Monday, February 28, 2005
Winnipeg Sun Feb. 28/05
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Winnipeg Sun Feb. 28/05
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Winnipeg Sun Feb. 28/05
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Butt out, Nanny State
Since at least the time of King James I, governments have been schizophrenic about tobacco. James disliked tobacco and prohibited its importation, chopped off the occasional facial appendage and so on. Lawlessness and smuggling grew and he gave a monopoly for the collection of revenues to a court favourite who grew rich while his coffers suffered. Recognizing this, he took the right of collecting tobacco tax back to the Crown. All successive governments, including the Manitoba NDP, have collected vast amounts of tobacco tax. How very disingenuous for the NDP now to "Join the cig fight."
Why did government allow sales which could have been prevented by prohibition? Is there a plan to return to users taxes collected through government pandering? Given government's power to control business, is it not tobacco companies who should sue government?
Is the NDP also planning to sue the manufacturers of lottery machines?
Maybe our NDP Nanny State should butt out and leave us, with or without tobacco as we choose, to contemplate the nature of personal responsibility and how it compares to government hypocrisy.
A. MacKenzie
Winnipeg
Plenty to ponder there.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Thu, February 24, 2005
Letters
Go after screen drunks
So, the students from Kildonan Collegiate are monitoring smoking in films and want to give out a "Black Lung Award" (SWAT attack on Hollywood by Dean Pritchard). Good for them. But how about also monitoring alcohol consumption? For some reason this is far more socially acceptable than smoking despite the health risks (not only physical, but also mental). And yes, I do realize that breathing in alcoholic fumes is not a health risk to the general public, but what about all the other risks to the public's safety such as drunk drivers, violent behaviour not to mention fetal alcohol syndrome and cirrhosis of the liver?
I am not a party-pooper and do not believe that alcohol consumption should be banned in any way shape or form (but then, neither should smoking). However, if you are going to expose smoking as the potential health risk that it is, then you should look at all hazardous addictions, particularly alcohol, as it too is legal and comparatively cheap.
So how about awarding an "Obnoxious Drunk Award" to make people aware that alcohol consumption is not to be treated lightly?
C. D. McLeod
Winnipeg
(Fine, but we still miss Dean Martin.)
Letters
Go after screen drunks
So, the students from Kildonan Collegiate are monitoring smoking in films and want to give out a "Black Lung Award" (SWAT attack on Hollywood by Dean Pritchard). Good for them. But how about also monitoring alcohol consumption? For some reason this is far more socially acceptable than smoking despite the health risks (not only physical, but also mental). And yes, I do realize that breathing in alcoholic fumes is not a health risk to the general public, but what about all the other risks to the public's safety such as drunk drivers, violent behaviour not to mention fetal alcohol syndrome and cirrhosis of the liver?
I am not a party-pooper and do not believe that alcohol consumption should be banned in any way shape or form (but then, neither should smoking). However, if you are going to expose smoking as the potential health risk that it is, then you should look at all hazardous addictions, particularly alcohol, as it too is legal and comparatively cheap.
So how about awarding an "Obnoxious Drunk Award" to make people aware that alcohol consumption is not to be treated lightly?
C. D. McLeod
Winnipeg
(Fine, but we still miss Dean Martin.)
The Publican Feb24/05
ken nason , 24-Feb-2005
off target Liz you are letting your objections to smoking to cloud your judgement and ability to see what Thomas was saying.
He said that the banning of smoking in public place was never about smoking. It was a politically motivated piece of social engineering.
Your objections about smelly clothes has no bearing whatsover as the original proposals for a ban were on the grounds of staff health and safety. Customers never entered into the equation.
All of the objections to a ban here are along the lines of the choice of the licensee to choose who he allows to smoke in his establishment.
The needs or health of non smoking customers has nothing to do with the debate as you have no rights to enter a public house and have to accept or reject the conditions of that establishment.
The fact that you don't like the smell is not a reason to remove the rights of a licensee to run his business and appeal to the customers he wants in his establishment. That is his right under law.
The government, in a free democratic society does not have the right, without the mandate of the people to remove the rights of the licensee to freely run his business.
The smoker does not have or expect to have the right to demand the removal of an others rights to make life more convenient for themselves.
Health and safety is your personal responsibility and if you insist in entering what you see as an unhealthy or undesirable environment then you are the one causing your own distress.
Ken Nason
Liz Coyle ,
24-Feb-2005
so is smoking healthy or normal???? I really don't think so, Thomas. The majority of people don't smoke and shouldn't have to put their own health at risk by breathing other people's. Then there is the smell and the general discomfort of stinging eyes, irritated throats, etc.
I know a number of people who don't go into pubs as often as they would like because of it. If you choose to smoke yourself to death, just don't take anybody else with you. Second hand smoke DOES affect other people, but MAYBE if they are lucky your family or friends won't be.
thomas laprade ,
18-Feb-2005
It never was about health, but all about de-normalizing smoking. The smoking issue was never about health but it is all about de-normalizing smoking
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Harry O'Brien , 18-Feb-2005
Pub owners' rights, not patrons' rights
.The issue is not whether smokers refuse to accept the fact that smoking is unattractive to some bar patrons; it’s whether the government has any right to tell a pub owner how to run his business.
If the pub owner wants his pub to go smoke-free, then he has that right. If he wants to have his pub a smoking pub, then he has that right. If he wants to separate and/or ventilate in order to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers, then he has that right as well.
Or, rather, it’s a right that a government with fascist tendencies has no damn business taking away from him.
What's so hard to understand about that?
ken nason , 24-Feb-2005
off target Liz you are letting your objections to smoking to cloud your judgement and ability to see what Thomas was saying.
He said that the banning of smoking in public place was never about smoking. It was a politically motivated piece of social engineering.
Your objections about smelly clothes has no bearing whatsover as the original proposals for a ban were on the grounds of staff health and safety. Customers never entered into the equation.
All of the objections to a ban here are along the lines of the choice of the licensee to choose who he allows to smoke in his establishment.
The needs or health of non smoking customers has nothing to do with the debate as you have no rights to enter a public house and have to accept or reject the conditions of that establishment.
The fact that you don't like the smell is not a reason to remove the rights of a licensee to run his business and appeal to the customers he wants in his establishment. That is his right under law.
The government, in a free democratic society does not have the right, without the mandate of the people to remove the rights of the licensee to freely run his business.
The smoker does not have or expect to have the right to demand the removal of an others rights to make life more convenient for themselves.
Health and safety is your personal responsibility and if you insist in entering what you see as an unhealthy or undesirable environment then you are the one causing your own distress.
Ken Nason
Liz Coyle ,
24-Feb-2005
so is smoking healthy or normal???? I really don't think so, Thomas. The majority of people don't smoke and shouldn't have to put their own health at risk by breathing other people's. Then there is the smell and the general discomfort of stinging eyes, irritated throats, etc.
I know a number of people who don't go into pubs as often as they would like because of it. If you choose to smoke yourself to death, just don't take anybody else with you. Second hand smoke DOES affect other people, but MAYBE if they are lucky your family or friends won't be.
thomas laprade ,
18-Feb-2005
It never was about health, but all about de-normalizing smoking. The smoking issue was never about health but it is all about de-normalizing smoking
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
Harry O'Brien , 18-Feb-2005
Pub owners' rights, not patrons' rights
.The issue is not whether smokers refuse to accept the fact that smoking is unattractive to some bar patrons; it’s whether the government has any right to tell a pub owner how to run his business.
If the pub owner wants his pub to go smoke-free, then he has that right. If he wants to have his pub a smoking pub, then he has that right. If he wants to separate and/or ventilate in order to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers, then he has that right as well.
Or, rather, it’s a right that a government with fascist tendencies has no damn business taking away from him.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
WHY ISN’T TOBACCO ILLEGAL? Feb. 22/05
Ask any nanny about the perils of tobacco, and they’ll tell you that it is addictive, it kills smokers, and it poisons the air that non-smokers breathe. They’ll tell you that it is a drain on our healthcare system, it raises insurance rates for all of us, and smoke breaks cut into productive time.
They’ll tell you that movies, music, and books that portray smoking lead our children to nicotine addiction. Sports stars, singers, actors, and other public figures who smoke are bad influences on our kids. They’ll tell you that people like me who fight for the freedom to smoke and the freedom to use our property in the way that we see fit, are bad people.
These nannies will look past property ownership, personal responsibility, and our constitution to tell us that banning smoking is the most important thing in the world to do.
They’ll also tell you that they don’t want to eradicate tobacco.
Why don’t they want to eradicate tobacco? Why would they want a product on the shelves that threatens their safety and the safety of their children? Without total eradication, their children will encounter tobacco. Their kids will probably try tobacco. Without eradicating it entirely, society will continue to suffer from its effects. Why don’t they take that stand and get rid of the stuff? Money!
When tobacco becomes illegal, all those hundreds of millions of dollars that nanny groups receive to fight tobacco will go away. Funding for research will dry up. Money for propaganda material will be no more. Many of the people now employed to fight the evil weed will find themselves without jobs. Tobacco will go underground, and funding to fight it will go to law enforcement, not nannies.
These groups, made up of highly paid “caring people”, by not trying to outlaw tobacco, are protecting their pockets at the expense of our children and society. They are allowing it to remain legal when they know full well that with tobacco on the market their kids will encounter it. They are selling out their kids for bucks.
But what they also fail to realize is that, by banning cigarettes in almost every public place, they will eventually run tobacco out of the legal market, and their Nanny’s funds will dry up just the same. But they will also have no control of the product. Having done their jobs, the funding of their oppressive ideas will stop. Now their kids will go to big Ernie’s basement to buy some smokes, and not a dime of profits will be available to fight tobacco. It is a fine line they walk between bans and eradication.
Looking at the entire scenario, one has to wonder, what are these nannies thinking? What is their true motivation? They are going to lose control and funding one way or the other. Their kids are going to find tobacco, above ground or below. Society is still going to have the costs involved with tobacco. And not a dime of money from tobacco will make it to nanny groups, governments, or healthcare.
Ask any nanny about the perils of tobacco, and they’ll tell you that it is addictive, it kills smokers, and it poisons the air that non-smokers breathe. They’ll tell you that it is a drain on our healthcare system, it raises insurance rates for all of us, and smoke breaks cut into productive time.
They’ll tell you that movies, music, and books that portray smoking lead our children to nicotine addiction. Sports stars, singers, actors, and other public figures who smoke are bad influences on our kids. They’ll tell you that people like me who fight for the freedom to smoke and the freedom to use our property in the way that we see fit, are bad people.
These nannies will look past property ownership, personal responsibility, and our constitution to tell us that banning smoking is the most important thing in the world to do.
They’ll also tell you that they don’t want to eradicate tobacco.
Why don’t they want to eradicate tobacco? Why would they want a product on the shelves that threatens their safety and the safety of their children? Without total eradication, their children will encounter tobacco. Their kids will probably try tobacco. Without eradicating it entirely, society will continue to suffer from its effects. Why don’t they take that stand and get rid of the stuff? Money!
When tobacco becomes illegal, all those hundreds of millions of dollars that nanny groups receive to fight tobacco will go away. Funding for research will dry up. Money for propaganda material will be no more. Many of the people now employed to fight the evil weed will find themselves without jobs. Tobacco will go underground, and funding to fight it will go to law enforcement, not nannies.
These groups, made up of highly paid “caring people”, by not trying to outlaw tobacco, are protecting their pockets at the expense of our children and society. They are allowing it to remain legal when they know full well that with tobacco on the market their kids will encounter it. They are selling out their kids for bucks.
But what they also fail to realize is that, by banning cigarettes in almost every public place, they will eventually run tobacco out of the legal market, and their Nanny’s funds will dry up just the same. But they will also have no control of the product. Having done their jobs, the funding of their oppressive ideas will stop. Now their kids will go to big Ernie’s basement to buy some smokes, and not a dime of profits will be available to fight tobacco. It is a fine line they walk between bans and eradication.
Looking at the entire scenario, one has to wonder, what are these nannies thinking? What is their true motivation? They are going to lose control and funding one way or the other. Their kids are going to find tobacco, above ground or below. Society is still going to have the costs involved with tobacco. And not a dime of money from tobacco will make it to nanny groups, governments, or healthcare.
Published in The Edmonton Sun Feb. 22/05
RE: WILLIAM Dascavich's Feb. 19 letters.
It is a lot easier for me that you stop breathing than it is for me to stop smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
(Sucks to be him, then.)
RE: WILLIAM Dascavich's Feb. 19 letters.
It is a lot easier for me that you stop breathing than it is for me to stop smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
(Sucks to be him, then.)
callet@calgarysun.com
Dear Editor, Feb. 22/05
I keep hearing that Paul Martin say, 'we must protect individual and minority rights'.
It begs the question, does the hospitality sector have the 'right'(minority rights) to allow a legal product(smoking) to be used on private property?
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Dear Editor, Feb. 22/05
I keep hearing that Paul Martin say, 'we must protect individual and minority rights'.
It begs the question, does the hospitality sector have the 'right'(minority rights) to allow a legal product(smoking) to be used on private property?
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Winnipeg Free Press
Vehicles pollute
Re: the Feb. 19 letter
Which is easier?
The potential harm from second-hand smoke is minimal compared to the very real illnesses caused by industrial and environmental pollution.
If, as the letter writer states, he is concerned about his health his question should more accurately read:
"Is it easier for people to stop driving their vehicles or for me to stop breathing"?
He may not like the answers.
ADELINE SHOUP Winnipeg
Vehicles pollute
Re: the Feb. 19 letter
Which is easier?
The potential harm from second-hand smoke is minimal compared to the very real illnesses caused by industrial and environmental pollution.
If, as the letter writer states, he is concerned about his health his question should more accurately read:
"Is it easier for people to stop driving their vehicles or for me to stop breathing"?
He may not like the answers.
ADELINE SHOUP Winnipeg
To: letters@therecord.com
Erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:34:30 -0500
Dear Editor
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.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Erode the credibility and effectiveness of public health
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:34:30 -0500
Dear Editor
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.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Monday, February 21, 2005
To :
lettertoed@thestar.ca
"Tom W Laprade"
Minority rights(hospitality sector)
Dear Editor, Feb. 21/05
Our Prime Minister said, "We must protect individual and minority rights"
If we don't then all our rights can be swept under the rug.
It is the right of the hospitality sector to use a legal product(smoking) on 'private' property!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
lettertoed@thestar.ca
"Tom W Laprade"
Minority rights(hospitality sector)
Dear Editor, Feb. 21/05
Our Prime Minister said, "We must protect individual and minority rights"
If we don't then all our rights can be swept under the rug.
It is the right of the hospitality sector to use a legal product(smoking) on 'private' property!
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Friday, February 18, 2005
Dear Ms. Long, Feb. 18/05
Chamber of Commerce
My name is Thomas Laprade and I am a freedom of choice activist in Thunder Bay.
You probably have seen my letters to the editor and probably have seen me on TV giving my deputation to City Council
concerning smoking bans, etc.
I noticed that you took a survey of the businesses in Thunder Bay concerning the smoking by-law.
I would like, with your permission the complete details of that survey e.g.. Names of owners,place of businesses, comments
from the owners ,percentages of business loss, businesses that went or is going out of business.
I would like to enter this pertinent information on a "Ban loss data base(money and business loss due to smoking bans)
I am sure that this information could be of great value to the businesses of Thunder Bay and to the Mayor and Council
of Thunder Bay and to the Chamber of Commerce for future use.
This data base will put a 'face' on these businesses and it will prove to city council that there are 'genuine losses to businesses contrary to Tobacco Free Thunder Bay's false information.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Chamber of Commerce
My name is Thomas Laprade and I am a freedom of choice activist in Thunder Bay.
You probably have seen my letters to the editor and probably have seen me on TV giving my deputation to City Council
concerning smoking bans, etc.
I noticed that you took a survey of the businesses in Thunder Bay concerning the smoking by-law.
I would like, with your permission the complete details of that survey e.g.. Names of owners,place of businesses, comments
from the owners ,percentages of business loss, businesses that went or is going out of business.
I would like to enter this pertinent information on a "Ban loss data base(money and business loss due to smoking bans)
I am sure that this information could be of great value to the businesses of Thunder Bay and to the Mayor and Council
of Thunder Bay and to the Chamber of Commerce for future use.
This data base will put a 'face' on these businesses and it will prove to city council that there are 'genuine losses to businesses contrary to Tobacco Free Thunder Bay's false information.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Dear Ms. Long, Feb. 18/05 Chamber of Commerce Thunder Bay, Ont.
My name is Thomas Laprade and I am a freedom of choice activist in Thunder Bay.
You probably have seen my letters to the editor and probably have seen me on TV giving my deputation to City Council
concerning smoking bans, etc.
I noticed that you took a survey of the businesses in Thunder Bay concerning the smoking by-law
I would like, with your permission the complete details of that survey e.g.. Names of owners,place of businesses, comments
from the owners percentages of business loss, businesses that went or is going out of business.
I would like to enter this pertinent information on a "Ban loss data base(money and business loss due to smoking bans)
I am sure that this information could be of great value to the businesses of Thunder Bay and to the Mayor and Council
of Thunder Bay and to the Chamber of Commerce for future use.
This data base will put a 'face' on these businesses and it will prove to city council that there are 'genuine losses to businesses contrary to Tobacco Free Thunder Bay's false information.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
My name is Thomas Laprade and I am a freedom of choice activist in Thunder Bay.
You probably have seen my letters to the editor and probably have seen me on TV giving my deputation to City Council
concerning smoking bans, etc.
I noticed that you took a survey of the businesses in Thunder Bay concerning the smoking by-law
I would like, with your permission the complete details of that survey e.g.. Names of owners,place of businesses, comments
from the owners percentages of business loss, businesses that went or is going out of business.
I would like to enter this pertinent information on a "Ban loss data base(money and business loss due to smoking bans)
I am sure that this information could be of great value to the businesses of Thunder Bay and to the Mayor and Council
of Thunder Bay and to the Chamber of Commerce for future use.
This data base will put a 'face' on these businesses and it will prove to city council that there are 'genuine losses to businesses contrary to Tobacco Free Thunder Bay's false information.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
God Bless
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Globe and Mail
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
The Globe and Mail
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
The Globe and Mail
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
Study links kids' cancers to moms' exposure to pollutants
By Andre Picard
Jan. 18, 2005
Most childhood cancers are likely caused by pollutants expectant mothers are exposed to during pregnancy, according to a new study. Those at greatest risk live close to busy roads and industrial areas, researchers found. In particular, they found children born of mothers living near "emission hot spots" of particular chemicals were two to four times more likely to develop leukemia and other childhood cancers before age 16. "Most childhood cancers are probably initiated by close, perinatal encounters with one or more of these high-emission sources," said George Knox, a professor emeritus at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, U.K. Emissions that appear to raise cancer risk the most include carbon monoxide created by burning fossil fuels (notably gasoline used by vehicles) and 1,3-butadiene, also a by-product of internal combustion engines. Researchers also looked at the effect of various other industrial and environmental pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (both of which are associated with oil burning), as well as dioxins, benzene, and benz(a)pyrene. These chemicals can be found in engine exhaust, and smokestack emissions from various industrial and refinery processes. Dr. Knox said these chemicals -- many of which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests -- are likely breathed in by the mother and passed on to the baby through the placenta. But he said that "effective direct exposure in early infancy, or through breast milk, or even preconceptually, cannot be excluded." The study is published in today's edition of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study did not deal with how the chemicals might trigger the growth of tumours. Instead, it focused on the location of children who developed cancer. To conduct the research, Dr. Knox and his team used detailed chemical-emission maps produced by the U.K. National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and crossreferenced them with the home addresses of children who died of cancer. There were a total of 22,458 childhood cancer deaths in Great Britain between 1953 and 1980. Eleven varieties of cancers were recorded, including leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma and bone cancers. Dr. Knox and his team found that the cancer deaths were concentrated near emissions "hot spots." In fact, children within a one-kilometre radius of a hot spot -- such as a large industrial plant or a major highway -- were two to four times more likely to die of cancer. Some cancer experts, however, said the study was highly speculative and dismissed the notion that "most" childhood cancers are caused by exposure to pollutants. Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research U.K. said, for example, that there is a growing body of evidence that leukemia may be a rare response to a common infection. It is also well established that some cancers, such as neuroblastoma (a tumour that develops in the adrenal glands or certain nerves), can be caused by nutritional deficiencies, specifically a lack of folate. "This is a complex area to research -- not least because cancers in children are rare and some may have an underlying genetic basis," she said. Almost 1,300 children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada each year, and about 230 die, according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Almost one-third of the cases and the deaths are due to various forms of leukemia. The study is available on the web (pdf copy) http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/2/101
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Dear Editor,
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Dear Editor,
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Dear Editor,
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Dear Editor,
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Feb 17/05
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 800 Albertans found that overall, 68 per cent would like to see smoking banned anywhere people work, including restaurants, bars, casinos and bingo halls."
68% of these Albertans has never or very seldom patromized the hospitality sector on any given day.
What 'right' do they have to impose their morality on the hospitality sector.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
www.forces.org
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Sent to the JasperBooster Alberta
All about de-normalization!!
Dear Editor,
Feb.15/05
My name is Tom Laprade and I am from Thunder Bay, Ont. I would like to share with you and to the public a few things that has happened to Thunder Bay's hospitality sector. On a Sat. night at 11.30 p.m. at Glory day's Sports bar there were two people in that bar. The newfie club on Simpson Street was usually packed on a Sat. night. Since the smoking by-law came into effect last July 1/04 their business has dropped 60 percent. The Royalton Hotel on S, Court St. there were 3 people in that bar. They have laid off workers and the owners are now working on the floor. Protect the workers you say. In this case there is no workers to protect, since they have been laid off. Simon Hoad the health promoter of Thunder Bay, Ont. said on live TV,'their agenda is a 'smoke-Free Canada', without exception.
Do these anti-smokers say it is about 'Health'? It is all about de-normalizing smoking, and that is a fact. Do you really think second hand smoke that is diluted with the air in a bar that has ventilation is dangerous to the people in that bar? It was not 'dangerous' before the antis came on the scene, why should it be dangerous now?? People have choices in a democratic society. If people think it is a risk to enter a bar then they shouldn't enter that bar(that's their choice not yours). Just because some special interest group wants a smoking by-law that doesn't mean the city should have to blanket the whole city with a smoking by-law. Don't you think the owners know their business better than you do? The ultimate decision should be up to the owners and the customers, not other people who never or rarely patronize the pubs and taverns. If it's not broken than don't fix it .
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
All about de-normalization!!
Dear Editor,
Feb.15/05
My name is Tom Laprade and I am from Thunder Bay, Ont. I would like to share with you and to the public a few things that has happened to Thunder Bay's hospitality sector. On a Sat. night at 11.30 p.m. at Glory day's Sports bar there were two people in that bar. The newfie club on Simpson Street was usually packed on a Sat. night. Since the smoking by-law came into effect last July 1/04 their business has dropped 60 percent. The Royalton Hotel on S, Court St. there were 3 people in that bar. They have laid off workers and the owners are now working on the floor. Protect the workers you say. In this case there is no workers to protect, since they have been laid off. Simon Hoad the health promoter of Thunder Bay, Ont. said on live TV,'their agenda is a 'smoke-Free Canada', without exception.
Do these anti-smokers say it is about 'Health'? It is all about de-normalizing smoking, and that is a fact. Do you really think second hand smoke that is diluted with the air in a bar that has ventilation is dangerous to the people in that bar? It was not 'dangerous' before the antis came on the scene, why should it be dangerous now?? People have choices in a democratic society. If people think it is a risk to enter a bar then they shouldn't enter that bar(that's their choice not yours). Just because some special interest group wants a smoking by-law that doesn't mean the city should have to blanket the whole city with a smoking by-law. Don't you think the owners know their business better than you do? The ultimate decision should be up to the owners and the customers, not other people who never or rarely patronize the pubs and taverns. If it's not broken than don't fix it .
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Sent :
February 8, 2005 5:58:54 PM
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Subject :
Gambling Toronto article
One of the most pervasive fantasies of Canadians is hitting the jackpot -- a financial windfall from winning the lottery, or striking it rich at the casino or the video lottery terminal in the neighbourhood bar. It is a costly fantasy. Revenues from government-run gambling operations exceeded $11.8-billion in 2003. That is a four-fold increase in just a decade. (And, to put that number in perspective, consider that the goods and services tax, the dreaded GST, brings in about $29-billion a year.) The health and social costs of gambling -- and problem gambling in particular -- are a lot more difficult to quantify. But they include increased costs for policing, courts, prisons, medical care, social assistance and economic losses to individuals and businesses. The havoc wreaked on communities and the undermining of our redistributive taxation system -- one of the single greatest benefits to the health of Canadians -- is rarely discussed. The devastation, in terms of lives lost and families destroyed, is incalculable. Where there is gambling, there is increased violence, including higher rates of child abuse and domestic violence. By some estimates, between 200 and 400 suicides in Canada are directly related to pathological gambling and the hopelessness it engenders. The number of attempted suicides related to gambling is likely five times higher. Gambling is viewed in many ways in this country. Many see it as a harmless bit of fun, a way to indulge in hours of reverie for the cost of a $2 lottery ticket, or to live out the vida loca for a few hours by dressing up and blowing a few bills at the casino. Governments see it as a cash cow, a way to extract billions of tax dollars from Canadians with nary a peep of protest. (Which may explain why gambling is often referred to as a #34;tax on the stupid.#34;) Politicians also like to pretend that gambling, and the country's casinos in particular, are a big tourist draw and an economic bonanza. This, of course, is bunk. The high rollers don't forsake Las Vegas and Atlantic City for Regina and Hull. More than 90 per cent of casino patrons are locals, and a disproportionate number of them have modest incomes. This problem is even more pronounced with VLTs, which are more insidious and accessible than casinos. Dubbed #34;electronic crack cocaine,#34; VLTs are often the lot of the desperate. A study done in Quebec found that 7.8 per cent of the population gamble on VLTs. Of that number, about 8 per cent are pathological gamblers, and they account for 59 per cent of all VLT revenues -- which, along with non-casino slots, account for almost half of all gambling revenues. The vast majority of the 19 million Canadians who gamble do so responsibly -- if not rationally. But the compulsive, addicted gamblers -- somewhere between 4 and 8 per cent of the total -- are a significant social problem. Without a doubt, gambling is a health issue -- from increasing the number of suicides to escalating domestic violence -- and there is a need for public-health officials to treat it as such. Health professionals, when assessing the health of a patient, need to ask about gambling, just as they ask about smoking and drinking. Strategies need to be developed for preventing and treating problem gamblers, of which there may be as many as 1.2 million in Canada. Governments also have to put an end to their hypocrisy. While governments have an unhealthy addiction to so-called sin taxes -- the levies on alcohol and tobacco are big revenue generators -- at least there are regulations and programs in place to limit some of the damage. But gambling stands apart. While the advertising of tobacco and alcohol is severely restricted in Canada, the state invests heavily in the advertising of lotteries and casinos, ads that glamorize gambling in a shameful manner. (While beer companies have to tell you to drink responsibly, lottery corporations don't bother telling you the astronomical odds against winning -- up to one in 14 billion for some Lotto 6/49 jackpots.) Worse yet, there has been little public debate about gambling, and its place in Canada. In 1974, the country's first legal lottery began, in a bid to raise money for the 1976 Olympics. Lotteries proliferated. In 1980, the first year-round #34;charity#34; casino opened in Calgary, and in 1989, the first commercial casino opened in Winnipeg. Now there are 76. There are about 40,000 VLTs around the country, roughly the same number as there are lottery ticket outlets. Where will it all end? And what purpose is actually being served by this proliferation? These are important issues that need an airing. The risks and benefits of gambling need to be examined and understood. There is a growing chorus of calls for a royal commission -- by the Gambling Watch Network, Citizen Voice for Gambling Integrity, and most recently the Canada Safety Council. The government should heed that call. Because, regardless of one's stand on state-sponsored gambling, no one is served by having politicians and policy-makers bury their heads in the sand on an important issue of public health and social policy. apicard@globeandmail.ca
February 8, 2005 5:58:54 PM
To :
thomaslaprade@hotmail.com
Subject :
Gambling Toronto article
One of the most pervasive fantasies of Canadians is hitting the jackpot -- a financial windfall from winning the lottery, or striking it rich at the casino or the video lottery terminal in the neighbourhood bar. It is a costly fantasy. Revenues from government-run gambling operations exceeded $11.8-billion in 2003. That is a four-fold increase in just a decade. (And, to put that number in perspective, consider that the goods and services tax, the dreaded GST, brings in about $29-billion a year.) The health and social costs of gambling -- and problem gambling in particular -- are a lot more difficult to quantify. But they include increased costs for policing, courts, prisons, medical care, social assistance and economic losses to individuals and businesses. The havoc wreaked on communities and the undermining of our redistributive taxation system -- one of the single greatest benefits to the health of Canadians -- is rarely discussed. The devastation, in terms of lives lost and families destroyed, is incalculable. Where there is gambling, there is increased violence, including higher rates of child abuse and domestic violence. By some estimates, between 200 and 400 suicides in Canada are directly related to pathological gambling and the hopelessness it engenders. The number of attempted suicides related to gambling is likely five times higher. Gambling is viewed in many ways in this country. Many see it as a harmless bit of fun, a way to indulge in hours of reverie for the cost of a $2 lottery ticket, or to live out the vida loca for a few hours by dressing up and blowing a few bills at the casino. Governments see it as a cash cow, a way to extract billions of tax dollars from Canadians with nary a peep of protest. (Which may explain why gambling is often referred to as a #34;tax on the stupid.#34;) Politicians also like to pretend that gambling, and the country's casinos in particular, are a big tourist draw and an economic bonanza. This, of course, is bunk. The high rollers don't forsake Las Vegas and Atlantic City for Regina and Hull. More than 90 per cent of casino patrons are locals, and a disproportionate number of them have modest incomes. This problem is even more pronounced with VLTs, which are more insidious and accessible than casinos. Dubbed #34;electronic crack cocaine,#34; VLTs are often the lot of the desperate. A study done in Quebec found that 7.8 per cent of the population gamble on VLTs. Of that number, about 8 per cent are pathological gamblers, and they account for 59 per cent of all VLT revenues -- which, along with non-casino slots, account for almost half of all gambling revenues. The vast majority of the 19 million Canadians who gamble do so responsibly -- if not rationally. But the compulsive, addicted gamblers -- somewhere between 4 and 8 per cent of the total -- are a significant social problem. Without a doubt, gambling is a health issue -- from increasing the number of suicides to escalating domestic violence -- and there is a need for public-health officials to treat it as such. Health professionals, when assessing the health of a patient, need to ask about gambling, just as they ask about smoking and drinking. Strategies need to be developed for preventing and treating problem gamblers, of which there may be as many as 1.2 million in Canada. Governments also have to put an end to their hypocrisy. While governments have an unhealthy addiction to so-called sin taxes -- the levies on alcohol and tobacco are big revenue generators -- at least there are regulations and programs in place to limit some of the damage. But gambling stands apart. While the advertising of tobacco and alcohol is severely restricted in Canada, the state invests heavily in the advertising of lotteries and casinos, ads that glamorize gambling in a shameful manner. (While beer companies have to tell you to drink responsibly, lottery corporations don't bother telling you the astronomical odds against winning -- up to one in 14 billion for some Lotto 6/49 jackpots.) Worse yet, there has been little public debate about gambling, and its place in Canada. In 1974, the country's first legal lottery began, in a bid to raise money for the 1976 Olympics. Lotteries proliferated. In 1980, the first year-round #34;charity#34; casino opened in Calgary, and in 1989, the first commercial casino opened in Winnipeg. Now there are 76. There are about 40,000 VLTs around the country, roughly the same number as there are lottery ticket outlets. Where will it all end? And what purpose is actually being served by this proliferation? These are important issues that need an airing. The risks and benefits of gambling need to be examined and understood. There is a growing chorus of calls for a royal commission -- by the Gambling Watch Network, Citizen Voice for Gambling Integrity, and most recently the Canada Safety Council. The government should heed that call. Because, regardless of one's stand on state-sponsored gambling, no one is served by having politicians and policy-makers bury their heads in the sand on an important issue of public health and social policy. apicard@globeandmail.ca
opinion@seattletimes.com
Common Sense prevails
Dear Editor, Feb. 10/05
Supreme Court turns down smoking ban.
Thank God somebody has common sense on this earth.
The public has been led to believe that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.
On the contrary, it is not about health and never was about health.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Common Sense prevails
Dear Editor, Feb. 10/05
Supreme Court turns down smoking ban.
Thank God somebody has common sense on this earth.
The public has been led to believe that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.
On the contrary, it is not about health and never was about health.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
life@startribune.com>
Subject :
Never was a health problem
Dear Editor, Feb. 10/05
There is no more danger of inhaling second-hand smoke than there is of taking a 'whiff' of car exhaust.
The public is led to believe that second-hand smoke is a 'health' problem
It is not a health problem and never was a health problem.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Subject :
Never was a health problem
Dear Editor, Feb. 10/05
There is no more danger of inhaling second-hand smoke than there is of taking a 'whiff' of car exhaust.
The public is led to believe that second-hand smoke is a 'health' problem
It is not a health problem and never was a health problem.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking
www.forces.org
www.antibrains.com
www.smokersrightscanada.org
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Dear Mayor and Council
Dec. 8/04
I noticed that the Smoking by-law is broken hundreds of times during the course of an evening.(smoking within 3 metres of a 'public' entrance)
It makes a person wonder if the smoking by-law was purposely aimed at the Hospitality sector!
Isn't one part of the by-law just as important as the other part of the by-law??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Dec. 8/04
I noticed that the Smoking by-law is broken hundreds of times during the course of an evening.(smoking within 3 metres of a 'public' entrance)
It makes a person wonder if the smoking by-law was purposely aimed at the Hospitality sector!
Isn't one part of the by-law just as important as the other part of the by-law??
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
City is unfair closing smoke shacks
The Chronicle Journal Jan. 3/05
A letter to the Editor
The no-smoking by-law came into effect on July 1. Since that time the two bars that I operate on Simpson St. have declined in sales by 20 percent and 40 per cent respectively. At both locations the smokers have to stand on the sidewalk to smoke because there is no place else for them to go.
At location one, I constructed a heated shelter in the back lane and attached to the hotel. I was informed by the smoking inspector that the structure is on city property and I must remove it. The structure is only four feet wide and it is in no way interfering with the traffic that uses the lane, including the city garbage trucks.
At my second location I constructed a shelter at the back of the hotel on the hotel property adjacent to the back lane.
This structure was also deemed illegal by the smoking inspector because it is not three meters from the delivery door and the fire exit door.
In my opinion, the city city was very unfair in the first place to impose a 100 per cent no-smoking by-law without any concessions, options, or regard for the bar operators and our customers.
I am doing the best that I can considering my limited space to work with to accommodate my customers and to help my business survive. It seems to me that our city council is not interested in supporting us in any way.
I think it is important for the general public to understand that our bars are not drunk tanks. We are social clubs who play an important role in our community. We employ people, pay large taxes, support charities, shelters and all types of sports just to name a few of our contributions to our community. We need support right now from our council and the general public to help us to get through this transition that we are struggling with.
Can you imagine our city with more bootleggers than licensed establishments?
Don Perry
Newfie's Pub, The Empire Hotel
Thunder Bay, Ont.
The Chronicle Journal Jan. 3/05
A letter to the Editor
The no-smoking by-law came into effect on July 1. Since that time the two bars that I operate on Simpson St. have declined in sales by 20 percent and 40 per cent respectively. At both locations the smokers have to stand on the sidewalk to smoke because there is no place else for them to go.
At location one, I constructed a heated shelter in the back lane and attached to the hotel. I was informed by the smoking inspector that the structure is on city property and I must remove it. The structure is only four feet wide and it is in no way interfering with the traffic that uses the lane, including the city garbage trucks.
At my second location I constructed a shelter at the back of the hotel on the hotel property adjacent to the back lane.
This structure was also deemed illegal by the smoking inspector because it is not three meters from the delivery door and the fire exit door.
In my opinion, the city city was very unfair in the first place to impose a 100 per cent no-smoking by-law without any concessions, options, or regard for the bar operators and our customers.
I am doing the best that I can considering my limited space to work with to accommodate my customers and to help my business survive. It seems to me that our city council is not interested in supporting us in any way.
I think it is important for the general public to understand that our bars are not drunk tanks. We are social clubs who play an important role in our community. We employ people, pay large taxes, support charities, shelters and all types of sports just to name a few of our contributions to our community. We need support right now from our council and the general public to help us to get through this transition that we are struggling with.
Can you imagine our city with more bootleggers than licensed establishments?
Don Perry
Newfie's Pub, The Empire Hotel
Thunder Bay, Ont.
To :
kinwhig@thewhig.com
whiged@thewhig.com
Subject :
The Vets won another freedom,which was theirs in the first place!
Dear Editor,
Nov. 10/04
The vets won a big victory in Kingston. They won the 'right' to use a legal product in their 'own legion' As one wise man said, "you must change things in order that things remain the same. It seems that some aldermen just love to pour righteous indignation into the wrong things.
If the public and members of council were better and truthfully informed about second-hand smoke, there would be a lot less smoking by-laws in this country.
Council is not in the heath business and should not be. They were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
www.forces.org
kinwhig@thewhig.com
whiged@thewhig.com
Subject :
The Vets won another freedom,which was theirs in the first place!
Dear Editor,
Nov. 10/04
The vets won a big victory in Kingston. They won the 'right' to use a legal product in their 'own legion' As one wise man said, "you must change things in order that things remain the same. It seems that some aldermen just love to pour righteous indignation into the wrong things.
If the public and members of council were better and truthfully informed about second-hand smoke, there would be a lot less smoking by-laws in this country.
Council is not in the heath business and should not be. They were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
We do not elect council so they can control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.
www.forces.org
Friday, February 04, 2005
To :
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
Subject :
Pedestrians in danger every day
To : letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject : Polluting the pedestrians clean air??
Dear Editor,
Feb.5/05 Concerning the bus driver getting fined because he was smoking on a city bus. thereby jeopardizing the passenger from breathing 'clean' air. I think the city should fine the Transit Dept. for letting the stinky bus exhaust polluting the pedestrians clean air. I detect a little hypocrisy here!!
Don't you think?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
alaakkonen@thunderbay.ca, bscollie@thunderbay.ca, dwaddington@thunderbay.ca, iangus@thunderbay.ca, jvanderwees@thunderbay.ca, jvirdiramo@thunderbay.ca, lpeterson@thunderbay.ca, lrydholm@thunderbay.ca, ltimko@thunderbay.ca, mbentz@thunderbay.ca, rjohnson@thunderbay.ca, rtuchenhagen@thunderbay.ca, tgiertuga@thunderbay.ca
Subject :
Pedestrians in danger every day
To : letters@ChronicleJournal.com
Subject : Polluting the pedestrians clean air??
Dear Editor,
Feb.5/05 Concerning the bus driver getting fined because he was smoking on a city bus. thereby jeopardizing the passenger from breathing 'clean' air. I think the city should fine the Transit Dept. for letting the stinky bus exhaust polluting the pedestrians clean air. I detect a little hypocrisy here!!
Don't you think?
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
