 No Laughs,
Please. This Is Vancouver - 25 May 2001 - Dough
Collins from Vancouver describes a city that has become the heaven of bigots and
do-gooders. Flat, dull, guilty, fearful of authority, the city has become so
"sanitised," all money-making activities have gone elsewhere. "Don't
think you're going to come downtown and party on the street," says a police
constable, and that's enough for the entire city to spend New Year's eve home (feeling
guilty for drinking a bit), while browning its pants in fear uniforms. The triumph of
health & safety is the death of fun, money and joy of living. But Puritanism and joy
of living are antithetic by definition. ' It's the pall of political correctness, aided in no small part by sociologists, the media and other do-gooders. We have become a fun-hating bunch of New Puritans who are afraid to say boo to the politically correct goose; citizens of Wimpland who collapse at the thought of being called "racist" and other bad names.' Collins is so right, and he documents that with many dramatic examples. "Smoking is pleasure for some, which is why, really, no other place in Canada has adopted anti-smoking regulations in the restaurants quite as enthusiastically as we have. The weed-lovers never bothered me, a non-smoker. But they bother the politicians, who are bothered by the pure, and sheep run where barking dogs tell them to run." Well, you know what they say: "Every country has exactly the government it deserves?"...
FALSE INFORMATION
ABOUT PASSIVE SMOKE
|
Estimated
number of cigarettes required to reach TLV SSS = Side Stream Smoke (Worse than
passive smoke, as it is measured by holding the electronic sniffer right on top of the
burning end of a cigarette, thus prior to any environmental dilution) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Skepticism greets smoke study - 18 May 2001 - "Improved ventilation in restaurants can protect non-smokers,
research finds"
Since the study was commissioned by the hospitality industry, it merely rates a back-of-the hand treatment. It doesn't matter that the study, .... which was accepted for publication last Friday by a U.S. scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, found there were no significant differences in air quality between the tobacco-smoke components in the air of the pub and those of similar non-smoking establishment."
In the world of anti-tobacco this is tantatmount to heresy. Only research results from 'completely objective, non biased sources' such as the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit and a Federal Government whose stated policy is 'tobacco reduction' are to be trusted.
In their effort to convince the general public that they are in deadly danger from concentrations of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) so infinitesimally small as to approach ridiculousness , the anti-tobacco 'experts' try to extend their area of expertise. Aside from assigning themselves the qualifications to make personal, informed choice on behalf of other people, they are now hospitality and ventilation industry experts.
What these obsessed people ARE rapidly becoming is laughingstocks.
Anti-tobacco Fails to Stop Honorary Degree -
16 May 2001 - The vindictive, vicious tactics of anti-tobacco fanatics
were recently directed toward retired Simon Fraser University (SFU) scientist, Professor
Theodore Sterling. Efforts were made to prevent an honorary degree
from being bestowed upon him because of
tobacco funding for some of his research that produced results not favourable to the
smokefree agenda. The SCIENCE behind the conclusions wasn't questioned - unlike the infamous EPA '92
Report on Passive Smoking.
Congratulations to SFU President Michael Stevenson for standing firm behind the decision to honor Professor Sterling as originally planned - and congratulations to Professor Sterling for a preferment well deserved.
One of the main assertions of anti-smoking crusaders is that "there is no argument" to the claims they make. Attempts such as this are used to suppress evidence not in lock-step with the agenda; anything other than impugning the integrity of scientists whose funding they don't approve of seems to be beyond their capability.
When it comes to the issue of funding, these people should take a long, hard look at themselves. The World Health Organization (WHO) has aligned itself with pharmaceutical companies in the attempt to save the world from the 'tobacco epidemic'. ('epidemics' are voluntary?) Evidently we're suppose to overlook the obvious conflict of interest involved in this alignment with an industry in the business of selling smoking cessation products to 'customers' they manage to produce.
Hypocrisy has not only taken up residence in this ivory tower, it appears to have bought the place.
Incinerate all these anti-smoking laws - 05 May 2001 - The grand hoax is starting to unravel. The truth always does manage
to surface - it's just a matter of time.
Since the USA Environmental Protection Agency Report on 'passive smoking' (1992) was issued, anti-smoking proponents have been stridently calling for public smoking bans because "there is no argument" that secondhand smoke is dangerous. The fact that this Report was vacated by a court of law in July 1998 has been carefully suppressed by these agenda-driven propagandists, and they've continued to use it to support their demands.
"Contrary to the conventional wisdom among public health activists, and despite the tens of millions spent in the past decade on propaganda campaigns to educate the public, there really is very little scientific evidence second-hand smoke is harmful; noxious and obnoxious, maybe, but not harmful."
To achieve the smokefree mission, it is not necessary that there actually be any dangers, only that the public believe there is. When a goal can't be reached without the use of deception and manipulation, including corruption of the rule of law and censuring scientists whose work does not support their agenda - it does not deserve to be 'attained', no matter how deeply held the convictions of its proponents.
The legacy of this particular methodology is an increasing public distrust of health authorities, and deep suspicion of what any 'new study' reveals. The repercussions of politicizing science to promote an ideology are starting to materialize.
Smoking bylaw fun is just beginning - Edmonton, Alberta - 03 May 2001 - "Edmonton's newly enacted smoking bylaw is a classic
example of what happens when a government gets involved in something it shouldn't."
As this article points out, the ban IS NOT due to public outcry and demand. It's been implemented at the insistence of those who have determined that they know what's best for everyone. An excellent 1998 article by Mark Schiller, MD of the Pacific Research Institute sums up what's going on. One of the effects of the ETS propaganda being disseminated is noted in Government Smokescreen -
"the elite deciding how everyone should live."
Tobacco Company Sets Up Smoker Tent - 01 May 2001 - ``Being nice to smokers is unethical?"
In today's anti-smoking hysteria-driven society, that question is rhetorical. Congratulations to Imperial Tobacco for recognizing a customer need - and responding to it.
Actually, the expense for this accommodation
should be born by the government who makes more from the sale of this legal product than the manufacturers themselves.
Ottawa Business Owners to Sue - 27 April
2001 - Anti-smoking vote hasty and farcical - Railroading through the 100% ban, without even a
believable pretense of public consultation threatens to produce yet another legal battle.
".... this bylaw was going to pass long before it came to council. Everything about its political passage has smacked of a well-orchestrated dog-and-pony show."
"This was a fait accompli long before it came before council," says Don Cogan, owner of Whispers Restaurant. "We were never listened to and that was obvious all along. We were belittled every time we went to City Hall."
These smokefree fanatics are so enmeshed in their delusions of grandeur and superiority that even a façade of courtesy in listening to those in opposition is not considered necessary. Dissent has never been welcome on this issue since a direct challenge to the scientific evidence underlying this type of bylaw couldn't stand up to scrutiny .
Righteous zealotry, complete with
disinformation and manipulation - what a 'superb' historical record for the turn of the
century.
Prohibition in Ottawa - 26 April 2001 - Ottawa enacts toughest anti-smoking bylaw
in nation - "The Ottawa bylaw,
which goes into effect Aug. 1, forces smokers to light up only at home or outdoors. "
No exemptions.
This slavery to healthism has generated some jobs; it's doubtful that the public will have any use for anyone reduced to having to earn their living this way.
"Director of bylaw services Susan
Jones said there will be eight bylaw officers on smoking patrol each day, and about 60
will be trained in the bylaw's enforcement.
Bylaw officers in other cities have reported
being spat on, sworn at, beaten up, and locked into buildings. Ms. Jones said her staff
will work with police if necessary."
Welcome to the police state of the nation's capital. For just one of the disgusting consequences to this type of zealotism, read the article below.
Senior fighting smoking ban Ottawa, Ontario - 26 April 2001 - "At
the age of 87 years, nearly blind and getting around with a walker, Josephine Brown
doesn't take too kindly to city councillors telling her she can't smoke in her own home.
"
This lady has the misfortune to live in a seniors' residence caught up in this insanity. Those obsessed with imposing their anti-smoking 'mission' on the world have never been too concerned with how the elderly are affected by their fanaticism.
"Making exceptions weakens the premise of health protection the bylaw was built on. And since retirement homes are a business -- and council has vowed to treat all businesses equally -- allowing separately ventilated smoking rooms would give an edge to companies that can afford them." (emphasis added)
Of course, who cares about these seniors? They can be sacrificed, and considered disposable to the glory of the grand smokefree mission for the greater 'good' of all.
It's difficult to envision how this war on smokers can get any more disgusting. We don't have to read history books to learn about fascism - we're living it.
'Enforcing' a convoluted smoking ban Edmonton, Alberta - 25 April 2001 - Original post: 18 March 2001 - Edmonton's
new smoking bylaw requires 'public
education', $30,000 worth. Apparently, real efforts at enforcement aren't on the agenda;
proponents will be relying on "compliance".
Restaurant owners must decide if they want smoking or minors in their establishments. Anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed in places that permit smoking. Supposedly, suspected minors will have to produce ID before entering local eateries where puffing is going on. Those who knows teens well understand right away that this has given them a whole new game to play in rule-flaunting.
Finding ways to leap through loopholes
» "There's a huge grey area in this
new smoking law as it applies to restaurants with liquor licences. Essentially there's
nothing under the new May 2 bylaw to stop a restaurant with a liquor licence from
declaring half of its space as a full-fledged bar where patrons can smoke and order food
to boot.
» The other half of the operation could
still be a restaurant (fully accessible to kids) where smoking isn't allowed.
» When I raised this loophole with a city
official he said inspectors would indeed have to rule whether a smoking/drinking area
"looked" enough like a bar."
This probably means a 'study' will have to be commissioned to redefine the meaning of the word 'bar' as it applies to the hospitality industry. There is absolutely no doubt that the 'study' will be taxpayer funded and headed by freeloading politically correct types. It comes under the title "Job Creation in the 21st Century".
Clearing the air - A 'marathon battle' in Ottawa - 10 April 2001 - It looks as though anti-smoking ideology is poised to overcome
common sense, "Provided the complete Ottawa city council approves it, a full, 100%
smoking ban will be in effect in all public places starting Aug. 1 -- including bars and
restaurants -- after the city's health committee endorsed the plan early this morning by a
vote of 7-2."
As this bylaw is to based on the alleged 'dangers' of secondhand smoke, entirely opinion - NOT fact, it looks like we have a new quasi-religion in the making. It isn't necessary that there actually be any evidence to support what smokefree proponents say, only that people 'believe' it - an article of faith.
Federal Government to raise tobacco tax -
Smokes to rise $4 a carton - 05 April 2001 - This is the thanks smokers in eastern Canada get for voting Liberal
in the last election.
"Say hello to higher cigarette taxes at home and goodbye to duty-free smokes." .... "The tax hike will be shared equally with the provinces and will apply in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I., which moved in tandem with the feds in 1994 to lower cigarette taxes by almost $20 a carton to stem contraband."
The money will be used for anti-smoking
advertising and programs.
The words to describe this 'end use' were best
expressed by a former USA President:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions
of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and
tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
Heat turned up on butt runners - "Customs officers are targeting cross-border
cigarette smugglers as Ottawa prepares to increase taxes on butts." We'll see
what happens.........
Public lines up to have say on smoke ban - Ottawa, Ontario - 05 April 2001 - Here we go again - another all out, no accommodation, ban proposal.
Citizens divided, peoples' lives upset, businesses disrupted,nothing bothers these zealotsin their pursuit of a smokefree world.
"The sweeping bylaw proposes a straightforward ban on smoking in all public places and workplaces in the City of Ottawa, effective Aug. 1. Bylaw officers would only issue warnings for the first month; after that, businesses and customers would face fines of $205 for a first offence."
A dedicated 'smoke-police' patrol with 8 members, and $800,000, will provide enforcement in what threatens to become truly the police state of the nation's capital. With all this 'effort', can anyone explain why tobacco is still a LEGAL product? (for the answer, see the article above)
With this type of PROHIBITION mentality, perhaps Ottawa should ban the sale of the product within its boundaries - and forego any revenue produced by it. Now that would really be a show of devotion to the 'goal' of a smokefree society.
Smoking gun is moral indecisiveness - 04 April 2001 - "The anti-smoking puritans have now descended in full force
upon Alberta, demanding new curbs against the filthy habit, new educational efforts among
children, and above all new legislation to save us from the perils of "second-hand
smoke," perils which, incidentally, have never been established
medically."
In the absence of any valid scientific proof regarding the 'dangers' of secondhand smoke, this entire issue has taken on a religious aspect. It's become an article of faith, unquestioned belief in the anti-smoking ideology. Without this, it becomes simply a matter of group of people taking it upon themselves to mind the the business of others because they believe they know what's best for everyone.
Of course there's also the financial rewards that benefit paid anti-smoking lobbyists to consider as well.
Should laws be based on fraud in the belief that the 'goal' justifies public deception? If so, the war on fat and 'non scents' is going to get very interesting.
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." - Albert Camus (1913-1960)
"Home Invasion" anti-smoking ads - Ontario - 22 March 2001 - Public
health now presumes to cross the private doorstep of the home. Ads exhorting hosts to tell
their guests who smoke to "take it outside" are hitting the airwaves in Toronto
and Hamilton.
People who have been friends for decades, without any problems encountered by the habit of smoking, are now expected to place censorship and intolerance on those relationships at the behest of anti-smoking authoritarians. Public health proposes to become the 'social director', an uninvited guest in private homes.
Personal relationships in this day and age are difficult enough without adding the burden of advancing an idealogy on them. The only outcome of this intrusion will be more divisiveness and social unrest.
Did anyone really think these zealots would stop at trying to ban smoking in private business establishments? Southern Ontarians should tell these intruders unequivocally that trespassing on their homes is not permitted. In case these 'officials' aren't aware, for social occasions you need an invitation to enter someone's private residence.
"Am I worried? Destined to become a social outcast, thanks to this ad campaign? Happily, my friends know how to think for themselves. And, as even my non-smoking friends will tell you, the smokers are always more fun at parties."
Not only that, but good friends are hard to find - and much more important than the aspirations of these social engineers disguised as 'public health'.
Outdoor smoking ban - Winnipeg Stadium - 01 March 2001 - Citing "complaints from fans" and a survey of 5,000 season ticket holders, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Football Club has decreed that smoking will be banned in Winnipeg Stadium's outdoor seats during upcoming season games.
The President of FORCES Manitoba, Warren Klass, has written an Op-Ed with some good suggestions on how to retaliate for this 'sell out' to political correctness on the part of the Bombers' management.
Considering that ticket sales of between 27-28,000 are needed each game to break even, we hope they plan on hiking season ticket prices accordingly. When you single out and alienate a section of fans, you can hardly expect loyalty and game attendance; the ensuing shortfall might as well be picked up by those whose 'preferences' were accommodated.
Brainwashing by anti-tobacco has helped produce a society noteworthy only for its intolerance. Perhaps this football club would like to check into how many people resent having to 'suffer' sitting next to:
- fragrance wearers (after shave, perfume, hairspray/gel... you could get 'high' from what some of your fellow seat mates consider an improvement over Body Odour)
- alcohol drinkers (nothing like a drunk to add off field 'entertainment')
- fat people (ever resented sharing part of the seat you paid for with someone else's 'cheek')
- loudmouths (running commentary and second guessing the quarterback is unacceptably annoying)
When this social engineering experiment fails, and it will, it's to be hoped that those who have knowingly lied 'for the cause' are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
'Enforcing' a convoluted smoking
ban Edmonton, Alberta - 18 March 2001 - Edmonton's new smoking bylaw requires 'public education', $30,000 worth. Apparently,
real efforts at enforcement aren't on the agenda; proponents will be relying on
"compliance".
Restaurant owners must decide if they want smoking or minors in their establishments. Anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed in places that permit smoking. Supposedly, suspected minors will have to produce ID before entering local eateries where puffing is going on. Those who knows teens well understand right away that this has given them a whole new game to play in rule-flaunting.
There are certain exemptions however
".. say a restaurateur with a liquor
licence divides his tables into two large groups and treats one side as a bar with smoking
and the other as a restaurant?
That could be legal, officials admit, as long
as it's clear from the decor that one side is indeed a bar and the other is a restaurant.
So the city will have to send out decor cops
to make the call? Scary."
The bizarre world of anti-smoking continues
to descend to new levels.
WCB 'Amended' Smoking Ban - 08 March 2001 - Still beating the dead horse of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
'dangers', the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) has decreed an effective
date of 10 September 2001 for the hospitality and long-term care residential industries to
comply with the new regulations.
"Designated smoking areas include safe, outdoor locations and separately ventilated indoor smoking rooms that workers must not enter except in an emergency, where there is a requirement to investigate for illegal activity, or until the smoke has been effectively removed."
Obviously, any questions and no amount of scientific evidence that counter the Smoke Free agenda have made any difference to these autocrats. The 11th Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Smoke" must be advanced against the face of evidence to the contrary and common sense.
"A number of well-recognised, international agencies have designated environmental tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. Several international governmental agencies have also concluded that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease."
Is that so? Well these "well-recognised, international agencies" as well as "international governmental agencies" may designate and conclude to their hearts' content. What they put out for public consumption does not agree with their own research findings.
- World Health Organization - International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) Analysis
- Heart Risk, 'Monica Study' - World Health
- The Environmental Protection Agency ETS FRAUD
- *Toxic Toxicology-Placing Scientific Credibility At Risk
(*note: this is a .pdf, Acrobat Reader file click here to get a free Acrobat Reader download if you don't already have it.)
Will this amended ban work? No. It won't work simply because it's based on dishonesty and is certainly not the will of 'the people'. It's the will of a group of elitists who are determined to impose their vision of what should be socially acceptable on everyone else.
Is it any wonder why the public has lost
faith in institutions long accorded unquestioned trust? Is it any wonder why "our
children" have no respect for those who propose to lead when they present this kind
of example?
Outdoor smoking
ban - Winnipeg Stadium - 01
March 2001 - Citing "complaints from
fans" and a survey of 5,000 season ticket holders, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Football
Club has decreed that smoking will be banned in Winnipeg Stadium's outdoor seats during
upcoming season games.
The President of FORCES Manitoba, Warren Klass, has written an Op-Ed with some good suggestions on how to retaliate for this 'sell out' to political correctness on the part of the Bombers' management.
Considering that ticket sales of between 27-28,000 are needed each game to break even, we hope they plan on hiking season ticket prices accordingly. When you single out and alienate a section of fans, you can hardly expect loyalty and game attendance; the ensuing shortfall might as well be picked up by those whose 'preferences' were accommodated.
Brainwashing by anti-tobacco has helped produce a society noteworthy only for its intolerance. Perhaps this football club would like to check into how many people resent having to 'suffer' sitting next to:
- fragrance wearers (after shave, perfume, hairspray/gel... you could get 'high' from what some of your fellow seat mates consider an improvement over Body Odour)
- alcohol drinkers (nothing like a drunk to add off field 'entertainment')
- fat people (ever resented sharing part of the seat you paid for with someone else's 'cheek')
- loudmouths (running commentary and second guessing the quarterback is unacceptably annoying)
Bowing to anti-tobacco's slant on how society should be run will have repercussions. Let the ticket office help the Bombers figure that out.