Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Sent letter to the Winnipeg Sun
Dear Editor, Aug. 31/05

Even though the public does not endorse 'shooting up' in Vancouver(dope addicts)

The city has given these people a safe haven for their addiction to 'shoot' up.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to teens smoking on school property??

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Aug. 23/05 The Publican

Michael J. McFadden , 23rd-August-2005

Words, Thoughts, and Orwell...It's truly incredible the way the Antismokers play with language. By redefining "smoking" to mean "breathing in traces of smoke in the air" they're able to pose the choices of "The right to smoke" and the "right to not smoke" as being a choice between universal government enforced bans in businesses and no bans.
A very important aspect of public control is defining the way people think. Orwell saw where things could go with his famous "War Is Peace" statement. If you redefine the language in the right ways you make it almost impossible for people to think "wrong thoughts" : they simply don't have the verbal tools to articulate them.
Scary, not just in terms of the smoking battle, but in wider terms of issues like war and peace as well. Imagine if we were fighting "religious faithful" in Iraq instead of "terrorists" ? Language games and fallacious argumentation are so important in the overall battle to maintain our freedoms that I devoted almost a third of the main body of Antibrains to these two areas. The public microphone, when it's controlled by special interests with the money to push an agenda, cannot be allowed to fiddle with the words and concepts we use to express our thoughts.

Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://cantiloper.tripod.com

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

The Publican Aug. 30/05

Michael McFadden

A Serious Mistake...To Bill and some of the other folks here... While what you say about ventilation and such may be dead-on accurate, I think you are making a serious mistake in concentrating so much on this aspect of the issue. You need to understand that the Antismokers are *lying*, from the start, through the middle, and at the finish. Air quality and health are NOT the concern of the bulk of the organized Antismoking Lobby: behaviour modification is what they're aiming for, and NO amount of ventilation is EVER going to make them happy.
You need to point out, strongly, the false premises upon which their claims are based. Normal levels of smoke exposure in modern and normally well-ventilated settings have NEVER been shown to cause any long-term harm to nonsmokers. That should be the primary basis and main backbone of your opposition because any other battle is one you will lose.
If you fight the "bad for business" battle it doesn't matter if you win because waving dead babies in the air beats waving empty wallets. If you fight the "amount of ventilation battle" it doesn't matter if you win on current standards because the Antis have the power to rewrite them to include some miniscule exposure to some element of smoke that is not covered and thereby create their prized zero-tolerance conditions.
The problem you face is that outside of a court of law it is very difficult to get people to sit down and really examine the facts of the issues and learn the truth. You'll notice that the tobacco companies usually win in the courts: that's because they're given a full and free ticket to argue their case with their oppponents and in more cases than not, their case is actually the stronger one. In the case of secondary smoke, despite literally hundreds of cases going to court, less than a handful have been swayed by clever enough lawyers to find against the facts. You need to find some viable way of communicating those facts to the public in order to gather support.
At the moment the Antis control the best lies and most convincing sound bites: those of you in the trade who stand to lose millions because of these bans need to defend your investments through advertising or whatever else is needed to expose those lies and slice through those sound bites.
Trying to simply reach "reasonable accomodations" on ventilation standards with extremist fanatics who don't really CARE about ventilation and clean air to begin with is a losing battle.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

Monday, August 29, 2005

Bill Gibson Aug. 27/05 The Publican

Italian Smog
It is a pity that the Italians have totally ignored to consider the poor Outdoor Air Quality that they wallow in when considering offering their opinions and surveys on the Clean Air they breath as a result of their Smoking Restrictions. Closer at home, Byers Road in Glasgow is being considered as a possible pedestrian street to help cut the Air Polution caused by cars. Yes there are several pubs in that road where smokers are set to be turfed out into all the airbourne filth not of their own making.
Keith..I would love to show you a filthy Air Filter full of crap such as discarded human tissue, yes even you breath this in and you are concerned about a bit of smoke!! Also by fitting Air Curtains around the bar serving area, staff receive good protection from any supposed danger from Environmental Tobacco Smoke, As I said earlier bring in the professionals and many of the health & commercial problems associated with Smoking and Passive Smoking will be solved.
More questions that need answers: 'Why is it that ASH and SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Tobacco Health), which is the governments advisors who came out with the latest lie of a 20% increased health risk from passive smoking when in reality the actual risk from their own figures was .0004%, which is outside the range of scientific relevance, refuse to debate these findings with their peers. To my knowledge there have been at least two conferences on Passive Smoking where some of the worlds top scientists have presented counter evidence, which is rarely reported and despite being invited both groups decline to attend. Even the Newcastle test case by ASH was thrown out by the Judge, but little was said of that. The press's bias on this subject is astounding, where is the desire to reach the truth?. Passive Smoking doesn't cause heart disease or Lung Cancer.

Should no-smoking law take priority?

RE: The right to a smokeless environment

Aug. 29/05 Published in the Chronicle, Journal Thunder Bay, Ont.

I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Sunday, August 28, 2005


Time to turn to fuel-efficient cars
Thursday August 25, 2005
If we choose to drive huge, gas guzzling, four-wheel drive pick-ups, SUVs and military vehicles for personal transport with the rational that we need such vehicles because they are safer and carry our gas guzzling toys, then we have no moral right to complain about the high cost of gas.In the early 1970s, when an artificially created fuel shortage drove crude oil prices to the equivalent of $90 a barrel in today’s dollars, we turned to smaller, more fuel efficient cars.Demand and the price of gasoline soon plummeted! Apparently we have forgotten that lesson of supply and demand. I would suggest that I and the rest of us hedonistic North Americans were to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars, the price of gas would very quickly come down.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Friday, August 26, 2005


Smoking bans are the real threat to Democracy

Dear Mayor and Council Aug. 26/05

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -from New York City to San Antonio - has nothing to do with protecting peoplefrom the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; acancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasizedthroughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of localgovernment. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer ofunlimited government power.The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantommenace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journalindicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the properreaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educatingpeople about the potential danger and allowing them to maketheir own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and forcepeople to make the "right" decision?Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather thanattempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, thetobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they haveactually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, andoffices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whosecustomers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some localbans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviouslynegligible, such as outdoor public parks.The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to beanswered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessmentof the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regardingevery aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriendor sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get marriedor divorced, and so on.All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmfulconsequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from theneighbors. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He mustbe free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbors, and only hisown judgment can guide him through it.Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarettesmokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying andunpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered thepower of government and used it to dictate their behavior.That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect ofinhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at yourfavorite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarmat those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimitedintrusion of government into our lives.The tobacco bans are just part of one prong of this assault. Traditionally,the political Right has attempted to override the individual's judgment onspiritual matters: outlawing certain sexual practices, trying to ban sex andviolence in entertainment, discouraging divorce.While the political Left is nominally opposed to this trend - denouncingattempts to "legislate morality" and crusading for the toleration of"alternative lifestyles," - they seek to override the individual's judgmenton material matters: imposing controls on business and profit-making,regulating advertising and campaign finance, and now legislating healthybehavior.But the difference is only one of emphasis; the underlying premise is stillanti-freedom and anti-individual-judgment. The tobacco bans bulldoze all thebarriers to intrusive regulation, establishing the precedent that the rightsof the individual can be violated whenever the local city council decidesthat the "public good" demands it.Ayn Rand described the effect of this two-pronged assault on liberty: "Theconservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sandpiles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlledfrom Washington.The liberals see man as a soul free-wheeling to the farthest reaches of theuniverse but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street tobuy a loaf of bread," or, today, when he crosses the street to buy acigarette.It doesn't take a new statistical study to show that such an attack onfreedom is inimical to human life. No crusade to purge our air of any whiffof tobacco smoke can take precedence over a much more important humanrequirement: the need for the unbreached protection of individual rights.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.


Libertarian Party of Dane County:
Smoking Ban Poll Is Public Opinion Manipulation8/25/2005
Contact: Rolf Lindgren 608-279-5889 Bruce Rideout 608-843-0158

The American Cancer Society is doing a great job informing the public about potential health problems linked to smoking. That's no excuse to issue a misleading press release about a biased smoking ban poll. Yesterday, the American Cancer Society posted a press release on www.WisPolitics.com which claims that; "Nearly 70 Percent of Madison Voters Want to Stay Smoke-free". (Which contradicts a Chamberlain Research poll from last week which found that 66% of Madison residents answered "Yes" to the question; "Do you think people should be able to smoke in bars in Wisconsin?") The American Cancer Society poll wasn't a random survey of people in the city of Madison. The poll excluded people who weren't considered "likely voters". The smoking ban law applies to everyone in the city of Madison, so the poll should include all adults. Note - If Recall elections are spurred by victims of the smoking ban, it's expected that many "unlikely voters" will become registered, and vote. Other Flaws in Smoking Ban Poll: * Text of poll question not released * Details of methodology not released * Sample size of 400 is low by industry standards "The American Cancer Society should stick to the statistics of health, stay out of the statistics of political polling. The American Cancer Society smoking ban poll has so many flaws that it's worthless.", says LPDC Press Secretary Rolf Lindgren. Rolf Lindgren was the Polling Director in 2004 for Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik. References: Chamberlain Research Consultants. Wisconsinites say ban the bans.http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Aug05/Aug16/0816chamberlainbans.pdf Chamberlain Research Consultants: Wisconsinites Say Ban the Banshttp://www.wispolitics.com/1006/050816banpoll.pdf American Cancer Society: Nearly 70 Percent of Madison Voters Want to Stay Smoke-free http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=43137

Readers letters to the Publican Aug 25/05
To The Anti's

Would you be so kind as to answer some questions for me and the public?
1. What scientific papers were used to arrive at the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a workplace hazard?
2. What scientific papers were used to determine that there is no lower safe limit to exposure to secondhand smoke?
3. What scientific data was used to reject the ventilation solution put forward by our Industry, and to reject the whole science of Ventilation Dilution?
4. Where have you obtained the supposed cancer and heart disease figures amongst Hospitality workers?
5. How many worker compensation claims are paid out annually to non smokers with either lung cancer or coronary heart disease, who are suffering these illnesses as a direct result of exposure to Secondhand smoke in the workplace? In fact the latest research is showing that the chances of contracting cancer have much more to do with genetics than exposure to supposed carcinogens. This helps to explain why some people smoke all their lives and never get ill and others unfortunately contract cancer.
I currently have fourteen members of staff and only one that is a non smoker, my business is ventilated, at great expense and there is a sign clearly stating that smoking is allowed in the premises. That is the choice you make on entering the premises, I am neither anti or pro smoking but I am pro free choice. There are many more pubs and bars going smoke free and that is a good thing, let market forces dictate and allow all a free choice.
If this is truly a health issue then I would suggest the government has a duty to protect its citizens from the perceived dangers of smoking and should ban tobacco immediately, I suggest you give Tony Blair a call as the chancellor will not be interested! (59 Million Population 27% Smokers = 15 930 000 average one pack per day tax £3.50 = £55 755 000.00 pounds per day in revenue or £20 350 575 000.00 per annum in taxes!)
I leave the last word to Andrew Stuttaford“To argue that some supposed fundamental freedom to hang out in a smoke-free bar means that all pubs have to renounce tobacco is to make a mockery of liberty in a country where generations fought, and died, for the real thing”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The real answerThe answer to this whole debate is to turn to the professionals to provide a solution. By this I mean Ventilation and Air Conditioning Engineers to provide clean air in a controlled environment. If your TV or Washing Machine breaks down, unless you know how to repair it, you would turn to a professional for help. The same can be said for the supposed issues surrounding Smoking and Passive Smoking. Politicians have proven in Ireland, Scotland and New York to name but a few that they have no clear understanding or answers to the wider issues that arise as a result of a ban, I should know as I have posed the questions to the First Minister in Scotland and all I get back is 'political spin' from none other than the Tobacco Control Department. How close to a nanny state can you get when a department is specifically set up to control the use of a legal substance. Give the problem to the real professionals who can deliver the solution that would retain choice for all. It has proven to work in Japan, Malta, Holland and Italy so why not the U.K. What does the BMA, RCN, Ash or any of the other Pressure Groups know about Air Flow, Ventilation and Air Filtration...the answer is nothing.

Thursday, August 25, 2005


Divided opinion

It should come as no surprise to readers of this paper that the recently enacted smoking ban (currently held in abeyance pending a public referendum) has generated cries of outrage on both sides. What the public is not being told, however, is that it is a dual issue.
The prime issue is what effect second-hand smoke (EFTS) has, if any. A secondary, but just as important issue, is the commercial and property rights of business owners. The health issue is the easiest. The science seems to get the results that their sponsors desire, ethics be damned, except for a certain study by the World Health Organization in 1998 that showed no ill effects from exposure to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke). In fact, the study showed a modest benefit in reduced rate (minor) in lung cancer in those exposed. Obviously, this study is ignored by the anti-smokers.
There are as many pros as cons on the subject. Suffice it to say the issue is not resolved and those who say it is are expressing their beliefs, not facts.
The second issue depends on the first. If patrons' and workers' health is affected, government has a right and obligation to get involved. But if not, and the health issue is far from definitive, then government is meddling for political reasons, not health ones.

Bernard S. Bordman, M.D.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

Monday, August 22, 2005

Protecting the Adults: Austin Bans Smoking -->Written by Jan Larson

Monday, May 16, 2005

The voters of Austin, Texas, an island of blue in the sea of red that is the state of Texas, approved a wide-ranging ordinance that banned smoking in almost all public places including bars and live music venues.

Ironically, the businesses that stand to lose the most, at least in the short run, in a city that is the self-proclaimed “live music capital of the world,” are the above mentioned bars and music venues.

It is also remarkably ironic that those on the left that profess tolerance and freedom of choice were the leading supporters of the no smoking ordinance. Of course we all know by now that there is no logic to the inconsistent positions of those on the left.

I will state for the record that I am not a smoker and in the six plus years that I have lived in the Austin area, I have rarely gone into a bar, smoke-filled or not, and have never spent an evening in a smoke-filled music venue. The primary reason? I don’t care to sit in smoke-filled rooms.

Since a number of large cities, including New York, have banned smoking in bars in recent years, the fact that Austin followed suit is not really newsworthy. All of the talking points on both sides of the smoking issue have been widely discussed and I won’t get into them here—with one exception. The one point made by supporters of smoking bans that I do find particularly fallacious is the notion that smoking bans are necessary to protect patrons and employees. Just as I personally managed to avoid smoked-filled establishments, I do not believe anyone in Austin or anywhere else has even been forced to work in or visit such establishments. Any assertion to the contrary is disingenuous.

I should be thrilled that many of the Austin-area clubs that I have heretofore avoided will no longer be on my “do not visit” list, but instead of being thrilled, I am troubled.

I am troubled because, despite the rhetoric, I’m willing to wager that many that voted to ban smoking were not thinking of rescuing the hapless employees forced to endure a hazardous atmosphere while trying to make a dime. There are really only two reasons that someone would support a smoking ban, either selfishness or self-righteousness.

The selfish simply want to enjoy the benefits of a smoke-free environment, but are not willing to invest their own money or take the risk to open a smoke-free bar. If there were a market for smoke-free bars and music venues, certainly the laws of supply and demand would dictate that they would be successful and those that allowed smoking would not. At worst they would co-exist allowing smokers and non-smokers alike to have a drink or listen to a band in an atmosphere (no pun intended) most pleasing to them.

The self-righteous always know what is best for you and me; our freedom to choose be damned. They argue that smoking is a recognized health hazard with no redeeming benefits and thus, no one should be smoking in the first place.

Similarly one could argue that skydiving is hazardous with no redeeming benefits too. After all, the best thing that can happen to a skydiver is to end up standing on the ground just like he was standing before the plane took off. Why not ban skydiving too? Auto racing? Eating fatty food? Running with a fork in your hand? What else?

You might argue that since the voters approved the smoking ban that I shouldn’t complain. After all, it wasn’t a small group of bureaucrats or, worse yet, judges that snuffed out the cigarettes in Austin. Yes, the voters voted, but why should anyone that hasn’t set foot in a bar in 30 years have a say? I’m a believer that the marketplace, not bureaucrats, judges or voters should decide.

Banning smoking in bars, places where everyone that enters does so voluntarily, undeniably constitutes an erosion of the rights of smokers for no real benefit to anyone, including the smokers. They are going to smoke anyway.

Some fear that smoking bans will eventually lead to bans on other behavior deemed “bad” by those that “know best.” No one can say when that might happen, but the precedent has been set all across the country. When the rights of one group are stripped away, it only follows that no one’s rights are safe from attack.
About the Writer: Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska, a master of science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University. jan@pieofknowledge.com.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Heather Crowe..the way I see it Aug. 23/05

Heather Crowe was very unfortunately in the right place, at the right time,and under the right conditions. Opportunity knocked and the Physicians of Canada jumped on the situation. But in reality cancer is caused by many different things, some known andsome unknown. Even the Antismoking "experts", the US EPA, only estimatethat the chances of a non-smoker like Heather, working in poorly ventilatedsmoky situations for 40 years, getting lung cancer to rise from about 4 in one thousand to about 5 in one thousand. Even according to the EPA there'san 80% chance Heather's lung cancer came from other things in her life orher body than tobacco smoke.The way I see it seeing one robin doesn't necessarily mean that spring time is here, seeing one unfortunate person like Heather Crowe does not mean that thousands of people, or even ANY people are dying from secondary smoke.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heather Crowe was very unfortunately in the right place, at the right timeand under the rightconditions.Opportunity knocked once and the Physicians of Canada jumped on thesituation. As you well know Cancer is caused by a Multifactor situation. In other words cancer is not caused by one definite 'thing'. In fact, doctors do not know 'why' cancer starts. Was there collaboration between the Physicians of Canada and the WSIB?
The way I see it..A robin does not make a spring!

Lung Cancer Source USA today Aug. 21/05

For reasons that doctors still don't understand, female non-smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer than men who don't smoke, says Bruce Johnson, director of thoracic oncology at Boston dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Non-smokers make up only 10 per cent of men with lung cancer, but they make up 20 per cent of women with the disease.

Chemical Exposure needs more research..David Suzuki


Saturday, August 20, 2005

Sun Times.com Letter to the Editor:
cc: Mike Ditka
RE: Breathe and smile: It's a smoke-free bash - Chicago - ENOUGH!!

Mike Ditka has supplied the best idea to date for ending the smoking controversy. We need to eliminate the hypocrisies over smoking. I completely agree with all the smoke haters in Chicago, not about a ban, but about eliminating smoking totally. Why go half way with this ban? Let's begin legislation to make cigarettes and tobacco illegal world wide! Let's settle this once and for all! Why just take half measures at destroying Chicago's hospitality industry,along with cities and countries all over the world? Let's finally do this thing right! Then, we will all have a "level playing field". That is the ultimate goal of the anti-tobacco lobby, isn't it? We all know how well Prohibition of alcohol worked early in the twentieth century. Let's do it again, but with tobacco this time. Then all the smokers can just be arrested and placed in smoke free jails, at non-smoking tax payers' expense. Forget about our Constitution, Bill of Rights, private property rights. They are already being ignored....come on America, get off the fence! Since themajority seem to believe in the evils of smoking so intensely, stop taking half measures. It's time for the cities, counties, states and the federal government to stop depending on revenues from cigarette smokers. Illegalize tobacco! Then, not only the smokers and private businesses will be feeling the negative effects of smoking bans. Levy new taxes across the board to make 100% of taxpayers shoulder the load for our government! Eliminate all those costs that smokers are supposed to be inflicting on health care. End all this senseless waste of time for legislators debating smoking bans. Let our politicians return to performing what their real functions are supposed to be. The CDC, AmericanCancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association and all the rest of the smoke hating Anti-Tobacco Industry can return to finding causes and cures for cancer and heart disease with the funding they can scrape together, after losing their tobacco generated revenues and grants. The anti-smoking hoards will no longer be inconvenienced by tobacco smoke. Come on USA, put your money where your mouth is! A new bigger and better blackmarket and improved source of funding for terrorists will be created, but you won't have to smell tobacco smoke any more. Isn't this what you all have been preaching for the last 40 years? We will finally have zero tolerance for smokers! ______________________________ Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -http://www.smokersclubinc.com Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Friday, August 19, 2005

Non-smokers rights!

The right to a smokeless environment.

I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Second-hand Joke


Smoke gets in your Lies


Smoke gets in your Eyes..or does it??


Smoke and Mirrors


Kicking Butt


Legislating Morality


Tyranny of the Self


Thursday, August 18, 2005



Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Sent this letter to the Windsor Star Aug.17/05

Concerning Heather Crowe and the smoking issue.

The Canadian Cancer Society says that 16,000 people die from this disease.

Do they mean 16,000 people die from second-hand smoke?

Do they mean that 16,000 people die from smoking related diseases?

Do they mean that 16,000 people die from Lung Cancer whether they smoked or not?

What do they really mean??

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

I wrote the following editorial & submitted it to the Bloomington Sun, Star Tribune and Pioneer Press. Let's see if any of them want ot touch it....Let's clear the air on the smoking ban
At the last Bloomington council meeting the voices of our social consciousness declared to one and all that their path was clear and irreversible. There will be no changes to the smoking ban. The high purpose of their great experiment dictates that they abrogate our rights, suspend logic and common sense, ignore the plight of our veterans, refute economic realities and spurn the recipients of charitable gambling donations. With the exception of Vern Wilcox, a lone voice of reason on this matter, this council has risen in a collective voice and said that, in light of this noble cause, they have no concern with civil liberties enumerated in the bill of rights and constitutional amendments; that a 26% drop in charitable gambling revenues and a 20% decrease in club and tavern receipts, directly attributable to the ban, is just a temporary `dip'; that the fate of our locallyowned pubs, veteran and fraternal clubs, and their patrons and members, is of little consequence; that the agencies, organizations and individuals who benefit from the proceeds of charitable gambling must discover other means of funding their needs.The fallacy that the pro ban liberals would have you believe is that second hand smoke (SHS) is such a public health hazard that government must go to any length to control it. They believe that individuals are not intelligent enough to avoid dens of iniquities such as the VFW, Legion, Eagles, etc. if smoking were permitted. These same people think that a member owned and operated club has no right to decide this issue for themselves.Think about these facts published by the American Lung Association. We are all aware the smoking is the largest cause of lung cancer. So what's second? Not SHS. Nope, it's Radon. In fact theirown statistics show that you are seven times more likely to die of lung cancer from Radon than SHS. Further, SHS is attributed to less than 2% of lung cancer deaths. Statistically 2% is less than the margin of error in most surveys. Is that insignificant? Whenyou're talking about human lives no number is trivial. Pleasetell me though, where, oh where is the hue and cry over the ravages ofRadon? You don't hear about it because it's not`politically correct.' It doesn't `radiate' inthe community.The actions of this council have affirmed the status of smokers as second-class citizens. In so many words they have told them to move to the back of the bus. They have carved out a section of society and said we don't wish to associate ourselves with you. Doesthis sound familiar? Can you draw any parallels between what has been legislated here and actions of past governments that enacted segregation laws? How many of you remember the `ethic cleansing' of Nazi Germany or Kosovo? The motives arethe same. Those who deny it are precisely the ones who support it. Am I pro-smoking? Are you kidding? I'm pro business and I'mpro rights. Too bad so many of our council members have ceased being objective and are willing to follow a trails of lies to disenfranchise 25% of their voting public. If you think they're wrong, the only way your going to effect change is at the ballot box. If you're satisfied with the status quo you haven'tbeen listening.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Linda's letters

Non-smoker questions data supporting ban -ON
Letter Tuesday, July 19, 2005
I'm deeply concerned with the Ontario government passing legislation to ban smoking in all public places.
Our government has been convinced to interfere in our lives because a select group of people are irritated by second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has been blamed for lung cancer across North America; our government and the people fighting for smoking bans would have you believe that science has shown this is the case.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there is not a single scientific study that has proven second-hand smoke causes lung cancer.
In 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the study Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, that came to the conclusion 3,000 people die every year in the United States from second-hand smoke.
On July 17, 1998, a United States Federal Court decision stated the EPA ignored data to come to a predetermined conclusion. Judge Osteen's decision said EPA's procedural failure constituted a violation of the law.
Another study in 1998 from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concludes: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."
The Ontario government and our municipalities are telling us that second-hand smoke is killing people and they must pass these laws to protect everyone. Unfortunately, our government is grossly contradicting the experts from the National Cancer Institute.
There are several other groups which will also tell you that second-hand smoke will kill you. They include the Surgeon General, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association, but they all use the EPA study that was thrown out in court to back their claim.
Some of them have even exaggerated the figure of 3,000 deaths to upwards of 50,000 deaths by making projections and not taking into consideration other factors that cause the same diseases as smoking.
If you accept the EPA study, that a United States Federal Court found was in violation of the law, 12.5 out of 1,000,000 people who are exposed to second-hand smoke will die of lung cancer. According to the same study, 10 out of every 1,000,000 who are not exposed to second smoke will die of lung cancer. The difference is statistically insignificant.
I don't smoke and a smoke-filled restaurant irritates me. However, there is no scientific data linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer deaths. I find it completely irresponsible that business owners and smokers have to suffer because our government is choosing to interfere in our lives based on something that has no scientific backing whatsoever.
It's time to put an end to this senseless interference.
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=f8d8dd78-10d7-4a29-b322-9b9da6e3de60 PUBLISHED RESPONSE:
Re: Non-Smoker Questions Data Supporting Ban, July 19. -ON
Saturday, July 30, 2005
The 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report your reader refers to, as well as the subsequent Judge Osteen decision, have long been centrepieces of tobacco industry misinformation campaigns.
The EPA has classified second-hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the U.S. national toxicology program.
Many credible studies have shown the link between second-hand smoke and illness. Researchers with the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Europe have found that exposure to second-hand smoke from spousal, workplace and social sources raises a person's risk of lung cancer by 22 per cent in people who have never smoked, and up to 32 per cent in those with the longest exposure.
Researchers from Minnesota have published data showing that as little as four hours in a casino setting can produce high levels of two potent carcinogens in the blood of those exposed.
Finally, the California Environmental Protection Agency has published research concluding that exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke can cause *** cancer.
These studies add to a mass of research by experts around the world, all of which point in the same direction: Second-hand smoke is a proven cause of lung cancer, heart disease and other respiratory illness.
Supported by two decades of research, the scientific community agrees there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the filtered smoke that a smoker inhales.
All workers should be afforded the right to work in a healthy and safe work environment. Restaurant and bar workers should not be treated as second-class citizens.
By passing provincewide smoke-free legislation, the Ontario government is acting responsibly. The Ontario Smoke-Free Act not only protects citizens from the hazards of second-hand smoke but will also save taxpayers millions of dollars in health care money as the enormous burden of tobacco-related illness eases.
Senior Manager, Public Issues
Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=26d504ac-85a2-4336-bfff-8d722a2c41f5MY LETTER THAT GOT PUBLISHED:
Toxicology studies absent in smoking theories
Letter Monday, August 08, 2005
Re: Data Supports Ban, July 30. What I find interesting is that the Canadian Cancer Society only references epidemiological studies as their proof that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.
Epidemiology can only show the relative strength of possible relationships. In order to show the cause of a disease, it is required that there be toxicology studies.
Using a simple survey given out to cancer patients asking them to recall exposure to a substance as they are being diagnosed isn't realistic science. This isn't proof, it is conjecture -- at best a biased guess, not proof of cause.
The statistics-based theory that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer ignores the real science called toxicology.
Dose relationships recognizes safe levels of exposure to potentially hazardous substances. This well-established science allows uranium to be mined, cars to be painted and toll booth workers to survive high levels of exhaust thanks to adequate ventilation, monitoring and compliance to established limits of exposure.
There are only five unique chemicals released in tobacco smoke. All of the other substances in second-hand smoke cited as being of concern occur in far greater quantities and concentrations in everyday life. Sources like candles, cooking fumes, vehicle exhaust, welding fumes and most domestic and industrial processes cause the release into the air of formaldehyde, benzene, Benzo-a-pyrene and thousands of other chemicals in amounts measured in tons as compared to the micrograms released by burning tobacco.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says "in normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."
The anti-tobacco campaign is all about fear-mongering, has no real scientific basis, and is just plain wrong. The real data and real science does not support the ban.
It should be the business owners' decision to allow smoking in his business, not a decision made by extremist tobacco control groups. It's better to be safe then sorry, but please, base regulations on real science.
The economy shouldn't suffer when there's no proof of danger.
Lynda Duguay
Allenford, Ont
I also included this for proof
References:As an example of the overstated risks and how they create false phobias, a list of chemicals in tobacco smoke is listed below and how many cigarettes burning at the same time it would take to reach the lower threshold of danger in a room 20x20 with 9 foot ceilings at standard temperature and air pressure with no ventilation.
2-Toluidine................229,000Benzene.......................1290Acetone...................118,700Benzo {a} Pyrene......222,000Cadmium......................1430Formic acid...................1790Methylchloride.............11170Phenol..........................7600
As you can see from this example, thousands to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes would have to be smoked at once to create a hazard, even in a un-ventilated room! This list was compiled by the Public and Health Policy Research group Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Texas in 1999 for OSHA.
02/24/2003 - Reiteration of Existing OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke.http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
Full text of Judge Osteen’s Order and Memorandum Opinionhttp://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.

Monday, August 08, 2005

To :

Subject :
Second-hand smoke in perspective

Dear Editor, Aug. 8/05

The smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mingled
with the air in a well ventilated space is dangerous to your health?

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

: Cantiloper@aol.comSubject : Re:L2E smoking by-laws burns the hospitality sector
Sent to the Appleton Post Crescent: Aug. 1/05

August 1st's paired stories on the smoking ban (Smoke Ban Burns Sales and Nearby Businesses Catch Shifting Customers) shows the lie to the claim of Antismoking extremists that government mandated bans are "good for business." In truth, bars are hurt horribly and bar-restaurants are hurt almost as badly.Extremists promoting bans wave sets of fancy statistics in the air, but statistics mean nothing when compared to the actual stories and realities of businesses being destroyed and lifes' investments being ruined for the sake of social engneering. Even most Antismokers admit that no studies have found any health risk from the smoke levels that would be found in a modern and well ventilated business establishment: they know that a major part of the motivation behind today's bans is to coerce (or, as they like to say it, "support") smokers into quitting.The dishonesty of those who proclaim that bans in their cities have been good for business can be seen by how staunchly they resist any efforts to overturn those bans. If they were telling the truth they'd gladly and proudly drop the bans and show the world how happily all the bars and restaurants continued to ban smoking and make profits without the cudgel of the law.But of course they're not telling the truth and they know it. And the business owners and politicians who believed them are now seeing the consequences. And the solution of the extremists, as one might guess, is not to reduce the bans, but rather to expand them so that all can suffer equally on a "level playing field.

"Michael J. McFadden

Friday, August 05, 2005


WE ALL agree that smoking is not good for you, that children should not start smoking, that second-hand smoke may have harmful effects. However, adult Canadians should have a choice. Here is a practical plan that would satisfy reasonable people. The province sells permits that allow a restaurant to permit smoking. The province controls the number of permits sold at a number of maybe 10% or 15% of the number of restaurants in the province. The province sets minimum air-quality standards and monitors them through the Board of Health which already monitors the food and cleanliness in the restaurants. Workers have a fair choice of where to work: 85% no smoking, 15% smoking. Customers have a choice of where to eat. The province collects revenues and oversees the air quality. The business owner has a choice of having an air-filtration system and allowing his smoking customers to eat and smoke in peace. Really not that complicated.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
(There must be a catch somewhere ...)

Wednesday, August 03, 2005


LES HAGEN, Action on Smoking and Health executive director, said, "1,000 Canadians die annually from second-hand smoke." Mr. Hagen gets those figures from a 'risk' computer called SAMMEC. In other words, there are no bodies, no death certificates. Nothing! No one has ever died or gotten cancer from second-hand smoke.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

I Will Wake Up This Nation of Sheep and Ostriches!

By Vernon Gutenkunst

31 July 2005

When in the course of fraudulent, murderous, and treasonous Antismoking Nicotine Nazi events, it becomes necessary for real American citizens to make it blatantly obvious that "Some People Push Back!"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!" "That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness!"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government, and to provide new Guards for their Future Security!" "He has erected a multitude of New Offices [Lying Health Nazis], and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance!"

Harassing our people with smoking bans inevitably results in a drastic reduction of Social capital or 'Social Glue' causing problems all over society. Social Capital is, "The value of social networks that people can draw on to solve common problems. The benefits of social capital flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks."

The last time I checked, the Saint Cloud Barnes & Noble and the downtown Minneapolis Barnes & Noble had not one copy on hand of either of the following books: "The Health Benefits of Tobacco: A Smoker's Paradox" by Dr. William Douglass (voted "Doctor of the Year" by the National Health Foundation) and William Campbell Douglass II, "Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains" by Michael J. McFadden, and "Slow Burn: The Great American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail)" by Don Oakley. The Minnesota Library system has two copies of "Slow Burn" and not one copy of the other two books.
"[Confiscating a book and punishing its author] is%2

Monday, August 01, 2005


Subject : Re:L2E smoking by-laws burns the hospitality sector

Sent to the Appleton Post Crescent: Aug. 1/05

August 1st's paired stories on the smoking ban (Smoke Ban Burns Sales and Nearby Businesses Catch Shifting Customers) shows the lie to the claim of Antismoking extremists that government mandated bans are "good for business." In truth, bars are hurt horribly and bar-restaurants are hurt almost as badly.

Extremists promoting bans wave sets of fancy statistics in the air, but statistics mean nothing when compared to the actual stories and realities of businesses being destroyed and lifes' investments being ruined for the sake of social engneering. Even most Antismokers admit that no studies have found any health risk from the smoke levels that would be found in a modern and well ventilated business establishment: they know that a major part of the motivation behind today's bans is to coerce (or, as they like to say it, "support") smokers into quitting.

The dishonesty of those who proclaim that bans in their cities have been good for business can be seen by how staunchly they resist any efforts to overturn those bans. If they were telling the truth they'd gladly and proudly drop the bans and show the world how happily all the bars and restaurants continued to ban smoking and make profits without the cudgel of the law.

But of course they're not telling the truth and they know it. And the business owners and politicians who believed them are now seeing the consequences. And the solution of the extremists, as one might guess, is not to reduce the bans, but rather to expand them so that all can suffer equally on a "level playing field."

Michael J. McFadden

Competing Interests: I have absolutely NO financial connections with Big Tobacco, Big Hospitality, Big Pharma, or any other player in this arena other than as a customer and as the author of a book on the topic.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" http://www.smokersclubinc.com/antibrains.html http://smokersclubinc.com

Dear Editor,
(what non-smokers and big business don’t want you to know!)

I am terribly disappointed that the City of Houston Council has failed to uphold Houstonians freedoms, (they have now banned smoking in Houston Restaurants). I realize that the hype of second hand smoke has caused undo pressure on your individual offices. The city council folks have fell to the majority without the consideration of the current minority (smokers) I had to look outside to make sure I still had an American flag waving - yes you council members know it, you've read the facts - or at the least sent someone else to read them. Yes, I am a smoker. Yes, I feel that MY personal freedom to corrupt my own lungs has been infringed upon. OH BUT WAIT, before all of you "smoking protesters" start throwing organic tomatoes at me because you believe my smoking is infringing on your rights; let me give you some things to consider. I'm no scientist but I've done my homework. First, it might be helpful if I explain how scientists come up with their data. One is called "relative risk". Relative risk or RR is defined as "Ratio of the risk of disease or death among the exposed to the risk among the unexposed: this usage is synonymous with "risk ratio"" The EPA and many other organizations spend tons of time, energy and money studying the RR of many different things. One being "second hand smoke" also referred to as SHS or ETS. According to the EPA a dangerous RR is considered to be at least 3.0 or higher. Can you guess what the RR of SHS is? Well, let me inform you: According to the EPA and the WHO it's approximately 1.19, about half the amount of what is considered dangerous. This amount is about equal to cooking on a barbeque grill outside, so I suggest that all you folks who called for the smoking ban run out and toss your grills! HURRY! I do have to give kudos to the Houston Civil Servants for passing this unnecessary bill so quickly, as it seems that our state officials aren't planning on cleaning up the Houston air pollution until the year 2020. I mean why rush? We are already protecting Houstonians from the (oh my goodness) dangerous SHS, I believe the number of deaths from SHS is 3,000 people a year according to studies. We have nothing to worry about because by 2020 the 60,000 people that die each year from air pollutants, according to the National Resources Defense Council, won't be around to vote especially since recent studies show that chemical plants and factories in Houston (the number one polluted city in America) are releasing six to fifteen times more of pollutants than they report. An article published by Aaron J. Cohnen, D.Sc and Assoc. showed that the RR for "Residents of areas with high ambient air pollution" is between 1.0-1.6 and that the RR for "Non-smokers around family members or co-workers is between 1.0-1.5. Interested in more eye opening news?? The EPA gives chlorinated water a RR of 1.5, more than is given to SHS. Best not drink the City water either! Not to mention that the pollutants released are depleting the ozone layer and that the U.N. Environment program has discovered that skin cancer will increase by 26% for each 10% drop in ozone. Hope you protesters were wearing sunscreen! Or maybe you should spend more time inside with the formaldehyde, bleaches and other toxic cleaners thinking about protesting more important issues like world hunger or maybe even, if your brave, the giant industrial factories that have much more money and power than we mere smokers will ever have. Research it yourself / sources: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd051603b.html http://www.foeaction.org/delay/pollution.html

July 30/05
Subject :
Simple solution to the smoking issue

Dear Editor, July 30/05

Why does it have to be so complicated and so controversial? We all agree that smoking is not good for you, that children should not start smoking, that second hand smoke may have harmful effects. However adult Canadians should have a choice. Here is a practical plan that would satisfy reasonable people: The Province sells permits that allow a restaurant to permit smoking. The Province controls the number of permits sold at a number of maybe 10 or 15% of the number of restaurants in the Province. The Province sets minimum air quality standards and monitors it through the Board of Health that already monitors the food and cleanliness in the restaurants. Workers have a fair choice of where to work, 85% no smoking 15% smoking. Customers have a choice of where to eat. The Province collects revenues and overseas the air quality. The business owner has a choice of having an air filtration system and allowing their smoking customers to eat and smoke in peace. Really not that complicated.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

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