Thursday, December 30, 2004


Erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health

Dear Editor Dec. 30/04

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

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Mov. 6/04
Provincial Govn't hooked on wages of Sin!!

Dear Editor,
The feds, at this time are decriminalizing the possession of marijuana. So it's OK to smoke marijuana but not tobacco? How does that work. Concerning legions, any lout can smoke dope but the veterans in the confines of a 'private' club can't smoke a legal product without bringing the wrath of government down on their heads?) "There is no doubt about it, we have come to rely on gambling revenues." Premier Dalton McGuinty said this week. So there you have it. The provincial government is addicted to gambling revenues. And both it and the feds are addicted to tobacco taxes--otherwise, they'd simply cut the hypocrisy and outlaw smoking completely. And how long do you think it will be before the feds, having decriminalized marijuana, look for a way to taxes its use? And how long after that will it take for the province to decide they'll sell it from government outlets--our own MCBO? Which brings us to booze, the other sin tax the province couldn't do without. These same government pay lip service to cracking down on addictions--but they are themselves hooked on the wages of sin.

Smoking ban burns biz profits
By Chen Chekki - The Chronicle-Journal December 15, 2004

Bars and lounges in Thunder Bay have lost customers due to the city-wide smoking ban, while some businesses just outside the city are drawing more smokers, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce said Tuesday. The chamber in November asked about 100 bars, lounges and restaurants about their business activity since the butt ban started in July, and 93 per cent of them said they suffered losses. “Where are all the non-smokers?” asked Terry Tapak, owner of Kilroy’s Sports Pub and Billiards. “They were going to come out in droves. Like hell.” Tapak said he has lost about a quarter of his patrons due to the bylaw that bans smoking in public places and workplaces. Up to 90 per cent of Kilroy’s patrons smoke and since the bar began losing them, it has become so strapped for cash that it has stopped giving to charity. The bar has also laid off staff and reduced business hours, just like all other bars and restaurants that reported losses, the chamber said. “This is the tip of the iceburg,” Tapak said. He said with colder temperatures settling in, people are going to get tired of bundling up to have a smoke outdoors. And some have started looking for a warm place to smoke just outside the city where the ban is not in place. The Stanley Tavern, about a 15-minute drive west of Thunder Bay, has seen a slight increase in business since the summer, owner Susan Poulin said. “We’re seeing some strange faces we haven’t seen before,” she said. Just east of Thunder Bay in Shuniah, the McKenzie Inn is getting more than its usual number of visitors, too. “There seems to be way more people coming out here to eat at this time of year,” said Don Stewart, a manager at the inn. He said at least 70 per cent of the new customers smoke and he hears people complaining about the city butt ban all the time. Customers at the McKenzie consider it a treat to come in, sit down and have a smoke, Stewart said. When one community doesn’t have smoking and another one does, they’ll just go to the other community, said chamber president Mary Long-Irwin. “And that’s exactly what’s happening,” she said. The chamber survey also notes that the Thunder Bay Charity Casino has been hurt by the ban and bingo halls have lost at least 30 per cent of their business. The survey, which polled about half the city’s bars and lounges and less than half the restaurants, found that 12 per cent of restaurants lost an average of 35 per cent of their business to the ban. Long-Irwin, who does not smoke and does not advocate smoking, said the survey was done to make the community aware of what was happening. A province-wide tobacco ban will help level the playing field, Long-Irwin said. Indoor smoking areas were listed as desireable by some of the Thunder Bay businesses polled.

Toronto Sun Dec.22/04 Published
Dear Editor,

When our war veterans fought in other countries to give "freedoms" back to the people, how brave were those young men, to sacrifice their lives for other human beings?

The province of Ontario will honour those vets by passing legislation so as to prevent them from indulging in a legal product in their own Legion.

Thank you Mr. McGuinty, thank you for nothing!

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay

(If McGuinty's Liberals know what's good for them, they won't mess with the vets)

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Subject :
The Great Helena Heart Fraud!! Dr. Jim Morris

Dear Editor
Dec. 22/04 I offer the below extensive analysis because I feel it is one of the clearest and most blatant recent examples of misrepresentation of science by the Antismoking lobby and it is one that has been used extensively in promoting smoking bans. In April of 2003, two local doctors from a relatively small town in the Midwestern United States unveiled the preliminary results of a study that made a truly astounding claim: A smoking ban in that town implemented to "protect people from second hand smoke,” lasting for only 6 months, had reduced the heart attack rate by 60%. Just as incredible, it was claimed that as soon as the ban was overturned by a judge and proprietors were again allowed “to continue poisoning people” with secondary smoke, the heart attack rate immediately rebounded to pre-ban levels. These claims were far beyond anything that had ever before been laid at the doorstep of secondary smoke exposure and activists and media outlets around the globe jumped on it and proclaimed it to be proof of the immediate and urgent need to protect nonsmokers from tobacco smoke. The one big problem with this (among many lesser problems explored below) was that the study itself did not specifically examine the effects of the ban on nonsmokers! Of course that information didn’t come out until a year later when the details of the study were actually made public for all to see, but by that time the incredible claimed findings had been used as the basis for hundreds of debates and laws throughout the country in the drive to eliminate public smoking. Note, the study itself was honest in not making such a claim, but the presentation of the study to the public by the authors, by activists in respected and high profile positions, and by a sympathetic media, all asserted that “The Great Helena Heart Miracle” study had proven beyond all doubt that secondary smoke was felling tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. The writing below was submitted to the British Medical Journal as an editorial commentary through their "fast track" submission program. After seven weeks I was informed in an email that two of the four selected reviewers had finally looked at it after 50 days and rejected it. Further inquiries to the BMJ have been so far ignored. The BMJ however DID publish two "Rapid Responses" of mine which can be seen, along with the study itself, at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#55832 EDITORIAL COMMENTARY SUBMISSION: On April 5th, 2004, the BMJ published the "Helena Heart Miracle" study in its online version. Quite aside from several minor questions and quibbles (e.g. why the strict limitation of comparator periods, why similar changes have not been noted in prison populations with smoking bans; and why funding from organizations that openly push for bans is not considered a conflicting interest) there is one major and glaring problem with this study and the way it has been presented. The problem is the lack of differentiation between those patients who smoked and those who did not and a presentation that clearly claimed the opposite. The terms "secondhand" smoke or smoking appear twelve times in the study while the overall tone of the paper itself, press statements by at least two of the authors, and further press statements by nationally prominent Antismoking figures all combine to give the strong impression that the study clearly found that exposure to secondary smoke caused heart attacks among Helena's nonsmoking population. In reality, in an obscure paragraph near the end, the authors admit that the study did not examine nonsmokers as a separate group, noting that small sample size would have made such differentiation totally meaningless. Am I exaggerating the extent of the deliberate misinterpretation to the public? Not at all: On April 2nd the American Heart Association paid for a press release headlined in big bold print: "NEW STUDY LINKS SECONDHAND SMOKE TO HEART ATTACKS," where the AHA's CEO, M. Cass Wheeler, stated: "Banning smoking is the only logical response to the scientific evidence concerning the dangers of secondhand smoke." On April 4th, Stanton Glantz, co-author and study guarantor, stated in another press release that: "This is not the first study to find a link between long term exposure to secondhand smoke and heart attacks." His associate, the Director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, followed with: "The bottom line is simple. Secondhand smoke kills." Even Vivian Nathanson, head of research and ethics right here at the BMA, was quoted in an April 5th article on the study as saying "We estimate that second-hand smoke kills at least 1,000 people in the UK every year." Dr. Sargent himself, the lead author of the study, asserted in a CBS TV interview about Helena that business owners wanted "to be allowed to continue poisoning people even when we have demonstrated the immediate effect of it." All of this shows quite clearly the intended message of the study. And that message is not the likely truth: that when a smoking ban is introduced in a small community smokers smoke less and spend more of their potential heart attack time outside of that community while eating, drinking, gambling and smoking. A final note of interest: A deliberately omitted data chart used in the initial presentation of the study clearly shows a drop in AMIs only during the first three months of the ban when it is most likely that angry Helena smokers deliberately went out of town for their fun during the warm weather months. However the chart also showed that for the last three months of the ban, when the cold Montana winter was approaching and angry smokers tired of boycotting local businesses or moved their drinking and smoking to their homes, the heart attack rate bounced back up to roughly normal levels. Not a bounce back *after* the ban ended as is usually claimed. I offer apologies to Drs. Sargent and Shepard for being so harsh in my criticism, but I feel the harshness is deserved when one considers the enormous damage this study has done to people's lives and livelihoods in communities where the "Helena Heart Miracle" has been held up as proof of the harm of secondary smoke in order to frighten nonsmokers and get extremist smoking bans rammed through legislatures. Advancing a falsehood designed to implement social engineering goals amongst free people is never something to be taken lightly.

Sent :
November 11, 2004 2:49:50 AM
To :

Subject :
Survey with the workers, customers and owners of the hospitality sector

The smoking by-law Nov. 11/04

Dear Ms Mary Long-Irwin

I understand that you are conducting a survey amongst the hospitality sector which includes the owners, workers, and the customers of the Hospitality sector

That type of surrey should have been taken instead of the surrey that was taken by the health dept.. during 2002/2003

Since the dept. of health wanted a smoking by-law, I suspect that their surrey was hyped.

If you did not think that survey was hyped I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

After the survey was taken, myself and a few other hospitality sector owners went to the Dept. of Heath and asked them."What the exact wording you used for the question you asked public!"

The Dept. of Health refuse to tell us the wording of the question.

Having said that, why would anyone believe any thing they said about their survey

They surveyed people who never or very seldom patronized the hospitality sector

I trust that you will make it a true
surrey and find out the 'real' truth of a survey.

I am anxious to hear the results of your surrey.

God Bless

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

Monday, December 20, 2004

Dear Editor, The Globe and Mail

Dec. 19/04
When the the Vets fought in other countrys to give 'freedoms' back to the people, how brave were those young men, to sacrifice their lives for other human beings. The Province of Ontario will honor those Vets by passing legislation so as to prevent the 'Vets' from indulging in a legal product in their own legion. Thank you Mr. McGuinty, thank you for nothing!

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

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Tobacco Back in the news

Letter to the editor ..
The Chronicle Journal
Dec. 18/04

Tobacco has certainly returned to the news headlines this past week.

First, Chamber of Commerce released their survey of 100 hospital businesses that choose to respond to an impressionist survey. It reports that a core group of bars have reduced revenue while the majority of restaurants have increased traffic.

Anecdotally, we have all heard stories, both success and challenges, as our community makes the transition to smoke-free worksites.This was expected and mirrors the experience of other communities going smoke-free. Members of Tobacco Free Thunder Bay have always encouraged the general public to make full use of our news, improved smoke-free environments.

Newspaper and radio ads were placed in the past and there will be new ads in January, the traditional slow time for many hospitality sites. Yet your lead stories on Dec. 14/04("Smoking ban burns biz profits")could be re-written:

"Smoking ban cuts heart attacks by 40 per cent." This is the documented experience of Helena, Montana where admissions for heart attacks were down 40% after the introduction of smoke-free work places.

In a classic proof that smoke-free saves lives, after six months smoke-free Helena's bylaw was set aside. With the re-introduction of smoking the admissions to hospital with a heart attack rate climbed back to the original rate. This spring the Centres for Disease Control issued a major bulletin advising people with heart conditions to avoid second-hand smoke at all times.

California has been smoke-free long enough(Jan. 1/98) that the rates smoking-induced cancers have dropped dramatically. Meanwhile, the rates of other cancers that are not caused by tobacco use have not changed.

We have taken a giant step towards a healthy community.
How should a family or a city cost-out a lung cancer that didn't happen? The decision of Thunder Bay citizens to vote yes for smoke-free workplaces and public places has been confirmed by the Dec. 14 Liberal announcement of a province-wide ban by May 2006.

Let's celebrate the future health benefitsthat will unfold for the citizens of our community

Dr. Jim Morris

Chair, Tobacco Free Thunder Bay, Ont.

Friday, December 17, 2004

Dec. 17/04 Sent to the Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay, Ont.

Dear Editor:

A friend forwarded a Dec. 15th article from your paper regarding the inequality for businesses that has evolved due to sporadic enactment of anti smoking by laws. It was suggested that a provincial anti smoking law would “level the playing field”. Aside from the fact that this phraseology has been vastly overused, enactment of a provincial law simply negates the democratic, free choice, free market “level playing field” that respected the individual rights of business and existed prior to enactment of any anti smoking law.
An anti smoking provincial law as extreme and prohibitionist as the one that has been proposed at this cleverly strategic time, will simply result in loss of business to those who are not subject to any anti smoking laws. This provincial law, if enacted, will result in a continuation of smokers abandoning restaurants, bars and pubs in favour of gathering in private homes or “secret” smoking areas of businesses that have popped up across the province. This law will create a lose-lose situation.

Yours truly,
Jan Hogg,
R.R. #1,
Bath ON
K0H 1G0

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

_news@dugallmedia.com_ Dec.14/04


Surveys and Truth With regard to your 12/13 story, "Smoking Ban Survey Results," you'll find that Antismokers will dismiss your findings as "unscientific" and will claim bias on the part of the bar owners who cite business losses.

Take a moment to think though: of all the people in this debate who have NO "biased interest" in smoking bans, those people ARE the bar owners.

All they care about is surviving in the businesses that many of them have poured their lifes' blood into.

If smoking bans were helping their bottom lines they'd be all for them. They have NO reason to lie... unlike the Antismoking lobby whose success and future tax grants depend on promoting smoking bans so that they can claim the effectiveness of their work and show reductions in smoking.

Surveys of those in the bar and restaurant business are really the ONLY accurate indicator we currently have of how the bans are effecting them.

Years old tax records are not only too late to help closed businesses, but they almost never correct for such things as the division between bars and restaurants or the migration of business from fine restaurants and bars over to fast food take out and home drinking.

The Antismoking Lobby lies just as much today as the Tobacco Lobby did 30 years ago... and with an effect almost as destructive.


Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" _ http://www.Antibrains.com_ (http://www.antibrains.com/) _http://www.TheTruthIsALie.com_ (http://www.thetruthisalie.com/) 4424 Ludlow St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 215-386-8430 (<= funky answering machine, but I *will* pick up if I hear you.)

To : news@dougallmedia.com, ldunick@dougallmedia.com
Subject :
Ask the workers who are laid off if the bylaw is protecting them?
Dear Editor,

Dec. 15/04
The smoking by-law won by a 4 to 1 ratio. Where are all the non-smokers who are going to fill the empty seats that the smokers no longer occupy.

Tobacco Free conned council and the public again. I have exposed these zealots for the last six years and the public still hasn't learned anything yet.

A workers smoking by-law? Ask the workers who are laid off if they are happy about the smoking by-law?

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

To :
Subject :
Chamber of Commerce.. a 'front' for Big Tobacco?

Dear Editor,

Dec. 14/04 The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce has released details of a new survey on the impact of the City smoking ban and it shows several business bars in particular are being badly hurt.

Could The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce be a front for 'Big' Tobacco?

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

Subject :
Ask the workers who are laid off!!

To : news@dougallmedia.com, ldunick@dougallmedia.com

Subject : Ask the workers who are laid off if the bylaw is protecting them?

Dear Editor,

Dec. 15/04

The smoking by-law won by a 4 to 1 ratio. Where are all the non-smokers who are going to fill the empty seats that the smokers no longer occupy. Tobacco Free conned council and the public again. I have exposed these zealots for the last six years and the public still hasn't learned anything yet. A workers smoking by-law? Ask the workers who are laid off if they are happy about the smoking by-law?

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

Dec. 15/04
To :
"Thomas Laprade"
Subject :
Re: Consultant's report accuses Manitouwadge council members of micro-managing!!

Thanks for your input Thomas. On the smoking by-law, I am (very) proud of
my council for having the courage and the leadership to do what's right and,
for representing the majority of residents in our community.
Have a nice day.

Darrel Chisholm

: <echo_manitouwadge@hotmail.com

Subject: Consultant's report accuses Manitouwadge council members of micro-managing!!
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:24:54 -0500
Dear Editor,
Dec 15/04 An item appeared in the Chronicle-Journal, Thunder Bay, Dec. 10/04
Mayor Chisholm declared Tuesday. " I challenged the consultant to give me an example, and he could not. " I accept that challenge Mr. Mayor. You and your council 'Micro-managed the hospitality sector with your Smoking by-law. You have put the smokers and the hospitality sector in a criminal situation, by making it illegal to use a legal product on 'private' property.

Thomas Laprade

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Chamber of Commerce.. a 'front' for Big Tobacco??

Dear Editor, Dec. 14/04

The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce has released details of a new survey on the impact of the City smoking ban and it shows several business bars in particular are being badly hurt.

Could The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce be a front for 'Big' Tobacco?

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Smokers also deserve thought
Prohibit patio smoking
Editorial, Dec. 7.
The Toronto Star
The argument presented in your editorial regarding prohibiting smoking on adjacent patios of some bars was among the most foolish and ludicrous, I have ever seen commited to paper.

Yes, bars have tried to create a more hospitable environment for their patrons who smoke because those customers deserve just as much consideration as non-smokers who may occupy the inside of any bar or restaurant.
Non-smokers who choose to "enjoy a coffee in the frosty air" do so with every knowledge there may well be a smoker in their midst.
To tell bars they must go out of business to satisfy the one or two "hearty souls" who want a coffee outside is criminally negligent, in my view.
Smokers, whether you choose to recognize it or not, are integral to the survival of many bars and, I remind you, are people as well. Smokers can only perceive these actions as direct attacks that would not be tolerated by any other segment of society.

Joe LaFortune,

Friday, December 10, 2004

To :

Where is your 'proof'??

Dear Editor , Dec. 10/04

RE: A. Ritchie's Dec. 9 letter. Tobacco smoke has been classified as a Group A carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, both gas and particulate matter. A recent study found that people who were exposed to smoke in the workplace were 17% more likely to develop lung cancer than those who were not exposed. I don't pee in your coffee so please don't smoke in my air!

L. Maze
In the first place it is 'not' your air, it is the owner's air!

The key words are "more likely"

The facts are 'nobody' ever got cancer from 'second-hand' smoke.

Here is my proof--where is yours??


Published by The Winnipeg Sun Dec. 10/04

Impose ban on scents

Re: All too common scents (H. Geddie Letter of the day, Dec. 9).
A lady complains about the liberal use of cologne on a gentleman.

I think it's time to start working on a Perfume-Free Bylaw.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Would that be an indoor or blanket ban?(Editor's comments)

Tuesday, December 07, 2004


Thank you for your respose!

Hi Ms. Johnson,

Dec. 6/04

I thought the 'book' got lost in the mail:)
I believe every council in Canada should have that book, to dispel the 'lies, half-truths and innuendos these zealots are spreading.across Canada. These Crusaders are using 'Health' as a guise for their Draconian bylaws, but the 'real' reason is to De-normalize smoking(to change human behaviour). Their main weapon is the ignorance of the 'public' about second-hand smoke!

It is a crying shame that people lose their jobs and businesses go belly-up just because Councils across Canada are ignorant about second-hand smoke and the damage it has done to the hospitality sector. Unfortunately this scenario has to go through the whole nine yards before Council does something to rectify the situation. In a number of cases some councils have instructed the 'smoke police' "unofficially" to not enter the pubs or taverns or turn the other way from the hospitality sector.

I have exposed these zealots for the past eight years: their lies, half truths, innuendos and 'slanted surveys'. Having said that, why would council and the public believe anything they say??

Fear,doubt and gullibility are the emotions they use to apply their methods to impose Draconian by-laws on the unsuspecting public. These Crusaders always go the route of a Plebiscite. Because they know that 75% of the people don't smoke. What is drastically wrong with the plebiscite route is(unfair,slanted, undemocratic) the smoking issue does not affect every body every day and yet every body had a vote on the plebiscite.

e.g. The Fluoridation plebiscite in the 60's was a fair and democratic plebiscite, because the issue effected every body every day.

To be technically right, the only voters should have been the 'owners, workers and the customers who should have the 'right' to vote on this plebiscite.

One study that was done in Findlay Ohio showed that out of 130 hospitality workers over 120 opposed the imposition of a total smoking ban!

These crusaders are smart and cunning. They do not care who looses their jobs or if any business is closed because of the bylaw.

Dr. Jim Morris said,''This is a 'workers' bylaw'. I ask you,'How many workers were pounding on Dr. Moris's door pleading "Please pass a smoking by-law so as to protect us from that toxic, evil second-hand smoke?

If you remember quite a while ago Simon Hoad(the Health Promoter) said on live TV, 'Their agenda is a Smoke Free Canada! Can you imagine the amount of money the Dept. of Health is spending on promoting smoking by-laws in Ontario? Roughly speaking and I am being conservative, 200 thousand dollars have been spent in the last two years in Thunder Bay and that is only one city in Ontario.

The Dept. of Health is to inform the public about the dangers of 'smoking' .And you wonder why Dalton McGuinty is tacking a 300 dollar initial fee for everybody in Ontario.

If there is one worker on the floor of a pub who doesn't smoke, does that mean that nobody can smoke, even though there is proper ventilation? If that same worker(be it owner or otherwise) smokes, is that pub exempt? They fooled the Mayor and Council and the public. In my opinion the Mayor and council used the possible demise of the hospitality sector to get (elected) re-elected.

Just because these zealots have a (Dr.) in front of their name does not mean their lies are any better than the next person, they only think they are .

One such untruth is "A level playing field"--One shoe does not fit all! (e.g. compare a hotel on Simpson street to 'Scuttlebutts."

The owner of the Royalton Hotel said."If I had a mortgage on my hotel I would have been closed in a heartbeat!

Has the Mayor and aldermen talked to the hospitality sector and find out their feelings about this smoking bylaw, or are they too scared to talk to them, because they might be told the 'truth'?

Our mayor said,"promote businesses..create jobs..is this her way of doing it??

It is a crime to use a legal product on 'private' property, is ludicrous.

To make a crime out of something that is not a crime, is ludicrous.

The smoking by-law puts the smoker and the hospitality sector in a potential criminal situation, is ludicrous.

Have a great day and God Bless,

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

Sunday, December 05, 2004

CC :
mailbag@edm.sunpub.com, kdiotte@edm.sunpub.com

Dear Editor,

Dec. 6/04 Comparing second-hand smoke to Mustard Gas is an insult to my intelligence. Sunlight is a Class A carcinogen. Should people stay in-doors all the time? Chlorine is a Class A carcinogen and is added to your drinking water. Should people stop drinking water? You are forgetting the most important fact of all.

Poison is in the dose.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Subject: Re: Cambridge hospital ban puts choke on smoke.

And all this... in a building with the best air filtration system in the world
Eric Boyd <eboyd@library.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:For those wishing to voice yourconcerns here's the email address for theCambridge Memorial Hospital information@cmh.orgor - perhaps more importantly - The Cambridge Memorial Hospital Foundation,a registered public charitable foundation 'working to meet the healthcareneeds of our community' by seeking donations for the hospital.Cambridge Memorial Hospital Foundation


EricCambridge hospital ban puts choke on smokeCAROL GOODWINCAMBRIDGE (Oct 26, 2004)

Cambridge Memorial Hospital is about to implement a no-smoking policybelieved to be the most stringent in the province. Smoking will not be allowed anywhere on hospital property, effective Nov. 1,chief executive officer Julia Dumanian said yesterday in an interview. That includes entrances, walkways, outdoor seating areas, the parking lot --and in cars parked in hospital lots, she said. The policy was adopted unanimously by the hospital board Sept. 29 andendorsed by the medical staff and the majority of employees, Dumanian said. "Smoking has been banned inside the hospital for years," she said. "Nowwe've gone the extra step and included the entire property. "Nowhere will you be able to smoke. You won't be able to sit in your car andsmoke. "Ken Yost, a patient in pyjamas and robe who came out for a smoke breakyesterday, was not happy. "I smoke a pack-and-a-half a day," said Yost, whose surgery will keep him inhospital for a while. Some staff members taking a smoke break weren't happy either. They didn't want to give their names, but said they were worried aboutmentally ill patients who might try to cross busy Coronation Boulevard to get their nicotine fix. Patients will be offered the nicotine patch and counselling. "We understand it's an addiction," Dumanian said. "We have health and safetyissues to address, but we will provide bedside assistance" with the patchand counselling. She said research was done before deciding on the ban, includingconsultations with mental-health experts. "They told us it would not causealarm or distress. If a patient is an alcoholic, we don't provide them withalcohol. "Other hospitals are sure to follow Cambridge's example, she said.Grand River and St. Mary's hospitals in Kitchener both have outdoor, wheelchair-accessible smoking shelters for patients, staff and visitors, spokesmen said. At Guelph General, staff can smoke outside a back door, while patients maysmoke outside entrances during the evening, after visitors have left, aspokeswoman said. The Ontario Hospital Association could not say whether any other acute-carefacility in the province has a smoking ban as far-reaching as CambridgeMemorial's.Dumanian conceded the ban may inconvenience people, but suggested it wasoverdue."We are a primary health-care site. We've let people smoke in front of ourdoors and turned a blind eye to the direct and indirect costs of smoking. Our job is to promote healthy living."Cambridge Memorial is seeking ways to reduce a looming deficit of $2.47million and recently announced cuts to 18 community service programs. Thecuts are expected to save the hospital $1.6 million. Dumanian said smoking patients have, perhaps unintentionally, cost thehospital money. "We've all seen them, pushing their IV poles," she said. "When they come inwe have to change their gowns, change their sheets, change our masks. Wehave patients unintentionally burning holes in their IV bags. . . . Weneeded to take a stand. "The costs to the hospital directly impacts our ability to provide healthcare. While creating greater efficiencies for the organization, we realizedthis was the right thing to do. "The City of Cambridge is working with the hospital to enforce the ban in theparking lot, Dumanian said. "Our security guards will be tagging cars andticketing and fining people. It would be the same as getting a ticket forparking in a handicapped spot. "Zenalia Simoes, a Cambridge resident visiting her daughter, was puffing in asheltered spot not far from the hospital entrance. "I can understand (no smoking) in the hospital," she said. "But outside, itshould be free. "Michelle Hilts and John Kublek, visiting Hilts' daughter, were also outsidesmoking. "It's pretty harsh," Hilts said. "I can understand the nine-metre distance(from the entrance), but not even in the parking lot? It's pretty hard onpatients. They'll go round the corner. If they're in a wheelchair they couldfall."Cambridge Memorial Hospital has 1,200 employees, 244 patient beds and 200physicians. cgoodwin@therecord.com

To :

Subject :
Bingo revenue and the smoking issue

Dear Editor, Oct. 20/04

It sounds to me there is a dilemma between bingo revenues and non-profit organisations.

Since council and the majority of the public wanted a smoking by-law, I think the fair

solution would be, raise all property taxes the equivalent to the revenues that were made by bingos,prior to the smoking bylaw, that way everybody 'donates' to the non-profit organisations.

You can't have it both ways.

October 23, 2004 4:43:36 PM
To :
Subject :

This news item appeared in www.forces.org/canada October 21 - There are a whole bunch of different stories to report out of Thunder Bay. The biggest story came from the Thunder Bay Source. Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce president, Mary Lang-Irwin has complained to city council about the devastation the smoking ban is having on Thunder Bay’s hospitality industry. Mrs. Irwin claims that business has declined between 37-40 per cent among its members. Two bars have already closed because of the smoking ban, and staff lay-offs are increasing. The Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal reported that the smoking ban on the campus of Lakehead University (Flakehead U) has caused a riot. It seems that non-students were banned from the student pub because of problems with the smoking ban. Kids are taking their beer bottles to cars and leaving them in the parking lot because of the smoking ban at the campus bar. Fights have been breaking out. The Pub has lost” a few thousand.” Student council has asked for a relaxation of the campus-wide smoking ban. The fine for a third offense is a $50 fine or its waived if you go to a quit smoking program. There were also a couple of interesting letters published in the Chronicle-Journal, one from Michael McFadden who wrote the fantastic book Dissecting Anti-Smokers Brains and another from PUBCO’s Randy Hughes. Here Michael responds to Thomas Laprade’s letter, that also appeared in Forces Canada, calling for compensation for Thunder Bay’s decimated hospitality industry: “If government had been honest in its presentation of the smoking ban, admitting 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 smoking ban, the government advocates and anti-smoking zealots consistently swore to the public that the ban would not hurt businesses and that anyone claiming that it would was simply a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry. Well if they were telling the truth then there should be no claims 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 McFadden (Author of Dissecting Anti-Smokers Brains) Philadelphia, PA The Thunder-Bay Chronicle-Journal also published a letter from PUBCO’s Randy Hughes under the headline: Lack of compromise results in economic fallout. “Every business owner hears the old adage” Do you know what you should do?” to increase profitability and grow like no other business. With the implementation of Thunder Bay’s 100 per cent smoking ban in bars and pubs we are changing the adage to reflect the economic fallout that will happen because of a lack of compromise at all levels of government.
What if Thunder Bay council allowed designated smoking rooms where no employee was forced to enter?
What if Health Canada developed threshold limit values (TLVs) and ventilated standards for indoor smoking areas?
What if council understood policies that work and are accepted in other regions of Canada such as British Columbia?
What if a bar or pub has a lineup on Saturday night, but is half empty Sunday through Thursday?
What if five carcinogens in second-hand smoke also exist in coffee?
What if the air inside was better quality than the air outside?
What if the Federal Government invested all 6 billion dollars from cigarette taxes directly into the health care system?
What if you invested your entire life into your business and couldn’t sell it to retire? City council ignored all possible solutions or compromises and moved directly towards a 100 per-cent ban. The plebiscite was unclear to most and really did not explain what a public place was.
Time will tell in Thunder Bay how this will affect the hospitality sector.
My friend What if…Dalton McGuinty passes province-wide legislation that allows designated smoking rooms or smoking on patios?
Will this council continue to flex its muscles?
Randy Hughes Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada (PUBCO), Ottawa

Kingston Whig--on-line ospreymediagroup.com

Mayor and Aldermen
Nov. 2/04
I applaud the two aldermen Mr. G. Stoparczyk and K. Geotge for 'righting' a drastically wrong situation. The War Vets can now induldge in a legal product on 'private' property (Lest we Forget) Have we reached 'the whole nine yards' and now you are coming back to reality? They fought for "freedom" and now they will taste that freedom in their own legion

Kingston Whig--on-line ospreymediagroup.com

Mayor and Aldermen
Nov. 2/04
I applaud the two aldermen Mr. G. Stoparczyk and K. Geotge for 'righting' a drastically wrong situation. The War Vets can now induldge in a legal product on 'private' property (Lest we Forget) Have we reached 'the whole nine yards' and now you are coming back to reality? They fought for "freedom" and now they will taste that freedom in their own legion

Kingston Whig--on-line ospreymediagroup.com

Mayor and Aldermen
Nov. 2/04
I applaud the two aldermen Mr. G. Stoparczyk and K. Geotge for 'righting' a drastically wrong situation. The War Vets can now induldge in a legal product on 'private' property (Lest we Forget) Have we reached 'the whole nine yards' and now you are coming back to reality? They fought for "freedom" and now they will taste that freedom in their own legion

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