Tuesday, February 28, 2006


Dear, Editor, Feb. 28/06

53,000 people will die from passive smoke in the United States?? These figures are derived from a 'risk' computor called SAMMEC. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/intro.asp In other words there are no names, no bodies, no autopsies and no death certificates. No-smoking legislation is on the rise and so is cancer.
Why is that?
Could the reason be Pollution??
There are 4,000 chemicals in second-hand smoke.(40 are cancer-causing).
Poison is in the 'dose'.
Chlorine is in your drinking water.(cancer carcinogen)
People get lung cancer who have never smoked or breathe in second-hand smoke.
If major studies prove that going smoke-free doesn't hurt business, you would think that the owners would go smoke free on their own.
Why don't they?
The owners know that going smoke-free hurts businesses(they should know..it's their business) http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm The small amount of 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.
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 crossfire.

One last note..Nobody on this planet ever died from second-hand smoke. http://smokersclubinc.com

If it's not broken..then don't fix it!!

RE: Please Do No Pass Milwaukee Smoking Ban!

City of Milwaukee200 East Wells StreetMilwaukee, WI 53202-3515

Dear Mayor Thomas Barrett and Milwaukee City Council Members:

cc: Tony Zielinski, Ashanti Hamilton, Mike D'Amato, Mike McGee, Willie Wade, Robert Puente, Willie Hines and Terry Witkowski

Please do not allow Milwaukee to jump on the bandwagon of smoking bans! These bans are in violation of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Private property rights and the right of a consenting adult to use a legal product in a private establishment are being ignored. Employees are not conscripted to work in smoking environments. That is the beauty of Free Choice and a Democratic Republic. Restaurants and bars are private property according to a US Supreme Court ruling in the early 1970’s, involving leafleting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall. The Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property. Anti-tobacco extremists are using very poor analogies by comparing smoking ordinances to sanitation codes, fire hazards and asbestos. Those threats are invisible! Sanitation codes are in place to protect customers from hidden dangers that they would have no way of knowing about. Fire codes are similar, but with the added kick of being there to protect firefighters from having to enter dangerous situations and to protect neighboring properties from fires. As for asbestos, the threat is so large that it's been universally clear to researchers for over thirty years. The threat is many times greater than that “claimed” (still not proven) for secondary smoke. Again, asbestos a hidden danger; smoke is not! Milwaukee is a metropolitan city that is large enough to satisfy a diverse population with varied tastes. This proposed smoking ban is not about HEALTH. It is about MONEY, POWER and CONTROL.. Smoking ban proposals are a byproduct of what has become the wealthy and powerful anti-tobacco industry, controlled by extremist special interest groups. Milwaukee does not need to follow the harmful path Madison has taken. It's citizens should be allowed to continue to make personal lifestyle choices for themselves. You need to continue to set trends, not follow them. Please, NO NEW SMOKING BANS in Milwaukee! Leave your magnificent city the way it is!! 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!

Monday, February 27, 2006

Smoking bans based on second hand smoke myth
by JJ Blonien,
Editor of the Digest

The City of Franklin is being targeted to become the second Milwaukee County community to ban cigarette smoking in restaurants. The proposal, which is expected to soon come before the Franklin Common council, is being spearheaded by a consortium of health and civic organizations under the umbrella of the Franklin Tobacco Control Coalition.
While the Franklin group presents the idea for the ban as a locally-grown idea, it's really part of a statewide coordinated effort to ban smoking in every community throughout Wisconsin.
If the ban passes, Franklin will just be another domino to fall in the calculated infringement on the personal liberty of Wisconsin citizens. Currently, there are 18 municipalities in Wisconsin that ban smoking in restaurants and anti-tobacco zealots won’t stop until every square inch of Wisconsin is declared a no smoking zone.This anti-tobacco fanaticism is fueled by the dubious claim that second hand smoke is a public health menace.The claim that second hand smoke is dangerous is really a myth perpetuated by government officials and, more significantly, the many anti-smoking organizations who receive millions of taxpayers dollars — which would disappear if the truth was actually disseminated by the media. Many of the local groups who become willing participants in the lynch mob to hang smokers, forget that the bureaucrats who lead these anti-smoking groups are very well compensated to keep the disinformation flowing. According the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), “Secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers. Each year secondhand smoke kills an estimated 3,000 adult nonsmokers from lung cancer. ” This claim is the main argument for the smoking ban hysteria sweeping across Wisconsin as one community after another is banning smoking in restaurants and public places.The main evidence supporting this “public safety” measure, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 report on secondhand smoke, was thrown out by a USA Federal court of law in July 1998. Judge William Osteen vacated the study — declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. In his 92-page decision Osteen remarked, “EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements, adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs’ products and to influence public opinion.” The largest study ever made on this issue was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) extending over 10 years and 7 countries. In October 1998, the results were published, showing no statistical relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer. The American media and the anti-smoking zealots has ignored the results of the WHO study choosing to cite the EPA study. This in spite of the fact that the EPA study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate. Although the radical anti-tobacco juggernaut seems unstoppable, the mounting evidence significantly indicates that Environmental Tobacco Smoke causes no harm. While the facts about second hand smoke are mostly ignored by the anti-tobacco zealots, the facts are still the facts. Not that truth matters to the neo-nanny fascists who refuse to even remotely consider that there is no harm in secondhand smoke.
But as we have learned from history, fascists are never concerned with the truth.
Keep the Conservative message alive. Your financial contribution will help pay for the cost of publishing the Wisconsin Conservative Digest web site. Click here to make a contribution: I WANT TO HELP

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Jan. 19/06

The Curtain Call on Big Tobacco
by Nedd Kareiva

Back in the early 1960s, I grew up around cigarettes. My parents were both smokers when I was a child. They were not heavy or chain users, however. My mom gave it up in my early teens and so my late dad soon after. They did so out of their own general welfare and concern. Perhaps the cigarette label warnings on the boxes had something to do with it. But one thing is for sure, however - they didn't do so to succumb to the likes of the American Cancer Society or the American Lung Association and its old slogan "We're fighting for your life".
Funny, I didn't ever see one of their representatives come up to my folks' home on the southwest side of Chicago to express their concerns. I guess Big Brother wasn't as big back then.
Or was it?
As a young boy, I watched TV when it still had modica of decency. Whether it was during shows like the Jackie Gleason Show, Petticoat Junction, the Lucy Show or the ball game or on the radio, I vividly recalled the cigarette commercials like the back of my hand. They stuck in my mind thru the years, like "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" or "I'd walk a mile for a Camel" or "Marlboro - filter, flavored, packed per puff". It didn't matter which one - Winston, Camel, Marlboro, Kool, Kent, Lucky Strike, Parliament, Pall Mall, Virginia Slims - back then, I knew them all.
And for the record, my parents were Kent smokers.
However, despite the clever and mind numbing advertising Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and others used, I wasn't persuaded to smoke as a kid. The anti-smoking crusaders like the ACS, ALA and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop made you feel that the TV commercials and billboard advertisements of tobacco products forced me to become an addicted smoker.
Alas, that wasn't the case for me.
Oh, I tried some smokes in my early teens in the 1970s. The reason I ended up choosing not to light up was not due to the likes of the above groups or more recent additions like the nannies at the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. I just didn't like the taste and didn't see a purpose to it.
So I grew up not smoking. But that was a choice I made.
In 1971, cigarette broadcasting and the First Amendment rights of the tobacco companies went up in smoke by an act of Congress. Regardless of how one feels about smoking, since the product was then (and still is) a legal one, this was well beyond the purview of Congress to act.
The fix was in. And the rout was soon to come. And the likes of Morris and Reynolds complied.
The lawsuits against Big Tobacco started to steam in the 1980s, beginning with Surgeon General Koop's efforts targeting so-called "second hand smoke", an item that even the liberal World Health Organization finds as dubious. Smoking bans started to incrementally creep into society, the same way liberals like to take their agenda. The cigarette companies were seen by willingly gullible politicians and duped Americans as a huge cash cow to be milked.
It soon became difficult to smoke at one's employment's and even one's own office. Then it became difficult to smoke on an airline, thanks to the Congressional nannies in the late 80s. States got wind of the profits to be made from tobacco suits. Almost every state soon joins in the fray. In return, Big Tobacco cries uncle and billboard advertisements with my favorites, the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel, end up being banned.
The Marlboro man rode off into the sunset and Joe Camel rode back into the desert. Cities and states began to broadly ban use of cigarettes in both public and privates places, culminating in a coup de gras for the industry - New York banning its use completely in all public places on March 31st, 2003.
Fast forward to December 2005 here in Chicago. The city council votes to pass an ordinance banning smoking in all public places, including stores, theatres and restaurants (though taverns and restaurants with bars get 30 month amnesty). There are 50 aldermen in the city council, all Democrats except for one Republican, voting on this issue.
Guess how many nay votes there were?
On Monday, January 16th, the ordinance took effect. No doubt the Windy City took its cues from New York and other cig hating states like California. And more and more people will now have to go outside to smoke.
But wait a minute, there's a catch in Chicago's ordinance. There is now no smoking with 15 feet of an entrance to any Chicago public building. So during frigid weather outside this winter, those individuals who want to huddle near the entrance of such a building to "have their cigarette and smoke it too" are out of luck.
You have to wonder how 15 feet was the deciding yardage that was needed. At least that is further away than it is for pro-life protesters to picket at an abortion clinic, though shorter than some other abortion picketing hot spots.
I suppose it would be a good idea for smokers to bring measuring tape to make sure they are in compliance with the law. Or better yet, perhaps the building owner could measure off the 5 yards from his entrance and put duct tape or chalk lines at the point of restriction.
Hey, it could be worse. In November in Washington state, voters passed Initiative 901, making smoking essentially verboten outside one's castle. Smoking is banned in all government buildings as well as businesses, offices, basically anywhere the public may legally choose to enter. Businesses must put "No Smoking" signs up at their entrances and smokers must be at least 25 feet away from an entrance, open window or vent.
So Chicago residents and workers, be thankful you have 10 feet more room to puff than you do in the Evergreen state.
Enough is enough! It's time for people to wake up, smokers and non-smokers alike. This is your country. And if you have a private business anywhere in the country and are affected by such nonsense, you need to make some calls and write some letters to your elected officials and fight the establishment. And then you need to get your fellow proprietors involved, doing the same, telling the politicians to butt out.Smoking bans to the extent they have gone are Communist in nature. It is one thing for the government to ban smoking in its quarters since the public at large uses its facilities. Most people see this as reasonable. It's entirely quite another to tell a restaurant or any private business to do the same against its will. It is extremely offensive to the thought of Constitutional liberty.
Restaurants, like most any business, pay taxes of all sorts to get their operations going. They must comply with all sorts of regulations and inspections before they are approved to be open to the public. On top of all this, now they're told they can't accommodate smokers or face hefty fines, the shutting down of their business and even jail time. Can anyone tell me with facts in hand that these laws are not police state, let alone Communistic?
Granted, Washington state's law was voter enacted. The will of the people was spoken. However, it proves one point - the voters of the state who approved of this measure need to be educated on the Constitution and freedom. If the state wanted to totally ban cigarettes, at least it would be laudable on the basis that no one individual's right was denied. But for the state's voters to do what it did, it sends the wrong message to liberty since the product, last I checked, is still legal (and taxed to he** and high water).
Readers, especially anti-smoking advocates, I would suggest you read the following about why Chicago's ban will hurt business owners http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11386.
As I said, I'm no smoker. I dislike the smell of cigarettes. I always ask for the no-smoking section in a restaurant. Occasionally, I'm asked if I would be willing to sit in the smoking section if there are a lack of seats on the non-smoking side. More often than not, I agree. If the area reeks of smoke, I just sit and grind it out rather than complain. After all, it was my decision.
I will admit that a couple years ago I got into an argument with a smoker at a local restaurant. The issue was not that he was smoking but that he chose to smoke in the non-smoking section. This was permitted at certain hours of the evening. It was not permitted at the time he was smoking and since he was nearby and the smoke was uncomfortable, I felt I could make a reasonable request for the individual to put out his cigarette or move to a different area. Unfortunately, he refused, the restaurant chose not to act and as such, I chose not to come back.
The anti-smoking crusaders are not so nice. If they can't get their wishes by the government, either legislatively enacted or by some ordinance or executive order, they will pressure businesses to cave in to their wishes and if necessary, become nannies to individual smokers, believing they are wiser than that apparent misguided person. And believe me, they've already done that.
Funny, these Chicago aldermen and smoking haters rarely, if ever, patronize the places they want banned from smoking. That's the way it should be. Freedom of choice (uh, isn't that what the pro-abortion crowd likes to crow?) is supposed to be the American way, right? But to ban others from smoking in establishments that both proprietors and customers alike approve, that is not the mark of a free society but that of socialism and Communism. And America accepts it to its own peril.
I suppose if I wanted a ban of something, I'd rather have a ban on alcohol. After all, I have never seen a cigarette (or cigar or pipe) smoker become intoxicated and belligerent because of the use of their substance. I've never heard of a barroom brawl occurring from someone who had one too many cigs. I've never encountered a driver impaired on the road because of his or her puffing away while at the wheel. And I don't recall any smoker so high on his or her smokes that he or she was DUI like many alkies at the wheel I've observed.And I saw what it did to my dad who died an alcoholic.
Of course, I don't expect that will happen. The beer companies will continue to advertise on TV and the radio and on billboards while the cigarette companies are confined to advertising in magazines (shh, don't tell your local anti-smoking politician or crusader). Sure, the liquor industry is heavily taxed, like cigarettes. But they get many privileges as well. They have numerous politicians eating out of the palms of their hands.
And I wouldn't purchase liquor anyway since most beer and hard liquor companies support Planned Parenthood and pro-homosexual organizations like the Human Rights Campaign.
And yes, some cigarette companies like Philip Morris do the same.
By the way, fellow readers who regularly peruse my pieces, do you see that I have more hot button issues that I write about besides the ACLU, abortion and the homosexual agenda?Perhaps I should interject an obvious question since I mentioned abortion and homosexuality. Why are cigarettes more heavily regulated than abortion clinics and homosexual bathhouses? Cigarettes have been known to shorten lives by as much as 7 years for smoking addicts. Practitioners of homosexuality shorten their lives from 10-30 years by their activities, many carrying diseases virtually exclusive to those engaging in this lifestyle. Women who have undergone abortions often experience extreme mental anguish from their decisions and physical pain as well since the human body was not designed to undergo such a process.
Of course, most you know the answer. Money and political correctness rather than factual correctness. Chicago knows that better than most others with its many abortion clinics and its aldermen and state public officials currying favor from the homosexual community. I guess I couldn't stay away from the social issues too often.
With the city of Chicago on the anti-smoking bandwagon, it appears more dominoes will fall against the smokers and the cigarette lobby (a weak one at that). A handful of communities in Chicago's suburbs have already passed smoking bans. More are currently taking up this issue in their city councils and more on top of them will follow, now that Chicago has one of the strongest ordinances of any major city in America. More states are likely to follow suit as well.
And if these public officials don't pass such bans, they'll shoot for an increase in the city, county or state tax on smokes. It's an easy target for governments struggling financially and even those that aren't.
Or they may just do both.
As America's self-identified truth detector and doctor of democracy, Rush Limbaugh, says, "If smoking is so bad, then ban the substance". Unfortunately, with increasing numbers of politicians lining up at the smoking trough, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Both political parties are guilty, though the one traditionally of bigger and heavily intrusive government is more so.
As it stands, the curtain is descending on Big Tobacco. If freedom loving people, smokers or not, continue their silence while getting taxed or regulated into oblivion, the curtain will hit the stage.
Last I checked, we still have a voice to lobby policy officials and mobilize those who agree with us. If we don't, it's essentially be the end of the tobacco industry. After all, most Americans have some limit as to what they will spend to buy a product, in this case, cigarettes. And if Americans can't smoke outside their home or vehicle (and rest assured, both domains are being targeted by the aforementioned meddling busybodies as you read this), well, what good is a cigarette?
If this occurs, it will be curtains for the cigarette industry. It will be curtains for any legal product since their existence could be banished on a whim. And it will eventually be curtains for liberty.
Haven't we made a case for the loss of freedom with items like mandatory seat belt laws and the erosion of private property rights? How much more must we lose before we mobilize and fight back? Perhaps tobacco may not affect you but if you are concerned about being forced to buckle up against your will or surrender your land to some bureaucrat because of a wetlands claim or "need" to turn over your property to a developer to expand the city or county tax base, you should join forces against those who want to extinguish the right to stoke a stogy.Then again, sacrificing the right to light up for the sake of keeping warm in a building on a bitterly cold day may not seem so bad.

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

Saturday, February 25, 2006




This Is A Free Country? This is a free country, or is it? I have the freedom to go to whatever restaurant or bar I choose to. If smoking is a problem for me, I should choose one that has a nonsmoking area. When I go in a bar, I know there will be smoking, but it is my freedom to go there. The employees know there will be smoking when they go to work there. It is their freedom to work or not. Most restaurants have a smoking area. There is one restaurant in this town that doesn’t have a smoking area during certain hours on the weekends. It has a lot more people wanting nonsmoking than smoking. Rather than have customers wait when the smoking area isn’t full, the whole restaurant is nonsmoking. I feel that the owners of these businesses should have the freedom to operate however they want to. I don’t smoke, in case that matters. I quit 28 years ago, but I still feel everyone has the freedom to do what he wants.If it bothers you, don’t go there. If enough people don’t go because of the smoke, let the owners decide what they want to do. The city needs to keep their nose out of it.

Thelma Berryman


People Can Choose To Patronize Business

I will be very disappointed in the leaders of this great city if this full ban passes. I would also like to mention that I am in favor of a partial ban. I attended the last meeting and stood back and listened to all of the nonsmokers plead their case. Under the current ordinance, nonsmokers have a choice to either enter an establishment that allows smoking or to give their business to nonsmoking establishments. They also have a choice of where they seek employment. Then why do they keep complaining about having to breathe secondhand smoke? They are not forced to enter any of these establishments. They make a conscious decision every time that they enter a smoking establishment. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. If they are that concerned about it, they should not support those establishments. It appears that their wish is to infringe on the rights of others and take the choice away from business owners and smokers. Why should it be that business owners do not have the right to run their business as they wish? Smoking is not illegal. What will be next? I apologize, but Galveston is my home. I am a taxpayer and a registered voter, and I feel as though my rights as a citizen of this city are threatened.

Beverly Little

Friday, February 24, 2006


Good Ventilation Would Solve The Problem

Dear mayor and council:

If the public were honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of secondhand 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 are going to harm or kill you?
If anyone believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell. 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 nonsmokers 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 denormalizing smoking. Passing no-smoking legislation is a step in that direction. Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the crossfire.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Publication Date: 2006-02-23

Non-smoker disagrees with smoking bans

This letter is in response to all those that still think we should have a smoking ban in West Lafayette. Before we begin, I want to get a couple of things out of the way. First off, I am not a smoker. Second, I hate coming back from the bars and smelling like stale cigarettes. That said, I have to tell you that I am still utterly opposed to a smoking ban in West Lafayette. Why you might ask? I am opposed because it is a good idea being done the wrong way.

People are tired of coming back from the bars stinking, and there is a legitimate health concern, I will concede that. If a "social environment free of toxic smoke" is such a big deal for you, don't go to the bar or restaurant in question unless it's smoke free! No one is forcing you. You do not have to be there. If it is such a big deal to you that you not be irritated by cigarette smoke when you eat or drink, go somewhere else, or better yet, boycott the location. While everyone does have the right to breathe free air, people also have the right to smoke cigarettes. No one is forcing you to go into the smoking area. It's your choice to go in, and in making that choice you agree to the conditions the owner has set for her or his business.

If you really "need to be doing everything in our power to create a healthier environment for our children, grandchildren and future generations," then why don't I see people picketing the bars and restaurants that allow smoking? You say that you need to do everything, but what you really mean is let's complain to the government about something we can very well take care of ourselves.

Chris Pennal
Senior, College of Technology

Dear Editor, Feb. 24/06

Letter published in the Thunder Bay Source www.tbsource.com

Everybody knows the side-effects from smoking, drinking and gambling.
Unfortunately council doesn't share in the taxes from cigarettes and alcohol.
As far as the casino situation is concerned, 5 per cent of something is better than 5 per cent of nothing.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Mouse Story

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package."What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it. "The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The pig sympathized, but said,"I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."The mouse turned to the cow and said "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose." So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness. So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another.********************************************** REMEMBER: EACH OF US IS A VITAL THREAD IN ANOTHER PERSON'S TAPESTRY;OUR LIVES ARE ! WOVEN TOGETHER FOR A REASON.
One of the best things to hold onto in this world is a friend.

In Defence of Smokers


Monday, February 20, 2006


Smoking Bans A Symptom

An epidemic of local smoking bans is spreading across our nation, all under the pretense of protecting people from the alleged threat of “secondhand” smoke. But the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more serious threat, a cancer spreading even to the tiniest organs of local governments. Billed as a measure that would affect only “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority would simply commandeer the power of government and use it to dictate their behavior. That is why this ban is far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favorite restaurant. They point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke — while attempting to unleash the unwanted intrusion of government into our lives. The anti-smokers’ proposal would bulldoze all the barriers to intrusive regulation, establishing the precedent that the rights of the individual can be violated whenever the local city council decides that the “public good” demands it. No crusade to purge our air of any whiff of tobacco smoke can take precedence over a much more important human requirement: the need for the unbreached protection of individual rights.

Kirby Broussard

Letter sent to The Chronicle Journal and The Thunder Bay Post Feb.2o/06

5% of something is better than 5% of nothing.

Dear Editor, Feb. 20/06

Everybody knows the side-effects from smoking, drinking and gambling.
Unfortunately council doesn't share in the taxes from cigarettes and
As far as the gambling(Casino) situation is concerned, 5% of something is better than 5% of nothing.

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

Friday, February 17, 2006

Letter was published in The Thunder Bay Source.weekly newspaper(Feb.17/06)
Then sent the letter to the Mayor and Council

Dear Mayor and Council Feb. 17/06


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 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

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Submitted this letter to the Globe and Mail


Dear Editor, Feb. 16/06

The Heather Crowe story headlined the news on October 10, 2002.
The WSIB had approved her claim for compensation for work-related cancer. And it became the justification for supporting the allocating ofabout $ 500 MILLION for Anti-Smoking Campaigns over 5 years. Heather Crowe then became the star of Anti-Smoking Ads claiming that her cancer was caused ** solely ** by Second Hand Smoke at work. Think 'Ad Sponsorship Scandal'. Heather Crowe's lawyer, Phil Hunt, was quoted saying,"his client's case is the first to ** implicate ** exposure to smoke in a restaurant or bar.'Implicate' - not condemn - not solely cause - Implicate. "He said the board acted with unusual speed. Its decisions are often painfully slow, he said. "Studies contrary to and refuting the claimant's studies were ignored. Real Science, the fact that no one has ever proved, before, nor since, that such a claim is even possible, because it is scientifically impossible to prove, was totally dismissed."I believe it is the first award of any similar kind for employees in the service industry, particularly bar and restaurant businesses, " Mr. Huntsaid. "To our research, it is completely unprecedented in Ontario or Canada."Cynthia Callard, a spokeswoman for Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, said the award is the first of which she has heard in 17 years of working in the field. Ms. Crowe's biggest tumour in her chest, with others in her neck and elsewhere, was reported by the news media to be hand-size, and that she would be dead within the year. One would think the Heather Crowe case would be more than enough to have instantly resulted in Tobacco being criminalized, like heroin. Yet, from that day to this, 3 1/2 years later, no more claims have surfaced, and 'still legal' Tobacco Taxes just keep going up-up-up. And, Ms. Crowe, allegedly in and out of remission repeatedly, is still kicking 3 1/2 years later. Her chest tumour apparantly was not hand-size. Over time it got reported as being smaller and smaller, to about the size of a pin-prick in followup news articles. Her cancer-riddled body apparantly was not so riddled. How many people do you know who have lived that long with imminent terminal cancer ?Which should be quite a riddle to us all. Yet, very few seem to wonder at all about the many 'riddles' of the HeatherCrowe case.---------On that day of October 10, 2002, Peter Jensen, spokesperson for WSIB, was quoted as saying, "he was not allowed to discuss the specifics of Ms.Crowe's case unless she signed a release. "Why ? IF the Adjudicator had specifically ruled that Heather Crowe's cancer had been ** solely ** caused by work-related exposure to Second Hand Smoke, and IF you were the Anti-Smoking Organization or Lawyer involved with that case, wouldn't you want the whole world to know it - to see it spelled out in the original ruling ? The most famous case, or infamous case depending on one's point ofperspective, in Canada of all time regarding Second Hand Smoke, which was used to justify $ 500 Million for Anti-Smoking Ads, and Billions more in Tobacco Taxes and lawsuits, etc, and, to emphasize, least anyone has not yet realized, that the Heather Crowe case and ruling should have resulted in the immediate criminalization of Tobacco, but didn't, and the public is Not Allowed to know the details ? Why ? On October 11, 2002, the case Adjudicator, Jill Watson, issued a public letter, announcing that Heather Crowe would receive WSIB benefits for her claim. It can be obtained from her lawyer Phil Hunt. It is a very carefully and skillfully written letter which details Ms.Crowe's claim for alleged cancer caused ** solely ** by Second Hand Smoke, but, it does Not specifically say that she was awarded benefits because her cancer was caused ** solely ** by Second Hand Smoke. It says only that her claim was approved and benefits awarded for reasons and details explained in another document. A 'sealed' document the public will never be allowed to see. Why ? A recent attempt, February 2006, to obtain WSIB Adjudicator Jill Watson's original 'sealed' ruling details back in October 2002, via the Freedom OfInformation Act, to find out if the Adjudicator specifically stated that Heather Crowe's cancer was caused ** solely ** by exposure to Second Hand Smoke at work, or not,was quickly and summarily rejected by WSIB. Why ? Can they even legally do that ? Apparantly they can. Critics have said that the Freedom Of Information Act in fact works to Keep information FROM the public, instead of it's originally intended purpose. It looks like they are right about that. Do we live in a Democracy where we allegedly have the right to ,to wonder why, to ask questions, to know the truth, but really don't ?Apparantly that is so. We ** allegedly ** have those rights, -- but, just, -- not really. Well, the question still is -Why is the Heather Crowe case 'sealed' ? Could it be that the Adjudicator Jill Watson's original 'sealed' ruling does Not say that Heather Crowe's cancer was ** solely ** caused by Second Hand Smoke exposure at work ? Could it be that the original ruling instead says more like -- her cancer was probably caused by MANY work-related co-factors, such as toxic cleaning products, airborne by-products of cooking, asbestos insulation and building materials outgassing, etc etc etc - literally 1,000s of co-factors -- ONE of which May have been Second Hand Smoke ? Did it take in to account the possibility of a family genetic predispositionto cancer ? Which would be the proper Real Science ruling to have made.....and why no other similar claims cases before nor since have been approved........IF the original 'sealed-from-the-public' ruling says something like that, then it could explain why the case files have been sealed - forever. With $ 500 Million in Ad Sponsorship and Anti-Smoking Organizations funding, plus BILLIONS in Tobacco Taxes, and pending lawsuits, at stake, that's enough to shut a lot of doors - files - and mouths - forever.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006


"If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen."
Choking on anti-smoking legislation
Letter to the Editor -
Mon 02/13/2006 10:00PM MST


The state of Colorado has proposed a statewide smoking ban. It will be voted on in the state Senate soon.

It is stated that the harms of passive smoking are the reason why. Does it matter that most of what justifies this action is junk science? Can we look at the real evidence?

Does it matter that "zero tolerance" for tobacco smoke (what mandates smoking bans to began with) has no justification in sound science? It is only after the EPA stated that it was a killer that the science changed to justify the action.

Does it matter that there has never been one death that can be verified by real-world standards being caused by passive smoke?

Does it matter that OSHA investigated the harms of passive smoking from 1991 to 2000 and failed to act on the dangers? It's because there was none. This agency is who Congress gave the authority to officially investigate and act on such matters.

Does it matter that the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory studied passive smoking exposure in restaurants in 16 states with portable monitors and found exposure levels well below OSHA standards for particulate pollution?

Does it matter that a major study by the U.S. Department of Transportation was done to investigate the harms of passive smoking on airplanes in 1989, and found none? The first major smoking ban introduced in America, the smoking ban on airplane flights of less than two hours in 1987, was passed by Congress as an attachment to an appropriations bill with no public debate. The ban was put through two years before the matter was even officially investigated!
Does it matter that about 80 percent of all the health studies ever done on this issue state a very small risk to a very small benefit from exposure based on standards by the National Research Council? A small risk because virtually nothing is harmless and a small benefit because of an immune system build up after repeated exposure.

Does it matter that anti-smoking has become a major growth industry taking in an estimated $880 million every year? With vast amounts of money available to fight against a claimed killer, who on the gravy train will blow the whistle on the power and money it brings in?

Does it matter that smoking bans in restaurants and bars sometimes cause major losses, cost jobs and cause business closures? There have been many things claimed by both sides on this issue. The one thing that proves major losses is lawsuits. Businesses do not sue for fun, it is much too expensive. Yet lawsuits over mandated smoking bans have been filed from Arizona to Maine and from Washington state to Florida in many different jurisdictions.

Does it matter? Yes, it damn sure does! In a country that claims freedom for its citizens, smokers find themselves in a world where their enemies are allowed to rewrite the rules of science to their own liking with the media and the government looking the other way. The disciplines of science, medicine, cost analysis, law and risk assessment have been compromised so badly as to be made useless, at least on the subject of smoking. Smokers deserve better!

Dave Pickrell
President and founder
Smokers Fighting Discrimination Inc.
Katy, Texas

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Canadians uninformed or misinformed??

In order to answer your comments that appear throughout various online publications, I re-state, the Federal government of Canada holds a symbolic gun at the head of the Tobacco Industry, but that is due to the moral default of the Tobacco Industry itself. Rather than standing upright and proclaiming their moral right to produce their product and to sell it, for a profit, to smokers that enjoy the activity of smoking cigarettes, despite the possible health risks to themselves, they have instead morally surrendered, making the ultimate sacrifice, self betrayal. Although they still battle the monetary issues, they now appease those that want to destroy their industry and their freedom. The Tobacco Companies fear, more than anything else, the expression of moral certainty, uncertain of their moral superiority to those that would destroy them. They are guilty of believing they are guilty. Yet, if just one Tobacco Industry executive stood behind the rights of their business and fought for the justification of the moral issues, they would command the moral highground over Big Government But that is unlikely to happen. Therefore Big Government repeatedly interferes with freedom by imposing more and more...dictatorial controls. Canadian Big Government has made smoking a battleground for freedom. The smoking issues are merely a trial balloon. Success here will propel Big Government to interfere with the rights of other individuals, business, and industry. All will be under the guise of "health and safety."

It does not sit well with you that a non-smoker, a free thinking individual, can grasp the far reaching implications of our government’s posturing and their manipulative actions regarding the anti-smoking issues. Considering that you do not like what I write, even attempting to demean me with your bogus claims about my hotmail name and my livelihood, I have a solution, stop reading my letters. They are written primarily for people that desire a differing opinion from the government, for people that are undecided about the smoking issue and for people that will weigh and research both sides of the argument thus making an informed evaluation for themselves. It is intriguing to me that you prefer that Canadian citizens remain uninformed or is it misinformed?

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
E-mail: regalregent@hotmail.com

Friday, February 10, 2006

Dictating our rights -ON

The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Re: Smoking ban puts Royal Ottawa in awkward spot, Feb. 4.
Bruce Swan, the head of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, is right to ask: "When we've got people three blocks away from a hospital pulling an IV pole in a hospital gown in cold winter weather to have their cigarettes, is that good health care?" Please let me ask another. When did we give doctors and tobacco-control lobbyists the right to dictate -- or, as they put it, "allow" -- what legal activities Canadians can enjoy?

Eric Boyd, Waterloo


Second hand smoke does little harm -AB
Monday January 30, 2006

To the Editor:

Here’s the truth about second hand smoke (SHS). If you are constantly exposed to second hand smoke, you can expect to show some signs of illness, caused from this smoke, sometime around your 2,000th birthday.
This fact is based on a simple mathematical calculation. A smoker will generally smoke at least 20 years before serious illness caused by this smoking occurs. A person living with a smoker will be exposed to, at the most, one hundredth or one per cent of the smoke the direct smoker will be exposed to.
Therefore, the second hand smoker should expect to have ill effects in 100 times, 20 years or 2,000 years.
If your doctor tells you that your children’s ear infection, asthma attack, respiratory disease or in-grown toe nail is caused by SHS, please for the sake of the health of your children, leave this doctor’s office immediately, proceed to the front desk of the clinic and make an appointment with a real doctor.
No valid scientific study has found any serious relationship between SHS and these illnesses. There are real scientifically proven causes for these diseases and this is what your doctor and you should be looking at.
The volume of carcinogens contained in SHS is far below any level that could possibly harm anyone. You are exposed to carcinogens in one form or the other every day. For example, every time you stand beside your car while filling it with gas, you are exposed to more carcinogens that you would be if locked in a small room with 100 smokers for an entire day.
ETAR and other anti-smoking fanatics are in the business of promoting smoking bans to gain money and power. They are not doing what they do for your health. People who care about your health would not constantly lie to you.
If smokers of Edson do not do something soon, we will be banned from all public facilities including bars, pubs and the legion.
Please do something now. Write a letter to the paper, call a councillor or show up at a council meeting.
Brad Becker Edson, AB

Wednesday, February 08, 2006


Potential surplus
February 08, 2006

Dear editor: I understand that taxes from cigarettes and alcohol go into a general fund. If all the taxes from cigarettes and alcohol go towards health care, we would have a surplus in our health care system.
Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Feb. 6/06

These two articles are dynamite. They are related, but revealing for completely different reasons. This one:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii38has all kinds of tasty admissions in it. Essentially, it tries to confront and propose solution for, the problem that Tobacco Control has no ethics! ("There is no clearly articulated set of principles that has been agreed upon to guide the tobacco control community") and as a result they are having a hard time defending themselves against accusations such as: - That they will do anything to win their war against Big Tobacco, which sounds about accurate to me: "In turn, this has allowed the tobacco control community to be defined by its desire to defeat the tobacco industry, at the expense of its desire to protect the public. This conclusion can be drawn from an examination of the metaphors used by the tobacco control community...No less an authority than former Surgeon General C Everett Koop resorted to a pugilistic metaphor in his keynote address to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in 2003. When discussing if the public health community should enter into conversations with the tobacco industry, he advised that:("An industry that has delivered so many punches below the belt and kills a half million of its most loyal customers each year just to make money has no right to ask for Marquis of Queensbury rules") within Dr Koop’s statement one could read a subtle implication that the public health community would be justified in not following rules of engagement. Right or wrong, the implication of these metaphors is that the public health community will operate outside of the rules to do whatever it takes to win—hardly a moral foundation for resonating with the public."- That they don't care about the negative impact their policies and measures inflict on vulnerable people: "Even beyond harm reduction, it is important for the tobacco control community to ensure that risks have been thoughtfully considered and that unintended consequences are minimised when it develops new programmes and policies. Inattentiveness to negative consequences is ethically risky and could allow the community to be characterised as unconcerned. For example, the negative consequences of increased tobacco taxation on low income populations should be thoughtfully considered so as not to appear that the community is insensitive to the needs of this population."Lots of frankness about ethically questionable practices by Tobacco Control, about extremism, about their vulnerabilities. Everyone should read this.The second one:http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii31is revealing in a different way, and will probably make some people's blood boil. It's a discussion on how important it is for Tobacco Control to intentionally exploit concern about the rights of non-smokers as a tactic in their war against Big Tobacco. Despite all the assertions within this one, that they really are just concerned about people's health, the blatant exploitation of non-smokers concerned about SHS exposure still shines through. (Of course, the opposite is also true - Big Tobacco really does exploit smoker's concerns about their rights and autonomy, for their own purposes. We are all pawns)Very interesting, also, is their concern that championing the individual rights of non-smokers could backfire on them. That, by endorsing the concept of respect for individual rights being a grounds on which policy should be based, they might unintentionally reinforce the idea that everyone's individual rights should be equally respected - even those of people they don't like - and undermine their other argument that the rights of the individual should be subordinate to the needs of the community. It's refreshing to see that they understand they are two-faced, but disturbing to see that they don't care as long as they get what they want in the end.


Monday, February 06, 2006

To: Letter Record Editor (letters@therecord.com)

Subject: Re: Kids offered tips for getting their parents to butt out and Most Canadian homes smoke-free, cancer society finds
First, having read the original press releases that spawned these ‘news’ items I’d like to praise The Record for editing out much of the truly fanatical garbage they contained. The most frightening aspect is that these special interest groups think invading the minds of our children, the sanctity of our homes and our personal family relationships is acceptable. Do we want individuals within the Lung Association or the Canadian Cancer Society teaching our children how to tell parents to behave? Would you like your child telling you where, what or how much you should drink or eat based on the view of some politician or activist?Do we want the Lung Association or any other group providing snitch lines to advise your child on what to do should your behaviour not toe the line? Do we want individuals within the Canadian Cancer Society teaching your child the fanatical belief that a smoker’s vehicle or home is ‘a little gas chamber’ that ‘gale force winds’ are incapable of ventilating?And what do we do with these indoctrinated children? The Lung Association boasts its roaming squads of children entered a Peterborough shopping mall ‘with slogan-scribbled signs and chanted [anti-tobacco messages] in unison, while stunned shoppers silently stood by.’ The Kingston health unit used local high-school students to gather signed postcards to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty asking him to ‘sue tobacco producers for the price of increased health care due to cigarettes.’ These are not good intentions gone bad. They are manipulative strategies developed solely to use children to further the views held by an extreme few. History has shown us the terror-filled consequences when states indoctrinate and use children to control its citizens. Have we learned nothing?

Eric Boyd
Waterloo, Ontario

Friday, February 03, 2006

Arnold Kimmel says Ontario's decision to raise tobacco taxes by $1.25 a carton will only benefit black market sales of cigarettes, most of which are produced on or smuggled through native reserves.
Photograph by : The Canadian Press

The Ottawa CitizenPublished:
Friday, February 03, 2006

Re: Ontario raises tobacco taxes by $1.25 a carton, Feb. 1.

Congratulations to Premier Dalton McGuinty and his government for once again bowing to pressure from the anti-tobacco movement and increasing the provincial tax for the smokers who still choose to buy their cigarettes from a legally licensed tobacco retailer.
This tax increase shows us that the government is completely out of touch with the realities and the challenges of tobacco retailing.
We in the convenience-store industry are aware of the fact that about 35 per cent of tobacco sales take place on the black market. This is a direct result of overtaxation.
The tobacco sold on the black market here comes from four native reserves that manufacture cigarettes and market them for as low as $15 per carton (200 cigarettes). Cigarettes produced outside of Canada are dumped here in very large quantities and sell for about $25 a carton. Counterfeit cigarettes that closely resemble national brand cigarettes but, of course, are fake, are produced both in Canada and offshore and sell for $35 a carton. Cigarettes from a variety of crimes such as hijacking trucks and robbing stores also sell for about $35 a carton.
A carton of cigarettes bought through legal channels costs $67.
Licensed retailers sell tobacco responsibly. Retailers who do not sell responsibly should lose their licences.
The black market vendors of contraband tobacco sell to anybody who wants to buy, regardless of their age.
I have heard that the government is threatening to make tobacco only available through LCBO stores. That would bankrupt every corner store in the province but would not solve the tobacco problem. It would only enhance the contraband share of the market because of the limited number of LCBO stores and the price differential that will only increase once tobacco is being sold through the public sector.
The government tries to convince us that police departments will ultimately gain control of the contraband tobacco market. Get serious! Our police departments are already overwhelmed with their current workloads.
Bolstering the contraband market by overtaxation is stupidity.
I do not defend people risking the perils of smoking, but smoking is a choice individuals can make.
Curtailing our youth from smoking will be accomplished only through education programs, and not through over-taxation.
Arnold Kimmel,
CEO, Quickie Convenience Stores


The Provincial government raises taxes on smokes to deter teens from smoking. I never knew there were so many "bleeding" hearts in the government.
Next, you will raise taxes on booze to deter teens from drinking.
Go for it Dalton, you have broken many promises already: "I will not raise taxes."

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
(He's already broken that one several times!)

Health-risk argument for smoking ban falls flat
January 27, 2006 by Jennifer Calanca

This is in response to the ongoing debate of a smoking ban in DeKalb. The cornerstone of the argument, for those who favor a ban on smoking, is the health risks imposed by cigarette smoke.
However, no one ever entertains, or even addresses the implications this argument has when discussing banning smoking in bars. In restaurants, schools and stores, the health argument holds up. When we try to argue we must ban smoking in bars to make the environment healthy, we miss a fundamental flaw. The flaw of this argument is that in order to make a bar healthy, you must also take away the alcohol.
Some might point out when a person drinks they are only affecting themselves. This is untrue: DUI-related accidents cause thousands of deaths each year. When people drink they tend to become aggressive and use poor judgment; alcoholism creates innumerable costs for society and families, cancer and cirrhosis of the liver cause health problems. If everyone that frequents the bars in DeKalb is going there for their once-a-week glass of red wine, well then I suppose they can argue the smoke in the bar diminishes health. However, I suspect most everyone going to the bars is, by definition, binge drinking. If the ban does pass, DeKalb is really telling us our lungs are more important than our livers.
As to the argument that the employees have a right to not work in a cancer-causing environment, it is dead on, but we do not need a ban to ensure this. People in this country have the right to choose where they live, where they work and whom they associate with. If you choose to work at an establishment that allows smoking, you are assuming the risk and you have the right to choose to not work there.

You always have the right to not patronize establishments that permit smoking. After all, no one is forcing people to go to smoky bars, people are entering the bars on their on volition. They are assuming the risk.

"Please government, oh please, save us from ourselves."

Is this the message we are sending’

Thursday, February 02, 2006


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?
Editor's note: Michael J. McFadden is the author of a book called Dissecting Antismokers' Brains.

Smoking ban will hurt businesses

For every study Jim Walker provided, I can tell you the tricks they use to cover the true negative effects of a smoking ban. I can provide even more studies proving negative economic statistics and list names as well. I can also provide first-hand experience from my fellow bar owners here in Minneapolis, including the names of my friends whose businesses are now closed and their employees who no longer have jobs. Property rights trump entitlement rights and the rights of the anti-smoking advocates end at my front door. The damages are staggering in our city - don't think it won't happen in your city, too. The first day of the ban, 30 of my 35 customers were from the anti-smoking groups. They ate half-price appetizers and toasted the fresh air with their ice tea and water. They tipped my bartender a dollar and a note that said, "If your business goes under, don't worry, God will take care of you.
"Sue JeffersOwner,
"Stub and Herb's" Bar/Restaurant
Minneapolis, Minn.


Second-hand smoke not a significant health risk

Published on: Wednesday, February 1, 2006

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

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario


The people speak:
Secondhand smoke poses little or no danger

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of secondhand 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 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 by 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, Ontario

From: Nick Melnyk <nickstarski@yahoo.ca>

Subject: Re: smokes going up

"....Even Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada said that this was nothing more than a tax grab...." Well, isn't that cavalier and nice of them considering they have deliberately encouraged and set this strategy in motion from the very beginning. Given that the last 3 year contract(expiration spring of 2008) between the"Dolton McLiar"" social engineers and the Ontario Medical Association will cost us a whopping $2.4 BILLION for 20,000 members, not to mention additional tidbits like total elimination of the $400,000+ Medicare Billing Cap and the contractual"tax status" change of "Incorporation", the health care money has to come from somewhere. If it means "extortionist gouging" of those who have been made the scapegoats and the focal point for the "high costs of medical care", then so be it. The hypocritical duplicity of PSFC is something to behold and their actions and pronouncements demonstrate that the old shell game of"transference of blame onto others" is alive, well, and extremely lucrative. PSFC has successfully perfected "shift the spotlight away" and in the processseverely undermined the credibility and status of the medical profession as nothing more than an arrogant, deceitful, and supremely greedy bunch looking after "number one". The picture emerges of "an action template" remarkably similar to the now discredited Chretien/Martin Lieberal social engineering cartel bent on a grand scheme of aggrandizement and "empire building".


Nickstar (Take Prohibitionists to Court) In the interim to court action and to demonstrate the courage of your convictions: Smokers, keep your wallets shut. This is your most effective and easily available weapon to show that "you mean business" and reject theDemonization, Discrimination, and De-normalization targeted at you.

From: garly <garliccrouton@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: smokes going up

It has been shown numerous times in the past that raising prices does not decrease teen smoking. And the taxes already more than pay for someone's health care costs. Even Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada said that this was nothing more than a tax grab. What it really does is make more people buy their cigarettes elsewhere to avoid the tax, which makes the government increase the taxes more to make up the money and they will say that smoking has gone down because tax revenues have gone down. I really wish these politicians would grab a brain and tax all people fairly. garly

Sent this to the Toronto Sun

Dear Editor, Feb. 2/06

The Provincial Government raises taxes on smokes to deter teens from smoking. All smokers will now be paying higher tax because these 'bleeding' hearts care about teens smoking??
Isn't it against the law for teens to buy smokes anyway?
What a 'smoke screen'(pardon the pun) for another tax grab. That's like saying, lets raise the tax on liquor because we want to deter teens from drinking.
Dalton, you are an insult to my intelligence and to the intelligence of the people of this province.
I still remember.."I won't raise taxes"

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Sent this to the Ottawa Sun

Dear Editor, Feb. 2/06

The Provincial Government raises taxes on smokes to deter teens from smoking. I never knew there were some many 'bleeding' hearts in the Government. Next you will raise taxes on booze to deter teens from drinking.
Go for it Dalton, you have broken many promises already..'I will not raise taxes'

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

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