So, smoking bans don't result in job and revenue losses? ETS "is a human tragedy" and "kills 60,000 people a year"? Mr. Klass offers solid evidence that both those 'assumptions' are nothing more than anti-smoking hyperbole.

Smoking Regulations vs. Property Rights 22 April 2000 - The Canadian Property Rights Research Institute(CPRRI) presents the outrage everyone should feel regarding a LEGAL product and the arrogance of anti-smoking lobbyists in assuming that determination of the use of it on private property is out of the hands of owners. Right now, the trespass is limited to hospitality establishments; there is no doubt that private homes are next. 

The 'Smoke Free' agenda DOES NOT supersede property rights, individual autonomy, or freedom. There are borders, and limits to how far this agenda can be allowed to go before all rights are forfeit to the 'cause'. As incomprehensible as it may be to the 'mission' proponents, there are those who have values other than 'health'. 

This social engineering experiment on behaviour control has passed the point of obsession, - an illness in itself. 

Be sure to link to the CanPRRI site "The ugly side of the anti-smoking lobby!" Find out about it in their April 12 press release.

One More Blow Against The Madness 21 April 2000 - Once again, Alberta columnist Kerry Diotte has spoken out against the madness. In a copyrighted story in the April 18th Edmonton SUN, Diotte argues against the “heavy-meddle madness” of Edmonton city councillors who are seeking to toughen that city’s anti smoking bylaw. 

In comparison to the “anti-business” smoking bylaws that exist in many Canadian cities, Edmonton’s law is a cakewalk. But God bless Diotte for recognizing the thin edge of the wedge when he sees it. His comment that “councilors [can’t seem to] let the marketplace dictate what businesses will or won’t allow smoking” is a perfectly reasonable piece of logic, and his observation that “I kinda thought we elect councilors to PROMOTE business in Edmonton, not drive it away” clearly begs a straight answer. A good lesson for the rest of us here. ETS has never harmed anyone, and certainly has never injured a hospitality worker. Take this brick out of the antis’ wall, and the rest of it (including their dubious “legal argument” ) comes crashing down. But, the time to start screaming is NOW, not after the anti-smoking zealots have their way.

Anti-smoking disease threatens Alberta 16 April 2000 - "Governments already interfere far too much in our lives and citizens are getting fed up.......My advice to council members: Please don't make Edmonton a laughing stock like B.C. by "dumb-wading" into matters that are none of your business." This Edmonton Sun columnist offers some excellent advice to City Councilors. People are fed up with government interference in personal private matters. If members of the 'Alberta Tobacco Reduction Alliance' wish to forgo the use of tobacco themselves, it's their choice. If they can convince others to do the same voluntarily, good for them. But the attempt to impose by law their 'religion' on others regarding the use of a LEGAL product is contemptible, and evidence of a spreading social cancer.

Winnipeg puff ban snuffed?08 April 2000 - "The city's committee to eliminate environmental tobacco smoke is having a tough time lobbying enough councillors to get on board and pass a bylaw banning smoking in public places."

Perhaps Winnipeg's City Council is comprised of individuals who realize that there's more than one side to this issue, and information presented to them by the anti-smoking side of it needs some investigation.

$1.50 TAX per carton proposed for hired anti-smoking nannies 07 April 2000 - Senator Colin Kenny just doesn't get it:

"OTTAWA (CP) (02 Dec/98) - Commons Speaker Gilbert Parent has killed a bill (S13) that would have imposed a 50-cent levy on every carton of cigarettes with the money going to fight youth smoking.
Parent ruled Wednesday that the bill, originally championed by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, is unconstitutional because it imposes a tax, and tax bills cannot originate in the Senate."

"Yesterday, (05 April 2000) in that august chamber known as the Canadian Senate, Toronto-area Senator Colin Kenny.... introduced a bill ....(the) Tobacco Youth Protection Act will, if passed by Parliament, institute a $1.50/carton (19c/pack) levy on cigarettes, all of which will be spent on smoking prevention."

Tobacco remains a legal product. It is a PARENT'S choice on how the information regarding the use of this product is presented to THEIR children. Interference and intrusion into PRIVATE family life is none of the government's, or what passes for public health these days, business.

It appears that a lot of very highly educated people, with expensive degrees, are currently unemployed and looking for a 'market' to pay their mortgages. Whose back they do it on really doesn't matter.....'health' is the ticket (watch out fast food - you're next). This type of job creation is absolutely disgusting.

Let your Member of Parliament (MP) know how you feel about this latest attempt to take over parental authority to provide a paycheque for people eminently qualified to do better things with their own lives - rather than insinuate themselves into the lives of others without an invitation.

WCB reinstates smoking ban 04 April 200 - Unmitigated arrogance on the part of the Workers Compensation Board of B.C. has led to the reinstatement of the smoking ban overturned by the B.C. Supreme Court on March 22nd. These unelected bureaucrats have become a law unto themselves.Impartial consultation with the Hospitality Industry? Only if you believe in fairy tales.

Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba Challenges Impartiality of Smoking Ban Committee29 March 2000 - In this letter of rebuttal to the Winnipeg Sun Newspaper, the Acting President of the Cabaret Alliance makes some interesting observations regarding the impartiality of the committee studying the implementation of a ban in Winnipeg.

"In the initial letter of invitation to the various stakeholders, ..... several assertions (were made) about the dangers of E.T.S. and the data that supports this assertion. The statements in the letter preceded the actual presentation schedule. This is of serious concern to us and undermines the legitimacy of this process."/I>
".....It is our hope that all members of this committee listen carefully to the stakeholder groups and make a decision based on the material presented, relevant factual research and not that which supports just a single position."

• How many members of 'Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada', obviously people with an agenda, have had private meetings with the committee to present a one-sided view of this issue?

• How many committee members have been convinced by these individuals that there "is no argument" regarding the 'Smoke Free' lobby's take on the science regarding the 'dangers' of secondhand smoke? If there is admission of an argument, the opposition is discredited in absentia with no opportunity to defend themselves.

• How many committee members know that there most definitely is serious scientific evidence, and legal judgments, invalidating the allegation that people need protecting from ETS (environmental tobacco smoke)?

Anyone not following the dictates of the 'Smoke Free' Agenda is considered expendable. And this isn't fanaticism?

Second-hand science 26 March 2000 - "A corporation intentionally omitting material information from its financial statements may face civil and criminal liability for fraud. But what happens when the government and its scientists play accounting games?" - Steven Milloy

Anti-smoking lobbyists will stop at nothing in their promotion of generating hatred and fear of smokers.

In this case, second-hand smoke is linked to breast cancer. Interesting - primary smoking hasn't even been determined to be a causality. It's absolutely essential that these fanatics continue to try and link 'dangers' to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Without it, all they've got is a severe case of failing to mind their own business and no grounds whatsoever to impose public, or any other, smoking bans based on it.

British Columbia Smoking Ban Overturned 22 March 2000 - Media reaction: National Post - B.C. Supreme Court throws out restaurant smoking banNational Post - Editorial: Heroin or Alcohol? Yahoo (Reuters) - Canadian restaurant smoking ban struck down Montreal Gazette - Judge strikes down provincewide ban on smoking in bars, restaurantsVancouver Sun - Smokers light up as WCB doused **** 

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled today (March 22nd) that the Province-wide workplace smoking ban implemented by Workers Compensation Board (WCB) policy on 01 January 2000 did not have sufficient 'public consultation', and it has been overturned.

Court action initiated by the B.C. Liquor Licensee and Retailers Association on 26 January 2000 was heard on March 13th. It was expected to take 3 weeks for a decision.

At the moment, the Provincial Ministry of Labour is advising the WCB not to appeal this decision, but to start the process of initiating a workplace ban on smoking over again.

So - while you may once again light up in hospitality venues across the Province (with unfortunately, the exception of southern Vancouver Island where the Capital Regional District (CRD) implemented their own ban 01 January 1999, which still stands) complacency isn't recommended. This is only a temporary reprieve for the citizens of B.C., and a tremendous effort is still needed to combat future attempts to bring in a similar ban and prevent it from spreading.

Many thanks to all of you who have helped with the fight in B.C. Special thanks and appreciation are due to the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba.

Ontario - Restaurant and Bar Owners File Lawsuit 26 February 2000 - "In a 10-page statement of claim filed at Kitchener's Superior Court, the bar and restaurant owners ask for $50 million in general damages; $50 million in "damages for unlawful interference with economic relations and discrimination"; $1 million in special damages; and $5 million in "punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages." 

It's time to make the bureaucrats and politicians accountable for the unjustified damages and hardships they've inflicted. Elitists servicing an agenda, using their 'mantles of authority' as the basis to spread hate and fear, need to have payment extracted for what has been inflicted on people who were never given the opportunity to VOTE on whether the 'mission' tactics were acceptable.

FREEDOM FIGHTERS 26 February 2000 - "What seems to be at issue with the owners of the pubs, nightclubs and restaurants - and their patrons - is the freedom of choice they say they've been stripped of. Even non-smokers see the regulation as an invasion into their private lives." 

A smoking ban based on arbitrary "zero tolerance" for secondhand smoke is indeed an invasion of private adult choice, especially when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support it. Anti-smoking lobbyists don't concern themselves with this minor detail as they consider any ploy as 'legitimate' in advancing their 'Smoke Free' agenda. 

Unfortunately for them, in this 'Information Age' the truth is easier to come by. Corrupted science and attempted abrogation of the law will not be tolerated by those who prize their freedom over promotion of an agenda, regardless of how 'worthy' its proponents may believe it to be.

British Columbia *lawsuit ruled unconstitutional - *to "recover tobacco related health care costs" - 21 February 2000 - The Supreme Court of B.C. ruled today as unconstitutional the provincial government's attempt to 'recover tobacco related health care costs' in a lawsuit backed in part by legislation preventing the defense from challenging the evidence presented. As well they should. We've been subjected to corrupted science on the issue of secondhand smoke; at least we've been spared having the law made a travesty of too.

On 12 November 1998 the B.C. Government filed a lawsuit, docket C985776 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, based on legislation passed - a law called the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, saying that if you sold cigarettes at any time in the past, you are liable for associated health costs at any point in the future. This is retroactive legislation, illegal under the European Convention The technique is trial by legislation, a practice outlawed more than 200 years ago in British jurisprudence and the U.S. Constitution. The legislature passes a law proclaiming guilt, and little is left for the courts. In this case, the law would have collected damages from tobacco companies for what was previously legal.

It was also the government's intention to further that 'law ' by passing legislation that as conclusive evidence what those costs are. The act instructs the courts that they "must presume" this and "must determine" that, in ways that dramatically restrict a judge's proper ability to try a case and pretty well guarantee guilt.

On 05 October 1999, RJR-Macdonald Corp. filed suit to challenge the validity and constitutionality of the government's attempt to subvert the law to their interest. "The Act gives the B.C. provincial government the power to accuse and judge at the same time", said Dave Laundy, vice-president of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

When we get to that point - we are no more than slaves. A debt of gratitude is owned to the B.C. Supreme Court for maintaining the rule of law, as well as some sanity, on this issue.

NEWS RELEASE - Smoking ban job losses mount 13 February 2000 - Hospitality Industry requests intervention of Job Protection Commissioner - "Faced with mounting job losses and dramatically reduced revenues since the smoking ban took effect on January 1st, the Coalition of Hospitality Organizations appealed to BC’s Job Protection Commissioner to intervene and mediate a ventilation solution with the WCB, the BC government and affected businesses."

"When they came for the smokers"13 February 2000 - It's an extremely sad commentary on the conditions operating in British Columbia today when any message of dissent from an individual business owner on the 'smoking issue' must be posted anonymously in order to protect them. The 'authorities' - public health and Workers Compensation Board (WCB) bureaucrats, are quick to exert pressure by way of fines, threatened court action, and 'general inspections' of the premise, on any owner speaking out publicly against the smoking ban imposed on 01 January 2000. 

Proponents of the 'Smoke Free' agenda can't stand opposition - and they'll suppress it by whatever means they're able to contrive. Big Brother is indeed in action here, in what is otherwise a truly beautiful part of this Country.

Anti-smoking saga - a juvenile and repugnant affair 09 February 2000 - The only disagreement with the writer of this letter is his reference to "incurable habits" when speaking of war veterans being rolled out in their wheelchairs in -30 C weather to have a smoke. After all, if you're old enough to be a war veteran, who'd be arrogant enough to believe they could, or should, cure you of anything? How did these veterans manage to attain their venerable age without all the 'help' being foisted on us these days by bureaucrats and politicians? 

What should be noted, and taken heed of, is the writer's question: 

"What legislative impositions (next).....will be telling us what food to eat, what sexual habits to engage in and how to raise our children,....?"

We're engaged in another war, to sustain personal freedom of CHOICE that those veterans fought for. Is there anything more important than 'health'? Yes - FREEDOM - healthy people have died for it.

Warning:Health zeal can kill freedom 31 January 2000 - "I'm sure federal Health Minister Allan Rock, who is a very important person, has far too little free time to spend it reading science journals or 19th-century philosophy. So for his benefit, and that of anyone who wants to understand why hysterical warning labels on cigarette packs, bans on smoking in bars and other idiocies are springing up all over, I thought I'd pull together a few illuminating passages."

"We are not free individuals capable of independent choice, according to the public health view. We are atoms within the society that conditions us. That sort of thinking, taken to its natural extreme, comes to conclusions that would appal those who advocate it. Nazism, for one. The Nazis saw the individual literally as a cell in the social organism. Not coincidentally, the Nazis pioneered public health policies aimed at changing unhealthy behaviours because, as one slogan put it, "You have a duty to be healthy!" Smoking was especially verboten. The Nazis' bans on smoking in workplaces and restrictions on tobacco ads were the first in the world. "

Small puffs of smoke lead to dreams of great glory 28 January 2000 - With the noticeable exception of the statement on addiction, this article from The Ottawa Citizen really tells it like it is about Alan Rock and the antitobacco cartel: 

"If a former justice minister is capable of performing such stunts for the sake of a fashionable crusade against smoking, and if he has some hope that our courts will back him up, then indeed our country is in a bad way."

"...He has taken the cake so many times, when it came to posturing, dissimulation, unctuousness and hypocrisy, that there is really no cake left. Yet I have no hope that the government will do for him what they did last week for John Manley. I can only hope that the courts will see through this contemptible man's dreams of glory.

Witless Wednesday 20 January 2000 - "To mark anti-smoking day, "Weedless Wednesday," Health Minister Allan Rock announced plans to place photos of a damaged brain, cancerous lung tumours, and a phallic cigarette drooping limply on new cigarette packages." 

"Now, there are many good reasons to object to these warnings: They are pornographic in design; they are an insult to our collective intelligence; and they will surely become a source of national embarrassment. (The New Republic once called "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" the least enticing headline of all time; "Worthwhile Canadian Health Initiative" might deter even more readers.)" 

"But there's another reason to junk the warnings..." 

Yes, there are many reasons indeed. But the paramount one is that the whole antismoking propaganda is based on an immense scientific FRAUD - and the Canadian government has knowingly become an accessory to that fraud. 

We are sure that the world is waiting with trepidation for the new packs, as they will become instant collector items for present and future smokers around the world -- and a permanent monument to the stupidity, dishonesty and bigotry of a government that has become a Mickey Mouse joke, just like Mr. Alan Rock's advisor Jeffrey Wigand. When people with criminal records becomeadvisors of health ministers, what more is to be said other than: Welcome to antitobacco!

Building oppression upon a scientific fraud 19 January 2000 - Winnipeg - "One doctor urged city councillors to consider restricting smoking in private homes as well as public areas, as already legislated under British Columbia's workplace safety and health regulations." 

"It's the next logical step, if the public is ever to be properly protected against second-hand smoke, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority medical director Dr. Garey Mazowita told a city committee." 

Indeed. It is the next logical step in the implementation of a scientific fraud created to justify overtaxation and persecution. There are no dangers in second hand smoke. There is no proof whatsoever. In fact, any solid evidence points in the opposite direction. Doctors and officers who say differently are either incompetent, or liars. There is no simple and clearer explanation than that for the social and political aberration taking place in this country. 

And if one just asks these individuals on what scientific grounds they base their sick policies, one will be surprised to find that they have no real ground. It is the sheer power of a dishonest state versus the powerlessness of the citizen. No more, no less.