Saturday, January 29, 2005
fyi
Smokingbans force you to hang a sign and tell your patrons there is nosmoking.
NY isdoing it and so can you!
Administrative Judge MichaelParrish notes that there is no legal requirement for a bar owner to take''specific action'' when someone is smoking in the bar.
Please note: This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State ortown wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as policeAND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty.Your 16 year old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to thepolice academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Removethese un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid law suits. Everyworker has the right to sue you when hurt, your ban opens you up forliability.
Please print out the
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
From: warren.klass@3web.com
Letter to Editor-Smith Smoking on Reserve
To: ldunick@dougalmedia.com
To the Editor: Jan.26/05
For the record I am the president of the Canadian chapter of the world's largest smokers rights group Forces International(Fight Ordinances & Restrictions to Control Eliminate Smoking. www.forces.org).
Someone recently forwarded me a copy of Rick Smith's Smoking on Reserves(The Source,January 19,2005). Mr.Smith resurrects the nonsense that Indian bands put health and profits before principles.
In the first place there is not one iota of evidence in medical or scientific literature that second-hand smoke has ever harmed anybody's health. Tautological claims(an assertion without evidence)by those pushing smoking bans is hardly evidence.
Its worth considering that in Alberta those making the case for smoking bans have dropped the Health argument entirely as it has become totally discredited. The new mantra is smoking bans are supposed to make smokers quit. There's not much evidence for that either, but never
mind. When the smoking ban was being imposed via a Banana Republic style plebiscite in Thunder Bay, didn't those pushing it assure all those who would listen that smoking bans don't hurt business?
Non-smokers would surely flock to the smoke- free hospitality venues. It didn't exactly work out that way,did it? If the issue is one of health and not money, "profits before principles"as Mr.Smith put it, then why not ban tobacco entirely?
If the only thing keeping tobacco legal is taxes, how does this compare with the Utopian health benefits of banning it completely? Indians and the hospitality industry are morally deficient in putting profits before health, but the government is altruistic in "controlling" and"denormalizing"a legal product consumed by consenting adults? It is worth noting that last year in North Dakota, all the anti-smoking groups made their usual presentation calling for smoking bans, increased taxes, propaganda campaigns etc, when one legislator asked why not just ban the sale of tobacco in North Dakota. The groups lining up to oppose the bill banning tobacco in North Dakota were not smokers rights groups, but anti- smoking groups. Why? If tobacco is as harmful as they claim, should't it be banned? If tobacco were to be banned, the anti-smoking groups would lose their annual hundreds of millions in funding, their six figured salaries, their endless winter conferences in Miami on teen smoking, etc. etc. No, its much easier for the media to potray Indians and the hospitality industry as morally deficient for resisting transparent social-engineering.
Warren Klass(President Forces Canada.www.forces.org)
29-7 Roslyn Rd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba
R3L OG1
Ph. (204)488-1346
Letter to Editor-Smith Smoking on Reserve
To: ldunick@dougalmedia.com
To the Editor: Jan.26/05
For the record I am the president of the Canadian chapter of the world's largest smokers rights group Forces International(Fight Ordinances & Restrictions to Control Eliminate Smoking. www.forces.org).
Someone recently forwarded me a copy of Rick Smith's Smoking on Reserves(The Source,January 19,2005). Mr.Smith resurrects the nonsense that Indian bands put health and profits before principles.
In the first place there is not one iota of evidence in medical or scientific literature that second-hand smoke has ever harmed anybody's health. Tautological claims(an assertion without evidence)by those pushing smoking bans is hardly evidence.
Its worth considering that in Alberta those making the case for smoking bans have dropped the Health argument entirely as it has become totally discredited. The new mantra is smoking bans are supposed to make smokers quit. There's not much evidence for that either, but never
mind. When the smoking ban was being imposed via a Banana Republic style plebiscite in Thunder Bay, didn't those pushing it assure all those who would listen that smoking bans don't hurt business?
Non-smokers would surely flock to the smoke- free hospitality venues. It didn't exactly work out that way,did it? If the issue is one of health and not money, "profits before principles"as Mr.Smith put it, then why not ban tobacco entirely?
If the only thing keeping tobacco legal is taxes, how does this compare with the Utopian health benefits of banning it completely? Indians and the hospitality industry are morally deficient in putting profits before health, but the government is altruistic in "controlling" and"denormalizing"a legal product consumed by consenting adults? It is worth noting that last year in North Dakota, all the anti-smoking groups made their usual presentation calling for smoking bans, increased taxes, propaganda campaigns etc, when one legislator asked why not just ban the sale of tobacco in North Dakota. The groups lining up to oppose the bill banning tobacco in North Dakota were not smokers rights groups, but anti- smoking groups. Why? If tobacco is as harmful as they claim, should't it be banned? If tobacco were to be banned, the anti-smoking groups would lose their annual hundreds of millions in funding, their six figured salaries, their endless winter conferences in Miami on teen smoking, etc. etc. No, its much easier for the media to potray Indians and the hospitality industry as morally deficient for resisting transparent social-engineering.
Warren Klass(President Forces Canada.www.forces.org)
29-7 Roslyn Rd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba
R3L OG1
Ph. (204)488-1346
Monday, January 24, 2005
Dear Editor, Jan. 25/05
Pinchert Creek, Alberta
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.
Pinchert Creek, Alberta
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.
lettertoed@thestar.ca
Smoker's rights??
Dear Editor, Jan. 25/05
Prime Minister Paul Martin said," we must protect individual and minority rights"(same sex marriage)
I assume that the smokers and hospitality sector are also included in the protection of individual and minority rights.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Smoker's rights??
Dear Editor, Jan. 25/05
Prime Minister Paul Martin said," we must protect individual and minority rights"(same sex marriage)
I assume that the smokers and hospitality sector are also included in the protection of individual and minority rights.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
letters@thespec.com Hamilton Spectator
":
Minority Rights!
Dear Editor, Jan. 25/05
Paul Martin Said, 'we must protect individual and minority 'rights'(same sex couples)
It begs the question, 'Do smokers and the hospitality sector come under 'Minority rights'?
The 'right' to use a legal product on 'private' property!
Thomas Laprade
":
Minority Rights!
Dear Editor, Jan. 25/05
Paul Martin Said, 'we must protect individual and minority 'rights'(same sex couples)
It begs the question, 'Do smokers and the hospitality sector come under 'Minority rights'?
The 'right' to use a legal product on 'private' property!
Thomas Laprade
LETTER OF THE DAY
The Calgary Sun Jan. 23/05
This whole smoking issue just boggles my mind. Studies show second-hand smoke kills and 3,000 people die each year in Canada from smoking-related lung cancer. Approximately 23% of Canadians smoke. Why is everyone worried about 23% having the freedom to subject their lethal habit on the other 77%? Is this not the tail wagging the dog? Do non-smokers not have rights? Maybe if the 77% stayed away from all establishments that allowed smoking, the business owner, as well as our governments might actually realize where their sales are coming from. I am a highly allergic non-smoker and smoke makes it impossible for me to breathe or talk. I don't need to be in a room full of smoke. Being next to a smoker at the table will have the same effect. What about my rights? I would love to be able to go for a drink with my husband, but we can't, due to smoke. Our passion is dancing, but there are precious few venues that have dancing without the smoking. Is your cigarette worth more than my ability to breathe and speak clearly? I can't believe Ralph Klein wants to make Albertans the healthiest people in Canada, but doesn't have the fortitude to deal with the one issue that uses the largest portion of our health-care dollars, and causes the most premature deaths in Albertans. It is time to take our collective heads out of the sand and protect Albertans' health.
Joyce Kiryk-Clutterbuck
My Letter:
Re: Letter Of The Day
Joyce Kiryk-Clutterbuck incorrectly states that 3,000 Canadians die from smoking related lung cancer, due to ETS exposure.
The estimated annual ETS death toll that she quotes is based on the U.S. EPA ETS study that was conducted in the 1990s.That study's estimates were based on the U.S. not Canada.
The EPA's ETS study was also ruled invalid by a U.S. Supreme Court Judge.
The U.S. has a population close to ten times that of Canada's.And in fact last year Health Canada estimated that only 660 Canadians die of ETS smoking related diseases.
This year Health Canada has estimated that 1,000 Canadians will die due to ETS exposure related diseases.
This estimate seems to contradict itself in an absurd fashion.
Health Canada also estimates that overall smoking rates in Canada have declined by close to 3% over the past year.
If that statement is to be taken at face value, it's beyond odd that the nation's ETS related death toll would increase as opposed to declining.
Ms. Kiryk-Clutterbuck is obviously, very misinformed.
I would cordially invite her to name even one of Canada's ETS death toll victims.
If she could, please provide the death certificate of even one of the deceased.
In fact no one has ever died from ETS exposure anywhere, anytime in the history of the planet Earth.
There have been over 100 studies done on ETS exposure and it's possible health risks to humans.
Over 70 of those studies concluded that ETS is not even a measurable health risk.
It's truly sad that so many simple-minded people have been duped, misled and brainwashed by the current world-wide anti-tobacco, second-hand smoke campaign.
If the anti-smoking minions actually realized just how polluted the "fresh" outdoor air on this planet really is, they would likely not bother worrying needlessly about the phantom dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke.
Regards,
Craig Anctil
Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada
The Calgary Sun Jan. 23/05
This whole smoking issue just boggles my mind. Studies show second-hand smoke kills and 3,000 people die each year in Canada from smoking-related lung cancer. Approximately 23% of Canadians smoke. Why is everyone worried about 23% having the freedom to subject their lethal habit on the other 77%? Is this not the tail wagging the dog? Do non-smokers not have rights? Maybe if the 77% stayed away from all establishments that allowed smoking, the business owner, as well as our governments might actually realize where their sales are coming from. I am a highly allergic non-smoker and smoke makes it impossible for me to breathe or talk. I don't need to be in a room full of smoke. Being next to a smoker at the table will have the same effect. What about my rights? I would love to be able to go for a drink with my husband, but we can't, due to smoke. Our passion is dancing, but there are precious few venues that have dancing without the smoking. Is your cigarette worth more than my ability to breathe and speak clearly? I can't believe Ralph Klein wants to make Albertans the healthiest people in Canada, but doesn't have the fortitude to deal with the one issue that uses the largest portion of our health-care dollars, and causes the most premature deaths in Albertans. It is time to take our collective heads out of the sand and protect Albertans' health.
Joyce Kiryk-Clutterbuck
My Letter:
Re: Letter Of The Day
Joyce Kiryk-Clutterbuck incorrectly states that 3,000 Canadians die from smoking related lung cancer, due to ETS exposure.
The estimated annual ETS death toll that she quotes is based on the U.S. EPA ETS study that was conducted in the 1990s.That study's estimates were based on the U.S. not Canada.
The EPA's ETS study was also ruled invalid by a U.S. Supreme Court Judge.
The U.S. has a population close to ten times that of Canada's.And in fact last year Health Canada estimated that only 660 Canadians die of ETS smoking related diseases.
This year Health Canada has estimated that 1,000 Canadians will die due to ETS exposure related diseases.
This estimate seems to contradict itself in an absurd fashion.
Health Canada also estimates that overall smoking rates in Canada have declined by close to 3% over the past year.
If that statement is to be taken at face value, it's beyond odd that the nation's ETS related death toll would increase as opposed to declining.
Ms. Kiryk-Clutterbuck is obviously, very misinformed.
I would cordially invite her to name even one of Canada's ETS death toll victims.
If she could, please provide the death certificate of even one of the deceased.
In fact no one has ever died from ETS exposure anywhere, anytime in the history of the planet Earth.
There have been over 100 studies done on ETS exposure and it's possible health risks to humans.
Over 70 of those studies concluded that ETS is not even a measurable health risk.
It's truly sad that so many simple-minded people have been duped, misled and brainwashed by the current world-wide anti-tobacco, second-hand smoke campaign.
If the anti-smoking minions actually realized just how polluted the "fresh" outdoor air on this planet really is, they would likely not bother worrying needlessly about the phantom dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke.
Regards,
Craig Anctil
Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Jan23/
Subject :
Denormalizing smoking??
ttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/roundtable/appendices.html Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
Subject :
Denormalizing smoking??
ttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/roundtable/appendices.html Thomas Laprade - Freedom Fighter for your Personal and Business Rights http://thesnowbird.tripod.com
http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html#letters
Jan.23/05
Gord Miszaniec asks: "Where is my right to breathe clean air?"
(Letters, Jan. 19).
He forgets to mention the air in a tavern or pub belongs to the owner, not him.
Thomas Laprade
(We were under the impression the air belongs to all.)
Jan.23/05
Gord Miszaniec asks: "Where is my right to breathe clean air?"
(Letters, Jan. 19).
He forgets to mention the air in a tavern or pub belongs to the owner, not him.
Thomas Laprade
(We were under the impression the air belongs to all.)
To :
letters@globeandmail.ca
Subject :
Smokers will quit for no other reason than themselves.
Dear Editor, Jan 19/05
"The Canadian Journal of Public Health found that 36 per cent of people who quit smoking said smoking bans were a key factor."
A 'true' smoker will quit for himself and for no other reason.
letters@globeandmail.ca
Subject :
Smokers will quit for no other reason than themselves.
Dear Editor, Jan 19/05
"The Canadian Journal of Public Health found that 36 per cent of people who quit smoking said smoking bans were a key factor."
A 'true' smoker will quit for himself and for no other reason.
Subject :
McGuinty's government's prioritys' are all out of whack.
Dear Editor, Jan.19/05
If the McGuinty government didn't spend so much money on advertising about second-hand smoke and smoking by-laws The Dept. of Health wouldn't have so much trouble balancing the budget.
They haven't got their priorities straight.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Monday, January 17, 2005
Dear Editor Jan. 9/05
Smoking is a right as long as tobacco remains a legal product. Therefore if you are on or inside private property, where a private property owner wishes to permit smoking it should be legal. It's a simple concept. I have no quarrel with those private hospitality business owners or private property owners who choose to go smoke-free voluntarily. However I do have a huge problem with governments that profit handsomely from the over-taxation of tobacco products and then claim that they care about the health of non-smokers and smokers alike. There is no sane reason that there cannot be smoking and non-smoking hospitality industry businesses. The only real reason that the antis oppose such a fair form of compromise is that they know that if given the choice many hospitality industry businesses would choose smoking customers over non-smokers. And of course, they hate the smell of burning tobacco. It's not a wonder that they are not willing to compromise. In reality, there is no huge public outcry to have smoking banned everywhere in the private hospitality industry. If there was such a demand for smoke-free hospitality indusrty venues...There would be no need for government imposed smoking bans. In a free-market many businesses would chose to permit smoking if they had the choice. The antis cannot stand this fact.That smokers are often considered more valuable customers than they are.
Smoking is a right as long as tobacco remains a legal product. Therefore if you are on or inside private property, where a private property owner wishes to permit smoking it should be legal. It's a simple concept. I have no quarrel with those private hospitality business owners or private property owners who choose to go smoke-free voluntarily. However I do have a huge problem with governments that profit handsomely from the over-taxation of tobacco products and then claim that they care about the health of non-smokers and smokers alike. There is no sane reason that there cannot be smoking and non-smoking hospitality industry businesses. The only real reason that the antis oppose such a fair form of compromise is that they know that if given the choice many hospitality industry businesses would choose smoking customers over non-smokers. And of course, they hate the smell of burning tobacco. It's not a wonder that they are not willing to compromise. In reality, there is no huge public outcry to have smoking banned everywhere in the private hospitality industry. If there was such a demand for smoke-free hospitality indusrty venues...There would be no need for government imposed smoking bans. In a free-market many businesses would chose to permit smoking if they had the choice. The antis cannot stand this fact.That smokers are often considered more valuable customers than they are.
news@dougallmedia.com, ldunick@dougallmedia.com
Subject :
The World Health Organisation
Oct. 12/04
Dear Editor,
First the smokers and smoking. The agenda is denormalization of smoking and all tobacco products on a global scale. The World Health Organization also plans to go after "unhealthy" foods and alcohol, next. The W.H.O. relies for most of it's funding and operational costs from "Big Pharma" the makers of all smoking cessation products. soon there will be anti-drinking drugs and many more dangerous diet drugs on the market, in order to forward the W.H.O.'s health elitist agenda. It's beyond sick that the W.H.O. chooses to ignore real causes of mortality or death in the third world, such as malaria, AIDS and the biggest causes of lung cancer: wood and stoves that are fuelled by animal dung. They choose to concentrate only on tobacco for the meantime. Soon the W.H.O. plans to expand their global war on alcohol, sugar and unhealthy foods. They are in the "pockets" of the big drug manufacturers. A "cure" for every ill or so-called addiction. The W.H.O.'s motto: "Don't do those dangerous drugs of tobacco or the alcohol industry.Do OUR dangerous drugs, instead."
Subject :
The World Health Organisation
Oct. 12/04
Dear Editor,
First the smokers and smoking. The agenda is denormalization of smoking and all tobacco products on a global scale. The World Health Organization also plans to go after "unhealthy" foods and alcohol, next. The W.H.O. relies for most of it's funding and operational costs from "Big Pharma" the makers of all smoking cessation products. soon there will be anti-drinking drugs and many more dangerous diet drugs on the market, in order to forward the W.H.O.'s health elitist agenda. It's beyond sick that the W.H.O. chooses to ignore real causes of mortality or death in the third world, such as malaria, AIDS and the biggest causes of lung cancer: wood and stoves that are fuelled by animal dung. They choose to concentrate only on tobacco for the meantime. Soon the W.H.O. plans to expand their global war on alcohol, sugar and unhealthy foods. They are in the "pockets" of the big drug manufacturers. A "cure" for every ill or so-called addiction. The W.H.O.'s motto: "Don't do those dangerous drugs of tobacco or the alcohol industry.Do OUR dangerous drugs, instead."
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Jan. 12/05
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Subject :
Junk sciense SHS Prove it!!!
It should be apparent to everyone by now that environmental tobacco smoke is a "phantom menace"; and that those in power who say otherwise should be forced to prove it. Instead of trying to accomodate these wretches, they should be called the liars they are. The fact is that 80% of the epidemiological studies over the past quarter century have shown no significant risk from secondhand smoke, and that there's a greater risk of getting cancer from drinking two glasses of whole milk a day. Why, then, does this monstrous lie keep sailing along? Harry O'Brien
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Subject :
Junk sciense SHS Prove it!!!
It should be apparent to everyone by now that environmental tobacco smoke is a "phantom menace"; and that those in power who say otherwise should be forced to prove it. Instead of trying to accomodate these wretches, they should be called the liars they are. The fact is that 80% of the epidemiological studies over the past quarter century have shown no significant risk from secondhand smoke, and that there's a greater risk of getting cancer from drinking two glasses of whole milk a day. Why, then, does this monstrous lie keep sailing along? Harry O'Brien
letters@unl.edu>
Subject :
Ban helps people to quit
Dear Editor
Jan.13/05
A true smoker has never quit because of a smoking ban
The only reason he quits smoking is because he wants to quit for himself
Ms Burke is trying to justify the smoking ban by making the public believe
that bans help people to quit
Ms. Burke knows it is not about health. It is all about de-normalizing
smoking
Your credibility diminishes when you lie to the public Ms. Burke!
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Subject :
Ban helps people to quit
Dear Editor
Jan.13/05
A true smoker has never quit because of a smoking ban
The only reason he quits smoking is because he wants to quit for himself
Ms Burke is trying to justify the smoking ban by making the public believe
that bans help people to quit
Ms. Burke knows it is not about health. It is all about de-normalizing
smoking
Your credibility diminishes when you lie to the public Ms. Burke!
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Jan 12/05
Subject :
Most people don't like the smell of smoke
Most of us don’t like breathing other people’s smoke, but it is more an annoyance than an immediate threat to our lives. (Even directly smoking a cigarette does not instantly kill us like some exotic poison.) One smoke-free study found the number-one reason people avoid smoky restaurants is they don’t like the lingering smell of cigarette smoke on their clothes and in their hair.12 My wife and I sometimes avoid places we know will be especially smoky. Other times we don’t particularly care. It depends on our values at the moment. (She actually favors smoking bans, so I’m doing a little risk/benefit analysis just by writing this.) Even the most strident smoke-free advocate may accept a table in a restaurant’s smoking section if, for example, he is in a big hurry and wants the next available table. Just going to work or school each day involves risk/benefit analysis. It is simply a part of life. Members of Congress, those people most eager to tell the rest of us how to live, allow individual members to decide the smoking policy in their own offices on Capitol Hill.13 Restaurant and bar owners should have the same freedom, even if large majorities favor a ban on smoking. Workers too should be free to work where they would like and make their own risk/benefit tradeoffs. And parents, not the government, should be responsible for their children’s well-being. By usurping the parental role, governments not only seize authority over children, but also make children out of adults. This approach, in addition to being morally destructive, is bad economics as well—regardless of what the econometric analyses say.
Subject :
Most people don't like the smell of smoke
Most of us don’t like breathing other people’s smoke, but it is more an annoyance than an immediate threat to our lives. (Even directly smoking a cigarette does not instantly kill us like some exotic poison.) One smoke-free study found the number-one reason people avoid smoky restaurants is they don’t like the lingering smell of cigarette smoke on their clothes and in their hair.12 My wife and I sometimes avoid places we know will be especially smoky. Other times we don’t particularly care. It depends on our values at the moment. (She actually favors smoking bans, so I’m doing a little risk/benefit analysis just by writing this.) Even the most strident smoke-free advocate may accept a table in a restaurant’s smoking section if, for example, he is in a big hurry and wants the next available table. Just going to work or school each day involves risk/benefit analysis. It is simply a part of life. Members of Congress, those people most eager to tell the rest of us how to live, allow individual members to decide the smoking policy in their own offices on Capitol Hill.13 Restaurant and bar owners should have the same freedom, even if large majorities favor a ban on smoking. Workers too should be free to work where they would like and make their own risk/benefit tradeoffs. And parents, not the government, should be responsible for their children’s well-being. By usurping the parental role, governments not only seize authority over children, but also make children out of adults. This approach, in addition to being morally destructive, is bad economics as well—regardless of what the econometric analyses say.
Sent :
January 14, 2005 12:41:43 PM
To :
, , , , , , , , ,
Subject :
Propoganda Out of Control
We live in a country (both Canada and the US) that truly thinks they are
free. That, as we all know, is not true. We have been cleverly manipulated
to believe that.
Both of our federal leaders have been caught lying, yet were still elected.
Both our countries have laws that allow some people to be arrested and
jailed without lawyers or a trial, and almost no one knows this, and if they
do, many think "Well, that's okay, it was just one of them thar evil
a-rabs"; racism is alive and well.
Both countries deny the draft is coming, yet the US has remanned the draft
boards, and Canada passed a law that says it will not accept draft dodgers
from the US, and almost no one knows this.
Both have laws that make smoking illegal in some places, all based on many
lies, lies that most people believe.
Both countries put the burden of ending polution onto the people, when the
state/province combined with the feds create more polution than the people.
Both countries rely on the advice of the money lenders to tell us how to
manage our money; their objective is only to make money, and the only way to
do that is for the people to go further into debt.
Tons of people shop at bargain stores, thinking they are saving money, when
what they are doing is saving a buck or two now, and having to give their
tax dollars to help prop up the workers in the dirt poor countries who are
not even paid a living wage to make the junk trinkets they are buying, and
very few people care.
Our economic health is measured only in how much we spend, not how much we
get out of debt.
There is an extremely small amount of accountability in our governments, and
no one seems to care.
Our education systems are costing us many times what they did 25 years ago,
yet more people are unable to read well, and most have larger classrooms,
shorter hours, less books, and fewer people can afford to get a decent
education.
Virtually no one believes that the media lies to us, on most issues, and
they sure as hell don't want to talk about it.
How bad will it have to get to stop? How many people were told to "Behave"
over the holidays? What has our world come to when we can't even talk about
these subjects with our closest friends and family?
Thora
Wondering how many of you reading this would have yelled at me if I had said
these things to your face.
Think about it....
Thora
January 14, 2005 12:41:43 PM
To :
Subject :
Propoganda Out of Control
We live in a country (both Canada and the US) that truly thinks they are
free. That, as we all know, is not true. We have been cleverly manipulated
to believe that.
Both of our federal leaders have been caught lying, yet were still elected.
Both our countries have laws that allow some people to be arrested and
jailed without lawyers or a trial, and almost no one knows this, and if they
do, many think "Well, that's okay, it was just one of them thar evil
a-rabs"; racism is alive and well.
Both countries deny the draft is coming, yet the US has remanned the draft
boards, and Canada passed a law that says it will not accept draft dodgers
from the US, and almost no one knows this.
Both have laws that make smoking illegal in some places, all based on many
lies, lies that most people believe.
Both countries put the burden of ending polution onto the people, when the
state/province combined with the feds create more polution than the people.
Both countries rely on the advice of the money lenders to tell us how to
manage our money; their objective is only to make money, and the only way to
do that is for the people to go further into debt.
Tons of people shop at bargain stores, thinking they are saving money, when
what they are doing is saving a buck or two now, and having to give their
tax dollars to help prop up the workers in the dirt poor countries who are
not even paid a living wage to make the junk trinkets they are buying, and
very few people care.
Our economic health is measured only in how much we spend, not how much we
get out of debt.
There is an extremely small amount of accountability in our governments, and
no one seems to care.
Our education systems are costing us many times what they did 25 years ago,
yet more people are unable to read well, and most have larger classrooms,
shorter hours, less books, and fewer people can afford to get a decent
education.
Virtually no one believes that the media lies to us, on most issues, and
they sure as hell don't want to talk about it.
How bad will it have to get to stop? How many people were told to "Behave"
over the holidays? What has our world come to when we can't even talk about
these subjects with our closest friends and family?
Thora
Wondering how many of you reading this would have yelled at me if I had said
these things to your face.
Think about it....
Thora
To :
Subject :
EDITOR
Dear Editor, Jan. 14/05
"Everybody knows that second-hand smoke is a killer," said CUPE Alberta president D'Arcy Lanovaz.
Everbody does not know that second-hand smoke is a killer.
Why?
Because nobody ever died or got Cancer from second-hand smoke.
I would like to ask Mr.Lanovaz where does he get his information from, or is he just trying to score some 'browny' points?
Subject :
EDITOR
Dear Editor, Jan. 14/05
"Everybody knows that second-hand smoke is a killer," said CUPE Alberta president D'Arcy Lanovaz.
Everbody does not know that second-hand smoke is a killer.
Why?
Because nobody ever died or got Cancer from second-hand smoke.
I would like to ask Mr.Lanovaz where does he get his information from, or is he just trying to score some 'browny' points?
Friday, January 14, 2005
To :
Subject :
The smoking issue!!
Dear Editor, Jan 14/05
Lanovaz said the current way of leaving the decision up to municipalities doesn't work -- particularly in urban centres. "The only effective way to do it is across the board, so everyone is in the same place."
I disagree Mr. Lanovaz.
The only effective way is to let the 'market' decide the issue.
That is what democracy is all about
What we need is 'less' government, not 'more' government regualtions
Subject :
The smoking issue!!
Dear Editor, Jan 14/05
Lanovaz said the current way of leaving the decision up to municipalities doesn't work -- particularly in urban centres. "The only effective way to do it is across the board, so everyone is in the same place."
I disagree Mr. Lanovaz.
The only effective way is to let the 'market' decide the issue.
That is what democracy is all about
What we need is 'less' government, not 'more' government regualtions
To :
letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject :
Volunteering taxpayers money???
Dear Editor,
Jan 13/05
Is Mr. Timko trying to gain some brownie points by volunteering 25,000 dollars of the taxpayers money to the Tsunami Fund?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject :
Volunteering taxpayers money???
Dear Editor,
Jan 13/05
Is Mr. Timko trying to gain some brownie points by volunteering 25,000 dollars of the taxpayers money to the Tsunami Fund?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Scenarios Nov.12/04
Dear Sir, Nov.11/04
Banning smoking in workplaces??
No!!
Scenario..
1. If everybody smokes in a pub and there is one worker who doesn't smoke, does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
2. If everybody smokes in a pub and there is only one worker working who smokes, does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
3. If there is one worker working and he is the owner whether he smokes or doesn't smoke does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
4. Should the pub be exempt if all the workers smoke?
5. Should pubs be exempt if only smokers can be employed in that establishment? (Condition for employment)
6. If a non-smoker wants to work in that kind of establishment, should he/she sign a waiver?
7. Should smoking legislation be flexible enough so as to satisfy the workers, owners and customers?
8. If plebiscites are used to determine smoking by-laws, shouldn't the owners, workers and customers, only be allowed to vote(since they are the only ones affected by the smoking by-law)on a plebiscite.
Plebiscites are only used if an issue affects everybody every day!
Ban smoking in 'public's places?
Libraries, Day care centres, etc. YES!
Pubs, taverns ,bars etc. NO!
Note: It is not about 'health' it is all about de-normalizing smoking!!
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Dear Sir, Nov.11/04
Banning smoking in workplaces??
No!!
Scenario..
1. If everybody smokes in a pub and there is one worker who doesn't smoke, does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
2. If everybody smokes in a pub and there is only one worker working who smokes, does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
3. If there is one worker working and he is the owner whether he smokes or doesn't smoke does that mean everybody cannot smoke?
4. Should the pub be exempt if all the workers smoke?
5. Should pubs be exempt if only smokers can be employed in that establishment? (Condition for employment)
6. If a non-smoker wants to work in that kind of establishment, should he/she sign a waiver?
7. Should smoking legislation be flexible enough so as to satisfy the workers, owners and customers?
8. If plebiscites are used to determine smoking by-laws, shouldn't the owners, workers and customers, only be allowed to vote(since they are the only ones affected by the smoking by-law)on a plebiscite.
Plebiscites are only used if an issue affects everybody every day!
Ban smoking in 'public's places?
Libraries, Day care centres, etc. YES!
Pubs, taverns ,bars etc. NO!
Note: It is not about 'health' it is all about de-normalizing smoking!!
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign Home Hitler was a Socialist Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign Hitler's Animal Rights Campaign Hitler's Persecution of the Christian Churches Nazi Gun Control Hitler Pro-Abortion Hitler's Leftist Economic Policies Homosexuality in the Nazi Party Hitler's Euthanasia Initiative Fascism is Leftist Kangas Myths About John Jay Ray Contact Us Hitler himself detested tobacco, which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor." But the antismoking campaign reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as the Fuhrer's personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet. The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" "Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms. He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive. Incongruously some of the book's desultory details lend further certitude to its unpromulgated thesis. Hitler not only abstained from tobacco; he also never drank and was,for the most part--a vegetarian. Frighteningly he also was an animal rights activist. The book reruns a nazi-era cartoon depicting many liberated lab animals giving the nazi salute to Hermann Goring after he outlawed animal experimentation and promised to send violators to a concentration camp. Also included is a fitting quote -now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, `the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay." Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism. Passing coverage is given to the Third Reich's forays into euthanasia and eugenics. Another striking morsel is the reporting of a widespread nazi-era whispered joke `What is the ideal German? Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goring. Masculine like Goebbles...' implying that Gautlier Goebble's homosexuality was common knowledge. Nazi linguistic restrictions seem to be the counterpart of modern day `hate speech.' Words such as `catastrophe,' sabotage,' and `assassination' were to be avoided, and in a portentous move, `cripple' was replaced by `handicapped. Proctor also suggests `the word `enlightenment' (was) probably used more in the nazi period than at any other time.' Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." --Steve Fantina Factoid: Did you know the three leading facist leaders (Benito Mussolini, Franco, & Adolf Hitler) all abstained from tobacco and smoking? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Motherhood, apple cider and Volkswagen: Virtures of abstinence include healthy infants and savings, enough for Germans to buy two million VWs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction -- loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving. Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity. One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. "Images that create the impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes or pilots, for example)," and "may not be directed at sportsmen or automobile drivers," while "advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance must not be mocked." Advertisements were banned from films, billboards, posters and "the text sections of journals and newspapers." Nevertheless, even the Nazis couldn't equal the recent ban on smoking on death row, meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden from indulging in "one last drag" -- talk about cruel and unusual punishment. This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions": a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. (Source: Anti-tobacco Gestapo: past and present) The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45 (BMJ No 7070 Volume 313) Robert N Proctor Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising,restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era. Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, "euthanasia," and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.(1) (2) Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.(3) Tobacco in the Reich One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.(4-6) Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.(1) (4)Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.(7) Hitler was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor." At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.(8) German smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective.(4) (5) German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti-tobacco campaign. German per capita tobacco use between 1932 and 1939 rose from 570 to 900 cigarettes a year, whereas French tobacco consumption grew from 570 to only 630 cigarettes over the same period.(9) Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance,(4) though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a great deal of economic and political power, as they do today. German anti-tobacco activists frequently complained that their efforts were no match for the "American style" advertising campaigns waged by the tobacco industry.(10) German cigarette manufacturers neutralised early criticism-for example, from the SA(Sturm-Abteilung; stormtroops), which manufactured its own"Sturmzigaretten"-by portraying themselves as early and eager supporters of the regime.(11) The tobacco industry also launched several new journals aimed at countering anti-tobacco propaganda. In a pattern that would become familiar in the United States and elsewhere after the second world war, several of these journals tried to dismiss the anti-tobacco movement as "fanatic"and "unscientific." One such journal featured the German word for science twice in its title (Der Tabak: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der International en Tabakwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, founded in 1940). We should also realise that tobacco provided an important source of revenue for the national treasury. In 1937-8 German national income from tobacco taxes and tariffs exceeded 1 billion Reichsmarks.(12) By 1941, as a result of new taxes and the annexation of Austria and Bohemia, Germans were paying nearly twice that. According to Germany's national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the government's entire income.(13) Two hundred thousand Germans were said to owe their livelihood to tobacco-an argument that was reversed by those who pointed to Germany's need for additional men in its labour force, men who could presumably be supplied from the tobacco industry.(14) Culmination of the campaign: 1939-41 German anti-tobacco policies accelerated towards the end of the 1930s,and by the early war years tobacco use had begun to decline. The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did likewise.Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes. The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty.(15) The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Hermann Goering's decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.(16) Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.(17) Smoking was banned in air raid shelters-though some shelters reserved separate rooms for smokers.(18) During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to pregnant women (and to all women below the age of 25) while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.(19) From July 1943 it was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.(20) Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.(21) Nazi policies were heralded as marking"the beginning of the end" of tobacco use in Germany.(14) German tobacco epidemiology by this time was the most advanced in the world. Franz H Muller in 1939 and Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger in 1943 were the first to use case-control epidemiological methods to document the lung cancer hazard from cigarettes.(22) (23) Muller concluded that the "extraordinary rise in tobacco use" was "the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer."(22) Heart disease was another focus and was not infrequently said to be the most serious illness brought on by smoking.(24) Late in the war nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by a surprising number of soldiers on the eastern front. A 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that all 32 young soldiers whom he had examined after death from heart attack on the front had been "enthusiastic smokers." The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Buchner's view that cigarettes should be considered "a coronary poison of the first order."(25) On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military "in a manner that would dissuade" soldiers from smoking.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non-smokers(for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man per month and were often unavailable-as during times of rapid advance or retreat. Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht. An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price).Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler's defeat.(26) Impact of the war and postwar poverty The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. A 1944 survey of 1000 servicemen found that, whereas the proportion of soldiers smoking had increased (only 12.7% were non-smokers), the total consumption of tobacco had decreased-by just over 14%. More men were smoking (101 of those surveyed had taken up the habit during the war, whereas only seven had given it up) but the average soldier was smoking about a quarter (23.4%) less tobacco than in the immediate prewar period. The number of very heavy smokers (30 or more cigarettes daily) was down dramatically-from 4.4% to only 0.3%-and similar declines were recorded for moderately heavy smokers.(24) Postwar poverty further cut consumption. According to official statistics German tobacco use did not reach prewar levels again until the mid-1950s. The collapse was dramatic: German per capita consumption dropped by more than half from 1940 to 1950, whereas American consumption nearly doubled during that period.(6) (9) French consumption also rose, though during the four years of German occupation cigarette consumption declined by even more than in Germany(9)-suggesting that military conquest had a larger effect than Nazi propaganda. After the war Germany lost its position as home to the world's most aggressive anti-tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti-tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced. Karl Aster, head of Jena's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti-tobacco activist,committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme. Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as "the greatest enemy of the people's health" and "the number one drag on the German economy"(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years, after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again returning to public service. Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, the guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement. The flip side of Fascism Smith et al were correct to emphasise the strength of the Nazi anti smoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco science.(4) The anti smoking science and policies of the era have not attracted much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was closely attached to the larger Nazi movement.That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish. Funding: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,Washington, DC; Hamburger Institut fur Sozialforschung in Hamburg. Conflict of interest: None. Department of History, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States Robert N Proctor, professor of the history of science 1 Proctor R N. Racial hygiene: medicine under the Nazis.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988. 2 Kater M H. Doctors under Hitler.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. 3 Annas G, Grodin M. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 4 Smith G D, Strobele S A, Egger M. Smoking and death.BMJ1995;310:396. 5 Borgers D. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:1536. 6 Proctor R N. Nazi cancer research and policy. J Epidemiol Community Health (in press). 7 Bauer D. So lebt der Duce. Auf der Wacht 1937:19-20. 8 Picker H. Hitlers Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier.Bonn: Athenaum Verlag, 1951. 9 Lee PN, ed. Tobacco consumption in various countries. 4th ed. London: Tobacco Research Council, 1975. 10 Reid G. Weltanschauung, Haltung, Genussgifte.Genussgifte1939;35:64. 11 Kosmos. Bild-Dokumente unserer Zeit.Dresden: Kosmos,1933. 12 Reckert FK. Tabakwarenkunde: Der Tabak, sein Anbau undseine Verarbeitung.Berlin-Schoneberg: Max Schwabe, 1942. 13 Erkennung und Bekampfung der Tabakgefahren. DtschArztebl 1941;71:183-5. 14 Klarner W. Vom Rauchen: Eine Sucht und ihre Bekampfung.Nuremberg: Rudolf Kern, 1940. 15 Rauchverbot fur die Polizei auf Strassen und in Dienstraumen. Die Genussgifte1940;36:59. 16 Berlin: alcohol, tobacco and coffee. JAMA 1939;113:1144-5. 17 Kleine Mitteilungen. Vertrauensarzt 1941;9:196. 18 Mitteilungen. Off Gesundheitsdienst 1941;7:488. 19 Charman T. The German home front 1939-1945. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1989. 20 Fromme W. Offentlicher Gesundheitsdienst. In: Rodenwaldt E,ed. Hygiene. Part I. General hygiene. Wiesbaden: Dietrich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1948:36. 21Informationsdienst des Hauptamtes fur Volksgesundheitder NSDAP. 1944;April-June:60-1. 22 Muller F H. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom. Z Krebsforsch1939;49:57-85. 23 Schairer E, Schoniger E. Lungenkrebs und Tabakverbrauch.Z Krebsforsch1943;54:261-9. 24 Kittel W. Hygiene des Rauchens. In: Handloser S, Hoffmann W, eds. Wehrhygiene. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1944. 25 Goedel A. Kriegspathologische Beitrage. In: Zimmer A, ed.Kriegschirurgie. Vol 1. Vienna: Franz Deuticke, 1944. 26 Pritzkoleit K. Auf einer Woge von Gold: Der Triumph der Wirtschaft.Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1961. 27 Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft. Volksgesundheit und Werbung. Berlin: arl Heymanns, 1939. 28 Peto R. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:396. (Accepted 6 November 1996)
Jan. 13/05
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Junk sciense SHS Prove it!!!
It should be apparent to everyone by now that environmental tobacco smoke is a "phantom menace"; and that those in power who say otherwise should be forced to prove it. Instead of trying to accomodate these wretches, they should be called the liars they are. The fact is that 80% of the epidemiological studies over the past quarter century have shown no significant risk from secondhand smoke, and that there's a greater risk of getting cancer from drinking two glasses of whole milk a day. Why, then, does this monstrous lie keep sailing along?
Harry O'Brien
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Junk sciense SHS Prove it!!!
It should be apparent to everyone by now that environmental tobacco smoke is a "phantom menace"; and that those in power who say otherwise should be forced to prove it. Instead of trying to accomodate these wretches, they should be called the liars they are. The fact is that 80% of the epidemiological studies over the past quarter century have shown no significant risk from secondhand smoke, and that there's a greater risk of getting cancer from drinking two glasses of whole milk a day. Why, then, does this monstrous lie keep sailing along?
Harry O'Brien
Smoke and morals
Father Raymond J. de Souza
National Post Friday, January 14, 2005
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman introduced his new anti-smoking legislation last month, striking a presumed note of moderation: "And so we're saying to Ontarians, if you want to smoke at home, we're not going to stop you." That's generous. But just about everywhere else, smoking will be forbidden -- even in private clubs, Legion halls and yes, parking garages, where loiterers presumably might be afflicted by "deadly second-hand smoke". Three months ago, the Ontario Medical Association asked the government to ban smoking in private cars if children were present. So far that is not on the agenda, but otherwise Ontario has embraced the full zealotry of the anti-smoking program. That's not new. But what is striking is how passionate the Ontario government is about providing moral instruction to its citizens when it comes to matters of health. The anti-smoking strategy includes a government-funded Web site entitled stupid.ca. It assures us that it is not "meant to be an insult to smokers" because "smokers aren't stupid." Rather it offers "social commentary on the choice to smoke or not to smoke." Oh. Browse the Web site and the only possible conclusion is that if smokers aren't stupid -- meaning that they don't know better -- then they are deliberately making bad choices. That is to say, they are morally inferior. Governments have been in the "social commentary" business for a long while. Historically, they may have used their coercive powers to build up the moral character of their citizens -- one thinks of prohibition or movie ratings or gambling restrictions. Now, government energy is focused on health. If you wish to let your soul rot in hell, the government will affirm your right to do so -- but don't try it with your body. So we have the rather ironic situation that the government of Ontario operates casinos, but now won't let you smoke in them. The government of Ontario -- like other provinces -- will entice the public to gamble, but as you are wagering away the grocery money, don't think about lighting a cigarette. Our universities promote condoms to new students with great enthusiasm to avoid disease; nary a word is offered that might question promiscuity as a bad moral choice. Public health authorities will facilitate your drug habit with free needles but are not so keen about telling you that it is simply wrong to shoot yourself up. On health matters, the government is a veritable church lady. On other matters, it is the permissive mother on the block whose house the other children are forbidden from playing at. The anti-smoking legislation caps a rather remarkable year on the health front. A private member's bill sailed through Queen's Park making helmets mandatory for adults when cycling, rollerblading or skateboarding. My colleague Andrew Coyne demolished the evidentiary case for mandatory bike helmets in November in these pages, but no matter. The initiative is a moral one: There exists a moral imperative to minimize all health risk, and should you dissent, the law will bind you. More examples? Last September, the government moved to ban fresh sushi, insisting upon frozen instead because it would be safer. That proved a stretch too far, so the ban did not go through. What apparently cannot be rescinded is the mentality that free citizens cannot be trusted to manage their own health. When it comes to thorny social issues, those advocating the abandonment of traditional mores insist on the supremacy of individual consciences. But not when it comes to health. Our public policy will not vigorously discourage someone from bearing children out of wedlock, with all its attendant pathologies, but it will do its best to make sure those children's bathwater is the right temperature. Bathwater? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a recent public campaign by Toronto Public Health, aimed at getting parents not to burn their children in the bath. A full campaign, complete with posters, brochures and flyers all over Toronto's transit system, funded fully by the Ontario taxpayer, telling parents to check the temperature of their hot water, lest the little ones scald themselves. What kind of mentality spends public health dollars to tell parents what every 14-year-old babysitter knows -- that you check the water temperature before plunging Junior in the tub? The safety and smoking fanatics operate on the assumption that people are not responsible enough to be trusted with their freedom. So they must be harassed and nagged about bike helmets and bathwater, and if they don't comply, then good habits simply must be legislated. We will be healthy, whether we like it or not.
Father Raymond J. de Souza
National Post Friday, January 14, 2005
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman introduced his new anti-smoking legislation last month, striking a presumed note of moderation: "And so we're saying to Ontarians, if you want to smoke at home, we're not going to stop you." That's generous. But just about everywhere else, smoking will be forbidden -- even in private clubs, Legion halls and yes, parking garages, where loiterers presumably might be afflicted by "deadly second-hand smoke". Three months ago, the Ontario Medical Association asked the government to ban smoking in private cars if children were present. So far that is not on the agenda, but otherwise Ontario has embraced the full zealotry of the anti-smoking program. That's not new. But what is striking is how passionate the Ontario government is about providing moral instruction to its citizens when it comes to matters of health. The anti-smoking strategy includes a government-funded Web site entitled stupid.ca. It assures us that it is not "meant to be an insult to smokers" because "smokers aren't stupid." Rather it offers "social commentary on the choice to smoke or not to smoke." Oh. Browse the Web site and the only possible conclusion is that if smokers aren't stupid -- meaning that they don't know better -- then they are deliberately making bad choices. That is to say, they are morally inferior. Governments have been in the "social commentary" business for a long while. Historically, they may have used their coercive powers to build up the moral character of their citizens -- one thinks of prohibition or movie ratings or gambling restrictions. Now, government energy is focused on health. If you wish to let your soul rot in hell, the government will affirm your right to do so -- but don't try it with your body. So we have the rather ironic situation that the government of Ontario operates casinos, but now won't let you smoke in them. The government of Ontario -- like other provinces -- will entice the public to gamble, but as you are wagering away the grocery money, don't think about lighting a cigarette. Our universities promote condoms to new students with great enthusiasm to avoid disease; nary a word is offered that might question promiscuity as a bad moral choice. Public health authorities will facilitate your drug habit with free needles but are not so keen about telling you that it is simply wrong to shoot yourself up. On health matters, the government is a veritable church lady. On other matters, it is the permissive mother on the block whose house the other children are forbidden from playing at. The anti-smoking legislation caps a rather remarkable year on the health front. A private member's bill sailed through Queen's Park making helmets mandatory for adults when cycling, rollerblading or skateboarding. My colleague Andrew Coyne demolished the evidentiary case for mandatory bike helmets in November in these pages, but no matter. The initiative is a moral one: There exists a moral imperative to minimize all health risk, and should you dissent, the law will bind you. More examples? Last September, the government moved to ban fresh sushi, insisting upon frozen instead because it would be safer. That proved a stretch too far, so the ban did not go through. What apparently cannot be rescinded is the mentality that free citizens cannot be trusted to manage their own health. When it comes to thorny social issues, those advocating the abandonment of traditional mores insist on the supremacy of individual consciences. But not when it comes to health. Our public policy will not vigorously discourage someone from bearing children out of wedlock, with all its attendant pathologies, but it will do its best to make sure those children's bathwater is the right temperature. Bathwater? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a recent public campaign by Toronto Public Health, aimed at getting parents not to burn their children in the bath. A full campaign, complete with posters, brochures and flyers all over Toronto's transit system, funded fully by the Ontario taxpayer, telling parents to check the temperature of their hot water, lest the little ones scald themselves. What kind of mentality spends public health dollars to tell parents what every 14-year-old babysitter knows -- that you check the water temperature before plunging Junior in the tub? The safety and smoking fanatics operate on the assumption that people are not responsible enough to be trusted with their freedom. So they must be harassed and nagged about bike helmets and bathwater, and if they don't comply, then good habits simply must be legislated. We will be healthy, whether we like it or not.
Friday, January 07, 2005
To :
letters@ChronicleJournal.com
The Big Lie!!
Dear Editor,
Jan. 07/05 "Smoking and Exposure to second-hand smoke is the number one preventable killer in Ontario today."
No one has ever died or got cancer from second-hand smoke.
Mr. McGuinty lied to get into power and he will lie himself out of power.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay,
Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
letters@ChronicleJournal.com
The Big Lie!!
Dear Editor,
Jan. 07/05 "Smoking and Exposure to second-hand smoke is the number one preventable killer in Ontario today."
No one has ever died or got cancer from second-hand smoke.
Mr. McGuinty lied to get into power and he will lie himself out of power.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay,
Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
To :
jriebe@greenbaypressgazette.com
Referendums on the smoking issue
Dear Editor, Jan.8/05
A referendum on the smoking issue!!
Here are the reasons why a plebiscite or a referendum is undemocratic and wrong.
Negative side of Referendums
1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy
2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.
3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question and determine campaign rules.
4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.
5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with difficult issues.
6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in consensus-building.
To sum up this situation
The non-smokers(Majority) can impose their morals on the Hospitality sector(Minority)
The majority never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector on any given day. It is wrong for the majority whether it be a referendum or otherwise, to dictate to the hospitality sector in dealing with a legal product on 'private' property
jriebe@greenbaypressgazette.com
Referendums on the smoking issue
Dear Editor, Jan.8/05
A referendum on the smoking issue!!
Here are the reasons why a plebiscite or a referendum is undemocratic and wrong.
Negative side of Referendums
1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy
2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.
3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question and determine campaign rules.
4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.
5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with difficult issues.
6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in consensus-building.
To sum up this situation
The non-smokers(Majority) can impose their morals on the Hospitality sector(Minority)
The majority never or very seldom patronize the hospitality sector on any given day. It is wrong for the majority whether it be a referendum or otherwise, to dictate to the hospitality sector in dealing with a legal product on 'private' property
To :
The smoking issue
Dear Sir, Jan.9/05
I find it ludicrous to prevent a legal substance from being used on 'private' property
Making it a crime out of something that is not a crime.
Prohibiting a legal product is a blow to democracy
The smoking issue
Dear Sir, Jan.9/05
I find it ludicrous to prevent a legal substance from being used on 'private' property
Making it a crime out of something that is not a crime.
Prohibiting a legal product is a blow to democracy
To :
Smoking issue
Dear Editor, Jan. 8/05
City council has no dam business interfering with private enterprise that
deals with a legal product.
Council has been elected to run the business of the city, not the city's
businesses.
It is not about health, it is about de-normalizing smoking.
Smoking issue
Dear Editor, Jan. 8/05
City council has no dam business interfering with private enterprise that
deals with a legal product.
Council has been elected to run the business of the city, not the city's
businesses.
It is not about health, it is about de-normalizing smoking.
To :
channel3@wcax.com>
The smoking issue
Dear Sir, Jan.9/05
I find it ludicrous to prevent a legal substance from being used on 'private' property
Making it a crime out of something that is not a crime.
Prohibiting a legal product is a blow to democracy
channel3@wcax.com>
The smoking issue
Dear Sir, Jan.9/05
I find it ludicrous to prevent a legal substance from being used on 'private' property
Making it a crime out of something that is not a crime.
Prohibiting a legal product is a blow to democracy
Sunday, January 02, 2005
From: Ann Welch [mailto:a.welch@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:40 PM
To: Letters to the Editor printed December 26, 2004
Edited
Subject: Re: Mr. Smitherman's new smoking legislation
Smoking bill is futile
Ontario Health Minister Mr. Smitherman's statements regarding the proposed
new smoking legislation appear to be completely opposed to reality..
He states that, "This is a fair and balanced piece of legislation". How so?
Designated smoking rooms are fair and balanced; they provide a choice for
business owners, protect non-smokers from second hand smoke and allow
accommodations for smokers as well. Everyone is served.
To disallow business owners' choice and remove accommodation for smokers
could hardly be called 'fair and balanced' - it's more like biased and
discriminatory.
He states that this legislation will make Ontarians healthier. The
elimination of tobacco smoke from the air will probably have the same
effect on pollution that removing an eyedropper of water would have on the
water volume of the Pacific ocean. What an exercise in futility!
Mr. Smitherman's speech will no doubt impress fanatical anti-smokers. To
the logical and fair-minded, it sounds like pure bunk. What plan should we
suppose Mr. Smitherman and his colleagues have in place to save face when
his 'fair and balanced' legislation fails to improve the health of
Ontarians, unclog the hospitals, improve the economy and save lives?
One can only hope that Mr. Smitherman and his crew will be long gone from
power before the futility and the negative effects of his legislation become
evident.
Ann Welch
Kitchener
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:40 PM
To: Letters to the Editor printed December 26, 2004
Edited
Subject: Re: Mr. Smitherman's new smoking legislation
Smoking bill is futile
Ontario Health Minister Mr. Smitherman's statements regarding the proposed
new smoking legislation appear to be completely opposed to reality..
He states that, "This is a fair and balanced piece of legislation". How so?
Designated smoking rooms are fair and balanced; they provide a choice for
business owners, protect non-smokers from second hand smoke and allow
accommodations for smokers as well. Everyone is served.
To disallow business owners' choice and remove accommodation for smokers
could hardly be called 'fair and balanced' - it's more like biased and
discriminatory.
He states that this legislation will make Ontarians healthier. The
elimination of tobacco smoke from the air will probably have the same
effect on pollution that removing an eyedropper of water would have on the
water volume of the Pacific ocean. What an exercise in futility!
Mr. Smitherman's speech will no doubt impress fanatical anti-smokers. To
the logical and fair-minded, it sounds like pure bunk. What plan should we
suppose Mr. Smitherman and his colleagues have in place to save face when
his 'fair and balanced' legislation fails to improve the health of
Ontarians, unclog the hospitals, improve the economy and save lives?
One can only hope that Mr. Smitherman and his crew will be long gone from
power before the futility and the negative effects of his legislation become
evident.
Ann Welch
Kitchener
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Welch [mailto:a.welch@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:40 PM
To: Letters to the Editor
Subject: Re: Mr. Smitherman's new smoking legislation
Mr. Smitherman's statements regarding the proposed new smoking legislation
appear to be completely opposed to reality..
He states that, "This is a fair and balanced piece of legislation". How so?
Designated smoking rooms are fair and balanced; they provide a choice for
business owners, protect non-smokers from second hand smoke and allow
accommodations for smokers as well. Everyone is served. To disallow business
owners' choice and remove accommodation for smokers could hardly be called
'fair and balanced' - it's more like biased and discriminatory.
He states that this legislation will make Ontarians healthier. The
elimination of tobacco smoke from the air will probably have the same
effect on pollution that removing an eyedropper of water would have on the
water volume of the Pacific ocean. What an exercise in futility!
Mr. Smitherman claims that "Tobacco destroys lives. It rips families apart.
It clogs our hospitals and damages the economy". Actually it is not tobacco
that destroys lives and rips families apart; it is the vilification of
tobacco users. Hospitals operated perfectly efficiently and effectively in
the past when smoking was allowed even in hospital rooms. It is more
probable that the 'clogging' was caused by political meddling and bungling.
If tobacco 'damages the economy' we ought to ask what Government is doing
with the considerable tobacco tax revenue, and how will they replace it when
smoking is eliminated?
"We've consulted with Ontarians..", says Mr. Smitherman. When? What
Ontarians? There has been no public debate. All pro-smoking information,
all input from tobacco users has been ignored, discounted and suppressed.
The public has been fed only what the anti-smokers want to hear. If their
proof of the damaging effects of tobacco is irrefutable why the suppression
of all evidence to the contrary? What are they afraid of? Who are the
'stockholders' that Peter Fonesca has worked closely with? Whose common
objectives are being met?
Mr. Smitherman's speech will no doubt impress fanatical anti-smokers. To
the logical and fair-minded, it sounds like pure bunk. What plan should we
suppose Mr. Smitherman and his colleagues have in place to save face when
his 'fair and balanced' legislation fails to improve the health of
Ontarians, unclog the hospitals, improve the economy and save lives? One
can only hope that Mr. Smitherman and his crew will be long gone from power
before the futility and the negative effects of his legislation become
evident.
Ann Welch
Kitchener
From: Ann Welch [mailto:a.welch@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:40 PM
To: Letters to the Editor
Subject: Re: Mr. Smitherman's new smoking legislation
Mr. Smitherman's statements regarding the proposed new smoking legislation
appear to be completely opposed to reality..
He states that, "This is a fair and balanced piece of legislation". How so?
Designated smoking rooms are fair and balanced; they provide a choice for
business owners, protect non-smokers from second hand smoke and allow
accommodations for smokers as well. Everyone is served. To disallow business
owners' choice and remove accommodation for smokers could hardly be called
'fair and balanced' - it's more like biased and discriminatory.
He states that this legislation will make Ontarians healthier. The
elimination of tobacco smoke from the air will probably have the same
effect on pollution that removing an eyedropper of water would have on the
water volume of the Pacific ocean. What an exercise in futility!
Mr. Smitherman claims that "Tobacco destroys lives. It rips families apart.
It clogs our hospitals and damages the economy". Actually it is not tobacco
that destroys lives and rips families apart; it is the vilification of
tobacco users. Hospitals operated perfectly efficiently and effectively in
the past when smoking was allowed even in hospital rooms. It is more
probable that the 'clogging' was caused by political meddling and bungling.
If tobacco 'damages the economy' we ought to ask what Government is doing
with the considerable tobacco tax revenue, and how will they replace it when
smoking is eliminated?
"We've consulted with Ontarians..", says Mr. Smitherman. When? What
Ontarians? There has been no public debate. All pro-smoking information,
all input from tobacco users has been ignored, discounted and suppressed.
The public has been fed only what the anti-smokers want to hear. If their
proof of the damaging effects of tobacco is irrefutable why the suppression
of all evidence to the contrary? What are they afraid of? Who are the
'stockholders' that Peter Fonesca has worked closely with? Whose common
objectives are being met?
Mr. Smitherman's speech will no doubt impress fanatical anti-smokers. To
the logical and fair-minded, it sounds like pure bunk. What plan should we
suppose Mr. Smitherman and his colleagues have in place to save face when
his 'fair and balanced' legislation fails to improve the health of
Ontarians, unclog the hospitals, improve the economy and save lives? One
can only hope that Mr. Smitherman and his crew will be long gone from power
before the futility and the negative effects of his legislation become
evident.
Ann Welch
Kitchener
