FORCES CANADA

Wear it with pride - you are not alone.

Chronology of a smoking ban
Waterloo, Ontario

A well researched history of the advancement of the anti-smoking agenda - interesting insights

Anti-smoking laws celebrated with pub crawl - Ottawa
02 August 2001

Heralding the demise of freedom of choice and imposition of lockstep obedience to the smokefree ideology,

"The Ottawa Council on Smoking and Health celebrated new anti-smoking laws, dubbed by supporters and opponents alike as the strictest in Canada, with a pub crawl last night."

No doubt this is the first and last time these fanatics deign to cross the doorstep of these venues and grace the owners with their presence. Let's see how much repeat business their 'celebration' occasions.

"Bar owners believe the ban will drive away business and are pinning their hopes on a court case due to be heard Aug. 27 and 28 in Ottawa."

Of course the anti-smoking brigade will babble about 'studies' that 'prove' smoking bans are good for business. They'll have a tough time convincing the 30 bars that have closed in Waterloo since a ban was implemented there. So silly of them to be guided by their own bottom lines when the anti-smoking industry tells them how well they're doing. Interesting to see The Board of Health in Weymouth, Massachusetts caught short when asked to back up what they say.

"Mr. Munter, chairman of the city's health, recreation and social services committee, said about 100 nonsmokers a year in Ottawa die from the consequences of inhaling second-hand smoke."

Anyone ask this fellow for verification of that statement? Hard, validated, scientific evidence. Is he able to produce death certificates attesting to the cause? In serving the smokefree agenda, it seems you can say anything to promote fear and hysteria without reprisal - for now.

DOUBLESPEAK - Ontario
01 August 2001

Anti-smokers just can't get their stories straight. In an effort to convince Bruce County, Ontario to follow the 'example' of a 100% ban in the Waterloo Region, environmental health director Brian Hatton is quoted as saying:

"...Waterloo Region's smoking ban has not hurt business and in some cases has drawn more patrons."
Smoking ban proposal heats up

BUT - in another article, we're informed that:

Region seeks grant to study impact of smoking ban
"Environmental health director Brian Hatton said the money would come from Health Canada to study the economics and other issues surrounding the region's bylaw, which prohibits smoking in all indoor public places."

So, armed with nothing more than wishful thinking that Waterloo Region's smoking ban "has not hurt business" another area is exhorted to jeopardize the livelihoods and jobs of its residents, and create social discord. How typically anti-smoking.

No economic impact? Have a look at how the statewide ban has affected the California hospitality industry. Logic: order any business to turn away nearly 25% of its potential customers, and you can't avoid economic repercussions. Perhaps the anti-smoking industry would be prepared to make up the $hortfall to business owners who are impacted. After all, that industry is the only one with a fat wallet on this issue.

The smokers tried to warn us
26 July 2001

"Once they've taxed us and censured us and chased us outside the building into the weather and limited us in public and called us stupid in private and made us look at their awful packages and taxed us some more, who will they come after next?" the smokers asked, and now the answer's coming in: ....... "

A FAT TAX!

Step right up ladies and gentlemen. Lay your lifestyle and preferences on the table for scrutiny and approval by the non elected health fanatics. You have a duty to be healthy and extend your existence by their rules whether you like it or not. Just breathing in and out not good enough for you? Too bad. Canadians are to live a safe, predictable, risk and choice free 'life', and if they won't listen to the attempts to educate them into this utopia, the government will be pressed to tax them into the corral.

Listen........ can you hear the distant rumble of the exercise police warming up?

These zealots might call it 'life' - but it sure isn't living! For those who would find existing under health rules a fair bargain in hopes of achieving an 'optimum' lifespan - what's stopping you? Does the entire population have to adopt your values - and share the misery with you?

Winnipeg - The Children™ to be protected from the sight of public smoking
19 July 2001

Warren Klass, President of FORCES Manitoba comments on the bylaw due for implementation in Winnipeg January 2002:

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Mifflin, 1943, Page 403

"Perhaps I missed something in the coverage of the whole smoking debate - like one iota of anything remotely approaching evidence on second-hand smoke supposed harm. Most of the media has gone out of its way to suppress the voluminous archive of evidence on the harmlessness of second-hand smoke, while giving an open forum to those who want to spread a new "Blood Libel". (restaurant smoking bans were originally Hitler's idea, and initially applied only to Jewish owned restaurants).

The proponents of the Winnipeg ban cite Vancouver and Toronto (the latter went into effect a month or so ago). It's so great for business that last year the B.C.Supreme Court threw it out, among other reasons because the effect on B.C.business was devastating. The B.C.Supreme Court cited the loss of 724 jobs, 8 businesses, and millions in lost revenue after 3 months.

Columnist Kerry Diotte has written endless articles for the Edmonton Sun Newspaper detailing the losses suffered by the hospitality industry there since a similar for "The Children™" ban was enacted.

It's so great for business that restaurant owners in Kitchener-Waterloo have sued for millions in lost revenue. It's so great for business that courts in both Princeton, New Jersey, and Montgomery County, Maryland (a suburb of Washington.D.C) recently threw out their respective bans after suffering a 30-40% loss in business.

Acceptance and compliance in California is so complete that dedicated smoke cops have been employed to slither around looking for the newly minted criminals who dare to light up where it is 'verboten'. (yes, tobacco is legally sold in that State, and they continue to sweep the tax revenue into their pocket)

But why let anything as trite and mundane as evidence stand in the way of transparent social engineering? Hitler used the same obvious sophistry in enacting German smoking bans in pursuit of his vision of a safe and sanitary utopia.

Please help stop this. Send a message to the Winnipeg Free Press letters@freepress.mb.ca

Even if the message isn't published, it will be read."

B.C. Government looks at ban deadline extension
15 July 2001

The deadline for hospitality establishments to have 'smoking rooms' in place for customers is 10 September 2001. This is the decree of the Workers Compensation Board in their ruling last March. Cost? Around $16,000. Owners have asked for an extension for compliance since this is a hefty chunk to lay out for an authoritarian directed 'renovation'.

The new Provincial Government has their request under advisement, and this is driving the antis nuts. One group has even threatened a lawsuit if the deadline isn't met. Newspaper ads have been taken out exhorting the public to contact Premier Campbell asking him not to extend the deadline. This is all for WORKER HEALTH so we're told.

There are NO "dangers of environmental tobacco smoke". There is no need for this regulation in the first place - other than to accommodate the smokefree agenda.

Mountains of junkscience have been produced to convince the public otherwise. The most recent Health Canada study mentioned in the article has been hyped to instill fear with awe-inspiring reference to "triple risk" to hospitality workers. A check on the Abstract for this study and the odds/risk ratios, reveals the following

"Although more years of and more intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident."

Somehow, we seem to have made a leap from statistically insignificant association and no clear dose-response relationship to "... risk of lung cancer triple, a new study says." Anything for the 'cause'.

A media report of a $5,000 political donation and the association of an elected MLA to a pub owners' group are supposedly evidence of an evil influence on lobbying efforts in support of the hospitality industry. A look at where the money is coming from to finance the anti-smoking lobby is an eye opener, and doesn't seem to merit scrutiny by the media. It should.

Email Premier Campbell and your Member of the Legislative Assembly Office, 'phone and fax Let them know that forcing businesses out of operation with punitive, unnecessary costs is not acceptable. There is no need, no matter how loud the antis scream, no matter how much convoluted twisted science is presented as 'evidence' for any regulation of this sort in the first place. Granting an extension to owners to try and comply with this nonsense is a very small thing to ask. Getting rid of this piece of social engineering is what we should be doing.

Proposed Winnipeg Bylaw
05 July 2001

"If approved, the bylaw would ban smoking in any indoor place that children can attend, including restaurants, bowling alleys, community clubs and arcades."

What's going on here is blatantly obvious. The Children™ are to be protected from the sight of anyone socially enjoying the use of tobacco. They might grow up and decide to do so themselves from the 'example' set. Forget the secondhand smoke hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, it's the minds of the children the social engineers want to program. How far is it from 'public facilities' to the doorstep of private homes?

This is not about health, it's about behaviour control - and smokefree ideologists recognize no boundaries in pursuit of their 'mission'. By using discredited, court vacated evidence to support their demands, they even consider themselves to be above the law. These people are more dangerous than any tobacco product could ever be, and with their demonstrated lack of ethics should never be allowed to influence other peoples' children.

What's perhaps saddest of all is the loss of trust in a once noble profession. Smokefree fanatics have managed to tarnish science in their zeal, and regaining credibility is going to be no small feat. One day there will be some real information that needs to be paid attention to, but the deception on secondhand smoke will ensure that it's received with skepticism by the public.

Anti-tobacco job creation attempt killed
18 June 2001

"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.

Graphic Cigarette labels

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.

Coverups

This Smokers World site owned by FORCES Canada
[ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites | Random Site | List Sites ]