<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Sent letter to The Kenora Miner and News

Dear Editor, Jan. 31/06

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
If anyone believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Sask. I would like to sell them.
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
It is not about health and it never was about health.It is all about de-normalizing smoking,Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire. Thomas LapradeThunder Bay, Ont.Ph. 807 3457258

Sunday, January 29, 2006

http://rockymountainbullhorn.com/main.php?module=article-detail&articleId=484&commSwitch=on

No Butts About It Jan.29/06

When considering smoking bans, it might be instructive to consider several important words: choice, discrimination, freedom, intolerance, ignorance and bigotry.

Choice: Shouldn’t a business owner have the choice to permit smoking or not on his premises?

Discrimination: Should a business owner be forced to discriminate against those who have a habit of which the politically correct disapprove?

Freedom: Is freedom advanced or diminished by laws prohibiting smoking in certain locations?

Intolerance: Is it not intolerance to forbid others to indulge in a practice of which you disapprove?

Ignorance: Have you heard of the 39-year study by reputable research professors of over 35,000 non-smokers, which found no “causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality”?

Bigotry: Is it not plain and simple bigotry for a majority to deprive a minority of rights considered undesirable by that majority? It might be instructive, also, to consider the fact that bigotry and intolerance, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, have killed millions more people than has smoking.

Bill Horton Loveland

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/OPINION03/601290338/-1/OPINION


Politics as usual in debate on smoking

Jim Provance's Jan. 16 article on statewide smoking limits quoted the director of Ohio's leading antismoking foundation as saying, "There's no doubt in my mind that the tobacco industry is supportive of the licensed beverage organization … I'm certain there are discussions in which the tobacco industry's expertise is being shared with [them]."
So, of course, now citizens of Ohio are expected to disregard anything they hear from ban opponents because of this unproven but undoubted support from Big Tobacco. Not support in terms of money, mind you, but in advice.
Meanwhile, although explicitly forbidden to interfere in state ban politics, the antismoking lobby is planning to spend an incredible $7 million on ads designed to frighten the public and legislators about the "deadliness" of secondary tobacco smoke.
This is sort of like having an election in which one side, running an atheist candidate, has no money for TV ads, while the other side, running The Holy Father Of The Divine Divinity, is supported by a $7 million ad campaign on the general importance of bringing God back into American politics … with the sponsors of that ad campaign claiming it is "non-political."
While Philip Morris, scared to its hindteeth by lawsuits, would never pump $7 million into TV ads questioning the arguments behind a smoking ban, perhaps Ohio should demand a truly level playing field for this campaign. Smokers' tax money should not be used to influence Ohio's legislators and voters on this issue. If it is so used, it should be divided equally between ban opponents and supporters.
How about it, Ohio? Do you believe in fairness and fair play in a democracy?
Or is it Big Money and Big Lobby "politics as usual" that you want?
MICHAEL J. McFADDENPhiladelphia
Editor's note: Michael J. McFadden is the author of a book called Dissecting Antismokers' Brains.
Easy way

Jan. 27/06

With regard to Smoker Bans, "falsifying data published" also means contorting and distorting data to the point of falsification. This is an integral part of the pursuit of a clearly abusive and discriminatory de-normalization agenda that thrives and constantly feeds off distortion and excess. Case in point: the ludicrous banality of "an epidemic of toxic poison"(with regard to SHS) chiefly driven by the unrelenting zealots in the medical profession even though they know better. This is a deliberate and unconscionable misrepresentation of reality and, as such, ranks right at the top in terms of "falsification". It can be tricky to draw the line between "lying/fraud" (a very serious and very effective charge) and "exaggeration/misrepresentation" (a much milder and less effective charge, but one that's much easier to defend.) The example below comes from near the end of Antibrains. It's an easy story to remember and repeat, and it makes your charge of lying or fraud much easier to support: (from page 330) ============ Let us suppose that I earn $500,000 a year as a fast-talking lawyer. I then go on to run for public office, and to boost my image I proclaim that I believe in the importance of giving to those less fortunate. I adopt an earnest and heartfelt look and state that I give regularly to both organized charity and to the poor and homeless I encounter on the streets. I go on to emphasize that I maintain my giving year in and year out, no matter what my financial situation or pressures may be, and that I will carry similar dedication and selflessness to my career as an elected official. In truth, my a??regular contributionsa?? consist of my dropping a shiny new penny into a Salvation Army bucket each Christmas, and then tossing a somewhat grubbier one at a homeless guy who is sleeping under a blanket (while being careful not to get too close). Did I tell a lie with my above proclamation? Technically,no? I do contribute regularly, and I said nothing about the amount. However anyone in their right minds and with a sense of fairness would certainly argue that I had not been truthful. A great number, perhaps even the vast majority, of the statements made by Crusaders in pursuit of smoking bans are of roughly the same quality when it comes to truthfulness as our lawyer?(tm)s statement above. David Kessler, past head of the Food and Drug Administration, incommenting on claims about drug effectiveness, drew the distinction between a statement being a??Accuratea?? and being a??True.a?? This distinction applies perfectly to our pseudo-philanthropic barrister, as well as to much of the material present in the ads and public statements of Crusaders: his statement would indeed be accurate, but in the wider sense of the real meaning of truth, it would not be true. (Gina Kolata, a??Stung by Courts a?a?? New York Times 10/15/02). Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of The Smoker's Club, Inc.web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/mailto: Cantiloper@aol.com

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Other Paper
January 26-Feb 1, 2006 issue

Musician's Feel Ban's Bite I wanted to commend Humberto Gomez (Letters January 12) To comment on his surprise at Pat Byrne's remarks: While I have not talked to Mr. Byrne, a number of other club owners feel they have no choice other than to level the playing field. This is a well known strategy of the anti-smoking movement, as was the invented term of "second hand smoke" first alluded to at a 1975 World Health Organization conference. This was the initial premise for the social engineering smokers are dealing with today. Concerning the economics, many musicians have felt the bite in our wallets since Feb. 01, 2005---the date the Columbus ban went into effect. Attendance at bars has been down all year and many of us did not work this past New Year's Eve for the first time in years. To use a cliche, smoking bans are a slippery slope. Many bans have been overturned in this country,---although few make the headlines. Columbus needs to reconsider their ban before there is more economic damage in the short run and to keep the doors shut on other civil liberties issues that are sure to follow in the long run if this ban is not amended. Linda Dachtyl -------- My original letter: I wanted to commend Humberto Gomez for his very well written Letter to the Editor in the January 12 issue. To comment on his surprise at Pat Byrne's remarks, while I have not talked to Mr. Byrne, a number of other club owners feel they have no choice other than to join "the level playing field". This is a well known strategy of the anti-smoking movement as was the invented term of "second hand smoke" first alluded to at a 1975 World Health Organization conference. This was the initial premise for the social engineering smokers are dealing with today. In 1975 Sir George Godber, British delegate to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented the WHO with his blueprint for changing individual behavior by changing social attitudes. His published address to the WHO contains the following statement: “...it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.” His proposal may in fact be the anti-smoking movement’s best-kept secret that the ETS agenda was set years before any research had been published. http://www.nycclash.com/main.html It is quite evident that the antismoking movement is only based on the hysteria of the unproven dangers of second hand smoke. It is a shame that a business owner's choice is overlooked concerning the smoking prohibition movement, but this should be of no surprise to anyone. Mr. Gomez's comment on the Florida clubs was enlightening. If you go to the SmokeFree Ohio site, you will see that the"join the bandwagon" propaganda does not directly spell out exactly what kinds of bans are in effect in these states or other cities mentioned. The proposal for the Ohio ban is one of the most severe in the entire country and is modeled on the Columbus ban. This is available here: http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/learnmore.aspx as a PDF file. Concerning the economics, many musicians have felt the bite in our wallets since 02/01/05, the date the Columbus ban went into effect. Attendance at bars has been down all year and many of us did not work this past New Year's Eve for the first time in years. As far as other economics, one of the best decisions Gov. Taft made this year was when $230 million that the Ohio smoking prohibition organizations expected to receive was diverted to other purposes, such as rebuilding public schools. This is a cause truly "for the children". Robert Crane's response to this was also quite enlightening. He was inflamed by this move by Gov. Taft. to shift funds to rebuilding our schools, many of which if they were any other kind of building would have been condemned long ago. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/12101170.htm Concerning children, I have also seen a number of children enabled to make comments to adult smokers smoking outside as the current Columbus law requires. I'll wager that the S.T.A.N.D. organization did not anticipate this "second hand" fallout of children feeling enabled to be disrespectful to adults. To use a cliche, smoking bans are a slippery slope. Many bans have been overturned in this country, although few make the headlines. Columbus needs to reconsider their ban before there is more economic damage in the short run and to keep the doors shut on other civil liberties issues that are sure to follow in the long run if this ban is not amended.

Linda Dachtyl

Loss of business??
Straight from the horses mouth..Austin Texas

Dear Editor,

While the Chronicle lists the smoking ban as the No. 2 local story of 2005 we continue to disagree with the way almost all media frame this story [“Blue Lines to White Sheets,” News, Jan. 6]. It is not, for most of us involved in the resistance, about smokers' rights. For us is it about individual and business rights, private enterprises, personal responsibility, and free markets catering to legal products. While many people think of this issue in the context of health and the sacrifices that are necessary by others for improving public health, many of us think of this issue in the context of freedom and how disturbingly easy it is that a majority of voters can be cajoled into imposing their personal preference on others. The fact that almost every article about the issue features a close-up of a burning cigarette corroborates the intended or unintended bias of the press. By way of a progress report based on sales tax reports most of the bars that formerly allowed smoking are down in sales approximately $2,000 per month. Two thousand dollars can be 10% of total sales or 100% of total earnings. Most of the bars that did not have smoking are up on average $2,000. There are many adjustments that have to be made related to patios, level of enforcement, types of entertainment, etc., but the trend is clear: The small business community of bar owners is hurt by this ban because new nonsmoking customers do not show up to offset the loss of smokers. Meanwhile, smokers merely relocate to bars with patios and the overall impact to Austin public health in negligible.

Paul Silver

Keep Austin Free

A letter to the Publican Jan.26/06


Protect the workers you say??
I took a survey of 95% of the workers in my home town. I asked them,"were you pounding on the doors of the Mayor and Council and Tobacco Free Thunder Bay,"pleading, please pass a no-smoking bylaw so we are protected from this evil, toxic, second-hand smoke"? They all said NO.They said,"who gave these zealots the permission to speak for us"? We made the choice to work in this type of environment, including the non-smoking worker. We like this environment. Why don't these idiots butt out of our business. If this smoking bylaw is passed, most of us will be losing our jobs.(Incidently 40% of the workers lost their jobs after the bylaw was passed) Now these unemployed workers are 100% protected from that evil, toxic, second-hand smoke. All the compatible non-smokers said,"Why are they trying to interfere with my choices. It is my business not theirs. One compatible non-smoker said this to me."These zealots are trying to de-normalize smoking and a big step in that direction is to legislate no-smoking laws.

IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Animals are the 'proof''that second-hand smoke is not harmful
Jan. 26/06

Why don't dogs run away from second-hand smoke??

With all of the false information that is being passed about the health risks of smoking, there is one point of proof that it is not as harmful as the antis would like us to believe. I think you know that I have been a parrot breeder for over 23 years. Parrots are more susceptible to toxins in the air than any other animal. An overheated teflon pan will kill any parrot in the house in a matter of minutes. Yet other animals show no ill effects. Some cleaning solutions, a new self-cleaning oven used the first time, Febreze, treatments used in new carpeting, and any number of other items used in most homes will almost instantly kill a parrot. Yet people breathe these fumes daily. I have been smoking around my parrots, including the babies, and not once, in over 23 years, has any of the parrots been affected or developed health problems that may have been caused by my smoking. Some of my breeders are almost 40 years old and still going strong. If second-hand smoke is really such a health risk, why are parrots seemingly unaffected by it, yet toxins that we breathe almost daily will kill them instantly. Seems to me that any toxins that may be in the air we breathe are coming from a source other than cigarette smoke.
Judy

http://www.roxxon0.tripod.com/home.html

Smoking bans in the private hospitality sector have bever been proven to even slightly decrease overall smoking rates.
This is very sad indeed because that is the true basis for government mandated smoking bans.Supposed "protection" of workers, the public and children from ETS exposure is not the true intent of government imposed smoking bans.
Denormalizing the practice of smoking along with branding smokers as modern day lepers, as a means to goad them and guilt them into smoke-free submission is the true not-so-hidden anti-smoking agenda.
The vast majority of smokers will keep smoking even with the bans in place.The first workplace indoor smoking bans in North America, which were introduced in the mid 1980s until present are prime examples of how increased tobacco taxarion and workplace smoking bans did almost nothing to spawn large quit smoking trends.
Smoking rates have held steady in North America since the early 1980s regardless.
The U.K.'s proposed blanket smoking ban will likely be introduced with no exemptions by the year 2010.
At that time, Scotland's currently proposed smoking ban model, which extends to outdoor areas will also likely be applied to the U.K.
In the U.S.A. areas that have enacted outdoor smoking bans and the politicians who voted for such idiotic regulations have readily admitted that ETS is not a pressing health issue in outdoor spaces.
However, two of the most common reasons they gave for enacting outdoor smoking bans were:1. Litter and fire prevention2. Denormalizing smoking in public places, as a means to encourage young people not to smoke or take up smoking.Pure social engineering.
The "good old" principal..."Out of sight, out of mind."If the mostly ignorant public's perception can be altered to belive that very few people smoke, they themselves will be less likely to smoke.
Even if you are foolish enough to support indoor smoking bans and to accept them and their basis at, "face value"...You still have to wonder why the anti-smoking lobby is also pushing hard for outdoor smoking bans.
Even if you believe the absurd anti-smoking propaganda regarding "there being no modern ventilation systems that are capeable of ridding a room of "deadly" ETS fumes...
The outdoor smoking ban agenda exposes the anti-smoking lobby's true intentions and the real basis for government imposed smoking bans.DENORMALIZATION OF SMOKERS AND SMOKING IN TODAY'S CURRENT AND IN FUTURE SOCIETIES!
So the current government proposed blanket smoking ban in the U.K. and it's true basis is an extreme hoax and fraud.
Believe it or not, it's a fact.
Any law or regulation that is based upon complete misinformation, junk science and out & out lies is a foolish law or regulation.
You may personally like smoke-free hospitality venues but having the government impose blanket smoking bans is anything but a positive or progressive form of change.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=144798
Six Flags jumps on smoking ban ride

Daily Herald
Daily Herald Staff WriterPosted Thursday, January 19, 2006
Guests will find it a bit more difficult to satisfy nicotine cravings beginning this season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee.
Parent company Six Flags Inc. announced Thursday a tightening of its current smoking policy, which prohibits guests from lighting up while in children’s areas, water parks or ride lines.
Now, guests at Great America or other Six Flags parks around the country will have to use designated smoking areas within the facilities.
While Six Flags’ position is supported by the Lake County Health Department, it is being panned by a local advocate of smokers’ rights.
Bill Mays, Lake County’s director of community heath services, said tobacco smoke can trigger an asthma attack or other problems outdoors. He added Great America isn’t the only suburban outdoor venue cracking down on smokers.
Deerfield’s ban on smoking in public and work places includes outdoor events, such as its farmers market, effective March 1.
“Maybe three to five years down the road, (Six Flags) might not allow smoking at all on their grounds,” Mays said.
Six Flags’ president and chief executive officer, Mark Shapiro, explained the rationale for moving to designated smoking areas in a statement issued Thursday.
“Making our parks smoke-free will be an enhancement to the quality of the Six Flags experience,” Shapiro said, “and our guests will think so, too. Nobody should be forced to dodge clouds of smoke when they’re strolling through the park with their children.”
Shapiro’s stance drew a negative reaction from Lake Bluff resident Garnet Dawn Scheuer, Midwest regional director for The Smoker’s Club Inc.
Scheuer said Shapiro tightened Six Flags’ smoking policy just to be trendy. She said she has been to Great America many times and never noticed the smoke clouds cited by Shapiro.
“They are a total farce,” Scheuer said of smoking bans and restrictions. “They cannot enforce them, and people cannot respect the law.”
Great America spokeswoman Katie Goodale said the park has yet to select the smoking areas. She said that will be done before Great America reopens on a limited scheduled in April.
Although patrons can be ejected for breaking Great America rules, said Goodale, she doesn’t expect that to occur with those found smoking outside designated boundaries in what will be a transition year. She said park employees will direct smoking guests to the proper areas.
Goodale said she is confident Great America patrons will cooperate with the enhanced smoking restriction.
“Having a nice atmosphere is kind of a partnership,” she said.

http://www.athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle§ion=opinion&story_id=23124

Dear Editor, Jan. 24/06

"There is no safe level of second-hand smoke?"
Consider this common sense situation.
If there are 500 non-smokers in a banquet hall(with decent ventilation) and one person lights up a cigarette.
Are you insinuating that everybody is in harms way from that one cigarette?
You are an insult to my intelligence and to the intelligence of all your readers.

It is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Monday, January 23, 2006

http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/pages/newsroom/letters.html

Raise taxes to support non-profit groups
To the editor:RE: Dec. 21 letter entitled - Charities shouldn’t have to rely on bingo smokers

The local government should raise everybody’s property taxes to finance these non-profit organizations.
That way, everybody pays, instead of just the smokers and their friends.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/thoughts/051114-1850.asp

Second-hand smoke scare not about health(from the U of T Bulletin, Nov 14/05)
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is harmful to your health (Court Ruling Monumental Step Forward, Oct. 31)? If anybody believes that then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
ALSO SEE:
Court ruling a monumental step forward
Policies reviewed regularly
It is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking. Smoking bans are a big step in that direction. Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire.

Thomas LaPrade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

University of Calgary..'The Gauntlet'



LetterSmoking excuses
November 10, 2005
by Thomas Laprade

Editor, the GauntletSmoke from a handful of crushed marijuana leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is harmful 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, and smoking bans are a big step in that direction. Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.

Dear Sir,

The Editor of the Chatham Sun is in the habit of always adding an insightful one-liner response at the end of the letters they publish. In response to Dan Romano's letter about the pig-lung fiasco (Chatham Sun, January 23), the editor writes: "Saving people from themselves has always been a noble cause".We at C.A.G.E. could not disagree more! Saving people from themselves, whether done by the Salem Witch Hunters, Dominican Inquisitors, or any other religious-based persecution done for the good of the persecuted, has always been a justification for the most heinous of state-sponsored crimes against people. In the "Free" Western Democracies, organized religion has been pushed out of the business of politics, so they can no longer save our souls in the name of "G-d". So instead, we now have the types of persecutors who are trying to save our bodies in the name of "health". However you whitewash it or justify it, we still end up with a group of cruel people who feel justified in imposing their morals on others. And so I would respond to our noble editor: "No sir. Saving people from themselves has NEVER been a noble cause.

"Daniel Romano
C.A.G.E. Canada
3445 Drummond, #307
Montreal, QC H3G 1X9

http://chathamsun.com/Images/chatham_sun.pdf

Nobody showed up for the
pig lung demonstration, because of
poor weather conditions (Chatham
Sun, Jan. 19).
Is it a remote possibility that
smokers just happen to enjoy
smoking, regardless of the possible
long-term effects?

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
(Some likely do)

I could not help but laugh as
I read about nobody showing up to
see blackened pig lung in an antismoking
demonstration (Chatham
Sun, Jan. 19).
In addition to the weather, I
would venture two more guesses as
to why there was no interest:
First, they may have been rightly
cynical about the scientific pertinence
of a disembodied pig’s lung
being pumped full of concentrated
tobacco smoke, and the implied
analogy with a living, cleansing, regenerating
human lung.
Second, maybe they just don’t
care. Those who don’t smoke, such
as myself, have no interest in such
a macabre exhibit. And those who
do smoke enjoy doing so and have
made their choices.
These latter people have made
decisions for themselves, not only
with full knowledge of all the horrible
pictures they see on their
cigarette packages, but also aware
that the average life expectancy for
a smoker in Canada is a ripe-old
mid-seventies.
The smoking rate in Canada is
decreasing steadily and consistently.
I suggest we let things proceed,
stop harassing our fellow
citizens, stop wasting public money
trying to tell people how to live,
and let these good nurses go back
to doing more meaningful work.

Daniel Romano
Montreal
(Saving people from themselves
has always been a noble cause)

Friday, January 20, 2006

http://www.themonitor.com/

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
January 18,2006
The Monitor
Second-hand smoke not harmful

To the editor:

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
Thomas Laprade,
Thunder Bay,
Ontario, Canada

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Dear Editor,I could not help but laugh as I read about nobody showing up to see blackened pig lung in an anti-smoking demonstration. In addition to the weather, I would venture two more guesses as to why there was no interest:First, they may have been rightly cynical about the scientific pertinence of a disembodied pig's lung being pumped full of concentrated tobacco smoke, and the implied analogy with a living, cleansing, regenerating human lung.Second, maybe they just don't care. Those who don't smoke, such as myself, have no interest in such a macabre exhibit. And those who do smoke enjoy doing so and have made their choices. These latter have made decisions for themselves not only with full knowledge of all the horrible pictures they see on their cigarette packages, but also aware that the average life expectancy for a smoker in Canada is a ripe-old mid-seventies.The smoking rate in Canada is decreasing steadily and consistently. I suggest we let things proceed, stop harassing our fellow citizens, stop wasting public money trying to tell people how to live, and let these good nurses go back to doing more meaningful work.
Daniel Romano
President, C.A.G.E.
Citizens Against Government Encroachment
3445 Drummond, #307
Montreal, QC
H3G 1X9T
514-288-5016

http://www.chathamsun.com/Images/chatham_sun.pdf

The Publican Jan. 19/06

How anyone can possibly believe that regulations that are based upon scientific frauds and unwaranted health hysteria are progressive actions is unbelievable.
It is absurd to suggest regulations and bans that usurp the private property rights of private property owners, which remove freedom of choice and marginalize a sizeable portion of the population as a positive and modern progessive move by government over-regulation and over-intrusion, must be smoking something. And it must be much stronger than tobacco.
And the fools from the "peanut gallery" gleefully cheer on the loss of personal freedoms and the right for others to choose.
The same pro-prohibition crowd often cry like babies when their own personal freedoms and personal rights are threatened by government over-regulation.
Some of the pro-ban people here belong back in Nazi-Germany with Hitler as their role model and leader. Hell, they embrace his health elitist anti-smoking tactics.
An Nazi by any other name is usually an anti-smoker, just the same.

Craig A.

To :

Subject :
The public a 'no' show at the 'Pig' lung show

Dear Editor, Jan. 19/06

A 'no' show for the Pig Lung demonstration.

Reason--Poor weather conditions.

Is it a remote possibility that smokers just happen to enjoy smoking, irregardless of the possible long term effects??

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Letter to the Montreal Gazette letters@thegazette.canwest.com
Dear Editor, Jan. 18/06

I happen to notice a statement in one of your author's columns."An hour in a smoky room equals smoking 35 cigarettes for a non-smoker."
Can a smoker smoke that many cigarettes in an hour, let alone a non-smoker 'breathe' in that many cigarettes??
I find it very strange that an educated person would make a statement like that, especially to the public.

Let me get this straight.
How much smoke is there in a smoky room?
How big is that room?
Is there any ventilation in that room?
Are all the windows(if any) and doors sealed air tight?
How many cigarettes that have been smoked in order to say it is a 'smoky room?
Personally, that statement is an insult to my intelligence and to the intelligence of your readers.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Ph. 807 3457258

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

A letter sent to The Toronto Star Jan. 18/06

Jim Watson, Ontario's minister of health promotion, in his op/ed "Smokers: Butt out this year"
Jan. 17, 2006,

"I challenge smokers in Ontario that if these are not the right programs for you, let me know what else is needed." Well Jim,what's needed is a little bit of trust. Right now smokers have no reason to trust you or any of the tobacco control extremists. The "father knows best" paternalistic attitude that you display in your article will only drive people away. We have watched "estimates" of health care costs escalate from 500 million to 800 million dollars a year to the latest "estimate" of 1.7 billion dollars a year all in the course of less than a year. Of course smokers also know from Stats Canada that 2.5 billion dollars is collected in tobacco taxes from Ontario smokers every year, and that is not an inflated estimate it is fact. Smokers are subsidizing the health care system, not costing it. We have watched as the tobacco control extremists in government, agencies and the government funded health charities publish ever escalating death "estimates" based on statistics derived from studies published by the EPA and WHO, that along with some other guesstimates and assumptions are run through a risk computer program called SAMMEC which generates the numbers. Garbage in, garbage out. Of course we also know that these studies clearly state that the associations found are very weak and fail to reach statistical significance, with the exception that the WHO study did show with statistical significance that children exposed to shs in the home are less likely to develop diseases later in life, and that the EPA study was declared by the American Congressional Science Review Committee to be completely invalid. Have you even read the studies you base your claims on? We have watched as fear mongering story's like the Helena miracle (50% reduction in heart attacks thanks to a 6 month smoking ban) are pushed as proof that there are real benefits derived from smoking bans, yet similar reductions were not seen in other much larger jurisdictions like Ottawa or New York that have had smoking bans for longer periods of time. Even a 10% heart attack reduction in a population the size of Toronto's would be immediately noticed. What are the Canadian studies telling us. Are there in fact any Canadian studies, or is the whole package of disinformation just imported from the States?
We have watched as all cases of a "tobacco related" disease are added into the total of "tobacco deaths" whether tobacco was involved or not and age as a factor is completely ignored. Blatant exaggerations like this just further erode your credibility. You say that "Ontario's health-care system cannot be sustained without your (smokers) help." We say that we are helping through the excessive taxes we are paying. Perhaps there would be greater benefit to the health care system if all the hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted on prevention rhetoric and junk science were being spent on real health care, put the money into hospitals and hands on health care workers, not social engineering and propaganda. If smoking is indeed a deadly threat to society why are you not simply making it illegal to grow, possess or use tobacco products? Then we could shut down all of the departments and organizations wasting tax dollars on this issue and get on with actually looking after the health care system. We will be watching for you to start publishing verifiable facts and real science rather than exaggerations and fiction. We will be watching for you to stop fear mongering and trying to manipulate public opinion. We will be watching for you to start treating smokers like the adult, intelligent tax paying citizens that they are. You have challenged smokers, now we challenge you. Bring forward some real proof of harm, not just manipulated statistics, fear mongering and hearsay and we might start listening to you.

Fred Quarrie

The Toronto Star

Dear Editor, Jan. 18/06

In Ontario, smoking costs us 1.7 billion in Health-Care costs, says Jim Watson, the Ontario Minister of Health Promotion.

If all the taxes from cigarettes would be put toward health care costs instead of into a general fund, we would have a surplus in our Health Care System.


Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Dear Freedom of Choice members of the Ontario Legislature JAN. 18/06

I thank you from the bottom of my heart that you so courageously voted against Bill 164(smoke-free)

Politicians know that 80% of the public don't smoke and they also know that is where the votes are.

Politicians would rather be popular than 'right.'

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?? If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Saskatchewan I would like to sell them.

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Publican

InevitablePaul things are only "inevitable" if no one opposes it.
"for evil to triumph it only requires good men to do nothing"
It is quite clear to anyone with intelligence the basic flaws in the propoganda put out to support a ban. It was originally only to protect bar staff(already protected under health and safety) now it is to support people giving up smoking.
A groundswell of fear and hysteria has been falsly created by government and unquestioningly accepted by the more sheeplike in society. This is a government tactic in collusion with other governments under WHO directives without the democratic will of the people in any of those counties being considered.
THIS is what is wrong and should be fought against as if it is accepted the same undemocratic restrictions will be applied to ID cards, alcohol and food.
Democracy should not be done by opinion polls but by giving the people the true and relevant facts on which to vote.
Why do the government not put adverts on tv giving a factual balanced view of what banning smoking in the leisure industry will mean so that people can make an informed decision. After all it is our money they are using to produce anti smoking (now secondry smoking) propoganda as fact.
Ken Nason

The Publican

Craig ,
16-Jan-2006
To Paul...I'm not trying to, "bust your chops."

I believe that the U.K will enventually attempt to ban smoking.
So some of the things that you have said make logical sense.
However not all hospitality industry venues, especially wet-led pubs do not have the ability to ever adapt to blanket government imposed smoking bans.
Under government imposed smoking bans, hospitality businesses become restaurants which sell booze (those that serve alcohol).
But there is no level playing field.
There never was and there never will be.
It's easy to be a cheerleader for a regulation that may not effect your livelihood in a dramatic fashion. But what about the other people who will be royally screwed due to a blanket government imposed smoking ban? What of those people? Don't they matter?
If a blanket ban becomes a reality in the U.K.Look for over 1/3 to 1/2 of all hospitality industry employees to join the unemployment line. Including a number of your own current staff.
When anti-smoking ban "fool's gold" pans out to be the true disaster that it has been in countries all over the worldwhere the government introduces indoor and or outdoor non-smoking policies.
Remember Paul, not every hospitality business can adapt to government imposed smoking bans. In fact many can never make that transition, ever.
Instead of accepting draconian smoking bans as valid laws, publicans should be bracing for legal fights against the ban in the highest court in the land.
The phantom dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke should be put to the test scientifically. The anti-smoking lobby are terrified of that prospect.
The ETS danger-health risk hoax is merely a bogeyman and the only double-negative, trump card the antis hold in their quest for a smoke-free planet.
The antis cannot prove that ETS is a pressing health risk. The antis have left the onus up to those who oppose smoking bans to do their scientific groundwork for them. The antis have spent a great fortune in their attempts to prove ETS is the most deadly toxin known to mankind. All of those efforts have failed abysmally.
It's no wonder that the antis are so afraid of ventilation solutions. Without their ETS kills, trump card...The antis and governments could no longer impose smoking bans upon the private hospitality sector. Non-smoking regulations which usurp the private property rights of business owners under the fraudulent guise of health.

« A way to fight terrorism and protect rights View today's letters
Originally posted: January 16, 2006Bar activities
I propose a swap of the legality of two bad habits in Illinois restaurants and bars: Let’s swap smoking, a deadly habit that not only harms the participant but anyone else who’s in the vicinity to inhale the toxins being emitted, with keno, which is relatively harmless to the participant and will benefit most everyone else in the state.
Mark Sreniawski
Plainfield
Comments

Mark's letter comparing Keno to smoking makes one grave error: simply being around a smoker who is smoking does not necessarily harm a nonsmoker. To this date there has never been a single scientific study done that shows any degree of long term harm to health from the low exposures to smoke that one would get in any decently ventilated and air-filtrated modern facility.
The studies hyped as indicating otherwise are virtually all based either on surveys based on exposures largely from 30 to 50 years ago with much poorer ventilation and virtually NO air filtration, or are based on concentrated "smoke chamber" conditions that would never, EVER, be found in a restaurant and almost never even in bars today.
Air quality standards would protect nonsmokers far more than smoking bans... but there's no big money lobby pushing them nowadays: the tobacco companies have pretty much all tucked their tails between their legs out of fear of lawsuits and the Antismoking Lobby dances around with hundreds of millions of dollars to buy TV ads making secondary tobacco smoke look like Bubonic Plague.
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"www.Antibrains.comPosted by: Michael J. McFadden Jan 16, 2006 10:05:43 AM

Monday, January 16, 2006

Attention: Chicago Tribune Editors/Voice of the People

RE: OVERKILL - A Good Day to Quit Smoking - Editorial, Published January 16, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0601160187jan16,1,4590780.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Smokers have been forced to endure your systematic and repeated attacks upon their life-style choices for months. However, this time shame on the Chicago Tribune and the anonymous author of this editorial! How dare an unnamed author make moral and medical judgments on an entire segment of our population through issuing subjective, undocumented and judgmental statements to the public. This newspaper has already made its support of a city-wide smoking ban very clear. Repeatedly exploiting your newspaper's position by preaching smoke-hating dogma is completely reprehensible. Smokers still compose 21% of our population and a significant portion of your readers.

Free choice and free trade advocates have been requesting any valid health documentation or death certificates from the Health Control Industry for years to confirm the harms of ETS. To date, not one response has been given to document these health claims, and all studies have proved inconclusive. Smoking bans, the smoking-ban bandwagon, and this form of social engineering have become "big business" and only one more example of USA citizens' loss of liberty and right-to-choice.

Until the last few months, I had been under the impression that the Chicago Tribune followed certain respected standards in reporting news and publishing editorials. Op-eds of this nature are a serious blemish upon this newspaper's credibility. Please cease making moral judgments and attempting to implement social engineering by abusing your position of visibility.

Sincerely,

Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, IL 60044

http://www.athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle§ion=archives&story_id=23052


If properly ventilated, second-hand smoke is not proved to be unhealthy

Monday, January 9th, 2006

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country. Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health? If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and using modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent of smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario

The Publican Jan. 16/06

believe that the U.K will enventually attempt to ban smoking.
So some of the things that you have said make logical sense.
However not all hospitality industry venues, especially wet-led pubs do not have the ability to ever adapt to blanket government imposed smoking bans.
Under government imposed smoking bans, hospitality businesses become restaurants which sell booze (those that serve alcohol).
But there is no level playing field.
There never was and there never will be.
It's easy to be a cheerleader for a regulation that may not effect your livelihood in a dramatic fashion.But what about the other people who will be roally screwed due to a blanket government imposed smoking ban?What of those people?Don't they matter?
If a blanket ban becomes a reality in the U.K.Look for over 1/3 to 1/2 of all hospitality industry employees to join the unemployment line.Including a number of your own current staff.
When anti-smoking ban "fool's gold" pans out to be the true disaster that it has been in countries all over the worldwhere the government introduces indoor and or outdoor non-smoking policies.
Remember Paul, not every hospitality business can adapt to government imposed smoking bans.In fact many can never make that transition, ever.
Instead of accepting draconian smoking bans as valid laws, publicans should be bracing for legal fights against the ban in the highest court in the land.
The phantom dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke should be put to the test scientifically.The anti-smoking lobby are terrified of that prospect.
The ETS danger-health risk hoax is merely a bogeyman and the only double-negative, trump card the antis hold in their quest for a smoke-free planet.
The antis cannot prove that ETS is a pressing health risk.The antis have left the onus up to those who oppose smoking bans to do their scientific groundwork for them.The antis have spent a great fortune in their attempts to prove ETS is the most deadly toxin known to mankind.Al of those efforts have failed abysmally.
It's no wonder that the antis are so afraid of ventilation solutions.Without their ETS kills, trump card...The antis and governments could no longer impose smoking bans upon the private hospitality sector.Non-smoking regulationswhich usurp the private property rights of business owners under the fraudulent guise of health.

Craig

The Publican....Jan. 13/06

Again, the antis are not seeking any form of fair smoking ban compromise.
Remember, the U.K.'s proposed smoking ban is a World Health Org. directive. And yes, outdoor smoking ban extensions will come in to play shortly after the original ban is in place.

Smoking bans that are part of the World Health Organization's: "World Tobacco Control Treaty" have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public or workers from the unproven dangers of passive smoke.
Not on your life...The WHO's agenda is one that is based upon lies, fear and loathing. The ultimate goal of the WHO is to denormalize smokers and the practice of smoking in modern society.

The hidden agenda:
The WHO gets much of it's yearly funding from big drug companies. Anti-smoking is a big business.
The idea is to shame, guilt and goad smokers into quitting.
The ETS health hoax is the biggest weapon in the anti-smoking army's war-chest.and though it is a toothless weapon, once again perception via anti-smoking propaganda is the key.

The WHO's logic:
If hardcore smokers will not quit for the sake of their own personal health and well-being...If those smokers can be led to believe that their second-hand smoke may harm or kill others...Those smokers will likely quit smoking for the sake of "innocent" non-smoking others.
The real reasons behind the push for government imposed smoking bans...
1. Hospitality business owners must accept govenment imposed smoking bans by law. The business owners will eventually have no choice but to comply.
2. If smokers have less places to smoke, the antis believe that the smokers will quit smoking, often out of complete frustration.
3.When blanket smoking bans are intoduced, a number of people will attempt to quit smoking. Most of these attempts end in dismal failure. In order to quit smoking a smoker must truly want to give up their habit. In the meantime the big drug companies will sell a lot of smoking cessation products.

There is a method to the anti-smoking lobby's madness after all. It's all about money and control.
The second-hand smoke-health hoax makes it all possible.
Used to strip the private property rights of private property owners the second-hand smoke hoax and government imposed smoking bans are interagal in the anti's future goal of a smoke-free planet.

When the outdoor smoking bans come, many of the current indoor smoking ban supporters will have a huge reality check. You see, the protection of hospitality workers and the public from ETS exposure is nothing more than a whopping lie.

Craig

http://www.athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle§ion=opinion&story_id=23078

Opinion

If you ban public smoking, look for nightlife economy to take a plunge Thursday, January 12th, 2006. It was nice to read that Athens is not so eager to jump on the smoking-ban bandwagon. Nightlife in Columbus has taken a nosedive since the ban took effect in February 2005. There are fewer club opportunities for musicians to play simply because of economics. Lots of bands are being replaced by DJs, karaoke, and/or a jukebox. Lots of bar owners are struggling in general because of a drop in clientele. In addition, the Toledo smoking ban now exempts bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls and restaurants that qualify. Their original ban was overturned in November 2004 after a year of many businesses closing as a direct result of the ban.

Linda Dachtyl

Ridgerun Drive
Columbus, Ohio

Saturday, January 14, 2006

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/01/14/1393384.html

SOLDIERS IN our cities? I hope they are ours.
Thomas Laprade
(That would be preferable, yes.)

Craig , 13-Jan-2006 Wake up!Again, the antis are not seeking any form of fair smoking ban compromise.
Remember, the U.K.'s proposed smoking ban is a World Health Org. directive.And yes, outdoor smoking ban extensions will come in to play shortly after the original ban is in place.
Smoking bans that are part of the World Health Organization's: "World Tobacco Control Treaty" have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public or workers from the unproven dangers of passive smoke.
Not on your life...The WHO's agenda is one that is based upon lies, fear and loathing.The ultimate goal of the WHO is to denormalize smokers and the practice of smoking in modern society.
The hidden agenda:The WHO gets much of it's yearly funding from big drug companies.Anti-smoking is a big business.
The idea is to shame, guilt and goad smokers into quitting.
The ETS health hoax is the biggest weapon in the anti-smoking army's war-chest.and though it is a toothless weapon, once again perception via anti-smoking propaganda is the key.
The WHO's logic:If hardcore smokers will not quit for the sake of their own personal health and well-being...If those smokers can be led to believe that their second-hand smoke may harm or kill others...Those smokers will likely quit smoking for the sake of "innocent" non-smoking others.
The real reasons behind the push for government imposed smoking bans...
1. Hospitality business owners must accept govenment imposed smoking bans by law.The business owners will eventually have no choice but to comply.2. If smokers have less places to smoke, the antis believe that the smokers will quit smoking, often out of complete frustration.
3.When blanket smoking bans are intoduced, a number of people will attempt to quit smoking.Most of these attempts end in dismal failure.In order to quit smoking a smoker must truly want to give up their habit.In the meantime the big drug companies will sell a lot of smoking cessation products.
There is a method to the anti-smoking lobby's madness after all.It's all about money and control.
The secomd-hand smoke-health hoax makes it all possible.
Used to strip the private property rights of private property owners the second-hand smoke hoax and government imposed smoking bans are interagal in the anti's future goal of a smoke-free planet.
When the outdoor smoking bans come, many of the current indoor smoking ban supporters will have a huge reality check.You see, the protection of hospitality workers and the public from ETS exposure is nothing more than a whopping lie.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Letter published in the ChronicleJournal
Jan. 9/06

WE'RE PAYING MORE FOR OUR OWN GAS

Union Gas will increase the price it charges for natural gas in Ontario by 35% in the new year.

Reason: The disruptions of gas due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. My question: Don't we get our gas from Alberta??
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

To: lettersChron chronicleJournal

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: A compromise for smokers and non-smokers
Dear Editor, Jan.9/06

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the harmful effectsof second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country. Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?? If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property inSaskatchewan I would like to sell them. There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokerscan be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

http://www.charlatan.ca/articles/2005/06/30/stories/72132.html


LETTER: Smoking bans threaten democracy and infringe on personal freedoms.
by Thomas Laprade,
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Re: Smoking bans unfair:

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the threat of second-hand smoke.
Loudly billed as a measure that only affects public places,
smoking bans have actually targeted many privately owned places such as bars and shops - places whose owners should be free to ban smoking or not and whose customers are free to patronize or not.
Outdoor bans even harass smokers in places where the health of others is simply not an issue.
The decision to smoke or to avoid second-hand smoke is a question for each individual to answer based on his or her own values and judgment.
This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives.
All lifestyle decisions involve risks and some have demonstrably harmful consequences.
Many are controversial and invite disapproval from others. The individual must be free to make these decisions.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom of choice is being seriously limited by a majority made fearful through massive media campaigns often funded by tax dollars.
The real threat we face here, no matter how strongly it is denied by the anti-smoking lobby, is the systematic and unlimited intrusion of the government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour. They are in office to serve us, not vice versa.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

The Chronicle Journal
Sat. Jan. 7/06
By Bryan Meadows
NORTHWEST BUREAUA

judicial review has agreed with a Health Services Appeal and Review Board decision that Northwestern Health Unit medical officer of health Dr. Pete Sarsfield overstepped his authority when he issued a smoking ban for public places on Jan 1/03 "The fight was fought, and the fight was lost," a disappointed Sarsfield said Friday. Sarsfield called the reasons cited by the three-member judicial panel "fascinating." "They exemplified the conservative nature of society in placing an individual's rights to do a harmful activity above the collective good," he said. "Nowhere have I argued against people smoking. I just didn't want them putting smoke in someone else's lungs." In it's 13- page decision, the Divisional Court panel stated that "the medical officer of health(MOH) decision and his orders engage questions and issues of public policy, economic interests and the freedom to engage in an otherwise lawful activity." A health officer's powers "cannot be unlimited or limited only by his own personal view of what constitutive an unacceptable health hazard in general, " the ruling stated. The panel said "the attempt by(Sarsfield) to make general prohibitions throughout the entire Northwestern Health Unit for all public places is excessive and an abuse of the order-making power he does have." The panel agreed with the Health Services Appeal and Review Board(HSARB) that ruled that Sarsfield's smoking ban was "beyond the scope of his authority" under Section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.. The Ministry of the Attorney General had requested the review more than a year ago, arguing that the appeal board erred in its final decision on Sarsfield's authority and its interpretation of the health protection act, the Tobacco Control Act, the Smoking in the Workplace Act and Section 115 of the Municipal Act.

http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/story.php?id=205540

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Excellent comments...............Jan. 5/06

http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-talk-of-the-day/2005/12/no-smoking-in-illinois/all-comments/#comments

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

http://www.brandonsun.com/archive/brandon_sun/SUN_2006_01_03.pdfDear Editor, Dec. 28/05

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2006/01/03/1376804.html
Jan. 3/05
I normally agree with most of what Bill Kaufmann writes, but I must take issue with his latest diatribe against smokers. ("Move our butts," Dec. 26.) The issue of banning smoking relates to whether the state should decide what legal activities private property owners can or cannot allow on their premises. Nobody is arguing smoking is healthy, but hospitality industry workers accept the possible risks and dangers of their occupation like everyone else. Smoking bans kill jobs, as well as revenue. Anti-smoking extremists masquerading as health activists should not be able to exploit individual fear at the expense of private property owners.
Ken Erickson
(Now the social crusaders are moving in on junk food!)

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Sun, January 1, 2006
Letters: January 1

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/01/01/1374879.html




JOHN SERGINSON in his Dec. 28 letter wrote, "Less than 20% of the population smokes. That means that there is a huge customer base that they (bar owners) are ignoring." A large part of the population is under 18 and is not part of the bar's customer base. A very large part of the population is over 40. A lot of smokers quit when entering middle age and also stop frequenting bars as often as they did in their youth. How many 65-year-olds and people older than that do you expect to find in bars? The normal age of people found in bars is between 18 and maybe 35, and within that age group and customer base you will find that considerably more than 20% of them smoke. In fact, the percentage of customers in bars who are smokers can easily exceed 50%. No matter what the numbers and percentages say, smoking bans destroy businesses and charities.
Fred Quarrie
(Fun with numbers.)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/01/01/1374879.html


JOHN SERGINSON in his Dec. 28 letter wrote, "Less than 20% of the population smokes. That means that there is a huge customer base that they (bar owners) are ignoring." A large part of the population is under 18 and is not part of the bar's customer base. A very large part of the population is over 40. A lot of smokers quit when entering middle age and also stop frequenting bars as often as they did in their youth. How many 65-year-olds and people older than that do you expect to find in bars? The normal age of people found in bars is between 18 and maybe 35, and within that age group and customer base you will find that considerably more than 20% of them smoke. In fact, the percentage of customers in bars who are smokers can easily exceed 50%. No matter what the numbers and percentages say, smoking bans destroy businesses and charities.
Fred Quarrie
(Fun with numbers.)

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