Sunday, December 31, 2006



The government's anti-smoking agenda suggests they believe they will be creating a healthier society for all with their scare tactics and legislated force. ("CHR boss gets tough on smoking," Dec. 22.)
Exactly how can this be achieved when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer- employee relationships and alienate them from their own human nature?
This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smokers to long-term emotional disorders, thus leading to other physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
Governments choose only to look at their misleading approximation of the physical outcome of smoking and second-hand smoke, but totally avoid the deeper, more devastating effects of their interference.
A particularly foreboding feature is the suffocating, negative influence the government projects on society.
Considering government is aggressively determined to restrict young people from making their own decision about smoking, it may jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a sense of self-confidence.
This fragile process can often be a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
Our government has chosen to bow and curtsy to anti-smoking's history, instead of learning from past mistakes.

Ken Hill

Saturday, December 30, 2006


City forgets fundamentals

City council needs to give its collective head a shake. After capitulating to the anti-smoking lobby, rewriting and accelerating the anti-smoking bylaw it sits back on its collective behind and allows thousands of homeowners to continue to use and abuse unmetered water we don't have because they decided we have until 2012 to comply. We do not have water to squander and will be seriously short of it within a few years of the date set for compliance. It's time council focused on fundamentals instead of involving itself in the imposition of its subjective morality on private citizens and private businesses.

Brian Frank

Friday, December 29, 2006


The recent anti-smoking movement is reminiscent of the Prohibition lobby during the 1920s.
Social engineers of the '20s rationalized that introducing restrictive legislation would prevent "freedom of choice."
People would then be healthy, crime would be reduced and society would save taxes in terms of jails, hospitals, poorhouses etc.
Prohibition turned out a miserable failure in terms of what it was originally intended to do. Although I believe a person should have a choice to choose a non-smoking establishment, smokers should also have a choice to go into a smoking-only establishment.
Hiding behind the rationale that smokers cost the rest of us money is a dangerous socialist ideal that although seemingly harmless, can lead to very serious and dark problems in our society.
What will you do when the nanny state comes to you and tells you something you are engaged in is hazardous and costs the health system too much?
Rock climbing, hang gliding, horse riding, wrestling, mountain biking, skiing, french fries, chocolate, beef? How long could the list become?
What about the eventual refusal of treatment in the public system to those who made bad choices and damaged their health?
Maybe someday soon, they will outlaw obesity as well? Far-fetched yes, but it is an important consideration.

R. Dean
(Smoking hasn't been outlawed.)

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dec. 28/06 The Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay, . letters@chroniclejournal.com

Where is the balance in smoking debate? Thomas Laprade does pose a very good question when he asks: "What would a trained physician have to gain by supporting inaccurate published health information...?"("Children can be harmed by more than second-hand smoke"--letter, Dec. 15). As I am equally sure of Dr. Slivchak's good intent and motivations(letter, Nov. 29), the problem stems from the fact that it is difficult to change ideas once they are in print. It is very popular to quote the results of the EPA '92 study on passive smoke and the lung function of bartenders. It took several years before other researchers found the folly to their experimental design. Yet their criticism does not receive the same attention as the first near-scandalous reports of passive smoke problems. As long as there are people convinced that passive smoke does cause harm, the experimental evidence will not be gathered, and the science not done correctly. Much rather, we will be left with the ambiguous "linked to" phrase, and the ignorance to which this phrase points. Siding on the side of caution is one thing, but compelling other people by legislation is quite a different situation.

Leo Oja

Thunder Bay
Dec. 28/06

The three letters about smoking and children in Dec. 18ths' Journal were scary. Antismoking lobbyists are laying the groundwork for the right to take children away from smoking parents on the basis of child abuse arguments. The damage done to families and to society by such actions would be incalculable, and far, far greater than any arguable damage done by normal levels of secondary smoke exposure .The writers seem to have absorbed the social prejudices and misinformation about secondary smoke to the fullest, even though much of it is false. For example, there are *not* "40 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke". If we're talking about human beings there are seven Class A carcinogens present in smoke, all of them in very, very small quantities. A cigarette emits slightly less than one half of one thousandth of a gram of those elements into the air. People don't realize that a standard martini emits over 2,000 times that amount of the vaporized Class A carcinogen ethyl alcohol into the air in the course of a single hour. If anyone suggested taking children away from parents simply because they drink alcoholic beverages in the same house as those children the idea would be ridiculed although scientifically the basis could be argued to be stronger. Mr. Laprade was quite correct, both socially and scientifically, in pointing out that the social danger posed by antismoking extremists in today's society is probably far greater than the health danger posed by smokers in a normal and decently ventilated environment, whether around adults or children.

Michael J. McFadden
Philadelphia, PA

Wednesday, December 27, 2006


Dying smoker left out in the cold ... Published in The Toronto StarDec. 21.Greg Flood, spokesman for the Ministry of Health Promotion, states, "it was more important to protect others from second-hand smoke." He must know that second-hand smoke in a decently ventilated room is an insignificant health risk.

Thomas Laprade,
Thunder Bay

Tuesday, December 26, 2006


Your turn: Statewide smoking ban is not a priority By Rep. Tom Emmer, Delano I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. But my distaste for the habit doesn't give me cause to have the state manage individual rights. The new junta of Democratic legislative leaders has declared a statewide smoking ban as the top priority on their thin agenda for the upcoming legislative session. That baffles me. How property taxes, education reform, health care reform and funding for roads and bridges do not top that list of priorities is, in a word, outrageous! Apparently promises made during recent campaigns can now be forgotten. A statewide smoking ban in Minnesota is a dangerous constitutional precedent. If the new regime wants the ban to pass, it very likely will pass. But we should at least call it what it is as we plummet further into the nanny-state formerly known as Minnesota. America was founded on principles of freedom and the right of the individual to self-determine. As a "free" society, the laws we enact must necessarily be directed toward protection of individual freedoms. A tension exists, however, between the right to self-determine and our predisposition to control. Simply stated, we all want to make decisions about our personal liberties, but some also want to make decisions for fellow citizens. Why? Is it because we believe only the uneducated would disagree with our enlightened position? We are all concerned with health. In fact, we are all responsible for making healthful choices. The first law on the DFL legislative agenda is a statewide smoking ban.The real issue is much larger. The real issue is how far we are willing to let government rules erode our freedom. What will stop the regulatory engineers from focusing their sights on the freedom to consume certain foods they consider unhealthful foods? What will stop them from outlawing certain expressions, like no one should be forced to sit in a public place next to someone spouting profanity or praying aloud? What will stop them from determining who can own and hold certain property like a farmer's right to decide how and what to farm? What will stop them from legislating who we can associate with by restricting procreation based on genetics? What will stop them from legislating our religious freedoms? I expect those who want to dictate our freedoms will cry out that the smoking ban is altogether different from the examples offered. Secondhand smoke obviously affects workers in bars and restaurants. Of course no one wants to suggest that employment is voluntary. Evidence of the negative health impact of secondhand smoke has been presented as indisputable. If this is such an indisputable truth, then why does the federal government rate secondhand smoke below cell phones as a carcinogen? I realize this train may be out of the station and that it seems to be picking up steam. I only ask that before we set this course we consider the impact on not only the many businesses that will be hurt, but also the dangerous precedent we set for liberty. This is the opinion of District 19B Rep. Tom Emmer, Delano. He can be reached at (651) 296-4336 or (800) 474-3425.

Sunday, December 24, 2006


Letter published in the Calgary Sun...Dec. 23/06

Dear Editor, Dec. 22/06

Why doesn't Jack Davis come clean and tell the public the 'real' reason for no-smoking legislation?

Ventilation doesn't work??

It is not about health and it never was about health.

It is all about quarantine/isolating the smoker.

By passing no smoking legislation the Department of Health is trying to de-normalize smoking.

Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.

Thomas Laprade
Letter sent to the Calgary Sun Dec. 24/06

Dear Editor. Dec. 24/06

Jack Davis states, "We're at the stage going into 2007 where the evidence is overwhelming on the negative impacts of smoking to health."
What has smoking(health) got to do with passing no-smoking laws on the hospitality industry.?
Your statements is like comparing 'lightning' to the 'lightning bug.'
And by the way, every time I buy a pack of smokes, I not only pay for my health care(if I get sick) I partially pay the health care of the non-smokers too.

Thomas Laprade

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on a CBS SundayMorning Commentary.

Herewith a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and US constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "MerryChristmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.
In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and wheren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane C layson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regardingKatrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events.terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school .. the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figureit out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards .. honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein__________________________________________________

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Bingo Hall closure a blow to Charities


Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Smoke-free Ontario
Re "Let's start enforcing laws" (Letters, Dec. 18): You would think that if you could get the two references required to attend the Ontario Tobacco Control Conference in Niagara Falls that you would at least know what is covered by the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I hate to break it to letter writer Kirbi Simpson, but there is no "smoke-free Ontario." I should know, I'm a smoker and as a law abiding citizen I know the smoke-free Ontario act very well. The closest I got to the conference was standing outside the hotel with a picket sign that read "Tobacco Control is out of Control" and I paid my own way. The nine-metre rule only applies to hospital doorways. Stores, casinos and office building doorways aren't covered and neither are patios. Regardless of what you were told at the conference, we can still smoke in our homes and cars.

Ann Welch

(Hopefully there's a nine-metre distance between Ann and Kirbi)

Saturday, December 16, 2006


Smokers must take blame for health
Dec. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
Ontario unwilling to sue tobacco firms
Dec. 12.
Everyone alive today has known, virtually from childhood, that smoking is unhealthy and yet many people have taken it up of their own free will. Why then do we feel the tobacco industry is responsible for any health problems that arise? If you smoke or are around people who smoke, then any resulting health problem are your or their responsibility. Tobacco companies make a legal product we are free to use or not. Suing them because we make bad choices doesn't seem right. For once I agree with Dalton McGuinty.
Mike Mays, Barrie, Ont.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Children can be harmed by more than second-hand smokeBy Thomas Laprade, Thunder BayDec 15, 2006, 00:15

Re: Letter to the editor from Dr. Jane Slivchak, MD (Chronicle-Journal, Nov. 29)Thank you for advising the public to read the website at Physicians for Smoke-Free Canada. As the link clearly shows, all the childhood illnesses which have been associated with second-hand smoke are ubiquitous to childhood.The website clearly demonstrates that the majority of the incidences of all of these disease occur to children who live in non-smoking homes and are unassociated with tobacco in anyway with the sole exception of SIDS.Physicians for Smoke Free Canada have chosen to predict that 180-240 babies will die of SIDS due to maternal smoking because the last statistics available for the SIDS rate in Canada show that in 2003 out of more than 335,000 live births, only 62 babies actually died of SIDS.This website is a perfect example of the current hysterical and exaggerated claims of health risks related to second-hand smoke exposure.While I am confident that you are a fine physician, you seem to have a slight problem with the meaning of simple words. “Increased risk” does not have the same meaning as “harm.” If that were so, parents who allow children to use toboggans can be seen as abusive because there is certainly increased risk of harm.If smoking in the presence of children is to be considered the same as harming a child, then I am afraid that allowing children to undertake the risk of harm by a car accident by allowing them to get into a car must also be considered the same as harming a child.Studies have shown the level of fine particulate pollution inside a car that is idling at a red light behind a diesel truck can rise to as high as 7,000 parts per million. This far exceeds the fine particulate pollution inside a car that is supposedly caused by second-hand smoke in the mere hundreds of parts per million.While I appreciate your concern for our children, please be advised that children in fact belong to their parents and not the health community or the state.I would strongly suggest that instilling fear of accusations of child abuse would prevent parents from seeking your skills and knowledge and also increase risk of harm to children.Now what would a trained physician have to gain by supporting inaccurate publish health information and political agendas of social engineering?
© Copyright by Chronicle Journal.com

This letter was written by Michelle Gervais but was submitted under my name

Thomas Laprade

A letter published in Thunder Bay Source Dec. 15/06

First of all smoking is not a serious risk to children. I'm 61 years old and grew up in a household with a smoking mother. Yes, I too smoke. But my brother and sister also grew up in the same household, and do not smoke and do not have any health problems.
Neither do I. And neither does my 82 year old mother, and she is still smoking.

As for seat belts, forget about it. None of us had seat belts growing up. Neither did my two children. Don't you just have to ask yourself how we all survived these negligent acts committed by our parents?
Use some common sense. Look around you, and ask yourself how did all these baby boomers survive?

Eliminating smoking, and your so-called second-hand syndrome isn't going to keep you from dying

Bonnie Duncan
Thunder Bay

Thursday, December 14, 2006


In defence of smokers
I have to admit that I am extremely concerned by the actions of Non-Smokers Rights Association (NSRA) in regard to banning smoking in private homes.
Smoking is the wedge by which the government may seek to intrude themselves in a space that the Supreme Court has ruled “is for the sole use and repose of the owner.” Smoking bans in private homes tears to shreds the concept that a man’s home is his castle and overturns 400 years of legal precedence.

Mike Strobel (Dec. 13) appears to support that concept.
I can understand the NSRA stand. After all, now that non-smokers can easily avoid exposure to second hand smoke, they are almost out of work and the funding gravy train is coming to an end. There is a concept in toxicology that “the dose makes the poison.”

If active smoking represents the greatest risk to health and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has roughly 1% of the concentration of mainstream smoke.
Any molecules of gas that may drift through a crack in the wall represents only a miniscule fraction of that 1%, then just what is the “significant risk to public health” that NSRA and Mike Strobel appear to be trying to sell us on?

Perhaps Mike would like to take a shot at explaining why ETS appears to be the only substance in the world that doesn’t follow the rules of toxicology?

Last I heard, ETS wasn’t nearly as risky as sarin gas or diesel exhaust.
And it isn’t nearly as risky as allowing the government to use a fraudulent health scare to overturn 400 years of legal precedence.

Michelle Gervais Director, Media Relations Citizens for Civil Liberties London, Ont.

(Why didn’t you just call Strobel and tell him to butt out)

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Dear Editor. Dec. 18/06

Smoking bans in the past, present and the future has always been and always will be, is to quarantine/isolate the smoker.

It was never about 'Health' per say.

The next logical substance will be alcohol.

Politicians are not elected to office to control or manipulate our behaviour.

They are in office to serve us, not visa-versa.

Thomas Laprade


Dear Editor, Dec. 19/06

I find that the uninformed news reporter, Mike Strobel stated,"Ask any of the 425 Ontarians who die of its effects every year", is quite fascinating.

Did you know that no one has ever died, solely from second-hand smoke?

If you don't believe me, why should I believe you?

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St

Monday, December 11, 2006

Let's put a ban on banning things

And that’s what we do in this country, over and over. Get so scared of some dread menace — of communism or crime or drugs or illegal aliens or terrorists — that we hurt ourselves. We think we can make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free. It never works. When we make ourselves less free, we’re not safer, we’re just less free.”

The quote above is from a book entitled “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office” (2006, Thomas Dunne Books) written by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. Now, obviously that book is about things that need little explanation if you’re capable of reading and comprehending the title. But the quote is from a chapter on the loss of civil liberties, about the way we as Americans have been trained to feel good about giving up freedom in order to be protected. The simple fact is that if we give up all those freedoms we will at some point need someone to protect us from the people to whom we gave away our freedom. We could sit and talk about that all day long, I’d bet, but I’m not ready for that yet. There has been a lot of talk about this whole tobacco-free thing. There are lots of folks working the anti-tobacco effort these days and that’s fine with me. But there was an incident just the other day that kind of got on my nerves a bit. I heard a man talking about the fact that some people are breaking the law and need to be exposed. When asked what law these people were breaking, he explained they were smoking inside a business in town, in direct violation of the state law that took effect this year. He said there was so much smoke inside the building that he had to leave in order to continue breathing. Now, my immediate (and internal) response to that guy would be: Stay out of that store. They apparently don’t need your business.I mean, it’s not the kind of store where people take their children for free medical care or government subsidies, so stay away if you’re offended. The state law that bans smoking in workplaces basically states that smoking is illegal unless the business bans anyone under the age of 21 from entering at any time. I think there’s probably a good chance of someone challenging that part of the statute, especially because the legal age to buy tobacco is 18, but only time will tell. Now, I’m not advocating smoking or tobacco use of any kind. Personally, I do smoke, but I hadn’t done so in restaurants frequented by families for a long time before the new law took effect. But I believe there is a slippery slope of sorts when the state — or any other entity — starts to tell business owners what they can and can’t do as long as no laws are broken. Tobacco is legal, after all, even in a dry county. In fact, there might even be a chance that a business owner could challenge the law on the basis that a statute shouldn’t be passed and enforced retroactively. In other words, a business existing before the law was passed could asked to be grandfathered in and get around having to ban smoking. Again, I’m not advocating tobacco. I wish I’d never begun using it in any way, but that’s all water under the bridge. Now, just last week, the New York City Board of Health took a drastic step by voting to ban artificial trans fats from restaurants in the city. Trans fats are created when hydrogen is added to cooking oils and margarines, a process call hydrogenation. That gives the oil and other products a longer shelf life, among other things, but also is believed to clog arteries and increase bad cholesterol while diminishing good cholesterol. In reading about the topic, I’ve found that a lot of New Yorkers support the ban. One woman said New Yorkers eat out a lot and they sometimes don’t even know their consuming trans fats, which could lead to what one official called “a slow form of poisoning.”As one Manhattan resident said in support of the ban, “When it comes to health, we only have one life,” The Associated Press reported. No, it wasn’t Yogi Berra, but it could have been. Maybe the federal government should ban E. coli from restaurnats. That would really help. The New York ban took me by surprise, especially in the town that’s home to the Statue of Liberty, the very symbol of freedom in this country. The oft-quoted poem on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal states, “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”I looked it up, and the next line of that poem is NOT, “And I’ll tell them what to eat.”In the past several years, we as an American people have really come a long way in our ability to demonize other people and things we don’t like. It cuts across all political party lines and seems to feed some sort of entitlement mentality. I really hope something happens in the near future that reverses this trend of intolerance and fear. Remember, if we continue to ban things, there might not be anybody left to keep the powers that be from banning something that means something to you.
©Ozarks Newsstand 2006

Saturday, December 09, 2006

A letter from Gian Turci to the Vice Mayor(Belmont)

Dear Mrs. Feierbach,

You have replied to one of our readers incorrectly when you stated two separate issues: however, these paradises are becoming fewer and fewer as we speak - Italy, France, Ireland, Caribbean Islands, and so forth are all enacting laws dealing with smoking. Could we all be wrong? Please don't say "we", it is offensive. As I live in Italy, I can guarantee to you that, thank God, Italy does not even dream of banning smoking in one's own home, on one's own property outside or in the streets, thanks to its 25 centuries of civilization. And we have smoking sections in tens of thousands of restaurants and offices like a civilized place should have. Perhaps you are right, Italy is a paradise, as we went through fascism already once and not again, thank you. On the other hand, the States (and Belmont in particular) seem eager to try. And you already have found the way to feel better about it: rename oppression as freedom. Sweet illusion. By the way, many repeating a mistake do not make the mistake right. They make it bigger.

The second point concerns this:disregarding how this affects other people especially children. If you are referring to the passive smoke "dangers", I believe you need some education which, most likely, you are unwilling to get because you are set in your convictions ,obviously beyond reason. Be that as it may, it is not even demonstrated that passive smoke represents a risk for anybody ( http://www.forces.org/evidence/psaip.htm) because the studies are junk science and DO NOT say that passive smoke is dangerous. Finally, if we need the Constitution to specify any minimal liberty (for otherwise all unspecified liberties can be suppressed at will by people like you) constitutions would be bigger than the Library of Congress. Do not give in to hatred. You are implying that smokers should move to the "paradises" you mentioned. Belmont smokers belong to Belmont - and yes, with their habits - not to Italy or to Thunder Bay. And they have the SAME RIGHTS as you have to live their lives as they see fit - inside and outside their homes, as (differently than what you choose to believe) they do not harm anyone.

Shame on you and regards,
Gian Turci, Italy

Constitutionally smokers are not a protected class of people (in contrastto race, creed etc) You have sent us a comprehensive letter but because of time constraints I will be brief. There seems to be a common element from all the people who have written to> us against ANY SMOKING BAN: and that is fear. Fear of what? Fear of freedom? There are so many laws that restrict our freedoms that why focus on smoking bans? I believe that many people who want to smoke want that freedom anywhereand everywhere disregarding how this affects other people especially children. Perhaps Canada or specifically Thunder Bay is free from any smoking bans. Then that is the place for smokers to be free with their habits and I say, at least there is a smokers' paradise somewhere on this earth - however, these paradises are becoming fewer and fewer as we speak - Italy, France, Ireland, Caribbean Islands, and so forth are all enacting laws dealingwith> smoking. Could we all be wrong? Thank you,

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

December 4, 2006

Bans affront our rights:

The free market system is a wonderful thing. It allows us to seek out the products or services we want, at the best price and service level we desire.
Those businesses that meet our expectations thrive. Those that do not eventually fail to remain in business.
This system reliably provides the consumer with the highest quality, value, and assortment of products and services.
But the system is apparently failing! Some consumers now feel they have a right to change the rules used to deliver these products and services. They want to tweak it to exclude some consumers from the equation.
I remain concerned about the recent efforts to ban smoking. Since tobacco is a legal substance, I wonder if banning the use in privately-owned public businesses violates the First Amendment. Is the free choice of the consumer no longer a viable force?

Instead of forcing business to accommodate the customer, why can't the customer take his dollars where the business meets his needs?
Remember, these businesses have placed their capital at risk in the free market system now to be told they cannot serve a significant segment of the customer base.

What is next to be banned? Is it something you like? And no, I do not smoke, dip, or chew.

Barry Doolittle

Saturday, December 02, 2006

C.A.G.E. press release as it appeared at : http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/December2006/01/c2721.html and already earned us an interview by a Toronto radio station.
For more information on the event, please visit : http://www.cagecanada.ca/index.php?pr=Events
C.A.G.E. supports the "Tobacco Control Out of Control" private citizens' initiative
OTTAWA, Dec. 1 /CNW Telbec/ - Two Canadian citizens, Ann Welch and Roy
Harold, have rallied friends and allies to denounce the extremes of
intolerance that the tobacco control organizations have reached. These
organizations, while pretending to speak on behalf of all Canadians, have
taken it upon themselves to determine Canadian public policy vis-a-vis tobacco
control. All decisions concerning the future and fate of Canadian smokers are
taken behind closed doors and are designed to prevent any input from those
most concerned, the smokers themselves.
These organizations will be holding their exclusive "Tobacco Control
Conference" at the Sheraton on the Falls in Niagara Falls December 4th to the
6th. Ms. Welch who is from Ontario and Mr. Harold who is from Alberta, have
chosen this event to organize a peaceful demonstration on December the 4th by
which they will protest against the manner in which the tobacco control agents
operate and to publicize the machinations of the very powerful and very
secretive tobacco control cabal.
One of the important issues being raised by the protesters regards the
fate of senior Ontario smokers who are being subjected to unfair and inhuman
conditions as a result of recent anti-tobacco legislation imposed upon them by
the McGuinty government. The smoking regulations in retirement homes are so
severe that residents are being effectively denied one of the few pleasures
remaining to them. Such legislated disregard for human dignity and personal
choice is but some of the evidence that the anti-tobacco campaign is no longer
so much about health, but rather has become a war against smokers themselves.
C.A.G.E. is sending delegates to Niagara Falls to assist the
demonstrators and invites all concerned citizens to show their support and
encouragement to those who would stand up to defend the most deserving members
of our society: our seniors.

C.A.G.E. (Citizens Against Government Encroachment) is a grassroots
organization that represents citizens who envision a society where the
dignity, sovereignty and liberty of all individuals are treated with the
utmost respect.

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