<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Thunder Bay City Council
Dear Mayor and Aldermen, Nov. 30/04

I have donated a book(via Rebbeca Johnson) to the Mayor and Alderman's(library) of the city of Thunder Bay

It is the only book on the market that tells the whole truth about Second-hand smoke and Smoking by-laws in North America.

'Dissecting Antismokers' Brains' is a 400 page book with over 600 references by the renowned author, Michael J. McFadden

It was three years in the making and has received universally positive reviews (See http://cantiloper.tripod.com/brainreview.html )

As you know from previous letters of mine for the last six years I have exposed these zealots for what they are.

Lies, half truths, innuendos and slanted surveys etc.

Just because a person has a 'Dr.' in front of his name does not necessarily mean he is telling the 'truth.'

As you probably know by now it is not about 'Health' but it is all about 'denormalizing smoking.

Their agenda is a 'Smoke Free Canada' (they do not care who they hurt).

Enjoy.

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


To :
lettertoed@thestar.ca
Subject :
Open letter to the Provincial Health Minister Mr. G. Smithermin

Dear Editor,

Nov 29/04

I have 10,000 dollars sitting right in front of me. If you can prove without a doubt that second-hand smoke 'kills' or causes Cancer, the money is yours.

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

Monday, November 29, 2004

:

Subject :
CBC Manitoba News Story Comments

Dear Editor

Nov. 29/04

The Hypocrisy of this situation

One level of government sells cigarettes and another level of government bans the use of the product on 'private' property!

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



:
lettertoed@thestar.ca
Subject :
Open letter to the Provincial Health Minister Mr. G. Smithermin

Dear Editor,

Nov 29/04 I have 10,000 dollars sitting right in front of me.

If you can prove without a doubt that second-hand smoke 'kills' or causes Cancer, the money is yours.

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

To :
letters@freepress.mb.ca
Subject :
Prove that second-hand smoke kills or causes Cancer!!

Dear Sir, Nov. 29/04

I have a challenge to the Deptartment of Health and the Provincial government of Manitoba .I have 10,000 dollars sitting write in front of me. If you can prove to me and the people of Manitoba that second-hand smoke kills or causes Cancer, the money is yours.

Thomas Laprade

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

Subject :
CBC Manitoba News Story Comments


Dear Editor, Nov. 28/04

I find this situation stupid!!

Fines for using a legal product on 'private' property is stupid

The 'fine' for smoking dope is smaller that the fine for smoking a legal product on private property

It is not about 'Health' it is all about denormalizing smoking.

The Manitoba government has been conned, lied to by the Health Dept.

Whether the public believes it or not, the Manitoba Government is a "Fascist" government.


lettertoed@thestar.ca
Subject :
Prove to me and the 10,000 dollars is yours!!

Dear Editor, Nov. 28/04

A Mr. David Cohen stated in his letter to the editor to your newspaper Nov. 22/04, concerning my letter 'Freedom of Choice", He stated "leading to death by cancer defived from second-hand smoke." Mr. Cohen, I have 10,000 dollars sitting in front of me. If you can prove without a doubt that second-hand smoke kills or causes cancer, the money is yours!

Thomas Laprade

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

Rules To contact all members in two emails.

Send an email to the Premier and the leaders of the other parties as one message
To: dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
CC: hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca; ernie_eves@ontla.ola.org

Type in a Subject, Tab to the Body and Type or Paste your message here Be sure to add your name or signature, including your email address -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Repeat the above procedure with all the names listed below to send the second message To: ted_arnott@ontla.ola.org CC: Wayne_Arthurs-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; john_baird@ontla.ola.org; toby_barrettmpp@ontla.ola.org; Rick_Bartolucci-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Chris_Bentley-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org; gilles@gillesbisson.com; Marie_Bountrogianni-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Jim_Bradley-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Laurel_Broten-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Mike_Brown-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Jim_Brownell-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Michael_Bryant-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Donna_Cansfield-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; David_Caplan-MPP@ontla.ola.org; ted_chudleigh@ontla.ola.org; marilyn_churley-mpp@ontla.ola.org; mike_colle-mpp@ontla.ola.org; joe_cordiano-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Kim_Craitor-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Bruce_Crozier-MPP@ontla.ola.org; alvin_curling-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Bob_Delaney-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Vic_Dhillon-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Caroline_DiCocco-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Leona_Dombrowsky-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Brad_Duguid-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Dwight_Duncan-MPP@ontla.ola.org; garfield_dunlop@ontla.ola.org; jim_flaherty@ontla.ola.org; Kevin_Flynn-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Peter_Fonseca-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; john_gerretsen-mpp@ontla.ola.org; michael_gravelle-mpp@ontla.ola.org; ernie_hardeman@ontla.ola.org; Pat_Hoy-MPP@ontla.ola.org; tim_hudak@ontla.ola.org; cam_jackson@ontla.ola.org; Linda_Jeffrey-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; gerard_kennedy-mpp@ontla.ola.org; frank_kleesmpp@ontla.ola.org; pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca; Kuldip_Kular-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Monte_Kwinter-MPP@ontla.ola.org; jean-marc_lalonde-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Jeff_Leal-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; dave_levac-mpp@ontla.ola.org; rmarchese@ndp.on.ca; Judy_Marsales-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; shelley_martel-mpp@ontla.ola.org; gerry_martiniuk@ontla.ola.org; Deb_Matthews-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Bill_Mauro-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; ted_mcmeekin-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Philip_McNeely-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Madeleine_Meilleur-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Norm_miller@ontla.ola.org; John_Milloy-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Carol_Mitchell-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Jennifer_Mossop-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; julia_munro@ontla.ola.org; bill_murdoch@ontla.ola.org; john_otoole@ontla.ola.org; jerry_ouellette@ontla.ola.org; ernie_parsons-mpp@ontla.ola.org; richard_patten-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Steve_Peters-MPP@ontla.ola.org; Tim_Peterson-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Gerry_Phillips-MPP@ontla.ola.org; mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca; sandra_pupatello-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Shafiq_Qaadri-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Mario_Racco-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Khalil_Ramal-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; david_ramsay-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Lou_Rinaldi-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; rwrunciman@brockville.com; tony_ruprecht-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Liz_Sandals-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; mario_sergio-mpp@ontla.ola.org; Monique_Smith-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; george_smitherman-mpp@ontla.ola.org; greg_sorbara-mpp@ontla.ola.org; norm_sterling@ontla.ola.org; Harinder_Takhar-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; joe_tascona@ontla.ola.org; Maria_Van_Bommel-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; Jim_Watson-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; John_Wilkinson-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; jim_wilson@ontla.ola.org; elizabeth_witmer@ontla.ola.org; Kathleen_Wynne-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; john_yakabuski@ontla.ola.org; David_Zimmer-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org; laurie_scott@ontla.ola.org ---o0o--- Add all the above names to your address book to make it easier to send messages to all MPP's in one email. Use BCC to individualize each recipient. Page by MisterC Home 705-286-1860

Oct. 29/04
Double Lock situation
My biggest fear!!

Hi Guys,

I attended an open public house meeting-night.
The subject was 'To consider proposed changes to the city of Thunder Bay business Licensing and Regulations by-law.

The first thing that crossed ny 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 never will 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 doing a low-down-trick like that.

Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights http://thesnowbird.tripod.com The writings of Thomas Laprade - Smoke free: Freedom of Choice http://thesnowbird.tripod.com/letters1.htm

LETTER OF THE WEEK Thunder Bay Source

Public ignorant about smoke?
Oct. 29/04
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!




Denormalization of Smoking??

Dear Editor, Oct. 23/04

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!

Conspiracy???
To whom it may be concerned

Oct. 29/04
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 to the public. The public's interpretation of 'public' means a library etc.. 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 would have been-- '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-- At an open forum the Dept. of Health was going to try to convince council to pass a smoking by-law, but they changed their mind. I had a gut feeling they were going to go that route. I was right. 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. Gary S was the only alderman who had the 'guts' to stand up to the antis..for that courageous stand, he got voted out of office.
Council liked the plebiscite issue.Why? It would get them 'off' the 'hook' from making a 'big' decision. Meaning that they wouldn't be responsible for the possible demise of the hospitality sector. Their thoughts were. "Let the public decide!!" All of them were 'gutless' wonders. Just looking after their own asses. Right then and there we were 'doomed.'

Subject: Letter:Smoking mad at smokers. The evidence not mythology of the medical costs of smoking
To: editor@wpgsun.com


To the Editor,
For the record I am the Canadian chapter president of the world's largest smokers rights group,Forces International(Fight Ordinances &Restrictions to Control Eliminate Smoking.www.forces.org). There are three essential groups of anti-smoking arguments one hears endlessly repeated in the media:the tautological(assertions without evidence,especially popular with the medical community that blames smoking for multi-casual diseases. Lung cancer has 40 causes in non-smokers.Heart disease has 300 causes in non-smokers,asthma has thousands of causes),the mythological(smokers burden on our health care system,endless hypochondriacs who sent letter to the media claiming to be "allergic"to second-hand smoke, even though tobacco contains no documented allergens)and the blood-libels(Heather Crowe,second-hand smoke "causes"SIDS.More SIDS babies die from families where neither parent smoke than those that do. There was never even a single coroner who measured the Contine level of a SIDS baby to see if the baby was even exposed to second-hand smoke,never mind how this could have caused SIDS.) This correspondence however, is in response to the mythological claim of W.Wayde of Winnipeg who claimed:"the costs of medically treating you(smokers), far outweigh the collected tax revenue from tobacco. "(Letters, Winnipeg Sun, Oct.19, 2004)Here is just a brief synopsis of the voluminous evidence on this question:In 1986,before the huge cigarette tax increases, Canadian smokers contributed $4.3 billion in tax revenue over any medical benefits received. Source:Smokers Burden On Society:Myth And Reality In Canada.Canadian Public Policy, Volume XVIII.Number 3. September, 1992. Using provincial government figures, Canadian smokers contributed 4.5 times in tax revenue as received in medical benefits for the years 1989-1997. Again this was before the huge tax increases were imposed. Source:Harvard economist Kip Viscusi. The Government Composition Of Insurance Costs Of Smoking, University of Chicago Journal,Volume 42.Number 2,October 1999. "If people stopped smoking there would be a saving in health costs but only in the short term. Eventually smoking cessation would lead to increased health costs. "The Health Costs of Smoking. New England Journal of Medicine.Volume 337.Number 15.October 9, 1997. "On balance smokers probably pay their way at the current level of taxes on cigarettes...In contrast drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others. "The Taxes of Sin: Do Smokers and Drinkers Pay Their Way. Journal of the American Medical Association.March 17,1989. Although these are American figures,the principle is axiomatic. 1989 was well before huge tax increases were imposed in the U.S. and Canada. What I quoted the Sun was but a tiny sample of voluminous evidence from unimpeachable sources on this topic. The other research reached identical conclusions to what was quoted.

Warren Klass(president,Forces Canada.
www.forces.org)

29-7 Roslyn Rd.
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
R3L OG
1 488-1346

To :
lettertoed@thestar.ca
Subject :
Private ordering can work!

Dear Editor, Nov. 29/04

Consider the following case: The 21 Club restaurant had a long history of being a cigar-friendly environment. Non-smokers who ate there did so knowing that they may be exposed to cigar smoke. On what basis can such people complain? Do they not assume the risk of being exposed to secondhand smoke by visiting an establishment that allows patrons to smoke cigars? Conversely, other restaurants -- say, those wishing to attract a family clientele -- may forbid smoking in whole or in part. If I choose to patronize these establishments, I have no right to expect to be able to smoke there. This is what I mean by a system of private ordering: If the place is one that nonsmokers can readily choose to avoid, then they have no right to insist on imposing their preference for a smoke-free environment on me or (and this is the key point) the owner of the establishment. Absent a showing that private ordering can't work, the owner of private property has a right to decide what conduct will take place on his property even if that property is open to the public. So long as non-smokers are free to decide not to enter an establishment in which smoking is allowed, the necessary prerequisite for regulating private property simply doesn't exist. The same sort of analysis could be extended to a host of contexts. Many argue for a ban on smoking in the workplace. And if, for example, an employer concludes that it is cheaper to hire non-smokers, who could object to his banning smoking on his premises? But if another employer concludes that it is cheaper to hire smokers -- perhaps because they'll take lower pay in order to be able to smoke at work -- why should we object to that choice'? So long as non-smokers have other employment options, if they choose to work for an employer that allows smoking, they have no basis to complain. Indeed, there is no externality, because the employer's decision imposes no costs on the non-smokers to which they have not consented. Many restaurants and workplaces have voluntarily banned smoking. In view of this evidence that private ordering can work, I see no justification for overriding private property rights by banning smoking in private establishments.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

To :
lettertoed@thestar.ca
Subject :
Prove to me and the 10,000 dollars is yours!!

Dear Editor Nov. 28/04

A Mr. David Cohen stated in his letter to the editor to your newspaper Nov. 22/04, concerning my letter 'Freedom of Choice" He stated "leading to death by cancer defived from second-hand smoke." Mr. Cohen, I have 10,000 dollars sitting in front of me. If you can prove without a doubt that second-hand smoke kills or causes cancer, the money is yours!

Friday, November 26, 2004

Letters to the Editor
Nov. 25/04
The Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay, Ont.

We own and operate a local bingo hall. Proceeds from each bingo go to local charities. Since the opening of the casino the charities' revenues have dropped dramatically. In July the smoke-free by-law came into force. It had an immediate effect on the attendance in all bingo halls. We no longer require such a large hall to operate and we moved our businesses to the Lakehead Labour Centre. All halls have been taking a few breaks in their bingo sessions so the smokers can go outside and smoke. Now that the weather is rainy and cold these players are staying away. We had hoped that our move into a clean, bright smoke-free building would bring out the non-smokers who said they don't go to bingos because of the smoke. We decided to offer new food on our menu. Our burgers are homemade rather than packaged frozen patties. We have fries,gravy, pogos, perogies, etc. We even set up a small cafe area where customers can sit and eat before playing bingo. The smoke-free by-law was supposed to put everyone on an even playing field. However, the Mountain Bingo Hall is exempt from this by-law. Many customers have decided they can go there and play bingo and smoke. We expected this would happened, but at the same time, we also expected to see non-smoking players coming out to support their local charities. To those who voted for the by-law, please come out and support your local charities and who knows, you might get lucky.

Brad and Mavis Waruk
Intercity Bingo Palace
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Dalton McGuinty's reply to my letter
Nov. 25/04

Thank you for writing to me regarding tobacco control in Ontario. I appreciate hearing from you on an issue about which I feel strongly about. In our election campaign, our throne Speech and again in our 2004 Ontario Budget, my colleagues and I were very clear about our intention to address the number one killer in Ontario with an aggressive plan to reduce smoking. That means taking decisive action through real prevention, tougher controls on in-store tobacco retails displays, improved access to smoking-cessation resources and a peer-to-peer anti-smoking campaign aimed at youth. My colleagues and I believe that increasing the cost of tobacco is one of the best ways to discourage harmful consumption--especially among youth, who are most sensitive to price increases. By raising the cost of a carton of cigarettes we have already taken an important first step in bringing Ontario's taxes up to the national average. The economic costs of smoking and second=hand smoke are staggering: smoking costs our health care system more than $1.1 billion annually and $2.6 billion in lost productivity. Our government wants to change that. We understand that promoting good health is a vital as treating illness. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care currently provides tobacco control through the Ontario Tobacco Strategy, Heart Health and the Ontario Health Promotion Resource Centre System.

Thank you again for your comments.


Monday, November 22, 2004

The Toronto Star

Nov. 22, 2004. 01:00 AM

Return to free choice

Business owners should be able to post sign saying whether or not they offer smoke-free environment

Freedom of choice
The issue of smoking in public areas has been on the table for years. The idea of having designated smoking areas seemed to be a logical and workable solution. So, without a lot of fuss, people became accustomed to having to locate themselves in the area of their choice.

"Quit-smoking" aids were introduced and a great deal of educational media was released to inform all of the possible dangers of smoking. The results were positive, since the percentage of people who now smoke has greatly declined. Once again it was these individuals' choices to quit or at least attempt to quit. Good for them.

It sounded like smokers and anti-smokers were willing to work on this together and it appeared to have been effective. Well, apparently, not in the eyes of the anti-smokers. Now it's to a point of we've been given an inch, let's take a mile and ban smoking altogether.

We all need to be educated on the possible negative economical impacts of a smoking ban. We are already facing a rapidly shrinking rural economy. Please be open minded; what works for some does not work for all. Many small bars and restaurants will not only suffer but will, in fact, close. Many businesses cannot afford even the slightest decline in their consumer base. Many youth, sport and charitable organizations will lose huge amounts of revenue from fund raisers such as bingo.

Why don't we stop wasting taxpayers' dollars and allow choice to be the ultimate dictator, not the government at any level?
Business owners could simply be required to post a very inexpensive sign indicating: We do not offer a smoke-free environment or we do offer a smoke-free environment or we offer designated smoking areas. How much simpler can it be. As a bonus, business owners would then be relieved of the responsibility of enforcing a law they may not necessarily agree with.

Whether you are for or against smoking, as a consumer the locations you patronize become your choice. As a business, the consumer base you wish to attract becomes your choice, not that of government.

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, Ont.


Saturday, November 20, 2004

Subject :
Smoking issue..A matter of choice!!
Dear Editor
Oct. 23/04
Matter of Choice
The issue of smoking in public areas has been on the table for years. The idea of having designated smoking areas seemed to be a logical and workable solution. So without a lot of fuss society became accustomed to having to locate themselves in the area of their CHOICE. Quit smoking aids were introduced and a great deal of educational media was released to inform all of the possible dangers of smoking. The results were positive since the percentage of people who now smoke has greatly declined. Once again it was their individual CHOICE to quit or at least attempt to quit. Good for them. Sounded like smokers and anti-smokers were willing to work on this together and it appeared to have been effective. Well apparently no in the eyes of the anti-smokers. Now it's to a point of , we've been given an inch let's take a mile and ban smoking altogether. We all need to be informed/educated on the possible negative economical impacts of a smoking ban. We are already facing a rapidly shrinking rural economy. Please be open minded, what works for some does not work for all. -Many small bars and restaurants will not only suffer but will in fact close -many businesses cannot afford even the slightest decline in their consumer base -many youth, sport and charitable organizations etc will lose huge amounts of revenue from fund raisers such as bingo. Why don't we stop wasting taxpayer's dollars and allow CHOICE to be the ultimate dictator not the government at any level. Business owners could simply be required to post a very inexpensive sign indicating:

1. We DO NOT offer a smoke free environment OR

2. We DO offer a smoke free environment OR

3. We offer designated smoking areas . How much simpler can it be! Bonus: Business owners would then be relieved of the responsibility of enforcing a law they may not necessarily agree with. Whether you are for or against smoking, as a consumer the locations you are a patron become YOUR CHOICE, as a business the consumer base you wish to attract becomes YOUR CHOICE not that of the government.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

To :
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
CC :
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, ernie_eves@ontia.ola.org
Subject :
'Smoking bans' are the 'real' threat


Nov. 15/04

Dear Sir,


The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from Victoria to New Brunswick- 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. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. 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.

Monday, November 15, 2004

November 15, 2004 5:33:18 PM

letters@globeandmail.ca
Subject :
Smoking bans are the 'real' threat!!

Dear Editor,

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from Victoria to New Brunswick- 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. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. 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.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Subject: Article:

The 2003 Thunder Bay Municipal Election.

What Really Happened?
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:00:35 -0400

Here is the latest article by Phyllis Mansfield appearing in this month's Profile for Seniors. Please read and enjoy. We will be forming a coalition for voter's rights which will petition City Council to return to a manual counting of ballots with scrutineers present. Enjoy the read, Orville The Municipal Election What really happened? Electronic voting machines have left a cloud of doubt on the validity of election results both in the US and Canada. In Canada the electronic voting machines are used in municipal elections only. The federal and provincial election ballots are still counted manually with scrutineers present. The results are always validated by scrutineers. This was not the case in our last municipal election nor in the 2000 and 1997 Thunder Bay municipal elections. Since the electronic machines were first introduced in 1997, no independent scrutineers have seen the ballots. We citizens of Thunder Bay relied solely on the electronic count. Incidentally there has never been an audit to validate the accuracy of the machines. In this editorial, I will tell you of what I know of the last municipal election. I am not trying to cast any stones, point any fingers or accuse anyone of wrongdoing. I will simply state the facts as I know them. The 2003 Thunder Bay Municipal Election The election results indicated that the media branded "gang" of Mary Roy, Betty Kennedy, Orville Santa, Rene Larson, Ken Whent and Gary Shchepanik were soundly defeated. Not a single one came close to winning a seat. My experience has been that incumbents usually fare better. It is also important to note, that these councillors were the biggest challengers of city administration. Troublemakers, if you will. Interesting events leading up to the main event The Chronicle Journal did two polls. Initially Lynn Peterson led comfortably with Frank Pullia second and Santa third. Two days before the election, the Chronicle Journal's latest poll showed Peterson zooming ahead to catch 53% of the vote, Santa staying the same at about 4% of the vote, and Pullia taking the loss and falling back. In the elections I have been involved in, the gap usually tightens as election day draws near. Who was running the election It was common knowledge that City Clerk Elaine Bahlieda was suing Councillor Santa for $600 thousand for defamation of character. Santa was a candidate for the mayor's seat. He sent an email to both the City Solicitor Rosalie Evans and City Manager Bob Petrie indicating that he thought it inappropriate that Ms. Bahlieda would serve as Chief Elections Officer while she had a lawsuit pending against one of the candidates for mayor. Both Ms. Evans and Mr. Petrie indicated they would have a meeting with Ms. Bahlieda and try to resolve this potentially conflicting issue. In the end, Ms. Bahlieda, through her lawyer, indicated she was unwilling to relinquish her position for the upcoming municipal election. She would remain the Chief Elections Officer. On the Friday before the Monday election, Ms. Bahlieda announced her retirement to the media. Her reasons were it was time to move on with other things in her life. In the same news clip, former Mayor Ken Boshcoff appeared to indicate that the reason Ms. Bahlieda was retiring was due to the pressure put on Ms. Bahlieda by Councillors Mary Roy and Orville Santa. Three days later the election took place. Election night I must say, I have never seen anything to equal what happened next. On election night the vote tallies soared by as many as 15 thousand extra votes being recorded. Later they were adjusted downward. We later discovered that several polls had been recorded as many as five additional times. Days later, the Chief Elections Officer announced the official results and attempted to qualify the enormous fluctuation in the polls as the result of human error. One man's fight.... The bizarre events on election night caused concern among more than a few citizens. Soon after the election, an application was filed with the Superior Court of Ontario by Eric Leat. He was requesting a manual recount be conducted to validate the machines. Mr. Leat's contention was that the electronic vote tabulation machines malfunctioned on election night. Whether it was computer or manual error, something definitely went wrong. One would think the City would have immediately conducted an audit of a few polls to verify the accuracy of the machines and put the whole matter to rest. It did not. In my opinion, had scrutineers been allowed to witness the counting of the ballots as it states in the Municipal Act, there would be no problem. In court, Mr. Leat's lawyer, spoke eloquently of democracy; how the vote was the corner stone of our freedoms and of the ultimate price paid by World War II veterans who fought for the preservation of democracy. Was the election rigged? As I dug into this electronic vote tabulating issue, I was astonished to learn that these voting machines could be programmed to yield a certain result. I was also privy to affidavits which stated that there were citizens in Thunder Bay who thought this election was "rigged." Disturbing developments to say the least. In the end, Justice Wright ruled that he would not order a manual recount, citing time and cost ($45 to $60 thousand) to the City. Outside the courtroom one individual stated, "We now know the price of democracy ....It's $45 to $60 thousand!" Justice Wright in his ruling stated, " The city has now used this equipment for three elections ..It seems to me that before that supplier leaves the contract the city might audit the actual performance of these machines using the ballots which are still on hand. ....The results could be compared with the machine results and the supplier asked to explain the discrepancy." At last I thought, this will put the whole matter to rest. I was pleased to hear the City Solicitor state, she would "seriously consider any recommendations" Justice Wright had to offer. A simple manual audit of a few polls to verify the machines would have cost no more than two thousand dollars. Mr. Leat, to protect his options, filed an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The letter exchange Mr. Leat instructed his lawyer to send a letter to the City Solicitor, offering to drop the appeal and save taxpayers thousands of dollars, if she would consent to a manual audit of a few polls. The cost would have been approximately two thousand dollars. The City had already paid Mr. Leat's legal costs of $3,500.00. The City Solicitor now wrote back, "I will report this matter to my client (Council) for instructions. In the circumstances, my report will recommend against the procedure you propose and recommend defending the appeal." If Leat's action went to the Court of Appeal, it had the potential to cost the City $20 thousand to defend it. If the City lost, they would still pay for a recount and Mr. Leat's legal costs. The total could reach $80 thousand. The question is why? Why would the City Solicitor not give consideration to Justice Wright's recommendations? Why would Council want to fight this appeal and put taxpayer dollars at risk? Was it not in the best interests of all concerned to do an audit? Did the public not deserve to know that their votes were recorded properly? Here come the police While all this was transpiring, three Councillors met with two members of the Thunder Bay Police Department and demanded an investigation into the Thunder Bay Municipal Election of 2003. After a week, the police refused stating, "The suggestions made by Justice Wright are only that, suggestions and Justice Wright made that very clear. Again the fact that the City has not acted upon Justice Wright's suggestion does not constitute evidence of a cover-up." If the City was willing to risk up to $80 thousand of taxpayers money in defending an appeal as opposed to doing a $2 thousand audit, what does that constitute? Election aftermath The Thunder Bay Municipal Election happened almost a year ago. The "gang" was thrown out and everything is peaceful at City Hall. An unanimous vote pointed us in the direction of a single source water system at a cost of $80 million. Ms. Bahlieda retired and her defamation suit was settled with the City paying her $50 thousand. Brian MacRae's suit has been settled with $650 thousand being paid out to him. The Royal Bank was paid $2.5 million for its advancing money to the "Portside" developers. We've had a 12.5% tax increase, a cut in city services and next year we may face a further 18% tax increase. It's been said, "People get what they deserve. They voted them in so live with it" My response is, What if the people didn't vote this Council in? What if the machines did malfunction? Most recently on CNBC they showed how one could tap into electronic voting machines and alter the election results. Bill Scollie, Trevor Giertuga and Lynn Peterson are all that remains of the old council. Given their track record for getting things done as opposed to the "gang" who in my opinion did much more for the City, I find this astonishing. I personally do not believe the 2003 election results. How could one candidate win 54 of 55 polls and tie one small poll? The only thing that could have relieved me of my doubt was a manual audit. A democratic right to transparent elections The purpose of the scrutineer is to ensure the votes are counted properly and fairly for each candidate. In the most recent Thunder Bay Municipal Election, the scrutineers were not allowed to see the ballots. We as voters had to rely on the vote tally of the electronic vote tabulators which we know had problems and/or had malfunctioned. An audit could have been done to ensure the accuracy of the machines. It was not done. The provincial and federal elections both count ballots manually. The election results are unquestioned except in a tight race where a recount is ordered. The whole process is transparent with scrutineers present. Recently in the Chronicle Journal there was a letter to the editor from Charles Campbell. Referring to Thunder Bay's voting machines he stated, "As to accuracy, those of us who watched the numbers jump and fall in the 2003 municipal election gained little confidence in automation." Further he states, "...in federal and provincial elections, we pay people to count ballots. I like the idea that polling staff and party scrutineers are involved in the democratic process longer than the few minutes it takes to touch a screen." I also agree with Mr. Campbel when he expresses his concern over the rush to get the results in record time. If it takes a few hours more, or even the next morning to get accurate results what's the big deal. The new council woudn't take office for at least twenty days. The only way to lift this veil suspicion is by returning to a manual count of all ballots. If we can pay people to man the ballot boxes from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., why not pay them a few extra hours for counting the ballots with scrutineers present? Right now we pay these people to man the polls and then we pay the company to tally up the vote. It doesn't make sense. If you lose the right to have your vote counted properly then who controls the government? I will be sending a letter to the City Clerk asking what the cost was for the 1994, 1997, 2000 and, 2003 municipal elections. The machines were first used in 1997. Think about it. Since then human eyes have not seen the ballots. This raises questions. Did we vote for a casino? Did we really vote for a new hospital? Did 56% of the population turn out to vote in the smoking bylaw? I will keep you posted as to my findings. I will also be forming a coalition with the goal of returning to a manual count of all municipal elections. If you are interested in joining please call me. I make no bones about it, I didn't vote for a single member of this present council. However, if they were elected fairly and everything was on the up and up, I really have nothing to say. But as you can see, I apparently have a lot to say. Were these the true results of the election? Was there a machine malfunction? Was there a human error? Was the election rigged? The truth is none of these questions can now be answered. The ballots have been destroyed without human eyes ever seeing them. I know what I believe. What do you believe? Email Ms. Mansfield at: polly_darby@hotmail.com <mailto:polly_darby@hotmail.com> Letters may be sent C/O Suite 201, 212 Miles St. East, Thunder Bay, ON P7C 1J6

Friday, November 05, 2004

lauriep@drydenobserver.ca
Reconsider the Fuoridation Plebiscite

Mayor and Council Nov. 5/04

Back in the 1960's there was a fluoridation plebiscite held in Port Arthur(now Thunder Bay). That plebiscite affected every single person, every single day. The Ontario Dental and Medical Association approved the fluoridation of our drinking water. They said it was good for the teeth of our young children. There was a man named Capt. Medwid who fought that plebiscite tooth and nail. He lied, took the information out of context, he twisted surveys and percentages to further his cause. He made outrages statements without proof. He used fictitious doctors and dentists statements from all over the world. He said fluorine is used in 'rat poison, he said fluorine molted your teeth. He was ''right'' on both counts. What he didn't say was "Poison is in the Dose." He did not care about his methods, it was the end results that mattered. He knew the power of TWO Emotions: FEAR and DOUBT. He aimed all his guns on those two emotions. Capt. Medwid won and the plebiscite was defeated. He did not believe in mass medication; His message was Freedom of Choice. He told the young mothers of Port Arthur (Thunder Bay), if you want the benefits of fluoridation, you can go to a drugstore and buy fluoridated tablets for your young children. At the time I instructed my wife's doctor to give her calcium fluoride, (she was pregnant at the time) I gave fluoride tablets to my children until they were teenagers. My kids(grown adults now) have just about perfect teeth. My second oldest daughter, age 36 yrs. old, had her first cavity when she was 32 years old. So much for the benefits of fluoridation. What bothers me is the refusal of a plebiscite on fluoridation. The purpose of a plebiscite on any issue is, if the issue affects everybody everyday, then the plebiscite is fair and democratic(providing all information on fluoridation is truthful and informant to the public). I hope that, with my personal experience, that you might reconsider the 'Plebiscite issue!

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Dear Editor,
Nov. 4/04

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 and work places. We do not elect people so they can control and manipulate our bahavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa versa.

Reader questions view of coalition member

Wednesday November 03, 2004

Jasper Booster — Regarding the comments of Ginette Marcoux-Frigon, a member of Smoke Free Jasper, in respect to the advertising run by the municipality of Jasper (‘Coalition expected more ‘YES’ votes in smoking bylaw’ - Oct. 27 Booster):
Ms. Marcoux-Frigon stated; “Buying advertising and using taxpayers‚ dollars to put a ballot in the paper and tell people exactly how to vote I thought was inappropriate. ”Where did Smoke-free Jasper get its funds from? If any of it’s funding came from Smoke-free Alberta, those were either taxpayer dollars or monies donated to charities for charitable - not political - purposes. Did Smoke-free Jasper receive any grant monies through Action on Smoking and Health, to “sponsor community mass media activities that support the development and/or implementation of 10 per cent smoke-free bylaws”? If so, those funds came from Health Canada and were taxpayer dollars. Does Ms. Marcoux-Frigon think that the $850,000 in taxpayer dollars diverted by Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ottawa, Dr. Robert Cushman, to promote the 100 per cent smoke-free campaign in that city - which set the standard for campaigns such as Smoke-free Jasper, was “inappropriate”? There seems to be more than a hint of hypocrisy in Ms. Marcoux-Frigon’s complaint.
-Roy Harrold,Edmonton


To :


Mr Smitherman..no one has ever died from second hand smoke!!

Dear Editor Nov.3/04

Dear Mr. Smitherman,

Nobody has every died from second hand smoke.

Show me one death certificate that says.'this person died directly from second hand smoke.

The Dept of Health is using 'Health' as a guise to 'de-normalize' smoking.


To: ssmstar@saultstar.com
Subject: We don't need more government regulations

November 3, 2004 11:08:42 PM

Open letter to the Mayor and Council and to the Provincial members of Ontario
Nov. 3/04

We are well on the way to reaching a smoke-free environment. We just don't need more government regulations to impose it on everyone. In my view all smoking policies, should be set at the discretion of the private property owners. This is where the radical anti-smoking faction misses the point. Smoking bans are an unreasonable intrusion into private enterprise. Restaurants, bars and the like are not truly public spaces. They are private property where the owner invites the public. They think private restaurants and bars are no different than true public places such as civic pools, arenas, etc… But restaurants and bars that are on private property have a lot more in common with your own private residence. Would many people support a law banning smoking in private residence? I think not!! Tobacco is still a legal product in Canada and the U.S.A. from which the federal government earns billions of dollars in taxation. How hypocritical is it when one level of government sells a product to the public and another level of government bans it's use? A city council or the Provincial government should not undermine such a basic, sacred right as a person's freedom to choose. It could be very simple. If you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, stay away. If you enjoy smoking before and after a meal, find a place that allows it .

Monday, November 01, 2004

Subject :
Conspiracy???To whom it may be concerned!
Oct. 29/04
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-explanatoryI stressed that the word 'public' is not clear to the public. The public's interpretation of 'public' means a library etc.. 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 would have been--'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--At an open forum the Dept. of Health was going to try to convince council to pass a smoking by-law, but they changed their mind. I had a gut feeling they were going to go that route. I was right.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. Gary S was the only alderman who had the 'guts' to stand up to the antis..for that courageous stand he got voted out of officeCouncil liked the plebiscite issue. why? It would get them 'off' the 'hook' from making a 'big' decision. Meaning that they wouldn't be responsible for the possible demise of the hospitality sector. Their thoughts were. Let the public decide!!All of them were 'gutless' wonders. Just looking after their own asses. Right then and there we were 'doomed.'

Toledo Ohio
To : <letters@theblade.com

The Smoking issue--Prohibition

Dear Editor, Nov1./ 04

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)

Ventilation Works by Morris Lewicky Oct. 25/04

My first thought that you have stated so many times is the freedom of choice. THEY don't have to go to smoking premises. Let the owners decide on how they want their business to be on demand of the customers. Secondly to keep challenging them to provide proof that smoking kills. Againyou have covered this endlessly. Finally is the ventilation issue. This is a long and complex issue. However, simply stated, the proof is in industry they have air quality standards which are enforced rigorously. A very common example is in any indoor auto parking garage or repair shop there must be monitored and ventilated provisions for CO presence, at a maximum of 25 to 35 ppm, depending on the jurisdiction. ASHRAE is now saying 25 ppm. The monitoring device reading atone of these lecels automatically turns on the exhaust fans. The other method is lateral (cross) ventilation at a rate of between 50 and 100 fpm. It works because I have yet to be charged with homicide and I've designed and supplied the equipment for numerous applications for a large variety of extremely toxic and deadly fumes. Virtually, you name it and I've had an application in 40 years in the game. And I don't care what Repace says. One other good example is facilities with Methane gas which if (andeasily ignited) will blow you to there and back. I was saved because I didn't get involve in the supply of the monitoring system but only supplied the explosion proof equipment for a sewage treatment facility. The managers for whhat ever reason had turned the system off. A worker (idiot) walked in smoking. The plant ended up a pile of concrete rubble and they never found any parts of the worker. NOW the regulations are for fail safe. you can't enter any explosive atmosphere without a door interlock to turn on the system with a time delay before you can open the door. I could go on endlessly with examples but you get the idea, VENTILATION WORKS. Back to the lateral ventilation principal. The air is forced to move from point A to point B wherein you could be within a meter and not be subject to the toxitity. Imagine being next to a hydrogen generating station without ventilation. Other gases I've monitored and provided ventilation systems are hydrogen sulphide, ethane, butane, ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Hey, I'm still here.Morris----- Original

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?