<$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, October 28, 2005

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gbase/Community/Postmarks

Oct. 28/05

Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health??If any body believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.It is not about health and it never was about health.It is all about de-normalizing smoking.Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.http://smokersclubinc.com

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay

The Publican Ovt. 28/05

Five Fingers, Five Questions...For the Department of Health...
1) If there really ARE "mountains of studies" proving the danger of secondary smoke, then why do the Antismokers rely on lies? See
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#55832
and
http://www.forces-nl.org/download/WelshReportCritique.pdf
for examples.
2) If there really ARE "thousands of deaths" from secondary smoke, where are all the bodies hidden? The Antismoking Lobby, with all its millions of dollars should be able to list hundreds of verified cases. They can't even list dozens.
3) If there really IS such an overwhelming popular demand for nonsmoking pubs, why aren't there more of them? Do you think pub owners are all stupid? Or perhaps Communists who don't like money?
4) If there really IS such an overwhelming demand fro nonsmoking pubs, then why does the Antismoking Lobby have to spend such vast sums to push these bans through? I don't know if it's as bad there as in the States, but right now there are pitched ban battles in Washington State and in Chicago. In both cases the Antismokers are outspending the hospitality coalitions by a ratio of better than 100 to 1 (roughly $1.5 *million* to $10,000) and still might fail to pass bans.
5) Why are ventilation options suitable for all manner of highly toxic substances in factories, offices, and kitchens, but completely ruled out for the burning of a few plant leaves? Is tobacco smoke somehow a magical substance? One that defies the laws of physics? One that's deadlier than Saddam Hussein's wildest chemical warfare nightmare?
Will the Department of Health have answers to these questions? I doubt it. But it's important that such a lack is public record.
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

Michael J. McFadden
Craig , 28-Oct-2005 Name 3 people...Who have died from passive tobacco smoke.You cannot.The truth does not side with those who support and wrongly believe in the ETS sham.
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
On the other hand, smoking bans have been irrefutably proven to kill hospitality businesses dead!
If smoking bans are so great for business, there would be no need for government imposed smoking bans.
The hospitality industry would go smoke-free of their own free choice.
The anti-smoking lobby and the ban support brigade are big on hysterical rhetoris, sadly...
Reputable science and the truth do not support government manadated smoking bans within the confines of private property (the private hospitality sector).
Simply, the second-hand tobacco smoke scam is one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

http://www.chicagoflame.com/media/paper519/news/2005/10/17/Opinions/Letters.To.The.Editor-1022176.shtml
A fair playing fieldMichaelia Fosses' editorial, "If you can't take the smoke get out of the bar" was excellent. In addition, the restaurateurs in Chicago who are promoting a smoking ban because they are already smoke-free and claim business is booming, will loose their competitive advantage if a city-wide hospitality smoking ban becomes reality. Chicago will loose overall local resident business, tourist trade and conventions till these clueless entrepreneurs find their profits nose-diving, along with all the other restaurants and bars in the city.The Health Industry lobby's next approach will have to be to propose a state-wide smoking ban. Can't Chicago smoke-free proponents read the news and learn from recent New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota hospitality tragedies from smoking bans? Level playing field arguments clearly support why governmental regulation of smoking policies in the hospitality industry do not work.Garnet Dawn Scheuer
http://www.chicagoflame.com/media/paper519/news/2005/10/03/Opinions/If.You.Cant.Take.The.Smoke.Get.Out.Of.The.Bar-1006299.shtml
If you can't take the smoke, get out of the bar

Published: Monday, October 3, 2005

Monday, October 24, 2005

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/letters/x24-fd1.htm

Hospital smoking bans increase stress, deter treatment
Monday, October 24, 2005
By Garnet Dawn Scheuer
Regarding "Smoking banned at hospitals — Little Company, St. James hop on the bandwagon for cigarette-free workplaces," Oct. 20 Daily Southtown:
If we are to believe that every year thousands and thousands of people die prematurely from tobacco-related causes, then we had also better avoid doctors and hospitals since they could kill us as well.
Nearly one-fourth as many people die from medical error as "guesstimated" fatalities from smoking cigarettes. Annually, 98,000 deaths are caused by medical error, according to a report released in the May 18 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ("Five Years After 'To Err Is Human': What Have We Learned?"). Premature smoking death statistics are merely a computer-generated.
The negative aspects of hospitals' total smoking bans are simple common sense that hospital administrators have failed to acknowledge. Social engineering dictatorial policies made in conflict with consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results. Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already under great additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility.
Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures. Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery. Many smokers who are family members and friends of the patients will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients. Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes, thereby increasing fire risks.
Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well-being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help.
Garnet Dawn Scheuer, of Lake Bluff, is Midwest regional director of The Smoker's Club Inc.

The Globe and Mail Oct, 22/05

Author: Margaret WenteBookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)NEEDLING THE HABIT

Want to Reduce Harm From Drug Use I'll Go Out on a Limb Here:

Reduce DrugUse They're not junkies -- they're clients! Still addicted to your pathetic cigarettes? Shame on you. You, my friend, are a pariah, to say nothing of a public-health menace, and we are slowly driving you to the margins. Stay at least six feet away from the office door, please, so you don't contaminate the rest of us, and enjoy your filthy habit while you can, because some cities are about to ban smoking in any public space. Have kids? Double shame. Don't you know secondhand smoke is a form of child abuse? Watch out, or you're gonna lose custody.On the other hand, if you're a crackhead, our city's public-health workers are here to help you. Here, have a free crack kit. It has a nice clean mouthpiece and a pipestem. Or maybe you'd like a needle and some alcohol swabs for your heroin habit? If you don't like shooting up in the back alley, how about a safe consumption site, where a registered nurse will give you some useful tips about vein maintenance and injection techniques?I'm not making this up. This is the innovative new drug strategy that has been unveiled by Toronto's leading public-health officials. It is very similar to the drug strategy adopted by Vancouver, which operates "safe" injection sites in the notoriously drug-ridden Downtown Eastside. And it's merely an extension of what Toronto is already doing. Residents of Cabbagetown recently discovered a pile of used needles, alcohol pads, matches and "safe crack kit gear" scattered near a children's playground. Some of these items bore the Toronto public-health logo.In the world of progressive drug policy, the word "addict" has been outlawed. Even the word "abuser" is avoided, because it's too judgmental. Such persons are now known as "users," or sometimes "clients." As one safe-injection nurse in Vancouver put it, her job is to "educate participants and to support them in making their own informed choices."British Columbia's public-health officers have weighed in with their ideas, too, in a document called A Public Health Approach to Drug Control in Canada. In their view, it's no good fighting drug use, so we might as well make illegal drugs legal, cut the criminals out of the action, and have the government run the whole drug business. They propose a giant state monopoly that would control supply, production and access, regulate drugs for quality, purity and potency, and decide who would get what drugs under what circumstances. Presumably, this monopoly would cover everything from heroin, crack and crystal meth to cooking sherry and solvents sniffed from paper bags. Naturally, money from the proceeds would be set aside for safe-shooting campaigns and even rehab. Crack Control Board of Ontario, anyone?The common notion behind these various schemes is "harm reduction," which argues that, if you can't get people to kick the habit, you might as well give them clean needles so they don't spread diseases or kill themselves with an overdose. So far, however, there's no solid evidence that harm reduction reduces either diseases or overdoses. What it does do is create a magnet for drug dealers, who know they can operate around safe-injection sites with impunity.Now don't get me wrong. I have a lot of sympathy for addicts, and I think it's useless to criminalize them and throw them into jail. But a bit of stigmatization is no bad thing. Social stigma is the reason why hardly anyone you know smokes any more. When I started smoking at 16, it was thought to be sociable and sophisticated. Then it become filthy, unhealthy and disgusting, so I quit. Take it from me and the many other former addicts I know -- shame and self-respect are the most powerful motives to kick your habit, whatever your habit may be.Heroin users say tobacco is more addictive than heroin. And yet, we don't hesitate to treat smokers with scare stories and tough love. We don't give them tobacco kits and matches to win their trust and show them we are non-judgmental about their informed choice. We expect them to keep quitting and quitting till it sticks.The harm-reduction crowd argues that prohibition is futile because it doesn't work. But it does work, although imperfectly. Make cigarettes expensive and prohibit their sale to kids, and fewer kids are going to smoke. Our restrictive strategy for tobacco has been reasonably successful in cutting down on teenage smoking. So has our zero-tolerance crusade against drunk drivers. Nobody is more stigmatized than they are. We set up roadblocks, randomly test them, and throw the book at anyone who flunks the blow test. Because of our intolerance, far fewer drivers are failing the test, and drunk-driving fatalities are dropping.All these public-health manifestos strenuously argue that the distinctions we make between different types of users and their choice of drugs are arbitrary. Drug use is hard-wired into the human species, and you, Mr. Merlot-swilling elitist from suburbia, are essentially no different from that cokehead on Dundas Street. You're both users. In fact, the Toronto Drug Strategy paper spends far more time dwelling on the social horrors of the demon alcohol than on all the city's hard drugs put together. It wants more restrictions on alcohol, except for winos in shelters, who ought to get more.But the differences between legal and most illegal drugs are not exactly trivial. It's pretty hard to argue (although these people try) that alcohol and crack are basically the same. There's also the matter of criminality. Illegal drugs wreck communities, enrich international narco-terrorists and turn their victims into social outcasts. Not all of this is an artifact of prohibition. Some drugs really do deserve to be banned.Personally, I don't think that turning governments into drug enablers is such a great idea. Maybe the real way to reduce harm from drug use - -- I know I'm going out on a limb here -- is to reduce drug use.Can this actually be done? Well, maybe. Miami cut drug use among kids in half with a vigorous campaign that combined the efforts of courts, police, business, schools and parents. Sweden (a liberal welfare state that's also strongly Lutheran) has a tough zero-tolerance policy. Although drug use there has soared in the past decade, it's still the lowest in Europe. Most Swedes would think that giving addicts safe crack kits or a steady supply of heroin (Vancouver's latest hot idea) is nuts. So do the people who stumbled on Toronto's official crack kits. The dealers like it, though. As one Cabbagetown resident told a Toronto newspaper, the drug dealers are "absolutely laughing at the fools at City Hall."- ---MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman

Subject: Fw: PLEASE REVIEW VALIDITY OF HEALTH CLAIM BENEFITS BEFORE YOU VOTE.... Chicago Ban Proposal

Dear Chicago Alderman/Chicago City Council Members: (sent to individually to Chicago representatives)
cc: Mayor Richard M. Daley
Mike Ditka
Letter to the Editor at Chicago Sun Times

RE: PLEASE REVIEW VALIDITY OF HEALTH CLAIM BENEFITS BEFORE YOU VOTE....

You, as a council member will be participating in a major vote this coming week to determine the future of Chicago. Before you consider the passage of a smoking ban, perhaps you should question the health claims that have initiated this ban proposal. Please take a few minutes to read the following editorial in the Sun Times by Dennis Constant, the director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation, before you make your final decision.

I still cannot believe that Chicago is considering committing economic suicide and refusing to learn from the misery existing smoking bans have already created. Enforcement of existing bans is already a problem and civil disobedience is spreading. Why on earth would a strong city that is supposed to represent its residents even want to enact a draconian smoking ban? Chicago is already 80% smoke free! All public buildings, transportation, shopping venues and office environments are already non-smoking. 70% of restaurants are smoke free. These hospitality smoking bans are beginning to remind me of the scene in Planet of the Apes, when the gorillas were rounding up the humans. Only in this case, it's the wealthy and powerful Anti Smoking industry rounding up smokers to demonize them and use the threatening heavy boot of government enforcement to force social change and share in their pharmaceutical partners' profits. The prohibition of the 1920's was a disaster. Smoking bans will be considered the plague of the early 21st century by our descendents. It's time to broadcast that "the emperor really doesn't have any new clothes!" Second hand smoke is NOT a measurable health risk!

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://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref22b.html
Case against secondhand smoke vanishes into thin air
October 22, 2005
BY DENNIS CONSTANT
Despite the claims of anti-smoking groups that research studies have conclusively proved that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, the city councils of Arlington Heights, Evanston and Wheeling rejected smoking bans. The three Illinois municipalities have created significant restaurant industries that play an important role in their economies, and the council members concluded that the risks of loss of businesses were not worth the health benefits that some claimed would result from a ban on smoking.
Now the Chicago City Council is considering banning smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars and commercial buildings.
Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with "cancer industry" organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst. It's important to look past their shrill propaganda and examine their claims without bias.
The keystone of their argument for banning indoor smoking is that exposure to "secondhand" smoke is a serious health hazard that causes lung cancer. To hear them tell it, there simply is no debate: Studies conclusively have shown a causal connection between lung cancer and secondhand tobacco smoke. In fact, the research studies tell a different story -- a story that largely has been ignored by the media.
A study often cited by anti-smoking groups is the 1993 study by Michael Siegel, "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace," published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which declared that non-smoking restaurant workers have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general population. However, a peer review of the study completed in 2000, authored by Martha Perske, revealed that the claimed 50 percent increased risk was based on six studies that had absolutely nothing to do with secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, or anywhere else.
Small increased risks for lung cancer were found in food service workers, but there was no evidence in any of the six studies that food service workers had been exposed to tobacco smoke!
According to Michael Fumento, writing in Health Care News, in 2003 professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.
Fumento also reports that in 1999, an Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 studies of environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease found only five that were statistically significantly positive. And in 2002, an analysis of 48 studies of environmental tobacco smoke found only 10 studies that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that were not significant in either direction.
Fumento adds that in 1975, when many more individuals smoked in restaurants, cocktail lounges and transportation lounges, the concentration of tobacco smoke then was equivalent to 0.004 cigarettes an hour -- a very small amount.
Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.
The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.
Dennis Constant is director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Why I don't donate to Charities Oct. 22/05

NO, I DON'T WANT TO HELP!

It is very difficult to support an organization that helps to spread misinformation about smoking and other human activities, and hatred against people who have made a choice contrary to your political agenda. Please limit yourselves to research for cures of disease, and to comfort the ill. That was -- and still should be -- your prime goal and directive. Conditioning of the behavior of the citizens, and pursuing political advocacy (i.e.: support of blanket smoking bans) should not be your cup of tea. You have become a tax-sheltered enterprise that appeals to human emotions for revenue and political control, while promoting junk science and intolerance, and gathering large amounts of money from taxpayers. That is NOT what a charitable organization should be.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Hi Thomas, Oct. 22/05

I hope you don't mind me expanding upon the link you supplied. I want to copy/paste the actual text on the group so, should the link become invalid, we will still have it. What a great story! It's about time a well written and concise editorial exposed the anti-smoking health "junk science" that has been trumpeted to the public over ETS for so long was clearly explained and then debunked. I also admire the Sun Times for publishing this well documented and controversial viewpoint.

It's time to broadcast that "the emporer really doesn't have any new clothes"!!! Great find, and thanks for sharing it with us......

Garnet
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref22b.html
Other Views
Case against secondhand smoke vanishes into thin air
October 22, 2005
BY DENNIS CONSTANT
Despite the claims of anti-smoking groups that research studies have conclusively proved that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, the city councils of Arlington Heights, Evanston and Wheeling rejected smoking bans. The three Illinois municipalities have created significant restaurant industries that play an important role in their economies, and the council members concluded that the risks of loss of businesses were not worth the health benefits that some claimed would result from a ban on smoking.
Now the Chicago City Council is considering banning smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars and commercial buildings.
Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with "cancer industry" organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst. It's important to look past their shrill propaganda and examine their claims without bias.
The keystone of their argument for banning indoor smoking is that exposure to "secondhand" smoke is a serious health hazard that causes lung cancer. To hear them tell it, there simply is no debate: Studies conclusively have shown a causal connection between lung cancer and secondhand tobacco smoke. In fact, the research studies tell a different story -- a story that largely has been ignored by the media.
A study often cited by anti-smoking groups is the 1993 study by Michael Siegel, "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace," published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which declared that non-smoking restaurant workers have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general population. However, a peer review of the study completed in 2000, authored by Martha Perske, revealed that the claimed 50 percent increased risk was based on six studies that had absolutely nothing to do with secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, or anywhere else.
Small increased risks for lung cancer were found in food service workers, but there was no evidence in any of the six studies that food service workers had been exposed to tobacco smoke!
According to Michael Fumento, writing in Health Care News, in 2003 professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.
Fumento also reports that in 1999, an Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 studies of environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease found only five that were statistically significantly positive. And in 2002, an analysis of 48 studies of environmental tobacco smoke found only 10 studies that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that were not significant in either direction.
Fumento adds that in 1975, when many more individuals smoked in restaurants, cocktail lounges and transportation lounges, the concentration of tobacco smoke then was equivalent to 0.004 cigarettes an hour -- a very small amount.
Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.
The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.

Dennis Constant is director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation.

Smoking bans do create financial lossesRe: Province faces $350M annual loss in gaming revenue from smoking ban (guest column, Sept. 29).
Irene Cyr - Boisbriand, Que.Tuesday October 11, 2005The Woodstock Sentinel-Review — Re: Many inaccurate claims in column (Oct. 5 letter to the editor from Michael Perley, director Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco).

Mr. Perley, please do not insult the readers’ intelligence. If there were no financial losses due to smoking bans, do you think that in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, bar owners would be paying thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees to fight the government on these laws? If there was any sound and scientific evidence in the second-hand smoke harm, don’t you think that the two Quebec class action lawsuits would also include non-smokers that were subjected to it? It would be interesting if you could produce the proof that the WCB has paid casino employees for ailments due to second-hand smoke. If that were the case, the lawyers and courts would be submerged with customers demanding the same compensation. If you continue altering the facts as you do, you and your organization will lose all credibility. Too bad, as before these abusive bans, the smoking rate was declining steadily. It now might take the exact opposite direction.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref22b.html

Other Views
Case against secondhand smoke vanishes into thin air
October 22, 2005
BY DENNIS CONSTANT

Despite the claims of anti-smoking groups that research studies have conclusively proved that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, the city councils of Arlington Heights, Evanston and Wheeling rejected smoking bans. The three Illinois municipalities have created significant restaurant industries that play an important role in their economies, and the council members concluded that the risks of loss of businesses were not worth the health benefits that some claimed would result from a ban on smoking.
Now the Chicago City Council is considering banning smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars and commercial buildings.
Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with "cancer industry" organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst. It's important to look past their shrill propaganda and examine their claims without bias.
The keystone of their argument for banning indoor smoking is that exposure to "secondhand" smoke is a serious health hazard that causes lung cancer. To hear them tell it, there simply is no debate: Studies conclusively have shown a causal connection between lung cancer and secondhand tobacco smoke. In fact, the research studies tell a different story -- a story that largely has been ignored by the media.
A study often cited by anti-smoking groups is the 1993 study by Michael Siegel, "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace," published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which declared that non-smoking restaurant workers have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general population. However, a peer review of the study completed in 2000, authored by Martha Perske, revealed that the claimed 50 percent increased risk was based on six studies that had absolutely nothing to do with secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, or anywhere else.
Small increased risks for lung cancer were found in food service workers, but there was no evidence in any of the six studies that food service workers had been exposed to tobacco smoke!
According to Michael Fumento, writing in Health Care News, in 2003 professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.
Fumento also reports that in 1999, an Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 studies of environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease found only five that were statistically significantly positive. And in 2002, an analysis of 48 studies of environmental tobacco smoke found only 10 studies that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that were not significant in either direction.
Fumento adds that in 1975, when many more individuals smoked in restaurants, cocktail lounges and transportation lounges, the concentration of tobacco smoke then was equivalent to 0.004 cigarettes an hour -- a very small amount.
Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.
The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.

Dennis Constant is director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation.
");

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Letter to Editors
Daily Southtown
Main offices6901 W. 159th St.Tinley Park, IL 60477 Oct. 20/05

RE: Smoking banned at hospitals; Little Company, St. James hop on the bandwagon for cigarette-free workplaces

Attention: Dennis Robaugh, Managing editor
Ed Koziarski, Director of Editorial and Commentary
John Hector, Director of Editorial and Commentary
Gregg Sherrard Blesch, Staff Writer

Dear Mr. Robaugh, Mr. Koziarski, Mr. Hector and Mr. Blesch:

If we are to believe that every year thousands and thousands of people die prematurely from tobacco related causes, then we had also better avoid doctors and hospitals since they could kill us as well. Nearly one fourth as many people die from medical error as "guesstimated" fatalities from smoking cigarettes. Annually, 98,000 deaths are caused by medical error, according to a report released in the May 18, 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ("Five Years After To Err Is Human: What Have We Learned?"). Premature smoking death statistics are merely a computer generated (SAMMEC) statistic.

The negative aspects of hospital total smoking bans are simple common sense that hospital administrators have failed to acknowledge. Social engineering dictatorial policies made in conflict with consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results. Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already under great additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility.

Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures. Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery. Many smokers, who are family members and friends of the patients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients. Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes, thereby increasing fire risks.

Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help. Offering smoking alternatives to already distressed patients and visitors is only a further insult.

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://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/seast/201seyt2.htm
Smoking banned at hospitals
Little Company, St. James hop on the bandwagon for cigarette-free workplaces
Thursday, October 20, 2005
By Gregg Sherrard BleschStaff writer
Two more Southland hospitals will stop patients, visitors and employees from lighting up on their property, joining St. Francis Hospital & Health Center in Blue Island.
Beginning Nov. 17, smoking won't be allowed — inside or outside — at Little Company of Mary Hospital and Health Care Centers in Evergreen Park and St. James Hospital and Health Centers.
For St. James, the ban applies to both hospital campuses, in Chicago Heights and Olympia Fields, as well as the company's community health centers in Monee, Mokena and Homewood.
The date the policies go into effect is timed to coincide with the Great American Smokeout, when the American Cancer Society challenges smokers to quit, at least for the day.
A year ago, St. Francis was the first in the area to decide the smoking was too dissonant with the hospital's mission to help people live healthy lives.
With large states and cities having banned cigarettes from public buildings, and Chicago officials talking about it, the hospital administrators aren't expecting much resistance from their employees or communities.
"It's easy for them to recognize it's not just us making this decision in some type of silo," St. James spokeswoman Sherry Sissac said. "Our policy is simply to create a healthy environment for everyone who comes here."
The first smoke-free year at St. Francis has been smooth, said Cheryl Champoux, vice president for human resources.
"I think people know it's the right thing to do," Champoux said.
Both St. James and Little Company of Mary have been sending letters and posting signs to warn employees that the rule is coming, and both are extending helping hands to employees who want to quit the habit.
Hospitals outside the Southland that have made the switch include Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood and Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.
By November next year, according to the Metropolitan Healthcare Council of Greater Chicago, nearly every hospital in the region will have gone smoke-free.
"Hospitals feel quite strongly that it's a public health issue," said Dr. Lawrence Haspel, senior vice president of the council. "We should be symbols of trying to show people we care about their health."
Gregg Sherrard Blesch may be reached at gblesch@dailysouthtown.com or (708) 633-5962.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/moreletters/chi-gfe2292ao.3oct20,0,2009972.story?coll=chi-newsmoreletters-hed

Smoking issues
Published October 20, 2005

Shall we put this smoking issue in perspective? Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health? If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them. It is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking. Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

An open letter to the Mayor and Council..letter sent to the Vancouver Sun
Oct. 20/05
Shall we put this smoking issue in perspective.

Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health?
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
It is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

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

Monday, October 17, 2005

Letters @News-Gazette.com Oct. 18/05

Dear Editor, Oct. 18/05

If people were truthfully informed about second-hand smoke, there would be alot less no-smoking legislations in this country. Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health??
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
It is not about health and it never was about health.It is all about de-normalizing smoking.Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807-3457258

Editorial: Snuffing out the ban
By Daily IlliniPublished:
Monday, October 17, 2005


Debates between residents of Champaign and Urbana over a smoking ban have raged on for some time. These political confrontations are, in a way, reflective of the contradictory nature of trade and consumption of tobacco products, known to cause direct and grave harm to users in the long run in such a risk averse society.It's easy to understand why the pressure on the Champaign City Council to enact a smoking ban in "all public places" has persisted, even after a Sept. 13 vote by the council to keep the regulations as is. According to the National Cancer Institute, a government organization created by the National Cancer Act of 1937, about 3,000 adult nonsmokers die of lung cancer from exposure to smoke each year. At least 60 of the 4,000 chemicals known to exist in mainstream tobacco smoke are known carcinogens, and six of them hinder cell development. Smoking is a health risk for not only those who choose to light up a cigarette, pipe or cigar but also for nearby people breathing in the smoke.There would be nothing wrong with enacting a smoking ban inside or near public places like a police headquarters, a courthouse or a city hall building. Visitors of such places have no other options available to them to resolve whatever conflict they must. In such a public location, it is sensible to prevent exposure to a health risk as great as smoke.But patrons of bars and restaurants make an active choice in entering such establishments. Urbana and Champaign boasts a wide variety of quality establishments to any who are looking for a quick glass of beer or a dinner out. Those who do not wish to be subjected to the dangers of second hand smoke can choose to visit restaurants that are not occupied by as many smokers as some, or provide enough spacing between booths or tables to minimize the risk.Part of the problem is that there are very few bars and restaurants in Urbana and Champaign that are smoke-free. But these are private establishments owned and operated by those who make a living out of providing services. By enacting any type of a ban, proprietors reduce the pool of possible patrons - something that many owners would be loath to do. Of course, the situation would be much different if creating a smoke-free environment would have presented a substantial profit opportunity. But, for all the talk about the amount of non-smokers who would start going out to eat and drink, there have yet to be any cities in the United States where a majority of businesses voluntarily banned smoking within their properties.Ultimately, the decision to move to a smoke free environment for private businesses should remain within the domain of the business owners, who should have the freedom to conduct their establishment in manners they see fit. A categorical ban against the usage of a substance in private establishments must be only against materials and goods that are patently offensive and harmful to the general public. Tobacco products may very well deserve such a measure, but it is difficult to reconcile such an argument against the fact that the FDA, despite all the harmful effects of such goods, continue to allow consumption and trade of these items to those of legal age.There is no doubt about the health hazards of a smoke-filled atmosphere in closed-air buildings. But two of the core ideals of the U.S. legal system are the right to choose and the right of property. A smoking ban would contradict both of these principles by striking against smokers and business owners who permit them to smoke on their property. But consumers have the final say in a free market economy - they have the right to vote with their dollars.

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=190348

Who’s standing up for tobacco farmers?
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review

Linda Duguay - RR 1, Allenford, Ont.

Monday October 17, 2005
Woodstock is in Oxford County, one of the few counties that grows tobacco in Canada. There is a need for this product obviously. There are smokers. Ignoring the farmers who are caught in the middle of the debate shows a complete lack of compassion by the newspaper for the families and friends and neighbours being devastated by these events. The Flue board was forced to accept lower tobacco prices and lower volumes this year, because of lower-priced imported tobacco and higher cigarette taxes. The amount of imported tobacco has risen to about 10 million pounds, from four million over the past five years. Rather than protecting the economy our government, with its ill conceived social engineering agenda is destroying farms and businesses, causing Ontario to become a "have not province.’’ There is still at least 20 per cent of the Canadian population smoking, according to Stats Canada. Although it makes you wonder how many there really are, crime rates have increased, smuggled and contraband tobacco has become a big underground business. There are pesticides and different curing process in foreign tobacco, which may endanger the smokers. In other words there is a need for quality Ontario tobacco."When you take $150,000 out of the cash flow of an individual (farmer) in three years’ time, it hurts big time," Brian Edwards, president of Tobacco Farmers In Crisis, said in April. Since June OCAT (Ontario Coalition Against Tobacco) has asked people to "contact MPPs in your province/riding to ask that funding be restored to Health Canada’s tobacco control program prior to funding being given to tobacco farmers." It’s obvious that OCAT cares more about its continued government funding than reasonable legislation and supportive funding to productive, taxpaying farmers and citizens. It’s also obvious the tobacco control extremists realize how much they are actually hurting people who just want to be able to live. Increased funding for their "charity" and its highly paid executives is obviously more important to them, than providing support for the farmers in your area who are being forced into bankruptcy. I agree with Nancy Daigneault of mychoice. We do need honest and factual information from both sides of the issue. The president of Action on Smoking and Health said in January that banning smoking in workplaces doesn’t hurt businesses. "Five provinces and territories have already brought in universal smoking bans,’’ he said. "The only industry that is affected by smoking bans is the tobacco industry.’’ All of the evidence from areas already subject to smoking bans proves that the actual damage to the economy is widespread and negatively effects the jobs of people in many different walks of life. The damage to farmers is just the tip of the iceberg; we should all worry about.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1129499412423&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Why won't city stigmatize crackheads? But smokers seen as social pariahs, public health riskNew drug strategy eschews term `drug abuse' as pejorative
ROSIE DIMANNOSo let me get this straight: I can't smoke cigarettes in Toronto but I can smoke crack?
The former is a public health risk, nipped in the butt at nearly every indoor venue, with bossy and vilifying interdiction campaigns that have transformed smokers into social pariahs. But the latter is a personal choice that ought not to be stigmatized by a judgmental society.
I am not making this up. I am merely taking to their presumptive conclusions some of the recommendations advanced in a drug strategy scheme unveiled at city hall on Friday.
So very non-condemnatory of drug use is the report by the Toronto Drug Strategy Advisory Committee that its members have quite deliberately eschewed even the term "drug abuse'' as inherently pejorative. The word "abuse,'' the report states upfront, "perpetuates social stigma and judgment which can marginalize and alienate people from the very supports they need."
These supports could, come the day, include "supervised injection sites or inhalation rooms'' in Toronto — inhalation rooms because crack cocaine is the most frequently used street drug in this city — as posited by Recommendation No. 55. That recommendation does not overtly call for the establishment of such 100 per cent toleration zones. It merely asks the city, in partnership with the Centre for Addiction & Mental Health and community groups, to further study that option in developing strategies to address the "stigma and discrimination toward people who use substances.''
The report's authors do acknowledge that supervised consumption sites — a 50-cent euphemism for what most of us would call a crack house — would provoke tremendous controversy, as indeed the matter did, does, within the committee's own membership. Clearly, there was not enough agreement from within its ranks to make a bold, unambiguous proposal. But it's just as clear, from reading this section, that the committee wants to venture further in the direction of what I can only describe as legal crack arcades, which can only be created, in this country, after obtaining formal exclusion under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
It's been done already in some 50 jurisdictions around the world, and, as of this past July, in Vancouver, where the issue is heroin rather than crack.
It is not that I wish to see drug addicts busted, because the last thing a crackhead needs is the burden of a criminal record, or incarceration in penal institutions where drugs are so easily obtained. There was a time when I believed that decriminalizing all drug use was the wisest approach — treating abuse as a health issue, not a matter for law enforcement. But I was taken aback, on my last trip to Amsterdam — where soft drugs are legal, marijuana and hash for sale in drug cafés — at how very stupid much of the mellowed-out adult populace had become, so sluggish, slack, slothful. The potency of these "soft drugs'' has increased dramatically, as laced as they are with THC.
This is not your father's ganja, as I discovered while on assignment for a story about legalizing drugs. (It took me three days to recover from my "research'' and I may very well be the only Canadian reporter who has charged spliffs and hash brownies to her expense account.)
Further, despite assurances that this wouldn't occur, the use of hard drugs in Amsterdam has skyrocketed, the city crawling with wasted junkies.
There are compelling social reasons, I now concede, for rejecting the whole premise of legalizing drugs as the lesser of two evils. And, as Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted last week — he is utterly opposed to the notion of crack sanctuaries — no one in this country gets charged for possession of small amounts of marijuana and hash any more. The personal use rule of thumb is being respected, largely because police forces have bigger drug problems to deal with, particularly the gun violence and organized crime that is driven by the drug appetite.
It is troubling that the drug advisory committee pays minimal attention to that drug-perpetuated violence in Toronto, especially after the lethal summer we've just been through. Or frames it within the context of how neighbourhoods could be made safer if some of this activity was more properly supervised — yes, even in a smoke-up drop-in environment, envisioned as a one-stop shopping emporium where addicts could also obtain clean needles and condoms and counselling, provided that counselling was non-invasive and moral-neutral.
"Effective harm reduction approaches are pro-active, offer a comprehensive range of coordinated, user-friendly, client-centered and flexible problems and services and provide a supportive, non-judgmental environment.''
The report does make many sound recommendations — from providing better addiction services in prisons to reinstating addiction as an eligible disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program — even if this does all boil down to a great deal more public money spent on intervention and the mushrooming of the anti-drug bureaucracy, indeed with the added creation of a new drug secretariat for Toronto.
But it's the tone of the thing that I find most objectionable — the de facto premise that our society has no right to project any judgmental values because, if you follow this logic, it's this very disapproval that prevents addicts from straightening out.
I would think it's the other way around. Making it easier to obtain and use crack, for instance (which, unlike heroin, doesn't involve the shared use of flesh-piercing implements that spread HIV and Hepatitis C), would not discourage such ruinous drug use. Rather, the message would seem to be that we, as a community, are prepared to facilitate your drug problem.
It's perfectly reasonable for any society to express its opprobrium for a drug scourge that makes victims of us all, be it the destruction of residential neighbourhoods or by wayward bullets that strike children.
And it's hypocritical to say that public revulsion is counter-effective in stigmatizing drug abuse when these are the very same people — check the public health authorities involved in preparing the report — who sanctioned such bullying tactics against smokers, and who claim their campaign has been marvellously effective.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
Additional articles by Rosie DiManno

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/2005/10/17/1265800.html

Ruling on tobacco opens Pandora's box
Oct. 17/05, London Free Press

What ever happened to freedom of choice, mutual respect and taking responsibility for your choices and actions?
Where will it end? First, suing tobacco companies for expenses incurred by the health-care system for people who choose to smoke.
This is a legal and taxed product. One would think the taxes received would help to offset the use of the health-care system. How much is the lawsuit going to cost the taxpayers?
What happens to the health-care system when someone decides to drink and damages their liver? Are we going to sue the breweries?
What next? Are we going to sue the makers of televisions and video games because someone needs to use the health-care system due to obesity?
Where will it end, and how much is it going to cost the taxpayer?
Living in a free country should mean you have the freedom to choose and if the choices are unwise ones, suffer the consequences -- but in this country, everyone should have access to the health-care system.
This letter is written by someone who never smoked but believes everyone has the right to choose.

Wilma Douglas
London

Sunday, October 16, 2005

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&amp;cid=1129240216989&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Oct. 16/05
Increased taxes don't help to curtail smoking
Keep raising taxes to curb smoking
Editorial, Oct. 10.

Please allow me to point out a number of flaws in this editorial calling for a combination of lawsuits against companies and increased taxes on smokers.
First, both approaches would hit smokers in their wallets. When any company has increased costs, it passes them on to customers. This happened with the $250 million settlement agreed to by U.S. tobacco companies. The money for this payment is coming from increased prices for cigarettes.
Second, your editorial correctly notes that simply banning tobacco will not work as it will lead to smuggling and a black market, but it fails to point out that trying to ban tobacco products through the back door by tax gouging will have the same effects.
Third, the idea that the increased taxes would provide funds to pay for measures to help people quit smoking would be attractive if there was reason to believe this would happen. There is not.
Our federal and provincial governments already collect a combined total of nearly $9 billion a year from smokers in taxes on their tobacco purchases.
Canadian Press last week reported Health Canada estimates smoking costs the country's health-care system $4 billion each year.
This leaves an almost $5 billion surplus, before factoring in the income taxes and health-care premiums smokers pay like everyone else. Yet governments do not use any of this tobacco profit to help with the ridiculously high costs of nicotine gum, patches and other cessation aids.
One might wish that no one smoked, but they do, and legally. They are equal citizens deserving of fair treatment. Trying to tax and abuse them into submission is an attempt to impose prohibition without actually prohibiting. It is not fair and it is not practical.
Education and sensible health promotion programs have worked to bring down smoking rates and will continue to work. Perhaps not as quickly as some would like, but a balanced, sensible, fair approach to smokers is vastly superior to attempting brute force.

Nancy Daigneault,
President, mychoice.ca,

Thursday, October 13, 2005

A letter from a non-smoker Oct. 13/05

I am a non-smoker. I haven't ever had a cigarette in my life, and I doubt I ever will. I really dislike the smell of cigarette smoke. That is my choice. It is also my choice if I want to tough it out and enjoy a night at the bars, knowing it will be smokey (or used to be, in Madison). I often do, or I will choose a bar that isn't typically as smokey (better ventalation perhaps? I know, its not perfect, but it does help.). My father passed away from throat cancer. Doctors directly linked to his smoking which he had quit 20 years ago to the cancer. I am aware of all of the health concerns and issues at play here. It is also the choice of a bar owner to have a smoking bar or not. It is also their choice if they want to pay the extra costs to upgrade its ventilation to clear the smoke better. It is also the choice of the employees to work at that particular establishment or not. There are a lot of other places seeking work which do not allow smoking, restaurant or other job-type places. Whether you want to smoke or not, whether you want to be around a smoker or not, it does not matter. I do not feel it is within our rights to tell a bar owner and their patrons if they can smoke in the building or not. Grease is not especially healthy either, do you intend to ban any sort of grease (which would eliminate a lot of foods) from Madison and Wisconsin as a whole? Large quantities of sugar is not good for you, should we tell the candy shops to board up and the stores to stop selling candy bars? You cannot protect the world from every little thing that might cause some harm, and I say might because there are plenty of smokers out there who are older and never had a problem. Yes, smoking increases risks and health problems. So does driving your car. So does eating a poor diet. So does drinking alcohol (or were you at that bar for some other reason?) But, it is your choice how you spend your time, and where. It is not your right to tell them they cannot smoke in a bar they own.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Dear Editor, The Chronicle Journal July 29/03

There is a concern in Thunder Bay about discarded used syringe needles.
The Dept of Health should pressure city council to pass a bylaw or pass a plebiscite at the next election.
"Do you support a ban on discarded used syringe needles on public or private places?"
They're dangerous to innocent people.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The smoking bylaw kicked in on July 1st,2003
The flavor of the day was discarded needles.
So I wrote this letter with the no-smoking by-law and second-hand smoke was dangerous to your health..in mind..Tongue in cheek sort of thing.I didn't think they would publish it but they did:):)

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Oct. 7/05 Published Oct. 7/05 Edmonton Sun

EVERY TIME I buy a pack of smokes, I not only prepay my medical bills but I also prepay the non-smokers' hospital bills as well.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay,Ont.
(And we thank you for it.)

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2005/10/09/1254633.html

The Calgary Sun Oct. 9/05

The ministry of health claims smokers cost the health-care system millions if not billions of dollars. Once and for all, for the public's benefit, could the ministry of health break down those figures, and show exactly how the smokers and second-hand smoke cost the government? If the ministry of health can't 'back' up those figures then it is not an issue.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
(Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of illness.)

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Letters/

Let's sue everyone!

The decision by the Supreme Court to allow the B.C. government to sue tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health costs sets a precedent that could generate tidal waves for many industries.
How long will it take until some health ministry sues the fast food and snack food industries to recover the cost of treating obesity-related problems? Burger, fries, doughnut, sandwich, cola and candy providers, beware!
Car crashes kill hundreds and injure thousands, so the auto industry must be added. Beer, wine and whisky cause many medical conditions, so add the booze makers to the must-sue list. Why not go after the illegal drug trade while you're at it?
I do not dispute that tobacco products are a health hazard, but I think that the user (or abuser) of a product should bear some responsibility. The proof of tobacco's danger has been there for enough years that no one can say that they didn't know what they were doing.
He who diggeth his own grave should not feel that others are obligated to pull him out at no cost when he falleth in.

Robert Drummond

Exeter

http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-xvox04a%20.html

Get off our backs Chicago Sun Oct. 4/05

The day I wake up and my biggest problem is smoking in a bar or restaurant is the day I am going to retire. I do not need to be rich to retire. If I could wake up with no real problems and just blame everybody else for any problems that might come up, then I would be forever happy.
What about the corruption? How come building a multibillion-dollar runway and terminal is OK, but people at bars or restaurants cannot enjoy a smoke?
It is time that Chicago gets its priorities straight. Worry about the big problems and leave the smaller problems that affect individual owners of bars and restaurants to them. How would soccer moms like it if Chicago took away their vans because they were not fuel-efficient and because soccer is not recognized as a real sport? Wouldn't be so much fun then, would it?

Mike Gaines,
Watseka

Give smokers a choice

One of the things that I hold dear as an American citizen is the right to make my own choices. I chose to start smoking about 35 years ago and have never tried to quit. I don't want to.
I knew 35 years ago that this was not a healthy choice. Anyone who ever puffed on a cigarette, even once, knows this is true. But 35 years ago smoking did not have the stigma that it has now. You'll get no argument from me about the dangers from smoking, but it is my choice, not anyone else's.
And please don't tell me about the cost to society. The billions of dollars collected from the tobacco companies through lawsuits did very little to help smokers or anybody who needed help. Most of these funds went into the general funds of the states that filed the lawsuits.

Why can't the restaurant and bar owners decide who they want to serve, smoking or nonsmoking? And why can't we as consumers decide if want to eat or drink in a smoking or non-smoking establishment? Put a sign in the window that clearly states that this a nonsmoking or smoking establishment. It then becomes the individual's choice whether to work, have dinner or drink at a particular business.
It's all about choices.
I'll respect yours. Please respect mine.

T.J. Barhum,
Palos Park

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2005/10/03/1246931.html

THE MOST recent study estimates the cost of treating smoking-related disease at $4 billion this year. This year the federal and provincial governments' combined take from tobacco taxes will be over $7.5 billion. So the myth of smokers being a huge drain on the heath-care budget can be replaced with the truth that smokers actually subsidize the system. The difference could pay for the patch or nicotine gum for every smoker in Canada with enough left over to fund increased educational programs.
Eric Harvey
(Coughing up cash.)

Monday, October 03, 2005

Toronto Sun Oct. 3/05

Suit starts slippery slope
Re "Smoke firms facing suits," (Sept. 30): The hypocrisy of this ruling is mind boggling. Like it or not, cigarettes are a legal product. Our government makes billions in taxes from tobacco products which are supposedly used to cover the "excessive" health care costs of smokers. With the tobacco companies set to be paying this cost now, will the excessive taxing of tobacco products be dropped? Our government will say no, it's a "smoking deterrent" to have high taxes on tobacco and they're committed to improving our citizens' health. We all know this is BS. If they were truly concerned about our health, the product would be illegal. Our government is committed to the tax dollars this product provides. Other businesses should be very concerned with this ruling because pretty much any health care cost can be attributed to an existing product. Obesity? Target the fast food business. Alcoholism? Target the LCBO. Breathing problems but not a smoker? Target the auto industry. Where does it stop?

Robert J. Waddell

North York

(The layers of hypocrisy on this issue are thicker than any smoke)
Point taken

So the thrust of your argument in your Sept. 30 editorial

"They just don't know how to quit," is: If the government really cared about the effects of tobacco, then like marijuana, it would ban the sale of tobacco thus stopping its effects. Additionally, anyone seen smoking a tobacco product must be using an illegal substance. No government has the balls to do that! But your reasoning is valid.

Scott Ellison
Bowmanville
(Let's not even get into which is more dangerous, pot or tobacco ...)
What's the next target?

As a non-smoker, I applaud the government for going after the legally operating entities of Big Tobacco through big lawsuits. How dare this legally produced, legally distributed, legally consumed and legally taxed product be so bad for us? What is the governments' timetable to go after Molson's, Seagram's, McDonald's, Pepsi and Frito-Lay? Will these industries be deemed illegal and shut down because they are all so bad for us? It's very clear that government is rapidly spinning out of control. How long before you or your business land in their sights?

G. Williams
Toronto
(We predict the next step will be junk food taxes)

Oct. 3/05 Winnipeg Sun

Very dangerous precedent

Re: Utterly hypocritical (Sept. 30 editorial).

If the government is genuinely concerned about the ill-effects of smoking on the public's health -- taxes be damned -- they should just make tobacco use illegal. Period.
As your editorial points out, the ruling in B.C. sets a very dangerous precedent for other legitimate companies selling legal products, such as alcohol.
I made a personal choice to smoke and I am certainly not going to sue the tobacco company for a decision I made and I really don't see any reason why the government should do so -- I would think that the taxes I have spent (and continue to spend) on cigarettes would cover any health issues I may suffer in the future.

Mrs C. McLeod
Winnipeg
And then some.

Easier to have banned tobacco Oct. 3/05

Top court clears the way for tobacco lawsuits
Sept. 30.

Should a government (in its quest for tax dollars) that allows the sale of a substance, in full knowledge that the substance causes severe health problems and even death, be allowed to sue the maker of that product when the government itself has been implicit in its distribution? Would it not have been easier and more beneficial to have banned the product, forgone the extra tax revenues and saved all the ensuing additional health-care costs?

Roy Plant, Mississauga

Chicago Sun Times Oct. 3/05

Resist smoking-ban tyranny

Regarding ''Chicago likely to OK indoor smoking ban,'' news story, Sept. 30: It appears the proposed Chicago smoking ban is becoming another public health free-for-all in which anti-smoking organizations are trying to take advantage of an opportunity to subjugate yet another proud city to their smoking-ban dogma.
''Smoking would be banned next April 1 in restaurants, bars and virtually all of indoor Chicago under a groundbreaking ordinance expected to be approved by a City Council committee Wednesday, culminating a $1.5 million crusade by anti-smoking advocates.'' This is just one of the many methods that the leading organizations in the anti-smoking movement employ to continue operating. This is what they do, while completely ignoring all opposing perspectives and the basic inalienable rights of citizens.
The health extremist industry has already damaged the lives of millions of people in incalculable ways over the years, many of them doing it while enriching themselves and their prestigious positions -- and they've gotten away with it! Health issues do not need the heavy boot of government intrusion to decide personal lifestyle choices. The free market should be allowed to do that. Smoke is not an invisible threat to the public, as are other health code issues requiring ordinances. Any prospective patron can clearly see smoke and decide whether or not to patronize an establishment choosing to allow adults to use a legal product on their premises.
We cannot allow another Prohibition-style smoking ban to destroy Chicago. Chicago needs to continue to set the standards for respect of independent personal choice, not follow other cities' unconstitutional laws. We do not need to become another victim of the ''noble'' smoking ban experiments.
Garnet D. Scheuer,
Lake Bluff

Secondhand risk: little proof

Many smokers are made to feel like modern-day lepers, segregated and ostracized on the basis of junk science that says secondhand smoke is a public health threat.
A recent survey conducted for the American Cancer Society suggests 2,900 will die this year from secondhand smoke. But the World Health Organization found ''weak evidence'' of a relationship between lung cancer risk and exposure to secondhand smoke. The weakness of the evidence stems from the fact that the risk of secondhand smoke is small relative to the very high risk of actually smoking, making it more difficult to quantify through testing.
Many office buildings, bars and restaurants contain specially ventilated smoking areas; some are required by law to provide them. Millions of Americans have been accommodated with properly ventilated smoking areas in recognition of the fact that many people smoke even though they may be trying to stop.
A fair system would allow reasonable accommodations for smokers and nonsmokers alike. Well-ventilated smoking areas should be provided for employees, bar and restaurant patrons, and those who use our government buildings. Smoke-intolerant co-workers or patrons should not be required to pass through such smoking areas.
Our willingness to make reasonable accommodations for smokers is a measure of our commitment to fairness and common sense, as well as our ability to resist junk science and to show compassion for smokers as they continue their transition toward cessation of a personally risky and politically incorrect habit.

Ralph Conner,
Maywood

Sunday, October 02, 2005

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/letters/story.html?id=26f5d5aa-9f0d-40c0-847b-7ac33fefdf13

Published in the Vancouver Sun

Subject: Pandora Box???

Dear Editor, Sept. 30/05

The British Columbia government has given permission> to the Province to sue the tobacco industry in order to recoup health care loss.

The Pandora Box has now been opened

Alcohol is next?

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Oct. 1/05
RE "Smoking gun for suits," (Sept. 30):

Oh, how I miss the days of individual responsibility, when Canadians didn't pathetically expect the nanny state to save them from themselves. I don't happen to smoke, but the fashionable jihad against smoking by the politically correct establishment makes me want to start. If a Canadian citizen chooses to do something unhealthy to himself, that shouldn't be anyone else's business. With victory against Big Tobacco imminent, the legions of liberal lawyers are already licking their chops for the next battle in the war against freedom of choice: Junk food!
Unfortunately, our hysterical commitment to the sacred cow of socialist health care has joined us together in bondage. What's unhealthy for one Canadian physically is now unhealthy for all Canadians financially.
This rationale is used as justification for the state to strip away more and more of our individual rights. National health care is a monumentally bad idea that has been shielded from debate by Liberals and other socialists by draping it in the flag and calling anyone who questions it "un-Canadian."
I wish Canadians would tell the nanny state to butt out!

Shaun Palmer
Ottawa

(If our governments truly cared about our health, cigarettes would have been banned years ago)

Saturday, October 01, 2005

The Toronto Star

Tobacco taxes best spent on health
Top court clears way for lawsuits

Sept. 30.
It's laughable that the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. How do they plan on collecting? How will they determine which of the thousands of annual cancer patients are victims of tobacco and second-hand smoke? Perhaps the government should first volunteer to redirect all sales taxes collected on the sale of tobacco products to the health-care system of that province before they initiate lawsuits. Not doing so would be enormously hypocritical since they are making money off the backs of addicts just as the tobacco giants are.

Jennifer Chalklin, Brampton

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