|
| For
information on what's happening in Ontario,
check: New FORCES Chapter FORCES Toronto in Affiliation with Smokers.com also check Smoking is Cool |
 Freedom of CHOICE Cig Pin |
Protest while you still can, before a law is passed prohibiting that too. |
Listen to FORCES Toronto's two TV appearances. |
Sign up for the United Pro Choice Smokers' Rights Newsletter
|
Anti-tobacco job creation attempt
killed "Bill S-15 was killed by House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken last week in a carefully argued ruling that took up four pages of Hansard." This Bill, sponsored by Senator Colin Kenny, would have placed a tax, euphemistically called a 'levy', at the tobacco manufacturer level to support something called a Anti-Youth Smoking Foundation (Tobacco-free Youth Foundation?). Whatever. The hope was to raise approximately $400 million a year for a Foundation accountable to no one but themselves; not to government, not to the tobacco industry, and most certainly not to the parents of the youth they propose to influence. Since the anti-smoking faction started raising 'tobacco consciousness', the youth smoking rate has skyrocketed. All the suspect 'evidence' on how successful paid programmers are doing in reducing teen smoking is about as good as the 'evidence' supplied on the rest of this issue. "... Mr. Milliken concluded he had a higher duty: to protect the House of Commons from constitutional rape by ambitious senators. In short, he was upholding a tradition that denies funds to the king and his barons without Commons approval." Well at least something is working in this Country. The attempt at job creation to provide a special interest group with the means to build a fiefdom deserves to be quashed. This isn't the 'will of the people', it's the will of arrogant elitists who presume to know how to raise other people's children, foist their ideas on them without permission, and make a buck out of it for themselves at the same time. Tobacco is a legal product; we have laws in this Country prohibiting underage use. Children grow up and ADULTS make choices. That choice should be informed, not the result of one-sided brainwashing. It's a parent's prerogative on how the use of a legal product is presented to their children - not the government's and most certainly not that of proselytizing fanatics. If this so-called 'Foundation' is such a good a idea, let them try public fundraising to support it. Anti-smoking images lose impact: study No question about that. After putting their 'set' together, and filling the requests of other collectors, packages with Canada's graphic labels end up in the trash, if not sent back to the originator - Health Canada. For the Children™ it's important to keep them out of the hands of young people, who seem to get quite a kick out of them. What these "you're gonna die" people don't understand is that we're all aware of that fact; nobody - with medical credentials or without, smoker or non smoker - knows where, when, or how. There are no guarantees. Constantly calling up the grim reaper as the potential consequence of not obeying 'orders', is an unnecessary reminder of the inevitable human condition. It not only is resented, but produces an in-your-face attitude. The information on the risks attributed to the use of tobacco has gone into over-kill, and reiteration comes across as blah...blah....blah. "Having the world's largest health warning will not, in the end, have much of an impact. We've always said that you can't legislate social behaviour and this seems to prove it," said Mr. MacDonald. (director of public affairs for Rothmans Benson and Hedges) And you can't legislate what constitutes 'acceptable risk' for individuals either. If longevity is your priority follow every health measure and safety precaution suggested, but don't presume to put that 'goal' at the top of the list for other people. Some of us place more emphasis on quality of life rather than on how long you can stretch it out for. Lighten up - and give your
'homeless' cigarettes a delightful new Canadian
package. TORONTO tenders contract for cigarettes From the sane, rational, perspective this move has to be absolute evidence of the insanity pervading the anti-smoking 'smokefree' agenda. "...the butts are destined for Toronto's hostel system, where they'll be doled out to guests who are too broke or sick to get their own and would be climbing the walls without them." When you have no home, can't feed yourself, (and the rag on your back is being looked over by a 'perp' a few yards away), the last thing you need is an ivory tower public health official telling you they can 'help': ``The thing that strikes me is that the (board of health) has been lobbied by groups that help people on the street for smoking cessation programs, and this is certainly at odds with that.''(Dr. Sheela Basrur, Toronto/Medical Officer of Health) Dr. Basrur should get a life, preferably her own; and a real job while she's at it. It isn't only "people on the street" that want you to butt out of their lives Dr. Basrur, but regular property owning, taxing paying, revenue producing citizens as well. We wouldn't want your stock portfolio to suffer if you have an 'investment' in that area, but a lot of the antis in the prescription drug dividend/therapy business are becoming all too transparent. "...Riots on the Streets..." "I'd like to see some riots on the streets on this issue," Lubosch told The (Winnipeg, Manitoba) Sun." It's unbelievable that an elected representative, Coun. Mark Lubosch, (North Kildonan) would make a statement like that. Inciting to riot is a federal offense. This man is obviously so obsessed with the smokefree initiative that common sense and decency no longer form part of his thought process. He's become what's termed as 'A Useful Idiot'; so sad that he's bought into the smokefree ideology, and even sadder that he's an elected offical. Both sides of an issue have to be looked into before passing laws. It's recommended that the Councillor peer beyond the 'mantles of authority' who presume to make their OPINION public policy - unless he's prepared to risk some time in jail. We're not dealing with the 'Boy Scouts' on this issue, and Mr. Lubosch should realize that he's only collateral damage when servicing the smokefree agenda - the same as 'expendable' smokers who are using a legal, revenue producing product - with informed choice. In case he's not aware, the Criminal Code of Canada states: R.S., c. C-34, s. 64. R.S., c. C-34, s. 65. There is NO validated scientific evidence to support the 'dangers' of secondhand smoke. To bring in a bylaw on that basis is deceptive and manipulative, and fomenting public hysteria regarding it is criminal. The proposed indoor smoking ban is not a demand of the general public despite the efforts of anti-smoking proponents to make it so. Where's the hue and cry for it - except from anti-smokers waving manufactured 'evidence' to support their demands? No Mr. Lubosch, there won't be a riot; most people have more sense than that and recognize it for what it is - a non issue. They're Coming for the
Kids The Ontario Medical Association's (OMA) official position: "Exposure to second-hand smoke represents a "serious pediatric problem which has been estimated to double the risk of infection and death in children," the provincial physicians' group said. "Tobacco use in the home, resulting in the inhalation of known carcinogens and asthmagens by children, is a form of physical abuse." The exact, validated scientific evidence they use for that assertion isn't given in this article, nor would an inquiry be likely to produce it. On this issue, FACTS don't count - only OPINION carries any weight. The thinking is that if the children don't see it, and are taught that even loved ones who indulge in the use of tobacco aren't 'acceptable', they will be less likely to take up the habit. Like airbrushing tobacco products out of historical photographs and movie sequences - these people are prepared to use the same tactic on grandparents and other family members who don't 'obey'. Specious medical reasons have been used to produce anti-smoking bylaws, and those obsessed with the pursuit of a smokefree society can't be expected to restrain themselves from trespassing on private homes - For The Children™. "At the OMA's urging, all 55 Children Aid's Societies in Ontario now have adopted some guidelines against placing foster children in smokers' homes ........ the Toronto CAS offered free smoking-cessation programs to its foster parents. None enrolled." Congratulations to those foster parents who refuse to be re-programmed. The CAS may well have to look at bringing back those old 'orphanage' institutions for their charges if they keep on interfering with personal choice. Today's social engineers would probably welcome that; perfectly controlled, rigid institutional settings lend themselves faultlessly to experiments of this nature. What's that silly human emotion of love got to do with it? Or scientific truth for that matter. Kitchener/Waterloo reaction to Ottawa anti-smoking
bylaw We have been granted permission to publish a letter from two Kitchener/Waterloo residents to The Ottawa Sun in response to that Newspaper's reporting of univestigated 'facts' supplied by the anti-smoking faction. The writers are living under the smoking ban imposed on their Region in January 2000. Ottawa intends to implement the same ban in August this year. The questions asked in this letter beg answers. They can be asked in any area - of any country - where smoking bans are being considered on the basis of 'protecting people from the dangers of secondhand smoke'. As the writers put it so well, when elected officials ".. tell you that they have a right to protect citizens, they are correct, but only by legitimate means and for legitimate reasons. Otherwise, they will lead you (and us) to believe that the means justifies the end." If deception and manipulation are considered fair practise in achieving a goal, we can dispense with any pretense of preserving ETHICS. If the use of court vacated 'evidence' is allowed to continue to further the smokefree agenda, then it looks like we can do without LAW as well. We encourage readers to ask their own elected representatives the questions posed in this well written letter - and present them with the documented FACTS. If you need a cop, just light
up The absolute inanity of anti-smoking 'laws', and the priority placed on them for enforcement, is humorously put in this article, "Mr. Rock (Health Minister, Canada) is now campaigning to remove the signals "light," "mild" and "medium" from the packaging of cigarettes. The dental porn and knee-slapping impotence jokes, together with the apocalyptic health warnings that now brocade every cigarette pack, are evidently not enough for the cause. Why stop with "light" and "mild"? Why not ban the alphabet? And while he's at it, forbid the purchase of cigarettes unless patrons enter a store and point at them mutely, while standing upside down on a case of beer and reciting an ode to tofu." We're a society that's taken leave of its senses over this healthism anti-smoking hype, and it's supposed to be For the Children™. Well, "the children" are certainly being given a lesson about priorities, "In Toronto.... you may have your car broken
into, much damage done, things stolen, and if you report it, you'll get voice
mail. Leave your name and number. If you're lucky, maybe within five days of
leaving the message -- long after the villains have fled the scene, perhaps the
city -- you may get a callback.............. Ottawa fights
back The hospitality industry in the Ottawa area has a website up and running to combat the 100% ban due to take effect in August. Make sure you vote in their poll. This is the same place that didn't find it necessary to even pretend courtesy or fake interest in what those in opposition had to say prior to bringing in the ban:
"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." Lung cancer: Stigma may worsen patient
prognosis Behave and follow the 'health rules' or be denied treatment. Lifestyle is being penalized in some medical circles and those who think that smokers will be the only target of discrimination better think again. The way things are going with the healthism faction these days, every forkful you eat will be under the microscope before too long. Obesity has already been declared an 'epidemic' and those who don't straighten up and do as they're told can look forward to the same mistreatment as smokers are subjected to. "Irene Noiseau felt the stigma when she was
first diagnosed with lung cancer after 30 years as a smoker. For the profession of medicine to be reduced to judging lifestyle, granting or denying treatment according to approval of what is thought to cause a disease, is frightening. Is treatment of HIV/AIDS patients to be acceptable if the problem was acquired through blood transfusion (innocent) and withheld if it's the result of sexual practices (guilty)? The can of worms opened by this new dictum puts us all at risk - and under the thumb of those who presume to know, and wish to control, how everyone should live their lives. No Laughs, Please. This is
Vancouver Doug 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?"... Skepticism greets smoke study "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 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?) an industry in the business of selling smoking cessation productsEvidently we're suppose to overlook the obvious conflict of interest involved in this alignment with 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 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. |
|
By popular demand, on the left is a link to the 'sick' labels Health Canada and the World Health Organization are experimenting on Canadian citizens with. Links to scientific refutation of the claims made are directly below each of the graphics. Be sure to collect your set. |
LIGHTEN UP and COVER UP Check out all the designs available. |
 This
Smokers World site owned by
FORCES
Canada |
FORCES
CANADA
Offend the anti-smoking despots
in Toronto, and the law in all its ridiculous abundance and insolence is there
before the second drag." 
".... 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."
