Thursday, February 07, 2008
Ontario MPP email list 2008
saggelonitis.mpp@liberal.ola.org; lalbanese.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
ted_arnott@ontla.ola.org; warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
bob.bailey@pc.ola.org; bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
toby.barrett@pc.ola.org; rbartolucci.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org; lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mbest.mpp@liberal.ola.org; gilles@gillesbisson.com;
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org; lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mbrown.mpp@liberal.ola.org; jbrownell.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org; acarroll.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mchan.mpp@liberal.ola.org; ted.chudleigh@pc.ola.org;
mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org; kcraitor.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
bcrozier.mpp@liberal.ola.org; bdelaney.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dinovoc-qp@ndp.on.ca;
jdickson.mpp@liberal.ola.org; ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
garfield.dunlop@pc.ola.org; christine.elliott@pc.ola.org;
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org; pfonseca.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
fgelinas-qp@ndp.on.ca; hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca;
ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org; randy.hillier@pc.ola.org; ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca;
phoy.mpp@liberal.ola.org; tim.hudak@pc.ola.org;
hjaczek.mpp@liberal.ola.org; ljeffrey.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org; frank.klees@pc.ola.org; pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca;
kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
jmlalonde.mpp@liberal.ola.org; jleal.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org; lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org;
amangat.mpp@liberal.ola.org; rmarchese-qp@ndp.on.ca;
gerry.martiniuk@pc.ola.org; dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
bmauro.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dmcguinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
tmcmeekin.mpp@liberal.ola.org; pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org; norm.miller@pc.ola.org;
pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca; jmilloy.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
cmitchell.mpp@liberal.ola.org; rmoridi.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
julia.munro@pc.ola.org; bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org;
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org; john.otoole@pc.ola.org;
dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org; jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org;
lpendergast.mpp@liberal.ola.org; speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca;
spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org; sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
kramal.mpp@liberal.ola.org; dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
lrinaldi.mpp@liberal.ola.org; bob.runciman@pc.ola.org;
truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org; lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org; laurie.scott@pc.ola.org;
msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org; peter.shurman@pc.ola.org;
msmith.mpp@liberal.ola.org; gsmitherman.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org; csousa.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
norm.sterling@pc.ola.org; tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca;
htakhar.mpp@liberal.ola.org; mvanbommel.mpp@liberal.ola.org;
jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org; jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org;
jim.wilson@pc.ola.org; elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org;
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org; john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org;
dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Anti-Smoking tactics:
AS tactic #1) Don't debate---distort! If your opponent makes a valid point about flaws in your science, ignore it. Don't even read it. Then, mischaracterize his entire argument.
SOUNDBITE: "Oh, I guess if it says secondhand smoke is harmful, it MUST, in your twisted world, be a bogus study."
AS tactic #2) Employ, very liberally, the fallacy of question-begging. While you're ignoring the junk-science debate, pretend there is no debate.
SOUNDBITE: "Freedom? To do what? Give other people cancer?"
AS tactic #3) Spew glib enthusiasm like a brainwashed cultist! Keep repeating cheerful, exuberant slogan-type sentiments about the "smoke-free future"; combine the sunny optimism of Heaven's Gate with the raving of a demagogue mad on world conquest. Do this over & over again. You'll give your opponents a headache.
SOUNDBITE: "December 8. No more secondhand smoke in bowling alleys, bars, and restaurants. Yes!!! That will be a great day. I can hardly wait."
AS tactic #4A) Insult them! It's very important to hammer home the message that smokers, as a group, are fair game for denigration, insult, and general abuse.
SOUNDBITE: "i hope all you smokers get banned ... you are filthy and disgusting ... p.s. you stink."
SOUNDBITE COMBINING TACTICS 3 & 4A: "December 8 will be a great day. In fact, I'm thinking about writing to Gov Gregoire to suggest that Dec 8 be made a state holiday. I will suggest calling it 'Smokers Can Kiss My Ass Day.'"
AS tactic #4B) Smear them! Waste no opportunity to call your opponent a liar, hypocrite, or shill. Don't say he's mistaken or misinformed---say that he's a deceptive con-artist who's muddying the waters.
SOUNDBITE: "So Melle the Deceiver and Gomez the Distorter have been joined by Saprobe the BSer."
AS tactice #5) While accusing the other side of lying, spread lies shamelessly and repeatedly. Remember, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!
SOUNDBITE: "Every credible, peer-reviewed legitimate scientific study has found that secondhand smoke kills."
AS tactic #6) Resistance is futile! Take a page from the totalitarians. Promote your arguments on the ground that your side's victory is inevitable. Pretend that political clout is a mark of virtue (in blatant contradiction to all of human history).
SOUNDBITE: "States that allow smoking will fall like dominoes, very quickly. No one likes to be behind the times. The ease and speed of passing smoking bans will increase exponentially."
AS tactic #7) Link your opponents to the tobacco industry, based on the most tenuous connections. If a bartender has accepted Camel promos, smear him as an RJ Reynolds employee! If a researcher worked at 7-Up while 7-Up was owned by Philip Morris, say that he used to work at Philip Morris---and if someone posts his research, dismiss it as "Big Tobacco-funded." Et cetera.
SOUNDBITE: "I think we can now safely store Fuzed's posts in the 'Big Tobacco Bullshit Artist' file."
AS tactic #8: Link your opponents to the tobacco industry based on no connections of any kind. So you know nothing about the person you're arguing with. Why let that stop you? Write as if he's linked to Big Tobacco.
SOUNDBITE: "Melle is reading straight from his Philip Morris crib sheet."
AS tactic #9) If you lose an argument, never fear---just pretend you've won! So your opponent backed up his position reasonably & consistently, with adequate references, and you have nothing to say. Just start saying you won the argument! There may be some inattentive and/or retarded readers who will accept this at face value, and their votes count too!
SOUNDBITE: (wait until the argument you lost is a day or two old) "You had neither facts on your side nor debating skills. Simply put, you were out of your league."
AS tactic #10) Shoot the messenger. Should your opponent quote the local police chief saying the ban won't be enforced, simply ignore the fact that he's quoting. Treat him as if he, & he alone, invented the idea of non-enforcement. In the same vein, should he quote a prominent epidemiologist who says risks below 100% are "insignificant," ignore the authority of the epidemiologist---treat the whole thing as your opponent's personal opinion. You may succeed in misleading some readers---see #9.
SOUNDBITE: "On reading all your angry, defeated, drivel, 'Fuzed', there is only one thing significant enough to be worth knowing. Exactly what are YOUR plans for breaking the law?"
AS tactic #11) For God's sake, keep your mouth shut!!! The anti-smoking movement has come this far without ever addressing certain subjects---e.g., the epidemiological weakness of the science, the lucrative smokefree-nicotine market, the fact that nonsmokers' rights groups and Big Tobacco both lobby for the same legislation---and we're not about to start now! If the opposition breathes a word on these subjects, shut up, shut up, SHUT UP! (If you really want to say something, throw them a cheap insult.)
SOUNDBITE: " ... "
ALT. SOUNDBITE: "What's your agenda? Making sure the air is dirty? Hmm, stupid much?"
AS tactic #1) Don't debate---distort! If your opponent makes a valid point about flaws in your science, ignore it. Don't even read it. Then, mischaracterize his entire argument.
SOUNDBITE: "Oh, I guess if it says secondhand smoke is harmful, it MUST, in your twisted world, be a bogus study."
AS tactic #2) Employ, very liberally, the fallacy of question-begging. While you're ignoring the junk-science debate, pretend there is no debate.
SOUNDBITE: "Freedom? To do what? Give other people cancer?"
AS tactic #3) Spew glib enthusiasm like a brainwashed cultist! Keep repeating cheerful, exuberant slogan-type sentiments about the "smoke-free future"; combine the sunny optimism of Heaven's Gate with the raving of a demagogue mad on world conquest. Do this over & over again. You'll give your opponents a headache.
SOUNDBITE: "December 8. No more secondhand smoke in bowling alleys, bars, and restaurants. Yes!!! That will be a great day. I can hardly wait."
AS tactic #4A) Insult them! It's very important to hammer home the message that smokers, as a group, are fair game for denigration, insult, and general abuse.
SOUNDBITE: "i hope all you smokers get banned ... you are filthy and disgusting ... p.s. you stink."
SOUNDBITE COMBINING TACTICS 3 & 4A: "December 8 will be a great day. In fact, I'm thinking about writing to Gov Gregoire to suggest that Dec 8 be made a state holiday. I will suggest calling it 'Smokers Can Kiss My Ass Day.'"
AS tactic #4B) Smear them! Waste no opportunity to call your opponent a liar, hypocrite, or shill. Don't say he's mistaken or misinformed---say that he's a deceptive con-artist who's muddying the waters.
SOUNDBITE: "So Melle the Deceiver and Gomez the Distorter have been joined by Saprobe the BSer."
AS tactice #5) While accusing the other side of lying, spread lies shamelessly and repeatedly. Remember, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!
SOUNDBITE: "Every credible, peer-reviewed legitimate scientific study has found that secondhand smoke kills."
AS tactic #6) Resistance is futile! Take a page from the totalitarians. Promote your arguments on the ground that your side's victory is inevitable. Pretend that political clout is a mark of virtue (in blatant contradiction to all of human history).
SOUNDBITE: "States that allow smoking will fall like dominoes, very quickly. No one likes to be behind the times. The ease and speed of passing smoking bans will increase exponentially."
AS tactic #7) Link your opponents to the tobacco industry, based on the most tenuous connections. If a bartender has accepted Camel promos, smear him as an RJ Reynolds employee! If a researcher worked at 7-Up while 7-Up was owned by Philip Morris, say that he used to work at Philip Morris---and if someone posts his research, dismiss it as "Big Tobacco-funded." Et cetera.
SOUNDBITE: "I think we can now safely store Fuzed's posts in the 'Big Tobacco Bullshit Artist' file."
AS tactic #8: Link your opponents to the tobacco industry based on no connections of any kind. So you know nothing about the person you're arguing with. Why let that stop you? Write as if he's linked to Big Tobacco.
SOUNDBITE: "Melle is reading straight from his Philip Morris crib sheet."
AS tactic #9) If you lose an argument, never fear---just pretend you've won! So your opponent backed up his position reasonably & consistently, with adequate references, and you have nothing to say. Just start saying you won the argument! There may be some inattentive and/or retarded readers who will accept this at face value, and their votes count too!
SOUNDBITE: (wait until the argument you lost is a day or two old) "You had neither facts on your side nor debating skills. Simply put, you were out of your league."
AS tactic #10) Shoot the messenger. Should your opponent quote the local police chief saying the ban won't be enforced, simply ignore the fact that he's quoting. Treat him as if he, & he alone, invented the idea of non-enforcement. In the same vein, should he quote a prominent epidemiologist who says risks below 100% are "insignificant," ignore the authority of the epidemiologist---treat the whole thing as your opponent's personal opinion. You may succeed in misleading some readers---see #9.
SOUNDBITE: "On reading all your angry, defeated, drivel, 'Fuzed', there is only one thing significant enough to be worth knowing. Exactly what are YOUR plans for breaking the law?"
AS tactic #11) For God's sake, keep your mouth shut!!! The anti-smoking movement has come this far without ever addressing certain subjects---e.g., the epidemiological weakness of the science, the lucrative smokefree-nicotine market, the fact that nonsmokers' rights groups and Big Tobacco both lobby for the same legislation---and we're not about to start now! If the opposition breathes a word on these subjects, shut up, shut up, SHUT UP! (If you really want to say something, throw them a cheap insult.)
SOUNDBITE: " ... "
ALT. SOUNDBITE: "What's your agenda? Making sure the air is dirty? Hmm, stupid much?"
From: The Stranger Forums
Sunday, June 12, 2005
ANTI-SMOKING COMMENTS PAINT INCOMPLETE PICTURE..THE CHRONICLE JOURNAL SAT. 21/05
Dr Jim Morris, Chairperson for the rabid anti-smoker group Tobacco FreeThunder Bay, tells us removing tobacco shelves from corner stores 'will nothurt retailers.'
To push their smoking bans anti-smoker groups including Morris' misled us byassuring us smoking bans wouldn't hurt bar sales. The Fair Air Associationof Canada recently released an economic impact study using governmentfigures showing 'smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real anddramatic impact on revenue. Bars and pubs sales were reduced: 23.5% inOttawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener.' The Puband Bar Coalition estimates 900 pubs and bars will be forced to close ifBill 164 becomes law.
Anti-smoker groups also deceived us by claiming smoking bans wouldn't hurtcharity casinos and bingo halls that support local charitable groups. Yetbingo halls in Ottawa alone lose $4.7 million annually and seventy localcharitable organizations lost their funding as a direct result of Ottawa'ssmoking ban.
The Ontario Lottery Corporation reported Brantford's charity casino revenuesdropped 20% when that city's smoking ban came into effect. Winnipeg's casinolost $21 million and, sadly, 269 employees lost their jobs. Who in their right mind could believe Morris' self-serving claims today?
Eric Boyd
507A Rosemeadow Cr
Waterloo, Ontario N2T 2A4
eboyd@uwaterloo.ca
--------------------------------------------------
Please allow me to respond to Dr. Morris' May 14 letter in which he praises the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and calls for even more restrictions. Anti-smoking zealots would be well- advised to get their heads out of the clouds and deal with their dislike of smoking in a fairer and more realistic way.
Smokers will smoke, popular or not, legal or not. As adults, taxpayers and voters, as long as tobacco is a legal product, have a right to smoke if they so chose. The smoking issue could have been easily settled by designated smoking/non-smoking areas thus leaving business owners and individuals with choice. That system worked well for several years and satisfied all but the most rapid anti-smokers. As it is, total smoking bans have created more societal problems than they have solved.
Arguments used to justify total bans become less credible and more destructive by the day.
There is no "level playing field" in business. By their nature, certain businesses need to accommodate smokers to survive and prosper. Total bans have destroyed the livelihoods of such business owners.
Smoking bans hurts charities. Lotteries and bingo halls report serious losses. The suppression of this information and the denial of authorities has not stopped the truth from leaking out.
High tobacco taxes contribute to poverty. Smokers on low fixed incomes do not quit smoking: they sacrifice in other areas. Do we we ever see a homeless person quit-smoking regardless of the cost?
Smoking bans and high taxes contribute to crime. Smugglers and thieves are the ones benefiting. A person forced outside to smoke is easy prey for rapist and muggers. There is a marked increase in private parties where there is no control over drunkenness and violence as there would be in a business environment.
Public health suffers more than it gains from the marketing of illegal tobacco products laced with chemicals and other dangerous agents. These illegal products are easily available to teenagers, and cancels out attempts to prevent under-age smoking.
Total smoking bans are now seen by many as a competition amongst communities, provinces and countries to achieve the gold standard and gain points with the WHO. The same tired arguments against tobacco use have been used throughout history against all activities deemed "unsavory." but regardless of the law, alcohol use, illegal drug use, prostitution and pornography survive and flourish. Smoking, the most innocuous of all, will also continue.
Defenders of a free society should strive for compromise rather than total smoking bans. Those who continue to support the repression of free choice will wish they had done differently when it comes their time to be vilified and ostracized for making a particular lifestyle choice. That time will certainly come to all if governments are allowed to continue and accelerate theirs attacks on our privilege of free choice.
"As soon as men decide that all measured are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy"--Christopher Dawson, Judgment of the Nations
Eileen Hutcheson
Acton, Ontario
-------------------------------------------
I would like to respond to Fr. Jim Morris(Chairperson Tobacco Thunder Bay) in the letters page of Saturdays, May 14
I operate a large volume tobacco store and would like to present another view on the "smoking front." I do agree that smoking is harmful to one's health, but tobacco products are still a legal product to sell.
It seems a little less than democratic when a government can dictate to me that I have to cover all of the tobacco products and that I can only devote so much space in my own store to stocking such product in my own store.
Why not cover up all liquor in the liquor stores and beer in the beer stores and while we are at it, let's tell them they can only have four feet to display their product. This way people won't drink.
Let's put all slot machines behind curtains and limit the amount of slot machines to half a dozen so people won't gamble.
What I especially take exception with is Dr. Morris' assumption is that other companies will pay to stock their products in my store where the tobacco presently is. Tobacco payments in part make it possible to hire employees and pay those employees much better than the minimum wage. I would appreciate being put in touch with these other companies that will pay for this space.
I do however have a suggestion for compromise. Why not allow an establishment to decide if it would become a store for those aged 19 would be allowed to enter, thus allowing adults who do smoke the choice of their product.
This would eliminate the position that children are influenced by the 'power wall' of tobacco. As long as tobacco remains a legal product to sell and use, let's be fair, let's be democratic, let's be practical and please could we have some compromise and input from small family run business.
Ed Choquette
Owner/manager Cathy's Discount
THUNDER BAY, ONT.
_________________________________
Thomas LapradeThe Smoker's Rights Website: http://thesnowbird.tripod.com/Visit my Blog for Current Letter Writings: http://thesnowbird.blogspot.com
Dr Jim Morris, Chairperson for the rabid anti-smoker group Tobacco FreeThunder Bay, tells us removing tobacco shelves from corner stores 'will nothurt retailers.'
To push their smoking bans anti-smoker groups including Morris' misled us byassuring us smoking bans wouldn't hurt bar sales. The Fair Air Associationof Canada recently released an economic impact study using governmentfigures showing 'smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real anddramatic impact on revenue. Bars and pubs sales were reduced: 23.5% inOttawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener.' The Puband Bar Coalition estimates 900 pubs and bars will be forced to close ifBill 164 becomes law.
Anti-smoker groups also deceived us by claiming smoking bans wouldn't hurtcharity casinos and bingo halls that support local charitable groups. Yetbingo halls in Ottawa alone lose $4.7 million annually and seventy localcharitable organizations lost their funding as a direct result of Ottawa'ssmoking ban.
The Ontario Lottery Corporation reported Brantford's charity casino revenuesdropped 20% when that city's smoking ban came into effect. Winnipeg's casinolost $21 million and, sadly, 269 employees lost their jobs. Who in their right mind could believe Morris' self-serving claims today?
Eric Boyd
507A Rosemeadow Cr
Waterloo, Ontario N2T 2A4
eboyd@uwaterloo.ca
--------------------------------------------------
Please allow me to respond to Dr. Morris' May 14 letter in which he praises the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and calls for even more restrictions. Anti-smoking zealots would be well- advised to get their heads out of the clouds and deal with their dislike of smoking in a fairer and more realistic way.
Smokers will smoke, popular or not, legal or not. As adults, taxpayers and voters, as long as tobacco is a legal product, have a right to smoke if they so chose. The smoking issue could have been easily settled by designated smoking/non-smoking areas thus leaving business owners and individuals with choice. That system worked well for several years and satisfied all but the most rapid anti-smokers. As it is, total smoking bans have created more societal problems than they have solved.
Arguments used to justify total bans become less credible and more destructive by the day.
There is no "level playing field" in business. By their nature, certain businesses need to accommodate smokers to survive and prosper. Total bans have destroyed the livelihoods of such business owners.
Smoking bans hurts charities. Lotteries and bingo halls report serious losses. The suppression of this information and the denial of authorities has not stopped the truth from leaking out.
High tobacco taxes contribute to poverty. Smokers on low fixed incomes do not quit smoking: they sacrifice in other areas. Do we we ever see a homeless person quit-smoking regardless of the cost?
Smoking bans and high taxes contribute to crime. Smugglers and thieves are the ones benefiting. A person forced outside to smoke is easy prey for rapist and muggers. There is a marked increase in private parties where there is no control over drunkenness and violence as there would be in a business environment.
Public health suffers more than it gains from the marketing of illegal tobacco products laced with chemicals and other dangerous agents. These illegal products are easily available to teenagers, and cancels out attempts to prevent under-age smoking.
Total smoking bans are now seen by many as a competition amongst communities, provinces and countries to achieve the gold standard and gain points with the WHO. The same tired arguments against tobacco use have been used throughout history against all activities deemed "unsavory." but regardless of the law, alcohol use, illegal drug use, prostitution and pornography survive and flourish. Smoking, the most innocuous of all, will also continue.
Defenders of a free society should strive for compromise rather than total smoking bans. Those who continue to support the repression of free choice will wish they had done differently when it comes their time to be vilified and ostracized for making a particular lifestyle choice. That time will certainly come to all if governments are allowed to continue and accelerate theirs attacks on our privilege of free choice.
"As soon as men decide that all measured are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy"--Christopher Dawson, Judgment of the Nations
Eileen Hutcheson
Acton, Ontario
-------------------------------------------
I would like to respond to Fr. Jim Morris(Chairperson Tobacco Thunder Bay) in the letters page of Saturdays, May 14
I operate a large volume tobacco store and would like to present another view on the "smoking front." I do agree that smoking is harmful to one's health, but tobacco products are still a legal product to sell.
It seems a little less than democratic when a government can dictate to me that I have to cover all of the tobacco products and that I can only devote so much space in my own store to stocking such product in my own store.
Why not cover up all liquor in the liquor stores and beer in the beer stores and while we are at it, let's tell them they can only have four feet to display their product. This way people won't drink.
Let's put all slot machines behind curtains and limit the amount of slot machines to half a dozen so people won't gamble.
What I especially take exception with is Dr. Morris' assumption is that other companies will pay to stock their products in my store where the tobacco presently is. Tobacco payments in part make it possible to hire employees and pay those employees much better than the minimum wage. I would appreciate being put in touch with these other companies that will pay for this space.
I do however have a suggestion for compromise. Why not allow an establishment to decide if it would become a store for those aged 19 would be allowed to enter, thus allowing adults who do smoke the choice of their product.
This would eliminate the position that children are influenced by the 'power wall' of tobacco. As long as tobacco remains a legal product to sell and use, let's be fair, let's be democratic, let's be practical and please could we have some compromise and input from small family run business.
Ed Choquette
Owner/manager Cathy's Discount
THUNDER BAY, ONT.
_________________________________
Thomas LapradeThe Smoker's Rights Website: http://thesnowbird.tripod.com/Visit my Blog for Current Letter Writings: http://thesnowbird.blogspot.com
Monday, May 09, 2005
News: Canadian News 05/06/05The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter
A Section of The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
Issue 327 - May 6, 2005
No smoking gun -ON
Smoking In Public Places -ON
Ont. won't ban power walls: activists -ON
Ipsos Reid Poll - British Columbians Strongly Support BC Government Policy Changes to Reduce Cancer Risk BC
Anti-smoking lobby fuming -ON
McGuinty smoking ban will result in severe financial harm to Charity Bingo in Ontario -ON
Drinkers and Smokers -AB
Youth rap: Ontario wrapping youth for Big Tobacco -ON
Town voice silenced at smoke-free hearings -ON
The Daffodil Ball of the Canadian Cancer Society - An exceptional success: almost $2 million raised -QC
Air Pollution Kills Estimated 5,900 Canadians Every Year -ON
Illegal smokes popular again -QC
Smokers instead 1 -AB
Smoking ban stubs out worker's rights -ON
Mayor roasted for rebel stance -NS
Smoke ban hurting children's charities, group warns -ON
Smoking mad in Tillsonburg -ON
Tobacco belt fights smoking ban bill -ON
Restaurant beats province in banning smoking -QC
Provincial smoking ban will supercede municipal bylaw -ON
Four charged in Windsor-based tobacco smuggling operation -ON
Smoke-free hearing offers few surprises -ON
Teen tobacco fans bite off all they can chew -AB
SMOKERS, INSTEAD 2
Media Advisory - Ontario Convenience Store Association -ON
McNeely amendment strengthens Smoke-Free Ontario Act -ON
Ex-mayor gives up smoking area fight -ON
Barbecue eatery all fired up for carnivores -ON
Youth need to catch up on reality -ON
Residents appeal crematorium -ON
Legion going smoke-free -AB
Smoking ban: City deserves a public hearing -ON
Click here to read the articles
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Nov. 24/04
Dear Editor:
Twenty-five or thirty years ago Health Canada announced that saturated fats were causing heart disease and launched a campaign against their use by Canadians. In the ensuing years Canadians demanded a decrease in the use of these fats and our free market economy responded by substituting trans fats. The current villain is trans fat but rather than respecting the intelligence of citizens to pressure industry into change through our free market economy as they have done in the past, our government’s approach is introduction of magic bullet legislation. Although this is in keeping with the new trend within the public towards instant gratification, hysterical legislative action does little more than further add to the gradual disintegration of rights and freedoms while increasing our tax burden due to the bureaucratic additions that are necessary to support and maintain these laws. In addition, legislative measures of this nature open the door to yet more legislative action in similar areas.
It is well publicized that diabetes is at epidemic levels and is resulting in a vastly increased burden on our health care system not only through on going treatment of the diabetes but also treatment of the numerous consequences of the diabetes, including heart disease. Will the government’s next step be to make refined carbohydrates such as white sugar, white rice and white flour illegal (for our own good of course)?
Orwell’s timing was out by twenty odd years but introduction of restrictive, controlling, unreasonable and Draconian laws are proving his predictions to be accurate.
Yours truly,
Jan Hogg
Dear Editor:
Twenty-five or thirty years ago Health Canada announced that saturated fats were causing heart disease and launched a campaign against their use by Canadians. In the ensuing years Canadians demanded a decrease in the use of these fats and our free market economy responded by substituting trans fats. The current villain is trans fat but rather than respecting the intelligence of citizens to pressure industry into change through our free market economy as they have done in the past, our government’s approach is introduction of magic bullet legislation. Although this is in keeping with the new trend within the public towards instant gratification, hysterical legislative action does little more than further add to the gradual disintegration of rights and freedoms while increasing our tax burden due to the bureaucratic additions that are necessary to support and maintain these laws. In addition, legislative measures of this nature open the door to yet more legislative action in similar areas.
It is well publicized that diabetes is at epidemic levels and is resulting in a vastly increased burden on our health care system not only through on going treatment of the diabetes but also treatment of the numerous consequences of the diabetes, including heart disease. Will the government’s next step be to make refined carbohydrates such as white sugar, white rice and white flour illegal (for our own good of course)?
Orwell’s timing was out by twenty odd years but introduction of restrictive, controlling, unreasonable and Draconian laws are proving his predictions to be accurate.
Yours truly,
Jan Hogg
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Dear Editor:
Yesterday’s announcement of EPA studies on urban pollution and the resulting impact on the health of the public although shocking, should come as no surprise. Further, it does not take multi-million dollar studies to recognize that this pollution does not stop at the curb or city limits. Pedestrians, urban dwellers and, since the McGuinty government has determined that ventilation does not filter out enough pollution to make indoor air safe from environmental pollutants, even urban office workers are obviously at significantly increased risk.
Following the Liberal’s commitment to provide a safe and healthy environment for Ontarians, this urgent situation must be addressed through legislative action that strictly limits use of private vehicles. Action such as bans on private vehicle use in city cores, toll-roads and fines for single occupants of automobiles during the peak of rush hour should all be considered. If the Liberal commitment to clean air is as firm as they have demonstrated with the second hand smoke issue, outdoor recreational facilities such as Canada’s Wonderland that are located close to major highways should be considered a major health risk to children.
Drastic action is called for to be consistent with recent and proposed legislation restricting activities that could increase risk factors for health and safety. Lack of public response to these legislations indicates that we are accepting of government control for our own protection.
Yours truly,
K.A.Y. Peterson
October 16, 2004
Dear Editor:
The Ontario Liberals are governing Ontario with a “Bush” mentality. They are fearful of any threat to safety or health, responding with the “Bush” method of attack (through propagandizing inaccurate, incomplete and specially selected information received from special interest groups and public health bureaucrats), control (with legislation) and destruction if necessary (using threats of fines and/or jail time). This method appeals to other ignorant and fearful Ontarians and is ignored by the passive majority. Today, just to name a few, we have Pit Bull bans, new regulations affecting the productivity and economic viability of farms, anti-smoker laws (and the businesses that choose to serve them), limitations on use of herbicides and pesticides, sun tanning salons, controls on use of electricity, all with complete disregard for private property. What will it be tomorrow, the fat police and weigh-ins for OHIP eligibility, metering of private wells, a surtax on potato chips, imprisonment for the parents of children who let their kids eat Halloween candy, distinctive arm bands to be worn by offenders?
The greatest danger to Ontarians today is in fact, the Ontario Liberals. Let’s remove this threat and “Ban the Liberal Party of Ontario”.
Yours truly,
Jan Hogg,
Yesterday’s announcement of EPA studies on urban pollution and the resulting impact on the health of the public although shocking, should come as no surprise. Further, it does not take multi-million dollar studies to recognize that this pollution does not stop at the curb or city limits. Pedestrians, urban dwellers and, since the McGuinty government has determined that ventilation does not filter out enough pollution to make indoor air safe from environmental pollutants, even urban office workers are obviously at significantly increased risk.
Following the Liberal’s commitment to provide a safe and healthy environment for Ontarians, this urgent situation must be addressed through legislative action that strictly limits use of private vehicles. Action such as bans on private vehicle use in city cores, toll-roads and fines for single occupants of automobiles during the peak of rush hour should all be considered. If the Liberal commitment to clean air is as firm as they have demonstrated with the second hand smoke issue, outdoor recreational facilities such as Canada’s Wonderland that are located close to major highways should be considered a major health risk to children.
Drastic action is called for to be consistent with recent and proposed legislation restricting activities that could increase risk factors for health and safety. Lack of public response to these legislations indicates that we are accepting of government control for our own protection.
Yours truly,
K.A.Y. Peterson
October 16, 2004
Dear Editor:
The Ontario Liberals are governing Ontario with a “Bush” mentality. They are fearful of any threat to safety or health, responding with the “Bush” method of attack (through propagandizing inaccurate, incomplete and specially selected information received from special interest groups and public health bureaucrats), control (with legislation) and destruction if necessary (using threats of fines and/or jail time). This method appeals to other ignorant and fearful Ontarians and is ignored by the passive majority. Today, just to name a few, we have Pit Bull bans, new regulations affecting the productivity and economic viability of farms, anti-smoker laws (and the businesses that choose to serve them), limitations on use of herbicides and pesticides, sun tanning salons, controls on use of electricity, all with complete disregard for private property. What will it be tomorrow, the fat police and weigh-ins for OHIP eligibility, metering of private wells, a surtax on potato chips, imprisonment for the parents of children who let their kids eat Halloween candy, distinctive arm bands to be worn by offenders?
The greatest danger to Ontarians today is in fact, the Ontario Liberals. Let’s remove this threat and “Ban the Liberal Party of Ontario”.
Yours truly,
Jan Hogg,
