The Snowbird

http://www.eisinc.com/release/storiesh/NYCCIT.002.html

PRESS RELEASE
News from NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
For more information: Audrey L. Silk, 917-888-9317
SECONDHAND SMOKE: THE DEBATE ISN'T OVER
BROOKLYN, NY -- (06/30/2006; 0545)(EIS) -- On June 27, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona unilaterally decreed that the debate about secondhand smoke was over. "That's a statement spoken more in the way of parent-to-toddler ('Because I say so') or dictator-to-subjects ('Because I rule so') than a national health advisor to a free and inquiring public," said smokers' rights advocate Audrey Silk," though I don't seem to remember his debating the subject at all. His conclusions were foregone. In fact," she said, "he testified to congress a few years ago, and was rather famously quoted as favoring an outright prohibition of tobacco." (1)
Silk, the founder of NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment), whose members include smokers and civil libertarians, says that none of the many scientists or scientific reporters who disagree with the Surgeon General about the "danger" of secondhand smoke, have been suddenly struck dumb. "None of them changed their minds. They didn't think it was dangerous on Monday, June 26, and none of them thought it was dangerous on Wednesday, June 28. Science," Silk insisted, "doesn't succumb to official fiats."
A personal bias on the part of the Surgeon General has been startlingly reflected in his public appearances as well as in the Executive Summary of his Report and the press release that touts it. In all three cases, what's been sold to the public as "fact," is provably not backed by the contents of the Report. (2) "Statements to the effect that even passing contact with smokers is a ticket to slow death (or even loonier, quick death) are paradigmatic propaganda-- a tilt at the Big Lie. It's disappointing, " Silk observes, "that a high-ranking public official has preferred to promote civil divisiveness and hate and to sacrifice science as the means to his own agenda."
The Report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, issued Tuesday from the Surgeon General's office, isn't really a new report, as his office itself admits. It's a rehash of old studies-- themselves widely criticized and highly controversial-- very carefully selected to support the "correct" conclusion that secondhand smoke is a risk to health and to insure the continuing jihad against smokers.
And a lot of its wilder statements aren't merely "debatable," but easily proven wrong. "For instance," Silk expands, "the notion that there's "no safe level" of secondhand smoke is just scientific nonsense that any objective scientist would be more than glad to debate." Silk suggests OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), the agency that determines what exposure levels are safe, might be called as the first witness, since every known constituent ever measured in secondhand smoke has been shown to fall far below what OSHA considers a "risk."
Then too there's the strange pronouncement that filtration and ventilation-- which dispel industrial toxins from the factory workplace air, and automobile exhaust from indoor parking garages-- can't tackle secondhand smoke.
"Bottom line," Silk continues, " is that people willing to buy this incredible new Report-- and to buy it without debate-- must be willing to ditch science, not to mention common sense and the actual living experience of the entire 20th Century in order to feed their bias."
The debate can't be stifled. The real science begs for an ear.
---
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conten tId=A10014-2003Jun3
(2) "Surgeon General's Communications Misrepresent Findings if Report..." Siegel, Tobacco Analysis News & Commentary, http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communica tions.html
----------------------- NYC C.L.A.S.H. is a grassroots smokers' rights organization that is well established with the media. Among other efforts, C.L.A.S.H. sued NY State and City in Federal Court over the smoking bans and are part of the court record as a complainant in the currently pending federal court case of U.S. vs. Philip Morris, et al.

Your cars and homes are next

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ California Senate Committee Approves Bill to Regulate Smoking in Private Cars; Homes Should be Next According to an article in the Contra Costa Times, a California state Senate committee yesterday approved a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children under age 6 present. The bill makes smoking in a car with young children a primary offense, meaning that the police can pull a car over for this infraction. The first violation would result in a warning and subsequent violations would yield $100 tickets. Parked cars or cars located on private property would be included. Senator Deborah Ortiz, chair of the Senate Health Committee (which approved the bill) defended the legislation by arguing that smoking around young children is a form of child abuse: "There's no excuse in today's society for any mother of any age, or any level of education, to do something which I consider akin to child abuse." The Rest of the Story I think one really has to question whether coercion is the appropriate public health intervention approach to dealing with the problem of parents smoking around their children. This is one case where I think that education and persuasion are appropriate approaches, but coercion is not. This issue also raises important concerns about the limits of government intrusion into personal privacy and autonomy. If California legislators ban smoking in cars with children present, then I simply cannot see any justification for failing to ban smoking in homes with children. I do not see any real difference between one's own car and one's own home when it comes to regulating smoking to protect the health of children. If anything, I would argue that the threat to children from smoking in the home far outweighs the threat from smoking in cars, because although the concentration of secondhand smoke in cars is likely to be higher, the length of exposure in homes is likely to be substantially higher. Moreover, both the overall prevalence and overall time of exposure for children is almost certainly higher in the home than in cars. Many families do not even own a car, but nearly every family lives in some sort of home. In other words, secondhand smoke exposure in the home is almost certainly a greater public health hazard for young children than secondhand smoke exposure in cars. So if one is going to support legislation to ban smoking in cars with children, I simply do not see how one cannot also support legislation to ban smoking in homes with children. There is no qualitative difference that I can see between the two, and the quantitative difference would argue for a greater priority on the problem of exposure to secondhand smoke in the home. Both are examples of the government intervening to protect children from risk of illness or disease due to lawful behaviors of their parents in the privacy of property that they personally own and are not used for business or commercial or any public purposes. Both involve infringing upon parents' authority to make their own decisions about behaviors that potentially affect the health of their children. As much as I hate to see children exposed to secondhand smoke in the home because of the potential health hazards, I simply believe that the privacy rights in the home outweigh the government's interest in regulating a lawful behavior that is merely a potential threat Regulating smoking in the home would open the door to a wide range of intrusions into personal privacy that people would, I think, find highly objectionable. I don't think we want to see regulations that require what parents must or must not feed their kids, how much physical activity their children must have, what their kids can or cannot watch on television, what movies children can watch, or whether or not parents are required to put sunscreen on their children when they go outside to play for an hour. I therefore view regulation of smoking in cars similarly. I think the intrusion into individual privacy of behavior on their own property outweighs the government's interest in protecting the health of children from this potential health hazard. So while the issue under discussion may appear to simply be smoking in cars, what is at stake here is something far more significant: what the California legislature is really going to decide in the coming weeks is whether or not the government will step in to regulate smoking in the home, something which for decades, anti-smoking groups have considered to be off limits for our legislative advocacy efforts. What concerns me is that according to the article, a number of anti-smoking and public health organizations are supporting this legislation. This indicates to me that these organizations would support a ban on smoking in the home. I don't believe that this battle is going to end in cars. I think that, buoyed by the Surgeon General's alarming warning about the effects of even brief exposure to secondhand smoke, the anti-smoking and public health groups are going to aim directly for the home.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-06-29/slant.shtml
June 29-July 5, 2006
Puff, Puff, Bash
The smoking ban is based on an agenda of lies.
by Michael J. McFadden
Psst! Hey kid! Come over here and jump off this bridge! All the cool kids've done it 'n you're the only one left! It won't hurt, it'll be fun. Anyhow, if ya don't do it, I'm gonna come back 'n bugya, 'n bugya, 'n bugya forever till ya do.
With that sort of reasoned discourse in the background, accompanied by taunts of "You smell like an ASHTRAY!", Philadelphia finally jumped on the bandwagon and banned smoking. Well, sorta. They banned it unless you're a bar that agrees not to feed its customers anything healthy, one that's well-off enough to have a sidewalk cafe or unless you're staying at home smoking around your kids.
Don't worry though, they'll come back to clean up those scraps once the rest of the rowdies have been pacified and you're all alone. Meanwhile, just shut up and don't make waves!
If the smoking ban was actually based upon a concern for the health of the workers, if the studies supporting it were actually carried out and cited honestly, I would not complain. I might be unhappy, but I wouldn't complain.
So why do I complain? Simply because the above conditions don't hold true. Most of the studies cited at the City Council hearings were paid for by anti-smoking-earmarked funds: studies guaranteed to turn out results that ensure the researchers' future grant streams. In those rare cases where a study's results did not support the predetermined agenda, they were simply reinterpreted and massaged so it would appear they did support a ban.
Am I exaggerating? Not at all.
One of the flagship studies used to promote the smoking ban involved Helena, Mont. "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" made headlines and newscasts around the world trumpeting the news that protecting nonsmokers from smoke brought about an immediate drastic decrease in heart attacks and that removing that protection resulted in an immediate "bounce back" to the old higher rates of coronary episodes. In reality, the study itself made no analysis of nonsmokers, and the main "bounce back" actually occurred during, not after, the ban. Unfortunately, these observations received virtually no media coverage; they are known only to those who bother digging through the dusty cyberpages of the online British Medical Journal. The "miracle" was more fraudulent than miraculous, but it's universally used as proof of the urgent need for smoking bans.
Of course, Helena is just one study, and they've got thousands that support the need for smoking bans, don't they? No. Helena and a few others are their best and their brightest but are all similarly and deeply flawed. And they are all repeatedly paraded before legislators who rarely have the knowledge, conviction or inclination to question them.
Would you raise the question if you were in their place? Would you do so knowing you'd be accused of being a "Big Tobacco Mouthpiece" and realizing you'd be standing alone in mean-spirited opposition to the phalanx of innocent and pink-lunged children with whom Councilman Michael Nutter packed the balcony? And would you do so aware that you'd be sharing the TV screen with dozens of fresh-faced idealistic little girls wearing signs proclaiming the dread diseases you're condemning them to? What politician in their right mind would have the courage to stand up for truth when confronted with such opposition? Unfortunately, very few.
Last week, Lady Elaine Murphy of the British House of Lords chided me in an e-mail, saying that I had "completely missed the point" about the English smoking ban in talking to her about the science. She wrote that "the aim is to reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it." Now, that's quite different than the public posturings about "saving the health of the workers" and the images of oppressed teenaged waitresses being slaughtered by deadly toxins as they work their way through school. And, it's quite different than the cheap shows of pleading children in front of City Council's TV cameras.
The smoking ban is based on lies, even if they are lies that are often truly believed by those supporting it.
Philadelphians value freedom. Philadelphia is known as the birthplace of liberty. For Philadelphia to blithely trade away pieces of that individual freedom to heavily funded lobbying groups pursuing social-engineering goals based on lies is nothing short of a crime—a crime that we can only hope will be stopped by Mayor Street.

Michael J. McFadden is the author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains (Aethna Press) and the Mid-Atlantic director of The Smokers Club, Inc.

An American questions Canada's Health Care


Why the focus on Canada? Doesn't our health care system here in the U.S. have its share of problems?
The U.S. health care system is in desperate need of reform, however, the solution that some are proposing is a total government takeover of medicine inspired by the Canadian government-run health care system. Since most Americans know very little about medicine as practiced by our northern neighbor, our film is a warning to look before you leap. We think that many Americans would be surprised to know that Canada (like Cuba and North Korea) makes it illegal to purchase private healthcare for yourself or a loved one - and that the adoption of a so-called "single-payer" system would represent a major restriction of the freedoms that Americans now enjoy.
Doesn't Canada spend less than the U.S. while getting better access to health care?
Officially, Canada spends less on health care than the U.S. However, costs are controlled by arbitrarily limiting the number and availability of doctors, specialists, operating room hours, high-tech equipment, diagnostic tests, drugs and expensive treatments. In short, the government limits the supply of health care in order to hold costs down. The result: shortages, rationing, and long wait lists.
Yes, but Canadians, on average, live slightly longer than Americans. Isn't this proof that their health care system is better?
No, it's not. A nation's average life expectancy is the result of a multitude of factors including the lifestyles, genetic makeup, environment and education of it's citizens - and the U.S. is composed of large ethnic groups having differing life expectancies. For example, the average life expectancy of a black male in the U.S. is 68 years, while a man of asian descent has an average life expectancy of 81 years! The quality of a health care system has very little to do with the average life expectancy of an entire population - however, it has a lot to do with the the health outcomes of those who are already sick - and on that score, the U.S. does better than Canada. 25% of those diagnosed with breast cancer in the U.S. die from it - while the mortality ratio in Canada is 28%. Similarly, the U.S. prostate cancer mortality ratio is 19% while 25% of those diagnosed with prostate cancer in Canada die from it.
A Canadian friend of mine boasts about their health care system. How does this square with what you're saying?
Many Canadians who have never been really sick are supportive of their system. In fact, the system caters to the healthy majority with free primary care doctor appointments, flu shots, etc. while depriving the truly sick - often the elderly - of timely medical treatment that is often more expensive. Political expediency dictates that health care dollars are spent where the votes are: the healthy majority - while across Canada, hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people quietly languish in pain in their homes on long waiting lists for treatment while being told that to question the moral supremacy of their health care system is somehow "Un-Canadian".
Are you saying that ALL Canadians wait and don't get good medical care?
No. Certainly there are pockets of excellence in the Canadian health care system - and not everyone waits. If a person is in the process of having a heart attack, they get immediate treatment. However, any treatment deemed 'elective' - meaning that possible death is not imminent - often entails a wait. Cancer biopsies, MRI scans, heart bypasses, cataract operations, and hip replacements all involve lengthy waits for many Canadians.

Smoking legislation is not the American way

July 1 is the day another theft of our freedoms begins. The smoking ban going into effect is absolutely anti-American. A private bar should have the sole discretion of whether to permit smoking within its establishment. These bars are not public domain, and no one is forcing anyone to go into a smoke-filled room. If smoking bothers you, don't patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.
If enough people stop going to a bar because it allows smoking, the owner will soon make it a no-smoking bar on his own.
This logic carries over to potential employees at smoking establishments. If enough employees are unwilling to work in a place filled with smokers, it will be difficult for the bar owner to get good help. The bar owner would be forced to either pay people more for having to work in a "hazardous" job or change the bar to a no-smoking facility.
This is the only power we as consumers have against issues such as this. I am not a smoker and I hate the smell and potential health risks involved in secondhand smoke. But who am I to say "You can't allow smoking in your establishment because I do not like it"? Let the free market determine the necessity for a no-smoking establishment.
Forcing restaurant and bar owners to ban smoking is as un-American as price fixing. What is next? Should we ban loud music because it can damage your hearing? Or should we make it illegal for grocery stores to have so many fluorescent lights because they make my eyes sore?
Legislation is not the answer. We should use our power as consumers to get our points across. Being free means allowing others the same freedom.
Rory Lamberton Parker

http://www.citizensforcivilliberties.ca/filespdf/niagara_flyer.pdf

http://www.examiner.net/stories/062406/ope_062406055.shtml


Smoking bans are an abuse of power
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

To the editor: June 24/06
The bandwagon of local smoking bans steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of second-hand smoke.
The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?
Tobacco ban supporters have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - where owners are free to set anti-smoking rules and customers are free to go elsewhere.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is to be made by each individual based on his own values and assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
These decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbors. Cigarette smokers are a minority, so the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behavior.

Saturday, June 17, 2006
To the editor:
I am shocked that the Beacon Star would publish Thomas Laprade’s letter regarding secondhand smoke, in the June 10 edition. Why would you give this person the forum to broadcast his uneducated, thoughtless message.
Maybe Mr. Laprade should butt out his cigarette long enough to go to a library and do some research on the effects of secondhand smoke. Or better yet, maybe he should have somebody go to the library to check out some material because libraries are usually smoke free.
Obviously he is a bitter smoker who feels his freedoms are being taken away. Maybe he should think about the lives that were taken of those people who were forced to inhale secondhand smoke their entire life.
He claims that cigarettes are nothing but “a handful of crushed leaves and some paper.” Maybe he should have rephrased that to say, “cigarettes are nothing but a handful of crushed leaves that contain nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and some paper.”
He could list all 4000 or so chemicals found in tobacco smoke, but that would take quite a while to write down, and between puffs from his cigarettes this task could take a number of days.
I suggest the editor of the Beacon Star refrain from publishing useless letters such as the one mentioned here because they do absolutely nothing but waste space which could be used to print something of interest or that has educational value. This only wastes the readers valuable time.
Visit our Business Directory
Rob McEachern
Parry Sound
Reader Comments (Post Yours)
jeteas at zeuter dot com
Jun 17, 2006 at 8:28 PM
Smell the tobacco
Maybe he's just a bozo!
looped_ca at yahoo dot ca
Jun 22, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Thomas Laparde
I notice (being the editor to the Smokersclubinc.com newsletter) that the arguments used to justify stopping someone from speaking etc. are always personal. When it comes to tobacco, why use personal attacks? Is it no wonder that smokers are rebelling against personal attacks like were baby killers (target commercial by Health Canada), that we stink (dog crap commercial), we have no value (denormalization campaign), our opinions aren't heard ( no smokers were heard during the committee hearings to bill 164, or implementation committee). The only way smokers we hear from smokers, is when we say “oh it will be good..." Too bad that the only thing unique to tobacco smoke is "Nicotine, Scopoletin, 3-ethenyl pyridine, solanesol, and myosmine", which you never hear about. It's called a science of Toxicology. Considering that one wisp of smoke doesn't kill yet they keep saying how dangerous, yet use no real numbers. I refuse to be Chicken Little, even if you use "chemical", because exposure doesn't prove cause. There is a larger concern dose; exposure to chemicals is not the danger. The chemicals mentioned are everywhere that’s using fact, not fear mongering. What is wrong with bringing science of toxicology (dose)to the discussion?
garnetdawn at comcast dot net
Jun 23, 2006 at 10:06 PM
Wake up and smell the tobacco
Mr. McEachern You obvously do not approve of smoking and, in particular, smokers. It appears you have no respect for freedom of speech either, unless it is your speech. Not only do you fail in your attempt to analyze Thomas Laprade's statement in a bullying manner, but manage to insert personal insults as well. His letter was purposely written in a simple style and WAS catering to readers. You were not. "Putting out some one else's light won't make yours shine any brighter" For that reason, your letter illustrates the lack of intelligence and anti-social attitudes of so many twisted smoke haters. It might be wise to follow your own suggestion and visit your local library to actually READ the studies on second hand smoke which show there have been NO conclusive studies that prove environmental tobacco smoke is harmful, rather than simply parroting phrases coined by Tobacco Control activists. Once again, the poison is in the dose. The 4,000 chemicals quote [sic} was from the NRC 1986 report. "The number of chemicals was not measured but assumed to exist in chemical fractions off the methods used to detect organic compounds." So there we have it...assumed fractions. In truth, you ingest more carcinogens in a glass of drinking water than spending an entire evening in a smoky bar. Before you insult the unbiased position of the Parry Sound Beacon Star again, perhaps you need to take a good look in the mirror. If you don't like what you are reading, turn the page.______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com/Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

So what if Thomas LaPrade is a smoker? So what if I am? The Smoke-Free Ontario Act affects us most of all and we speak for 20 % of the adult population. The only people who were allowed a seat at the table when this draconian act was developed is an unending stream of paid lobbists. The Act was not enacted to protect public health. It was enacted to insult, denigrate, humilate and "denormalize" people who chose to consume a legal product. The proof of this statement is evident when you examine the clauses related to the construction of shelters for workers that may be provided by private employers. Why does the Humane Society demand that dogs be sheltered from the elements with a roof and four walls, while smokers, in a designated shelter, where non-smokers and cleaning staff are forbidden by law to enter, only allowed two walls.Why may a patio provided by a privately owned hospitality venue not allowed a roof or awning? Is anyone really afraid that a non-smoker might accidently stand on a patio table and shove his face into the awning and leave it there for like 40 years?How can ventilation be used to provide worker protection from auto exhaust (toll booth operators), welding and plating fumes, and gases in underground mine but ventilation would be ineffective to dilute and remove smoke from the burning of organic material.Smokers have been civil and compliant for long enough. It is time that our voice was also consulted and allowed to be heard.

Michelle Gervais

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act

The Act was not enacted to protect public health. It was enacted to insult, denigrate, humilate and "denormalize" people who chose to consume a legal product. The proof of this statement is evident when you examine the clauses related to the construction of shelters for workers that may be provided by private employers. Why does the Humane Society demand that dogs be sheltered from the elements with a roof and four walls, while smokers, in a designated shelter, where non-smokers and cleaning staff are forbidden by law to enter, only allowed two walls.
Why may a patio provided by a privately owned hospitality venue not allowed a roof or awning?
Is anyone really afraid that a non-smoker might accidently stand on a patio table and shove his face into the awning and leave it there for like 40 years?
How can ventilation be used to provide worker protection from auto exhaust (toll booth operators), welding and plating fumes, and gases in underground mine but ventilation would be ineffective to dilute and remove smoke from the burning of organic material.
Smokers have been civil and compliant for long enough. It is time that our voice was also consulted and allowed to be heard.

Michelle Gervais

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/14858275.htm


Letters A smoking challenge
YOUR JUNE 16 editorial ("Clearing the Air") on the smoking ban quotes the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce as saying that the "facts" show that a smoking ban "will not adversely affect business."
If Mayor Street believes that and wants to sign the smoking ban, then how about showing a little good faith and guaranteeing that claim? If he and other supporters of the ban truly believe that bars will not suffer losses, then why not back that up with something more solid than mere words?
All the city or the anti-smoking lobby groups have to do in order to prove their honesty is to commit to covering any hospitality-business losses in the year after the ban takes effect.
After all, if they're telling the truth, they have nothing to lose, right?
Michael J. McFadden, Coordinator Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1211&dept_id=169692&newsid=16813177&PAG=461&rfi=9

Reader Opinions:
Thomas Laprade
Jun, 22 2006

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

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Jun, 22 2006

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation fromsea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threatof second-hand smoke.The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has beenspreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- thecancer of unlimited government power.The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantommenace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people aboutthe potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, orshould they seize the power of government and force people to make the"right" decision?Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather thanattempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, thetobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they haveactually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, andoffices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whosecustomers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some localbans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviouslynegligible, such as outdoor public parks.The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to beanswered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessmentof the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regardingevery aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriendor sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get marriedor divorced, and so on.All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmfulconsequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from theneighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He mustbe free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and onlyhis own judgment can guide him through it.Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarettesmokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying andunpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered thepower of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect ofinhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at yourfavourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarmat those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimitedintrusion of government into our lives.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Rex Murphy's commentary from June 1,2006- CBC

It doesn't look like this was posted,so people may not be aware of it.You have to remember that Rex likes to use sarcasm.http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060601.html

A piddling $100,000 fine is not going to do it. June 1, 2006
As all of us know, global warming and second-hand, or as I prefer to call it, pre-inhaled smoke are the greatest threats our living planet now face.
That's why I'm truly disappointed in the Ontario smoke-free act, and Quebec's is no better. As has always been the case with anti-smoking legislation, it's marred by tolerance, soft on penalties, and just downright too forgiving on those who fancy a little nicotine chaser with their double-double and a Boston cream.
For example, I see no mention of jail in the legislation, no talk of whips, the dungeon, or the rack. It's the usual namby-pamby soft-hearted kind of stuff that gives the nanny state such a poor name.
For instance, the maximum fine, the maximum, mind you, if you're caught smoking less than nine metres from a health care institution, and by the way, that's about 27 feet, or as long as one of the exhaust belching Toronto city buses, which do so much to help the city keep hitting record high smog days, less than 9 metres and the maximum fine is only $100,000. Chump change. Just less than a quarter of a Dingwall severance.
If you're really going to change people's vile habits, a piddling $100,000 fine is not going to do it.
Of what about the seizure of the vile addict's house and car, enforce the tenets of the Lord and the Rings, the musical, and no smoke break during the intermission, and at a bare minimum, exile to, say, Michigan.
I suggest Michigan because that's where smoke-free Ontario's capital city Toronto sends so much of its other garbage, in great big diesel-burning convoys of dump trucks in slow gear-grinding file down the cluttered arteries that people in Ontario laughingly refer to as freeways. A province that pays to dump its garbage in another person's backyard is exactly the same kind of province that will play softball with Agent Orange — I mean second-hand smoke, coming at you downwind across the Gardiner Expressway where that intersects with the great smog furnace and asthma factory we know here as the Don Valley parking lot.
Some say Dalton McGuinty's deposit is too paternalistic.
Nonsense, as these ridiculously lax smoking regulations so vividly demonstrate. Right on the heels, or if you prefer in the slip stream, of that announcement, I read of the truly pioneering health care activism of a leader who really cares about second-hand smoke. He's easy on the nukes, but he's hell on smoking, Kim Jong-Il. The portly mini me Stalinist dictator of sunny North Korea. Great leader Kim announced this week that anyone in his happy kingdom who smokes will be banned from attending university. Now, that's the kind of pro-active legislation a serious anti-smoker will get behind. I'm not sure what Kimmy's other inducements are, but there must be some use for disembowelment besides being a lonely word in the dictionary.
Couldn't we set up camps for smokers way up north under the melting ice caps guarded by polar bears tired of sushi?
They could watch Al Gore movies all day long, chew on sugar-free gum, and be jeered at by joggers and retired trumpet players.
That's the problem I see with the Ontario government on this issue. They do know what's best for all of us, but they simply don't have the political courage to act on the intellectual and moral superiority that they so evidently possess. For heaven's sake, do you know that in this province, you can still make up your own mind on what you want to eat, where you want to live, how to dress! It's a scandal. It's like can you believe it, they think we're adults! For "The National," I'm Rex Murphy.

The Restaurant Association June 20/06

Very eloquently put, Mr. Laprade. Yours is one of the most thoughtful and compelling letters I have received on the subject. Thank you for sharing what is certainly your heartfelt position on the issue.

Geoff Hetrick
From: Thomas Laprade [mailto:thomaslaprade@hotmail.com]Sent: Tue 06/20/2006 9:33 PMTo:

Geoff Hetrick
Subject: Smoking bans are the 'real' threat

Dear Mr. Hetrick June 20/06

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation fromsea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threatof second-hand smoke.The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has beenspreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- thecancer of unlimited government power.The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantommenace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people aboutthe potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, orshould they seize the power of government and force people to make the"right" decision?Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather thanattempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, thetobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they haveactually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, andoffices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whosecustomers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some localbans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviouslynegligible, such as outdoor public parks.The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to beanswered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessmentof the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regardingevery aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriendor sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get marriedor divorced, and so on.All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmfulconsequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from theneighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He mustbe free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and onlyhis own judgment can guide him through it.Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarettesmokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying andunpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered thepower of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect ofinhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at yourfavourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarmat those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimitedintrusion of government into our lives.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus061206.htm

The anti-smoking lobby's hidden agendaby Klaus RohrichMonday, June 12, 2006
Poor Heather Crowe, the Ottawa waitress who recently died of lung cancer and had lent her persona to the anti-smoking lobby as the typical victim du jour. Crowe was said to be a "typical" restaurant worker who spent 40 years working in Ottawa restaurants, all the while breathing the second-hand smoke that’s said to have claimed her life.
There are so many things wrong with Heather Crowe’s case that it begs for an official inquiry, but like all politically correct causes the anti-smoking lobby can do no wrong. Crowe, who really did die of lung cancer, was anything but a typical restaurant worker. Apparently she worked in three different restaurants, starting her day at 6:00 AM and ending her day usually around 2:00 AM the following morning. Most individuals working as servers in restaurants do not work three full shifts per day, totaling upwards of 20 hours.
In the commercials that Crowe made for the anti-smoking lobby she said she wanted "to be the last person to die from second hand smoke." If she did die of exposure to second hand smoke, it’s likely that Crowe was also the first person in the world to die from this condition. There is not one documented case of anyone ever dying of second hand smoke. Anti-smoking groups like to bandy about numbers of people who have died of second hand smoke, however the truth is that no one knows if anyone has died as a result of this because the numbers being quoted are not garnered from death certificates, but are made up through epidemiological estimates that do not involve review of individual death certificates.
What’s more, the numbers most people quote as individuals who are dying of second hand smoke vary from place to place. For instance the anti-smoking lobby of Lambton, Ontario claims that this year alone some 5,000 people will die of second hand smoke there. That seems awfully high, given that the overall population is just over 127,000. Other places use different numbers; Calgary claims it’s 3,000 deaths, while British Columbia claims it will only be 500 deaths this year.
When Heather Crowe was first diagnosed, her doctor told her that she had an inoperable "smoker’s tumor" in her lungs. As a diagnosis, the term "smoker’s tumor" is novel in that it is not a medical term and does not appear in medical dictionaries. It sounds like the doctor who made this diagnosis was following an agenda.
What’s more, when Heather Crowe sought compensation from the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (OWSIB), the board ruled in her favor, a fact which many of the anti-smoking lobbyists tout as being proof positive that second hand smoke causes cancer as well as a plethora of other ills. The OWSIB ruling only proves that it pays to have friends in high places, of which Heather Crowe appears to have had many. A number of influential politicians, as well as Dr. Robert Cushman, Ottawa’s Chief Medical Officer of health wrote letters in support of Heather's application for compensation. Crowe’s case was supported by a study emanating from California that claimed restaurant workers there inhaled the equivalent of 1.5 to 2 packs per day. I find it curious that the details of the OWSIB ruling were never made public.
As for the study from California, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) specifies that .5 mg of nicotine per cubic meter is an acceptable level. Testing conducted in 2004 of 18 restaurants in St. Louis Park, Minnesota disclosed that none of the restaurants had second hand smoke levels close to the allowable minimum specified by OSHA. In fact, most were far, far below the minimum.
So why all the hysteria? Can you say money? The anti-tobacco lobby is being controlled in large part and funded by pharmaceutical companies that are doing a land office business in selling smoking cessation medications. That’s the real hidden agenda of which I doubt even the staunchest anti-tobacco crusaders are aware.
But let’s face it, when organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) distribute millions of dollars to anti-smoking groups, maybe someone should take a closer look at this foundation. The board of directors of the RWJF includes some very interesting people. Robert Wood Johnson IV is the chairman and CEO of the Johnson Company, a New York investment firm that seems to hold an inordinate amount of pharmaceutical investments. Other directors include what appears to be the entire former board of directors of Johnson & Johnson Company, which incidentally is a major manufacturer of alternative pharmaceutical nicotine products. Robert E. Campbell is the retired chairman of J & J; George S. Frazza and was corporate counsel and member of the J&J executive committee. Edward Hartnett is the retired group chairman of J&J Pharmaceuticals. Ralph S. Larsen is former chairman and CEO of J&J. So, it’s evident there is a lot of interest in the RWJF to encourage governments to impose smoking bans. Could this by any chance have anything to do with the fact that RWJF is holding in excess of $5 billion in J&J shares?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2214806,00.html


The Times
June 07, 2006
Smoking ban 'is based on bad science'By Sam Coates

The Government takes more notice of scare stories than of evidence, a Lords committee has said
THE ban on smoking in pubs was an over-reaction to the threat posed by passive smoking and symptomatic of MPs’ failure to understand the concept of risk, a House of Lords committee has said.
The Lords Economic Affairs Committee accused the Government of kneejerk reactions to scare stories about health, saying it did not weigh the risks. Ministers placed insufficient weight on available scientific evidence and relied instead on “unsubstantiated reports” when formulating policy.
NI_MPU('middle');
The committee disputed a principle underlying the work of the Health and Safety Executive: that society has a greater aversion to an accident killing ten people than to ten accidents killing one person each, and that safety spending should be allocated accordingly.
The committee cited the smoking ban as an example of a policy based on bad science, it having been sold to the public as necessary because of the apparent dangers of passive smoking.
Committee members questioned whether the Government had a scientific basis for the claim after Caroline Flint, the Health Minister, told the committee: “In relation to deaths from smoking and second-hand smoke, the most serious aspect is smoking in the home. Ninety-five per cent of deaths are related to smoking in the home.”
The committee heard that the “main risk” over passive smoking concerned children who are exposed to cigarette smoke in the home — which the Bill was not designed to address. The report said: “It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective it should have been clearly stated.”
The committee also criticised the Government for spending less on road safety than rail safety, when there are far higher number of deaths proportionately on the roads.
Until 2003, the Department for Transport spent three times as much preventing accidents on the railways than on the roads, which the committee called a “potentially serious misallocation of resources”. This gap has subsequently narrowed.
This difference was based on a theory, contained in the Health and Safety Executive’s Principles and Guidance document that: “. . . society has a greater aversion to an accident killing ten people than to ten accidents killing one person each.” The Lords said that three surveys of of public opinion suggested otherwise.
The committee heard how risk-aversion is endemic in the public sector. While the private sector is motivated by profit, there are greater incentives for civil servants to avoid getting things wrong rather than taking reasonable risks.
The inquiry was set up after the Prime Minister said in 2005: “We are in danger of having a disproportionate attitude to the risks we should expect to run as a normal part of life”, adding that this was putting pressure on policymakers “to act to eliminate risk in a way that is out of all proportion to the potential damage”.
The report challenged the idea that Britain is developing compensation culture. While evidence from the Medical Protection Society indicates that the value of claims in the area of clinical negligence has risen, the absolute number has fallen from 10,890 in 2000/01 to 7,196 in 2004/05.
This mirrors a 5 per cent fall in accident compensation claims over five years and evidence from the Better Regulation Task Force which indicates that UK spending on compensation claims is among the lowest in Europe and significantly lower than that in the United States.

The Globe and Mail June 14/06

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.RADON14/EmailTPStory/Front>

Health experts sound alarm on radon
Safe level of gas in homes needs review
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Canada needs to tighten its radon exposure guidelines dramatically and should cut by 75 per cent the amount of the deadly radioactive gas considered safe in homes and schools, says an advisory panel of health experts drawn mainly from Health Canada and the provinces.
Canada has one of the most permissive radon exposure standards in the world, higher even than those of some developing countries. The panel is proposing a lower limit to reduce the incidence of lung cancer, the primary health threat from the gas.
In its report to the federal and provincial governments, the panel estimates that radon exposure causes about 10 per cent of all lung cancers.
Based on 2005 figures, that would mean about 1,900 deaths.
aPs="boxR";
var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
This makes radon the second largest contributor to the deadly disease after exposure to tobacco smoke.
Radon is one of the reasons non-smokers are often stricken with a deadly disease usually associated with cigarette use.
"The number of radon-induced lung cancers is about one-half of the deaths due to automobile accidents, and is equal to the combined total of deaths due to accidental poisonings, homicides, drownings and fires," the panel said in a report. "In any other situation, this number of deaths would certainly justify a major public health initiative."
Radon is a colourless, odourless gas released by the decay of uranium in the ground, and is found in almost every region of the country. Radioactivity emanating from the soil can slip into the basements of homes through foundation cracks and plumbing.
Among the areas with the highest levels are Sudbury, Halifax and Sherbrooke.
The panel estimates that about 2.5 per cent of homes, a total of 175,000, have radon levels above the proposal, and the owners would be advised to take actions to get their levels down. About 450 schools and 20 hospitals across the country -- in all provinces and territories -- would need about $560-million in alterations to meet the new standard, according to the panel.
The Canadian standard is 800 becquerel per cubic metre of air. A becquerel is a measure of radioactive decay. The panel recommends the figure be lowered to 200 Bq/cubic metre, the same as in Britain, Sweden and Norway, and new construction in China.
The current Canadian standard was set in 1988, and is considered dated because it was based on the amount of danger posed by radon exposures for uranium miners. A new study conducted in 2004 in Europe and a second in 2005 based on North American research indicated that radon can be deadly at the lower amounts found in homes.
These studies prompted the governments to review the adequacy of Canada's standard.
The panel's proposal is open for public comment until June 22, after which the country's health authorities will decide whether to adopt it. Canada's exposure limit is expected to change because it is more than five times higher than that of the United States, and four times higher than for a new home built in China.
Independent radiation experts welcomed the proposal, saying it is overdue. "We have been actually advocating for this for years," said Reza Moridi, chief scientist at the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada, a national body that promotes radiation safety. He says the current standard is "far too high."
In the United States, health authorities have taken aggressive action against radon, and even have a map showing the counties with the highest readings. A total of 800,000 homes with elevated radon have taken mitigation steps since the mid-1980s in the U.S., at an average cost of about $1,200 (U.S.).
Some U.S. states require testing of private homes when they are sold, an approach the panel said should be considered, along with a requirement that new homes have equipment installed to reduce levels.
"A combination of radon-resistant requirements in new homes and mandatory testing of existing homes could lead to virtually complete compliance with the new Canadian radon guidelines within a decade," the panel's report said.
Canadian health authorities currently cannot tell residents where the threat posed by radon is most severe, and are working on a U.S.- style radon map -- an outline of parts of the country with the highest risk -- and expect to have one available in one or two years.
But Mr. Moridi said radon is found everywhere, and the only way to determine for sure whether a building has the problem is through a test. He said the institute conducted an extensive test of Toronto schools in the early 1990s, and found two were above U.S. standards.
The institute used U.S. standards because Canadian guidelines were considered too lax to protect the city's children.
Tests cost about $50 per home.
The most common way to reduce radon entering a house is to install venting pipes through basement floor slabs and seal gaps and cracks in basement walls. Exposures to radon are worse in winter, when Canadian homes have the least ventilation.
Although radon is a big danger to non-smokers, it also enhances lung cancer risk among those who smoke. According to the report, the lifetime risk of lung cancer for a smoker who has only low, outdoor-level exposures to radon is 12 per cent.
That figure jumps to 30 per cent for smokers exposed to radon at the current standard. The new proposal, however, would reduce the risk to 17 per cent.

www.tbsource.com June 9/06


Dear Editor,
I have friends in Thunder
Bay who suggested I read June
2nd’s “Source”. I have to say
that even as a resident of a
country that has spearheaded
anti-smoking activism I was
shocked. Among other things,
Canada seems to see nothing
amiss in sending their oldest
and most vulnerable out into
the cold and snow to enjoy
what for many of them has
been a lifelong, if arguably
unhealthy, comfort.
One writer in the “What’s
Your Opinion?” column
showed the degree actual
hatred underlying the
campaign designed to pressure
smokers into quitting: Not
content with simply moving
smokers away from entrances
he showed his true feelings by
describing the desired
smoking areas as being “out of
sight.” Of course no one wants
to be reminded of the dirty end
of the stick when it is being
used to beat discrimination
into helpless victims.
The “Government of
Ontario” spends unknown
millions for things like June
2nd’s ad about “breathing
easier” after a ban, and allocates
roughly a million dollars
to the Thunder Bay District
Health Unit just to enforce and
“check up” (with undercover
agents presumably) on the
ban.
People read repeatedly that
“Everyone supports a ban!”
and “Workers are breathing a
sigh of relief!” without ever
realizing that those words are
not facts but simply part of an
expensive advertising
campaign designed to ensure
unpesisting compliance
among those rarely allowed to
hear the other side of the issue.
Michael J. McFadden
Philadelphia

A letter to The Ottawa Sun

Dear Mr. McRae

Re: Your proposal to construct a memorial for Heather Crowe.

I am pleased that Ms. Crowe had the opportunity to be cushioned from the financial difficulties posed by her illness through the Workman's Compensation Fund. I am also pleased that the last four years of her life was filled with purpose and meaning doing work that meant something to her. However, I must protest your idea of building a Heather Crowe Memorial for the following reasons: Heather Crowe was financially compensated for her role in the first set of commercials that was aired when she won her workman's compensation claim. She was paid $20,000 from Health Canada. We have a letter from the Minister of Health documenting this fact. The commercials were filmed and in the can before her claim was settled, indicating that someone knew what the result of the hearing would be. Considering the number of politicians that spoke up on her behalf, it is hardly surprising that the result was known before the hearing ever took place. This is certainly reflected in the speed with which a decision was rendered (only 9 weeks???) compared to other claims, which normally takes years. Compare this with the case of firefighters requesting workman's compensation for firefighters who get lung cancer and respiratory diseases after a career of sticking their heads in very large volumes of black toxic smoke. Where are the politicians and health officials to testify on behalf of their claims. When Ms. Crowe was ordered back to work when her lung cancer went into remission, she was immediately offered a job by Physicians for Smoke-Free Canada. During her employment with this federally funded lobby group, she travelled across Canada and even to England on the taxpayer dollar. Heather Crowe may have been a little waitress from Ottawa, but I have the impression that this woman was, at least, a very financially astute woman who profited quite nicely from her illness and her actions. Putting aside her illness and the fact that it is not yet scientifically or medically possible for the cause of one particular case of lung cancer to be determined, it is her actions and the implication of her actions with which I take issue. Heather Crowe and her sponsors, Physicians for Smoke Free Canada, Health Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundations have accused smokers of causing her death by exposing her to second hand smoke. This is a criminal accusation of involuntary manslaughter, at the very least. This accusation was not made in a court of law, where evidence must be presented, where the accused has the opportunity to examine the evidence and to refute that evidence, in accordance with our Canadian justice system. This accusation was made in the media and in the court of public opinion. Evidence was never presented to the public. We were never allowed to know the name of her diagnosing doctor, or the results of the three biopsies that were supposedly conducted. We were never even allowed to to read the actual decision from the workman's compensation board. The only evidence we have that Heather Crowe's cancer was caused by second hand smoke was the statement "the doctor said I have a smoker's tumor" and that Heather Crowe worked in a restaurant where smoking was allowed. Now the phrase "smoker's tumor" was unknown in the health community prior to Heather Crowe's despite the assertion of Physicians for Smoke-Free Canada that it is a colloquial term used in the health community for lung cancer. If you don't believe that statement - try to "google" the term. Based on this very flimsy statement - smokers have been tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and the government has imposed sentence by grounding us all from participating fully in society and prohiting us from associating with each other publically. It is no good telling us we can still associate with each other as long as we don't smoke. Association implies the right, protected by the Charter, of getting together to do the very thing that draws us to each other. As the Director - Media Relations of a registered not-for-profit-corporation called Citizens For Civil Liberties (2CL), I would like to inform you that we are requesting a public enquiry into the matter of the Heather Crowe file. We did not wish to say anything while she was alive our of respect for Ms. Crowe's health. However, now that she is beyond harm, we believe that it time for all the players involved to be held accountable for their actions and to reveal to the public all of the pertinent evidence, where the money came from to fund the Heather Crowe Campaign, how much money and who profited. We think that the public has the right to be assured that her Workman's Compensation Claim was handled without political interference and the nature of any political interference, if it did occur. We are also requesting that Ms. Crowe's claim that smokers are responsible for her death be closely examined. There are numberous scientific studies, conducted by very reputable researchers, like the International Agency for Cancer Research, a branch of the World Health Organization, that show that getting lung cancer from second hand smoke is extremely unlikely. There are 40 other causes of lung cancer, including family history (which has never been discussed), exposure to diesel fumes in urban traffic, cooking fumes, commercial cleaners, candles, wood burning stoves/fireplaces and radon. None of these other causes have ever been explored in the Heather Crowe file. The evidence that smokers "killed" Heather Crowe needs to be examined and smokers have every right to refute the evidence and face our accusers in a just and open forum. This is Canadian law, not propaganda and social manipulation. Was Heather Crowe the "victim" of smokers or are smokers in this country the victims of vigilante justice? Have smokers been tried and convicted as an identifiable group of people without evidence or due process?

Yours truly
Michelle Gervais
Director - Media Relations Citizens for Civil Liberties.

www.newarkadvocate.com June 9/06

SMOKING BANS ARE BAD FOR BUSINESS
Ms. Wood's letter points out very important things. Smaller measures like smoking bans can snowball into drastic civil liberties measures.
Smoking bans do nothing to help Ma and Pa businesses or their employees, including live musical entertainers, which are forgotten in the mix. We are fired well before waitstaff cuts take place. The jukebox is our replacement.


Here's hoping the SmokeLESS Ohio amendment passes, giving all tavern owners a uniform choice and the ability to welcome back smokers. Organizations similar to SmokeFreeOhio in California are imposing outdoor smoking bans. These policies never could have happened without California's draconian indoor smoking ban as a foundation.
This is the "slippery slope" often referred to with all-inclusive bans.
The wording on SmokeFreeOhio site states "this is not a smoking ban, this is a clean indoor air act."
Anti-smoking organizations in California used similar terminology. As we can see, their anti-smoking organizations were not satisfied with implementation of a "clean indoor act" and moved on to outdoor smoking bans rather quickly.
The SmokeLESS Ohio policy is the reasonable compromise. Non-smoking adults and children will not be subjected to smoke in restaurants as a separate smoking room is required. Ma and Pa taverns will be able to recoup business losses.
Toledo tried an all-inclusive ban, and there were many business failures before exemptions were installed. Columbus' ban has yet to be relaxed, and the damage to clubs is a sad reality. This will be a sad reality for the state if SmokeFreeOhio's policy becomes law.

Linda Dachtyl
Columbus musician

"There's no such thing as a safe tan". DO take note of the closing remark! How long 'til kids with a tan will result in charges of child abuse?
==========================================
Article from Northumberland Today:http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=61141&catname=Local%20News&classif=News%20-%20Local

Health unit moves to prevent minors from using tanning bedsBy Karen LloydTuesday, June 06, 2006 - 09:00 Local News - Whether it’s soaking in the sun or baking in a bed, the health unit says it’s not healthy for young people to alter the colour of their skin. At its regular meeting last month, local board of health members approved a resolution urging the province to pass legislation that would ban minors from tanning beds, and keep closer tabs on tanning salon owners.“Currently there’s no such thing as a safe tan,” says Angela Andrews, a health promoter with the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit. The board’s resolution stems from a 2005 recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO) that no person under the age of 18 should use artificial tanning equipment, as well as research that shows exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of developing skin cancer later in life. Ms. Andrews says exposure to UV radiation in sunlight and artificial sources like tanning beds and sun lamps is responsible for more than 90 per cent of skin cancers, including melanoma the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer among women living in and around Northumberland County. In light of this, and further studies that indicate skin cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in Canada, the local health unit is embarking on a campaign to inform people of the very real dangers of sun exposure both indoors and outdoors and prevent them from becoming statistics.“What we’re trying to do is take preventive measures,” Ms. Andrews said. The phenomenon of tanning dates back to the 1920s, when French designer Coco Chanel created a “healthy” fashionable look and popularized tanned skin. Women began sunbathing and those with a tan were considered to be beautiful and wealthy. Having a tan in the winter also meant the bearer had enough money and status to afford a vacation to an exotic, warm climate. Indoor tanning made its mark in the 1970s as a way of achieving a tan without having to go outdoors. Tanning beds and sunlamps were thought to offer an effective, quick and harmless alternative to natural light. Ms. Andrews says the increase in the number of tanning facilities across North America has contributed to excessive use among young people and a rise in the number of skin cancer cases. She pointed out that melanoma has increased by an average of 2.4 per cent annually between 1992 and 2000.The leading reported reasons for using artificial tanning equipment are to get a base tan, look better, relax and feel better. But what young people don’t seem to consider are the long-term risks. “As researchers state, you may go out and experience a tan, but you may not see the harmful effects until down the road,” Ms. Andrews said.In 2004, the local health unit’s catchment area ranked the third highest 23.2 per cent among participating health units for having the most artificial tanners between the ages of 18 and 34.Ms. Andrews is concerned that many young people, particularly young women, are seeking a tan because it is seen as socially desirable, says Ms. Andrews. “We want people to love the skin that they’re in,” she said.Although some salons claim tanning beds are an alternative solution for the winter blues and the key to preventing many cancers related to vitamin D deficiency, such as breast and prostate cancers as well as contribute to a more muscular, fit and thinner appearance, the WHO says they are far from being conducive to good health or good looks. Forced tanning is associated with DNA damage in the cells that produce the dark-coloured melanin pigment in the skin. In fair skinned individuals, those who are most keen on darkening their complexion, this is associated with significant of DNA damage. In addition to cancer, the WHO says that over time, tanning beds will also contribute to wrinkly and sagging skin.But Cobourg’s Island In The Sun owner Karen Emmons says she goes to great measures to ensure her clients aren’t overdoing it. She and her staff recommend the length of time a person should be exposed, depending on their skin tone, and if her clients are minors, under the age of 16, she requires parental consent. “I’ve got quite a few clients that are under 18,” she said. Her philosophy is, “Everything in moderation.” Although tanning bed operators are currently the target, the health unit is also hoping to make the public aware that in general, even in the sun, over-exposure is not good.“This is just the first step,” said Ms. Andrews.

The Hypocrisy of Smoking Bans..June 6/06

I was looking at a no smoking sign today and thinking what the graphic actually signifies is no smokers allowed more so than the banning of cigarettes or smoke. The hypocrisy of a one foot parapet fifty feet above your head as an indicator whether a patio can be designated as no smoking with absolutely no scientific or even political rhetoric to substantiate such a ruling says it all. The Lawyers for the accused terrorists are being dealt a heaping helping of reality in the illusions of freedom and democracy we supposedly enjoy in this tin pot republic. They all have similar complaints in the complete disregard for the rule of law and personal rights. The accusations being levied against the accused take me back to a photo op a few years back when my own house was ransacked while police without a warrant were supposedly looking for my younger brother they looked in every drawer and spice jar in the place leaving my wife to clean up the mess. What was it my brother was being sought for was the real joke. Someone had given him a joint and because he did not toke 20 minutes later when a business acquaintance walked in with an undercover cop looking to buy some pot my brother told him he didn’t know anyone selling and he gave the joint to the undercover who took it without saying a word. Three months later he was arrested and accused of being a member of a huge drug cartel all of the members of this cartel stated in unison they had never met each other however it looked great in the news reports regardless of reality. The news also failed to report all but one of the members of this grand cartel where found innocent of the hugely exaggerated charges being sounded out in the press. Smoking bans should be held high as proof to all of us how little rights you actually have in this country. As for the terrorists I find it difficult to imagine 10 to 15 people having the ability to blow up the CN Tower and the stock exchange, take over the CBC and the Legislature in Ottawa behead the PM after overpowering his security forces and all the rest of the law enforcement officers between Toronto and Ottawa, all accomplished with a couple of small arms and the bags of fertilizer supplied them by the same cops who arrested them. The press plays up the amount they bought as though a salesman could not have more to do with that than how much they actually intended to use. I have a lot of suspicions in the way this whole matter is being played up in the press it has more to do with associating Muslims with bombs than anything a bunch of teenagers could dream up amongst themselves let alone what they could actually accomplish. Smoking bans above hypocrisy are a flexing of political muscle backed by poorly created propaganda which never needed any credibility only the will of those who weld the sickle. FXR

Sarnia Residents Toxic New tests show Sarnia residents are contaminated with toxic chemicals

SARNIA, ON, June 6 /CNW/ - Tests results released today by Environmental
Defence show that Sarnia residents are polluted with a harmful cocktail of
toxic chemicals.
An adult mother and daughter from Sarnia and a grandfather, father and
granddaughter from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation were tested for toxic
chemicals and heavy metals that are widespread in the environment and used in
everyday products, such as stain repellants, flame retardants, DDT, PCBs,
manganese, mercury and lead. The chemicals are associated with hormone
disruption, cancer, developmental problems, damage to the nervous system and
respiratory illnesses.
The tests were conducted as part of Environmental Defence's national
project, Toxic Nation, to examine which toxic chemicals are polluting the
bodies of Canadians young and old.
"The results are a good snapshot of the toxic chemicals that could be
polluting the bodies of everyone living in and around Sarnia," said Sarah
Winterton, Programme Director, Environmental Defence. "The chemicals we tested
for in our Toxic Nation project are all linked to potentially damaging health
effects."
Expert laboratories in Quebec and British Columbia tested for 68
individual chemicals. A total of 43 chemicals were found in the bodies of the
Sarnia volunteers, including 36 chemicals that can cause reproductive
disorders and harm the development of children, 36 suspected cancer-causing
chemicals, 22 chemicals that can disrupt the hormone system, 18 neurotoxins,
and 10 chemicals associated with respiratory illnesses.
"In taking part in the Toxic Nation project, I expected to have some
toxic chemicals in my body. But, I was extremely surprised when seeing the
results, especially the fact that I am the most polluted adult tested. I have
come to realize that we are in serious trouble. This issue is about the future
of our children, grandchildren and the planet," said Sandy Kinart, a Sarnia
resident.
The laboratory tests found 37 toxic chemicals in Sandy's body, including
the highest levels of organochlorine pesticides and PFCs (stain repellants).
Sandy's daughter, Shari Scarpelli, had a total of 24 toxic chemicals in her
body. Shari had the highest levels of two organophosphate insecticide
metabolites - DMP and DMTP.
The Toxic Nation project also tested for five heavy metals - mercury,
lead, arsenic, cadmium and manganese - many of which are emitted by industrial
facilities. All of the heavy metals tested for were found in the Sarnia
residents, with Sandy having a relatively high level of mercury and an above
normal level of arsenic and 14-year-old Jessie Plain having a relatively high
level of manganese.
"Our own studies have found heavy metals, such as mercury and lead, in
the sediment throughout our community. It's worrisome to know that they are
polluting our families," said Ron Plain, Chair, Aamjiwnaang First Nation
Environment Committee. "Using these very distributing numbers as a benchmark,
we, the Aamjiwnaang Environment Committee would like to see government and
industry set a goal of a declining set of numbers in subsequent studies on
these and other children."
The toxic chemicals tested for in the bodies of Sarnia residents do not
even include all of the myriad of pollutants released everyday by industrial
facilities. Sarnia facilities reported releasing more than 187,000 kilograms
(187,923) of suspected and known carcinogens into the air in 2003, according
to PollutionWatch (www.PollutionWatch.org), which tracks releases and
transfers reported to the federal government under the National Pollutant
Release Inventory (NPRI). Sarnia facilities also reported releasing more than
223,000 kilograms (223,478) of suspected endocrine disruptors to the air and
more than 10 million kilograms (10,452,505) of pollutants suspected of causing
reproductive and developmental problems.
"I was shocked by my results, but even more shocked when we looked at my
daughter's results. Some of these chemicals have long since been banned, but
are still found in our bodies. I can only hope that the government takes
action to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals," said Wilson Plain Jr., father
and Toxic Nation volunteer from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia,
Ontario.
The study found 32 chemicals in Wilson Plain Sr., 36 chemicals in his
son, Wilson Jr., and 20 chemicals in his 14-year-old granddaughter, Jessie.
Wilson Plain Sr. had the highest total concentration of PCBs. His son, Wilson
Plain Jr., had the highest total concentration of PBDEs.
"These findings should represent a warning to the whole community that
action is required to control and regulate industrial pollution," said Jim
Brophy, Executive Director, Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers.
The test results from the Sarnia volunteers will be presented at a public
meeting today (Tuesday, June 6, 2006) at 6:00 p.m. at the Aamjiwnaang First
Nation Community Centre (1972 Virgil Avenue), in Sarnia.
The individual tests results from the Sarnia residents, and other
Canadians tested for toxic chemicals, are available to view on the Toxic
Nation web site - www.toxicnation.ca. Canadians can log on to
www.toxicnation.ca to sign a petition calling on the federal Environment
Minister to better regulate toxic chemicals
About Environmental Defence: Environmental Defence protects the
environment and human health. We research. We educate. We go to court when we
have to. All in order to ensure clean air, safe food and thriving ecosystems.
Nationwide. www.environmentaldefence.ca
For further information: or to arrange interviews with Toxic Nation
volunteers, please contact: Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416)
323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521 (cell); Ron Plain, Environment Committee,
Aamjiwnaang First Nation, (519) 337-3144; Jim Brophy, Occupational Health
Clinic for Ontario Workers, (519) 331-7558 (cell); Sandy Kinart, Sarnia
resident, (519) 344-6790; Wilson Plain Sr., Aamjiwnaang First Nation, (519)
336-4805
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE - More on this organization

There is no question about the "hypocrisy of tobacco bans".

Tobacco Bans are, first and foremost, effectively Smoker Bans.
All the rhetoric, phony manipulated statistics, and staffing empire-building implicit in fighting the purely fictional "epidemic of toxic poison"(promulgated by our medical professional associations and assisted by Big Pharma companies and taxation-addicted government co-conspirators), have as their focus the extraction of as much money as possible from some 5 million adult smokers in Canada. It is legalized extortion masquerading as health-ism.

The chief benefactors(doctors) want to maintain and accelerate their current Multi-Billion Dollar labour agreements with the provincial governments. They are "looking out for number one" while pointing the finger at adult smokers as the chief cause of preventable "high health care costs". So the hypocrisy starts at the very top of the 'health' food chain and permeates all the way down to the low-life dregs such as Mahood, Repace, Banzhaf, lottery prone NGOs, et al.

Next come the "tough guy" hypocrites that "make it happen" such as Ontario's Minister of Health, "Bully Boy George" cheered on by a confirmed liar(health tax) like Dolton "Fibber" McGee-nty working in tandem with, you guessed it, Doctor Couillard, Quebec's Minister of Health.

In terms of hypocrisy, Ontario's de facto enforcer, "Bully Boy George" is the most galling. Here is a former(debatable considering his skewed position on rights/bans) , self-admitted, drug using character who flaunts and revels in a lifestyle where AIDS is at extremely high levels pushing Smoker Bans and creating a brand-new, vilified, and oppressed minority, Adult Smokers. In actuality, what has now occurred is that "the one-time oppressed" has been transformed into "an avid oppressor". This ranks right up there on the pedestal of hypocrisy.

Presto, Smoker Bans, coincidentally(in a pig's ear) taking effect May 31, 2006 in the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Effectively, the dawn of neo-prohibition is in place and squarely targeted at adult smokers to "quit or be punished" and summarily be treated worse than these hypocrites would treat their own pets.

Are tobacco(smoker) bans hypocritical?

When developed and enforced by arrogant, social-engineering, and thoroughly deceitful hypocrites, YES without question or hesitation.


Nickstar

Rob Moffatt wrote:

The hypocrisy of tobacco bans
Jun. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
RICARDO ARTUNDUAGA
COMMUNITY EDITORIAL BOARD

Anti-tobacco laws are full of hypocrisy.
It is very easy to legislate political correctness, very easy to use power to restrict freedoms, but it is very difficult to think about serious solutions and be realistic about our society's problems.
If our politicians truly were interested in public health, as they would have us believe, they could start with laws that would drastically and immediately reduce the terrible consequences befalling the entire world due to global warming. But future generations cannot vote, so our politicians don't take them into account.
Or they could regulate the prescription drug market, ordering the wider use of generic drugs, or ease the entry of thousands of doctors and nurses — who now drive taxis or sell insurance policies — into the Canadian health-care system.
If our politicians really were as interested in our health as they claim to be, they also would, once and for all, pass "presumed-consent" legislation for organ donations. How many more patients have to die waiting for a transplant while our legislators ponder the issue?
How many murders have to be attributed to guns before a politician will propose banning them?
But they will do nothing about any of these things because they are not really interested in our health and our future. Politicians are interested only in the next election and, in this context, anti-tobacco laws sound an electorally useful note of sincerity and concern.
My grandfather smoked from the age of 13 until he was 87 and he died of an illness unrelated to his smoking habit. My grandmother used to say that she smoked at least half of my grandfather's cigarettes; at 98 years of age she is still alive. She still remembers my grandfather with a cigarette between his lips; it was part of his personality, she says.
In relating this personal anecdote, I am not saying that second-hand smoke does not increase the risk of cancer in non-smokers.
But thousands of non-smokers suffer from respiratory illnesses without having had any contact with smokers, and it has not occurred to anyone to ban the use of polluting agents in industries or in vehicles.
This is where legislators' hypocrisy lies, because the same people who propose draconian anti-tobacco measures usually are the same ones who refuse to accept any form of pollution reduction.
Some smokers die of lung cancer, but other people, smokers and non-smokers, die from many other forms of cancer that may be caused by certain foods or food preservatives, chemicals in household cleansers, radiation from television sets and cellphones or pollution. And in any case, all people eventually die of something because, despite our best efforts, immortality exists only in fiction.
The consumption of cigarettes has diminished rapidly thanks to education campaigns and a growing awareness of the risks.
An adult who decides to smoke does so in the knowledge of those health risks, as do consumers of liquor, drugs or food.
What is the cost of alcoholism, drug abuse or obesity to our society? Has any politician proposed — to offer an absurd example — to ban the sale of alcohol from Monday to Thursday? Or to ban the sale of junk food?
It's obvious that in a perfect world there would be no smokers, alcoholics or drug addicts, no cancer, disease or death. But this perfect world exists only in the imagination of fiction writers.
Aldous Huxley showed us that kind of utopia in his work Brave New World. Yet even there, free beings existed who refused to accept any simple mechanical definition of happiness — that is, happiness born out of power and law.
It's fine that we try to make our shared existence more harmonious, but what was wrong with the way things were? What sense does it make to ban smoking on covered patios and in dedicated smoking rooms?
Don't be taken in by hypocrisy. If politicians really cared about our health, they would ban the production of polluting vehicles with poor gas mileage.
They could do so many things that would reflect a serious purpose, but banning tobacco — even from places where only smokers concentrate — is a smokescreen, smoke that's harmful to our health, worse than that emanating from smokers.

# posted by Samantha : 10:38 PM

June 4/06 The Globe and Mail

Subject: smoking issue??

No more guilty pleasures, the busybody state does not approve I detest cigarette smoke, but our creeping prohibitionism has long since crossed the line MARGARET WENTE mwente@globeandmail.com E-mail Margaret Wente Read Bio Latest Columns> I couldn't have known it at the time, but I was blessed to be a youth during those fleeting years when nothing was forbidden and all things were permitted. We smoked. We drank. We had unprotected sex with strangers. We ingested illicit substances, and when we got the munchies, we gorged ourselves on jelly doughnuts. We even seduced our professors, and vice versa. The dark cloud of AIDS was not yet on the horizon. We never gave a thought to secondhand smoke, sexual harassment, or our cholesterol 'Twas bliss to be alive back then, and I pity all of you who weren't. My favourite line in poetry came from Blake: "Damn braces, bless relaxes." It's all braces now. The list of prohibitions on correct behaviour stretches further than the distance that those wretched smokers are now obliged by law in Ontario to separate themselves from our office buildings, lest any wayward curl of deadly tobacco fumes contaminates the rest of us. No more sheltering from the icy blasts for them! Smokers have been banished from outdoor patios, too, even those that are well ventilated by the prevailing winds. If a patio has a roof, non-smokers are in danger. You can't be too careful about the definition of a roof. One umbrella on a patio is not a roof, but two umbrellas shoved together are a roof. In case anyone has trouble keeping these new rules straight, a memo from our Human Resources Department assured us that the company will be monitoring the premises. The fines for non-compliance range from $1,000 to $100,000. Personally, I detest cigarette smoke. I believe that everyone has an inalienable right not to be exposed to it against their will. The arrival of the smoke-free workplace was a triumph for human rights and simple common sense. But our creeping prohibitionism has long since crossed a line. Smoking bans are no longer about protecting non-smokers from the (highly exaggerated) dangers of secondhand smoke, although that is what we're told. They are really about punishing smokers. Instead of doing the honest thing, and just banning smoking altogether, the state will simply harass and marginalize the deviants until they quit. This strategy is thought to be cruel and unacceptable when applied to, say, panhandlers or heroin addicts. But we don't think panhandlers and heroin addicts are a menace to society. We think smokers are. And so we are happy to deprive our wrinkled vets of the simple pleasure of sharing a smoke with their buddies in the Legion hall. Some people call that progress. I call it > insufferable sanctimony. Something has gone wrong when the busybody state can make an outlaw of Christopher Hitchens, the most entertaining public intellectual of our age. Mr. Hitchens was in Toronto a while ago, and packed a restaurant with his fans. He illicitly puffed his way through several dozen Rothmans Blues. I doubt anyone minded, but people worried we might get busted. Mr. Hitchens has a theory about the progressive intrusion of the busybody state. "I think it's a mingling of the Puritan and in some ways the Catholic traditions. One is not allowed to let someone go to hell in their own way, so it is a religious duty in effect to intervene for their own good," he says. "It is overlaid now by the very sanctimonious idea that, if you can mention health and especially if you can get the word 'kid' into the same sentence, you are entitled to do anything. There is no privacy you can't invade." Can the busybodies go any further? Of course they can, and they will. One town in California (the cradle of the non-smoking movement) has banned > smoking altogether, except in the privacy of one's own home. Nobody complained. We are increasingly approving of the state's efforts to regulate our behaviour, even if it harms no one but ourselves. Besides, we like obeying rules. We're a nation of compliers. Have you tried crossing against the light lately? People shoot you glances that let you know you're doing something terribly thrilling and naughty, even when there are no cars in sight. That's exactly how Mr. Hitchens must have felt. By the way, there's one big exception to this official demonizing of tobacco. And that's native tobacco. "Commercial tobacco is a KILLER! Traditional tobacco is a HEALER," announces the website of the Aboriginal Tobacco Strategy (http://www.tobaccowise.com), which is sponsored by Health Canada. The difference between commercial tobacco and traditional tobacco is that traditional tobacco is sacred. It can be used to communicate with the Spirit World. You can also use it to offer prayers and treat illnesses I, too, used to use tobacco to communicate with the Spirit World, especially on deadline. But I guess that didn't count, because my tobacco wasn't sacred. Perhaps the problem is that in a society that suffers from record health, lifespan, and citizen compliance, the authorities are simply running out of useful things to do. But doing useful things is their raison d'être. And so they busy themselves whipping up panics over increasingly marginal or non-existent threats to public safety. They harass smokers, ban bad dog > breeds, banish Roundup, and wage campaigns against pop vending machines in schools. They mount awareness campaigns against the hazards of wearing scented deodorant in public. "Everyone should have safe and healthy places in which to live and work," concludes a City of Ottawa committee that wants to abolish -- well, in this case it's scented deodorant, but it could be any or all of the above. Poor old Blake. These days, everything is forbidden and nothing is permitted. It all makes me very sad. I think I'll go outside and have a joint. I wouldn't have a cigarette. Too risky. You're a lot less likely to get busted for a joint.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=56

For example, Clicking on Alaska at the top there brings you to the Alaska page and now I know that the customers must be 19 to buy tobacco products, If under 19 and caught, it is a $300. fine, unless they are in an adult correctional facility.

As for states and bans... in the right column of the main Newsletter page is a list of all the states. http://www.smokersclubinc.com

If you read the Newsletter every week, you get the highlights of all the bans. Small towns you might have to check for their pages under their state.

FYI: This is coming out in the new issue later today:
Scorecard: Most states (74%), have not passed total bans on indoor smoking, anti smoking crusaders have been unable to demonstrate an improvement in public health or the promised reduction in health care costs, as a result of any statewide ban on smoking. The states that have refused to pass or even consider passing total indoor bans on smoking are: New Hampshire, Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nevada, West Virginia, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alabama, Wyoming Missouri, Illinois and Indiana.

http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/06/01/1610564.html

I don’t smoke, but I resent the government making decisions for me, and restricting my liberties. I don’t consider the McGuinty government responsible for my health —that is my responsibility as an individual.
“Officials” may cheer at the new provincial smoking ban, but they always cheer when the state’s power over the citizen is ratcheted up another notch.
A more honest and accurate title for the Ontario “Health Promotion” Minister, Jim Watson, would be “health enforcement” minister. The very existence of a “health promotion” minister confirms that we are living in a true nanny state, not just in policy, but in name as well. It won’t be long before the Orwellian busybodies are banning what they perceive as junk food. “It’s for our own good,” numerous government experts will assure us.
I applaud every smoker who refuses to be infantilized, and rejects this mushy tyranny by lighting up.

Brian Walker
Ottawa

Original letter

Dear Editor. June 1/06

Considered the number one preventable cause of death and illness in Ontario, 16,000 Ontarians die annually from smoking-related disease and 3,000 die from the effects of second-hand smoke, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. Regulations cannot and do not "save lives". It is impossible for a regulation to intervene when a person is in immediate danger of dying or being killed. Regulations do not perform surgery, they do not appear at a crime scene and apprehend criminals, nor do they show up at a fire and pull people out of burning buildings. The idea that regulations can save lives is a semantically-induced delusion! It is impossible to "prevent" someone's death. It is possible to postpone a person's death, but no person's death has ever been or ever will be "prevented". If a person's death were "prevented", they would never die and would be an immortal.

Media, "public health" and activists love to use the work "caused" to induce people to believe there is an established casualty.
There is no absolutely no demonstrated causality of death and disease by passive smoke. '3000 people die from the effects from second- hand smoke?' The Canadian Cancer Society gets these figures from a risk computer called SAMMEC. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/intro.asp In other words there are no names, no bodies, no death certificates..nothing. No one has ever died, solely from second-hand smoke.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Edited letter published in the Chronicle Journal

June 2/06

Dear Editor. June 1/06

Considered the number one preventable cause of death and illness in Ontario, 16,000 Ontarians die annually from smoking-related disease and 3,000 die from the effects of second-hand smoke, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. Regulations cannot and do not "save lives". It is impossible for a regulation to intervene when a person is in immediate danger of dying or being killed. Regulations do not perform surgery, they do not appear at a crime scene and apprehend criminals, nor do they show up at a fire and pull people out of burning buildings. The idea that regulations can save lives is a semantically-induced delusion! It is possible to postpone a person's death, but no person's death has ever been or ever will be "prevented". If a person's death were "prevented", they would never die and would be an immortal. Media, "public health" and activists love to use the work "caused" to induce people to believe there is an established casualty. There is no absolutely no demonstrated causality of death and disease by passive smoke. In other words there are no names, no bodies, no death certificates..nothing. No one has ever died, solely from second-hand smoke.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.

Thunder Bay, Ont.