July 14, 2004
LETTER OF THE DAY
I had to laugh when I read the comments attributed to Les Hagen of ASH and Alberta Health Minister Gary Mar on raising Alberta's tobacco taxes. ("Smokes revenue on the rise," July 12.)
These greedy, immoral humans are not believable. The insane tobacco taxes in Canada at the federal and provincial levels are simply a tax imposed on Canada's poor and a means to rape every Canadian smoker for every penny that can be garnered.
If helping every "addicted" Canadian smoker quit their "immoral" habit is the true goal of the "moral" anti-smoking brigade, why then is free smoking cessation not offered to all Canadians, and why is tobacco allowed to remain a legal product in this country?
Rising tobacco taxes do not encourage the vast majority of smokers to quit. Our federal and provincial governments are, in fact, the senior partners of the tobacco and booze industries.
Governments receive about 75% of the cost of these unhealthy and sometimes deadly products.
Exactly just how moral or ethical is that?
(Right on the smoking cessation issue, but you know that a total smoking ban is unrealistic.)
My original letter, before the paper edited it.
Re:Smokes revenue on the rise
I had to laugh when I read the comments attributed to Les Hagen of ASH and Alberta Health Minister: Gary Mar... In regards to raising Alberta's current tobacco taxes.
These greedy, immoral humans cannot even lie in a believable fashion.
The insane tobacco taxes in Canada at the federal and provincial levels are simply a tax imposed on Canada's poor and a means to rape every Canadian smoker, for every penny that can be garnered.
If helping every "addicted" Canadian smoker quit their "immoral" habit is the true goal of the"moral" anti-smoking brigade, why then is free smoking cessation not offered to all Canadians and why is tobacco allowed to remain a legal product in this country?
Raising tobacco taxes do not encourage the vast majority of smokers to quit.
Those over-inflated tobacco taxes simply, fuel organized crime and the black-market.
The governments admit that prohibition does not work.
If this is true, why are they attempting to impose government mandated indoor and outdoor smoking bans within the private hospitality sector?
Their logic is both impotent and absurd.
If smokers are truly "wretched addicts" the governments' and anti-smoking lobby's current form of "tough love" is not working.
The higher the taxes may rise, the more Canadian smokers that will feel less guilty buying contraband tobacco products.
Smokers should receive real help, not ridicule via anti-tobacco denormalization and demonization tactics.
Tobacco taxes are merely a cash-grab an nothing more.
Smoking rates are often low-balled by all levels of government in Canada.
In in attempt to spawn "positive change" among the "sheep-like" masses.
Sadly, this kind of social engineering does not work.
If in fact, everyone in Canada quit smoking tomorrow, the governments and anti-smoking groups would literally cry.
Then our "caring" governments would tax anything and everything to make up for their lost tobacco tax revenues.
The anti-smoking groups would switch to demonizing "unhealthy foods" and alcohol or be out of a job.
Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the government's and the anti-smoking lobby's war on tobacco and smoking is a moral or ethical, health issue needs a serious reality check.
It's all about the money.
Health be damned.
I am so tired of the governments erroneously claiming they are constantly increasing tobacco and alcohol taxes:
"For the greater good of all."
Our federal and provincial governments are in fact the senior partners of the tobacco and booze industries.
Governments receive about 75% of the total cost of these unhealthy and sometimes deadly products.
Exactly, just how moral or ethical is that?
391 Clare Ave.
I read this:
Sat, May 29, 2004
Smoke-free fans never showed up
By JAMES REANEY
When two live music venues shut down at more or less the same time, it can't be a good thing.
Closing their doors recently were two lounges, the Bacchus and Elements. Just a few months ago, Faeroe Islands folkie Teitur was dropping by Elements, when the 192 Dundas St., upstairs, club was still new.
At the start of this month. Astrid Young, sister of Canadian superstar Neil Young, brought her own sounds to the Bacchus, 545ae Richmond St.
Both places booked a big range of touring acts and local heroes. Now, both are gone.
A series of jazz performances set for the Bacchus, including Tuesday's date by the Rabnett 5 from B.C., have been moved to the London Music Club, 470 Colborne St.
Elements is the elongated room where Nathan and Matt Piches' Appertain Display rocked one night. The Bacchus is the big open space where I danced to the rockabilly Black Holes and enjoyed Toronto jazz trumpeter Nick Ali and London flutist Jeremy Price.
The former operators of Elements couldn't be reached yesterday, but a sign on the door says it's closed "due to uncontrolled circumstances."
Lisa Sorochan, an owner of the late, lamented Bacchus, says it was hurt badly when the city's smoking bylaw reduced business by about 50 per cent. The Bacchus opened in 2000. In its first two years, it regularly would close to its 275-person indoors capacity, Sorochan says. As business dwindled, you'd be lucky to find 60 patrons on hand. One estimate of the loss at the Bacchus is $100,000. "We put our last dollar on the line . . . we feel relieved that it's over. I'm looking forward to only having one job now," says Sorochan, who is a nurse.
Among other points, Sorochan makes one that really hits home with this non-smoking fan of live music at clubs. When the smoking bylaw took the fumes outside, it was hoped non-smoking fans would flock to the live rock.
"They were going to come out. Where are they?" asks Sorochan. Good question.
We should be out there. The days when you would come home reeking of smoke after coughing through a band's set at an upstairs club somewhere on Talbot Street are over. We have to get over it, too.
Tonight alone, there's a battle of the bands at the Embassy, Buck 65's associate Sixtoo at Call the Office and classy songs, harmonies and brains outfit Cats and Dogs at Max Silver's. Those are just the performers at small-to mid-sized clubs I can recommend personally.
There are many valid reasons for a club to fold these days. Non-smoking music fans who refuse to kick the stay-at-home habit isn't one of them.
My Letter to James:
Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world.
It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city.
Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society.
It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional
anti-smoking lobby.The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health.
They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits.
A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification.Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills.
It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be...
No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry.
It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers.An obvious majority.
But, by the same token...
From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers.
Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"...
Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele.
Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place.A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed.People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort.They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips.
It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well.
Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment.
It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people.
Especially when socializing.
Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues.No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims.
Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.
It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions.
It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned.
The hospitality industry is one of accommodation.
Give the people what they want and they shall come.
Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally.
These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers.
It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry.It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base.Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under.
Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins.
I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea.
I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice.
They key-word here is CHOICE.
In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector.If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice.
This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions.
The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air.There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition.
Well actually there is...
The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke.
This is not a health issue.It never has been.
As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry.
Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics.
To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke.
I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern.
The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates.
Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning.
I remember in the mid 1980s when the first workplace smoking bans were launched in the province of British Columbia, where I live.
In the past smoking was permitted virtually everywhere in true public places such as shopping malls, banks, government offices, retail stores, supermarkets, sports arenas, universities etc.
This was wrong.
Non-smokers had no choice.
They were often held hostage by smokers and forced to breathe second-hand smoke against their free will.
I think that indoor workplace smoking bans in those types of businesses were a good idea.
As long as separate, ventilated indoor smoking rooms were provided for smokers.
Smokers are people too.
At the time these smoking bans were enacted by government decree, the compliance of most of these affected workplaces and true public places were voluntary.
Fire safety, lower insurance premiums and lower cleaning costs were the main reasons that smoking bylaws and bans were accepted and in many cases embraced in most of the true indoor public places and the private business community.
Smoking in the private retail industry also caused merchandise damage and forced regular renovations like painting, replacement of flooring and furniture do to burns and tobacco smoke stains.
The vast majority of smokers did not make a fuss and accepted these new smoking regulations graciously.
Smokers themselves still had one last bastion of refuge...the private hospitality sector.
The anti-smoking faction had won a major victory in the name of choice for non-smokers.
Most smokers were pretty complacent and willingly accepted the new government mandated smoking regulations.
After all, they still had places they could socialize indoors where smoking was still permitted.
This is when the anti-smoking agenda began to go too far.
Even as far back as 10 years ago no sane politician who valued their seat in government would have dared to introduce a complete smoking ban within the private hospitality sector.
My how things have changed and not for the better.
Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s a number of private hospitality industry establishments attempted full or partial smoking bans at the choice of the private business owner.
Many of these businesses and their smoke-free attempts failed miserably.
But a small number of these businesses indeed, succeeded.
There was and still is a niche market for non-smoking hospitality industry establishments.
Most of those being restaurants.
Some of these businesses will actually do a better or the same business by banning smoking on a voluntary basis.
No matter what kind of low-ball statistics the government and anti-smoking lobby use to forward their smoke-free agenda, the glaring fact remains: Many people still smoke.Most of those people are integral to the survival of many hospitality industry businesses.This is the truth. no matter what the anti-smoking lobby would like to lead the general public believe.
Tomorrow if all smoking bans and bylaws were lifted and ETS was scientifically exonerated as a non-health concern...
A huge number of businesses in the hospitality industry that are currently smoke-free due to government mandated smoking bans would again return to allowing smoking indoors and outdoors (where outdoor bans apply).
The anti-smokers fear this and logical ventilation solutions.
It completely destroys their agenda of a smoke-free paradise.
In a perfect world no one would smoke or drink alcohol, for that matter.
Our governments would ban the sales of all tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.
If smoke-free hospitality establishments are truly the "wave of the future" government imposed smoking bans would not be required.
The war on smoking is a flagrant control agenda.
K.W. Region in Ontario was Canada's second city-smoking ban "test case."
It's draconian smoking bylaw does have exemptions.
Private clubs and gatherings not open to the public are permitted to allow smoking.
Outdoor patios that are only partially roofed or enclosed are also exempt from the smoking bylaw there.
Over 60 businesses have gone bankrupt or changed hands since the smoking bylaw was enacted there in the year 2000.
From what I understand only 2 charity bingo halls currently are in operation there now.
There were over 16 of them before the advent of the smoking bylaw.
I remember reading a plea much like the one you were making to the non-smoking people of London, Ont. in your column being made by a local politician who saw and realized the financial damage that the smoking bylaw had on the charity bingos in
This politician blamed the smokers for killing the charity bingos and their revenues in K.W. Region.
He launched into a tirade berating the filthy smokers for not supporting the local charities and causing the businesses to fold.
He called the smokers of K.W. Region wretched,selfish addicts and asked them how they could possibly live with themselves knowing they were hurting the charities and poor who benefit from them by boycotting those gaming venues because of the smoking ban.
What this moron should have been asking himself was how could he sleep at night knowing he had destroyed the livelihoods of many K.W. Region business owners, hospitality employees and the charities & the people they support with a smoking bylaw that protects the health of no one!
Your attempt to rally the non-smoking troupes to patronize the local nightlife hospitality industry in London shall mostly fall upon "deaf ears."
In closing I will explain:
-Smokers are creatures of habit.
The vast majority of them will continue to smoke when they drink.
They will not be forced outside to smoke in bad weather.
-A great portion of the regular, adult hospitality industry patron base are smokers.
The novelty of smoking bans wears off very quickly to most smokers and non-smokers alike.
Many smokers who initially support smoking bans as a means to help them quit smoking fail in their attempts to give up the demon weed and retreat to their own homes and the houses of friends where they can smoke and drink.
-Many non-smokers never have and never will be regular customers of the hospitality industry.Smoking ban or not.
They are creatures of habit, as well.
They are as likely to start patronizing the hospitality sector regular basis as a diehard smoker is to quit his or her smoking habit.
It's not much fun going to an empty or semi-empty hospitality venue for most people.
Government imposed smoking bans on the private hospitality sector are a proven business-killer everywhere they are enacted in the world.
Why would your city fare any better?
-The anti-smoking lobby are liars.
Well-funded and organized charlatans.
No lie is too large for these selfish, control freaks.
They cannot or will not compromise.
The second-hand smoke "kills" sham, "the level playing field " lie, and the "there is no safe level of ETS exposure to humans and no ventilation solution is adequate protection from second-hand smoke stance, are all completely absurd and untrue.
One of their greatest lies is the one about the "hordes" of non-smokers that will flock to hospitality establishments when the become smoke-free via government imposed smoking bans.
It just isn't true!
Solid, objective science does nor support the claims of the anti-smoking faction.
Or their bastard statistics and contrived figures.
The truth is their greatest enemy.
-It is very odd that you never hear of anti-smoking proponents ever opening and operating their own smoke-free hospitality venues. in places that have no smoking bans mandated by government regulation.
In a free market that allows hospitality businesses to set their own smoke-free or smoking permitted policies.
On such a free market, smoke-free businesses have a much better overall chance for success than those that are forced to go smoke-free via government regulation.
Why then aren't the anti-smokers in these locales opening their own smoke-free hospitality businesses?
Because they know that smoking-permitted businesses will likely steal many of their potential customers.
-The hospitality industry is based upon being hospitable.
Having the ability to cater to your established, regular customer base is crucial.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree strip the private property rights of private property establishments.
There is no solid science that supports such smoking regulations or government intrusion.
Especially when the governments garner 80% of the price of the price of a pack of cigarettes in tobacco taxes.
If second-hand smoke is the health danger and risk that the governments, the anti-smoking lobby and the mainstream medical community claims it to be...
Why is tobacco allowed to remain a legal product?
Why is there at least a national indoor smoking ban, imposed nation-wide by the federal government?
Why do the governments continually over-tax the poor, wretched smoking addicts?
Why don't the feds offer free national smoking cessation programs?
Insanely high tobacco taxation fuels the black-market.
Why aren't all tobacco products only sold out of government regulated stores by prescription?
This would prevent most of today's current youth from ever becoming smokers.
It's all about the money.
Health be damned.
When the Canadian government has the moral-ethical gumption to ban the production and sales of all tobacco products at the national level...I will then believe your latest column's plea to non-smokers to support the hospitality and nightlife industry might have a chance of actually happening.
Neither of us should be holding our breaths waiting for this to take place.
I am a former hospitality industry employee.
I have been researching smoking ban fall-out and negative impacts for over 6 years.
My stance is pro-choice, not pro-tobacco.
In true democracy everyone should have a choice.
Non-smokers and smokers alike.
Under the Canadian Charter Of Rights all citizens except smokers have minority rights.
What the governments, the mainstream media, the medical profession and the anti-smoking lobby are doing to smokers in this country is worthy of the term "hate crime" as per the Charter.
One day this issue shall be resolved one way or another at the federal supreme court level.
If someone replaces the term "smoker" with the name of any gender, race, religious denomination, sexuality or age, the bigotry and hatred that are currently being thrust upon smokers in our current society.
That is truly immoral and simply wrong.
If smokers are indeed wretched addicts the governments should be attempting to help them, not to persecute them.
Overtaxation on tobacco, alcohol and legal drugs are merely taxation and over-exploitation of the poor.
Rich people can afford to pay the "sin" taxes.
May 23, 2004
Subject: Heather Crowe: Canada's only ETS victim
From what I understood Ms. Crowe's Lung cancer has gone into remission.
But there was no previous mention of her receiving any chemotherapy or radiation treatments.
I think Ms. Crowe's cancer could possibly be yet another anti-smoking sham.
I was told Ms. Crowe received a ETS injury settlement of over 1 million dollars.
This story states otherwise.
I can see why Ontario's Worker's Compensation is trying to get Ms. Crowe to return to work.
That is their job.
They are a government appointed, employer insurance company.
Any business that has employees must pay premiums for their workers.It is mandatory.
The Ontario Workman's Comp.Board was created to protect employers from legal lawsuits from sick or injured employees, who were hurt in the workplace.
Many businesses would not choose to carry employee insurance if the WCB did not exist.
Such employee-workplace -injury lawsuits could bankrupt many businesses and leave the government on the hook for sick worker's rehabilitation, medical expenses and financial compensation.
The WCB itself does not write most safety policies.
Most of the WCB regulations are a combination of NOSH, OSHA, Labour Canada and WHMS workplace safety practices.
Some people mistakenly believe WCB is an employee or worker insurance company.
This is only partially true. the WCB's real job is to get sick or injured workers back on the job as soon as possible, whether they are capable of returning to work or not.
The WCB exists to protect employer from themselves, so to speak.
They will do anything in their power to pay-out the least possible amount of workplace injury or sickness benefits.
It seems the entire country has used Ms. Crowe as an unwitting "dupe."
In order to push for complete smoking bans across the entire nation of Canada.
Now the Ontario WCB wants to cut Ms. Crowe off.
For those of you who do not understand how little the WCB boards across Canada care about the health of workers who get sick or are injured on the job, here is a classic example...
In British Columbia the WCB's criteria for collecting an ETS, workplace injury award...
1) Must never have smoked even one cigarette, pipe or cigar in your life in order to be eligible for an ETS, workplace injury claim.
2) Must have never lived with a smoker at anytime in your life.
3) Must PROVE that your ETS injury was caused in the workplace!
This last stipulation would effectively eliminate 99.9% of the population from ever winning a workplace ETS injury award.
When this insane, criteria was released to the press, it sparked huge public outcry and rage.
The WCB had essentially hidden this ETS injury claim criteria on an obscure part of their official website.
As a means to use the ETS injury award stipulations as a means to never pay out any such workplace injury claims.
As a disclaimer, in order to avoid any possible financial liability and to impose a complete workplace smoking ban.
This was supposed justification and the basis for zero tolerance level, in regards to ETS in the workplace.
Since the WCB ETS injury claim stipulations were released to the public via the mainstream press...Someone in the hospitality industry got a copy of the WCB code of practice regarding workplace ETS exposure and leaked it to the press.
The WCB has removed there own ETS injury criteria from it's official website.
They now claim that each case will be judged on it's own individual merit.
Meaning they never intend to pay any ETS injury-illness claims in the workplace.
How can a hospitality worker possibly prove that their illness was caused by their workplace?
The professional anti-smoking lobby have failed to prove that ETS is a measurable health risk.They have spent billions of dollars trying to do so and have failed miserably at each and every attempt.
So how can a sick hospitality industry worker who lacks the huge funds of professional anti-smoking groups possibly prove scientifically, that their sickness was caused by ETs exposure in the workplace?
It's that simple.
An old girlfriend of mine worked for the WCB for over 10 years.
She had access to all of their files regarding injury claims of all kinds and the records of any WCB payouts or denial of benefits.
She is a smoker, herself and was appalled with the WCB ETS-workplace injury criteria.
I asked her to do some investigating for me.
In the year 2000, when the B.C. WCB provincial smoking ban came into existence, the WCB claimed they had over 20 possible ETS workplace-injury claims.
My gal-pal worked for the WCB up until May of 2003.
She searched the WCB main office and could not find any record of the B.C. WCB paying out even one ETS workplace injury claim.
What's so odd about this is...
The WCB before attempting to re-enact a complete provincial smoking ban here in British Columbia, claimed that they had indeed paid out 4 ETS workplace injury claims.
The WCB adamantly refused to release the names of the so-called victims of ETS.
The WCB claimed they could not release this information due to a binding confidentiality clause.
It gets "better."
The WCB also said that 3 of those ETS workplace-injury "victims" have since died.
The WCB issued their press release in the year 2002.
My girlfriend could not find even ONE ETS workplace-injury claim or payout.
My girlfriend worked for the WCB until May 2003.
She believes the WCB smoking ban and it's basis is a complete sham.
So do I.
It seems blatantly obvious.
It appears that the WCB in Ontario have used and abused Ms. Crowe and are now trying to give her the "royal shaft!"
She did their evil bidding and dirty-work, thanks for the memories, Heather.
You must also take into account the fact that the WCB in Ontario originally denied Ms. Crowe's ETS injury claims twice, before she "won" an appeal to the WCB's board of appeal.
You cannot sue the WCB.
They are a government-appointed board.
You can only appeal to the board if your claim or benefits are denied to you.
Needless to say, the vast majority of those appeals are lost and the WCB is victorious.
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:50:56 -0700
Subject: My Letter to Earl Mcrae of the Ottawa Sun
To be sure, "sin" taxes are merely a "cash grab" at the expense of the poor. The rich can easily afford the government's greedy tax increases.
Though the governments claim that insane tobacco and booze over-taxation are a form of "tough love" nothing could be further from the truth.
If smokers and alcohol consumers really are the wretched addicts, the governments claim.And that the war on tobacco, drugs and alcohol really are moral-ethical agendas... Why then are our "loving-caring" governments persecuting and victimizing the poor?
You also have to wonder why the government does not put "tobacco-like" health warning labels on all alcoholic beverages and allows the industry to market their "deadly" product freely in all mainstream media avenues in plain view of impressionable children and young adults.
We know it's all about the money. Sheer greed, nothing more. Pretending to save the so-called victims of "sin tax" exploitation, from themselves is laughable and sickening.
What I want to know is just who, is going to protect us from, greedy, unscrupulous...over-taxing governments.
It's interesting that our governments always claim if tobacco was a new product attempting to be brought on to the market today... It would never pass FDA safety standards or scrutiny. Inexplicably, the same governments would love to legalize marijuana and garner more huge tax revenues. Anything a person smokes cannot be considered a healthy or safe product.Especially a substance that produces hallucinogenic properties.
How any sane person could actually believe a word these political charlatans spew, defies all sane logic and common sense.
Thanks again, for the great article.
"A cash grab by any other name, is still in fact a cash grab, none the less."
Subject: The WHO's tobacco denormalization campign.
Many people are unaware that the first total smoking ban in Canada, in all hospitality industry establishments was enacted in 1999 in Victoria, British Columbia.
The total ban was a World Health Org. initative.
It was funded by the federal and provincial governments.
The WHO also helped to fund this social engineering, "test case."
Originally the Capital Regional District (CRD) smoking bylaw was not supposed to only cover indoor "public places."
The true intention of the smoking bylaw was to also cover outdoor "public places" as well.
-Patios and Decks
-Common areas in any multi-tenant dwelling
Were also to be included in the original
CRD smoking bylaw in Victoria, B.C.
The only places you could legally smoke would be in your own private home or yard, providing you did not live in an apartment or condo complex.
You could also legally smoke in your car, if the windows were rolled up completely.
If the windows were rolled down you could be subject to hefty fines.
What de-railed these insane smoking ban proposals was definitely the resistance that the private hospitality sector mounted in Victoria.
Thousands of people showed up at anti-smoking bylaw rallies.
Politicians had not counted on such resistance and defiance from the industry.
They (CRD) couldn't even begin to enforce their indoor smoking bylaw policies, much less police their proposed outdoor smoking ban criteria.
Though the CRD were given ample funding from many sources, they realized that enforcement of an outdoor smoking ban would be very, costly and impossible in the long run.
Victoria's hospitality industry lost their battle in the smoking ban wars.
But at the same time, they won a reprieve for many Canadian cities and provinces, they helped delay the WHO's World Tobacco Treaty framework initiative of total tobacco denormalization campaign, that advocate total smoking bans indoors and outdoors.
The WHO and Canada's smoke-Nazis will eventually attempt to enact such smoking bans, in the very, near future.
It's likely it will be in a Maritime province or in Ontario.
Then those bastards will go after smokers inside their own homes and outdoors on their own private property.
This will happen, mark my words.
Sadly, it is likely some locales in Canada will be the "testing grounds" for such social engineering experiments.
This is truly frightening.
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:41 AM
Re: Prison smoking ban
I'd be far more worried if I were employed in the field of government corrections with such a ban in place.
The inmates forced to quit smoking against their wills will be restless.
There is no sane reason that these prisoners should not be able to at least smoke outdoors.
Even if the phantom dangers of second-hand smoke really were a health issue and the protection of corrections workers and non-smoking prisoners were the true basis for government imposed smoking bans, in all workplaces.
This is purely a social engineering experiment gone mad.
I wonder just who is going to protect the corrections workers from first-hand violence,when the smoking prisoners revolt?
First-hand violence is proven, very real danger...Unlike second-hand tobacco smoke.
I do agree that these people have given up most of their free choice and rights as citizens but there still should be some compassion shown here.
Explain to me please, why the government(s) have given inmates the right to vote but not the right to smoke?It makes no logical sense.
Neither does allowing inmates not to smoke outdoors.
The second-hand smoke is "deadly" assertion is possibly one of the biggest government perpetrated frauds of the entire century.
Those foolish enough to believe the anti-smoking lobby's untruthful, hysterical rhetoric are in for the shocks of their lives.The anti-smoking gang also want to ban all outdoor smoking and smoking within the homes of private citizens in the very, near future.
Just maybe then, some of the complacent idiots who believe that the governments are enacting smoking bans for the sake of anyone's health, hopefully shall wake up and realize the whole war on second-hand smoke is merely an unproven, scare tactic used to promote pure social engineering. Health be damned.
The government has many other nasty, forms of desired public behavioural change on ALL citizens, that will affect ALL Canadians...Not only smokers.
Boozers and unhealthy eaters...You are the next targets of the governments and health elitists.
Your time is coming.
Beware the lies of the anti-smoking false-prophets and governments who claim to care about the health and well-being of the public in this country.
These "snake-oil pitchmen" do not care about anything or anyone but, themselves and their own personal whims and wants.And of course previous government funding.
Most of it is the "blood money" garnered from the rape of "big tobacco."
The government's junior partners.Our governments federal and provincial clearly are the senior partners of the tobacco industry.They cannot financially, afford to have all Canadians giving up the "evil weed."
Another scary point...
If second-hand smoke is so"deadly" why haven't the federal governments banned smoking in their own prisons?
Why should local and provincial governments be relied upon to enact smoking bans within their jurisdictions?
If second hand-smoke really has no safe level of human exposure to it...Why isn't there a national indoor smoking ban mandated, by the federal government?
Hell, if ETS is so toxic, why not just criminalize all tobacco products?
Yeah, yeah, yeah... It's all about the money, the health of all Canadians be damned.
Subject: Re: NY Times - Bar Owners Fear Mayor Wants a City That Sleeps
In a previous posting I wrote of one of my friend's opinions regarding the real underlying basis for implementing government imposed smoking bans.
He is a political science graduate and a very, intelligent young man.
I strongly agree with his thoughts on this topic.
First of all. smokers and their habit have been demonized to the level of being evil and in league with Satan.
Government mandated smoking bans within the confines of so-called "public places" which really are in fact privately owned hospitality
businesses that are located on private property...Further this(anti-smoking)cause to ridiculous extremes.
Most people in the pro-choice camp completely understand that smoking bans imposed be government decree have absolutely nothing to do with championing the heath of workers, children or the general public.
Most people believe the underlying intent of these smoking bans and restrictions is about promoting social engineering and helping smokers to give up their habits via social conditioning ala brainwashing.
These notions are only partially correct.There are even more personal freedoms and civil liberties at stake here. Though it's true property rights and the ability of a private business owner to make the best honest living they possibly can earn this is listed clearly in the American constitution. This issue is not simply about the right of individuals to smoke.
Smoking bans that are imposed by government mandate on private property against the wishes and will of private property owners also are likely a method of public obedience control, as well.
My friend, the political science graduate believes that smoking bans are only the beginning of the end of all of our personal freedoms.If the majority of the population accepts smoking bans imposed by any level of government on private property are also a method of crowd control that will encourage smokers, their friends and families to stay home on a regular basis, thus reducing crime and overall policing costs.
It all makes perfect, logical sense.
Smoking bans do not help the vast majority of smokers quit smoking.
In the beginning in places where government imposed smoking bans are enacted a number of smokers actually welcome the regulations.
For personal reasons many of these people believe that they should quit smoking.
Whether it be due to cost, personal or family health or the browbeating that is thrust upon them by politicians, anti-smoking groups and the usually biased media.
There are a number of smokers who would like to quit smoking for some or all of these reasons.
The U.S. surgeon general's report in the 1960s that condemned smoking as the largest cause of cancer known to mankind, motivated many smokers to give up or to attempt to quit their smoking habits and the financial rape of the tobacco industry and the denormalization campaign against smokers and smoking began.
At the time smoking rates were very high everywhere globally.Many countries had overall smoking rates that put the smoking population in the majority of all people on the planet.
initially smoking rates plummeted in most places on the face of the globe following the surgeon general's report on smoking and it's connection with cancer.
However, there remained a group of people that enjoyed smoking and chose to continue smoking despite the supposed health risks that the habit entails.
The "second-hand smoke harms" campaign was created for just this reason.To make smokers feel and believe they are harming others as a means to guilt and goad smokers who would not quit smoking for their own health and well-being to give up their habits for the sake of "innocent" non-smoking others.
The whole anti-smoking agenda where smoking bans are concerned are highly based upon public perception.
"If the lie is repeated enough,
it will be perceived as the truth."
-J.Gobels(Hitler's minister of propaganda).
The anti-smoking have adopted and embody this tactic in their war against smoking and to impose smoking bans within the confines of private property in the hospitality sector.
"The second-hand smoke is deadly myth" gives the anti-smoking faction the right and "moral" basis to forward their goal of a smoke-free society, it is their "trump card."
It is virtually impossible to fight a health-based regulation, Whether the regulation has proven validity or not.
The anti-smoking army, our governments and the medical community have spent billions of dollars trying to prove ETS is the deadliest airborne toxin known to mankind.
These groups have ultimately failed in their quest to meet that burden of proof.
The most pressing problem for hospitality establishment owners who wish to continue to allow smoking within the confines of their private businesses, in locales where government imposed smoking bans are enacted is they cannot prove otherwise.That ETS is not a going health treat or concern.
Smoking bans based upon the fraudulent guise of worker's health are a means forward this agenda in a pathetic attempt not offend he general public(especially smokers).
Virtually every hospitality business has employees.
Ironically, many of these employees are smokers themselves.This shows the smoking ban agenda for the feeble, "paper tiger" it really is.Along
with the fact that second-hand smoke has never been proven to be the toxic killer the anti-smoking lobbyists claim it to be.
If second-hand smoke were a proven major or minor health risk, improved ventilation would be the logical, practical solution to the problem of
possible second-hand smoke danger or employee overexposure to ETS.
There is no sane reason that their should be government imposed smoking prohibitions forced upon private property owners in the private hospitality sector against their wills.
The anti-smoking faction erroneously claims that hospitality workers have no choice in regards to where they work or who they work for, where second-hand smoke exposure is concerned.
This is a blatant distortion of the truth, a whopping lie.Many workers in many trades are exposed to many forms of deadly toxins and pollution on a daily basis.
Just exactly where are the governments, health groups and the highly-paid anti-smoking zealots, when true, proven health risks that are encountered by workers in all vocations happen at will?
Why are they not attempting to protect workers health in industries where scientifically proven forms of pollution and toxins are present?
Not surprisingly these health fascist are usually, nowhere to be found.
The most obvious and glaring "chink" in the anti-smoking lobby's armour is the fact that they repeat over and over again that"there is no safe level of second-hand smoke exposure."
First off, they cannot prove that ETS is a major or minor health concern, they have tried to do so time and time again, failing pathetically at their task.
Solid, objective science does not support the claims of the anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions.
Since their whole agenda is based completely on misinformation, junk-science and blatant lies, it's no wonder that more and more intelligent people are beginning to question the validity of the anti-smokers ETS crusade and the need for government imposed smoking bans in the hospitality sector, private homes and the great outdoors.
As I said previously, smoking bans get "old" pretty fast.The novelty wears off very, quickly.
Many smokers who initially welcomed smoking bans are suddenly the loudest complainers and smoking ban detractors AFTER smoking bans are put
When these people fail to quit smoking they have to learn to live with smoking outdoors in all types of terrible whether conditions.
Of late, many locales are adopting smoking bans are not just opting to adopt indoor smoking bans in the private hospitality venues, indoors.More and more outdoor, patio and doorway proximity bans are being enacted, as we speak.
Comparing a few smokers and the tobacco smoke that their cigarettes, cigars and pipes produce...to that of automobile exhausts and other forms of proven toxic pollution is completely asinine and completely absurd. Even if ETS were a proven health concern, minor or major there is no way in Hell that ETS exposure indoors or out could even remotely pose anywhere near the health hazard that other forms of pollution do to human life.
So why the need for outdoor smoking bans?
There isn't any, if sane logic ruled the world.
Sadly, it does not.
The truth and solid science always expose the anti-smoking agenda for the complete sham it is and the dishonesty of the anti-smoking establishment.
Some of the anti-smoking lobby really want smokers to quit their habits for health reasons and believe that smoking bans are a great way to promote positive social change and health reform.
Most of this type of anti-smoker are based in the medical community or governments.
These people are members of a complete minority.
The vast majority of anti-smokers simply hate the smell of tobacco smoking, smokers or are "born again non-smokers."
Reformed smokers are often the worst kind of anti-smoker on the face of the planet.
In order for many of these people to stay smoke-free they must hate smokers and anything to do with tobacco or smoking.
Many of these people are one puff of tobacco away from returning to being hardcore smokers.
The fact that governments, the medical community and the paid-unpaid anti-smoking lobby have no qualms about using flagrant lies and misinformation in order to champion their cause shows them for the unscrupulous, misanthropes they really are.
"For the greater good of all."
No matter who gets hurt in during the process or how negative the fall-out that takes place directly because of these fraudulent health regulations, that protect the health of no one.
Even ten years ago very few politicians who valued their jobs would have proposed implementing complete indoor or outdoor smoking bans in the private hospitality industry.
My how things have changed in such a short span of time and not for the better, either.
Even though smoking rates have remained steady over the last 3 decades, it seems now that the governments are believing their own anti-smoking propaganda or at least pretending that they do.
Many of these politicians see the anti-smoking cause as "fighting the good fight" against the
"evil big tobacco industry."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Most forms of national and territorial government profit directly from the sales of tobacco.
In he U.S. there is the multi-billion dollar settlement.
These governments actually are the senior partners of the tobacco industry.
They profit handsomely from the taxation of the "evil" product.
It is beyond ironic these same politicians claim that they never want children or anyone to ever smoke.
This is also a blatant lie.
In fact these "caring" governments cannot afford for smokers to give up their habits.
Political coffers heavily rely on tobacco revenues.
Also, the healthcare systems of most countries would collapse if everyone on this planet give up smoking tomorrow.
The fact is, smokers are very cost effective.
If they die prematurely, smokers save governments a bundle of cash where healthcare and pension payouts are concerned.
Tobacco taxation and settlement monies are merely another huge bonus that our governments reap directly from the industry they love to refer to as "the merchants of death."
Smoking tobacco is not a moral or ethical issue, as the anti-tobacco lobby would have us all believe.
Money, greed,control are the true basis for the war on tobacco and second-hand smoke.
Where control is concerned...
At first, most of the general public wherever smoking bans are mandated and imposed by governments either choose to accept these smoking regulations on face value or to fight these regulations grudgingly.
A good number of people are completely ignorant and complacent in regards to the dangers that such regulations pose for everyone in this society including the anti-smoking lobby.
It's not really shocking that mayor Bloomberg and his political cronies in government are thinking about rolling back the business hours of operation within the private hospitality sector.
You do not have to be nero-surgeon to understand that smoking bans that force patrons of hospitality establishments to smoke outdoors on the streets, patios or sidewalks...
Will create a host of problems.
-Acts of violence
-Other criminal activity(drugs)
-Confrontations(customers and the general public)
-Patrons skipping their tabs
Many smokers, their families and friends do not go out as often in regards to patronizing hospitality venues in areas where indoor smoking bans are imposed.
For those smokers who choose to accept smoking bans and brave a host of forms of anti-smoking social leprosy and it's stigmatization...
As my friend said years ago, he believes that a big part of the government's role in smoking bans is based upon keeping people(displaced smokers)in their own homes and off the streets.
Thus reducing the need for police presence.
Street crime is would be dramatically lessened.
The next move would be to ban the sales of alcohol in the hospitality industry.
This would surely decrease the overall street crime rate and reduce impaired driving incidents in a big way.
Many people are likely to scoff at this suggestion.
I don't believe they should be so hasty to dismiss this opinion as misguided or impossible.
As I said before, even 10 years ago very few people would ever have believed that the governments would have even attempted to ban smoking within the hospitality industry much less fining smokers and business owners who failed to comply with these insane forms of government over-regulation.
Well here we are. It's happening.
The anti-booze lobby is alive and well.
Essentially our governments are anti-fun by nature.
Big on over-regulation...Small on personal freedoms and civil liberties
for the general populous.
If most governments could have their way, they would want most of it's citizens out of sight, out of mind.In other words, inside their own homes.That way they could use their propaganda-media machine too keep everyone in the dark to what is really going on in society.Yeah, I know it sounds a lot like Orwell's "1984."Or Huxley's "Brave New World."For good reason.It appears no matter how far fetched these notions may appear to be...in fact these ideas are just a small step away from becoming a stark reality.
Many of today's politicians and governments embody the notion of dictatorship rule though they claim otherwise.
Spoon-feed the public propaganda, the truth and reality are of no concern. The overall cause and "the greater good of all" shall undermine the truth whenever necessary.
Employ divide and conquer tactics.
Turn different segments and factions of the public against one another.
If public opinion is fractured, it is less likely that public will band together to defeat a government. Only use the truth when absolutely necessary and suppress or embellish it, in order to achieve the ultimate goal of your political agenda.No matter who suffers in the interim or in the end.
Yep, baffle them with bullshit, keep the public in the dark.
These political tactics have been employed through the annals of time and the history of mankind.
Interesting to note, all of these past governments have enjoyed great success using these forms of unscrupulous rule, though usually these successes are only of the temporary variety.From the days of the Roman Empire to Hitler's reign of terror...The messages remain the same.
We've heard this all before.
As with the other governments in the past who have employed these tactics, their contemporaries our current governments will surely be ousted, exposed and defeated in time.
It just depends how much bullshit the general public is willing to take and for how long they are willing to endure fascist government over-regulation.There comes a time when the people shall shout "ENOUGH."
That time is now.
Smoking bans are just the beginning of the end of everyone's civil liberties, personal rights and freedoms.
It's time to fight the early closing hours in New York. Those bastards have no right, to impose these regulations. Especially after creating the state-wide smoking ban debacle.
If you let the government walk all over you, they shall.
It's time for a revolution of sorts.
It is truly a crying shame that the majority of hospitality businesses did not band together to oppose the state-wide and N.Y. city smoking ban.
Just how much over-regulation are people willing to blindly accept.
I guess we will find out, shortly.
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: B.C. abruptly hikes tax on tobacco to national high
This latest move by the B.C. government in regards to raising tobacco taxes to new outrageous highs, is in a word despicable.Pure greed not public health is this agenda's motivation.
The governments of Canada will tell you that most smokers are from the poor and middle classes, this is a flagrant tax imposed on these people.
Our "caring" governments claim that smokers are all wretched addicts and raising tobacco taxes is a form of "tough love" to help smokers quit their dangerous habit.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is a blatant, cash-grab.
Instead of offering free smoking cessation programs to everyone in need, the governments are picking the pockets of the poor, the people they claim are the victims of "big tobacco."
Since the federal provincial governments garner over 70% of the price of any tobacco product via taxation...
Should not these governments be considered the "senior partners" of the tobacco industry?
I laughed when Mr. Collins suggested that the new tobacco tax monies will be used to fight smuggling and the black-market.
It is these governments who have made
black-market-smuggled tobacco, so lucrative in this country.
There will be many more multi-millionaire-billionaires created by the government's money-hungry lust for tobacco industry spoils.
When compared to our governments, "the evil tobacco industry"look like "petty criminals" in comparison.
If every smoker in Canada quit tobacco tomorrow, our governments would cry...
Then they would begin taxing anything and everything to make up for their lost tobacco tax revenues.
The fact is, smokers are very cost-effective in this society.
if they really were the financial, medical burden our governments erroneously claims them to be, all tobacco products would have been outlawed and criminalized three decades ago.
Yet another greedy measure, from a heartless government.
391 Clare Ave.
December 13, 2003
AS I watched Prime Minister Paul Martin's induction ceremony yesterday morning, I thought it quite odd that the use of tobacco was involved with the swearing-in ceremony. Since Ottawa has a 100% no-smoking bylaw - no exemptions - shouldn't the PM and the native chief involved in the burning of tobacco be fined? After all, the anti-smoking people claim there is no safe level of second-hand smoke. Quick, someone phone the smoke police. This country has gone stark, raving mad.
August 1, 2003
Printed in The Record Newspaper
This is one of the most absurd, misinformed editorials I have ever read, anywhere. Comparing the Pickton killings to voluntary tobacco consumption is completely inane.
When the misinformed author implores the public to contact their MPs and MPPs to introduce total prohibition on tobacco products she must be joking. The tobacco industry and our government's cut of the business is a multi-billion dollar one.
The same people she begs to save her from the evils and dangers of tobacco are the senior partners of the tobacco industry. Federal and provincial governments reap 75% of the total cost of all tobacco products via over-taxation.
I wonder what she has been smoking. Asking the governments for protection from the ":demon" tobacco is akin to begging a local drug pusher to not sell drugs in the neighbourhood.
I hate to break it to Ms. Lanteigne, but the government has no plans to criminalize tobacco products, just where they can be consumed. That alone is criminal at best. Maybe they could criminalize alcohol too. Booze has destroyed many more lives than tobacco.
February 19, 2003
Printed in Canada.com News
Re: Rand Wakeford: "Barb Tarbox is no hero."
I beg strongly to differ. Barb Tarbox is dying of cancer. Whether her cancer was in fact caused solely by smoking is highly debatable.
Regardless had she been a non-smoker her health woes may have happened later in life regardless of the fact she smokes tobacco.
The woman is dying. She is trying to help the children of today, make an informed choice not to smoke. This goal is truly outstanding and commendable.
Unlike Heather Crowe: anti-smoking's patsy and ETS poster girl, Barb Tarbox is a living example of how smoking can lead to health problems and eventually early deaths in some cases.
I would rather have any child listen to Ms. Tarbox over any anti-smoking, "snake oil" pitchmen. With fake jars of tar and pig lungs injected with oil and molasses. Most children are not stupid enough to believe these anti-smoking phonies, these wonderful people are actually having a reverse effect on children and teens. These anti-smoking people are actually promoting smoking as grown up and cool.
It is a very, virtuous, unselfish undertaking Barb Tarbox has undertaken in the limited time she has left on this planet. For some anti-smoking, freak of nature to denounce the wonderful work of Ms. Tarbox shows the callous anti-tobacco zealots for what they really are. Bullies and control freaks.
If Barb Tarbox prevents even one child from taking up smoking, her life and mission will have been worth the while.
Anti-tobacco and the pharmaceutical industry are big business these days. These groups will use whatever means it takes to secure funding and large financial gains. No lie is to large for these anti-smoking, hate mongers. Hysteria and fear is what their agenda is based upon. How moral or ethical is that?
No matter how well-meaning the guise of the anti-smoking army may seem on the surface, the underlying truth of their true agenda is even more insidious than that of the tobacco companies they claim are "evil."
A word of advice for Rand Wakeford: You are not God, you have no right to judge anyone's lifestyle. If not for many real life heroes who are and were smokers we would be under a reign of fascism. The majority of soldiers in both the world wars were smokers. Including heads of government.
I guess by your twisted logic, these virtuous heroes are really the "agents of Satan." Churchill and F.D.R. were heavy smokers. They are not heroes? Adolf Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker and the "father" of all modern smoking bans. Is he a hero in your eyes?
Please seek mental help.
Many Kudos to Barb Tarbox. A real Canadian heroine!
Letter to the Ottawa Sun.
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: W.H.O.'s on first?
I find it a tad strange that so many Canadian politicians and members
of the media are decrying the World Health Organization's judgement in
regards to the W.H.O.'s position on SARS.
Many of these same "leaders" hang on every word of the W.H.O. when they
promote smoking bans on a world-wide basis.
The fact is the W.H.O. were the ones that perpetrated the second-hand
smoke "is deadly myth" over 18 years ago.
The W.H.O. used this agenda in order to guilt and goad smokers into
quitting for the sake of others.
Even though their own extensive studies could never prove even a minor
health risk could be attributed to tobacco smoke.
They even went as far as to supress their own study findings from the
media and public.
My how things have changed!
Now the Canadian media and governments are claiming the W.H.O.'s
current stance on SARS is "flawed."
Without valid scientific basis.
Does anyone see a similarity here?
It's truly laughable that our governments embrace so many of the
W.H.O.'s agendas without question.
Such as imposed smoking bans in private businesses.
How is the SARS issue any different?
Canadian politicians, health boards and the media now are claiming the
W.H.O.'s judgements are unfounded and based on unsound science.
By the same token, smoking bans like Ottawa's(another W.H.O. global
objective)should be also be revisited.
Such politically correct agendas based under the W.H.O's bastard guise
of "health" should obviously be ignored.
Interestingly enough the W.H.O. did not impose travel bans(SARS)on the
countries of the disease's origin.
This has to make any rational, logical human say"huh?"
The W.H.O. 's flawed science regarding SARS should definitely bring
into question the W.H.O.'s junk science regarding second-hand smoke, as
It's funny how quickly our governments can change their tune when big
money is involved.
This is just, yet more proof that our governments care little about our
health and only about the "bottom line."
Unproven, health hysteria is a wonderful thing when demonizing the
tobacco companies for fun and profit.
It's not the same when there is no "cash cow" to milk and bilk or
billions of dollars.
The SARS scare will have a very negative effect on the entire Canadian
Probably costing our country billions of dollars in tourism revenues
and native Canadians who have been caught up in the W.H.O.'s unfounded
This should teach the people of Canada a valuable lesson...
Never believe a word the W.H.O. says.
Our politicians should take note of this instance, when the W.H.O
attempt to force other unneeded global agendas upon our country.
The W.H.O. ignores real preventable diseases and starvation, while
concentrating most of it's attentions on smoking.
It's time people woke up.
The W.H.O., the U.N. and World Bank are not our friends.
Just say no, to "Big Brother" and his New World Order.
My letter to reformed smoker Laurie Mustard.
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:43 AM
Subject: Re :Heather Crowe
Heather Crowe the former restaurant worker with lung cancer has become the "smoking ban poster girl."
I feel deeply for Mrs.Crowe and anyone else who contracts any form of cancer.
Mrs.Crowe has become a different kind of victim.She is the new patsy for the ant-smoking shills in Canada.In order to promote their smoke-free-social-engineering-agenda, throughout the private hospitality industry.
This is a fear and loathing campaign, to be sure.Nothing more.
There has never been even ONE death that has been scientifically proven to have been caused by second-hand smoke, world-wide.
The assertions made by anti-smoking groups that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure are laughable at best.True, deadly, proven forms of pollution all have safety tolerance levels of tolerance.
Every form of pollution including radioactive substances.
Only second-hand smoke does not?
Why you may ask?
Years ago, the head of the World Health Organization was dismayed that the number of smokers was holding steady in most areas in the world and in other instances actually on the rise.
A new plan of action was conceived.
To make smokers who would not quit for themselves,quit for the sake of others.The agenda was to make smokers believe that their second-hand smoke was injuring others around them.Including their loved ones.
Even though it was never proven at the time or now by solid science, that second-hand smoke was any more than a minor if any form of health risk whatsoever.
A "white lie" for the good of all.
Even the WHO's own huge ETS study found there was little if any risk at all from being exposed to second-hand smoke.
ETS might even had a protective effect on non-smokers, it concluded.
No wonder the WHO tried to suppress the release of their own second-hand smoke study.
Then the WHO released a statement to the press after their study had been released.
Saying, we know second-hand smoke is deadly.Even if our study couldn't prove it.
The study cost millions of dollars.
Another hysterical, fear and loathing campaign under the guise of health that really is based on social engineering, for an unscrupulous goal:MONEY.
The WHO are heavily funded by the big pharmaceutical companies who sell smoking cessation drugs,world-wide.
So much for health and ethics.
The anti-smoking groups that are using the unfortunate Mrs.Crowe in order to strip the rights of private business owners, with in the hospitality industry in Canada also are fuelled by financial considerations, not ethical or moral motives.
Anti-smoking groups make the "evil" tobacco industry look like petty criminals by comparison.
I believe that Mrs.Crowe honestly believes that second-hand smoke has genuinely caused her cancer and will end her life in the near future.
The media, health groups and our governments that continue to allow the sales and who profit greatly from the sale of the killer product tobacco have brainwashed a certain segment of the population to erroneously believe that tobacco is almost the sole cause of every form of cancer in today's society.
The is not only absurd, it is untrue.
Never proven by solid, objective science.
Even if it were true, improved ventilation not smoking prohibition would be the logical solution.
This would also include non-smoking hospitality venues, many of which have poorer air quality than in properly ventilated hospitality businesses that allow smoking.
The bottom line:
No one is forced to patronize or work in a smoke-filled hospitality venue.Work or play somewhere else if you believe the untruthful, unfounded: second-hand smoke, health hysteria.
If you don't like smoking or smoke-free places don't go or work there.Everyone should have a choice in a free country.Especially business owners who wish to allow or disallow smoking, as their market dictates.
Any government that enacts such a ban should lead by example.They should ban the production of all tobacco products and sales within their borders.
They should pay to get every poor smoking addict off the "evil weed."Most of all stop taxing these "poor,wretched addicts" too death.
How can the governments actually claim they are enacting smoking bans within private businesses that they have wrongly redefined as "public places" in the name of their politically correct agenda?
Even though second-hand smoke has never been proven to cause one death ever?
Including the cancer that will eventually end the life of Heather Crowe?
Mrs.Crowe was given an award for contracting cancer in her workplace.Originally the Ontario Worker's Insurance group denied her.Mrs. Crowe had to appeal to be given her disability claim.
Even then, she is a token claim.
In order to champion the enactment of unneeded smoking bans nation-wide.
A threat to local governments that they may be liable for ETS health injury claims, unless they ban all smoking within their areas.
Shouldn't every cancer victim be given an award?
The Canadian Charter Of Rights would agree with that ideal.
Why is Heather so special?
She is tool to promote the anti-smoking agenda.
The anti-smoking groups are ruthless.
They will lie, cheat and manipulate anything and anyone they can.
In order to achieve their ultimate goal..."A smoke-free Utopia."
If second-hand smoke is the danger that the anti-smoking groups and governments claim...
All tobacco products, their sales of and production of...
Should be banned outright.
So should alcohol.
Next up fatty foods.
As long as tobacco remains a legal product that our governments reap huge tax revenues from it's sales.
No matter what misery and death is caused by this product...
Government mandated smoking bans have no place within the private hospitality sector.
When our governments ban tobacco outright and pay for the smoking cessation of all Canadians and not until then...
Will any logical Canadian with common sense believe that smoking bans are about children's, public or worker's health.
If smokers are "helpless victims" why are our governments taxing them to death?
Is this a new form of "tough love?"
No, it's a flagrant cash grab, pure and simple.
If smoking was really a drain on the health-care system the government would have banned it 30 years ago.
Smokers more than pay their share of taxes.
If every smoker in Canada were to quit smoking tomorrow,the government would cry a river and start taxing everything in sight to make up the close to 14 billion dollar shortfall from lost tobacco tax revenues.
I'm no fan of "big tobacco."
I'm even less of a fan of "big government" and "big anti-tobacco."
Some hard facts for you:
Not one person has died from second-hand smoke, world-wide.
Heather Crowe would be the first if this were true.
Pure anti-smoking propoganda.
It's hard to be the first victim if no solid science can prove the cause of illness or death.
It is much more likely that Mrs.Crowe contracted her cancer from a combination of things such as:
Ontario's polluted air, sick building syndrome, auto exhaust, germ viruses, genetics, industrial pollution and pesticides.
There is not even ONE death certificate on this planet that lists ETS as the cause of death.
It is shameful how the media promotes fear and loathing against smokers.
No matter how well meaning your intentions, lying to promote any cause is simply wrong.
When compared to real, proven health hazards and forms of true toxic pollution...
ETS does not amount to a "thimble full of piss" in the huge sea of pollution that we all swim in daily.
"Home of the failed 100% zero tolerance, province-wide smoking ban."