|
Nova Scotia hits teen smokers
hard
26 April 2002
"The
act introduced Friday will give police the power to confiscate tobacco from
teens, but not to charge them with an offence."
"If youths can't purchase tobacco, they shouldn't
be allowed to possess it," Justice Minister Michael Baker notes. "Possession
will not be an offence, however. Young people who smoke aren't criminals,
they're victims of an industry."
Victims of an industry? Oh, of
course - we've all seen them being restrained and made to light up against
their will.
If there's any 'victimizing'
involved it can be laid right on the doorstep of inept theoreticians and
opportunistic politicians. The thought to be inculcated is that everyone's a
victim - we're all sick and the government must heal us.
(requires
Adobe Acrobat Reader - free download) It's
never too early to get The Children™ thinking that way.
Suspicion of the 'possession of
tobacco' now makes it OK for these young people to be accosted and harassed,
offering another reason for resentment of authority figures. That their parents
might disagree with the focus on this, and have bigger things to worry about
their children getting into, means nothing. Servicing the anti-tobacco industry
is obviously far more important than recognizing parental authority.
 The
'forbidden fruit' has just become more tantalizing with the addition of another
'rule' to circumvent. Looks like the kids have been surfeited with one-sided
'for your own good' lectures and are determined to find out for themselves what
the hullabaloo is all about. Any underage smokers these days are thanks to
anti-smoking efforts; that industry is the only 'advertiser' stimulating
interest and curiosity.
'Not going to stop me' - Winnipeg
Smokers fuming
but hike will deter few
23 April
2002
"It's a good deterrent for stopping kids from
smoking, but the government is going to have to find a way to compensate the
loss of tax money from people who quit," ..... The tax hike on cigarettes is
expected to bring in an estimated $45 million in revenue each year."
Stop kids from smoking because of
the cost? Do you really think government-determined 'underage smokers' these
days give a damn about the $s involved? Take a look at their feet; $200+
footwear tells you that money isn't their problem. The biggest obstacle is a
whole new set of pseudo-parents; paid anti-smokers. The kids know these
paycheque driven hack$ don't have a vested interest in their personal future.
At least when REAL parents 'nag' they might be able to put it down to
love. A paid employee, along with attempting to justify their existence, is
simply another entity trying to exercise control.
And if/when due to demand the
'health' obsession venom directed against tobacco succeeds in producing a
thriving blackmarket, and a whole new class of criminal, what consumer's pocket
will be picked next? Fast Food? Alcohol? Maybe the 'caring' professionals will
get really creative - how about a Couch Potato Tax? It won't be labelled
anything so crass of course. Probably something like an 'Inactivity Levy" will
wend its way into the revenue producing scheme of things.
It's absolutely essential that
people who leech their living off the back of the taxpayer be accommodated. No
matter how far fetched or ridiculous the theory, those who are simply content
to enjoy life for as long as it's available to them, in a manner that's
informed and comfortable, are to be eliminated or corrected!
Until these human, arbitrarily
appointed, missionaries of 'life everlasting' come up with an infallible
antidote to death (and an acceptable way of 'living' with the result) they
might try finding a more suitable means of employment. The entire world
population IS NOT simply laboratory material made available for
expedient political purposes. Breathing in.... and out .... for as long as
possible just isn't enough.
People smoke; they find pleasure
in it. Tobacco taxes generate revenue for 'social programs' (and hopefully
infrastructure); death is the natural conclusion to all life. The
physical-health obsessed among us would argue that we should tax all
'potential-risk' enjoyment out of it; merely existing is enough. Individual
preference no longer exists and has no importance. We are all "economic units"
whose sole reason for taking up space on this earth is to promulgate the
beliefs held by our 'betters'. As so many people are saying these days, "If
that's 'life', take it and shove it ..... "
Actually, the government would
prefer that the 'little people' (who might need the much vaunted social
programs) ceased to exist shortly before their 65th birthday; that would save
so much time and trouble, as well as $s. Visit any subsidized old peoples'
homes lately? Do you really want to 'get there'? Governments are betwixted and
between; 'kill' people off happy and take what you can get out of 'em, or
provide support until you have to declare bankrupt$y?
The Confederacy Of The
Supercilious - Ottawa
17 April 2002
"Unless The Confederacy Of The Supercilious finds
a way to strangle them even more by adding outdoor patios to the asinine
non-smoking bylaw, the owners of hurting bars, pubs, and restaurants are
looking for the warm weather to sustain their right to stay in business."
No doubt the scorched earth policy
of 'smokefree' ideologists will reach out to 'embrace' these patios as well.
Armed with quickly manufactured studies citing the horrendous adverse health
effects of those exposed to ETS in outdoor patios, the battle cry of 'no known
safe level' will constantly be brayed and massive advertising campaigns
undertaken.
Failing that, The Children™
once again will be trotted out. They must be protected from the sight of anyone
enjoying themselves while using a tobacco product. Beleaguered hospitality
owners might consider offering to erect 15 foot high fences (with no knotholes)
around their patios to provide the necessary 'child protection', but we know
that wouldn't satisfy the true anti-smoking zealot.
The morality engineers want you to believe their
non-smoking bylaw was the result of a huge citizen concern; that there's
"overwhelming" public support of the total ban. .... a public survey (conducted
by Health Officer Dr. Cushman) [showed] ... respondents -- 85% of whom, by the
way, were non-smokers -- 70% said they'd support the designated, ventilated
rooms for smokers in bars and pubs; 72% for restaurants; 75% for bingo halls,
and only 58% wanted a total smoking ban for bars and pubs."
And what did Dr. Cushman report to
Council? "It would appear that there is a clear majority of
respondents who would be supportive of a 100% smoke-free bylaw."
If there was only one
restaurant/bar in existence which allowed smoking, and it was on a moutain top
in Tibet accessible only by dirigible - the anti-smoking faction would proclaim
it to be a worldwide threat and take immediate steps to close it down. These
elitists have arbitrarily issued the 11th Commandment, Thou SHALT NOT Smoke
- anywhere.
Gotta sell more booze in order to
smoke! - Edmonton
11 April 2002
Humpty's Family Restaurant went
non smoking last May. At the end of the Summer,
"... business at
one of his two restaurants was down a whopping 38%. "The non-smoking bylaw saw
our sales volume drop at one location by as much as $32,000 a month..."
So what did the owner do? He
spent,
".....$50,000 to set up lounges at both restaurants
complete with walls and separate ventilation systems." (No one under 18 admitted.)
 The customers
loved it, and it was business as usual. BUT, the smoke cops had a differing
opinion. They observed that more food than alcohol was being sold in those
lounges and that made them 'illegal restaurants'. The owner was given the
following choices:
"He could ban smoking entirely. He could apply
for permission to have an adults-only smoking restaurant or he could begin
pushing the sale of alcohol a whole lot harder until booze sales made up more
than 50% of the lounge's business."
The history books are going to
have a 'field day' with this episodic lapse into madness. What a sad reflection
on our society at the turn of the century.
There was a time when burning
'witches' at the stake was considered a great idea .......
(it was for the 'good' of all)
Beat 'em in the alley -
Winnipeg
(Bowling) Lanes threaten tax revolt over butt
bylaw
11 April 2002
Here's more proof of how 'good'
smoking bans are for business. Bowling alley owners say they've lost tens of
thousands of dollars since Winnipeg brought in a ban on January 01st. Now
they're threatening to withhold taxes to compensate for their
losses.
 Having requests to set up smoking sections
ignored by the City, these business operators don't feel they have any other
recourse.
Social engineers drive away
customers - no loss to them - and continue to dig deep into the pockets of
those businesses they've crippled. The forfeiture of the instigators' salaries
in favour of these struggling owners would help. After all, why shouldn't those
who think bans are such a great idea put THEIR money where their mouth
is?
Clubbing the
smokers
07 April 2002
The situation in Ottawa is the
same as any area where smoking bans are imposed for social engineering
purposes, not by popular demand. Hospitality pays the price.
 "Since August last year, 16
establishments, mostly bars and a few restaurants, have closed their doors. I
would venture to say more than 100 jobs have been lost, not to mention the
owners' investments, savings and pride."
Obviously, there are those whose salaries are
funded by the taxpayer who don't concern themselves with the reality that
applies to others.
When told that 2 more pubs had closed last week
because of the smoking ban, a Councilor retorted that it was "no net
loss" as brand new pubs and restaurants were "springing" up.
However, these new places appear to be a little difficult to locate.
"So much money, time and energy have been spent promoting,
enforcing and defending a bylaw, that not only has driven honest, hardworking
entrepreneurs into financial ruin, but it has done zilch to improve our health.
If anything, it has caused more stress and anxiety to those left struggling to
make a living for themselves and their families. But let's face it, most people
just don't care enough to get involved."
This stopped being about 'health' quite some
time ago. It's become an exercise in behaviour modification - and control. With
the proclamation of the
obesity epidemic, there's no doubt the next
'targets' have selected for correction.
For those who "don't care enough to get
involved" on this issue, we hope they will enjoy living their lives as
determined for them by elitists. Making decisions and choices won't be
'problems' they'll have to worry about.
Ottawa appeals native tax-free
judgment
Decision would encourage cigarette, alcohol
smuggling, government says
04 April
2002
Of course, tear up another Treaty.
When it comes to the social engineering going on with absolute government
sanction, honour flew out the door along with truth quite some time ago. Our
First Nation people have long known what to expect.
"The ruling, handed down last month by Federal
Court of Canada Justice Douglas Campbell, gave tax exemptions to about 30,000
Cree and Dene people, based on their ancestors' understanding of Crown promises
when they signed Treaty 8 in 1899."
The major concern is that
"The revenues from federal excise taxes and excise duties could be
significantly reduced if Treaty 8 beneficiaries who are tax exempt undertake
the importation or production of goods subject to excise tax and excise
duties," Obviously the government detests even the
suggestion of competition in the 'handling' of products they deem to have
significant revenue producing ability to fill federal coffers - and the loss of
control over how citizens choose to acquire them.
"Senior federal officials warn the ruling granting
tax-free status would encourage smuggling and disrupt Canada's marketplace and
borders by allowing tens of thousands of aboriginals to use their new status to
undercut government and business."
The fact that punitive,
confiscatory taxation applied to products that have popular demand is the basis
for any 'smuggling' that might result seems to escape their attention. A
realistic approach on their part to what 'Joe/Josie Taxpayer' want would go a
long way in eliminating the problem. Or does the government consider a quarter
of the taxpaying electorate (tobacco consumers) too stupid to figure out what
they want for themselves?
Good for Justice Campbell on
making the initial ruling; let's hope the federal government is made to realize
and accept the rights of another 'Nation' within our borders.
LETTER TO THE CANADIAN MINISTER OF
HEALTH, THE HON. ANNE McLELLAN
by
former anti-tobacco insider, Luc Martial
-
AN INSIDER’S ACCOUNT OF
TOBACCO CONTROL IN CANADA
-
THE LIGHT AND MILD
DECEPTION
04 April
2002
Compliments of
Forces
International we get a look at a request
for information,
"...about project funding from the department
and specifically under the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS). Recognizing
that several external groups/professionals will likely be receiving
project/program funding under FTCS over the next 5 years, I was wondering how
others like myself, independent professionals or even industry stakeholders
would go about applying for funding from Health Canada. In the past, funding to
organizations has mostly been discretionary and exclusionary...."
With $480 million budgeted for
this issue, surely a part of that belongs to stakeholders other than the
anti-tobacco industry. Congratulations to Mr. Martial for bringing this to the
new Health Minister's attention; let's see if she takes it under advisement and
provides some answers.
The 'Rules' in British
Columbia
01 April 2002
This correspondence exchange
between and interested inquirer and the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) shows
that this Province is in for some very "interesting times".
 Between the recent
Government and WCB regulations and the existing bylaws in cities and
municipalities, straightening out the resulting confusion is going to take the
wisdom of Solomon.
This is presented in 3 parts - be
sure to click the link at the bottom of each page.
Alberta rejects smoking
ban
26 March 2002
"Klein spurns smoking ban - Premier rejects
need to interfere in businesses"
We suppose that when you're raking
in $32.00 a carton provincial sales tax on the product - you're pretty well
obliged to provide some place for folks to use it.
With the highest provincial sales
tax in Canada, Alberta should be rolling out the red carpet and providing
crystal ashtrays for consumers. Pretty tough to balance the budget without 'em.
Oh yes - 'lest we forget', this is
all about 'health'.
|
