Friday, September 30, 2005
Let owners decide smoking policies
August 7, 2005
By John Dant Special to The Courier-Journal
One has to wonder if Louisville Metro Councilwomen Tina Ward-Pugh and Ellen Call have been paying attention to all the testimony on the smoking ban issue over the last two years. Many of their conclusions are based on false premises.
In their opinion piece in The Courier-Journal (July 31), the leading proponents of a local smoking ban went to great lengths to lecture readers that smoking is not a "right" protected by the Constitution, as if business owners were heavily relying on that argument.
Of course, smoking is not a right. No one on the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition (MLHC) has ever claimed that it was. You will not find any discussion of rights on our web site (www.fighthesmokingban.com). Nor will you find any mention of rights in the voluminous testimony provided to the Metro Council by the MLHC over the last two years.
We can understand why some people may feel that smoking is their right. After all, smoking is an activity that has been enjoyed by millions of Americans for decades. Recognizing that longstanding tradition, many business owners today allow smoking as a courtesy or privilege to customers. Our basic argument has always been that business owners should retain the authority to decide what legal activities can occur on their private property.
Many owners have decided on no-smoking policies in recent years. We have no problem with that. What we do object to is using the full force of government to criminalize the behavior of people who enjoy a lawful product. Smoking ban advocates perceive people who allow or enjoy smoking as enemies of society, people who need to be controlled and managed. Don't these folks deserve the same respect as other people who have made controversial lifestyle choices?
As education and information about the risks of smoking are provided to the public, the smoking trends will continue to decline. Give the free market a few more years, there's a good possibility that the majority of businesses will voluntarily go smoke free.
The advocates of smoking bans refuse to entertain the notion that a business could possibly lose money, even when they are provided hard evidence showing that quite the opposite is true, especially for small family-owned businesses. The two Metro Councilwomen stated that that no credible studies have shown any negative impact.
This is clearly contradicted by a recent study of smoking ban effects in Lexington conducted by Dr. Richard Thalheimer, a respected researcher at the University of Louisville. His review of the proprietary records of top wholesale beverage distributors indicated that sales declined between 9.8 percent and 13.3 percent after the Lexington ban was enacted. Those are only wholesale sales mind you; the effect on individual businesses could be 20 percent or more, especially if those businesses strictly complied with the law.
A peer review of the study by Dr. Paul Coomes, a U of L professor of economics, concluded that the results of Thalheimer's study "should make us all cautious about dismissing any claims of economic harm from smoking bans. One may want to reduce smoking and drinking as a matter of public policy, but should acknowledge the likely cost to businesses and consumers from such a policy."
The economic impact has been so severe that a few businesses in Lexington-Fayette County have openly defied the ban, risking fines and jury trials to the alternative of losing their business -- despite threats of even higher fines and stiffer punishment. At least 25 businesses have closed, citing the smoking ban as a factor. There is no evidence of any "resulting job growth," as Call and Ward-Pugh would have you believe.
Several members of that Lexington-Fayette County urban county government council are said to favor providing some legislative relief for local businesses because of economic and enforcement concerns.
The top priority of any owner is the survival of the business. More than a few of the smoke free leaders have implied that restaurant and bar owners exaggerate the effects of smoking bans, implying that we are supported by tobacco interests.
That's absurd and defies common sense. We have no stake in the tobacco industry. We simply want to keep our customers satisfied. If smoking were not a pleasure enjoyed by some customers, 99 percent of all bars and restaurants would have implemented no-smoking rules years ago.
We were disappointed when the executive committee of Greater Louisville, Inc. (GLI) endorsed a smoking ban a few weeks ago. However, we were not surprised to learn that the GLI's board of directors does not include any owners of any small, locally-owned hospitality businesses. We regret that GLI, which was supposed to be considering the economic impact , obviously did not take the issue seriously enough to inquire about the Lexington study.
The relationship between government and business is always a major factor for companies considering business expansion. The existence of a smoking ban in Louisville Metro would indicate that local government is overly aggressive in dealing with at least some businesses, especially the smaller ones.
We believe many members of our Metro Council recognize that a smoking ban could have a disastrous effect on local businesses. We respect their ability to withstand the pressure tactics of the local newspaper and the smoke free industry. Keeping this issue in perspective will continue to require high levels of personal integrity and political courage.
The C-J's Bluegrass Poll indicated that 54 percent of Louisvillians are opposed to a smoking ban while only 36 percent favor government intervention. A small, vocal minority has pressured some Council members, keeping the issue alive. Most Louisvillians are non-smokers, and they don't want a smoking ban. Nor do they want to see locally-owned businesses suffer and valuable jobs vanish in the disarray that would accompany a government-imposed ban.
Among Louisville's most popular attractions for tourists and conventioneers is the nice variety of high quality and unique restaurants, nightspots and taverns. The owners of small, locally-owned establishments have devoted their lives to building their businesses. We urge the Council to allow them to continue making the decisions that are most reasonable for their businesses and customers.
John Dant is president of the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition and proprietor of The Back Door Bar & Grille.
http://www.courier-journal.com/
August 7, 2005
By John Dant Special to The Courier-Journal
One has to wonder if Louisville Metro Councilwomen Tina Ward-Pugh and Ellen Call have been paying attention to all the testimony on the smoking ban issue over the last two years. Many of their conclusions are based on false premises.
In their opinion piece in The Courier-Journal (July 31), the leading proponents of a local smoking ban went to great lengths to lecture readers that smoking is not a "right" protected by the Constitution, as if business owners were heavily relying on that argument.
Of course, smoking is not a right. No one on the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition (MLHC) has ever claimed that it was. You will not find any discussion of rights on our web site (www.fighthesmokingban.com). Nor will you find any mention of rights in the voluminous testimony provided to the Metro Council by the MLHC over the last two years.
We can understand why some people may feel that smoking is their right. After all, smoking is an activity that has been enjoyed by millions of Americans for decades. Recognizing that longstanding tradition, many business owners today allow smoking as a courtesy or privilege to customers. Our basic argument has always been that business owners should retain the authority to decide what legal activities can occur on their private property.
Many owners have decided on no-smoking policies in recent years. We have no problem with that. What we do object to is using the full force of government to criminalize the behavior of people who enjoy a lawful product. Smoking ban advocates perceive people who allow or enjoy smoking as enemies of society, people who need to be controlled and managed. Don't these folks deserve the same respect as other people who have made controversial lifestyle choices?
As education and information about the risks of smoking are provided to the public, the smoking trends will continue to decline. Give the free market a few more years, there's a good possibility that the majority of businesses will voluntarily go smoke free.
The advocates of smoking bans refuse to entertain the notion that a business could possibly lose money, even when they are provided hard evidence showing that quite the opposite is true, especially for small family-owned businesses. The two Metro Councilwomen stated that that no credible studies have shown any negative impact.
This is clearly contradicted by a recent study of smoking ban effects in Lexington conducted by Dr. Richard Thalheimer, a respected researcher at the University of Louisville. His review of the proprietary records of top wholesale beverage distributors indicated that sales declined between 9.8 percent and 13.3 percent after the Lexington ban was enacted. Those are only wholesale sales mind you; the effect on individual businesses could be 20 percent or more, especially if those businesses strictly complied with the law.
A peer review of the study by Dr. Paul Coomes, a U of L professor of economics, concluded that the results of Thalheimer's study "should make us all cautious about dismissing any claims of economic harm from smoking bans. One may want to reduce smoking and drinking as a matter of public policy, but should acknowledge the likely cost to businesses and consumers from such a policy."
The economic impact has been so severe that a few businesses in Lexington-Fayette County have openly defied the ban, risking fines and jury trials to the alternative of losing their business -- despite threats of even higher fines and stiffer punishment. At least 25 businesses have closed, citing the smoking ban as a factor. There is no evidence of any "resulting job growth," as Call and Ward-Pugh would have you believe.
Several members of that Lexington-Fayette County urban county government council are said to favor providing some legislative relief for local businesses because of economic and enforcement concerns.
The top priority of any owner is the survival of the business. More than a few of the smoke free leaders have implied that restaurant and bar owners exaggerate the effects of smoking bans, implying that we are supported by tobacco interests.
That's absurd and defies common sense. We have no stake in the tobacco industry. We simply want to keep our customers satisfied. If smoking were not a pleasure enjoyed by some customers, 99 percent of all bars and restaurants would have implemented no-smoking rules years ago.
We were disappointed when the executive committee of Greater Louisville, Inc. (GLI) endorsed a smoking ban a few weeks ago. However, we were not surprised to learn that the GLI's board of directors does not include any owners of any small, locally-owned hospitality businesses. We regret that GLI, which was supposed to be considering the economic impact , obviously did not take the issue seriously enough to inquire about the Lexington study.
The relationship between government and business is always a major factor for companies considering business expansion. The existence of a smoking ban in Louisville Metro would indicate that local government is overly aggressive in dealing with at least some businesses, especially the smaller ones.
We believe many members of our Metro Council recognize that a smoking ban could have a disastrous effect on local businesses. We respect their ability to withstand the pressure tactics of the local newspaper and the smoke free industry. Keeping this issue in perspective will continue to require high levels of personal integrity and political courage.
The C-J's Bluegrass Poll indicated that 54 percent of Louisvillians are opposed to a smoking ban while only 36 percent favor government intervention. A small, vocal minority has pressured some Council members, keeping the issue alive. Most Louisvillians are non-smokers, and they don't want a smoking ban. Nor do they want to see locally-owned businesses suffer and valuable jobs vanish in the disarray that would accompany a government-imposed ban.
Among Louisville's most popular attractions for tourists and conventioneers is the nice variety of high quality and unique restaurants, nightspots and taverns. The owners of small, locally-owned establishments have devoted their lives to building their businesses. We urge the Council to allow them to continue making the decisions that are most reasonable for their businesses and customers.
John Dant is president of the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition and proprietor of The Back Door Bar & Grille.
http://www.courier-journal.com/
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/09/29/1240177.html
Smoking is the attraction
Re: Casino ca-ching; South Beach success spurs plans for 100-room hotel (Paul Turenne, Sept. 27).
It's nice to see a hospitality venue enjoying such immense success particularly in today's economic climate. With the Manitoba smoking ban turning a year old this week, one must wonder what is making South Beach so successful. So successful, in fact, that they have to turn away bus tours. Meanwhile, bar owners and hospitality workers across the province have experienced varying degrees of losses and layoffs.
South Beach can allow indoor smoking and they are seeing an average of 4,000 visiting vehicles every day. Conclusion: the main attraction is smoking.
South Beach has installed ventilation that keeps air clean and their patrons satisfied. It baffles me that an air quality standard could not be set for all Manitoba businesses and industries rather than punish smokers and hospitality workers and bus our patrons up the highway.
Deanne Olston
Rivercrest Hotel
West St. Paul
(Isn't politics a blast?)
Smoking is the attraction
Re: Casino ca-ching; South Beach success spurs plans for 100-room hotel (Paul Turenne, Sept. 27).
It's nice to see a hospitality venue enjoying such immense success particularly in today's economic climate. With the Manitoba smoking ban turning a year old this week, one must wonder what is making South Beach so successful. So successful, in fact, that they have to turn away bus tours. Meanwhile, bar owners and hospitality workers across the province have experienced varying degrees of losses and layoffs.
South Beach can allow indoor smoking and they are seeing an average of 4,000 visiting vehicles every day. Conclusion: the main attraction is smoking.
South Beach has installed ventilation that keeps air clean and their patrons satisfied. It baffles me that an air quality standard could not be set for all Manitoba businesses and industries rather than punish smokers and hospitality workers and bus our patrons up the highway.
Deanne Olston
Rivercrest Hotel
West St. Paul
(Isn't politics a blast?)
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Sept. 27/05
Tyrannical support of public health
Steve Berg
Editor:
I am writing in opposition to the ill-considered attempt to impose a smoking ban in local bars and restaurants.This is a matter that is best left up to the owners and managers of these establishments. They are much more aware of how to best run their enterprises than are those on the city council who seem determined to usurp the prerogatives of ownership and management.Back some years ago when I allegedly was fighting for freedom, the federal government was kind enough to issue me pipes, cigars, cigarettes and pipe tobacco. These came out to us along with candy in boxes marked "sundries." Freedom, what a wonderful idea. People are free to choose whether to smoke or not to smoke. They are also free to choose which bars and restaurants they frequent. They are free to work or not to work at any of these establishments based upon their own personal preferences. This is as it should be, because the United States is still a somewhat free country. I say somewhat free, because there are, sadly, some factions who while speaking of celebrating diversity really seek to impose mind-numbing conformity. They tell us that no one should impose their morals (or lack thereof) on others, then use their power to impose theirs on us.
One of the favorite smokescreens for this sort of tyranny is "public health." We are advised that smoking damages the health of the staff in places where it is allowed.This may or may not be true.But to those workers who believe it is so, there is no shortage of jobs in other establishments.I, myself, have quit several jobs over the years for health-related reasons. Some people are sensitive to smoke.This is unfortunate, but they are free to go to those establishments who either ban smoking or have more effective ventilation.
It is a matter of freedom and choice. I have noticed that the DeKalb city government does not believe that all smokes are created equal.That which is exhaled by people using tobacco seems to be considered evil. Yet the smoke belched out of diesel trucks, which is also loaded with nasty chemicals, is considered a sign of progress, economic development and is encouraged with state and local subsidies.In fact, while this smoking ban effort is going on, the city also is working to bring thousands more of these smoke- and pollution-generating behemoths within its borders by promoting warehousing and distribution facilities. There is a whiff of something in the air besides smoke - and that is hypocrisy. I urge the mayor and city council to put this ill-advised ordinance in the ash can where it belongs. Let the people of DeKalb continue to freely choose. Let those of us who like to smoke a pipe or cigar, along with drinking our beer, continue to enjoy them in our favorite pubs. Freedom: Many of us fought for it, earned it, cherish it and want to retain it.
Steve Berg
DeKalb County
http://www.dekalb-chronicle.com/articles/2005/09/27/opinions/letters/letters01.txt
Tyrannical support of public health
Steve Berg
Editor:
I am writing in opposition to the ill-considered attempt to impose a smoking ban in local bars and restaurants.This is a matter that is best left up to the owners and managers of these establishments. They are much more aware of how to best run their enterprises than are those on the city council who seem determined to usurp the prerogatives of ownership and management.Back some years ago when I allegedly was fighting for freedom, the federal government was kind enough to issue me pipes, cigars, cigarettes and pipe tobacco. These came out to us along with candy in boxes marked "sundries." Freedom, what a wonderful idea. People are free to choose whether to smoke or not to smoke. They are also free to choose which bars and restaurants they frequent. They are free to work or not to work at any of these establishments based upon their own personal preferences. This is as it should be, because the United States is still a somewhat free country. I say somewhat free, because there are, sadly, some factions who while speaking of celebrating diversity really seek to impose mind-numbing conformity. They tell us that no one should impose their morals (or lack thereof) on others, then use their power to impose theirs on us.
One of the favorite smokescreens for this sort of tyranny is "public health." We are advised that smoking damages the health of the staff in places where it is allowed.This may or may not be true.But to those workers who believe it is so, there is no shortage of jobs in other establishments.I, myself, have quit several jobs over the years for health-related reasons. Some people are sensitive to smoke.This is unfortunate, but they are free to go to those establishments who either ban smoking or have more effective ventilation.
It is a matter of freedom and choice. I have noticed that the DeKalb city government does not believe that all smokes are created equal.That which is exhaled by people using tobacco seems to be considered evil. Yet the smoke belched out of diesel trucks, which is also loaded with nasty chemicals, is considered a sign of progress, economic development and is encouraged with state and local subsidies.In fact, while this smoking ban effort is going on, the city also is working to bring thousands more of these smoke- and pollution-generating behemoths within its borders by promoting warehousing and distribution facilities. There is a whiff of something in the air besides smoke - and that is hypocrisy. I urge the mayor and city council to put this ill-advised ordinance in the ash can where it belongs. Let the people of DeKalb continue to freely choose. Let those of us who like to smoke a pipe or cigar, along with drinking our beer, continue to enjoy them in our favorite pubs. Freedom: Many of us fought for it, earned it, cherish it and want to retain it.
Steve Berg
DeKalb County
http://www.dekalb-chronicle.com/articles/2005/09/27/opinions/letters/letters01.txt
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/obituaries/ Sept. 29/05
VICTORIA -- The singer's delivery was nasal and twangy, her voice unschooled but as country as a jug of moonshine. She sounded like Kitty Wells.
Two men in the audience at the Chicken Coop club in Vancouver so many years ago liked what they heard. Don Grashey and Chuck Williams signed the singer -- an unsophisticated coal miner's daughter from the Kentucky hill country -- to Zero Records, their fledgling label.
In February of 1960, they brought her to a recording studio in Hollywood where she recorded a 45-RPM single of I'm a Honky Tonk Woman. The song climbed to No. 14 on the Billboard country music charts, giving Loretta Lynn the first of her many hits. She was so naive about the recording industry she did not know what a chart was when Mr. Grashey called to share the good news.
She was the first of many singing discoveries credited to the two men. Over four decades of friendship, which survived an on-again, off-again business partnership, Don Grashey and Chuck Williams gave dozens of singers and songwriters the opportunity to find an audience for their art. Fiercely dedicated to promoting Canadian talent, the men also gave their Ontario hometown of Thunder Bay an outsized prominence in the music world.
Advertisements
"Don was the gruff, studied, introspective poet, meticulous and wary in business negotiations," Country Music Canada contributor Joseph M. Mauro wrote in 1988. "Chuck was open and affable, an entertainer who could charm the frost off a station manager's heart, or pacify a temperamental vocalist with a smile."
As a boy in Port Arthur (now Thunder Bay), Ont., Mr. Grashey decided to become a songwriter after listening to the Grand Ole Opry on the radio. In 1947, at age 21, he made his first pilgrimage to Manhattan, where he tried without success to interest Tin Pan Alley in his compositions. Despite being turned down, he returned to New York annually, finally making a sale in 1950.
According to Mr. Mauro, a big break came when Mr. Grashey sold two songs to Peer International -- My Daddy Left My Mommy Again and The Life of Jimmie Rodgers. The latter went unrecorded, but it won the composer an invitation to a memorial celebration for The Singing Brakeman at Meridith, Miss. He met Rodgers' widow as well as Fabor Robinson, an Arkansan who was an agent and owner of independent labels.
In 1954, Mr. Robinson had two singers from Mr. Grashey's hometown -- Jim Amadeo, who performed as Buddy DeVal, and Myrna Petrunka, as Myrna Lorrie -- record a duet of Mr. Grashey's Are You Mine. The song was a hit, sticking around the top of the country charts for weeks. It was later recorded by Loretta Lynn, Ernest Tubb and George Jones.
Much to Mr. Grashey's dismay, however, neither singer was able to tour to cash in on the song's popularity. Mr. Amadeo was reluctant to abandon his factory job, while young Miss Petrunka was available only on weekends; she was still in school.
For his part, Chuck Williams had been an executive with a finance company when he quit to become an entertainer. He joined an unlikely trio of harmonica players, who enjoyed some success, sharing a stage with the likes of Nelson Eddy and the Kingston Trio. The group, called The Largos, disbanded suddenly in 1958 -- a three days' drive to fulfill successive gigs in Whitehorse, Yukon, and Midland, Tex., may have precipitated the end.
Back in Port Arthur, Mr. Williams approached Mr. Grashey about forming a partnership. The result was Zero Records, a label based in Vancouver. The Zero stable included Orella Myers and the Tree Tops, both recording Mr. Grashey's original compositions.
Loretta Lynn had first come to the label's attention when Norm Burley, a Vancouver lumber baron and Zero financial backer, heard her sing on a televised talent show hosted by Buck Owens out of Tacoma, Wash. At the time, she was living at Custer, near the Canadian border.
She travelled to Hollywood to record four of her own compositions at a first-class facility, belying the popular misconception the recordings had been made on inferior equipment on the spur of the moment.
Chuck Williams remembered mailing 3,500 copies of Ms. Lynn's single from a hotel room on Sunset Boulevard. "They were piled so high there was only a narrow passage left between the living room, bedroom and bathroom," he told Mr. Mauro. Later, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grashey drove across the United States to deliver copies to deejays. "We'd spot a radio station tower in some town late at night, drive up to the station and drop off a record," Mr. Williams said. They slept in the car to save money, eating bologna sandwiches "when we could afford them," Mr. Grashey added.
In her 1976 memoir, Coal Miner's Daughter, Mrs. Lynn describes driving across country with her husband to deliver her record to isolated radio stations. She also describes eating bologna sandwiches.
The one undisputed fact is she soon left Zero Records for better financed management in Nashville.) The business partnership of the two producers was dissolved, with Mr. Williams rejoining The Largos on the road. While performing in Dallas in 1963, the harmonica trio befriended the owner of a nearby strip club -- Jack Ruby, soon to become infamous for gunning down the president's alleged assassin on live television.
Mr. Grashey and Mr. Williams reunited in Los Angeles in 1965, producing Canadian bands with a garage or Mersey-beat sound for their Gaiety Records. Among the label's acts were 49th Parallel, out of Calgary; Souls of Inspyration, from Red Lake, Ont.; Solid Reputation, from Geraldton, Ont.; the Checkerlands and the White Knights, both from Regina; and NRG, the Plague, and Lexington Avenue, all from the Lakehead.
Some of their songs were recorded in Hollywood at the legendary Gold Star Studios, home to the Beach Boys, Neil Young, and Phil Spector's Wall of Sound.
None of the acts made the big time. Many of the singles sold poorly, perhaps lost in a glorious era of creativity in popular music, although collectors today will pay $100 U.S. or more for copies in good condition. A compilation CD released in 1995, titled The Gaiety Records Story, found a new audience for an under-appreciated sound.
Back in Thunder Bay, Mr. Grashey opened the eponymous DMG Sound Studio, a modest building which served as the promised land for local musicians dreaming of stardom. A typical hopeful was 15-year-old Kevin Waara, who remembers arriving at the studio on South Cumberland Street by city transit on a muggy June day in 1968. Wearing a Beatles T-shirt and bell-bottom jeans, the long-haired boy carried with him a reel-to-reel tape recorder on which he had recorded eight songs.
Mr. Grashey greeted him at the door by saying: "And what do we have here?" Instead of giving him the bum's rush, or telling him to get an agent, a haircut, or a job, Mr. Grashey introduced the lad to his partner before all three men retired across the street for a long talk at the Diamond Cafe.
As it turned out, the producers found the youth's songs to be too immature for the times, but they sent him away with encouragement. "Don't lose the spark," Mr. Williams advised.
Four years later, the pair recorded Mr. Waara's first four singles. Although one of those sold just 311 copies, his career continues today after three decades of performance.
Mr. Grashey's most fruitful collaboration was with Carroll Baker. Her first single, Mem'ries of Home, was released on Gaiety in 1970. Mr. Grashey managed and produced Ms. Baker for 14 years, even writing some of her early songs, such as Ten Little Fingers. She enjoyed more than a dozen No. 1 hits under his guidance before taking a new manager.
Mr. Grashey got Winnipeg singer Cindi Churko to take the stage name Cindi Cain on becoming her manager. (His own family name was Guarasci.) Cindi Cain and the Cheeters shared the stage with the likes of Tanya Tucker and Sawyer Brown.
Throughout his career, Mr. Grashey remained dedicated to finding and promoting Canadian talent. He found little to praise in the boom of New Country music. "It is loaded with clones and rock singers singing songs you can't remember," he complained in a letter to the editor of the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal.
While Mr. Grashey operated his own label (Golden Eagle Records) and publishing house, Mr. Williams had success with such singers as David Thompson on his Citation label.
Mr. Grashey was one of the original 25 inductees to the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame. He has also been named to the Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour at Edmonton and the RPM Canadian Music Industry Hall of Fame at Toronto.
Ms. Baker's schedule includes a concert in Thunder Bay next month during which she had planned to honour Mr. Grashey's upcoming 80th birthday by singing for him. Instead, she attended his funeral service at St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church at Thunder Bay, during which she sang Amazing Grace without musical accompaniment.
Donald Michael Grashey
was born on Nov. 1, 1925, in Port Arthur, Ont. He died in Thunder Bay on Sept. 12. He was 79. He leaves six sisters.
George Charles (Chuck) Williams was born on Jan. 21, 1930, in
Calgary. He died in Thunder Bay on Sept. 2. He was 75. He was
predeceased by his sister,
Stephanie Dragicevic, who died on Aug. 7; he entered hospital
the day after her death.
VICTORIA -- The singer's delivery was nasal and twangy, her voice unschooled but as country as a jug of moonshine. She sounded like Kitty Wells.
Two men in the audience at the Chicken Coop club in Vancouver so many years ago liked what they heard. Don Grashey and Chuck Williams signed the singer -- an unsophisticated coal miner's daughter from the Kentucky hill country -- to Zero Records, their fledgling label.
In February of 1960, they brought her to a recording studio in Hollywood where she recorded a 45-RPM single of I'm a Honky Tonk Woman. The song climbed to No. 14 on the Billboard country music charts, giving Loretta Lynn the first of her many hits. She was so naive about the recording industry she did not know what a chart was when Mr. Grashey called to share the good news.
She was the first of many singing discoveries credited to the two men. Over four decades of friendship, which survived an on-again, off-again business partnership, Don Grashey and Chuck Williams gave dozens of singers and songwriters the opportunity to find an audience for their art. Fiercely dedicated to promoting Canadian talent, the men also gave their Ontario hometown of Thunder Bay an outsized prominence in the music world.
Advertisements
"Don was the gruff, studied, introspective poet, meticulous and wary in business negotiations," Country Music Canada contributor Joseph M. Mauro wrote in 1988. "Chuck was open and affable, an entertainer who could charm the frost off a station manager's heart, or pacify a temperamental vocalist with a smile."
As a boy in Port Arthur (now Thunder Bay), Ont., Mr. Grashey decided to become a songwriter after listening to the Grand Ole Opry on the radio. In 1947, at age 21, he made his first pilgrimage to Manhattan, where he tried without success to interest Tin Pan Alley in his compositions. Despite being turned down, he returned to New York annually, finally making a sale in 1950.
According to Mr. Mauro, a big break came when Mr. Grashey sold two songs to Peer International -- My Daddy Left My Mommy Again and The Life of Jimmie Rodgers. The latter went unrecorded, but it won the composer an invitation to a memorial celebration for The Singing Brakeman at Meridith, Miss. He met Rodgers' widow as well as Fabor Robinson, an Arkansan who was an agent and owner of independent labels.
In 1954, Mr. Robinson had two singers from Mr. Grashey's hometown -- Jim Amadeo, who performed as Buddy DeVal, and Myrna Petrunka, as Myrna Lorrie -- record a duet of Mr. Grashey's Are You Mine. The song was a hit, sticking around the top of the country charts for weeks. It was later recorded by Loretta Lynn, Ernest Tubb and George Jones.
Much to Mr. Grashey's dismay, however, neither singer was able to tour to cash in on the song's popularity. Mr. Amadeo was reluctant to abandon his factory job, while young Miss Petrunka was available only on weekends; she was still in school.
For his part, Chuck Williams had been an executive with a finance company when he quit to become an entertainer. He joined an unlikely trio of harmonica players, who enjoyed some success, sharing a stage with the likes of Nelson Eddy and the Kingston Trio. The group, called The Largos, disbanded suddenly in 1958 -- a three days' drive to fulfill successive gigs in Whitehorse, Yukon, and Midland, Tex., may have precipitated the end.
Back in Port Arthur, Mr. Williams approached Mr. Grashey about forming a partnership. The result was Zero Records, a label based in Vancouver. The Zero stable included Orella Myers and the Tree Tops, both recording Mr. Grashey's original compositions.
Loretta Lynn had first come to the label's attention when Norm Burley, a Vancouver lumber baron and Zero financial backer, heard her sing on a televised talent show hosted by Buck Owens out of Tacoma, Wash. At the time, she was living at Custer, near the Canadian border.
She travelled to Hollywood to record four of her own compositions at a first-class facility, belying the popular misconception the recordings had been made on inferior equipment on the spur of the moment.
Chuck Williams remembered mailing 3,500 copies of Ms. Lynn's single from a hotel room on Sunset Boulevard. "They were piled so high there was only a narrow passage left between the living room, bedroom and bathroom," he told Mr. Mauro. Later, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grashey drove across the United States to deliver copies to deejays. "We'd spot a radio station tower in some town late at night, drive up to the station and drop off a record," Mr. Williams said. They slept in the car to save money, eating bologna sandwiches "when we could afford them," Mr. Grashey added.
In her 1976 memoir, Coal Miner's Daughter, Mrs. Lynn describes driving across country with her husband to deliver her record to isolated radio stations. She also describes eating bologna sandwiches.
The one undisputed fact is she soon left Zero Records for better financed management in Nashville.) The business partnership of the two producers was dissolved, with Mr. Williams rejoining The Largos on the road. While performing in Dallas in 1963, the harmonica trio befriended the owner of a nearby strip club -- Jack Ruby, soon to become infamous for gunning down the president's alleged assassin on live television.
Mr. Grashey and Mr. Williams reunited in Los Angeles in 1965, producing Canadian bands with a garage or Mersey-beat sound for their Gaiety Records. Among the label's acts were 49th Parallel, out of Calgary; Souls of Inspyration, from Red Lake, Ont.; Solid Reputation, from Geraldton, Ont.; the Checkerlands and the White Knights, both from Regina; and NRG, the Plague, and Lexington Avenue, all from the Lakehead.
Some of their songs were recorded in Hollywood at the legendary Gold Star Studios, home to the Beach Boys, Neil Young, and Phil Spector's Wall of Sound.
None of the acts made the big time. Many of the singles sold poorly, perhaps lost in a glorious era of creativity in popular music, although collectors today will pay $100 U.S. or more for copies in good condition. A compilation CD released in 1995, titled The Gaiety Records Story, found a new audience for an under-appreciated sound.
Back in Thunder Bay, Mr. Grashey opened the eponymous DMG Sound Studio, a modest building which served as the promised land for local musicians dreaming of stardom. A typical hopeful was 15-year-old Kevin Waara, who remembers arriving at the studio on South Cumberland Street by city transit on a muggy June day in 1968. Wearing a Beatles T-shirt and bell-bottom jeans, the long-haired boy carried with him a reel-to-reel tape recorder on which he had recorded eight songs.
Mr. Grashey greeted him at the door by saying: "And what do we have here?" Instead of giving him the bum's rush, or telling him to get an agent, a haircut, or a job, Mr. Grashey introduced the lad to his partner before all three men retired across the street for a long talk at the Diamond Cafe.
As it turned out, the producers found the youth's songs to be too immature for the times, but they sent him away with encouragement. "Don't lose the spark," Mr. Williams advised.
Four years later, the pair recorded Mr. Waara's first four singles. Although one of those sold just 311 copies, his career continues today after three decades of performance.
Mr. Grashey's most fruitful collaboration was with Carroll Baker. Her first single, Mem'ries of Home, was released on Gaiety in 1970. Mr. Grashey managed and produced Ms. Baker for 14 years, even writing some of her early songs, such as Ten Little Fingers. She enjoyed more than a dozen No. 1 hits under his guidance before taking a new manager.
Mr. Grashey got Winnipeg singer Cindi Churko to take the stage name Cindi Cain on becoming her manager. (His own family name was Guarasci.) Cindi Cain and the Cheeters shared the stage with the likes of Tanya Tucker and Sawyer Brown.
Throughout his career, Mr. Grashey remained dedicated to finding and promoting Canadian talent. He found little to praise in the boom of New Country music. "It is loaded with clones and rock singers singing songs you can't remember," he complained in a letter to the editor of the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal.
While Mr. Grashey operated his own label (Golden Eagle Records) and publishing house, Mr. Williams had success with such singers as David Thompson on his Citation label.
Mr. Grashey was one of the original 25 inductees to the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame. He has also been named to the Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour at Edmonton and the RPM Canadian Music Industry Hall of Fame at Toronto.
Ms. Baker's schedule includes a concert in Thunder Bay next month during which she had planned to honour Mr. Grashey's upcoming 80th birthday by singing for him. Instead, she attended his funeral service at St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church at Thunder Bay, during which she sang Amazing Grace without musical accompaniment.
Donald Michael Grashey
was born on Nov. 1, 1925, in Port Arthur, Ont. He died in Thunder Bay on Sept. 12. He was 79. He leaves six sisters.
George Charles (Chuck) Williams was born on Jan. 21, 1930, in
Calgary. He died in Thunder Bay on Sept. 2. He was 75. He was
predeceased by his sister,
Stephanie Dragicevic, who died on Aug. 7; he entered hospital
the day after her death.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Sept. 24/05
Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing UncertaintyE-mail: medicine_editors@plos.orgPublished: August 30, 2005DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020272Copyright: © 2005 Public Library of Science. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain Declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.Citation: (2005) Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty. PLoS Med 2(8): e272--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The PLoS Medicine Editors"Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one."—Konrad Lorenz, Austria Scientific truth is a moving target. In the process of peer review, authors, reviewers, and editors work together to minimize the reporting of false results. However, even if one assumes no bias, wrongdoing, or ignorance on the part of any of the individuals involved—which is unrealistic, no doubt—chances are that some findings will turn out to be false. But is it inevitable, as John Ioannidis argues in an Essay in this issue of PLoS Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124), that the majority of findings are actually false?Although his calculations are based on assumptions about complex scenarios that we do not fully understand—as is true for most research projects—Ioannidis argues convincingly that manypublished findings will turn out to be false.Ioannidis is not the first to raise some of these concerns. Indeed, there are already initiatives under way that seek to address them. Increasingly, researchers design individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses using Bayesian statistics, in which the issue of pre-study odds is taken into account. And issues such as reducing sources of bias when assessing evidence are addressed in the methodology used by the Cochrane Collaboration in the production of its systematic reviews.Ioannidis doesn't define "findings," but it seems importantto attempt to separate data ("in this study 5% of people examinedwho lived in San Francisco from 1965–1970 developed lung cancercompared with 20% of people studied who lived in Anchorage") fromconclusions ("lung cancer rates are higher in Anchorage than SanFrancisco") and hypotheses ("cold weather exacerbates the consequences ofsmoking").Hypotheses will inevitably change, as they depend not only on the study but also on the context of other relevant research and knowledge. Conclusions are also often based on current knowledge and assumptions, and, thus, subject to change. The data should be more robust; for instance, other researchers applying the same methods to study the same group of patients at the same time should be able to generate the same data. However, research progress depends on conclusions being tested elsewhere. The major issue about the truth of research findings would therefore seem to concern the conclusions, and Ioannidis's claim that most conclusions are false is probably correct. Is that a problem? Can it be avoided?The possibility that most conclusions are false might be an inevitable part of the research endeavor. That said, researchers and those involved in publication of research must do what they can to reduce false conclusions.One way to do this is to delay publication until such a time when the chances that a conclusion is true are sufficiently high. If many published conclusions are false, we (editors and reviewers) need to ask ourselves whether we are setting the bar too low. But what is the consequence of setting it higher?Research progress depends on dissemination of results, and journal articles are the most effective tool we currently have to share them. The answer, therefore, cannot be that we wait until conclusions are proven beyond a doubt before we publish them. Publication of preliminary findings, negative studies, confirmations, and refutations is an essential part of the process of getting closer to the truth. Everyone involved in the generation and publication of research results needs to be open-minded, rigorous, and honest in designing experiments, analyzing results, reporting findings, peer-reviewing manuscripts, providing comments, and accepting that uncertainty exists in research.Ioannidis suggests how studies could be designed from the outset to increase their chances of producing true results. He also gives some corollaries that allow readers to get a sense of the extent of uncertainty for a particular study. He stresses that reliable evidence generally comes from several studies and from several teams of researchers, and that what matters is the totality of the evidence.What can editors do? At high-impact journals such as PLoS Medicine, we see it as our job to select important articles. This means the conclusions reported should be more rather than less likely to be true. But better measures of importance are that a study should address a substantial clinical or public- health question, in as rigorous a way as possible, and the findings should be likely to have an effect on how other researchers think about the question. In reporting studies, we ask that data are clearly delineated from conclusions, and conclusions from hypotheses. In addition to individual studies, editors should (and at PLoS Medicine we do) ensure there is a place for articles that synthesize evidence from different sources.Too often editors and reviewers reward only the cleanest results and the most straightforward conclusions. At PLoS Medicine, we seek to create a publication environment that is comfortable with uncertainty. We encourage authors to discuss biases, study limitations, and potential confounding factors. We acknowledge that most studies published should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, rather than conclusive. And we publish high-quality negative and confirmatory studies.We also accept some responsibility for educating consumers of research about the research process. Consumers also need to become comfortable with uncertainty, and understand the strengths and weaknesses intrinsic to every study conducted and published. Besides selecting papers and influencing how results are reported, we use the synopses and patient summaries to highlight uncertainties in research papers. We also encourage contributions such as the essay by Ioannidis to our magazine section that will help research producers and consumers to understand research findings in context. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020272===========================================================ok that's not good enough yet? How about addding this??Two-thirds of meta-analyses in the critical care literature are of poor quality23 Sep 2005 More than two thirds of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians have major methodological flaws and cannot be reliably used to guide clinical practice. Research published today in Critical Care concludes that the overall quality of meta-analyses in this field is poor, but has improved over time, possibly due to the publication of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement (QUOROM) in 1999. Anthony Delaney from the Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia, Chip Doig, from the University of Calgary, Canada, and colleagues, studied 139 reports of meta-analyses addressing critical care topics published between January 1994 and December 2003. They assessed whether data from the reports met any of nine of the criteria listed in the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire(OQAQ), the only instrument available to researchers to grade the quality of articles. The reports were given an overall score on a scale of 1-to 7 according to the results of this assessment, with a score of 1 to 4 indicating major flaws in the meta-analysis and a score of 5 or more indicating only minimal or minor flaws. Delaney et al.'s results show that 69% of the reports score below 4 and the average score was 3.3. The most common flaws were failure to report whether a comprehensive literature search was conducted and failure to report how bias in the inclusion of studies was avoided, with only 35% of studies fulfilling these criteria. Before the QUOROM statement, the proportion of reports adequately reporting the validity of the studies included in the meta-analysis was 39%, but it increased to 52% after publication of the statement. Delaney et al. found similar results in other areas such as emergency medicine, anaesthesia and general surgery. Physicians view meta-analyses as a highly reliable resource. This study shows that critical care clinicians should carefully evaluate meta-analyses before considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice. Article: A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta-analyses in the Critical Care Literature. Anthony Delaney, Sean M Bagshaw, Andre Ferland, Braden Manns, Kevin B Laupland, Christopher J DoigCritical Care, 2005 9:R575-R582 (9 September 2005) The article is available at: biomedcentral.com/content/qcpdf/cc3803.pdf (it's an oen source study which means everyone can read it at: http://ccforum.com/content/9/5/R575 )
Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing UncertaintyE-mail: medicine_editors@plos.orgPublished: August 30, 2005DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020272Copyright: © 2005 Public Library of Science. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain Declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.Citation: (2005) Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty. PLoS Med 2(8): e272--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The PLoS Medicine Editors"Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one."—Konrad Lorenz, Austria Scientific truth is a moving target. In the process of peer review, authors, reviewers, and editors work together to minimize the reporting of false results. However, even if one assumes no bias, wrongdoing, or ignorance on the part of any of the individuals involved—which is unrealistic, no doubt—chances are that some findings will turn out to be false. But is it inevitable, as John Ioannidis argues in an Essay in this issue of PLoS Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124), that the majority of findings are actually false?Although his calculations are based on assumptions about complex scenarios that we do not fully understand—as is true for most research projects—Ioannidis argues convincingly that manypublished findings will turn out to be false.Ioannidis is not the first to raise some of these concerns. Indeed, there are already initiatives under way that seek to address them. Increasingly, researchers design individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses using Bayesian statistics, in which the issue of pre-study odds is taken into account. And issues such as reducing sources of bias when assessing evidence are addressed in the methodology used by the Cochrane Collaboration in the production of its systematic reviews.Ioannidis doesn't define "findings," but it seems importantto attempt to separate data ("in this study 5% of people examinedwho lived in San Francisco from 1965–1970 developed lung cancercompared with 20% of people studied who lived in Anchorage") fromconclusions ("lung cancer rates are higher in Anchorage than SanFrancisco") and hypotheses ("cold weather exacerbates the consequences ofsmoking").Hypotheses will inevitably change, as they depend not only on the study but also on the context of other relevant research and knowledge. Conclusions are also often based on current knowledge and assumptions, and, thus, subject to change. The data should be more robust; for instance, other researchers applying the same methods to study the same group of patients at the same time should be able to generate the same data. However, research progress depends on conclusions being tested elsewhere. The major issue about the truth of research findings would therefore seem to concern the conclusions, and Ioannidis's claim that most conclusions are false is probably correct. Is that a problem? Can it be avoided?The possibility that most conclusions are false might be an inevitable part of the research endeavor. That said, researchers and those involved in publication of research must do what they can to reduce false conclusions.One way to do this is to delay publication until such a time when the chances that a conclusion is true are sufficiently high. If many published conclusions are false, we (editors and reviewers) need to ask ourselves whether we are setting the bar too low. But what is the consequence of setting it higher?Research progress depends on dissemination of results, and journal articles are the most effective tool we currently have to share them. The answer, therefore, cannot be that we wait until conclusions are proven beyond a doubt before we publish them. Publication of preliminary findings, negative studies, confirmations, and refutations is an essential part of the process of getting closer to the truth. Everyone involved in the generation and publication of research results needs to be open-minded, rigorous, and honest in designing experiments, analyzing results, reporting findings, peer-reviewing manuscripts, providing comments, and accepting that uncertainty exists in research.Ioannidis suggests how studies could be designed from the outset to increase their chances of producing true results. He also gives some corollaries that allow readers to get a sense of the extent of uncertainty for a particular study. He stresses that reliable evidence generally comes from several studies and from several teams of researchers, and that what matters is the totality of the evidence.What can editors do? At high-impact journals such as PLoS Medicine, we see it as our job to select important articles. This means the conclusions reported should be more rather than less likely to be true. But better measures of importance are that a study should address a substantial clinical or public- health question, in as rigorous a way as possible, and the findings should be likely to have an effect on how other researchers think about the question. In reporting studies, we ask that data are clearly delineated from conclusions, and conclusions from hypotheses. In addition to individual studies, editors should (and at PLoS Medicine we do) ensure there is a place for articles that synthesize evidence from different sources.Too often editors and reviewers reward only the cleanest results and the most straightforward conclusions. At PLoS Medicine, we seek to create a publication environment that is comfortable with uncertainty. We encourage authors to discuss biases, study limitations, and potential confounding factors. We acknowledge that most studies published should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, rather than conclusive. And we publish high-quality negative and confirmatory studies.We also accept some responsibility for educating consumers of research about the research process. Consumers also need to become comfortable with uncertainty, and understand the strengths and weaknesses intrinsic to every study conducted and published. Besides selecting papers and influencing how results are reported, we use the synopses and patient summaries to highlight uncertainties in research papers. We also encourage contributions such as the essay by Ioannidis to our magazine section that will help research producers and consumers to understand research findings in context. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020272===========================================================ok that's not good enough yet? How about addding this??Two-thirds of meta-analyses in the critical care literature are of poor quality23 Sep 2005 More than two thirds of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians have major methodological flaws and cannot be reliably used to guide clinical practice. Research published today in Critical Care concludes that the overall quality of meta-analyses in this field is poor, but has improved over time, possibly due to the publication of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement (QUOROM) in 1999. Anthony Delaney from the Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia, Chip Doig, from the University of Calgary, Canada, and colleagues, studied 139 reports of meta-analyses addressing critical care topics published between January 1994 and December 2003. They assessed whether data from the reports met any of nine of the criteria listed in the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire(OQAQ), the only instrument available to researchers to grade the quality of articles. The reports were given an overall score on a scale of 1-to 7 according to the results of this assessment, with a score of 1 to 4 indicating major flaws in the meta-analysis and a score of 5 or more indicating only minimal or minor flaws. Delaney et al.'s results show that 69% of the reports score below 4 and the average score was 3.3. The most common flaws were failure to report whether a comprehensive literature search was conducted and failure to report how bias in the inclusion of studies was avoided, with only 35% of studies fulfilling these criteria. Before the QUOROM statement, the proportion of reports adequately reporting the validity of the studies included in the meta-analysis was 39%, but it increased to 52% after publication of the statement. Delaney et al. found similar results in other areas such as emergency medicine, anaesthesia and general surgery. Physicians view meta-analyses as a highly reliable resource. This study shows that critical care clinicians should carefully evaluate meta-analyses before considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice. Article: A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta-analyses in the Critical Care Literature. Anthony Delaney, Sean M Bagshaw, Andre Ferland, Braden Manns, Kevin B Laupland, Christopher J DoigCritical Care, 2005 9:R575-R582 (9 September 2005) The article is available at: biomedcentral.com/content/qcpdf/cc3803.pdf (it's an oen source study which means everyone can read it at: http://ccforum.com/content/9/5/R575 )
Mayor and council Madison Sept. 23/05
I believe it is the right for those of us that believe in all the freedoms we have in this country to support the business of their choice, and to avoid businesses they wish to. I also believe workers should not have to work in an enviorment that is unhealthy, and that they should have the freedom to work where they want, and for the business they wish to work for. I also believe that a private business should be able to cater to the part of the market that they wish. In saying this, can anyone, explain to me, with this smoking ban now in effect: If I wish to have a restaurant, or a bar in the city limits of Madison and cater to only smokers (or just non smokers for that matter) how can it be the business of the city council to tell me I can't? If I was given the opportunity to open a smokers restaurant, or bar and followed these steps:
1. Post all entrances to my business as a smoking enviorment.
2. Clearly state in all advertisements that it is a smoking enviorment.
3. Have all potential employees read a handout on the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke, sign that they understand it, and that they would be working in a smoking enviorment.
How would I be infringing on non-smokers freedom of choice? Would this not be the proper way to have a business in a free enterprise society?
The government can not protect you 24 hrs a day, especially at the cost of infringing on the freedoms of others.
I believe it is the right for those of us that believe in all the freedoms we have in this country to support the business of their choice, and to avoid businesses they wish to. I also believe workers should not have to work in an enviorment that is unhealthy, and that they should have the freedom to work where they want, and for the business they wish to work for. I also believe that a private business should be able to cater to the part of the market that they wish. In saying this, can anyone, explain to me, with this smoking ban now in effect: If I wish to have a restaurant, or a bar in the city limits of Madison and cater to only smokers (or just non smokers for that matter) how can it be the business of the city council to tell me I can't? If I was given the opportunity to open a smokers restaurant, or bar and followed these steps:
1. Post all entrances to my business as a smoking enviorment.
2. Clearly state in all advertisements that it is a smoking enviorment.
3. Have all potential employees read a handout on the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke, sign that they understand it, and that they would be working in a smoking enviorment.
How would I be infringing on non-smokers freedom of choice? Would this not be the proper way to have a business in a free enterprise society?
The government can not protect you 24 hrs a day, especially at the cost of infringing on the freedoms of others.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
The Ultimate Public Health Shield Sept. 23/05
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091405E.html
A PETITION from the public health movement, including the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Public Health Association, the American Cancer Society, and of every organization generally connected to negating risk and choice at the expense of individual freedom and personal responsibility*
To the Honorable Leaders of the G8:
Gentlemen:
We are on the right track. We have persuaded a large portion of this Earth's governing bodies to reject sensible risk assessment, freedom of choice, and any semblance of personal responsibility when it comes to issues of the "public health." Toward that end, we have expanded "public health" to include not only threats to which no reasonable person would subject himself -- communicable diseases, for example -- but also risky behaviors we find distasteful, even when those who engage in them know full well the risks. We've done this by citing the costs of said behaviors to society, mostly in terms of health care costs.
At the same time, we have succeeded in socializing health care in most of the developed world. In so doing, we've created a system where everyone has a stake in everyone else's well-being. This makes our end goal of controlling and manipulating personal behavior much easier to implement.
When naysayers question what business the government has in regulating alcohol consumption, weight, or caffeine consumption, for example, we can merely point to how much public money a state effort to modify personal behavior will save in public health care costs. Thanks to socialized medicine, we've managed to make even the most private of behaviors subject to government regulation!
Our triumphs are considerable: We have banned all public smoking in Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Australia, Iran, Montenegro, Malta, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, and Uganda. Even in America, once a bastion of so-called "personal freedom," we've secured bans in eight states and hundreds of counties and cities, effectively canceling out America's anachronistic, unhealthy addiction to principles like the "freedom of association," or "property rights." Even New York City -- icon of American ingenuity and self-reliance -- has not only banned smoking, but sends dedicated public health soldiers into private offices to issue citations for illegal possession of ashtrays. New York is currently considering a proposal to ban trans-fats from all of the city's restaurants!
Which brings us to obesity. In a world where about a billion people are still at risk of starvation, we have successfully persuaded policymakers in developed nations to show great concern and consternation over obesity -- a testament to our considerable success at framing public debate. We've managed to get public officials to declare that what people eat and how often they exercise not only a "disease," but a disease that's now a "global epidemic." In America, we've convinced public officials of this looming catastrophe even as life expectancy has reached all-time highs, and deaths from the country's three biggest killers have dropped dramatically in recent years.
Our zealous application of the precautionary principle and generous definition of "public good" has persuaded governments to pass laws regulating a wide range of personal behavior, including seat belt use, helmet use, alcohol consumption, food advertising and marketing, consumption of high-fat or high-sugar foods, gun ownership, indoor and outdoor smoking, use of dietary supplements, use of narcotics, use of marijuana, use of some medications, production and consumption of genetically modified foods, and, on more local levels, a panoply of other risky behaviors, bad habits, and unhealthy choices. We estimate our tireless, costly, and invasive efforts to curb undesirable behavior will in the end add weeks, perhaps months, to the tail-end of hundreds of thousands of lives.
While hammering away at "the number of lives this will save" has brought us great success in enacting restrictive public policy, we've also actually persuaded Important Officials to sacrifice lives when doing so benefits the overall public health -- even if said benefit is merely symbolic. For example, our constant haranguing of genetically modified foods convinced the Zambian government to reject 15,000 tons of GM emergency food aid despite the fact that 3 million people there were at risk of starvation! Clearly, a high-point in the influence of our movement.
All of that said, there's one rival to public health we've yet to stymie.
The entire world is subject to the ruinous effects of this demon, whose devastation can affect single individuals, entire communities, or, perhaps one day, every living being on Earth. It causes 3 million cases of skin cancer each year, 132,000 of them melanoma. It can be blamed for drought, famine, global warming, and thousands of incidents of heat-related mortality. According to the World Health Organization, a 10 percent decrease in ozone protection could affect an additional 4,500 annual melanoma cases. The heat this devil generates causes the wasteful use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to power air conditioning. Those same fossil fuels then work with the demon's rays to contribute to global warming!
This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on public health so mercilessly, we suspect he is being stirred against it by perfidious industry, perhaps the coal and oil industries who benefit from copious use of electricity-powered air conditioning and refrigeration, the sunblock industry, or the tourism industry, which crassly sells his radiant poison for crude profit, sometimes going so far as to imply that "rest and relaxation" beneath his crushing stare would effect benefits to health! So great is his threat, scientists say it one day may bring the end to all of humanity!
The only question, then, is why has government waited this long to act?
It's time we did something about the sun. And while we would of course support the usual public health roadmap to eradicating such a threat -- demonizing the tropical tourism, tanning bed, and tanning oil industries as "melanoma peddlers," passing laws holding parents criminally liable for childhood sunburn, and so on -- we have something grander in mind.
We ask you to be so good as to pass a binding treaty among G8 members calling for unprecedented international cooperation to construct an extra-terrestrial shade-casting contrivance of ample size to shield all of Earth of this nuisance's warmth-wrapped, light-disguised cancer rays. That is, we'd like to block out the sun.
Be good enough, honorable World Leaders, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, the public refuses to sensibly heed our warnings to shield themselves from ultraviolet radiation. Recent studies show that though the public is fully aware of the risks of skin cancer that accompany exposure to the sun, high percentages of the populace still insist on frequenting beaches, parks, and partaking in other dangerous outdoor activities. What's worse, some even choose to imbibe of the sun's temptuous but lethal product in "tanning beds," which replicate the sun's intoxicating effects when actual sunlight is nowhere to be found. It's clear, in fact, that many of these poor souls are addicted to suntanning.
Dependence of course is indicative of an individual no longer exercising so-called "free choice," he is wholly at the will of those supplying his "fix." As is the case with marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, in these cases, government is obligated to choose for those individuals who show they can no longer choose for themselves -- not just to save them from themselves, but to save society from the health costs associated with their poor choices. Those who continue to choose "sun n' fun" despite clear evidence that such choices lead to cancer aren't acting rationally. They're a drain on public resources. A serious approach to public health suggests the only remedy is to remove the "sun n' fun" option entirely.
Second, incidence of skin cancer is on the rise. Naysayers suggest this is because technology has enabled better screening and detection. We prefer to think of it differently: Incidence is on the rise despite technology that has enabled us to identify what causes skin cancer, and our urgent pleas to avoid it.
Third, children are disproportionately affected by exposure to the sun. This project should be undertaken for the children. We feel no further argument on this point is necessary.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen: but there is not a single one of them you have not picked up from the musty old books of the Big Business or libertarian advocates of "personal responsibility." We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principles behind policies you've already enacted in your respective countries.
Will you tell us that this is too expensive, or impractical to implement?
You've all engaged in a costly, impractical War on Drugs that has attempted to eradicate the use of abundant mind-altering substances, some of which man has been consuming with regularity from the time he first discovered their properties. You throw tens of billions of dollars at this "war" each year.
All told between you, you've likely spent more than $1 trillion. That you fail to make any progress year after year only inspires you to spend more. Our proposal is no less practical nor less frugal than your enduring drug prohibition (which of course we support).
"But," you may still say, "unlike recreational drugs, sunlight is necessary for life. Agriculture would wither in its absence. Humans produce Vitamin D from its rays, and can scarcely survive without it."
Of course, the same necessity argument could be made of food. Yet many of your lawmakers are considering or have already passed a "fat tax" on people who consume it to excess, or on foods you've determined are unnecessary, due, you say, to the public health costs associated with obesity (we agree, by the way). We'll offer the same bargain: The device will be equipped to allow some sunlight to pass, but only to targeted areas of the planet.
Farmers, sunbathers, and other solar consumers would pay a "sun tax" for access to these areas, the proceeds of which would be earmarked for the treatment of victims of melanoma and anti-tanning education programs, to offset the public health costs associated with harmful exposure to sunlight.
Finally, you might argue that banning sunlight to stave off melanoma could have considerable unintended consequences. The energy cycle would almost certainly be inalterably disrupted, causing possible mass famine, starvation, and death. "Why should we condemn millions to death," you might say, "in an effort to save a few thousand melanoma cases, or to prevent future draughts, heat waves, or global warming that may or may not ever actually happen?"
But you take similar precautions all the time. In the interests of safety, you routinely hold up progress that could benefit millions because you worry about the effects new ideas might have on dozens. Your government regulatory agencies overseeing medicine and new medical technology, for example, routinely prevent or delay access to drugs and treatments that could save hundreds of thousands of lives out of concern for the effects they may have on hundreds, or fewer. You refuse to let your citizens take their own risks when it comes to medicine, why should we let them take their own risk when it comes to sun exposure?
To the esteemed G8 leaders from Europe, you oppose (correctly, we believe) the development of genetically modified foods that almost certainly would save millions of lives the world over because of the remote possibility that such crops may, in theory, someday wreak some sort of environmental catastrophe, despite assertions from nearly every reputable scientific agency that the odds of such a catastrophe are near infinitesimal.
Our proposal to shield the Earth from the rays of the sun is in truth no significant departure from public policies you already undertake: your zealous application of the precautionary principle, your usurpation of individual rights for the public good, and/or your previous efforts to eradicate bad habits and unhealthy choices in the interests of socialized medicine.
In sum, we see no reason you shouldn't adopt our proposal forthwith, and begin construction on a device that will shield the Earth from the cancerous rays of the sun.
(*Petition made possible by a generous grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation…. With apologies to Frederic Bastiat.)http://www.techcentralstation.com/091405E.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091405E.html
A PETITION from the public health movement, including the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Public Health Association, the American Cancer Society, and of every organization generally connected to negating risk and choice at the expense of individual freedom and personal responsibility*
To the Honorable Leaders of the G8:
Gentlemen:
We are on the right track. We have persuaded a large portion of this Earth's governing bodies to reject sensible risk assessment, freedom of choice, and any semblance of personal responsibility when it comes to issues of the "public health." Toward that end, we have expanded "public health" to include not only threats to which no reasonable person would subject himself -- communicable diseases, for example -- but also risky behaviors we find distasteful, even when those who engage in them know full well the risks. We've done this by citing the costs of said behaviors to society, mostly in terms of health care costs.
At the same time, we have succeeded in socializing health care in most of the developed world. In so doing, we've created a system where everyone has a stake in everyone else's well-being. This makes our end goal of controlling and manipulating personal behavior much easier to implement.
When naysayers question what business the government has in regulating alcohol consumption, weight, or caffeine consumption, for example, we can merely point to how much public money a state effort to modify personal behavior will save in public health care costs. Thanks to socialized medicine, we've managed to make even the most private of behaviors subject to government regulation!
Our triumphs are considerable: We have banned all public smoking in Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Australia, Iran, Montenegro, Malta, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, and Uganda. Even in America, once a bastion of so-called "personal freedom," we've secured bans in eight states and hundreds of counties and cities, effectively canceling out America's anachronistic, unhealthy addiction to principles like the "freedom of association," or "property rights." Even New York City -- icon of American ingenuity and self-reliance -- has not only banned smoking, but sends dedicated public health soldiers into private offices to issue citations for illegal possession of ashtrays. New York is currently considering a proposal to ban trans-fats from all of the city's restaurants!
Which brings us to obesity. In a world where about a billion people are still at risk of starvation, we have successfully persuaded policymakers in developed nations to show great concern and consternation over obesity -- a testament to our considerable success at framing public debate. We've managed to get public officials to declare that what people eat and how often they exercise not only a "disease," but a disease that's now a "global epidemic." In America, we've convinced public officials of this looming catastrophe even as life expectancy has reached all-time highs, and deaths from the country's three biggest killers have dropped dramatically in recent years.
Our zealous application of the precautionary principle and generous definition of "public good" has persuaded governments to pass laws regulating a wide range of personal behavior, including seat belt use, helmet use, alcohol consumption, food advertising and marketing, consumption of high-fat or high-sugar foods, gun ownership, indoor and outdoor smoking, use of dietary supplements, use of narcotics, use of marijuana, use of some medications, production and consumption of genetically modified foods, and, on more local levels, a panoply of other risky behaviors, bad habits, and unhealthy choices. We estimate our tireless, costly, and invasive efforts to curb undesirable behavior will in the end add weeks, perhaps months, to the tail-end of hundreds of thousands of lives.
While hammering away at "the number of lives this will save" has brought us great success in enacting restrictive public policy, we've also actually persuaded Important Officials to sacrifice lives when doing so benefits the overall public health -- even if said benefit is merely symbolic. For example, our constant haranguing of genetically modified foods convinced the Zambian government to reject 15,000 tons of GM emergency food aid despite the fact that 3 million people there were at risk of starvation! Clearly, a high-point in the influence of our movement.
All of that said, there's one rival to public health we've yet to stymie.
The entire world is subject to the ruinous effects of this demon, whose devastation can affect single individuals, entire communities, or, perhaps one day, every living being on Earth. It causes 3 million cases of skin cancer each year, 132,000 of them melanoma. It can be blamed for drought, famine, global warming, and thousands of incidents of heat-related mortality. According to the World Health Organization, a 10 percent decrease in ozone protection could affect an additional 4,500 annual melanoma cases. The heat this devil generates causes the wasteful use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to power air conditioning. Those same fossil fuels then work with the demon's rays to contribute to global warming!
This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on public health so mercilessly, we suspect he is being stirred against it by perfidious industry, perhaps the coal and oil industries who benefit from copious use of electricity-powered air conditioning and refrigeration, the sunblock industry, or the tourism industry, which crassly sells his radiant poison for crude profit, sometimes going so far as to imply that "rest and relaxation" beneath his crushing stare would effect benefits to health! So great is his threat, scientists say it one day may bring the end to all of humanity!
The only question, then, is why has government waited this long to act?
It's time we did something about the sun. And while we would of course support the usual public health roadmap to eradicating such a threat -- demonizing the tropical tourism, tanning bed, and tanning oil industries as "melanoma peddlers," passing laws holding parents criminally liable for childhood sunburn, and so on -- we have something grander in mind.
We ask you to be so good as to pass a binding treaty among G8 members calling for unprecedented international cooperation to construct an extra-terrestrial shade-casting contrivance of ample size to shield all of Earth of this nuisance's warmth-wrapped, light-disguised cancer rays. That is, we'd like to block out the sun.
Be good enough, honorable World Leaders, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, the public refuses to sensibly heed our warnings to shield themselves from ultraviolet radiation. Recent studies show that though the public is fully aware of the risks of skin cancer that accompany exposure to the sun, high percentages of the populace still insist on frequenting beaches, parks, and partaking in other dangerous outdoor activities. What's worse, some even choose to imbibe of the sun's temptuous but lethal product in "tanning beds," which replicate the sun's intoxicating effects when actual sunlight is nowhere to be found. It's clear, in fact, that many of these poor souls are addicted to suntanning.
Dependence of course is indicative of an individual no longer exercising so-called "free choice," he is wholly at the will of those supplying his "fix." As is the case with marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, in these cases, government is obligated to choose for those individuals who show they can no longer choose for themselves -- not just to save them from themselves, but to save society from the health costs associated with their poor choices. Those who continue to choose "sun n' fun" despite clear evidence that such choices lead to cancer aren't acting rationally. They're a drain on public resources. A serious approach to public health suggests the only remedy is to remove the "sun n' fun" option entirely.
Second, incidence of skin cancer is on the rise. Naysayers suggest this is because technology has enabled better screening and detection. We prefer to think of it differently: Incidence is on the rise despite technology that has enabled us to identify what causes skin cancer, and our urgent pleas to avoid it.
Third, children are disproportionately affected by exposure to the sun. This project should be undertaken for the children. We feel no further argument on this point is necessary.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen: but there is not a single one of them you have not picked up from the musty old books of the Big Business or libertarian advocates of "personal responsibility." We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principles behind policies you've already enacted in your respective countries.
Will you tell us that this is too expensive, or impractical to implement?
You've all engaged in a costly, impractical War on Drugs that has attempted to eradicate the use of abundant mind-altering substances, some of which man has been consuming with regularity from the time he first discovered their properties. You throw tens of billions of dollars at this "war" each year.
All told between you, you've likely spent more than $1 trillion. That you fail to make any progress year after year only inspires you to spend more. Our proposal is no less practical nor less frugal than your enduring drug prohibition (which of course we support).
"But," you may still say, "unlike recreational drugs, sunlight is necessary for life. Agriculture would wither in its absence. Humans produce Vitamin D from its rays, and can scarcely survive without it."
Of course, the same necessity argument could be made of food. Yet many of your lawmakers are considering or have already passed a "fat tax" on people who consume it to excess, or on foods you've determined are unnecessary, due, you say, to the public health costs associated with obesity (we agree, by the way). We'll offer the same bargain: The device will be equipped to allow some sunlight to pass, but only to targeted areas of the planet.
Farmers, sunbathers, and other solar consumers would pay a "sun tax" for access to these areas, the proceeds of which would be earmarked for the treatment of victims of melanoma and anti-tanning education programs, to offset the public health costs associated with harmful exposure to sunlight.
Finally, you might argue that banning sunlight to stave off melanoma could have considerable unintended consequences. The energy cycle would almost certainly be inalterably disrupted, causing possible mass famine, starvation, and death. "Why should we condemn millions to death," you might say, "in an effort to save a few thousand melanoma cases, or to prevent future draughts, heat waves, or global warming that may or may not ever actually happen?"
But you take similar precautions all the time. In the interests of safety, you routinely hold up progress that could benefit millions because you worry about the effects new ideas might have on dozens. Your government regulatory agencies overseeing medicine and new medical technology, for example, routinely prevent or delay access to drugs and treatments that could save hundreds of thousands of lives out of concern for the effects they may have on hundreds, or fewer. You refuse to let your citizens take their own risks when it comes to medicine, why should we let them take their own risk when it comes to sun exposure?
To the esteemed G8 leaders from Europe, you oppose (correctly, we believe) the development of genetically modified foods that almost certainly would save millions of lives the world over because of the remote possibility that such crops may, in theory, someday wreak some sort of environmental catastrophe, despite assertions from nearly every reputable scientific agency that the odds of such a catastrophe are near infinitesimal.
Our proposal to shield the Earth from the rays of the sun is in truth no significant departure from public policies you already undertake: your zealous application of the precautionary principle, your usurpation of individual rights for the public good, and/or your previous efforts to eradicate bad habits and unhealthy choices in the interests of socialized medicine.
In sum, we see no reason you shouldn't adopt our proposal forthwith, and begin construction on a device that will shield the Earth from the cancerous rays of the sun.
(*Petition made possible by a generous grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation…. With apologies to Frederic Bastiat.)http://www.techcentralstation.com/091405E.html
Friday, September 16, 2005
Dear Editor, Sept. 16/05
There are absolutely no scientific studies showing any degree of long term harm from exposure to the levels of smoke one would normally encounter in a decently ventilated modern bar or restaurant environment."
As noted by Michael J. McFadden,The Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
There are absolutely no scientific studies showing any degree of long term harm from exposure to the levels of smoke one would normally encounter in a decently ventilated modern bar or restaurant environment."
As noted by Michael J. McFadden,The Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
http://www.mysouthernalberta.com/thunderbay/publish/article_70.php
letters@nashvillecitypaper.com
DON GRASHEY DIED..A FRIEND OF LORETTA LYNN
Dear Editor, Sept. 15/05
The two men who discovered country music star Loretta Lynn, and then helped turn Thunder Bay into a thriving music industry town, have died within days of each other. Don Grashey, 79, died in Thunder Bay on Sunday, while his former co-producer Chuck Williams, 75, died in Vancouver on Sept. 2. Grashey was inducted into the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame in 1989 and was known as a paternal figure for many up-and-coming country singers. “I’m in a bit of shock,” Thunder Bay singer Kevin Waara said Tuesday. He met Williams and Grashey in 1968, when he was 15 years old and trying to make it in the music business. Williams told him to keep at it, and in 1972 the two label heads co-produced Waara’s first record. “They basically are the reason that I am in the music business,” Waara said. “I can’t believe it . . . eight days apart passing on like that.” Grashey and Williams met in a Port Arthur restaurant in 1958 and teamed up to create their own record label. They heard Lynn singing in Vancouver in 1959 and thought she sounded like Kitty Wells. The pair offered her a chance to cut I’m A Honky Tonk Girl on their Zero Records label, and the song launched the music legend’s career. Along with Lynn, the pair went on to manage and co-produce records for Carroll Baker, Myrna Lorrie, Jerry Palmer and The Jarvis Street Revue. Baker, contacted at her home in Guelph, said Grashey and Williams “started my career for me.” “The music business lost two very great people, very honest and hardworking and sincere,” she said, fighting back tears. She described Williams as “the gregarious guy” and one of her best friends, while Grashey was “the gruff, introverted one” who was like a father to her. “I think they probably complemented each other’s personalities,” Baker said. Grashey wrote Baker’s first big hit, Ten Little Fingers, which was recorded in Nashville and reached No. 3 in Canada in 1973 at a time before there were Canadian content rules. “Don would not give up in the face of all adversity, when everybody thought, ‘Oh my gosh, another girl singer,’” said Baker. “Coming out of Thunder Bay, of all places, nobody believed it could happen.” They saw their dreams come true in 1976 when Baker received a standing ovation at the Juno awards for her rendition of I’ve Never Been This Far Before. Grashey and Williams immediately signed a deal for her with RCA Records. Baker is to return to Thunder Bay on Oct. 15 for a benefit concert, and said she’d hoped both Williams and Grashey could attend to turn the event into a reunion. “Chuck said ‘If I have to crawl, I’ll be there,’” said Baker about the last time the two spoke. She’d also planned to sing to Grashey for his approaching 80th birthday, and said she’s devastated at losing both of them so close to the event. As a songwriter, Grashey’s repertoire included Are You Mine? The song has been recorded by numerous artists including Ernest Tubb and Red Sovine. In 1995, Grashey’s autobiography, My Rambling Heart, was co-written with Joseph Mauro.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
letters@nashvillecitypaper.com
DON GRASHEY DIED..A FRIEND OF LORETTA LYNN
Dear Editor, Sept. 15/05
The two men who discovered country music star Loretta Lynn, and then helped turn Thunder Bay into a thriving music industry town, have died within days of each other. Don Grashey, 79, died in Thunder Bay on Sunday, while his former co-producer Chuck Williams, 75, died in Vancouver on Sept. 2. Grashey was inducted into the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame in 1989 and was known as a paternal figure for many up-and-coming country singers. “I’m in a bit of shock,” Thunder Bay singer Kevin Waara said Tuesday. He met Williams and Grashey in 1968, when he was 15 years old and trying to make it in the music business. Williams told him to keep at it, and in 1972 the two label heads co-produced Waara’s first record. “They basically are the reason that I am in the music business,” Waara said. “I can’t believe it . . . eight days apart passing on like that.” Grashey and Williams met in a Port Arthur restaurant in 1958 and teamed up to create their own record label. They heard Lynn singing in Vancouver in 1959 and thought she sounded like Kitty Wells. The pair offered her a chance to cut I’m A Honky Tonk Girl on their Zero Records label, and the song launched the music legend’s career. Along with Lynn, the pair went on to manage and co-produce records for Carroll Baker, Myrna Lorrie, Jerry Palmer and The Jarvis Street Revue. Baker, contacted at her home in Guelph, said Grashey and Williams “started my career for me.” “The music business lost two very great people, very honest and hardworking and sincere,” she said, fighting back tears. She described Williams as “the gregarious guy” and one of her best friends, while Grashey was “the gruff, introverted one” who was like a father to her. “I think they probably complemented each other’s personalities,” Baker said. Grashey wrote Baker’s first big hit, Ten Little Fingers, which was recorded in Nashville and reached No. 3 in Canada in 1973 at a time before there were Canadian content rules. “Don would not give up in the face of all adversity, when everybody thought, ‘Oh my gosh, another girl singer,’” said Baker. “Coming out of Thunder Bay, of all places, nobody believed it could happen.” They saw their dreams come true in 1976 when Baker received a standing ovation at the Juno awards for her rendition of I’ve Never Been This Far Before. Grashey and Williams immediately signed a deal for her with RCA Records. Baker is to return to Thunder Bay on Oct. 15 for a benefit concert, and said she’d hoped both Williams and Grashey could attend to turn the event into a reunion. “Chuck said ‘If I have to crawl, I’ll be there,’” said Baker about the last time the two spoke. She’d also planned to sing to Grashey for his approaching 80th birthday, and said she’s devastated at losing both of them so close to the event. As a songwriter, Grashey’s repertoire included Are You Mine? The song has been recorded by numerous artists including Ernest Tubb and Red Sovine. In 1995, Grashey’s autobiography, My Rambling Heart, was co-written with Joseph Mauro.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Ban the smoking ban
By Observer Viewpoint
Published: Wednesday, September 7, 2005
'Following a disturbing trend among local governments, the St. Joseph County Council is considering a proposed ban on smoking in "public places" - namely private establishments such as restaurants and bars. Not only is this type of legislation misguided, we believe it exemplifies the worst of petty dictatorships that are currently slithering across the United States.The argument that banning smoking saves lives is misleading. In 2004, over 42,000 people died from driving on American highways. Every two hours, a person is killed by fire. However, we have yet to hear of any local government initiatives to ban either driving or fire. This is true because such initiatives would be absurd, and the proposed smoking ban is no different.The issue is not a health issue. It is an issue of the government vs. the property rights of business owners. Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed for long periods of time. From that same reasoning, however, working in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice. In fact, despite what the St. Joseph County Council would have us believe, there are over 130 local restaurants that have already opted to be "smoke-free." These restaurants, easily found online in the "Healthy Community Smoke-Free Dining Guide," have freely chosen to disallow tobacco smoke without the coercion of an overzealous County Council.The authority to ban unhealthy behavior on private property is a dangerous power to grant any government, especially a local government. First, smoking is illegal in bars. Next, it is illegal in parks - outside. Soon, police may be knocking on our doors to make sure we do not smoke at all. Is that the future we want for America? Contrary to popular belief, there are alternative methods of encouraging smoke-free establishments. Offering incentives, such as tax breaks or a streamlined licensing process, is a viable option that is more conducive to promoting smoke-free businesses while simultaneously preserving the liberties of business owners. Reducing restrictive bureaucracy and lowering tax barriers would encourage major economic development in the area, which in turn would lead to more jobs and opportunities - in short, a healthier community.Therefore, we the undersigned believe that the people of St. Joseph County and members of the St. Joseph County Council should oppose this legislation. St. Joseph County needs more economic growth, not more laws.
College Libertarians
University of Notre Dame
Sept. 6';
By Observer Viewpoint
Published: Wednesday, September 7, 2005
'Following a disturbing trend among local governments, the St. Joseph County Council is considering a proposed ban on smoking in "public places" - namely private establishments such as restaurants and bars. Not only is this type of legislation misguided, we believe it exemplifies the worst of petty dictatorships that are currently slithering across the United States.The argument that banning smoking saves lives is misleading. In 2004, over 42,000 people died from driving on American highways. Every two hours, a person is killed by fire. However, we have yet to hear of any local government initiatives to ban either driving or fire. This is true because such initiatives would be absurd, and the proposed smoking ban is no different.The issue is not a health issue. It is an issue of the government vs. the property rights of business owners. Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed for long periods of time. From that same reasoning, however, working in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice. In fact, despite what the St. Joseph County Council would have us believe, there are over 130 local restaurants that have already opted to be "smoke-free." These restaurants, easily found online in the "Healthy Community Smoke-Free Dining Guide," have freely chosen to disallow tobacco smoke without the coercion of an overzealous County Council.The authority to ban unhealthy behavior on private property is a dangerous power to grant any government, especially a local government. First, smoking is illegal in bars. Next, it is illegal in parks - outside. Soon, police may be knocking on our doors to make sure we do not smoke at all. Is that the future we want for America? Contrary to popular belief, there are alternative methods of encouraging smoke-free establishments. Offering incentives, such as tax breaks or a streamlined licensing process, is a viable option that is more conducive to promoting smoke-free businesses while simultaneously preserving the liberties of business owners. Reducing restrictive bureaucracy and lowering tax barriers would encourage major economic development in the area, which in turn would lead to more jobs and opportunities - in short, a healthier community.Therefore, we the undersigned believe that the people of St. Joseph County and members of the St. Joseph County Council should oppose this legislation. St. Joseph County needs more economic growth, not more laws.
College Libertarians
University of Notre Dame
Sept. 6';
My friends..Don Grashey and Chuck Williams Sept. 13/05
http://www.mysouthernalberta.com/thunderbay/publish/article_70.php
music legends dieBy jonathon wilsonSep 13, 2005,
THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL
The two men who discovered country music star Loretta Lynn, and then helped turn Thunder Bay into a thriving music industry town, have died within days of each other. Don Grashey, 79, died in Thunder Bay on Sunday, while his former co-producer Chuck Williams, 75, died in Vancouver on Sept. 2. Grashey was inducted into the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame in 1989 and was known as a paternal figure for many up-and-coming country singers.“I’m in a bit of shock,” Thunder Bay singer Kevin Waara said Tuesday. He met Williams and Grashey in 1968, when he was 15 years old and trying to make it in the music business.Williams told him to keep at it, and in 1972 the two label heads co-produced Waara’s first record. “They basically are the reason that I am in the music business,” Waara said. “I can’t believe it . . . eight days apart passing on like that.”Grashey and Williams met in a Port Arthur restaurant in 1958 and teamed up to create their own record label.They heard Lynn singing in Vancouver in 1959 and thought she sounded like Kitty Wells. The pair offered her a chance to cut I’m A Honky Tonk Girl on their Zero Records label, and the song launched the music legend’s career.Along with Lynn, the pair went on to manage and co-produce records for Carroll Baker, Myrna Lorrie, Jerry Palmer and The Jarvis Street Revue.Baker, contacted at her home in Guelph, said Grashey and Williams “started my career for me.”“The music business lost two very great people, very honest and hardworking and sincere,” she said, fighting back tears.She described Williams as “the gregarious guy” and one of her best friends, while Grashey was “the gruff, introverted one” who was like a father to her.“I think they probably complemented each other’s personalities,” Baker said.Grashey wrote Baker’s first big hit, Ten Little Fingers, which was recorded in Nashville and reached No. 3 in Canada in 1973 at a time before there were Canadian content rules.“Don would not give up in the face of all adversity, when everybody thought, ‘Oh my gosh, another girl singer,’” said Baker. “Coming out of Thunder Bay, of all places, nobody believed it could happen.”They saw their dreams come true in 1976 when Baker received a standing ovation at the Juno awards for her rendition of I’ve Never Been This Far Before. Grashey and Williams immediately signed a deal for her with RCA Records.Baker is to return to Thunder Bay on Oct. 15 for a benefit concert, and said she’d hoped both Williams and Grashey could attend to turn the event into a reunion.“Chuck said ‘If I have to crawl, I’ll be there,’” said Baker about the last time the two spoke.She’d also planned to sing to Grashey for his approaching 80th birthday, and said she’s devastated at losing both of them so close to the event. As a songwriter, Grashey’s repertoire included Are You Mine? The song has been recorded by numerous artists including Ernest Tubb and Red Sovine.In 1995, Grashey’s autobiography, My Rambling Heart, was co-written with Joseph Mauro.
http://www.mysouthernalberta.com/thunderbay/publish/article_70.php
music legends dieBy jonathon wilsonSep 13, 2005,
THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL
The two men who discovered country music star Loretta Lynn, and then helped turn Thunder Bay into a thriving music industry town, have died within days of each other. Don Grashey, 79, died in Thunder Bay on Sunday, while his former co-producer Chuck Williams, 75, died in Vancouver on Sept. 2. Grashey was inducted into the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame in 1989 and was known as a paternal figure for many up-and-coming country singers.“I’m in a bit of shock,” Thunder Bay singer Kevin Waara said Tuesday. He met Williams and Grashey in 1968, when he was 15 years old and trying to make it in the music business.Williams told him to keep at it, and in 1972 the two label heads co-produced Waara’s first record. “They basically are the reason that I am in the music business,” Waara said. “I can’t believe it . . . eight days apart passing on like that.”Grashey and Williams met in a Port Arthur restaurant in 1958 and teamed up to create their own record label.They heard Lynn singing in Vancouver in 1959 and thought she sounded like Kitty Wells. The pair offered her a chance to cut I’m A Honky Tonk Girl on their Zero Records label, and the song launched the music legend’s career.Along with Lynn, the pair went on to manage and co-produce records for Carroll Baker, Myrna Lorrie, Jerry Palmer and The Jarvis Street Revue.Baker, contacted at her home in Guelph, said Grashey and Williams “started my career for me.”“The music business lost two very great people, very honest and hardworking and sincere,” she said, fighting back tears.She described Williams as “the gregarious guy” and one of her best friends, while Grashey was “the gruff, introverted one” who was like a father to her.“I think they probably complemented each other’s personalities,” Baker said.Grashey wrote Baker’s first big hit, Ten Little Fingers, which was recorded in Nashville and reached No. 3 in Canada in 1973 at a time before there were Canadian content rules.“Don would not give up in the face of all adversity, when everybody thought, ‘Oh my gosh, another girl singer,’” said Baker. “Coming out of Thunder Bay, of all places, nobody believed it could happen.”They saw their dreams come true in 1976 when Baker received a standing ovation at the Juno awards for her rendition of I’ve Never Been This Far Before. Grashey and Williams immediately signed a deal for her with RCA Records.Baker is to return to Thunder Bay on Oct. 15 for a benefit concert, and said she’d hoped both Williams and Grashey could attend to turn the event into a reunion.“Chuck said ‘If I have to crawl, I’ll be there,’” said Baker about the last time the two spoke.She’d also planned to sing to Grashey for his approaching 80th birthday, and said she’s devastated at losing both of them so close to the event. As a songwriter, Grashey’s repertoire included Are You Mine? The song has been recorded by numerous artists including Ernest Tubb and Red Sovine.In 1995, Grashey’s autobiography, My Rambling Heart, was co-written with Joseph Mauro.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The Publican Sept 13/05
No proof of second-hand smoke dangerous to the employees
You say it is impossible to prove that there is a danger to an employee from secondry smoking at work in a pub.
Surely, it is a basic requirement, to justify a removal of the freedom of choice of a section of the population to participate in a legal activity, to prove that it is justified?
As you have pointed out, that with a little thought, it can be seen that the evidence that employees are at risk from secondry smoke cannot be produced.
THIS is the only justification the government puts forward for a ban. THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES not customers or the public.
As YOU have said this is an unprovable fact.
If it was provable or indeed a threat to health then employers could be forced by existing legislation to protect their staff.
This is the big flaw in this whole farce of unneccessary removal of freedoms.
If there was a provable danger to employees health then it would be easy to enforce protection without a ban.
All it would need would be one successful prosecution of a licensee to prove in court the THRUTH of the danger, to justify protection.
So this brings me back to the original premis that the reason a ban is being sought is that the danger cannot be proved. If the risk cannot be proved then logically why is the ban needed?
The reason that no one can answer that question is because of the basic lie that the ban is for the protection of staff.
It isn't! It is for a pre- ordaided and undemocratically decided social engineering experiment as a result of collusion between WHO and governments.
THIS is the much much bigger danger.The threat to our freedoms not the unproven threat to our health. The perceived threat is the tool used to introduce controls and remove the freedoms of a population. Surely it does not require much intelligence to see that this is what is happening?
The dangers of smoking can and should be be reduced to a minimum by education not enforcement in a free and democratic society.
If secondry smoking is so dangerous that it justifies a ban then smoking must be so much more dangerous. Therefor the colusion of governments to take taxes form its sale must be tantermount to negligence on their part and therefore they should be liable to accountability for not banning tobacco sales completely.
Surely of tobacco IS so dangerous then that must justify a complete ban.
So why hasn't it????
No proof of second-hand smoke dangerous to the employees
You say it is impossible to prove that there is a danger to an employee from secondry smoking at work in a pub.
Surely, it is a basic requirement, to justify a removal of the freedom of choice of a section of the population to participate in a legal activity, to prove that it is justified?
As you have pointed out, that with a little thought, it can be seen that the evidence that employees are at risk from secondry smoke cannot be produced.
THIS is the only justification the government puts forward for a ban. THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES not customers or the public.
As YOU have said this is an unprovable fact.
If it was provable or indeed a threat to health then employers could be forced by existing legislation to protect their staff.
This is the big flaw in this whole farce of unneccessary removal of freedoms.
If there was a provable danger to employees health then it would be easy to enforce protection without a ban.
All it would need would be one successful prosecution of a licensee to prove in court the THRUTH of the danger, to justify protection.
So this brings me back to the original premis that the reason a ban is being sought is that the danger cannot be proved. If the risk cannot be proved then logically why is the ban needed?
The reason that no one can answer that question is because of the basic lie that the ban is for the protection of staff.
It isn't! It is for a pre- ordaided and undemocratically decided social engineering experiment as a result of collusion between WHO and governments.
THIS is the much much bigger danger.The threat to our freedoms not the unproven threat to our health. The perceived threat is the tool used to introduce controls and remove the freedoms of a population. Surely it does not require much intelligence to see that this is what is happening?
The dangers of smoking can and should be be reduced to a minimum by education not enforcement in a free and democratic society.
If secondry smoking is so dangerous that it justifies a ban then smoking must be so much more dangerous. Therefor the colusion of governments to take taxes form its sale must be tantermount to negligence on their part and therefore they should be liable to accountability for not banning tobacco sales completely.
Surely of tobacco IS so dangerous then that must justify a complete ban.
So why hasn't it????
Monday, September 12, 2005
http://www.opacan.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?Action=Articles&Command=2005-08&Search=cigs
August 2005
Monday 12 September 2005 - 12:14:31 PM EDT
Anti-Smoking Stats-Scam
by Karen Patrick
Don't You Just Hate It When People Lie to You?
It is said that Rodrigo de Jerez, fellow explorer with Columbus in 1492, brought back the first tobacco to Europe. When he happily lit a cigar in the streets of his hometown, he was promptly arrested by the Spanish Inquisition and sentenced to seven years. Hence, the first anti-smoking demagogues were born. Today, it is not robed priests at the head of a column of pitch-fork, torch bearing mobs who come for smokers, it is government zealots and healthcare fanatics. Just as the Inquisitors twisted fact and logic to justify their ends, so too do the health preachers of the new millennium.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Since 1987 the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has used the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC) application to estimate the disease impact of smoking for the nation, states, and large populations. Health Canada uses a SAMMEC formula too. SAM refers to Smoking-Attributable Mortality.
The anti-tobacco lobby has turned smoking into the “leading preventable cause of death.” This is accomplished by estimating mortality from extrapolated data of whole classes of common illness (SAMMEC - see sidebar). Where the sum of deceased smokers and former smokers indicate any statistical percentage above calculated averages, that disease or illness is then considered caused by smoking. No regard is given to other major factors in each death such as obesity, family history, workplace environment, lifestyle and complicating health issues. This has allowed a dramatic expansion of the familiar list of lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema to now include the likes of: hypertension, cervix uteri cancer, kidney cancer, pneumonia, influenza, and sudden infant death syndrome. In some reports, even deadly house fires accidentally set by a match or lighter (Smoking Related Materials) are added to the body count of Smoking-Attributable Mortality (SAM).
Deaths
SAM
SAM %
Year
218,900
44,763
20.5
1996
223,500
44,944
20.1
1994 But even these wide-net statistics fail to produce a smokers death rate higher than 20%-22% when compared to the total mortality data (StatsCan). This despite an active smoking population (one or more cigarettes a day) of about 18%-21% (Health Canada). The average age of smokers who die is 72 years old. The bulk of deaths are above age 65. By any reasonable standard these are natural life spans. Yet, even today Health Canada warns that more than 45,000 people will die in Canada due to smoking in 2005. Despite that seemingly large number, it still represents only 20% of all deaths -- which would be reasonably expected. All told, about a third of smokers who die each year, succumb to lung cancer -- most at well above retirement age. The other two thirds die from causes that only anti-tobacco crusaders could possibly attribute to smoking, through their complex SAMMEC statistical correlations.
The Second-Hand Smoke Gambit
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research. The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. -- 2003.
Health Canada projects 1,000 non-smoking Canadians will die in 2005 as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke. Of those, 300 will die from lung cancer. But, this represents barely over one tenth of one percent (0.13%) of the mortality rate. By comparison non-smokers with lung cancer, with no correlated exposure to second-hand smoke, comprise 1.3% of deaths. This is a whopping ten times higher than for cases said to be caused by second-hand smoke. By further comparison, heart disease generally represents over 26% of deaths annually and flu mortality is about 3.6%. The total 1,000 second-hand smoke fatalities comprise just under half a percent (0.4%) of all deaths. Despite all the dire warnings, very few deaths are statistically linked to second-hand smoke even with the use of projections similar to SAMMEC and SAM. Only a few major long-term studies with any real credibility have been conducted in the world. The results, which showed no correlation existed between health and second-hand smoke, were summarily suppressed.
A Big Score With their newly minted statistical correlations, much accelerated since 1980, governments across the United States and Canada have reaped billions of dollars in new revenues.
US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop calls for a smoke-free society by the year 2000. It is the beginning of the most fanatical anti-smoking onslaught in modern history -- 1984.
Deals were struck to take huge portions of tobacco profits to funnel into state coffers, much of which went to non-healthcare related items.
Canadians in particular have faced extreme taxation on cigarettes in the name of health, only to find their money has been used for general government spending.
American lawyers have made obscene piles of money from large shares of successful settlements in litigation against tobacco companies. A few awards still in appeals total in the billions of dollars.
Smokers continue to face an unrelenting campaign to marginalize their lives and ban them from public places.
Pregnant mothers who smoke are accused of killing their unborn children, dubbed "Cigarette Babies" which will inevitably lead to calls for the criminalization of smoking mothers who experience a miscarriage.
Parents are chillingly told it is child abuse to smoke at anytime in their own home, car, or anywhere near children.
Clothes which smell of tobacco smoke are said by some to be toxic and should be handled as hazardous materials.
Smoking bans are being introduced in some outdoor public parks and beaches, despite often visible urban smog and automobile exhaust.
Seeking Tobacco Sanity
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.-- Albert Einstein
Considering the statistical slight of hand created by the anti-smoking crusaders, it is time to move forward by undoing the considerable damage they have caused to real science and the credibility of government. Simply put, it is time to repeal all anti-smoking bans, limitations and undue taxation imposed upon tobacco and its use, except where open flame poses an imminent fire or explosion hazard. This may not be a popular move today under the shadow of a constant onslaught of wild anti-smoking claims, but it would be an honest policy. More importantly, it is the only reasonable response to protect the public from these modern day Inquisitors.
*Quoted percentages are based on direct Health Canada and Statistics Canada data. Where a direct data comparison is not available, calculations are based on an average of annual deaths and a population estimate of 32,300,000 Canadians in 2005.
-- Opacan.net
August 2005
Monday 12 September 2005 - 12:14:31 PM EDT
Anti-Smoking Stats-Scam
by Karen Patrick
Don't You Just Hate It When People Lie to You?
It is said that Rodrigo de Jerez, fellow explorer with Columbus in 1492, brought back the first tobacco to Europe. When he happily lit a cigar in the streets of his hometown, he was promptly arrested by the Spanish Inquisition and sentenced to seven years. Hence, the first anti-smoking demagogues were born. Today, it is not robed priests at the head of a column of pitch-fork, torch bearing mobs who come for smokers, it is government zealots and healthcare fanatics. Just as the Inquisitors twisted fact and logic to justify their ends, so too do the health preachers of the new millennium.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Since 1987 the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has used the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC) application to estimate the disease impact of smoking for the nation, states, and large populations. Health Canada uses a SAMMEC formula too. SAM refers to Smoking-Attributable Mortality.
The anti-tobacco lobby has turned smoking into the “leading preventable cause of death.” This is accomplished by estimating mortality from extrapolated data of whole classes of common illness (SAMMEC - see sidebar). Where the sum of deceased smokers and former smokers indicate any statistical percentage above calculated averages, that disease or illness is then considered caused by smoking. No regard is given to other major factors in each death such as obesity, family history, workplace environment, lifestyle and complicating health issues. This has allowed a dramatic expansion of the familiar list of lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema to now include the likes of: hypertension, cervix uteri cancer, kidney cancer, pneumonia, influenza, and sudden infant death syndrome. In some reports, even deadly house fires accidentally set by a match or lighter (Smoking Related Materials) are added to the body count of Smoking-Attributable Mortality (SAM).
Deaths
SAM
SAM %
Year
218,900
44,763
20.5
1996
223,500
44,944
20.1
1994 But even these wide-net statistics fail to produce a smokers death rate higher than 20%-22% when compared to the total mortality data (StatsCan). This despite an active smoking population (one or more cigarettes a day) of about 18%-21% (Health Canada). The average age of smokers who die is 72 years old. The bulk of deaths are above age 65. By any reasonable standard these are natural life spans. Yet, even today Health Canada warns that more than 45,000 people will die in Canada due to smoking in 2005. Despite that seemingly large number, it still represents only 20% of all deaths -- which would be reasonably expected. All told, about a third of smokers who die each year, succumb to lung cancer -- most at well above retirement age. The other two thirds die from causes that only anti-tobacco crusaders could possibly attribute to smoking, through their complex SAMMEC statistical correlations.
The Second-Hand Smoke Gambit
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research. The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. -- 2003.
Health Canada projects 1,000 non-smoking Canadians will die in 2005 as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke. Of those, 300 will die from lung cancer. But, this represents barely over one tenth of one percent (0.13%) of the mortality rate. By comparison non-smokers with lung cancer, with no correlated exposure to second-hand smoke, comprise 1.3% of deaths. This is a whopping ten times higher than for cases said to be caused by second-hand smoke. By further comparison, heart disease generally represents over 26% of deaths annually and flu mortality is about 3.6%. The total 1,000 second-hand smoke fatalities comprise just under half a percent (0.4%) of all deaths. Despite all the dire warnings, very few deaths are statistically linked to second-hand smoke even with the use of projections similar to SAMMEC and SAM. Only a few major long-term studies with any real credibility have been conducted in the world. The results, which showed no correlation existed between health and second-hand smoke, were summarily suppressed.
A Big Score With their newly minted statistical correlations, much accelerated since 1980, governments across the United States and Canada have reaped billions of dollars in new revenues.
US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop calls for a smoke-free society by the year 2000. It is the beginning of the most fanatical anti-smoking onslaught in modern history -- 1984.
Deals were struck to take huge portions of tobacco profits to funnel into state coffers, much of which went to non-healthcare related items.
Canadians in particular have faced extreme taxation on cigarettes in the name of health, only to find their money has been used for general government spending.
American lawyers have made obscene piles of money from large shares of successful settlements in litigation against tobacco companies. A few awards still in appeals total in the billions of dollars.
Smokers continue to face an unrelenting campaign to marginalize their lives and ban them from public places.
Pregnant mothers who smoke are accused of killing their unborn children, dubbed "Cigarette Babies" which will inevitably lead to calls for the criminalization of smoking mothers who experience a miscarriage.
Parents are chillingly told it is child abuse to smoke at anytime in their own home, car, or anywhere near children.
Clothes which smell of tobacco smoke are said by some to be toxic and should be handled as hazardous materials.
Smoking bans are being introduced in some outdoor public parks and beaches, despite often visible urban smog and automobile exhaust.
Seeking Tobacco Sanity
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.-- Albert Einstein
Considering the statistical slight of hand created by the anti-smoking crusaders, it is time to move forward by undoing the considerable damage they have caused to real science and the credibility of government. Simply put, it is time to repeal all anti-smoking bans, limitations and undue taxation imposed upon tobacco and its use, except where open flame poses an imminent fire or explosion hazard. This may not be a popular move today under the shadow of a constant onslaught of wild anti-smoking claims, but it would be an honest policy. More importantly, it is the only reasonable response to protect the public from these modern day Inquisitors.
*Quoted percentages are based on direct Health Canada and Statistics Canada data. Where a direct data comparison is not available, calculations are based on an average of annual deaths and a population estimate of 32,300,000 Canadians in 2005.
-- Opacan.net
Friday, September 09, 2005
Sept. 8/05
Seattle Times
Letter to the Editor
RE: Research shows secondhand-smoke exposure can harm a fetus
Dear Editor:
cc: Stuart Eskenazi
Hospitality establishments' decisions to become smoke free are their choice, because they are private property. As long as we respect the right-to-choice, free trade will flourish. However, it is not the responsibility of government to intrude upon private property rights. That said, smoke-free venues will find themselves also harmed by Initiative 901, as they will loose their competitive edge to consumers. No longer will they have the advantage of catering to those who prefer a non-smoking environment.
I am very skeptical about claims that inhaling tobacco smoke, either personally or indirectly, can be declared harmful to pregnant women's unborn babies. Isn't it amazing that a tremendous percentage of the largest segment of our population, the Baby Boomers, had mothers who smoked during pregnancy and were exposed to smoke all the while they were growing up. Yet, this group is reaching retirement age with increased life expectancy.
It seems children now are less healthy than their parents and grandparents were. Asthma and breathing difficulties are increasing, in spite of smoking bans and reduced overall smoking for over 20 years now.
I also question any study from the CDC, describing the harms of passive smoke. Accepting their statistics and reports about smoking without question is the equivalent of believing a study from WWII's Third Reich, proving Caucasian race superiority.
Sincerely,
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002476411_healthsmoke07.html?syndication=rss&source=seattletimes.xml&items=149
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Research shows secondhand-smoke exposure can harm a fetus
By Stuart Eskenazi
Seattle Times staff reporter
Trish Kump enjoyed working behind the bar at the Tides Tavern in Gig Harbor, pouring drinks in front of a lineup of ashtrays — and the smoking customers who used them.
An air purifier helped suck up some of the errant smoke, but not all of it. Newly pregnant, Kump began thinking about a story told to her by a pregnant co-worker at the Tides: After her first visit to her obstetrician, the doctor was convinced that Kump's co-worker was a smoker, when in fact she had never touched a cigarette in her life.
Kump began eyeing those ashtrays more perilously, concerned about her exposure to secondhand smoke and the consequences to her health and that of her unborn child.
"It's not like I could just walk away from the smoke," Kump said. "The bar, where most people smoke, was my designated area to work."
Doctors routinely warn expectant mothers about the dangers of secondhand smoke — that it can increase the risk for miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight and premature birth. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke might be every bit as damaging to a fetus as if the mother were inhaling the smoke directly from a cigarette.
"The perception has been that smoking is the major problem and secondhand smoke is something we deal with down the road," said Stephen Grant, author of the study and an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh. "But here we have absolute evidence that passive exposure to cigarette smoke can cause just as much damage as if the mother was doing the smoking herself."
Science's smoking gunsNew research suggests that a pregnant mother's exposure to secondhand smoke can be just as harmful to her fetus as if she were the one smoking.
Pregnancy dangers: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking during pregnancy is considered the single most preventable cause of illness and death among mothers and infants.
• Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely than nonsmokers to have a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg is implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes.
• Up to 8 percent of all babies who die less than a week after birth die because of problems caused by their mothers' smoking during pregnancy.
• Babies born to smokers are 1.5 to 3.5 times more likely to have low birth weights than babies born to nonsmoking mothers. Low-birth weight babies are at risk for serious health problems throughout their lives.
Increased risks: According to an article in the online journal Pregnancy Today, studies have shown that smoking during pregnancy can increase the baby's risk of developing meningitis; asthma; oral cleft; stomach difficulties; sleep problems; and attention, motor control and perception disorders.
For the full article of the Grant study, go to: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/5/20/abstract
Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Pregnancy Today
Fearing that, Kump thought about quitting her job at the popular waterfront tavern and restaurant until after her baby's birth, but she did not have to. Management at the Tides had approached owner Peter Stanley about turning his place into a smoke-free establishment. Customers were demanding it. Instead of enduring the smoke, some were leaving if they could not be seated in the nonsmoking area, which often was full.
Stanley's desire to give his customers what they wanted compelled him to ban smoking at the Tides in 2002. But something else was nagging at him, too.
"I had three staffers who were pregnant, and that was a very important part of the deliberation," Stanley said. "It was on my mind a lot. So when my manager said it was time to go smoke-free, I said, 'Great!'
"We've known for generations that cigarettes are bad for you, so it's not too much of a leap of faith to believe that secondhand smoke also is bad. I can't quote the science behind it, but it's logical."
Grant, the Pittsburgh scientist, discovered that secondhand smoke can cause genetic mutations — those that can lead to leukemia and lymphoma — that are indistinguishable from those found when the mother is the smoker.
His research, published earlier this summer in the online journal BMC Pediatrics, is based on the examination of umbilical-cord blood samples from newborns. The research is a reanalysis of three studies that downplayed or ignored the effects of secondhand smoke.
Grant said he hopes the study will alter the mind-sets of pregnant women, motivating them to be even more cautious, while also encouraging smokers to be more conscientious of those around them. And if the research is used to toughen laws on public smoking, so be it, Grant said.
The study provides fodder for Initiative 901, a statewide ballot measure this November that would expand smoking bans to all public buildings and vehicles, extending them to restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, skating rinks, cardrooms and minicasinos. The ban also would include areas within 25 feet of doorways, windows and ventilation intakes.
Peter McCollum, Yes on I-901 spokesman, said the dangers of secondhand smoke on pregnancy will be part of the campaign, which he said "focuses on everyone's right to breathe clean indoor air."
Like the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant, expectant mothers — and their partners — also are getting the message on secondhand smoke. When women visit obstetricians at Swedish Medical Center for the first time, they leave with a notebook on what to anticipate during their pregnancy and once the baby is born. The information includes a list of things to avoid, with secondhand smoke high on the list.
"We don't soft-pedal the message; we reinforce it," said Katy Brock, a perinatal clinical nurse specialist at Swedish. "The way we present the information is that smoking is a definite risk and that secondhand smoke is also a risk and causes significant problems. We don't frame it as if one is less risky than the other."
At a childbirth-preparation class at Swedish's campus in Ballard, couple Lindsay Woltjer and Greg Rauch said they significantly changed their lifestyles once Woltjer became pregnant.
"The facts are out there," Rauch said. "She was a smoker, as was I. That stopped. And we don't go out to smoky bars or restaurants anymore."
The couple seeks out places that do not allow smoking anywhere in the building.
"You can only avoid so much," Rauch said. "I've had a couple barbecues at the house this summer. If my buddies light up, Lindsay will go to the other side of the patio or go inside."
Sarah Duncan, who is taking the same class, works in a bar in Fremont five times a week. She has cut down on her smoking, from a pack and a half to one or two cigarettes a day, and made changes to reduce her exposure to secondhand smoke.
"I bought lots of fans for the bar because we don't have air-conditioning or anything like that," Duncan said. "I also have cut down on my night shifts and moved to days, when the bar is pretty much dead and not as smoky."
Grant said he hopes his research sends a message to parents — and to smokers who puff in public.
"A woman who goes to great lengths to quit smoking, trying to protect her baby, may think she has done 90 percent of the job by quitting," he said. "Unfortunately, if we as a society don't address that other 10 percent that reaches her through passive exposure, then that mother hasn't protected her baby like she thinks."
Stuart Eskenazi: 206-464-2293 or seskenazi@seattletimes.com
Seattle Times
Letter to the Editor
RE: Research shows secondhand-smoke exposure can harm a fetus
Dear Editor:
cc: Stuart Eskenazi
Hospitality establishments' decisions to become smoke free are their choice, because they are private property. As long as we respect the right-to-choice, free trade will flourish. However, it is not the responsibility of government to intrude upon private property rights. That said, smoke-free venues will find themselves also harmed by Initiative 901, as they will loose their competitive edge to consumers. No longer will they have the advantage of catering to those who prefer a non-smoking environment.
I am very skeptical about claims that inhaling tobacco smoke, either personally or indirectly, can be declared harmful to pregnant women's unborn babies. Isn't it amazing that a tremendous percentage of the largest segment of our population, the Baby Boomers, had mothers who smoked during pregnancy and were exposed to smoke all the while they were growing up. Yet, this group is reaching retirement age with increased life expectancy.
It seems children now are less healthy than their parents and grandparents were. Asthma and breathing difficulties are increasing, in spite of smoking bans and reduced overall smoking for over 20 years now.
I also question any study from the CDC, describing the harms of passive smoke. Accepting their statistics and reports about smoking without question is the equivalent of believing a study from WWII's Third Reich, proving Caucasian race superiority.
Sincerely,
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002476411_healthsmoke07.html?syndication=rss&source=seattletimes.xml&items=149
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Research shows secondhand-smoke exposure can harm a fetus
By Stuart Eskenazi
Seattle Times staff reporter
Trish Kump enjoyed working behind the bar at the Tides Tavern in Gig Harbor, pouring drinks in front of a lineup of ashtrays — and the smoking customers who used them.
An air purifier helped suck up some of the errant smoke, but not all of it. Newly pregnant, Kump began thinking about a story told to her by a pregnant co-worker at the Tides: After her first visit to her obstetrician, the doctor was convinced that Kump's co-worker was a smoker, when in fact she had never touched a cigarette in her life.
Kump began eyeing those ashtrays more perilously, concerned about her exposure to secondhand smoke and the consequences to her health and that of her unborn child.
"It's not like I could just walk away from the smoke," Kump said. "The bar, where most people smoke, was my designated area to work."
Doctors routinely warn expectant mothers about the dangers of secondhand smoke — that it can increase the risk for miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight and premature birth. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke might be every bit as damaging to a fetus as if the mother were inhaling the smoke directly from a cigarette.
"The perception has been that smoking is the major problem and secondhand smoke is something we deal with down the road," said Stephen Grant, author of the study and an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh. "But here we have absolute evidence that passive exposure to cigarette smoke can cause just as much damage as if the mother was doing the smoking herself."
Science's smoking gunsNew research suggests that a pregnant mother's exposure to secondhand smoke can be just as harmful to her fetus as if she were the one smoking.
Pregnancy dangers: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking during pregnancy is considered the single most preventable cause of illness and death among mothers and infants.
• Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely than nonsmokers to have a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg is implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes.
• Up to 8 percent of all babies who die less than a week after birth die because of problems caused by their mothers' smoking during pregnancy.
• Babies born to smokers are 1.5 to 3.5 times more likely to have low birth weights than babies born to nonsmoking mothers. Low-birth weight babies are at risk for serious health problems throughout their lives.
Increased risks: According to an article in the online journal Pregnancy Today, studies have shown that smoking during pregnancy can increase the baby's risk of developing meningitis; asthma; oral cleft; stomach difficulties; sleep problems; and attention, motor control and perception disorders.
For the full article of the Grant study, go to: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/5/20/abstract
Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Pregnancy Today
Fearing that, Kump thought about quitting her job at the popular waterfront tavern and restaurant until after her baby's birth, but she did not have to. Management at the Tides had approached owner Peter Stanley about turning his place into a smoke-free establishment. Customers were demanding it. Instead of enduring the smoke, some were leaving if they could not be seated in the nonsmoking area, which often was full.
Stanley's desire to give his customers what they wanted compelled him to ban smoking at the Tides in 2002. But something else was nagging at him, too.
"I had three staffers who were pregnant, and that was a very important part of the deliberation," Stanley said. "It was on my mind a lot. So when my manager said it was time to go smoke-free, I said, 'Great!'
"We've known for generations that cigarettes are bad for you, so it's not too much of a leap of faith to believe that secondhand smoke also is bad. I can't quote the science behind it, but it's logical."
Grant, the Pittsburgh scientist, discovered that secondhand smoke can cause genetic mutations — those that can lead to leukemia and lymphoma — that are indistinguishable from those found when the mother is the smoker.
His research, published earlier this summer in the online journal BMC Pediatrics, is based on the examination of umbilical-cord blood samples from newborns. The research is a reanalysis of three studies that downplayed or ignored the effects of secondhand smoke.
Grant said he hopes the study will alter the mind-sets of pregnant women, motivating them to be even more cautious, while also encouraging smokers to be more conscientious of those around them. And if the research is used to toughen laws on public smoking, so be it, Grant said.
The study provides fodder for Initiative 901, a statewide ballot measure this November that would expand smoking bans to all public buildings and vehicles, extending them to restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, skating rinks, cardrooms and minicasinos. The ban also would include areas within 25 feet of doorways, windows and ventilation intakes.
Peter McCollum, Yes on I-901 spokesman, said the dangers of secondhand smoke on pregnancy will be part of the campaign, which he said "focuses on everyone's right to breathe clean indoor air."
Like the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant, expectant mothers — and their partners — also are getting the message on secondhand smoke. When women visit obstetricians at Swedish Medical Center for the first time, they leave with a notebook on what to anticipate during their pregnancy and once the baby is born. The information includes a list of things to avoid, with secondhand smoke high on the list.
"We don't soft-pedal the message; we reinforce it," said Katy Brock, a perinatal clinical nurse specialist at Swedish. "The way we present the information is that smoking is a definite risk and that secondhand smoke is also a risk and causes significant problems. We don't frame it as if one is less risky than the other."
At a childbirth-preparation class at Swedish's campus in Ballard, couple Lindsay Woltjer and Greg Rauch said they significantly changed their lifestyles once Woltjer became pregnant.
"The facts are out there," Rauch said. "She was a smoker, as was I. That stopped. And we don't go out to smoky bars or restaurants anymore."
The couple seeks out places that do not allow smoking anywhere in the building.
"You can only avoid so much," Rauch said. "I've had a couple barbecues at the house this summer. If my buddies light up, Lindsay will go to the other side of the patio or go inside."
Sarah Duncan, who is taking the same class, works in a bar in Fremont five times a week. She has cut down on her smoking, from a pack and a half to one or two cigarettes a day, and made changes to reduce her exposure to secondhand smoke.
"I bought lots of fans for the bar because we don't have air-conditioning or anything like that," Duncan said. "I also have cut down on my night shifts and moved to days, when the bar is pretty much dead and not as smoky."
Grant said he hopes his research sends a message to parents — and to smokers who puff in public.
"A woman who goes to great lengths to quit smoking, trying to protect her baby, may think she has done 90 percent of the job by quitting," he said. "Unfortunately, if we as a society don't address that other 10 percent that reaches her through passive exposure, then that mother hasn't protected her baby like she thinks."
Stuart Eskenazi: 206-464-2293 or seskenazi@seattletimes.com
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Corpus Christi, Caller-Times
You can vote against government meddling
I support the rights of restaurant owners to decide the issue in their restaurants.
By James A. SkrobarcekAugust 25, 2005
The ongoing debate over the smoking prohibition has had at least one positive result. It has caused us to think about the concept of individual liberty, property rights and how much we mean to allow the government to control our lives. I am not a proponent of smoking. I am a proponent of liberty and freedom.
That government is best which governs least. That's as true today as it was when Thomas Jefferson first wrote it. We have always taken that to heart in Texas, a frontier state that, since its founding, has been suspicious of too much government. It is why our Legislature meets only 140 days every other year. (And some think that's too much.)
Texans have always had an independent streak. Our state constitution reserves more rights for its citizens than does U.S. law. I don't think the men who fought at the Alamo or San Jacinto thought they were fighting to establish governmental macro-management of business.
The true danger, said the British statesman Edmund Burke, is when liberty is nibbled away.
In some parts of the country, the right to barbecue is limited. In some neighborhoods, the American flag can't be flown. In some cities, eminent domain can be used to take private land and give it to someone else so that they can make money from it. Little by little, our rights are being nibbled away.
When do we say "enough"? Is it when your neighbor's rights are taken or yours? Another great thinker, the lawyer Clarence Darrow, said that you can only protect your liberties by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free," he said, "if I am free."
Let the marketplace decide
Here in Corpus Christi, if you take away a restaurant owner's freedom, you abridge your own. Market forces should govern the market. In this city, most of the restaurants are non-smoking. Why? Because the marketplace has spoken. In those few restaurants where smoking is allowed, it is because the owner has a tacit agreement with his clientele to allow it.
Believe me, if those owners thought they would make more money by banning smoking, there would be no smoking. The prohibitionists are fond of saying, "Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins." To which I respond, "Your nasal rights end where the restaurant property begins."
It's simple. If you don't want to smell smoke at a particular restaurant, don't go there. You have lots of choices. If you don't want to live around industrial smog, don't live near the ship channel. Don't take away restaurant owners' rights to protect your whim.
I don't buy the phony argument of the prohibitionists that the "poor wait staff" are "forced" to work in smoking restaurants. Slavery and indentured servitude do not exist in this country. The classified ads provide restaurant workers with ample opportunity to obtain unobjectionable work environments.
Tolerance is the key to co-existence of diverse groups. We shouldn't want a homogenized society. Our diversity is part of our strength.
I support the rights of restaurant owners to ban or not to ban smoking in their restaurants. But it should be their decision to make, not yours or mine. Must the prohibitionists force all the restaurants to meet only their preference?
Nearly 70 percent of the people who signed the petition for this vote are non-smokers. But they are non-smokers who believe that the government is too much in our lives already. The no-smoking ordinance election is on Sept. 10, but early voting is going on now. Vote to preserve liberty, diversity and freedom in Corpus Christi. Vote against the ordinance.
James A. Skrobarcek, an attorney, represented groups opposed to the city ordinance banning smoking in restaurants.
You can vote against government meddling
I support the rights of restaurant owners to decide the issue in their restaurants.
By James A. SkrobarcekAugust 25, 2005
The ongoing debate over the smoking prohibition has had at least one positive result. It has caused us to think about the concept of individual liberty, property rights and how much we mean to allow the government to control our lives. I am not a proponent of smoking. I am a proponent of liberty and freedom.
That government is best which governs least. That's as true today as it was when Thomas Jefferson first wrote it. We have always taken that to heart in Texas, a frontier state that, since its founding, has been suspicious of too much government. It is why our Legislature meets only 140 days every other year. (And some think that's too much.)
Texans have always had an independent streak. Our state constitution reserves more rights for its citizens than does U.S. law. I don't think the men who fought at the Alamo or San Jacinto thought they were fighting to establish governmental macro-management of business.
The true danger, said the British statesman Edmund Burke, is when liberty is nibbled away.
In some parts of the country, the right to barbecue is limited. In some neighborhoods, the American flag can't be flown. In some cities, eminent domain can be used to take private land and give it to someone else so that they can make money from it. Little by little, our rights are being nibbled away.
When do we say "enough"? Is it when your neighbor's rights are taken or yours? Another great thinker, the lawyer Clarence Darrow, said that you can only protect your liberties by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free," he said, "if I am free."
Let the marketplace decide
Here in Corpus Christi, if you take away a restaurant owner's freedom, you abridge your own. Market forces should govern the market. In this city, most of the restaurants are non-smoking. Why? Because the marketplace has spoken. In those few restaurants where smoking is allowed, it is because the owner has a tacit agreement with his clientele to allow it.
Believe me, if those owners thought they would make more money by banning smoking, there would be no smoking. The prohibitionists are fond of saying, "Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins." To which I respond, "Your nasal rights end where the restaurant property begins."
It's simple. If you don't want to smell smoke at a particular restaurant, don't go there. You have lots of choices. If you don't want to live around industrial smog, don't live near the ship channel. Don't take away restaurant owners' rights to protect your whim.
I don't buy the phony argument of the prohibitionists that the "poor wait staff" are "forced" to work in smoking restaurants. Slavery and indentured servitude do not exist in this country. The classified ads provide restaurant workers with ample opportunity to obtain unobjectionable work environments.
Tolerance is the key to co-existence of diverse groups. We shouldn't want a homogenized society. Our diversity is part of our strength.
I support the rights of restaurant owners to ban or not to ban smoking in their restaurants. But it should be their decision to make, not yours or mine. Must the prohibitionists force all the restaurants to meet only their preference?
Nearly 70 percent of the people who signed the petition for this vote are non-smokers. But they are non-smokers who believe that the government is too much in our lives already. The no-smoking ordinance election is on Sept. 10, but early voting is going on now. Vote to preserve liberty, diversity and freedom in Corpus Christi. Vote against the ordinance.
James A. Skrobarcek, an attorney, represented groups opposed to the city ordinance banning smoking in restaurants.
Dear Editor, Sept. 10/05 Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Let's put this second-hand smoke in perspective. Smoke from a hand full of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well ventilated venue is dangerous to your health??? If you believe that, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!! These zealots are trying to de-normalize smoking and smoking bans are a big step in that direction. Unfortunately the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire. Smoking bans make a crime out of something that is not a crime. In other words, using a legal product on private property will be a crime. That puts the smoker and the owner in a criminal situation.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Let's put this second-hand smoke in perspective. Smoke from a hand full of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well ventilated venue is dangerous to your health??? If you believe that, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!! These zealots are trying to de-normalize smoking and smoking bans are a big step in that direction. Unfortunately the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire. Smoking bans make a crime out of something that is not a crime. In other words, using a legal product on private property will be a crime. That puts the smoker and the owner in a criminal situation.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2005/09/07/News/Students.Have.Mixed.Reactions.To.Proposed.Legislation-977290.shtml
The Observer - News
The Independent Newspaper Serving Notre Dame and Saint Mary's
Students have mixed reactions to proposed legislation
By Katie Perry
Published: Wednesday, September 7, 2005
'A proposed law in St. Joseph County that would ban smoking in specified public areas ignited fiery opinions on both sides of the issue and left Notre Dame\'s marginal population of student smokers fuming.Area residents discussed and debated the pending legislation - which would prohibit smoking in restaurants, private businesses, sports arenas and other public areas - at a public hearing held Tuesday in South Bend.No official polls have been conducted to estimate the approximate percentage of student smokers at the University, though numbers appear low. But despite their diminutive numbers, student smokers at Notre Dame have vocalized their anger and frustration over the proposed bill.Sophomore Dan Toler called the ban "ridiculous.""All over the country, people are trying to tell me how to live my life," Toler said. "It\'s my body, and I should be able to smoke where and when I like. I\'m tired of the government telling me what\'s good for me."For many smokers, like sophomore Nick Cottingham, the ban came to no surprise."I know there have been similar bans around the U.S. and I figure it\'s a matter of time before they are all over the country," he said.In 1998, Boulder, Colo. became the first U.S. city to outlaw smoking in public places. Three years later, California implemented a similar bill and instigated a wave of copycat legislation across the nation on both state-wide and region-wide levels.Today, dozens of cities like Lexington, Ky., Lincoln, Neb. and Austin, Texas maintain smoke-free environments in specified public areas. Nine states have passed similar laws prohibiting cigarette smoke in restaurants, bars and other indoor locations.Sophomore Francis Smith said there are "absolutely" no advantages to the ban."Though Notre Dame doesn\'t have too many smokers, I imagine South Bend has its fair share," he said. "Because of that, the local economy is going to be hurt by people no longer coming to bars."';
paragraph[1] = 'In addition to criticism that the proposed ban will negatively influence the local economy in South Bend and the rest of St. Joseph County, detractors said the legislation would deter the American value of choice and eliminate certain personal freedoms.One organization on campus that has expressed deep opposition to the ban is the College Libertarians of Notre Dame. In addition to citing negative economic implications, members claim the bill is a direct threat to some of their "most fundamental Constitutional rights.""As defenders of freedom, individual rights, and personal choice, we believe that owners of private establishments such as bars and restaurants should have the right to decide whether they will allow or prohibit smoking on their property," co-president Catherine Kent said. "The public would support or protest the decision of the establishment owner with their patronage."Kent said both smoking and refraining from smoking are individual freedoms which should not be infringed upon."Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed to it for long periods of time," she said. "From that same reasoning, however, working in or eating at a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice."But for sophomore Timmy Falvey - a fervent supporter of the ban - cigarette smoke and its associated health hazards take precedence over the economic and political implications of the proposed bill."Smoking killed my grandfather, who battled the symptoms of emphysema for many years before he passed," Falvey said. "I have never been much of an activist, but in response to situations such as this, it is my patrimony to take the issue head on and turn the negative into positive."Falvey, who attended Tuesday\'s public forum, said the legislation\'s rewards would be "conspicuously apparent.""[The ban\'s main advantage is] clear air inside various public venues for those of us who choose to exercise our freedom not to smoke," he said. "Indirectly, it sends a message to those who inhibit my right to breathe clean air that their decisions are not agreeable."';
paragraph[2] = 'Toler said the ban would likely only benefit non-smokers who tend to ostracize the minority population of smokers at Notre Dame and elsewhere."The people who fake a cough when I pass them on the quad, or give me weird looks," Toler said, "they\'re the only ones who will find \'advantages\' to this bill."Smith agreed that smokers are often confronted with feelings of scorn or contempt from the non-smoking public."It seems to be a trend in America nowadays to treat smokers as lepers and this [ban] is just one sign of it," Smith said. Although student smokers were passionate in their opposition to the bill, many were also disenchanted and felt there was little they can do to reverse the growing number of smoking bans."Nobody cares what I say or do anyways, since I\'m a smoker," Toler said. "My plan is to do the same thing I do at home, where a similar ban exists, which is just to ignore it. If someone wants to fine me, they can be my guest, but I\'m not giving up my right to smoke just because a bunch of stuffed-shirt politicians say I have to."Cottingham said he was "too lazy" to take any action against the proposed law."I rarely go to any restaurants that allow smoking anyway, and I\'m not old enough to go to bars, so I\'m not too worried about it," Cottingham said. "[Also,] there\'s nowhere on campus that you can smoke indoors anyway."Smith was also apathetic concerning action against the ban."I really [couldn\'t] care less what happens in this city," he said.But Kent and the College Libertarians were much more proactive in their efforts to "ban the smoking ban." Co-president (and Observer Viewpoint columnist) Scott Wagner wrote a letter to the South Bend Tribune encouraging citizens to vocalize their opposition to the proposed law. Both Kent and Wagner attended the public hearing to voice their own concerns and distribute information to those in attendance. Kent said they will also collect signatures from Notre Dame students and submit them in the form of a petition to the county commissioner\'s office prior to the official vote.Hartung said if the bill goes through, the county should plan to create "adequate, accessible, and fair smoking areas.""Everyone knows that [smoking] is an addiction and they better take that into account," he said. "Otherwise, they are going to have a lot of really irritable people now with more time on their hands with which to protest."';
A proposed law in St. Joseph County that would ban smoking in specified public areas ignited fiery opinions on both sides of the issue and left Notre Dame's marginal population of student smokers fuming.Area residents discussed and debated the pending legislation - which would prohibit smoking in restaurants, private businesses, sports arenas and other public areas - at a public hearing held Tuesday in South Bend.No official polls have been conducted to estimate the approximate percentage of student smokers at the University, though numbers appear low. But despite their diminutive numbers, student smokers at Notre Dame have vocalized their anger and frustration over the proposed bill.Sophomore Dan Toler called the ban "ridiculous.""All over the country, people are trying to tell me how to live my life," Toler said. "It's my body, and I should be able to smoke where and when I like. I'm tired of the government telling me what's good for me."For many smokers, like sophomore Nick Cottingham, the ban came to no surprise."I know there have been similar bans around the U.S. and I figure it's a matter of time before they are all over the country," he said.In 1998, Boulder, Colo. became the first U.S. city to outlaw smoking in public places. Three years later, California implemented a similar bill and instigated a wave of copycat legislation across the nation on both state-wide and region-wide levels.Today, dozens of cities like Lexington, Ky., Lincoln, Neb. and Austin, Texas maintain smoke-free environments in specified public areas. Nine states have passed similar laws prohibiting cigarette smoke in restaurants, bars and other indoor locations.Sophomore Francis Smith said there are "absolutely" no advantages to the ban."Though Notre Dame doesn't have too many smokers, I imagine South Bend has its fair share," he said. "Because of that, the local economy is going to be hurt by people no longer coming to bars."
In addition to criticism that the proposed ban will negatively influence the local economy in South Bend and the rest of St. Joseph County, detractors said the legislation would deter the American value of choice and eliminate certain personal freedoms.One organization on campus that has expressed deep opposition to the ban is the College Libertarians of Notre Dame. In addition to citing negative economic implications, members claim the bill is a direct threat to some of their "most fundamental Constitutional rights.""As defenders of freedom, individual rights, and personal choice, we believe that owners of private establishments such as bars and restaurants should have the right to decide whether they will allow or prohibit smoking on their property," co-president Catherine Kent said. "The public would support or protest the decision of the establishment owner with their patronage."Kent said both smoking and refraining from smoking are individual freedoms which should not be infringed upon."Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed to it for long periods of time," she said. "From that same reasoning, however, working in or eating at a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice."But for sophomore Timmy Falvey - a fervent supporter of the ban - cigarette smoke and its associated health hazards take precedence over the economic and political implications of the proposed bill."Smoking killed my grandfather, who battled the symptoms of emphysema for many years before he passed," Falvey said. "I have never been much of an activist, but in response to situations such as this, it is my patrimony to take the issue head on and turn the negative into positive."Falvey, who attended Tuesday's public forum, said the legislation's rewards would be "conspicuously apparent.""[The ban's main advantage is] clear air inside various public venues for those of us who choose to exercise our freedom not to smoke," he said. "Indirectly, it sends a message to those who inhibit my right to breathe clean air that their decisions are not agreeable."
Toler said the ban would likely only benefit non-smokers who tend to ostracize the minority population of smokers at Notre Dame and elsewhere."The people who fake a cough when I pass them on the quad, or give me weird looks," Toler said, "they're the only ones who will find 'advantages' to this bill."Smith agreed that smokers are often confronted with feelings of scorn or contempt from the non-smoking public."It seems to be a trend in America nowadays to treat smokers as lepers and this [ban] is just one sign of it," Smith said. Although student smokers were passionate in their opposition to the bill, many were also disenchanted and felt there was little they can do to reverse the growing number of smoking bans."Nobody cares what I say or do anyways, since I'm a smoker," Toler said. "My plan is to do the same thing I do at home, where a similar ban exists, which is just to ignore it. If someone wants to fine me, they can be my guest, but I'm not giving up my right to smoke just because a bunch of stuffed-shirt politicians say I have to."Cottingham said he was "too lazy" to take any action against the proposed law."I rarely go to any restaurants that allow smoking anyway, and I'm not old enough to go to bars, so I'm not too worried about it," Cottingham said. "[Also,] there's nowhere on campus that you can smoke indoors anyway."Smith was also apathetic concerning action against the ban."I really [couldn't] care less what happens in this city," he said.But Kent and the College Libertarians were much more proactive in their efforts to "ban the smoking ban." Co-president (and Observer Viewpoint columnist) Scott Wagner wrote a letter to the South Bend Tribune encouraging citizens to vocalize their opposition to the proposed law. Both Kent and Wagner attended the public hearing to voice their own concerns and distribute information to those in attendance. Kent said they will also collect signatures from Notre Dame students and submit them in the form of a petition to the county commissioner's office prior to the official vote.Hartung said if the bill goes through, the county should plan to create "adequate, accessible, and fair smoking areas.""Everyone knows that [smoking] is an addiction and they better take that into account," he said. "Otherwise, they are going to have a lot of really irritable people now with more time on their hands with which to protest."
The Observer - News
The Independent Newspaper Serving Notre Dame and Saint Mary's
Students have mixed reactions to proposed legislation
By Katie Perry
Published: Wednesday, September 7, 2005
'A proposed law in St. Joseph County that would ban smoking in specified public areas ignited fiery opinions on both sides of the issue and left Notre Dame\'s marginal population of student smokers fuming.Area residents discussed and debated the pending legislation - which would prohibit smoking in restaurants, private businesses, sports arenas and other public areas - at a public hearing held Tuesday in South Bend.No official polls have been conducted to estimate the approximate percentage of student smokers at the University, though numbers appear low. But despite their diminutive numbers, student smokers at Notre Dame have vocalized their anger and frustration over the proposed bill.Sophomore Dan Toler called the ban "ridiculous.""All over the country, people are trying to tell me how to live my life," Toler said. "It\'s my body, and I should be able to smoke where and when I like. I\'m tired of the government telling me what\'s good for me."For many smokers, like sophomore Nick Cottingham, the ban came to no surprise."I know there have been similar bans around the U.S. and I figure it\'s a matter of time before they are all over the country," he said.In 1998, Boulder, Colo. became the first U.S. city to outlaw smoking in public places. Three years later, California implemented a similar bill and instigated a wave of copycat legislation across the nation on both state-wide and region-wide levels.Today, dozens of cities like Lexington, Ky., Lincoln, Neb. and Austin, Texas maintain smoke-free environments in specified public areas. Nine states have passed similar laws prohibiting cigarette smoke in restaurants, bars and other indoor locations.Sophomore Francis Smith said there are "absolutely" no advantages to the ban."Though Notre Dame doesn\'t have too many smokers, I imagine South Bend has its fair share," he said. "Because of that, the local economy is going to be hurt by people no longer coming to bars."';
paragraph[1] = 'In addition to criticism that the proposed ban will negatively influence the local economy in South Bend and the rest of St. Joseph County, detractors said the legislation would deter the American value of choice and eliminate certain personal freedoms.One organization on campus that has expressed deep opposition to the ban is the College Libertarians of Notre Dame. In addition to citing negative economic implications, members claim the bill is a direct threat to some of their "most fundamental Constitutional rights.""As defenders of freedom, individual rights, and personal choice, we believe that owners of private establishments such as bars and restaurants should have the right to decide whether they will allow or prohibit smoking on their property," co-president Catherine Kent said. "The public would support or protest the decision of the establishment owner with their patronage."Kent said both smoking and refraining from smoking are individual freedoms which should not be infringed upon."Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed to it for long periods of time," she said. "From that same reasoning, however, working in or eating at a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice."But for sophomore Timmy Falvey - a fervent supporter of the ban - cigarette smoke and its associated health hazards take precedence over the economic and political implications of the proposed bill."Smoking killed my grandfather, who battled the symptoms of emphysema for many years before he passed," Falvey said. "I have never been much of an activist, but in response to situations such as this, it is my patrimony to take the issue head on and turn the negative into positive."Falvey, who attended Tuesday\'s public forum, said the legislation\'s rewards would be "conspicuously apparent.""[The ban\'s main advantage is] clear air inside various public venues for those of us who choose to exercise our freedom not to smoke," he said. "Indirectly, it sends a message to those who inhibit my right to breathe clean air that their decisions are not agreeable."';
paragraph[2] = 'Toler said the ban would likely only benefit non-smokers who tend to ostracize the minority population of smokers at Notre Dame and elsewhere."The people who fake a cough when I pass them on the quad, or give me weird looks," Toler said, "they\'re the only ones who will find \'advantages\' to this bill."Smith agreed that smokers are often confronted with feelings of scorn or contempt from the non-smoking public."It seems to be a trend in America nowadays to treat smokers as lepers and this [ban] is just one sign of it," Smith said. Although student smokers were passionate in their opposition to the bill, many were also disenchanted and felt there was little they can do to reverse the growing number of smoking bans."Nobody cares what I say or do anyways, since I\'m a smoker," Toler said. "My plan is to do the same thing I do at home, where a similar ban exists, which is just to ignore it. If someone wants to fine me, they can be my guest, but I\'m not giving up my right to smoke just because a bunch of stuffed-shirt politicians say I have to."Cottingham said he was "too lazy" to take any action against the proposed law."I rarely go to any restaurants that allow smoking anyway, and I\'m not old enough to go to bars, so I\'m not too worried about it," Cottingham said. "[Also,] there\'s nowhere on campus that you can smoke indoors anyway."Smith was also apathetic concerning action against the ban."I really [couldn\'t] care less what happens in this city," he said.But Kent and the College Libertarians were much more proactive in their efforts to "ban the smoking ban." Co-president (and Observer Viewpoint columnist) Scott Wagner wrote a letter to the South Bend Tribune encouraging citizens to vocalize their opposition to the proposed law. Both Kent and Wagner attended the public hearing to voice their own concerns and distribute information to those in attendance. Kent said they will also collect signatures from Notre Dame students and submit them in the form of a petition to the county commissioner\'s office prior to the official vote.Hartung said if the bill goes through, the county should plan to create "adequate, accessible, and fair smoking areas.""Everyone knows that [smoking] is an addiction and they better take that into account," he said. "Otherwise, they are going to have a lot of really irritable people now with more time on their hands with which to protest."';
A proposed law in St. Joseph County that would ban smoking in specified public areas ignited fiery opinions on both sides of the issue and left Notre Dame's marginal population of student smokers fuming.Area residents discussed and debated the pending legislation - which would prohibit smoking in restaurants, private businesses, sports arenas and other public areas - at a public hearing held Tuesday in South Bend.No official polls have been conducted to estimate the approximate percentage of student smokers at the University, though numbers appear low. But despite their diminutive numbers, student smokers at Notre Dame have vocalized their anger and frustration over the proposed bill.Sophomore Dan Toler called the ban "ridiculous.""All over the country, people are trying to tell me how to live my life," Toler said. "It's my body, and I should be able to smoke where and when I like. I'm tired of the government telling me what's good for me."For many smokers, like sophomore Nick Cottingham, the ban came to no surprise."I know there have been similar bans around the U.S. and I figure it's a matter of time before they are all over the country," he said.In 1998, Boulder, Colo. became the first U.S. city to outlaw smoking in public places. Three years later, California implemented a similar bill and instigated a wave of copycat legislation across the nation on both state-wide and region-wide levels.Today, dozens of cities like Lexington, Ky., Lincoln, Neb. and Austin, Texas maintain smoke-free environments in specified public areas. Nine states have passed similar laws prohibiting cigarette smoke in restaurants, bars and other indoor locations.Sophomore Francis Smith said there are "absolutely" no advantages to the ban."Though Notre Dame doesn't have too many smokers, I imagine South Bend has its fair share," he said. "Because of that, the local economy is going to be hurt by people no longer coming to bars."
In addition to criticism that the proposed ban will negatively influence the local economy in South Bend and the rest of St. Joseph County, detractors said the legislation would deter the American value of choice and eliminate certain personal freedoms.One organization on campus that has expressed deep opposition to the ban is the College Libertarians of Notre Dame. In addition to citing negative economic implications, members claim the bill is a direct threat to some of their "most fundamental Constitutional rights.""As defenders of freedom, individual rights, and personal choice, we believe that owners of private establishments such as bars and restaurants should have the right to decide whether they will allow or prohibit smoking on their property," co-president Catherine Kent said. "The public would support or protest the decision of the establishment owner with their patronage."Kent said both smoking and refraining from smoking are individual freedoms which should not be infringed upon."Smoking is a personal choice; it is true that second-hand smoke can have negative effects on people who are continually exposed to it for long periods of time," she said. "From that same reasoning, however, working in or eating at a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is also a personal choice."But for sophomore Timmy Falvey - a fervent supporter of the ban - cigarette smoke and its associated health hazards take precedence over the economic and political implications of the proposed bill."Smoking killed my grandfather, who battled the symptoms of emphysema for many years before he passed," Falvey said. "I have never been much of an activist, but in response to situations such as this, it is my patrimony to take the issue head on and turn the negative into positive."Falvey, who attended Tuesday's public forum, said the legislation's rewards would be "conspicuously apparent.""[The ban's main advantage is] clear air inside various public venues for those of us who choose to exercise our freedom not to smoke," he said. "Indirectly, it sends a message to those who inhibit my right to breathe clean air that their decisions are not agreeable."
Toler said the ban would likely only benefit non-smokers who tend to ostracize the minority population of smokers at Notre Dame and elsewhere."The people who fake a cough when I pass them on the quad, or give me weird looks," Toler said, "they're the only ones who will find 'advantages' to this bill."Smith agreed that smokers are often confronted with feelings of scorn or contempt from the non-smoking public."It seems to be a trend in America nowadays to treat smokers as lepers and this [ban] is just one sign of it," Smith said. Although student smokers were passionate in their opposition to the bill, many were also disenchanted and felt there was little they can do to reverse the growing number of smoking bans."Nobody cares what I say or do anyways, since I'm a smoker," Toler said. "My plan is to do the same thing I do at home, where a similar ban exists, which is just to ignore it. If someone wants to fine me, they can be my guest, but I'm not giving up my right to smoke just because a bunch of stuffed-shirt politicians say I have to."Cottingham said he was "too lazy" to take any action against the proposed law."I rarely go to any restaurants that allow smoking anyway, and I'm not old enough to go to bars, so I'm not too worried about it," Cottingham said. "[Also,] there's nowhere on campus that you can smoke indoors anyway."Smith was also apathetic concerning action against the ban."I really [couldn't] care less what happens in this city," he said.But Kent and the College Libertarians were much more proactive in their efforts to "ban the smoking ban." Co-president (and Observer Viewpoint columnist) Scott Wagner wrote a letter to the South Bend Tribune encouraging citizens to vocalize their opposition to the proposed law. Both Kent and Wagner attended the public hearing to voice their own concerns and distribute information to those in attendance. Kent said they will also collect signatures from Notre Dame students and submit them in the form of a petition to the county commissioner's office prior to the official vote.Hartung said if the bill goes through, the county should plan to create "adequate, accessible, and fair smoking areas.""Everyone knows that [smoking] is an addiction and they better take that into account," he said. "Otherwise, they are going to have a lot of really irritable people now with more time on their hands with which to protest."
Sept. 07/05
Letter to the Editor at the State Journal Register
RE: Poll: Majority of voters support indoor smoke ban http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/65432.asp
Dear Editor:
cc: Chris Wetterich
Supporting your informative news story, with the addition of the poll questions used and the demographics of those surveyed about the Springfield proposed smoking ban has been very helpful. However, this poll still supplies statements, quoting questionable SHS study results as facts, and leads the responses of those interviewed in its choice of semantics..
Even though this survey has attempted to be less openly biased than many previous smoking polls have been, it was still developed by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the 34 other health lobbyist groups who are pressing for the ban. The questions are not without subtle (and some not so subtle) questions or a carefully planned progression, leading participants' opinions toward smoking ban approval. In question Number 8 - Part B, why were only two extreme alternatives made available? "Smokers have a right to smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes and other tobacco products in all indoor workplaces, restaurants and other public places." No reasonable compromise was even offered as an alternative, other than a total ban.
Once again, the smoking ban proponents who prepared the poll are forgetting the United States is a Democratic Republic, not a mob-ruled Democracy. Minorities are supposed to count in this country--especially a large minority like smokers!!! One dissenting juror can still hang a jury decision!!
Based on the poll's statistics, if only 68 percent of those voters surveyed eat out one or more times a week. Then, why are the other 32 percent still included in the remaining poll results? They have no vested interest in the issue.
Why should the views of registered voters who do not patronize hospitality venues be considered, especially when (according to the poll) smoking bans do not seem to be a great election issue advantage for city office candidates? Could this entire smoking ban proposition have become an issue in Springfield, only in response to tremendous pressures being applied by health industry lobbyists to introduce yet another unnecessary and harmful smoking ban?
I also would like to know why it is of importance that 66 percent would support a smoking ban in Springfield, if only 26 percent of those surveyed (including the 32 percent who go out 1 to 2 times a month or less) would attend restaurants more frequently with a ban in place? It appears the general population favors government regulation on issues that are of no concern to their personal lives.
I hope many others believe Mayor Davlin deserves congratulations for defending individual businesses and believing they should continue to determine their own smoking policies.
Sincerely,______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Letter to the Editor at the State Journal Register
RE: Poll: Majority of voters support indoor smoke ban http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/65432.asp
Dear Editor:
cc: Chris Wetterich
Supporting your informative news story, with the addition of the poll questions used and the demographics of those surveyed about the Springfield proposed smoking ban has been very helpful. However, this poll still supplies statements, quoting questionable SHS study results as facts, and leads the responses of those interviewed in its choice of semantics..
Even though this survey has attempted to be less openly biased than many previous smoking polls have been, it was still developed by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the 34 other health lobbyist groups who are pressing for the ban. The questions are not without subtle (and some not so subtle) questions or a carefully planned progression, leading participants' opinions toward smoking ban approval. In question Number 8 - Part B, why were only two extreme alternatives made available? "Smokers have a right to smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes and other tobacco products in all indoor workplaces, restaurants and other public places." No reasonable compromise was even offered as an alternative, other than a total ban.
Once again, the smoking ban proponents who prepared the poll are forgetting the United States is a Democratic Republic, not a mob-ruled Democracy. Minorities are supposed to count in this country--especially a large minority like smokers!!! One dissenting juror can still hang a jury decision!!
Based on the poll's statistics, if only 68 percent of those voters surveyed eat out one or more times a week. Then, why are the other 32 percent still included in the remaining poll results? They have no vested interest in the issue.
Why should the views of registered voters who do not patronize hospitality venues be considered, especially when (according to the poll) smoking bans do not seem to be a great election issue advantage for city office candidates? Could this entire smoking ban proposition have become an issue in Springfield, only in response to tremendous pressures being applied by health industry lobbyists to introduce yet another unnecessary and harmful smoking ban?
I also would like to know why it is of importance that 66 percent would support a smoking ban in Springfield, if only 26 percent of those surveyed (including the 32 percent who go out 1 to 2 times a month or less) would attend restaurants more frequently with a ban in place? It appears the general population favors government regulation on issues that are of no concern to their personal lives.
I hope many others believe Mayor Davlin deserves congratulations for defending individual businesses and believing they should continue to determine their own smoking policies.
Sincerely,______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Sent this message to the Madison Forum Sept. 5/05
When I mentioned, let the market place decide the level playing field, that means no smoking bylaws whatsoever. The antis will never compromise, why should we? If you compromise, they will be around the next time with other reasons and excuses to have a smoking ban. Ban the ban 100 per cent..completely. Cancel plebiscites and referendums. There should be no interferences from municipal government or special interest groups interfering in 'private' enterprise that deals with a legal product. Owners have choices..the public have choices..isn't that what America is all about?
If I'm not mistaken 98% of the venues were smoke free in Austin Texas. The antis weren't satisfied. They went the referendum route. The hospitality sector lost, now the city is 100 per cent smoke free. Freedom of choice was buried in an American city. Is that the 'American Way'?? The antis don't give a dam about 'freedom of choice', business losses or people losing their jobs. The special interest groups are ANTI- American way of life. The antis say there might be a little loss, or business gets better(would they say anything different?) Who should know better about the hospitality sector..the business owners or the antis??
Smoke from a handfull of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well ventilated venue is dangerous to your health?? If you believe that, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.
The antis won't compromise, if they do, it will blow their whole agenda to smithereens. Smoking bans are a big step towards eliminating smoking in the world. They use the 'health' card as a reason for smoking by-laws. Basically they are trying to de-normalize smoking. Unfortuanately the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire. Since I have been on this forum I noticed quite a few more people are taking up the fight against smoking bans and a lot more common sense is coming to the forefront.
If more people would take the time and learn about smoking by-laws and second-hand smoke, there would be a lot less smoking by-laws in this country. http://smokersclubinc.com
When I mentioned, let the market place decide the level playing field, that means no smoking bylaws whatsoever. The antis will never compromise, why should we? If you compromise, they will be around the next time with other reasons and excuses to have a smoking ban. Ban the ban 100 per cent..completely. Cancel plebiscites and referendums. There should be no interferences from municipal government or special interest groups interfering in 'private' enterprise that deals with a legal product. Owners have choices..the public have choices..isn't that what America is all about?
If I'm not mistaken 98% of the venues were smoke free in Austin Texas. The antis weren't satisfied. They went the referendum route. The hospitality sector lost, now the city is 100 per cent smoke free. Freedom of choice was buried in an American city. Is that the 'American Way'?? The antis don't give a dam about 'freedom of choice', business losses or people losing their jobs. The special interest groups are ANTI- American way of life. The antis say there might be a little loss, or business gets better(would they say anything different?) Who should know better about the hospitality sector..the business owners or the antis??
Smoke from a handfull of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well ventilated venue is dangerous to your health?? If you believe that, then I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.
The antis won't compromise, if they do, it will blow their whole agenda to smithereens. Smoking bans are a big step towards eliminating smoking in the world. They use the 'health' card as a reason for smoking by-laws. Basically they are trying to de-normalize smoking. Unfortuanately the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire. Since I have been on this forum I noticed quite a few more people are taking up the fight against smoking bans and a lot more common sense is coming to the forefront.
If more people would take the time and learn about smoking by-laws and second-hand smoke, there would be a lot less smoking by-laws in this country. http://smokersclubinc.com
