"I was in World War Two with the British air force. This is a free country and I helped keep it a free country." 
"I don't approve of some of these zombies, as we call them, telling us what to do at our age" 

We can be eternally grateful that it wasn't the current generation called upon during World War II to keep us 'free'. This generation pales at the thought of secondhand smoke and all those imaginary threats to their safety. It beggars the imagination trying to build a scenario of their reaction to actually having to place life and limb on the line in reality.

"We're talking people that are 89, 90, 93 years old that have to be wheeled out to have a cigarette." 

Not only that, we're also talking about an Albertan winter with below zero temperatures and lots of snow. It appears that this is part of the anti-tobacco 'final solution' to the problem of smokers.

Nice little world we're building folks; there's no room in it for those with respect for elders, compassion, understanding, tolerance, or - sanity. 

Canada's Health Care Future? - 15 February 2001

The situation in Australia, where medical personnel are publicly refusing treatment to smokers, should have Canadians on their guard.

Because of health care denial on "money and moral" grounds a smoker in that Country has already died. Smokers there are a medically targeted group of people who are considered disposable unless they agree to obey. This is the first, but not the last of identifiable groups who will become expendable in order to 'reduce costs' and impose behaviour control.

A revamped medical 'philosophy' holds a chilling prospect for those who don't meet quality of life - or lifestyle - approval. That will be determined by a select group of people who have anointed themselves as arbiters of what is or is not acceptable.

FORCES International has sent a letter to those involved in the Australian medical edict; email addresses of those who received this letter are provided. If you're concerned about the direction Canadian health care may take, please bring this situation to the attention of your Member of Parliament and let them know that this type of 'medicine' is not tolerable. This is the proverbial 'shot across the bows'; it's a warning that should not be ignored.

A post-mortem on the hidden costs (Edmonton, Alberta) - 06 February 2001 - ".... Action on Smoking and Health put out a news release incorrectly claiming Coun. Robert Noce may be in a conflict of interest by voting for a more liberal bylaw. ASH was dead wrong when it claimed a conflict may exist (simply because a co-worker in Noce's law firm had ties to a food industry group opposed to a tougher law). 
There WAS no conflict of interest, yet ASH spokesmen didn't have the decency to apologize for the smear. So much for that group's credibility." 

No, these paid anti-tobacco lobbyists aren't known for their honesty. Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (ANR) laid any question of that to rest in September 1999 when they advised that ".... ANR must put its political credibility ahead of what you (Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health) consider to be your scientific credibility." 

Truth was of course the first casualty in this war on smokers. Everyday, more and more evidence is piling up on the deceit and outright lies integral to the Smoke Free agenda.

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.
 

B.C. fighting dirty in war against tobacco - 04 February 2001 - The regurgitated B.C. lawsuit is gathering national recognition of the disgusting tactics being employed to guarantee a 'win' for this provincial government. The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act passed by the legislature in 1999 gives free reign to epidemiologists to determine by their statistics what those costs will be,

".... statistics don't prove a cause. There may be a lot of storks in the south of France but that has no bearing on the birth rate. Other things than smoking cause illness." 

On January 24th the tobacco manufacturers launched a constitutional challenge to the Act in the Supreme Court of Canada. No matter what your position is regarding smoking, if you value your freedom you had better hope they win.

Lawyer for bar, restaurant owners to argue ban discriminates against disabled (Guelph, Ontario)
03 February 2001

It hasn't taken very long (March 2000) for the repercussions to start surfacing, and it looks like this particular issue is about to get interesting. While we are not at all happy with the 'disabled' classification of smokers (and we're sure the truly disabled are not either) it is encouraging to see resistance to the public smoking ban in this region of Ontario is far from over. 

"(Lawyer Joe)..... Fera said he has case law from British Columbia which states that those who smoke can indeed be found disabled by an addiction." 

You're reading that statement correctly. British Columbia was indeed the location of the first time in Canada that addiction to nicotine has been declared a physical disability and subject to anti-discrimination protection.

As the Seattle Times commented on the original ruling, "It will be interesting to see where this goes. We'll let the Canadians lead the way." It's doubtful that the Canadian lead on this will be followed no matter which way the verdict goes. The term 'addict' covers a whole spectrum of 'habits' these days, and establishing a legal precedent needs a great deal more thought than the expediency of advancing a politically correct agenda.

When is anti-smoking zealotism going to be classified as a mental illness?
 

Hitler would approve of cigarette taxes - 31 January 2001 - The Canadian "politics of punishment" is clearly outlined in this letter published in the New Bedford, Massachusetts Standard Times. It's to be hoped that our USA neighbours follow the established precedent of not following any Canadian 'lead'. The comparison to Nazi Germany's anti-smoking campaign is particularly disturbing. Note: The writer, Warren Klass, is President of FORCES Manitoba
 

Smoke bylaw clears (Edmonton, Alberta) - 31 January 2001 - For background on this one, please see: Edmonton - Smoking bylaw now open to change - "The new set of rules, which come into effect in May, permits smoking in eateries, but only if the proprietor forbids anyone under 18 from entering."  It's nothing to do with health, simply a step in the direction of denormalizing use of the product. This is direct evidence of the social engineering experiment going on. Nonsmokers' children mustn't be exposed to the sight of families of smokers publicly enjoying themselves; they might get the idea that "it's OK to smoke". How long before this is taken a step further, banning smoking in front of children anywhere - including private homes? 

While these fanatics are at it, they might as well go for a law to airbrush any tobacco products out of historical photos. Anti-smoking 'logic' is 'it isn't right for 'the children' to see that presidents, statesmen, scientists, entertainers.......ENJOY smoking. Rather reminiscent of another dictatorship that tried revising history to suit its purposes.

It's been obvious for some time that governments consider smokers expendable. Now they seek to undermine their families by eliminating unifying experiences. What a wonderful 'social contract' we have in place today.

Snow fort shelters pub's puffers - 29 January 2001 - This business owner in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region of Ontario, who supports the all out smoking ban there, has found a rather novel way to try and keep some of his smoking patrons. 

"I happen to agree with the bylaw but from an employee health standpoint. We create a hazardous workplace if staff has to walk through a smoky restaurant. I couldn't have asbestos hanging from the ceiling and expect my staff to work under those conditions. This is for their safety," Desautels said. 

What the gentleman really needs to do is educate himself on the true facts surrounding this issue This link is to the Oak Ridge National Laboratories '16-Cities Study' which INCLUDED THE WORKPLACE. It is solid and substantial, and it confirms that the level of misclassification is up to 6 times higher than what speculated by EPA when it performed its corrupt classification of ETS as a class A carcinogen. That classification was vacated by a US federal court. Instead of embracing unquestioningly the pronouncements of the anti-smoking faction, a little investigation into the facts would serve his customers better. 

When British Columbia's Workers Compensation Board tried an all out provincial workplace smoking ban, a few FACTS got in their way.

Snow forts? In the future, when people read about what fellow human beings were subjected to at the start of the millennium regarding the use of this product, the reaction will be either outright disgust - or a huge belly laugh at the gullibility of our society in falling for such a hoax.

B.C. sues tobacco industry - again - 24 January 2001 - Let's hope this lawsuit is as unsuccessful as the last time around. That one was thrown out (February 2000) on the grounds that:

".......sections of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act try to lump all the tobacco companies together while ignoring the fact they were federally incorporated and individual." 

There's also another constitutional issue that needs considering. From the way the B.C. government wrote the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, legal defense is stripped. The government gets to say as conclusive evidence what the costs are. The Act instructs the courts that they 'must presume' this and 'must determine' that, in ways that severely restrict a judge's ability to try a case as well as those charged from defending themselves; guilt is guaranteed. Typical anti-smoking tactics "there is no argument" - meaning their evidence won't stand up to scrutiny.

The 'Smoke Free' agenda proponents have already corrupted science, and if they are allowed to undermine the rule of law in this manner, no one will be truly safe - ever.
 

Teens take shine to gory images - 20 January 2001 - It's difficult to refrain from saying "I told you so" - so we won't.

"Rather than being frightened away from cigarette smoking by the gruesome new warning labels that began appearing on new packs this month, it appears some teenage nicotine fiends have begun collecting them."

The ivory-tower Smoke Free social engineers are obviously far removed from reality, and ignorant as to what 'motivates' teenagers; so is a government that allows them to conduct experiments of this sort. Is anyone keeping statistics on how many teenagers take up the habit as a result of this latest 'tobacco free' initiative?

It cost Canadian tobacco manufacturers $30 million to implement the graphic labelling legislated by the Federal Government. Hopefully they'll win their constitutional challenge to this infringement of 'trademarks and logos', and sue to recover those costs. Parents of children who take up smoking due to curiosity inspired by collecting these obscene labels might think of suing as well.

How the use of a legal product is presented to youth is a parental prerogative. There is certainly no lack of information available. What's going on now is nothing short of trespassing on parental rights, and damages inflicted should be compensated. It's time these well funded anti-tobacco zealots were 'butted out', and found themselves another paycheque source.

A 'warning' you'll never see on labels,
"Be advised that the Governments of Canada tacitly approve the sale of this addictive and dangerous product and realize a combined revenue of over $12 million a day. *This product kills over 100 Canadian users per day." Frank Dwyer, President - The Canadian Council for Non-Smoking

*We'd like to see the undisputed, validated science backing up that statement.
 

"Fuzzy Logic" - explaining a $99,000 loss - 17 January 2001 - The Kitchener Waterloo Region (Ontario) brought in a sweeping no-smoking ban early in 2000. The first of that area's famous Oktoberfests held under the these conditions “suffered almost $99,000 in lost revenues compared to the year before”. 

Along with the ‘harsh restrictions’ placed on alcohol, one would think this would be taken into consideration when accounting for the shortfall.

That wouldn't be agreeable to the social engineers however, and it was decided “The drop came with the booking of new activities and a $60,000 decline in souvenir sales.”

Just how gullible do these people think the public is?

Smoking ban failure - 12 January 2001 - The writer of this letter published in a British Columbia newspaper synopsizes the situation very well, 

"If the public really do want a 100 per cent smoking ban, the market will dictate this. Not the government, not the WCB."

As second hand smoke scares really have no solid scientific evidence to support them, any attempt at bans based on that premise are fraudulent. This is a supposedly free society and as such, the marketplace should decide the issue. It should not be decided by those who have no personal stake or investment in the business enterprises they seek to dictate terms of operation to regarding the clientele they may serve.

Scary? Teens laugh it off - 01 January 2001 - Far from deterring underage smokers from using tobacco, the Government of Canada has provided them with a source of amusement. As one vendor commented on 'the target market' reaction to Canada's new sick labels,

"Young people find them funny," .... explaining that he sold about 60 packs with the new labels yesterday. "They're so gross that they're laughing at them."

The Canadian Government has become an international laughingstock by allowing this graphic labelling experiment to be tried on its citizens. Any government that graphically underwrites what warnings have been telling people for decades, and continues to collect taxes on the legal sale of the product - has no credibility whatsoever. 'The children' know that.

No sale. There's far more to life than prolonging it as long as possible; too bad the Canadian Government has to be the first to demonstrate this lack of knowledge.

When you've collected your own set of labels, and sent off the requests you're sure to get from other countries, mail the refuse back to Ottawa with a message to recycle their own garbage. It's time governments listened to citizens, not lobby groups; leave this issue for parents to deal with. They do a much better job. Anti-Smoking Units Failed to Stop Teens
Send your 'garbage' to:
The Hon. A. Rock, Minister of Health
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9

If you're the parent of a 'child' who starts smoking tobacco after this latest government attempt at 'saving' them, you might want to consider suing. In Canada, the only advertisement the product gets these days is compliments of the Federal government.

Edmonton - Smoking bylaw now open to change - 20 December 2000 - "Confusing" is the right word to describe this situation. Edmontonians will have to wait until 16 January 2001 to find out if an amendment to allow business owners to decide if their establishments are smoking or 'non' will go through.

"You can bet the paid lobbyists like ASH will crank it up a notch to try to convince councillors to defeat the freedom-of-choice smoking bylaw."

"Paid lobbyists" seek to determine the rules under which everyone shall live. The consequences are no concern of theirs; they'll still get a paycheque. 

Let Edmonton City Council know that servicing the Smoke Free agenda is an infringement on the rights of citizens and property owners, and is totally unacceptable:
e-mail: councillors@gov.edmonton.ab.ca 
fax: the councillors: (780) 496-8113
telephone any councillor at these numbers: (780) 496-8111, 496-8110 and 496-8112 
telephone the mayor:(Bill Smith) (780) 496-8100 
fax the mayor:(780) 496-8292 
Your opinions can also be expressed to the Citizen Action Centre at tel: (780) 496-8200

Check Canadian Property Rights Research Institute for more information on what's happening to freedom in this part of Canada.

It's to be hoped that Mayor Bill Smith isn't planning on participating in the WHO 'incentive' outlined in the following article.

WHO bribes Mayors - 'Sell our agenda, win a trip to Montreal' - 18 December - 2000 - The World Health Organization (WHO) has descended to the local level! With their silence on the promotion of fraudulent, politicized, science it was just a matter of time before these proponents of a tobacco-free society had another moral lapse.

In case WHO is not aware, Mayors are elected by residents of communities to address their concerns, not service an agenda. The areas where Clean Air/Smoke Free 'laws' are tried meet with divisive social unrest, business losses, and enforcement nightmares.

Of course, these 'ivory tower' people wouldn't know anything about that. It's been made very clear that the lives of 'the little people' and their business enterprises are of no consequence when it comes to achieving a glorious Smoke Free society sometime in the next 2,000 years.

No one elected these self-appointed guardians of everyone's physical health. They have however, managed to sell some of our elected representatives on the political correctness of eradicating the 'smoking epidemic'. Since when are epidemics voluntary? People freely choose, with ample information publicly available, to use a legal product.

"The agency is holding out the prospect of international recognition to mayors of cities with the most successful campaigns. The mayors will be invited as "guests of honour" to the No-Tobacco Day celebration, (Montreal, 31 May/01) where Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, director-general of WHO, will give them "special prizes for their achievements."

Sounds like some kind of dog obedience school; will they be handing out 'achievement certificates' along with the "special prizes"?

What's going to be WHO's next 'epidemic of choice' - refusing to follow medical advice? When the lurid graphic package label part of this experiment fails - and it will - with the lack of ethics surrounding the issue it wouldn't be surprising if smokers were legislated into 'treatment'. When free will and self direction are eliminated, your body becomes government property. The government of Canada has already allowed an appalling degree of latitude to these Smoke Free social engineers. The very real consequences to living individuals affected by the politics of punishment (taxes), and now terrorism (sick labels), have been far worse than all those hypothetical, computer-generated tobacco-related deaths used to support intrusion into a personal, private matter.

It's time for those WHO would-be dictators to get a reality check. You do not own people's lives; you do not have a "tryst with history" to eliminate this legal choice; you have no jurisdiction over the informed decisions of adults. If it's necessary to justify your existence, tackle a real epidemic - the kind that are unavoidable and involuntary.

Mom' agrees' to butt out in car - Judge OKs trip - 15 December 2000 - CBC Message Board - Should Mom smoke in the car? - This report produces no evidence that the 7 year old boy involved suffers any more illnesses than his peers - from either smoking or non smoking households. Simply put, neither his father, who has joint guardianship, nor he "like it". With the one-sided anti propaganda spewed forth daily, it's no wonder.

That a court action was brought at all concerning his mother and her friend smoking in the car during a Christmas trip to Arizona is absolutely ludicrous. We really have lost any semblance of common sense in this country.

The myriad of 'science' being pushed to link ETS with the 'childhood disease of your choice' needs a thorough going over. The fact that science on this issue has been politicized to service an agenda (Smoke Free) is beyond doubt. In case you aren't aware, have a look at The EPA '93 Passive Smoke Fraud

That particular court judgment only went as far as Chapter 6. For a reality check on the 'rest of the story', you might be interested in what Dr. Martinez has to say: "Dr. Martinez authored Chapter 7 ("Passive Smoking and Respiratory Disorders Other Than Cancer") and co-authored Chapter 8 ("Assessment of Increased Risk for Respiratory Illnesses in Children From Environmental Tobacco Smoke") "

In a nutshell:
"Like most people, I assumed tobacco smoke and pollution were the problem--this was the politically correct way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role. In high-pollution areas, in low-pollution areas, among all ethnic groups, there was asthma. Clearly, something else was involved."

How far will the anti-smoking zealots go to achieve their 'smoke free paradise'? Will they stop at pitting already antagonized parents against one another - tugging at a child in the middle until he *snaps* - to further their agenda?

In the print version of the National Post report, it was interesting to see the article running right next to it, Modern life fills children with anxiety, study finds Is it any wonder why?

Scientific sham behind tobacco warnings - 05 December 2000 - Now that Canadians have returned to office a federal government determined to punish and terrorize consumers of a legal product, this article should open the eyes of those who aren't aware of the graphic warning label background and the result of an attendant court case.

"....As for the end result, Canada now has tobacco health warnings that were railroaded through a scientific review based on deception and bad faith."

When it comes to the 'Smoke Free' Agenda, anything goes: deception; bad faith; lies; corrupted 'science'; irrational 'zero tolerance'; social unrest; business failures. We're told "it's for the children", and that's supposed to make it OK; wonderful values they're being taught.

When the new packaging 'sick pictures' come your way on December 23rd, after you've saved a set for yourself and friends (they're sure to become a collector's item - definitive evidence of a nation's departure from sanity) - send the empty packs back to the sponsor - 

The Minister
Health Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9

If enough of these are returned to them, they may get the message that the line has been crossed as far as attempts at psychological intimidation is concerned.
 

PLEASE - do not vote Liberal - 11 November 2000 - Whatever your particular political persuasion is, the best we can hope for from this Canadian Federal election is a minority government. We'll be rid of them in less than 2 years on a vote of NO CONFIDENCE.

The current Liberal Federal Government 'policy' on Tobacco Reduction is one of punishment (taxes) and terror (graphic package labelling - coming your way on December 23rd).

Split the vote any way you choose. No opposition Federal party has come out with a stance against the current behavioural social engineering experiment in progress, compliments of the Liberals.

On November 27th, vote your conscience. If your life personally or business-wise has been impacted by the Federal Liberal 'jihad' on tobacco, vote against them. 

Western Canada repudiated the creeping socialism and 'one world government' represented by the Liberal Party some time ago. Eastern Canada, you've got control by 'seat' to get rid of this affront to individual autonomy and freedom of legal choice - please use it.

FORCES Canada would never presume to tell you how to vote - we just ask that you do.

This is Remembrance Day - do you remember what FREEDOM is/was?

Pat Hagen, President
FORCES Canada

"Geography has made us neighbours.  History has made us friends." - 
03 November 2000 - The U.S.A. federal election is only days away (November 07th), and the outcome will affect other nations, including Canada, by policy continuations and implementation. The President of FORCES Manitoba, Warren Klass, has written and Opinion-Editorial with observations on how the re-election of the current administration will impact on smokers.

This is about your freedom! - 18 October 2000 - The Canadian Property Rights Research Institute (CanPRRI), based in Edmonton Alberta, is fighting to keep a public smoking ban from occurring there.

If you share their concern for property rights and oppose public smoking bans, please click on the above link and send your thoughts directly to Allan Bolstad - the city councillor behind the proposed smoking ban in Edmonton. You don't have to live in Edmonton to make your position known.

Visit CanPRRI's website for more information on this issue.
 

> BACK TO FORCES MAIN PAGE <