<$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Smoke the fish....

My letter published in The Thunder Bay Source... Fri. Nov 24/06

www.tbsource.com

While I appreciate the desire to protect children from second-hand smoke
exposure in cars, I'm afraid that the suggestion to ban smoking in cars occupied
by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy
of parenthood.
The autonomy to make one's own decision about what risks to subject a child
to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there
is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.
Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

My letter published in The Chronicle Journal Nov. 23/06

Re "Campaign aims to protect kids from smoking." Nov. 7/06

While I appreciate the desire to protect children from second-hand smoke
exposure in cars, I'm afraid that the suggestion to ban smoking in cars occupied
by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy
of parenthood.
The autonomy to make one's own decision about what risks to subject a child
to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there
is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.
Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Dear Editor, Nov. 22/06

Flory Doucas,a spokeswomen for the Non-Smokers Rights stated, 'One has to remember that people who work in bars also have lungs and they're entitled to
have the same health protection that other workers have.'

It is clear that separation of smokers and non-smokers combined with air exchange
technology is a complete solution to this largely artificial problem.

All it takes is regulating authorities setting the standards for indoor air quality
on passive smoke, and the technology does the rest.

Such air quality standards are common in industrial and environmental context.

But, to date, no country in the world has set them for smoking areas.

It seems clear that the reasons are not scientific, nor are they economic or technical;
they are political.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/101145.asp
Logic says there should be exemptions to smoke ban
By STEVE RIEDL
Published Tuesday, November 21, 2006

How long can you and your family survive without a paycheck? A month, perhaps two months? This is what Springfield’s bar owners are experiencing because of the smoking ban. Their net business income is their paycheck - and scores of them have been without a paycheck for two months now. These people and their families are suffering immeasurably.
The anti-smoking advocacy groups are pushing the city council to give the current ban six months to a year to realize what the economic effects of the ban are. The people in our industry do not have the luxury of waiting six months to a year. They will be destitute by then. None of us can survive that long without a paycheck.

Logic. This is the litmus test that determines many of our thoughts, decisions and opinions. The hospitality business community respectfully asks our aldermen and each of you to employ logic and reasoning when considering a narrow exemption to Springfield’s smoking ban only for bars and fraternal clubs.

The majority of Springfield residents support permitting smoking in Springfield’s bars and fraternal clubs (more than 53 percent in a recent poll where approximately 3,500 registered voters responded to this question). Logically, our society accepts that persons will encounter smoke in a bar and accept bars as the appropriate venue for smokers to smoke.

The vast majority of people who oppose permitting this narrow exemption to the smoking ban do not patronize these businesses and their opinion should be weighed accordingly. Even within the nonsmoking demographic of Springfield, 42 percent of nonsmokers support an exemption for bars and fraternal clubs - including the nonsmokers who do not patronize our industry.

The reason most Springfield residents support a narrow exemption for bars and fraternal clubs is logic. People know that these entities cater to this segment of society and that, while smoking should be severely limited, society has to allow the use of a legally sanctioned product in a few limited venues. After all, our country is based on respecting and promoting diversity.

Our industry and this organization support a comprehensive smoking ban for Springfield. We have always maintained this position, despite being portrayed by anti-smoking groups and a few media outlets as the evil entity that would allow smoking anywhere. It is unfortunate that these folks resort to such tactics, rather than allowing society and the Springfield City Council to decide this issue on the merits alone.
The merits are economics, health and respecting that we live in a diverse society that strives to provide allowances for all sectors of society. The logical answer is to craft a proposal that recognizes each of these merits and balances all three.

Let’s look at the economic facet of this issue. My association knew that bars and fraternal clubs would be devastated by a smoking ban that included their businesses. We were open, honest and forthright with all parties that this would happen. The lung and cancer folks decreed that we were wrong and that commerce in these businesses would actually increase due to the great influx of non-smokers that would now patronize our industry.

Logically, this was difficult for any of us to swallow, but our council and most media outlets accepted this as fact because the information came from established health-care organizations. Now that the ban has been in effect for a few months, the evidence is clear - Springfield’s bars and fraternal clubs have been devastated by the smoking ban. Business is down anywhere from 20 percent to 60 percent in these businesses.
The bottom line is this: Some businesses have already permanently closed their doors due to the ban. Scores of others are on the brink of folding. This is not a prediction or an opinion. This is a fact and must be treated accordingly. Our city council was misled by these established health-care organizations about the economic impact on the hospitality business community.

Again, employing logic, we all really knew these businesses would suffer. Most people probably hoped that the suffering would not be as extreme as it has been. These businesses have been forced into a crisis situation solely to satisfy a minority of vocal Springfield residents who have an extremist viewpoint on the issue.

I find it ironic and hollow that these established health-care organizations refuse to admit they were wrong on the economics of the ban. To make matters worse, they now blame the smokers for not continuing to patronize Springfield’s bars and fraternal clubs. They claim these people are protesting the ban by boycotting these businesses. Have they bothered to ask the smokers (and nonsmokers who enjoyed these venues) why they no longer patronize these establishments?
The answer is no, or they simply don’t acknowledge what these folks are saying. This is not a protest or a boycott. These people enjoyed going to a venue that allowed them to enjoy a cigarette with the beverage of their choice. Now that they are no longer able to do so, they have little or no interest in going to these businesses. Again, employ logic and reasoning. Do not rely on the anti-smoking propaganda machine to make your decision for you.
On economics alone, the Springfield City Council should take action to grant narrow exemptions to Springfield’s smoking ban. Those aldermen that vote to provide narrow exemptions to Springfield’s smoking ban should be recognized by all of us as people of conviction who rightfully altered their opinion on the original ban proposal because they were misinformed on the economic fallout the ban would have on hospitality businesses in our community.

It’s that simple - and logically speaking, each of us knows this is the proper course of action for our elected officials to take on this issue. Forget all the rhetoric, the skewed data showing that bans have not hurt these businesses in other jurisdictions, and the other propaganda put out by both sides. Your instinctive logic tells you there must be relief provided for these businesses. Failure to do so will devastate hundreds of families in our community.

Aldermen, the ball is in your court. I join thousands of others in hoping and praying that each of you is the person of conviction we thought you were when we elected you to represent us in our community. Do the right thing. Logic is your beacon - follow it.

Steve Riedl is executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Smoking bans are getting out of hand Bloomington Nov.20/06

I am a woman or a man. I am young or old.I am a doctor, lawyer, factory worker. I am a construction worker. I am a politician and or a hairdresser. I am a street person who has fought for my country as a soldier. I am made up of all and every one that is a part of this land. And what makes us one and the same? We are smokers. Our choice to smoke has become a big issue. Now we are treated as if we are carrying a lethal weapon. Every time we light up, our smoke becomes a great health issue. But for us, we are aware of the risks we take. For the most part, we respect the fact that we know where to light up and where not to. We are always being reminded by others that we should quit this nasty habit. But I myself never say, ``Hey you need to smoke.'' Yes, it is my choice of habit. I feel this smoking ban has got out of hand. I understand respecting each other's space. But the holier-than-thou attitudes are becoming a pain in my backside. I can remove my smoking from public close quarters such as malls, restaurants. But I have a real problem with attaching bars and taverns to the list banning smoking. I deeply feel it should be up to the independent owner. I feel half the people squawking don't even step inside these type of establishments. So live and let live. Stop stepping on my toes. I have been judged, sentenced and treated as a criminal. A prisoner with a conviction of being a smoker. I ask myself who is my real keeper.

Judith D. Cook
Bloomington

Smoking bans are getting out of hand Bloomington Nov.20/06

I am a woman or a man. I am young or old.I am a doctor, lawyer, factory worker. I am a construction worker. I am a politician and or a hairdresser. I am a street person who has fought for my country as a soldier. I am made up of all and every one that is a part of this land. And what makes us one and the same? We are smokers. Our choice to smoke has become a big issue. Now we are treated as if we are carrying a lethal weapon. Every time we light up, our smoke becomes a great health issue. But for us, we are aware of the risks we take. For the most part, we respect the fact that we know where to light up and where not to. We are always being reminded by others that we should quit this nasty habit. But I myself never say, ``Hey you need to smoke.'' Yes, it is my choice of habit. I feel this smoking ban has got out of hand. I understand respecting each other's space. But the holier-than-thou attitudes are becoming a pain in my backside. I can remove my smoking from public close quarters such as malls, restaurants. But I have a real problem with attaching bars and taverns to the list banning smoking. I deeply feel it should be up to the independent owner. I feel half the people squawking don't even step inside these type of establishments. So live and let live. Stop stepping on my toes. I have been judged, sentenced and treated as a criminal. A prisoner with a conviction of being a smoker. I ask myself who is my real keeper.

Judith D. Cook
Bloomington

A letter published in The Chronicle Journal ..Mon. Nov. 20/06

I don't understand the anti-smoking campaign can claim victory and be proud of the unfair negative impact this had had on our smoking seniors living in long term care.

My 83 -year- old father, a veteran, who uses a walker, lives in a seniors' home.
He was directed to smoke out back in a dark area out of sight of the doors(which occasionally don't unlock upon re-entry). On one occasion recently, while alone back there, he fell and broke his arm. He lay there in the cold and dark for over a half hour before someone in the building heard his pleas for help. Now he has been told he is not allowed to go out for a cigarette unless a family member(me) accompanies him.

Why can't there be a safe place for him and others to enjoy the occasional cigarette?
Why are seniors forced to take unnecessary risks to their fragile well being and suffer the cold as well?
Can you imagine the frustration, feelings of hopelessness and heartbreak he suffers on those days that I am unable to visit and push him into the cold for his one-small pleasures in life?

Terry Huneau
Thunder Bay

Sunday, November 19, 2006

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/154111

Guest opinion: Jeffrey Singer -- It's a secondhand smoke screen


Some public policy activists engage in "advocacy science," manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.
Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it's global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.
A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk. But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.
When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause. But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause.
To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research "did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." It concluded, "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General's report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, "Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer."
The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other's data and bolster its own case. I'd like to get away from this and resort to common sense.
It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.
Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.
Thankfully, our political system is not a "scientocracy." Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us. When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.
Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers' desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.
Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.
It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.
As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices. A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.
Research the Nov. 7 midterm election; watch videos from Star Editorial Board meetings with candidates and supporters and opponents of ballot initiatives. Also, read past Star articles and endorsements.
Go to guide
Jeffrey A. Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He is a Goldwater Institute board member and contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association


New rules strip away choice


Nov 15 2006

There is a fine line between protecting people's health and encroaching upon the freedom of choice enjoyed by others, and I think Premier Gordon Campbell crossed that line when he announced his plans to make every indoor public area smoke-free.
Before I get too much further I feel it is only fair to give you, the reader, my personal experience with smoking. I don't smoke, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and quite frankly I don't plan to smoke one anytime soon. The inclination to light up a smoke has never come to me and so I have chosen not to.
That being said, my dad is a smoker and has been for over 30 years now.
Under the current system, everybody had a choice. Smokers had the choice of sitting with their non-smoking friends and going into the smoking room as needed to get their fix. Non-smokers had the choice of enjoying the smoke-free environment or sitting in the smoking section to spend time with their friends.
Now smokers and non-smokers have no choice: Those who smoke have to physically remove themselves from the premises and pull themselves away from their environment to have a smoke.
I understand the reason for banning cigarettes from indoor establishments: protecting the health of those who work in the establishment. But that again has to do with choice. Anyone who applies for a position in a pub or bar knows that they may be exposed to second hand smoke, and they can choose to pursue the job or not.
This also removes the choice of the establishment owner about the type of establishment they wish to run and the clientele they wish to service, and it takes away their freedom of empire to a large extent.
Likewise, this is not something that people were clamouring for or knocking on the doors of the legislature to get. I think, for the most part, everyone was happy with the system we have in place, so why does Mr. Campbell feel the need to impose his will on the people of the province?
Smoking is a choice, as is not smoking. Whether or not to work in an establishment where you will be exposed to second hand smoke is a choice. Running an establishment that permits smoking is also a choice. These are all choices that we as adults can make, and I see absolutely no reason for the government of the day to step in and strip away our right to make these choices.
© Copyright 2006 The Northern View

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Village of Fox Lake
66 Thillen Drive
Fox Lake, Illinois 60020

Mayor Cindy Irwin, Irwinc@foxlake.org
Village Clerk Samantha Weeks, Clerk@foxlake.org
Trustee Ted Beskow, trustee.beskow@foxlake.org
Trustee Ed Bender, bendere@foxlake.org
Trustee Bill Borchers, borchersb@foxlake.org
Trustee Greg Murrey
Trustee Carol Ulasy, ulasyc@foxlake.org
Trustee Noel Working, workingn@foxlake.org
Fox Lake Chamber of Commerce, foxlakechamber@yahoo.com

RE: Fox Lake Embraces Smokers, http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=249106 - November 12, 2006

Dear Mayor Irwin and Fox Lake Village Trustees:
cc: Fox Lake Chamber of Commerce
This is simply a thank you letter for exhibiting rarely observed independence and determination by public officials in Illinois and across our country.

I am referencing your city council decision to refuse further intrusion and manipulation by tobacco control activists in Fox Lake. I sent the following Letter to the Editor in response to the Fox Lake news story, also below, though I was not surprised when it was not published. Prior to writing this story, Lee Filas had contacted me for an interview. I responded, but he must have changed his mind about desiring my input and did not speak with me.

Briefly, thank you again for defending private business owners' interests and supporting the public's right to legal personal life-style choices in Fox Lake. As you probably are aware, you have a multitude of supporters.

Respectfully submitted,

Garnet Dawn Scheuer
Lake Bluff, Illinois
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

----- Original Message -----
From: Garnet Dawn
To: Daily Herald (Letters to the Editor) ; lfilas@dailyherald.com
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor - Fox Lake embraces smokers
RE: Fox Lake Embraces Smokers, http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=249106 - November 12, 2006

Letter to the Editor:
cc: Lee Filas

Congratulations to Fox Lake for stating it's position clearly and leaving no doubt that they are a community which still supports our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, personal life-style right-to-choice and for refusing to engage in negotiations with the tobacco control crusaders of Lake County and massive pressures from wealthy, charitable health organizations. One would have to be a hermit to escape the barrage of SHS propaganda distributed by the CDC, ACS, ALA, AHA and Smoke Free Lake County Partners. There is no doubt that the village's public officials have received their fair share of "Smoke Free" literature. Fox Lake residents should be proud of the position taken by Mayor Cindy Irwin for refusing to even consider an invasive government smoking ban ordinance. Hasn't the tobacco control industry wasted enough tax payer dollars through monopolizing public officials' attention and time upon smoking bans in Lake County?

During the May 9, 2006 televised Lake County Board Meeting, representatives Judy Martini (Fox Lake, Antioch) and Bonnie Thompson Carter (Wauconda, Fox Lake-S) both voted against the Board passing a resolution to support the Health Department's proposal to make Lake County smoke-free by the end of 2007. They also both clearly stated that smoking bans in those areas would be completely unrealistic, unenforceable and detrimental to the affected communities.

The Chain-of-Lakes is not an urban shopping mall/industrial park/chain restaurant atmosphere. These are the recreational towns where tourists and residents flock to enjoy their boats, campers, out-door activities, bars and restaurants, and freedom from the invasive restrictions of every day life. Hospitality smoking bans have never been about health. They are about power, money and control. Not one life will be saved through government enforced restaurant, bowling alley and bar smoking bans. Consumers have a choice in the establishments they patronize. The decision to allow smoking or become smoke free should remain with the individual business owner.

Upon attending the recent Senate Executive Committee Hearing in downtown Chicago, it became clear that officials of villages and cities in Lake and Cook counties who had already passed smoking bans were those strongly supporting legislation of a state-wide smoking ban in Illinois. These officials were suddenly concerned with a "level-economic-playing-field" for hospitality businesses in their communities. Perhaps they should have given those economic results more consideration, before passing their local smoking bans ordinances over the protests of private business owners and residents.

Kudos to Fox Lake village officials for refusing to join current “follow-the-leader” trendy government-imposed smoking bans, and also for stubbornly continuing to represent the interests of their constituents.

Sincerely,
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Friday, November 17, 2006

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.LETTERS17-14/TPStory/Comment

My letter published in The Globe and Mail

Fri Nov. 17/06

The politics of smoking
Re Northern Residents Fuming Over Smoking Ban(B.C. and online editions--Nov. 13)

It is clear that the separation of smokers and non-smokers combined with air- exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely artificial problem. All it takes is for regulating authorities to set the standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology does the rest.
Such air quality standards are common in industrial and environmental context.But, to date, no country in the world has set them for smoking areas.
It seems clear that the reasons are not scientific, nor are they economic or technical;they are political.

THOMAS LAPRADE

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Letter in The Chronicle Journal Nov. 17/06

Let seniors smoke

Praise for the words of Sheila Jackson.

"Smoking and seniors" (letter, Nov. 13/06).

"Where is the compassion?"

I am a senior non-smoking citizen, but my heart goes out to these senior smokers who have to go outside in the freezing cold for a puff. The non-smoking campaign has not considered the feelings and disposition of these smokers, especially seniors and the disabled in long-term care facilities.

Please reconsider and prepare an indoor space for folks who, after so many years and through no fault of their own are where they are and cannot give up the habit.
We must be allowed our individual spaces and choices, and not be dictated to by those who do not understand or care about those in very difficult situations.

Jackie Domineck
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

SURREALITY TIMES

http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_surrealitytimes_archive.html

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/154111

Guest opinion: Jeffrey Singer -- It's a secondhand smoke screen


Some public policy activists engage in "advocacy science," manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.
Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it's global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.

A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke.

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk.
But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report.
It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.
When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause.
But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause.

To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research "did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." It concluded, "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General's report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, "Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer."

The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other's data and bolster its own case. I'd like to get away from this and resort to common sense.

It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.

Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.

Thankfully, our political system is not a "scientocracy." Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us.

When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.

Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers' desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.

Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.

It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.

As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices.

A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.
Research the Nov. 7 midterm election; watch videos from Star Editorial Board meetings with candidates and supporters and opponents of ballot initiatives. Also, read past Star articles and endorsements.
Go to guide
Jeffrey A. Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He is a Goldwater Institute board member and contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Fox Lake Embraces Smokers, http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=249106 - November 12, 2006

Letter to the Editor:
cc: Lee Filas

Congratulations to Fox Lake for stating it's position clearly and leaving no doubt that they are a community which still supports our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, personal life-style right-to-choice and for refusing to engage in negotiations with the tobacco control crusaders of Lake County and massive pressures from wealthy, charitable health organizations. One would have to be a hermit to escape the barrage of SHS propaganda distributed by the CDC, ACS, ALA, AHA and Smoke Free Lake County Partners. There is no doubt that the village's public officials have received their fair share of "Smoke Free" literature. Fox Lake residents should be proud of the position taken by Mayor Cindy Irwin for refusing to even consider an invasive government smoking ban ordinance. Hasn't the tobacco control industry wasted enough tax payer dollars through monopolizing public officials' attention and time upon smoking bans in Lake County?

During the May 9, 2006 televised Lake County Board Meeting, representatives Judy Martini (Fox Lake, Antioch) and Bonnie Thompson Carter (Wauconda, Fox Lake-S) both voted against the Board passing a resolution to support the Health Department's proposal to make Lake County smoke-free by the end of 2007. They also both clearly stated that smoking bans in those areas would be completely unrealistic, unenforceable and detrimental to the affected communities.

The Chain-of-Lakes is not an urban shopping mall/industrial park/chain restaurant atmosphere. These are the recreational towns where tourists and residents flock to enjoy their boats, campers, out-door activities, bars and restaurants, and freedom from the invasive restrictions of every day life. Hospitality smoking bans have never been about health. They are about power, money and control. Not one life will be saved through government enforced restaurant, bowling alley and bar smoking bans. Consumers have a choice in the establishments they patronize. The decision to allow smoking or become smoke free should remain with the individual business owner.

Upon attending the recent Senate Executive Committee Hearing in downtown Chicago, it became clear that officials of villages and cities in Lake and Cook counties who had already passed smoking bans were those strongly supporting legislation of a state-wide smoking ban in Illinois. These officials were suddenly concerned with a "level-economic-playing-field" for hospitality businesses in their communities. Perhaps they should have given those economic results more consideration, before passing their local smoking bans ordinances over the protests of private business owners and residents.

Kudos to Fox Lake village officials for refusing to join current “follow-the-leader” trendy government-imposed smoking bans, and also for stubbornly continuing to represent the interests of their constituents.

Sincerely,

Garnet Dawn
______________________________
- The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Friday, November 10, 2006

Dear Editor, Nov.9/06

The article in The Chronicle Journal(Nov. 7/06)
'Campaign aims to protect kids from smoke'

A recent experiment has proven that opening the driver's window and flicking on the intake-air button dissipates all the smoke that is generated by the smoker whether it is in a car or van.

Therefore, there is absolutely no danger whatsoever to the children in the vehicle.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.

Campaign aims to protect kids from smoke

Excerpts from that article in the Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay. Nov. 7(Tue)/06

"This campaign is designed to present the facts in a matter that alerts (parents) to the issues without feeling criticized,"Simon Hoad said."We want parents to know that opening the car window isn't enough to make a difference." One 'study' says smoking in cars causes significant increases in suspended particles and carbon monoxide, even when windows are opened."When adults smoke in a car or van, very quickly the air becomes twice as thick as a smoky bar."Hoad said. "It's almost as it you are putting your children in an old-fashioned backyard smoker," he said Research has shown that children who are brought up in second-hand smoke suffer increased behavioural problems and have a higher rate of ear infections, tonsillectomies, asthma, lung infections and lower respiratory infections.


Re: Campaign aims to protect kids from smoke -->

My letter to The Chronicle Journal.

The article in The Chronicle Journal(Nov. 7/06)
'Campaign aims to protect kids from smoke'

A recent experiment has proven that opening the driver's window and flicking on the intake-air button dissipates all the smoke that is generated by the smoker whether it is in a car or van.

Therefore, there is absolutely no danger whatsoever to the children in the vehicle.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

The future.....

authorsden.com/shortstoryupload/21882.doc

Monday, November 06, 2006

http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/Edmonton/2006/11/03/2219493-sun.html

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/11/06/2252982.html
What did the City of Edmonton expect, smokers to carry their own ashtrays when they are forced to go outside to smoke?

Thomas Laprade

(Who knows?)

Letter sent to The Mayor and Aldermen Nov. 6/06

Dear Mayor and Council Nov. 6/06

Here is something interesting as far as computor voting is concerned.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-02-smokers-election_x.htm
Smokers go back to ballot boxes in effort to light up again
Posted 11/2/2006 10:50 PM ET

By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY

A handful of communities from North Dakota to Pennsylvania are revisiting smoking bans and may provide more places to light up.
Voters in Mankato, Minn., and Appleton, Wis., will decide next week whether to repeal or weaken existing smoking bans.
Allegheny County, Pa., and Hennepin County, Minn., recently scaled back their ordinances, allowing smoking in more places. West Fargo, N.D., is about to do the same.
In most cases, restaurant and bar owners have lobbied local leaders, saying the bans have hurt business.
"We're seeing it come up more often as smoking bans take their economic toll on the hospitality industry," says Gary Nolan, spokesman for smoking rights group The Smoker's Club, Inc. "Bar owners and some restaurateurs are starting to rise up."
The backlash is small compared with the number of municipal and state governments adopting smoking bans. This year, 100 cities and counties — "a record number" — have enacted strong smoke-free ordinances, says Bronson Frick of the non-profit lobbying group Americans for Non-smokers' Rights. "The trend is very much going toward smoke-free," he says.
Frick says "economic doom and gloom" scenarios from businesses don't materialize.
Sharon Reader, owner of Emmett's Bar & Grill in Appleton, says her sales have tumbled since the city's workplace smoking ban went into effect in July 2005. She says she had to fire four employees because she could no longer afford them.
Bars in town report a 15% to 70% loss, Reader says. "Regulars who showed up four or five days a week don't come any more," she says.
She and others helped gather signatures to bring the issue before voters, who will decide Tuesday whether to exempt about 60 taverns from the ban. This is the second attempt to amend the ban at the ballot box, City Clerk Cindi Hesse says. The first, in April, failed.
Other recent moves:
•Allegheny County last month amended its ban, which was approved in September, to include exemptions for some small bars.
•Hennepin County adopted exemptions in December for some bars and establishments such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars. They expire next July, says Bill Belknap, spokesman for Hennepin County Public Health Protection.
•West Fargo commissioners have taken the first steps to amend the city's smoking ban, which was approved by voters in 2004. They are changing it to match the state's less restrictive ban, which allows for more exemptions, Mayor Rich Mattern says.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Letters to the Baytown Sun concerning the smoking issue. Nov.3/06


Protect freedoms

The time is now. Please help us protect our freedoms and the Constitution of the United States which we and many other veterans have fought to protect and preserve.
Learn the facts!
The proposed smoking ban can be found in its entirety on the Baytown Sun’s website and at www.baytowncitizens.com.
If this ordinance passes:

1. No one will be allowed to smoke or allow smoking in their own place of business; even if they are the only person there.

2. This ordinance on its preface was supposedly designed to protect all citizens more especially those they claim to be affected by second-hand smoke —the elderly and the sick. However, page 7 exemption E of sec. 42-102 excludes hospitals (San Jacinto Methodist). Are these people less important to the authors of this ordinance? Or is this ordinance just a self-serving document to the authors of it?

3. The possession of ashtrays in any public place per this ordinance (page 7 sec. 42-104D). IE retail stores may not sell them, your vehicles or any public place cannot have them within.

4. The definition of a work place includes company, public and even personal vehicles when used in the course of employment. Vehicles are mentioned 4 different times in this ordinance (page 4 under place of employment, page 6 sec. 42-99A, page 7 sec. 42-102B). Therefore, based on their 15 foot rule, no one would be allowed to smoke in their own vehicle at any time within the city limits of Baytown.

5. Signage in this ordinance requires a 10-inch by 14-inch no smoking sign on every entrance of every public place or places of employment (page 7 sec. 42-104 ABC); for example your vehicle or every door to your business.

6. In certain cases your home could be a work place. If the lawn service man, sprinkler repair man, maintenance man, or anyone were to be working on your personal property, neither you or they would be allowed to smoke without being in violation of this ordinance and subject to a fine of up to two thousand dollars (page 9, sec. 5).The Baytown Citizens for Property Rights would certainly agree with the smoke-free coalition in so much as everyone has the right to quality of life, however, not at the expense of other individual’s basic rights. This ordinance, if passed, would trample on the very foundation that the Constitution of the Untied States was founded on, personal property rights. We the people often confuse personal preference with personal rights. No one has the right to be in another person’s place of business; that is a privilege afforded to us by the business owner. We as individuals have the right to choose which establishments that we prefer to support and which establishments we will not support. By doing so, the business owner will make a decision based upon economics whether to allow smoking or not. It was once said, that if you give up any of your rights in order to feel safe you will neither have rights nor be safe.

Zane Starr
Baytown

Educate yourselves I would like to address Dr. S. Jeffery Ackerman’s letter dated Oct. 26. Appreciating Dr. Ackerman’s freedom of speech and personal opinion, I would agree that cigarette smoke is offensive and nasty, however, I personally prefer honesty and facts not smoking mirrors. Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Ehlers and the Smoke-Free Baytown Coalition are certainly a very educated and well-financed group of people. That being said, his letter states that our Psychiatric Unit has a smoking room that is equipped with a negative air flow ventilation system. Yet in the preface of their proposed ordinance, they claim that no ventilation can protect you from secondhand smoke. This is based upon an opinion of the Surgeon General who is an appointee of our big government. When in fact this is an opinion, which should be stated by engineers not an appointed doctor. However, assuming these were true facts the Psychiatric Unit and the San Jacinto Methodist Hospital in general must have technology unavailable to the general public, otherwise they would be subjecting some of the very people they proclaim need to be protected the most; the sick, the elderly and the employees and would be subjecting all of these people to secondhand smoke.

Dr. Ackerman has stated that the claim of 4,400 deaths per year due to secondhand smoke is based upon probabilities that scientists would use in a computed generated model and have no factual data to support such a claim. He also claims to have exempted these people and retirement homes based upon compassion. However, the ordinance in fact gives no true exemption for anyone other than San Jacinto Hospital. Smoke Free Baytown also claims to not have intentionally taken over your personal vehicle, city street or in some cases your home, yet as highly educated and well financed organization came before council requesting an ordinance prohibiting smoking on all city esplanades as well as having Ignacio Ramirez, city attorney, review it and make 57 changes. In so all these infringements on your personal rights were kept. It is amazing that the only true exemption is to the San Jacinto Hospital Psychiatric Ward. These are the same group that again came before the council requesting an ordinance prohibiting any other hospital to be allowed in Baytown. All of this being said, in my opinion this is not about smoking, but about property rights. When anyone invests in your community or any place, for that fact, in order to better themselves and their families as long as their investment is legal, they should not be held to the desires of others except by their cash register. The basic grounds and principals of the Constitution, which created this great country, allow us the right of entrepreneurship. When we begin to give up these rights to the majorities preference one by one we lose them. I would ask you to think about the many decisions our government is now making for you. Things our fathers and forefathers were never questioned about. Have we become a nation unable to think for ourselves?
I would agree that we all have the right to breathe clean air and to be employed in a safe environment. I have no more right to request employment in an environment that I know to be possibly unhealthy and then require them to stop the process of such product that would be harmful. I knew this when applying for said position. As Baytonians we chose to live in a place we love even though we are surrounded by the petrochemical industry and their flare stacks. What do we prohibit next, donut shops, bakeries, car dealers, industry. We have the right to stay or go. I hope we all stay; this is a wonderful city in which we can all endeavor to prosper. It is my belief that industry and residential growth can be accomplished as long as we all work in unity with realistic regulation and not a dictatorship. The choice is clear on Nov. 7. Let’s not become a liberal state, which continues to allow our irresponsible government entities to regulate our lives. I choose to believe that we are very responsible in where we go and what we do without the regulation trying to be set upon us. I encourage all Baytonians to visit the Baytown Sun web site or www.baytowncitizens.com to become educated on the facts prior to voting.

Jeremy Sutton
Baytown

Baytown Smoking Ordinance PDFA proposed Baytown ordinance would ban smoking in public buildings and workplaces.

Letter published in The Chronicle Journal Nov. 3/06

Dear Editor, Oct.30/06

Any politician who serves more than two terms in office tends to develop a dictatorial attitude rather than representing their constituents wishes.The President of The United States cannot run for a third term in office for exactly the same reason.
As a general rule our city would be better off if we voted almost everyone out of office after two terms.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

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