, Ont.
(The move was mostly made to protect the guards, not the prisoners.)

www.tobacco.org
Categories· Smokefree Policies· LetterInternational· Canada
LETTER: Smoking bans: Canadians discuss all sides of the issue
Source: Airdrie (Alb) Echo (ca), 2004-09-30
Author: Thomas Laprade

From Ontario

Secondhand smoke is not a ‘public' health issue. No issue is too trivial to teach an important lesson. The smoking ban debate provides a teachable moment. Yes, smoking and second-hand smoke pose a health threat.
A wayward whiff of secondhand smoke is no reason to go "Chicken Little" and statistics attributing death and illness to second-hand smoke proceed more from political agenda than scientific rigour. Nonetheless, a bar and restaurant smoking ban – provincial or local – doesn't pass the test of a public health problem requiring government intervention.
Public health/government intervention is at issue only when people are exposed to risks to which they have not consented and which pose dangers to the community at large from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves. No one is forced to patronize or seek employment at a smoking establishment.

Airdrie Echo Alberta

Sept. 29/04

Smoking bans:
Canadians discuss all sides of the issue•
From Ontario
Secondhand smoke is not a ‘public’ health issue.

No issue is too trivial to teach an important lesson. The smoking ban debate provides a teachable moment. Yes, smoking and second-hand smoke pose a health threat. A wayward whiff of secondhand smoke is no reason to go "Chicken Little" and statistics attributing death and illness to second-hand smoke proceed more from political agenda than scientific rigour. Nonetheless, a bar and restaurant smoking ban – provincial or local – doesn’t pass the test of a public health problem requiring government intervention. Public health/government intervention is at issue only when people are exposed to risks to which they have not consented and which pose dangers to the community at large from which individuals cannot realistically protect themselves.
No one is forced to patronize or seek employment at a smoking establishment. Diseases caused by cigarette smoke are not contagious, so there’s no risk to the community. It’s easy for individuals to protect themselves from the danger of second-hand smoke -- don’t patronize or seek employment at smoking establishments.
Ironically, however, therein lies the proper path for the smoking ban folks. Stripped of their fallacious public health scrubs, smoking ban proponents are nonetheless within their legal right to don a crown and elect a city council which will autocratically impose their prejudices "just because it can." Smoking is not an inalienable right. And for smokers under siege, as with non-smokers in the current environment, there are alternatives – patronize establishments in nearby communities without a smoking ban; elect a local government that does not support a smoking ban. But before dousing the smoking lamp, smoking ban proponents should consider this: because a government-imposed smoking ban on private business is not based on a public health crisis, merely a majority whim, government, acting on behalf of "the public," has certain obligations to those affected by such an ordinance. It is unjust for government to arbitrarily change established conditions in the marketplace without compensating private businesses for losses they might suffer because of such changes.

If "the public" benefits from dictating a change in long-established codes governing the ways a person may use his or her private property, then "the public" should justly compensate the individual property owner for any losses incurred by that change.
(Would public officials be so quick to impose their prejudices if their constituents had to foot the bill?)
A legitimate local ordinance might ban smoking in all new establishments and require that when an existing bar or restaurant is sold to new ownership, it is required to go smoke-free. But when a bar or restaurant is sold, the local government then assumes an obligation to pay the seller the fair market difference between the sale price as a smoke-free establishment and a smoking establishment.
If ban supporters are correct, entrepreneurs will be anxious to open smoke-free establishments. If smoking ban proponents are correct that smoking bans produce no dire consequences, there is virtually no financial risk to taxpayers. If they are right. If smoking ban proponents have the courage they claim government lacks, they will "do the right thing" and abandon the excessive call for provincial smoking ban legislation and insist upon compensation to private business owners for any effects of local smoking ban ordinances. Then we’ll see who learns a lesson. –
Thomas Laprade,
Thunder Bay, Ont.

news@dougallmedia.com, ldunick@dougallmedia.com
Subject :
You don't have to be a 'rocket' scientist to figure that one out!!

Dear Editor,
Oct. 2/04
'Thunder Bay residents are accepting smoking bylaw' says Ron Bourret. Since he is a strong advocate for a smoking bylaw, would he say otherwise. Has he talked to the owners, workers and the smokers and customers of the hospitality sector, obviously not. He is afraid to talk to those people for fear of what they might tell him...the Truth. Naturally the majority of the people who never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector will say it is a good bylaw. You don't have to be a 'rocket' scientist to figure that one out!!

Forum: Duluth Minn.
General News Forum
Subject: smoking issue
From: joeschmoe (JOESCHMO33)To: snowbird1 (snowbird212)
Date: 10/2/2004

Only if you place any value whatsoever in freedom of choice, not only for thebusiness owner but for the consumer, too. The free market has been deciding thisissue all along, just like it always will, without the interference of specialinterest groups or local government. The free market works best when it's left alone. Pass a sweeping smoking ban andyou remove competition from the equation. Competition is essential. It weeds out the bad businesses from the good. And you remove one more of our basic freedoms,the freedom to choose where to socialize and to spend our money. Plain and simple...if you're willing to give up your freedom of choice to special interestgroups who don't give a damn about you, by all means vote in favor of this latest crusade of theirs. But I'll be damned if they'll take my freedom of choice from me without a fight. And don't even bring up anything related to health. This isn't about health and never has been. It's about a very small but very well-funded and very vocal group of extremists with their hairnets pulled tight and hatchets in hand. All they want is a piece of the anti-tobacco pie. The state settled its lawsuit with the tobacco companies in 1998 for $6.1 billion. And all of a sudden, all these anti-tobacco special interest groups sprouted up. Guess what? If they get grant money to crusade for a smoking ban and fail, they don't get any grant money next time around. A lot of people are getting very rich lining their pockets with tobacco settlement money. It's obscene. Even more troubling is the fact that the American Lung Association has received at least$1 million already this year from the state Department of Health to continue this nonsense. That's a & quot; non-profit & quot; organization spending taxpayer money for policital lobbying. I'm no expert, but that smells fishy to me. Smells a little illegal, too. It isn't the hospitality industry that will (or should) decide this issue. It's the consumers. And they will, just like they always have. They'll vote with their wallets and their feet. If a business doesn't provide the service you want, you go somewhere else. If enough people stop patronizing any establishment for any reason, the business owner will either get the message or he'll be out of business. And we'll be left with those businesses that DO listen to their customers. It's a win-win situation for everyone, the business owner AND theconsumer. And it only works when it's left alone. It's got nothing to do with health and never has. It's about freedom of choice for both the business owner and the consumer. And it's about private property rights. Until your name or the city's is on the business license, bars and restaurants are private property, like it or not. The fact that the public is allowed to visit those premises does not make them public property. This latest referendum should fail and fail BIG in November. And then a petition drive should be started to repeal the original smoking ban and shut these extremists up once and for all.=============================================================

mailbag@edm.sunpub.com>
Subject :
Smoking in jail

Dear Editor, Oct 1/04


Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate. He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of circumstances, his future is bleak. And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager? This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organically grown produce. The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit. Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke. Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy? And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation? Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not. If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.