Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking

F.O.R.C.E.S CANADA

Protest
while you still can, before a law is passed prohibiting that too.

"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'.

- Ontario
25 March 2002

Following the email instructions provided on Halton Hills Attack on Smokers' Rights Must Cease! please help a concerned resident in the effort to bring the fact that there is opposition to smoking bans to this Council's attention.

Note particularly that in the request for assistance, this resident states:
"I am an ASTHMATIC non-smoker who disagrees with the proposed bylaw Municipal Council is hoping to introduce into Halton Hills this year. I feel that this proposed bylaw will cause extreme financial difficulties for those businesses directly affected, which may eventually lead to their demise. I myself and the other patrons who visit the local bars, pubs, and pool halls, feel that the current bylaw is more than acceptable. ..."

Winnipeg's recently imposed anti-smoking bylaw forbids lighting up in the presence of children in hospitality venues. To try and preserve the patronage of paying ADULT customers who smoke, some establishments decided to deny service, or employment, to those under the age of 18 years.

Well, we can't have that. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission declares,
"If someone were able to argue successfully that because their job had been terminated or they'd been denied service there had been some intangible effect on them, that might give rise to an award as well."

It shouldn't be necessary to point out to these people that having a job in this type of business depends entirely on having enough customers to serve. "Denied service"? What's stopping these customers from patronizing a smokefree, children-welcome establishment for their caffeine-fix? And since when do "intangible effect(s)" need protection? Just exactly what might those be? With this type of 'thinking' we are well down the road to becoming a nation of thought and action paralyzed robots.

This article also reports that,

"So far, four restaurants have been hit with a total of six charges for allowing second-hand smoke to drift into public corridors -- a no-no under the Non-Smokers Health Protection Act."
Shades of Montgomery County, Maryland USA!
"Had it become law, the legislation would have set fines of up to $750 for people who smoke in their homes if the smoke crossed property lines and offended neighbors."

Allowing laws to be enacted on the basis of a myth, and attempting to fine tune them to the point of absurdity, is a prime example of the insanity that's permeated this issue.

17 March 2002

The Federal Government announced that it had formed a 'completely democratic public consultation council' to discuss and air all sides of the tobacco issue with all Canadians. It is called the Ministerial Advisory Council on Tobacco Control (MAC).

Take a Look for yourself just how 'democratic' anti-smoking proponents intend it to be.
Ministerial Advisory Council on Tobacco Control

Then link to Insider Blows Whistle (FORCES Toronto) and scroll down to read the Minutes of the first meeting held by this 'Council'. The priorities?

• *denormalize the use of tobacco
• disable the industry

*We assume that mandatory 'treatment' of the resulting 'abnormal' 6 million Canadian consumers of this product would be next.

These non elected people even presume to contemplate the possibility of providing 'input' into the budget. If an elected body, no matter what level of government, allows any single issue, agenda-driven group to sit down and help carve up the tax 'pie', every constituent is in VERY deep trouble. Write your Member of Parliament and let them know what you think of the idea.

In December 1999, the Canadian federal government launched a $1-billion civil action against the U.S.-based R.J. Reynolds tobacco for alleged cigarette smuggling. They claimed Canada was "...defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., five related companies and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, who allegedly conspired to violate U.S. anti-racketeering laws by funneling billions of duty-free cigarettes from the United States into Canada in the early 1990s, without paying taxes."

They lost, and appealed. In October 2001 the USA federal appeals court upheld the decision.

"...by the end of March, the government is projected to have spent $17-million on its U.S. attorneys and related legal costs....."
Gordon Bourgard, Department of Justice lawyer

(If the projected amount is US dollars, that translates into $26,951,240.85 Canadian.)

Canada's USA lawyers have now filed a petition with the USA Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the appeal! The most expensive lawsuit ever initiated by the Canadian federal government is about to establish what amounts to an unbreakable record.

In view of the fact,

"....that Canadian courts are equipped to handle any claims the federal government might wish to bring against the U.S. tobacco industry."
Stephen Heard Jr., attorney for several Reynolds companies

- Canadian taxpayers are left to wonder why this lawsuit is being conducted in a 'foreign' country whose currency value far outstrips ours. Is there so little faith in Canadian courts - or are they hoping that the $1 billion they're going after will translate into U$s? More likely this government is relying on previous 'sympathetic' USA decisions, like the USA Attorneys General Master Settlement Agreement (November 23, 1998) worth $200 billion US.

Tell us again how the 'tobacco control' issue is about health.

A natural progression look at the 'future' practice of a Winnipeg Dr. who is refusing to treat smokers, starting today.

Fatties, alcohol drinkers, athletes ....... beware! If you don't heed health and risk warnings your lifestyles too will rule out medical attention. Only 'perfect' people who obey all health rules will be eligible for treatment. The only question is how these 'perfect people' get sick enough to require medical attention in the first place!

Breathe in ..... breathe out ...... that's it! You'll get use to that atmosphere-controlled plastic bubble you now call home; it's been approved by the authorities so it must be 'good for you'. The doctor will stand by in case it isn't.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) have determined that tobacco sponsored campaigns to curb underage smoking "are more tactical than practical" and should be withdrawn.

"The fledgling Wise Decisions program, which is aimed at kids in Grades 6 to 8, is silent on the dangers of tobacco use, but conveys cachet to smoking by portraying it as a "for adults only" behaviour, he said.
"There is a subliminal message being sent to the youth of Canada: That this is an OK choice for them to make as adults," Sky (OMA President) said.

Dr. Sky, we have a newsflash for you. Tobacco is a legal product and it is an adult choice. With the constant barrage of health warnings from every media source available, anyone not aware of the medical information must have just recently arrived from outer space. It is an informed choice adults make. That you find it impossible to understand from your perspective does not invalidate the option.

More revealing as the cause of concern for tobacco company initiated programs is,

"Sky suggested if tobacco companies are interested in keeping teenagers from smoking they could let organizations like the OMA or the CMA design the programs and pick up the tab.
If they were serious about allowing us to do that they'd turn over the funds that they're devoting to this and let us do it. And we'd give them the best program." (emphasis added)

..... and gather some paycheques as well. Considering how ineffective these 'professionally designed' programs are, keeping the "freedom of choice" aspect is worth exploring. Better yet - allow the parents of these teens to exercise their prerogative and present the use of this legal product to their children in the manner they deem best. It really is no one else's busine$$.

As we pointed out when the story first 'broke' at the end of December 2001, a physician this committed to the smokefree agenda does patients a favour by informing them of his/her priority.

For those who missed the original comment, we repeat:

"....until the ethics and suitability for the profession of those who place more importance on an agenda than patient care is clarified, it's just as well that patients are served notice of a Dr.'s priority. Placing your treatment in the hands of someone who thinks this way would definitely not be a wise move.

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