<$BlogRSDURL$>

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The following studies show SHS is not the danger they tell us it is...notice the studies are NOT done by big tobacco and there are many more. The studies the smoke haters give you test HIGH levels of SHS.


Stranges, et.al. 2006 no risk from ordinary exposure http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/18/1961?maxtoshow=&eaf Enstrom/Kabat 2006 when all published studies reviewed, no heart attack risk http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT030106.pdf Enstrom/Kabat 2003 35,000 Californians, no risk http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/BMJ051703.pdf Lee, 2002 after proper adjustment, the risk appears to be near zero http://ibe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/59 Kreuzer 2001 nonstatistically significant effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11139328 Nilsson 2001, published studies are unreliable http://www.ncbi..nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11726024&query_hl=37&itool=pubmed_docsum Adlkofer 2001, the question if secondhand smoke causes cancer is still open http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11401014 Wang, cooking fumes do cause lung cancer in nonsmokers http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/24 and http://152.1.118.33/Files/Mutation%20Research%201997%20381%20(2)%20157-161.pdf Bailar 1999 problems with smoke studies http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/340/12/958?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_tab=articles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Special+Articles&tocsectionid=Videos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=Clinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Therapeutics&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+MedicineAORBClinical+TherapeuticsAORBVideos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPerspectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAORBClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid=Health+Policy+ReportsAORBHealth+Policy+2001AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&searchtitle=Articles&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=1996&fmonth=Nov&sendit=GO&searchterm=bailar+1999&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT Gori, 1999 Passive smoke: the EPA's betrayal of science and policy http://www.geocities.com/~msrc/bookreport.htm Lee, 1998 workplace exposure not related to lung cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11401014 LeVois, 1998 scientists argue about whether smoke causes heart disease in nonsmokers http://www.bmj.com/cgi/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=317/7154/344 Givens, 1997 mathamatical analysis shows many null secondhand smoke studies are unpublished. citeseer.ist.psu.edu/givens97publication.html Ko 1997 cooking fumes, yes, secondhand smoke no http://www.ncbi..nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9126500&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum Wang 1997 OR= 0.91 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9152946&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Wang 1996 not sig http://www.ncbi.nlm..nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8785672&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Kabat 1996 little risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8865119&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum Du, 1996, Environmental tobacco smoke not associated in females.( cooking is) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=8785671 Kabat 1995 little association http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7598113&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum LeVois 1995 ETS and CHD not related (publication bias study) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7784630&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum Layard, 1995 little association ETS and isochemic heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7784629&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum LaVois 1994 workplace ETS exposure does not cause Lung cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8090954&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum Fleiss 1991 in our opinion smoke studies too unrelaible http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=1995774&dopt=Abstract Liu, 1991 not associated with passive smoking http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=2066232&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum Sobue, 1990 no elevated risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=2313887&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum Zhongua 1990 female lung cancer not associated with passive smoking http://www..ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=2372823 Burch, 1989, no risk of bladder cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed Lee, 1986 very low, or nonexistant http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3730259&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum Koo 1987 very low http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3195828&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum Pershagen 1986 association cannot be regarded as causal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3545149&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum Garfinkel 1984, no risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=6536943 Kabat 1984, no risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6692309&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum Buffler, 1983 a link has not been demonstrated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6346979&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum Garfinkel 1981 very little risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6941041&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum Zeeb, 2003 no excess mortality of airline crews in Europe from occupational exposures (despite exposure in aircraft) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12835285&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Blettner, 2003,flight crews had lung cancer SMR=.53 1960-1997 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12918075&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_DocSum Paridau 2003 very low lung cancer deaths among Greek cabin crews http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12714544&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Blettner, 2002, occupational exposure of german flight crews not associated with risk of cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12226003&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Crawford, 1991 Flight attendants exposed to less than one cig equivalent/year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1859349&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum Reynolds, 58,000 flight attendants, RR= .37 to .42 for lung cancer 1988 to 1995 http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:b2KM91N-gr8J:ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/CDPH_AFA%2520Final%2520Report%2520to%2520BCRP..pdf+flight+attendants+lung+cancer&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&ie=UTF-8 __._,_.___

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Smoking bans do affect businesses
Published: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:33 PM CSTE-

Elected officials of Derby,I know not what impact the opinion of a history professor from Georgia may have on your decision regarding a smoking ordinance, but my opinion was solicited and I shall give it. The evidence is clear smoking bans kill establishments. In Delaware, even supporters of the state’s smoking ban admit the ban drove some establishments into extinction.
As for New York, an article that appeared in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on July 18, 2006 titled “N.Y., N.J. Businesses Say Smoking Ban” examined the effects of the smoking bans in New York and New Jersey. According to the article, Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, stated, “There’s no question ... that the smoking bans have hurt the taverns and the bars.” He said a loss of about 20 percent of sales has been typical.“People have seen gains from the floor, closing the gap in the losses. But most of my members are still doing less business today than they were before the ban ... About 25 percent of our member establishments closed over the last three years.”Derby council members, ask yourselves, what if you ran one of these businesses that closed due to a smoking ban? How would you feel?
As far as smoking in privately-owned businesses is concerned, leave it alone. Let the free market decide for itself. The free market has already been making the shift toward non-smoking establishments for years. The free market IS the “level playing field.” Anti-smokers speak of deaths from secondhand smoke. Yet, strangely, they never seem to produce the victims. Ask them for the bodies, the death certificates, the graves. They cannot produce them because there are none. Of course it is hard to find victims when even nonsmoking bartenders inhale the equivalent of 1/10th of a cigarette per shift. Anti-smoking forces bring up the issue of the Surgeon General’s Report. Former Surgeon General Carmona is a tobacco prohibitionist whose statement that there was no safe level of tobacco smoke came from a press release, not his report.
In addition, Carmona conveniently ignored the most extensive study on secondhand smoke ever done “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98” by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat. Enstrom and Kabat concluded, “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” Should you pass a smoking ban for the workers? The federal agency OSHA certainly refuses to. OSHA has found all the components in secondhand smoke are present at safe levels in the vast majority of public places. This is why you are being pressured to pass this ban, the antismokers know OSHA has said NO! yet OSHA is the very agency which should be concerned with bans if the danger were real. If OSHA, a federal agency, will not advocate a smoking ban for businesses, then why should the Derby City Council pass one?

At least one city council member feels the day is coming when the nation will be smoke free. Perhaps officially at some point the nation’s businesses might all become smoke free, but that outcome is not inevitable, nor desirable. And opposition to the smoke ban craze is not futile. Throughout history smoke bans rarely withstand the test of time. Already in California an estimated 50 percent of bars ignore the state’s smoke ban in order to stay in business. Rumors are also rampant of restaurants that have hidden rooms’ for special smoking guests and some that even have “patios” with four walls and a ceiling. Could the United States adequately enforce a national smoking ban? Right now we cannot stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing the border, nor can we win the drug war. In fact, according to one recent report, marijuana has become the largest cash crop in the United States-70 years after it was officially banned.
My position against smoking bans may not be very politically correct right now. Much of the public is supporting bans as indicated by the fact that city council members, legislators and uninformed voters have passed bans in many parts of the country. The right thing to do is not always popular though. There was a time when the majority of Americans supported racial segregation for example, but did that make racial segregation right? This country might be headed for blanket smoking prohibition, but here is one historian who will not sit idly by and see that happen. I have chosen what I believe in my heart to be the right position, and I will not waver. I take my stand.

Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.,
Georgia

Government gone wild

Jan.26/07 www.tbsource.com

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. 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? Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, – whose customers are free to go elsewhere.

All decisions involve risks; some have harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Letter published in The Chronicle Journal Jan. 23/07

I'm a nonsmoker, not reformed smoker. I think for a person to start smoking today when so much is known what smoking will do to one's body is a death wish. I also realize that cigarettes are a legal product.

Years ago it was part of the culture to smoke; even some doctors smoked. It was
in this generation that the seniors of today lived. They started a habit when little was known of the effects of tobacco. Some of these seniors (some well into their 80s)
are living in seniors homes. It is with sadness that I see pictures in your paper of these seniors being forced out in the cold to have a cigarette which probably to them is one of life's last pleasures they can enjoy ("Smoking seniors left out in the cold," Jan. 14)

It is amazing how far the anti-smoking Taliban will push. To pass laws that force these people out of their homes without proper shelter from the elements to enjoy their right to a legal cigarette is ridiculous. I'm all for trying to get people to quit but with their advanced age they have already beaten all odds of dying young from smoking.
These are the people who have lived through The Depression, WW2 and are now in the twilight of their life. Cannot a simple gazebo-like structure be put up for them?
They can go out to smoke and no staff would have to be there so smokers would be by themselves.

All effort should be made to educate young people about smoking and prevent them
from starting. It seems crazy to me that old people who can legally buy cigarettes are almost having to jump through hoops to smoke them while you drive past any high school and young people who cannot legally buy smokes are out smoking with no repercussions. Sure makes one wonder.

Maryann Baarts-Matson
Neebing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter published in The Chronicle Journal Jan. 24/07

I have read lots of letters from the public and the workers in senior homes, and lots about supporting our troops and honouring them as they leave and return.
They are fighting for our government and us. They deserve all of this and more.
I think they are doing a wonderful job of preserving our freedoms and that of others.

When they return and the fighting is done, do we just forget what they have been through, and when they get old dictate to them where they can smoke in the only place they have to live? Or do we recognize what they have done for us and allow them
the dignity to live out their lives in the peace they fought for without having to go outside in the wind and rain and snow and risk contracting colds and flu.

Have they not faced hardship enough? They faced death every day for our country and us. Now our government and the workers can't face a little smoke? Get a life!

By the way, I am a non-smoker and don't force my beliefs on anyone

John Elliott
Kaministiquia

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/

More non-smoking insanity
I am starting to wonder who is mentally ill in this city. No one was being bothered by the smoking rooms for the mentally ill patients. In fact, few probably knew about it at all. The medical staff on these wards do not want it removed as it may cause them harm from violent patients. It would seem we should value medical staff and their wants more than non-smokers who never set foot in those areas anyway. Maybe the CHR could supply some kung fu classes for nurses? The worst type of criminal is treated better than a smoker. Don't go in mental wards if it bothers you!

R. LLEWELLYN

Friday, January 26, 2007

http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/01/25/3444874.html

Quitting is a choice

In regard to Lou Spakowski's letter Just ban tobacco (Jan. 23): I am an ex smoker. I agree with him to a point that tobacco is an addiction just as heroin or cocaine are. But I disagree with his solution to ban smoking.
People have to be ready to quit, and it has to be their choice. Nobody should pressure them to quit if they are not ready. If you were to ban the selling of cigarettes as Mr. Spakowski suggests, not only will you have a lot of people going through withdrawal with not enough medical help or rehab spots available, but think of all the revenue that our government would lose.
Leave the smokers alone; they already have enough laws set against them. They will quit when they are ready and only then. Or not quit at all.
H. Nowak
Winnipeg
(Since we're banning stuff ...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlaw booze, too
I agree with Lou Spakowski , but he doesn't go far enough in his thinking and reasoning.
Government should outlaw alcohol as well. The middle and lower classes will have "oodles" of money to spend on their families and they will live happily ever after. And governments will like that idea. Can you imagine the amount of money they'll save on "health" care?

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

(They tried that. It didn't take.)

A tongue in cheek letter:)_________________________________

Send the ban up in smoke

Letter Published: Friday, January 26, 2007..The Windsor Star

The perpetrators of this draconian smoking ban knew that it would affect business. They also know that the effects will not just go away.
Does it really make sense to anyone reading this that if bars are struggling and go under that people will still want to invest in them? The more likely scenario is that once they are gone, they are gone.
The government hedged its own bets and is building fancy smoking areas in the casinos. Where is the hard line on the ban? They took steps to protect their bottom line -- too bad about all the other entertainment venues. The government should face the same kind of consequences as the rest of the entertainment industry. It didn't though -- probably the escape hatch already in place.
Actually, there was a leaked document showing an internal estimate of revenue losses at the casinos. So the scenario of the escape hatch does have some weight to it.
Underhandedness is a hallmark of this provincial government and the anti-smoking industry in general. The exceptions the government carved out for itself shows its own lack of faith in its own smoking ban. Why should anyone else have faith in it?
I would call for smoking-allowed and non-smoking venues and let the market decide. I think we see a good example already how that would go.
It should be obvious to even the most empty-headed anti-smoker that this solution doesn't work. It would be better if everyone went back to minding his own business.

Christopher R. Williamson
Windsor
© The Windsor Star 2007

Thursday, January 25, 2007

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/letters/index.html

Smoking ban little more than social engineering

Letter Published: Thursday, January 25, 2007

The claim that smoking bans are being pushed in order to protect workers' health is false. The unstated reasoning behind the ban is simply to make smoking as uncomfortable and unenjoyable as possible.
That's why you so rarely see pleasant accommodations made for smokers and their friends.

Well-ventilated situations where smokers and non-smokers can happily coexist would defeat the effectiveness of smoking bans as a tool of social engineering.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay

K-W Record
Elderly smokers Matter more than casinos
Ann Welch
(Jan 23, 2007)
So, the Ontario government is above its own law against smokers and is building luxurious, heated smoking shelters at casinos to stop falling revenues -- at a cost of $250,000 each.
Meanwhile, the government is refusing to offer one penny to long-term care homes to upgrade existing smoking rooms to their new over-the-top specifications.
The residents of these homes are well over the age of any so-called "premature death." They are in their 70s, 80s and 90s. They are our parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. They have mobility problems, they use canes, wheelchairs and walkers. They have survived their tobacco habit, world wars, and the Great Depression.
These are the people that helped build Canada into the wonderful country it is today, and to thank them for their lifelong contribution they are now sent outside, like dogs to do their business, during the harsh Ontario winter.
Just because the government can't make a buck off them is no reason to show such disrespect and lack of compassion. The provincial government should do the right thing and grandfather the old rooms or provide funding for the new ones.

Nursing homes should have smoke shelters -ON
Published: Saturday, January 20, 2007

The Ottawa Citizen
It is wrong that the Ontario government will allow casinos to build shelters for smokers but won't allow Ontario long-term care facilities to have shelters or smoking rooms. Drive to any Ottawa nursing home and you'll find residents, many with limited mobility, outside smoking and socializing in sub-zero temperatures.
My husband, a smoker for most of his life, and other residents of his nursing home brave inclement weather because the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care won't permit smoking rooms or shelters. This is unfair. Until the Smoke-Free Ontario Act was enacted last year, his home had a proper smoking room.
I blame the politicians at Queen's Park in their never-ending battle to hit the little guys where it hurts.
Premier Dalton McGuinty's government has proved again that filling the provincial coffers through the gambling habits of smoking Ontarians and visitors is more important than the lives and comfort of seniors in nursing homes.
I believe Ontario should direct some gambling revenue toward building smoking shelters at nursing homes.

Betty Lortie, Ottawa

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=3991d005-9a16-4119-98cf-ce1249c1836c -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking rooms legal
Re: Nursing homes should have smoke shelters, Jan. 20.
All long- term care facilities in Ontario are in fact entitled to have not only an outdoor smoking shelter ( provided it is no more than two walls and a roof), but they are also entitled to have a controlled smoking area inside the homes.
When the Smoke Free Ontario passed into law last May, the only exception we included in the legislation for indoor smoking was that long- termcare homes could build a properly ventilated controlled smoking area. Some smoking rooms in long- term care facilities did not meet new provincial standards and had to close their rooms because they seriously jeopardized the health of residents and staff at the facility. But all of these facilities are legally able to upgrade them and build an indoor controlledsmoking area.
My ministry has no intention of watering down the legislation and allowing smoking rooms in casinos or bars or offices, as has been promoted by the big tobacco companies through their lobbyists.
The legislation has worked well, and the vast majority of the population appreciates going into a public workplace and not having to breathe second hand smoke. Like most residents of Ottawa, I enjoy going out to a restaurant and not being asked “ smoking or non- smoking” by the host or hostess.
Sadly, 16,000 people will die prematurely this year due to smoking and smoking related diseases. That is why Premier Dalton McGuinty and our government will respect the rights of those who live in long- termcare homes by allowing a controlled- smoking area, but under no circumstances will we ever turn back the clock and allow smoking indoors at casinos, or any other enclosed workplace.

JIM WATSON,
Ottawa,
Minister of Health Promotion

Roseann Danese,
Windsor Star
Published: Thursday, January 25, 2007

Add legion halls to the list of places that are allowed to have outdoor smoking shelters.
Neil MacKenzie, manager of tobacco programs with the Windsor Essex County Health Unit, said legion halls are exempt from Ontario's tough smoke-free law because they're "social clubs" and not food and beverage establishments -- even though a good portion of their business involves selling food and beverages.
"A legion hall is defined as a headquarters for local legions," MacKenzie said. "They're not to be treated like a food and beverage establishment."
All of this is proof to Robert Troupe that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is a joke. "Either the law is intact as written or throw it out."

Troupe, the owner of the Sandbar restaurant, has hired a lawyer and is fighting a fine he received last summer for allowing smoking on a patio that was partially covered.
"Everybody is interpreting in the whole province differently and that's not allowed," he said. "It's like the speed limit, you go 50 kilometres or you don't."
Smoking shelters with a roof and two sides are not allowed outside taverns and restaurants, but they are allowed at legions and might be allowed in private clubs like the Caboto or Riverside Sportsmen Club, said Julie Rosenberg, a spokeswoman with the Ministry of Health Promotion. Food and beverage sales must be ancillary to the main function of the club.
Rosenburg said if the primary reason for existing is cultural or recreational in nature, a smoking shelter is allowed, even if food and beverage sales are a big part of the business. But the smoking shelters cannot be located near a food and beverage operation.
MacKenzie said the health unit will provide direction on who can have smoking shelters. "We'll go out and consult with them.... When we have a grey area, we seek guidance."
That would be helpful for the manager of the Riverside Sportsmen Club, who was told he could not have customers smoking underneath the roof's overhang. "I had to put an extension on to the wall so people would not stand under the overhang of the roof," said president Frank Marcelloni. "I was told to put that there otherwise I'd get fined."

The allowance for legions and other clubs came on the heels of another revelation recently that surprised tavern operators like Liz Burns, the owner of the Highway Tavern, who was ordered to take down an outdoor shelter erected to keep smoking customers protected from the snow and rain.
Two weeks ago, Burns discovered that Casino Windsor and bingo halls are allowed to have the same type of smoking shelter that she was forced to dismantle. The reason? Their primary business is not food and beverage sales.
"It's making us crazy," Burns said Wednesday. "Nobody's arguing about smoking inside the club. It's just a shelter issue. We just want a roof over our lousy heads."

© The Windsor Star 2007

The Ottawa CitizenPublished: Saturday, January 20, 2007
It is wrong that the Ontario government will allow casinos to build shelters for smokers but won't allow Ontario long-term care facilities to have shelters or smoking rooms. Drive to any Ottawa nursing home and you'll find residents, many with limited mobility, outside smoking and socializing in sub-zero temperatures.
My husband, a smoker for most of his life, and other residents of his nursing home brave inclement weather because the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care won't permit smoking rooms or shelters. This is unfair. Until the Smoke-Free Ontario Act was enacted last year, his home had a proper smoking room.
I blame the politicians at Queen's Park in their never-ending battle to hit the little guys where it hurts.
Premier Dalton McGuinty's government has proved again that filling the provincial coffers through the gambling habits of smoking Ontarians and visitors is more important than the lives and comfort of seniors in nursing homes.
I believe Ontario should direct some gambling revenue toward building smoking shelters at nursing homes.

Betty Lortie,
Ottawa

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Windsor Star

Hypocrisy of province, health unit now evident

Letter
Monday, January 22, 2007

Two recent articles regarding the smoking legislation in The Windsor Star -- Jan. 5, Rules Bewilder Tavern Owners and Jan. 12, Smoke Police Can't Agree -- are nothing more than laughable.
I distinctly remember all the newspaper articles at the time of the ban's implementation stating absolutely no roofs on any smoking shelters anywhere. Now that the casino is building roofs and heated smoking shelters, the rules suddenly change. Neil MacKenzie, manager of the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, now states that "the legislation allows them to have a roof and two walls because their primary business is gaming."
If there was any truth to this, why didn't the casino have these built and ready when the ban stated on June 1 before 300 people lost their jobs at the casino as a result of the smoking ban? Maybe their jobs could have been saved.
Why didn't they tell the bingo halls this at the beginning before half of them closed down and all the charities lost their money?
The truth of the matter is, and we all know it, that the provincial government does not care about the people who lost their jobs or the bingos and bars that have closed.
It wasn't until now, eight months after the smoking ban started, that the provincial government realized that their sacred cash cow, the casino, was going to continue losing millions. So they bend the rules to suit their own agenda in the hope of winning back American patrons.
There is absolutely no reason why bars and restaurants cannot have these shelters just because they serve food.

The casino serves food. The shelters are outside and have nothing to do with the food inside. The gaming issue was never mentioned in the beginning and is all smoke and mirrors now.
The provincial government are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who cost a lot of people their jobs and or livelihood, and the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit is just a dumber version of the Keystone Cops.
Ed Falica
Tecumseh---------------------------

Casino smoking shelter proves allure of money

Letter
Monday, January 22, 2007

Re: Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson and smoking. You must be joking in rationalizing your decision to remove the total ban in smoking from casinos and racetracks. It will be nice if you and the Ontario government admit that you have become addicted to easy money from ownership of gambling joints. There are not too many countries in the world where governments operate gambling premises in order to obtain revenue. In fact, it is a sad story that the guardians of national and provincial welfare would stoop so low in their greed.
I wonder why we complain about gambling addicts in our country when our own government not only provides such venues, but also is trying to make it easy for its population to indulge in such self-destructive habits and compulsion.

Is there a difference between people addicted to gambling and the government addicted to revenues by facilitating such tragic behaviour?
Believe it or not, they both are addicted to gambling.

Raz Haque
Windsor

Sunday, January 21, 2007

http://www.thestar.com/Letters/article/172660

January 19, 2007
Critics angry as casinos build smoking shelters

Jan. 17.

It should come as no surprise that the Ontario government is bending the rules when it comes to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and its cash-cow casinos.
No private sector company is allowed to operate a casino. If they want to have a contest or operate a charity lottery, they must make public the "odds of winning." The OLGC does not have to publish their odds of winning at a slot machine; in fact, it's a closely guarded secret.
The OLGC says its primary business is not food and beverage so they can install a smoking shelter. What's that got to do with anything? Are employees being subjected to second-hand smoke, or not? According to the OLGC, since they offer no services in the smoking shelters, employees don't need to go in them. Really? Who empties the ashtrays and cleans the shelters? It's just another example of the government's "do as I say, not as I do" policies.

Jim Hart, Mississauga

Saturday, January 20, 2007

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2007/01/17/45ae81958a404

Friday, January 19, 2007

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/01/19/3406034.html

Cough it up
Re "Won't give in to big tobacco" (Letter of the day, Jim Watson, Jan. 18): Let's see if we have this right. The Health Promotion Minister and his government have blatantly abused, if not outright broken, the very law they passed and forced everyone else to obey. They are spending millions of dollars to give its casinos a break in order to retain smokers as customers while denying anyone else the same choice. But he expects to get away with all this by claiming those who are pointing this out are part of a tobacco plot or an anti-Liberal campaign by the government's political rivals. Excuse me -- who has bent the rules to allow these shelters? Why, it is Watson, his government -- and the local anti smoking authorities who have been given the power and funding to enforce the smoke-free law. For the record, it is true the casino issue was first exposed this week by mychoice.ca, and yes we do exist on funding from the tobacco industry. But as Watson knows full well, we are a non-profit group with 41,000 individual citizens. If outdoor shelters for smokers are deemed necessary and acceptable at casinos, they should be acceptable everywhere. The desperate accusatory tone to Watson's letter is a sure sign he knows he is wrong, and the public knows it.
Nancy Daigneault,
President
Mychoice.ca
(Add it to the list of the Liberals' growing issues)

http://www.thestar.com/Letters/article/172658


s.prop3=172658

TheStar.com - Letters - Government power real health hazard
Government power real health hazard

January 19, 2007
Critics angry as casinos build smoking shelters

Jan. 17.

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. 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?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying 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 – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own 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.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, Ont.

http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=11139&Section=Letters&ToFriend=Yes





More Letters
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor Letters to The Editor Letters to the Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Story Statistics
Emailed

Viewed
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

January 18,2006 The Monitor

Second-hand smoke not harmful

To the editor:

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

The Chronicle Journal...Jan.19/07

Build shelters with tobacco tax

Re: "Smoking seniors left out in the cold"(Jan. 14): "Smoking law goes too far"
(letter Jan. 16): "Ontario defends Government-owned casinos building smoking shelters." (Jan. 17):

People attending casinos can go home where they can smoke all they want.
The seniors in seniors' homes are home, and are unfairly denied access to one of their few pleasures. The few "minor instances" reported by Dawson Court are going to lead to a mishap, or a full blown tragedy. Casinos can afford to build shelters, homes for the aged cannot. It's not fair. Divert some tobacco tax to allow these facilities to build safe and warm places for their smokers.

Elisabeth Harding
Thunder Bay

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/01/19/3406034.html

Ban the butts

Re "Won't give in to big tobacco" (Letter of the day, Jim Watson, Jan. 18):
Ban it. It's the simple solution to the smoking kerfuffle brought on by on going sparring between Jim Watson and his conscience (he claims smokers and others cost our health system $1.7 billion) and various smokers rights groups. Ban tobacco sales in Ontario and put everyone on equal footing. Stop this stupidity of constant arguments and ad campaigns that cost us millions per year.

G. Daniels
Ajax

(Fine, except the government would really miss the taxes)
Cough it up

Re "Won't give in to big tobacco" (Letter of the day, Jim Watson, Jan. 18): Let's see if we have this right. The Health Promotion Minister and his government have blatantly abused, if not outright broken, the very law they passed and forced everyone else to obey. They are spending millions of dollars to give its casinos a break in order to retain smokers as customers while denying anyone else the same choice. But he expects to get away with all this by claiming those who are pointing this out are part of a tobacco plot or an anti-Liberal campaign by the government's political rivals. Excuse me -- who has bent the rules to allow these shelters? Why, it is Watson, his government -- and the local anti smoking authorities who have been given the power and funding to enforce the smoke-free law. For the record, it is true the casino issue was first exposed this week by mychoice.ca, and yes we do exist on funding from the tobacco industry. But as Watson knows full well, we are a non-profit group with 41,000 individual citizens. If outdoor shelters for smokers are deemed necessary and acceptable at casinos, they should be acceptable everywhere. The desperate accusatory tone to Watson's letter is a sure sign he knows he is wrong, and the public knows it.
Nancy Daigneault,
President
Mychoice.ca
(Add it to the list of the Liberals' growing issues)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Your letter published in The Chronicle Journal.
.Thunder Bay,Jan 16/07

"Smoking seniors left out in the cold." Jan. 14. The tragedy our senior Ontario smokers are living with in the old age homes is a result of the zealotry of politicians and holier-than-thou anti-tobacco groups whose arrogance is only surpassed by their leaders' financial and political interests .The Ontario anti-tobacco legislation is the only one in the country that has reached such absurd proportions -- making it a living hell for the seniors, the most vulnerable members in our society, in their only remaining homes. We tried to raise public awareness and put pressure on the politicians by demonstrating in the streets, sending out press releases and participating on radio interviews, to no avail. A society's civility can only be measured by the way it treats the defenceless, and judging by what it does to its elderly, Ontario ranks somewhere between primitive and barbarian.

Iro CyrVice-president,CAGE (Citizens Against Government Encroachment)Montreal-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here is a letter that was published under your letter Iro

Surely the senior citizens pictured with your story must be actors hired by cigarette companies because these days, everyone knows that tobacco smoking kills people before they become senior citizens!

William P. Shantz
Thunder Bay

Friday, January 12, 2007

Blowing smoke

By JOSE RODRIGUEZ

OK, OK, OK!
We give, we surrender.
You win, we lose.
I promise, promise, promise to leave my smokes in the truck and check my matches at the door the next time I go for a beer.
But please allow me one parting shot at the city's ridiculously-concocted, ill-executed smoking bylaw before they empty my ashtray for the last time.

First things first.
It's a sad day for freedom when business owners who cater to strictly adult clientele aren't allowed to dictate what legal activities can take place inside the closed doors of their establishments.
I'm sure somewhere in hell, Stalin is applauding.

Last time I checked, there were no reports of non-smokers being kidnapped from pub parking lots, tied to barstools and forced to suck in smoke rings. I assume they went to smoking bars of their own free will.
Then there's the hypocrisy of it all.

It's OK for Johnny (double rye and coke) Smith to get absolutely obliterated or Frankie (should have cashed out) Jones to feed his life savings into a VLT, as long as they keep their lighters holstered.
What a crock!
Bars aren't churches.
They cater to vices and anyone who thinks drinking and gambling don't have an effect on people other than those partaking in the sinful deeds, needs to pick up a newspaper more often.
Surely we're not moving to ban booze and gambling too, are we?

Non-smoking activists also argue second-hand smoke harms the workers who are forced to sling drinks and dumplings inside the fog-filled lounges.
Well, I don't know if anyone else noticed, but we're in the midst of a boom.
If you don't like your job, go get another one.
But the most distressing part of the new bylaw is the disgusting double-standard it sets.
The way it's being rolled out is about as fair as a game of Texas hold 'em with a team of blind monks.
Allowing bingo halls and casinos to cater to smokers punishes bar owners who will no doubt lose many of their clients to the gambling joints.
In the end, life is a funny and unpredictable thing.
Many a young man whose lips never touched a cancer stick died far too early and George Burns, who was seldom photographed without a cigar in his mouth, lived to be 100.

Taking away business owners' rights to run their business and smokers' rights to partake in the perfectly legal activity that has garnered the federal and provincial governments more than $150 billion in tobacco taxes since 1970, is hypocritical.

Bars are places where grown ups go to do grown up things.
Attendance is voluntary and those who don't like the smoke can frequent any of the fine non-smoking establishments that will no doubt thrive given the new-found zeal for drinking among non-smokers.
But until I'm pushing up daisies in some boneyard, I'll continue to argue there is a bigger chance of dying in a bar brawl at the fists of some drunken idiot than there is of dying from second-hand smoke contracted in some drinking establishment.

Anyway, thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Now here's my white flag.
I reluctantly surrender.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Letters..Edmonton Sun Jan. 10/07

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/01/10/3276370.html

RE: BANNING smoking from apartment buildings. I am getting fed up with this non-smoking nonsense. When someone tries to make me stop smoking in my own home they had better be prepared to pay my mortgage and taxes. I'd like to thank the Edmonton Sun for starting my day just right - with my newspaper, coffee and cigarette.

Sandi Martin

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: "SMOKED out," editorial, Jan. 6. In your editorial there was some mention of letting the "free market" work. Where was the free market when bars and bingo halls were forced to ban smoking? It seems to me the only thing that works around here is when everybody bows down to the fanatical demands of unelected, self-appointed saviours like Les Hagen!

R. Anderson
(Government meddling isn't a free market.)

Calgary Jan. 8/07
Non-smokers are no-shows

Where have all the non-smokers gone? Last year it was so important to them that bars should go smoke- free. This year, the 80% who don't smoke are staying at home while the 20% are patronizing the bars that flaunt the law. Come on people, you won so start acting like it. Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart, why not go out to show support for those who support the law?

Don Taylor

Monday, January 08, 2007

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/

SMOKERS CUT HEALTH COSTS
I am sick of hearing the argument that smokers are a drain on our health-care dollars. This argument only works if non-smokers never got sick and died. (Remember, everyone dies eventually!) The opposite is actually true: A smoker who smokes a pack a day pays around $1,825 dollars more than the regular $528 for health care a non-smoker pays a year in taxes. Truth be told, it is much cheaper for society for someone to die in their 50s or 60s than to live past retirement. If you ask anyone in health care these days, an aging population is the cause of rising health-care costs, not smoking. If you look at the rising health-care costs over the last 25 years and compared them to the rate people have been quitting, they are in direct proportion. So if you want health-care costs to drop, everyone should light up! I challenge anyone to prove me wrong
Jeff Parsons
(Some folks are dying to find out if your theory is true.)


CITY PLAYING WITH LIVES

In the story "Smoking ban enforcement not top bylaw priority" (Jan. 5), bylaw manager Alvin Murray is quoted as saying: "Smoking is not a priority call." He goes on to say only calls that involve a risk to people's lives and safety are given top priority. Hello! Wasn't the ban on smoking implemented in the first place because of the risk to people's lives? They justify the implementation of this controversial bylaw by claiming people are becoming incapacitated, and even dying from, second-hand smoke and yet on the other hand they say it's not a top priority. There are only two things you could criticize about Alvin Murray. His face.

C. F. McKinnon

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Letter to the Calgary Sun Jan.4/07



Worse than before

Re: Thomas Laprade's notion (Letters, Jan. 4.) that "If you don't like the sight and smell of second-hand smoke, don't enter the venue." We tried this already and still smelled of smoke when we got home. We went out this week to Boston Pizza and even though it is now non-smoking in the lounge, there were a couple of young men in the washroom smoking and giggling like high school girls who got caught when my husband ventured in there. This is worse than it was before. At least in the lounge, it was ventilated! Any other bright ideas?

D. Galley

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/

Council was warned
Please, anti-tobacco extremists and city council, tell us again the benefits of pushing the legislation up "just" a year? Is it more legal costs, more resistance, more anger like you were warned? Are you glad "charity advisers" ignored some people's opinion when they talked to you? Business owners and their faithful patrons told you they were angry. Let's hope the public remembers the "advocates" on council who pushed for the year's advance of the legislation in the next election.
Lynda Duguay
(That's democracy.)

Non-smokers have choice
There is a simple solution to Daryl Makk's problem. (Letters, Jan. 3) If you don't like the sight and smell of second-hand smoke, don't enter the venue. Simple eh!
Thomas Laprade

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/

Smoking issue big deal
Re: "Smoking issue no big deal." (Letters, Dec. 31). I wonder if it would be a big deal if you could no longer wear perfume in public places because it's a health issue to people with allergies, and maybe people who are overweight or with deformities shouldn't be allowed in public bars and restaurants because they spoil other people's appetites, hence being a health issue? Last, but not least, anyone who drives a vehicle, should be ashamed. They are hypocrites, spewing all those unhealthy fumes into our fresh air. "Not a big deal" living in hypocrisy?
Barb Dinsdale

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

PROOF FOR TOBACCO HARM DOESN'T EXIST Jan. 2/07

re: "Children can be harmed by more than second-hand smoke"

Cynthia Callard's reply("Try these sources"--letter Dec. 19) to a letter from Thomas Laprade
shows once again that her organization is not in possession of any proof that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke causes the health damage claimed by the prohibitionists. The simple and effective response would have been to present reference to studies from the medical and/or hard science communities, instead she provided a couple of references to sister anti tobacco agencies that also only present bloated rhetoric and fear mongering.

Come on Ms. Callard, present reference to just one un-arguable real science based study that supports your position, not statistical studies, not rhetoric, not utopian prevention theories.

Actually that's not a fair request so I'll apologise in advance, and tell her to save her empty words for another occasion, because such proof doesn't exist.

Fred Quarrie
Belleville, Ont.

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