Equality for Smokers

2008-02-07T07:30:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-07T05:27:00.000-08:00

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?"

From: The Stranger Forums

Antis: Who they are

Antis: How to fight

Antis: Ban Alerts

2005-06-12T09:38:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-09T05:13:00.000-07:00

News: Canadian News 05/06/05

The 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

2005-05-09T05:12:00.000-07:00

His name is James Blake Miller,
God Bless him.

2004-11-25T09:38:00.000-08:00

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

2004-11-20T13:24:00.000-08:00

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,

2004-10-27T14:28:00.000-07:00

October 21/04

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,

2004-04-07T05:34:00.000-07:00

A friend wrote this and I found it inspiring, you will too.

I have followed your newspaper’s Letters to the Editor, regarding the
smoking ban debate, with interest. Smoking ban legislations are
precedent-setting, in that they can pervertedly re-define private
properties as public places, volunteers and self-employed persons as
employees (with total disregard to longstanding definitions for taxation
purposes). They are frequently imposed by unelected, bureaucratic
“Municipal” bodies (not subject to direct citizen political recourse)
who conveniently self-define their status on an equal basis with an
elected Municipal body, as and when they desire, for the purpose of
imposing their collective will upon dissenting individual, elected
bodies (and the citizens they represent) "beneath" them. To make these
legislations even more democratically deficient, they are often enforced
by Health Unit employees who are subject to no political recourse
either, at taxpayer expense but without taxpayer accountability. Smoking
ban legislations can require enforcement assistance from citizens and
business owners without compensation, turn customer preference into a
potential liability for business and simultaneously threaten the freedom
of association, privacy and security of business and property owners,
their customers, family stability and anyone voluntarily entering their
privately owned structures, vehicles, etc. This might be justifiable if
kidnapping and forcible confinement were legal allowances for Canadian
business and property owners, but is otherwise ludicrous. Smoking ban
legislation proponents often villify non-malicious citizens by touting
their guesstimated “cost to our society”. This devalues individual life
and supports the notion that anyone’s “worth” is best judged upon their
potential for their eventual medical treatment that might or could
someday be required. Anti-smoking lobbyists claim that this is a Health
issue which they pursue only “for our own good”, built upon their
insulting notion that citizens are not trustworthy to decide and act in
their own best interests, on an individual basis. Please note that
“anti-whatever” prohibitionists often pursue product consumer bans,
rather than restricting their own financial feedtroughs and empowerment,
by promoting the national banning of product manufacturing and sale?
Prohibitionists, in reality, primarily promote infinite allowances for
“liability” based on “risk aversion”. Prohibitionists depend heavily
upon public acceptance of their junk science-based claims of “harm to
others” to empower their risk aversion tactics and their creation of
harmless social pariahs in need of heavy-handed denormalization. Smokers
are not the first “undesirables” to suffer from prohibitionist
injustices and won’t be the last. God help any gun owner who smokes,
consumes alcohol, is overweight, has children and owns property, in
Canada today. I’m certain this partial list of attributes common to
millions of peaceful Canadian citizens who are deemed in need of
behavioural and private property regulation will continue to expand,
unless our current collectivist trend is arrested before it does further
damage to individual responsibility and all ensuing rights. It is time
for citizens to put globally-powerful, allied legions of “Big Health &
Safety” and “Big Environmentalism” governmental and bureaucratic forces
under OUR restrictive regulation rather than vice-versa. “Enshrining
Property Rights into Canada’s “constitution” would be a good start to
ending the various and discriminatory jihads against peaceful,
non-malicious Canadian citizens.

2004-03-26T05:39:00.000-08:00

The public does not seem to understand that legislation of any kind is costly. It costs to gain support for the law, it costs to get it on the books, more important is that it costs to maintain the law once passed and even if there is total compliance with the law, it still costs to service and police it. Ongoing costs add up over the years. Laws have social costs as well. If laws are not observed, it costs not only in dollars but in court time allowing people who commit serious crimes to receive lighter sentences than they should or get off altogether while the court system becomes clogged even more. That is why it is of paramount importance that any law that is passed be firmly grounded in fact and that it be an absolute necessity, the anti-smoking laws are neither.

2004-03-24T13:40:00.000-08:00

ATTENTION!!!!
The government of Ontario says it is running town hall meetings to decide on the proposed law that would make it illegal to smoke in public places. To find out where your local meeting will be held e-mail: townhall@webhelp@cab.gov.on.ca

If you believe this proposed law is wrong, go to the meeting, take as many friends as you can, and voice your objections. If this law is passed, it opens the door for further restrictive legislation in any area where a single interest group pushes hard enough.

2004-03-22T06:55:00.000-08:00

THINK ABOUT IT – Which term sounds less offensive, more acceptable

1. Smoking ban
2. Passing legislation, laws making it illegal to smoke in public

When corresponding with the press or politicians, be sure to use the correct term.

2004-03-22T02:37:00.000-08:00

Dear Concerned Citizens:

The McGuinty government of Ontario is poised to pass legislation creating a law to make it illegal to smoke in public places in Ontario (Ban is simply a sugar coated term for law). McGuinty has hinted that he might moderate that to “indoor” public places but lets face it, this is Canada where we have at least 5 months of inclement weather.

To me, this is no longer simply a smoking issue but a wake up call to all of us that governments are beginning to rule the people rather than governing to maintain a well ordered society. The very definition of the word democracy is “a form of government where supreme power is vested in the people” not the people in office, not a single interest group and definitely not non-smokers rights associations.

It is only through the voice of its citizens that Canada can remain a free and democratic society. Please take a few minutes to be part of a movement to ensure the principles of equality, freedom of choice and respect of individual rights. Do not watch passively as our rights and freedoms are challenged in this manner. If you are in doubt as to what to say, perhaps the sample letters to newspapers shown below may help:

Letter 1 - Government’s are beginning to make a habit of passing laws to eliminate minimal risks in our society. This action will result in setting the stage for eliminating other freedoms and destroying our democratic principles. The public must put a stop to this now. We must voice our objections and make the McGuinty government realize that their proposed law to make smoking in public in Ontario illegal is the type of law that is unacceptable to the general public.

Letter 2 – Government’s are no longer governing to maintain a well-ordered society. By passing laws that restrict freedoms they will progress to ruling the people in a dictatorial fashion. If our democracy is to be preserved, Canadians and at this particular time Ontarians, must speak out and put an immediate halt to this abuse of the power with which our elected representatives have been entrusted. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass a law making the use of a legal product illegal in all public places and denying the choice of business the right to choose whether or not to allow its use in their privately owned establishments.

Letter 3 – The McGuinty government’s approach to protecting the health of non-smokers is unreasonable and totalitarian. In our democratic and free market society there is room to accommodate both non-smokers and smokers without degrading equality and freedom of choice, as is the Liberal plan.

Letter 4 – There comes a time when we as a people must recognize and take action to ensure that our rights and freedoms are not violated unreasonably. The radical legislation proposed by the Ontario Government to make it illegal to smoke in public places presents us with just such a time. Silent majorities can only be silent for so long without putting their own life styles at risk. The Liberal government’s hysterical and misguided method of dealing with the issue of second hand smoke by passing a law making it illegal to smoke in public places allows no room for other more moderate and autonomous options.

Letter 5 – Below are dictionary definitions of forms of government:

DEOMCRACY – A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people.

DICTATORSHIP – 1. Government by a dictator or dictators 2. Absolute or supreme power or authority. 3. A country ruled by a dictator or dictators

DICTATOR - 1. Person or people who behave in an authoritarian or tyrannical manner 2. A person or people who make pronouncements or rules, as on conduct etc. that are regarded as authoritarian or tyrannical

Ontario is poised to pass legislation making the public use of a legal product by 22% of its population illegal and further making it illegal for businesses to offer service to that portion of the public when using that product. This legislation is a result of pressure brought to bear by two single interest groups, the medical community and non-smokers rights associations, media reports and a few very vocal fanatics coupled with the passivity of the majority. Justification is science that is flawed and inconclusive. Government has the information that proves this.

Which of the dictionary definitions most closely resembles this form of governing and on what issues will these methods be used in the future?

Letter 6 - Dalton McGuinty seems to feel he can control the behaviour of Ontarians through financial hardship. He is threatening us with huge Hydro rate increases that are necessary because of our behaviour, not lack of funding to improve current facilities and surely not due to his plan to close coal generating plants without a plan to replace them.
He is going to keep his promise not to increase personal income tax and to give a break on homeowner taxes on the backs of small businesses. Does he not think that this will filter back to us through the market place? But it would appear that Mr. McGuinty doesn't believe in the market place. He thinks he can do a better job through legislation of personal behaviours and taxation. Nowhere in the annals of the history of Canada has a legal product been taxed to the obscene levels that tobacco has been. The promise is for further increases in the next budget. If indeed the reason for these outrageous taxes is to help shore up our beleaguered health care system that is being supposedly severely stressed by tobacco related illnesses, I challenge Mr. McGuinty and his government to provide proof as to where these tax dollars are going as well as clinical evidence not suppositions, of the illnesses.

2004-03-21T09:42:00.000-08:00

One of my contacts who sent a copy of my letter to his provincial rep. along the reams of information received a reply that it has been forwarded to the Minister of Health asking that he "give serious consideration to the concerns expressed" and this rep is strongly has been strongly in favour smoking restrictions. I just picked up my mail that included a reply from my rep. who is of the same party as that in power. She too forwarded my letter to the Minister stating "I would appreciate your review of these concerns and a direct response to Mrs. Hogg at your earliest convenience. My hubby says it won't change a thing but who knows, if there is enough of this it might make a small difference. Anyway, first the letter with the overvieew page of these letters (the other information is on about six pages and I will gladly forward that to you too if you like.

Dear Member:

The principles of our democracy include among others, equality and freedom of choice. Our system of justice is founded on the axioms of reasonable doubt and due process. Institution of laws, referred to as “bans” for less objectionable terminology, that ignore these fundamental doctrines, is eroding these cornerstones of our society. The proposed “ban” that will make it illegal for approximately twenty-two percent of the population to smoke in public places or for tax paying owners of privately financed and owned businesses to choose whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments impacts not only on the smokers of Ontario, their families and small business owners and their families now, but paves the way for freedom of choice to be removed from other target groups in a similar manner in the future. The scientific evidence on which justification of this action is taken is disputed by many highly respected, eminent and internationally recognized researchers, scientists and sociologists (see attachments).

Still, one question remains totally unaddressed. It is highly publicized by both government and health agencies that there is “NO safe level of exposure to the carcinogens and chemicals in environmental tobacco smoke”, even for healthy individuals. That being accepted, why was Canadian Blood Services quoted by the Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington Health Unit as saying “Blood transfusions donated by smokers do not pose a health threat to the recipient….the blood levels being transmitted are a very small quantity and the chemicals and carcinogens vastly diluted.” The recipients are people whose immune systems are suppressed by injury and illness yet for them it is an acceptable risk? This does not make sense.

As my elected representative it is incumbent upon you to represent my interests by examining all available evidence (a small sample of which is attached) and not blindly following a party policy that is not only ethically and morally questionable but is based on science for which there exists ample reasonable doubt as to its validity.

Yours truly,

(your name)

Attachments

REASONABLE DOUBT

-British Medical Journal – Second Hand Smoke Study – May 17, 2003 – find report at:

www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/05/16/smoking030516

-British Medical Journal – May 17, 2003 – Publication co-authored by Professor of Medicine for the University of Texas Health Center, Robert E. Brokie, The Presbyterian and Doctors Hospital, Dallas and Professsor of Medcine Vijag K. Mahan, St. Vincent Hospital, Toledo

-Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Oct. 18 2000 – Daniel Wartenberg - find at:

http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org

-Canadian Medical Association Journal – Article CMAJ 1999;160:180 – find at:

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-160/issue-2/0180a.htm

-New England Journal of Medicine – March 25, 1999 – Editorial – Dr. John Bailar, (epidemiologist) University of Chicago – Subject: Inaccuracy of conclusions based on Meta-analysis – second hand smoke

-Fraser Institute release – April 1999 – Drs. Gio B. Gori and John C. Luick (of added interest are the quotes on the July 1998 decision of Judge Osteen, District Court Judge, North Carolina concerning the scientific data presented by the EPA) - find at:

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/1999/19990408.html

-Journal of Epidemiology – article published July 15, 1995 by Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, Albert Einstein Collage of Medicine

-Publication by Academic Press, June 25, 1994 – Ischemic Heart Disease and Spousal Smoking in National Mortality, follow back survey - funded in part by Center for Indoor Air Research

Social Aspects

British Medical Journal – article by Robert N. Proctor, Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania – Find at:

bmj.com/ - then “search/archive” – then enter December 1996, volume 313 first page #1450

Attached Articles

An Insider’s Account of Tobacco Control in Canada – Luc Martial – Government of Canada (past), independent consultant
Letter to EPA – Dr. Alvan Feinstein (deceased) – Sterling Professor of Medicine and Epidemology, Yale University – Editor (past) Journal of Clinical Epidemeology
Study of Tobacco Smoke & Tobacco Related Mortality, 1960-1998 – James E. Enastrom, School of Public Health, U.C.L.A & Geoffrey C. Kabat, Dept. of Preventative Medicine, State University of New York
Review of document at request of EPA - Patricia A. Murphy, Epidemiologist

My letters to the paper re: blood from smokers"tainted" with chemicals:

Feb. 24, 2004

Dear Editor:

My concern about levels of carcinogens and dangerous chemicals transmitted to people whose immune systems are suppressed due to illness or injury through blood, tissue and organ donations from smokers has been submitted to numerous levels of government and many health agencies. I have yet to receive an answer that is supported by the scientific evidence that has been reported over the past few years.

Most recently, correspondence from Tyler Moon, Public Health Promoter for the KFLA informed me the Canadian Blood Services assures that “Blood levels being transmitted are a very small quantity, chemicals and carcinogens are vastly diluted.”

Aside from the discrepancy with publicized scientific evidence, all concerned government and health agencies have frequently stated that “There is NO safe level of exposure to the carcinogens and chemicals found in tobacco.”

I fail to understand how limited exposure to second hand tobacco smoke in a healthy person can be dangerous when limited amounts of the same chemicals in transfused blood in unhealthy people is considered an acceptable risk.

Yours truly,

AND

March 4/04

Dear Editor:

Further to my letter that you published in the March 3rd edition of the Napanee Beaver regarding chemical and carcinogen levels in blood transfusions, organ and tissue donations received from smokers. I recently received a reply from the Non-Smokers Rights Association. They did not, unfortunately, quote clinical studies or give any idea of reference data. The four-point reply began with the statement “We don't think anybody can say that tobacco-related chemicals in transfused blood are entirely risk-free” and was of a statistical nature including phrases such as “we don’t think”, “it appears”, “we understand”, “would presumably be a (slight)” and “hardly a tragedy” the latter two referring only to surgical use. I can only presume that these statements are based on their own interpretation of what appears to be old statistical data, done specifically to address the concerns of my letter. This Meta analysis technique is the same technique that has been highly criticized within the scientific community. It has been the basis of all but the original EPA second-hand smoke statistical studies that were themselves derided by the court. These statistical studies and related information are what are presented to the public by government and health agencies over an over again. With regard to the statement “ there is NO safe level of risk of exposure to these chemicals”, the NSRA made a point of saying that the statement was actually “There is no KNOWN safe level..”. Either way, the Non-Smokers Rights Association did not offer any information or provide a source for investigation that would address the concerns that I expressed. The conclusion was the same as that of the KFLA, blood transfusions, tissue and organ donations from smokers present an acceptable risk whereas the same risk found in minimal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was not acceptable.

My rebuttal to the idot who rebutted my letters, a self proclamed non-smokers rights activist that gave only what was obviously his opinion and tried to pass it off as truth

March 18, 2004

Dear Editor:

In his letter of March 16th, Mr. Broderick’s reasoning and comments on the risks smoke chemicals in transfusions was verbatim to that of the NSRA’s.

Mr. Broderick states that, based on statistical information coupled with his suppositions and speculations, exposure to minimal amounts of second hand smoke during a two-hour restaurant meal poses a significant danger to a healthy public. In the next sentence, he says that these same dangers do not exist or pose only minimal risk when an organ donated by a smoker, the tissues of which are logically permeated with the carcinogens and chemicals, or the donated blood of a smoker is placed in a person whose immune system must also deal with illness, shock, rejection and infection. This does not make sense.

His reference to repeatedly sitting in smoke filled rooms for extended periods of time is an issue of the fifties and sixties. Smoke free workplaces and publicly owned facilities have been the norm for years. Even modern bars are so well ventilated that they can no longer be considered smoke filled and those that aren’t well ventilated can be, for a cost less than that of losing a major percentage of the customer base.

As to statistical science, Mr. Broderick is obviously not aware that all statistics are not performed in the same way. In the case of second hand smoke, the medical community had to resort to Meta-analysis in order to make their findings statistically significant. The EPA and World Health Organization sponsored the original two studies. Future studies chose selected data from those two and others whose findings contradicted the EPA and WHO evidence, eliminating any data that they did not believe was relevant. That is statistical Meta-analysis. Due to the funding sources of those performing the studies, a bias factor was included. That factor has been heavily criticized by those within the mainstream scientific and medical communities.

At the request of the EPA, their 1992 study “Passive Smoking and Health Risk Assessment” was reviewed by Dr. Patricia A. Murphy, epidemiologist. Her conclusion was “This is a scientifically inadvisable means of approaching the study”. The study was not altered significantly. Dr. Alvan Feinstein, Sterling Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine, Yale University went further and called the EPA’s studies “a manipulation and perversion of science.” In 1998, the EPA study was deemed unscientific by a U.S. court.

I’m sorry Mr. Broderick but you don’t answer the posed question any more than the agencies that I have already heard from, but I thank you for trying.

Yours truly,

In case your aren't sick of reading yet, here's yet anolther recent letter

From: "Jan Hogg"
To:
Subject: courage to do the right thing
Date: March 16, 2004 9:01 AM

March 17/04

Dear Editor:

MY CANADA INCLUDES FREEDOM OF CHOICE for small business owners, minorities and individual citizens. MY CANADA INCLUDES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION for our elected representatives, reporters and other media workers. MY CANADA PRECLUDES introduction of restrictive legislation targeting any group due to pressure being brought to bear on governments by single interest groups and lobbyists, regardless of respectability and altruistic intentions. To preserve the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded we must send a clear message to governments at all levels that it is unacceptable to create laws that make the use of legal products illegal in any public situation. There is ample room for the Canadian traditions of moderation and compromise.

It is the responsibility of every Canadian to inform governments that they work for us and that we will not tolerate government interference that infringes upon individual rights and freedoms. It is the responsibility of every Canadian to encourage the media to have the courage to report all information, not only that which has been sanctioned by their corporate bosses. We must not allow a few reputable, influential and wealthy citizens to manipulate our system.

Free and productive societies have been destroyed when citizens failed to speak up and put an end to government injustice. I urge you not to allow our wonderful country to become a place where "Big Brother" is always watching you.

Yours truly,

Jan Skelton

R.R. #1, Bath

ON K0H 1G0

2004-03-21T09:18:00.001-08:00

Information for anyone who believes in democracy, freedom of choice and equality.

Please sign up for The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter.