Mad Ravings against the ANTI"s

Smokescreen Busters
Just a few thoughts from the guys at
www.cigarandpipe.ca

Smokers are being told only where they can not smoke. Every time they find safe haven, it is ripped away from them. They are vilified by the anti smoking crusaders. But why.
Is it a smoke screen? Is the government trying to convince you that all your ills and troubles are of your own making.
What about the do-gooders that jump on this band wagon. Have they no other purpose and meaning to their existence.
A well known Mayor from a U.S. city who almost single handily pushed through one of the toughest anti-smoking by-laws got himself busted for sexual assault on little boys. A B.C. member of legislative assembly and a strong anti smoking advocate got busted for trying to abduct an 11 year old girl over the Internet.
Our own "Mega-Mel" welcomed all smokers to North York back before megacity, Now he supports the antismoker crusades.
Then in Dec. 04, Ontario Health Minister Smitherman in an interview Aired on CTV noon news, questioned about not allowing roofs on smoking patios being a form of punishment for smokers Admits…"if that's what it takes".
Just remember those municipal health departments get huge grants from the Feds and drug companies towards anti-smoking, and seeing as bureaucrats salaries are tied into the size of their budget, it's easy to draw the conclusion that their crusades are self serving.
Smokers are forced to pay HUGE amounts of tax money to anti-smoking education and anti-smoker coalitions, yet they have no voice in response to these attacks against them."
The biggest shame of all, is that smokers are putting up with all this bull. No smoker will deny that smoking is harmful in some way. But it's one of the least of our worries. Time and money should be directed to more useful and meaningful pursuits!
Here's a few interesting facts about the smoking & the anti-smoking crusades you should know!
John McMorran of Lakeland, Florida smoked cigars, drank beer and ate greasy food –and now he has paid the dear price for a life turned that stands as an insult to the health crusaders. John was born June 19, 1889, in a log cabin in Michigan, and he was the oldest American living at 114 – but he could have lived longer if only he didn't smoke.
Canada's oldest living WW1 Vet died recently at the young age of 106. A life long member of the Legion, it is thought that her exposure to second hand smoke contributed to her early demise.
The Italian daily "Libero" has just reported updates on the Tobacco Massacre of Milan, last February 6th. Out of a population of 2.2 million in that city, there are 646 people whose lives will, inevitably, be cut short – shortly after they turn 100. Two of them are already 110, five are 109 and 12 are 106. Another 217 are only 100, 167 just turned 101, and 115 are 102. But that’s not all. Over 35,000 Milanese are in the age range between 85 and 94, and another 92,000 are between 75 and 84. You can see them in the polluted Italian city with their dogs, in the typical little bars, indulging in despicable habits such as coffee, grease-filled brioches, alcohol and – worst of all – smoking Tuscan cigars that stink more than any diesel tailpipe, poisoning their peers. Some of them even "do" cigarettes, having indulged in the deadly habit for over 94 years. Imagine how dirty their lungs are. According to the daily, in fact, the overwhelming majority of these people either smoke, drink, or eats fatty foods. Most even do it all. No wonder the heroic health authorities must intervene to stop the carnage. It’s either now or never!
While less than 3% of smokers might die from tobacco-related lung cancer, data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (-- SAMMEC 3.0 computer-generated mortality data by age groups, that CDC was reluctant to supply ) reveal clearly that the vast majority of estimated smoking-related deaths from all causes in the United States occur among Americans who are 60 years of age or older. And that more than one-half of such deaths occur among individuals over 70 years of age. Also that nearly one-third of all estimated smoking-related deaths in the U.S. occur among elderly Americans who are 80 years of age or older -- the latter group being individuals living well beyond average life expectancy for men and women in the U.S. today.
Canadian Cancer Society states: Cancer is primarily
a disease of the elderly. The estimates for 2002 shown in Table 10 indicate that 59,600 new cases (44%) and 39,300 cancer deaths (59%) occur in Canadians aged 70 years or more, (note that any one aged 70 was born in the 30's & had a life expectancy of 64) while an additional 34,100 new cases (25%) and 14,300 deaths (22%) occur in those aged 60-69. close to 50% of all newly diagnosed cancers of the lung, prostate, colon and rectum occur among Canadians aged 70 or more.
It appears that people are simply living long enough to get cancer!
You must also consider that many of these people lived in an era when asbestos and pesticides were widely used in government and public buildings. In reality smoking was only one factor in most of the deaths and no single expert can say that it was the sole or major factor!
Hospital Acquired Infections Kill 5000 Patients a Year in Canada, but since no one actually tracks this, the number could be easily double or triple according to the CDC.
Further, health experts estimate between 5,000 and 10,000 Canadians die every year because of medical mistakes in hospitals, but no one knows for sure because medical miscues are shrouded in secrecy. (CBC Report)
Easily 20,000 Canadians are killed each year by "booboo's & oops's while seeking medical assistance.
There were an estimated 27,867 male and 13,541 female deaths in Canada in 1991 attributable to smoking, for a total of 41,408 deaths*. Twenty-one per cent of all deaths in Canada were attributable in part to smoking. Of those (59%) occur in Canadians aged 70 years or more, (Health Canada) No mention is made as to what other factors contributed to these deaths. (Hospital acquired infections during treatment?) (old age?)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists over 200 known Carcinogens readily detectable in the environment.
Farts contain known carcinogens. The odor of farts comes from small amounts of hydrogen sulfide gas and mercaptans in the mixture. These compounds contain sulfur. The more sulfur-rich your diet, the more sulfides and mercaptans will be produced by the bacteria in your guts, and the more your farts will stink. They also contain large amounts of methane.
Non smoker's who eat foods such as cauliflower, eggs and meat, may in fact be causing their own cancers.
Then there's road salt ...a 1986 American study discovered there were high levels of cancer deaths in states where road salt was widely used. The analysis suggested road salt might be linked to cancers of the breast, lung, esophagus, throat, large intestine, rectum and bladder.
In 2001, Environment Canada recommended that road salt be listed as a toxic substance. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that when the environmental and other damages are included, the real cost of using it is actually 15 times more than the cost of buying and applying it. However, approximately 5 million tonnes of the stuff is still used in Canada every year - because it's cheap and easy (like Christina Aguilera) (sorry I couldn't resist).
Most road salt contains sodium ferrocyanide as an anti-caking and corrosion inhibitor. Under acidic conditions, in the presence of strong sunlight, this compound is known to break down, generating toxic cyanide forms, including hydrogen cyanide.
Don't drive on a cold sunny day!
Your morning shower may kill you! The Canadian Cancer Society reports: that 10–13% of bladder and possibly colon cancers in Ontario may be attributable to long-term exposure to by-products of chlorination in household water supplies. This link is supported by other published scientific research.
No one has done research on the effects of breathing in air bourne water particles containing chlorines. Hmmm, wonder why!
GUELPH -- Did Guelph garrote it's golden bingo goose?
There's no other conclusion now that high license fees in the wake of an onerous anti-smoking bylaw have claimed the city's last commercial bingo hall, says Coun. Dan Moziar.
Bingo Country closed its Guelph doors on Dec. 31. It had raised money for charities through the Victoria Bingo Sponsors Association, whose treasurer, Oryst Pidzamecky, said patronage declined 60 per cent to less than 90 players per session in the wake of the smoking bylaw. About 140 were needed to break even.
By last August, he said, charities were averaging $55 per session, while the city raked in $129 in fees per night session and $105 for daytime ones. In better days before the anti-smoking bylaw, the charities got between $800 and $1,600 per session, said Pidzamecky.
The half-million or so legion members account for about $27.6 million in volunteer time and more than two million volunteer hours. They help care for veterans, run various youth and athletic programs and sponsor seniors' housing projects.
But the legion membership is aging and, due to cuts in the military, recruitment is declining. To replenish their ranks, the legion opened membership in 2000 to Canadians not associated with the military. Now, some feel current and proposed smoking bans in two provinces and almost 50 municipalities will drive loyal members away.
Many of the veterans who smoke feel the government hooked them on cigarettes. Larry Motriuk remembers being issued free cigarettes during the war. Military experts believed it would curb hunger and fatigue during long missions.
They're still smoking in some of the branches. "Someone just keeps a lookout. But can you imagine them arresting eight decorated WW II vets for smoking? No way!"
For decades the Canadian government issued tobacco & rolling papers to military personnel and to prisoners in jails. There is a strong case for a major law suit here, that could be in the billions of dollars. Is the Government digging it's own grave. The cost alone, of defending any such actions could result in huge tax increases that would further burden the Canadian public.
GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd, AstraZeneca, Aventis Pharma, Merck Frostt Canada Inc, Johnson & Johnson, Pharmacia and many other pharmacutical companies regularly purchase cigars to give to doctors as incentives. Inducements to buy or promote specific drugs is illegal in Canada.
But I guess what's good for the goose is not ok for the gander. Just ask former Health Minister Allan Rock, who has sucked back more than a few FREE Cuban MONTECRISTO'S in his time!
Add to that the fact that the Pharmacy Cartel is the largest contributor of funds to the Anti Smoking organization, and account for up to 75% of the W.H.O.'s funding, you have to wonder, is this really nothing more than the world's greatest marketing campaign. Between Zyban and the Patch, Big Pharma rakes in billions upon billions in revenue.
Johnson & Johnson, the worlds largest producer of nicotine patches donated $308 Million to the American Coalition Against Smoking in 2003/04.
Drug companies don't lobby the Politicians any more… to many regulations… the go straight to the bureaucrats and teach them who to push through legilation.
It's a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Love those free cigars, eh Mr. Harris. How was that last box of Cohiba's our client ask us to ship to you?
Kill one person with a gun, you're a murderer.
- Kill a thousand people a day with a pill, you're a pharmaceutical company, and investors will rush to buy your stock like it's Dollar Days at Zellers. Just for the record, Health Canada and US FDA accept a death rate of 1 or 2 per 1000 for every prescription pill on the market. Hundreds of thousands of deaths from side effects -- with billions of pills sold annually -- are viewed as normal, just a part of doing business.
Speaking of zeal, Calgary's medical officer of health, Brent Friesen, has been urging young, non-smoking employees who work in smoky bars and restaurants to inform on their employers to the Workers' Compensation Board. Dr. Friesen says he can't understand why restaurant owners just don't go smoke-free now, since "all the studies show that when smoking is eliminated, business actually increases." Sure, just like "all the studies" show that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
The City of Ottawa's year-long experiment with the toughest anti-smoking bylaws in the country, if not the world, has been "the kiss of death for many in the bar and pub industry," says Barry McKay, head of PUBCO, a coalition which formed to fight the ban. Area beer sales dropped 21% between March 2001 and this March.
Vancouver, BC>>> A new book released today by The Fraser Institute, Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy, calls into question the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assessment that second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), causes cancer. The authors, Drs. Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik, assert that the EPA "was caught red-handed in a conspiracy of public dis-information."
The book carefully examines a recent decision by Judge William Osteen, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, The Court determined that the EPA had knowingly, willfully, and aggressively disseminated false information with far reaching regulatory implications throughout North America.
"It's a win-win-win situation," says David Sweanor, a lawyer with the NonSmokers' Rights Association of Canada, where tax increases have lifted the average price of a pack of cigarettes in the past decade to $4.43 (U.S.) from $1.74. At the same time, he says, Canadians are smoking 40% fewer* cigarettes today, and overall tobacco tax revenue has soared to $5.6 billion a year from $1.6 billion.
Says Mr. Sweanor: "This is something that has a tremendous impact on public health, it raises a heck of a lot of money for governments, and it's popular." --- The Price of Sin
*Note: industry insiders have calculated that consumption and importation of grey & black market cigarettes & cigars is up over 40%. (So who's smoking them?) StatsCan reports that 30% of adult Canadians smoke. That's the same statistic they've been reporting for years! How can the numbers go down and up at the same time?
Total Health Care spending in Canada is just under $2,400 per Canadian according to The Canadian Institute for Health Care. 3.1% of that is out of their own pockets in after tax money and an 16% if from private insurances. This does not include the estimated 3 billion the auto insurance industry pays out for medical treatments! The Average smoker in Canada pays just under $2000 in Federal and Provincial tobacco taxes. These same smokers are also paying about $2,200 before tax to the health care system in the form of payroll taxes. This is a 185% funding.
Yet should you be so unfortunate to get any form of cancer in this country, and you happen to smoke, most health care professionals will with-hold full and meaningful treatment. Basically you're told to kiss your ass good-bye!
Patients with some serious medical conditions are more likely to die in the hospital if they are admitted on a weekend than if they are admitted on a weekday.
According to the Childhood Asthma Foundation, a greater percent of children suffer from asthma now than ever before, not only in Canada, but around the world.
No one knows why.
During this same time, all recent surveys show that smoking during pregnancy and smoking in the home is down by up to 75%, and has been in steady decline since the 70's.
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Canada is helping the tobacco industry develop new and hardier strains of tobacco, despite its own policy prohibiting the use of tax dollars to fund crop research.
The federal government is supplying an experimental farm and federal lab facilities in southern Ontario for multi-year experiments run by the Canadian Tobacco Research Foundation (CTRF).
The department's senior officials have pronounced the research "good," and say Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief is considering a "long-term relationship" with the tobacco industry. This when the Ontario Medical Association says 45,000 Canadians die from tobacco-related diseases each year.
Since 1992, restaurant bankruptcies have deprived the city of Oslo of over NOK 200 million in tax revenues. Oslo was one of the first cities to implement a smoking ban in restaurants.
The city of Ottawa commissioned KPMG a world-renowned accounting and consulting firm to study the effects of the anti smoking bylaw on business. The questionable methodology that KPMG has outlined in their study to gather data can only support one conclusion: that the effect of the no smoking bylaws is negligible on business! HOW EVER>>>>>>
The truth of the matter is a lot more complicated. The reality is that many businesses will survive and over come hardships and many others will simply go away quietly and not be counted in any official statistics. In the interim many business and people will suffer undue hardships and financial strain solely because of this one issue, that they have absolutely no control or self-determination over. Some examples……….:
In order to compensate for a sudden loss of 20-40% of their business many restaurants have had to change their menu, lower profit margins and offer cut rate specials or discounts to attract new clientele.
This has even in some cases helped the employment statistics because extra manpower was required to accommodate the changes. However the downside is lower gratuities and wages for these employees, who are already financially strained by higher fuel costs, poor day care, higher taxes, etc.
Water seeks it's own level, for every entrepreneur that goes under, there are 2 in the wings waiting for opportunity. Many restaurants have had a hard time paying the rent after losing their smoking clientele. As a result the Landlords have locked them out, ceasing their leasehold improvements and chattels.
The landlord now has the advantage of re-renting at a higher rate, and the new entrepreneur has the unfair advantage of getting leaseholds and chattels at deep discounts.
During the early and mid nineties when many shopping malls were ordered to go "no-smoking" as many as 30% of franchisees in the coffee and specialty bakery category were forced to close or had their franchise taken back by the franchiser.
Many of the franchises that were taken back were eventually resold, but only after the parent company re- negotiated the lease or obtained "Rent Relief". (since the operations never actually ceased, they were not counted as a casualty of the smoking ban)
Other businesses in the same malls, reported lower sales in the first 3 to 6 months following the smoking bans. Many part-time employees lost their jobs. Most of these were students facing higher tuition.
There is no dispute, that anti-smoking by-laws or smoking bans will have any great effect on business over all, but what it does do is create an unnatural and unethical redistribution of "wealth".
Service and wholesale food providers reported an surge of unpaid accounts, many of which were too costly to pursue, and there-by simply written off. To recover losses prices where adjusted up.
While not a primary cause, this was a factor in the amalgamations and closures of many small to medium sized providers. Providers that helped keep healthy competition alive!
Another casualty of the anti-smoking campaign, will soon be the small independently owned tobacconists and tuck shops. Already hit with huge revenue losses due to higher tobacco taxes.
Many tobacconist offer "smoking lounges" for their clients.
This is a valuable service, offering an outlet for those who are not prepared to give up smoking, that might otherwise be tempted to smoke in unregulated areas in the presence of children & non smokers.
They have all reported that many of their most affluent clients (who can most afford Canadian prices), have instead used their frequent travel, and personal traveler's tax exemptions as an opportunity to purchase cheap tobacco outside of the country.
If the current trend continues, the only tobacco retailers left will be large corporations like Loblaws, who own and operate the "Holy Smokes" outlets with-in grocery stores. It should be noted that Hillary Weston is both an anti-smoking advocate and part owner of "Loblaws" and there-by beneficiary of "Holy Smokes" profits.
There are now hundreds of thousands of places where non-smokers can go, to dine, to relax, to play, to work, to commune with nature.
Do they really need access to absolutely everything, is there no place where a smoker can go to be free of prejudice and harassment.
Are overweight people the next target?
Can we ban the obese, because we believe their eating habits to be socially unacceptable?
Will we have a "fat" section in restaurants?
Will the "glandularly impaired" and "gravity challenged" people of this country have all doors closed on them?
Perhaps we should impose a "fat tax" on all foods containing abundant calories and excess fats or sugars!
." SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN STATED in her 1995 ruling that the old "Tobacco Products Control Act" prohibited "...advertising which arguably produces benefits to the consumer while having little or no conceivable impact on consumption... Smoking is a legal activity, yet CONSUMERS ARE DEPRIVED OF AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF LEARNING ABOUT PRODUCTAVAILABILITY to suit their preferences and to compare brand content with an aim to reducing the risk to their health." Despite this ruling, the federal government enacted the "Tobacco Act", which was challenged in Quebec's Superior Court before Justice André Denis by the three principal Canadian tobacco manufacturers, and is currently under advisement.
The Framework Convention Alliance
The Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) is a heterogeneous alliance of non-governmental organizations from around the world who are working jointly and separately to support the development of a strong Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and related protocols.
The Alliance includes individual NGOs and organizations working at the local or national level as well as existing coalitions/alliances working at national, regional and international levels.
This is the largest coalition in the world. HOWEVER with all the information they publish, NOWHERE do they reveal their source of funding. Oddly enough many of their affiliated associations are funded by multinational drug companies.
Over the counter and Prescription smoking cessation products are a multi-billion dollar industry. In a move even Machiavelli might have found objectionable, U.S. Senator Bill Frist, who is making a habit of being irresponsible and underhanded, has chosen to reintroduce a bill removing liability from Eli Lilly and other thimerosal producers at a time when the United States is fully preoccupied with concerns about war in Iraq. Thimerosal in vaccines is a hot legal issue that does not need a U.S. senator’s interference on behalf of the drug industry.

Uncertainty continues to churn the issue of tobacco sponsorship. What Canadians think government and the corporate sector ought to do, is the subject of a new survey, and dollars and jobs is the subject of a second new report. The majority of Canadians want government to cut spending on arts, sports, entertainment and fashion events and organizations. As for corporate funding, more than eight in ten Canadians say that companies engaged in legal business enterprises should be allowed to sponsor such events and organizations.
These are the results of a nationally representative public opinion survey conducted in September by Insight Canada Research for The Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom, and released late last month.

Economic impact studies
A second report prepared for the Alliance and made public in September is Groupe SECOR's examination of 20 economic impact studies previously conducted for events organizers and by others with an interest in the field (Edelman Public Relations Worldwide and Université de Québec à Montréal, for example). In total, SECOR reviewed information of varying degrees of detail and sophistication on 88 artistic and sporting events and organizations located in 11 different municipalities throughout Canada.
On the basis of the review, three statements of economic impact are made:
The economic impact of 16 major, tobacco-sponsored events - grouped together because of the similar methodology used in their impact studies - is $133 million of direct and indirect value added and over 2,700 full-time equivalent jobs.
Three events in Montreal, studied using a slightly different method, had a total impact of $49 million and 1,096 jobs.
An impact of $58 million was added to the economy and 1,160 jobs created as the result of a period of Harbourfront Centre activities in Toronto.
ETS
OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000 - Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, data from our study suggests that the situation is more complex," said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division.
The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace.
Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours. Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP.
The historical precedent for this "politics of punishment" agenda comes from Nazi Germany. Before modern Canada or Massachusetts, Nazi Germany embarked on a campaign to end smoking. Cigarette taxes were raised 800 percent, a draconian indoor smoking ban was instituted, and a goofy, mostly anti-Semitic, anti-smoking campaign was launched. Caricatures of Hasidic Jews trying to lure an "Aryan" youth to take up smoking, cartoons depicting smoking as the vice of "Jews, Africans, Indians, loose women, decadent intellectuals" were among the more popular with Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls, who signed smoke-free pledges, put on plays warning of the dangers of smoking to the "Aryan race," etc. Most ended up smoking, anyway.) In fact, smoking rates increased in Germany by some 50 percent from 1932-39, while staying stable in France.
This is even more remarkable since Jews were banned from buying or smoking cigarettes in 1938. (Hitler was obviously concerned about their health.) Similarly, women under 25 and over 55 and all pregnant women were banned from smoking. Non-Jewish-owned restaurants that allowed smoking were forbidden from selling cigarettes to female customers.
Big Bread: Caution: Smell Of Baked Bread May Be Health Hazard
A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone. I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?

Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....
More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average Canadian eats more bread than that in a month!
Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
Newborn babies can choke on bread.
Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:
No sale of bread to minors.
No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the social ills we might associate with bread.
No animal or human images, nor any primary colours (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
.A $4.2 billion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers.
Tell your government it's time to move on to more important business! Drop the smoking issue, it's a tired old record.


City buries the smoking gun
Ron Corbett
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, September 21, 2001
For several months, opponents of the city of Ottawa's smoking bylaw have alleged the city ignored any fact,
argument or statistic that went against the health department's desire for a 100-per-cent ban on smoking in
all public places.
They may now have proof.
This week, after repeated requests by the Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario, and only after being forced by a
formal access to information demand, the city health department finally released a copy of a public opinion
survey taken last year that measured public support for a 100-per-cent smoking ban.
The survey was conducted last October and November by Opinion Search. It polled 504 people in Ottawa,
and is considered accurate within an associated margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. On January 15 of
this year, the city held a press conference, to kick off national non-smoking week, and released the results of
the survey. Mayor Bob Chiarelli and Dr. Robert Cushman, the chief medical health officer, spoke at the
conference; the mayor said it was "time to assist in creating a smoke-free society"; Dr. Cushman said "the
best way to protect people from the serious health hazards of second-hand smoke is to make all public
places 100-per-cent smoke-free."
After the speeches, the city handed out a press release and a "backgrounder" on the Opinion Search
survey. The city said, alternately, that there was "continuing growth in support"; "overwhelming support" and
"significant support" for a total ban on smoking in public places. It was this survey, and those assertions, that
helped convince city council to unanimously pass a bylaw that banned smoking in public places.
However, what no one was ever told, and what the full survey reveals, is this rather interesting fact: There
was far greater support in the city for a limited bylaw.
Or as the survey puts it: "Respondents were asked if they would support a limited, non-smoking bylaw.
Support for this bylaw is stronger than for a 100-per-cent smoke-free bylaw at every type of public place
presented to the respondents, except the workplace."
Indeed, nearly three-quarters of respondents in the survey supported a limited bylaw -- which would allow for
separate, ventilated smoking rooms -- in restaurants, bars, pubs, casinos, bingo halls and race tracks. This
rather significant fact was completely omitted in the backgrounder and the press release, although it was a
major component of the survey.
The city didn't stop with simple omissions either. In the press release there was also what seemed to be a
rather glaring lie. And it's a big one.
"This new survey," says the City of Ottawa press release, "like numerous surveys done previously, shows
that smoke-free bylaws will not hurt business, but will most likely increase patronage if the bylaws are
applied fairly across the board."
The press release then gives some statistics from the survey, including the fact that "60 per cent of
respondents stated they would frequent restaurants more often if they were 100-per-cent smoke-free, while
a third of respondents declared that they would increase their patronage to eight of the 11 types of
establishments mentioned in the survey."
Those figures are accurate. But what the city left out, however, was the next sentence from the survey:
"Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the net positive effect or negative effect that the elimination of
smoking would have on patronage to these types of establishments, as the respondents were not asked
their current frequency of visiting these public places."
Stop and reflect on that one for a minute. The survey says you can make no conclusions on the effect the
bylaw will have on patronage, because the right questions were not asked. The city then sends out a press
release saying a total ban on smoking will be good for business.
"This survey, when you read it all the way through, is just amazing," says PUBCO spokesman Edgar
Mitchell. "It clearly shows that more people supported a limited bylaw than a total ban, but the city just swept
that under the carpet. Totally ignored it. The survey states you can't really say how it will affect business,
and the city ignores that too."
Anyway, once again the truth is a little different from what was commonly believed. And at city hall today,
some councillors should be asking pointed questions of the mayor and the chief medical officer of health, not
the least of which should be, what is our legal exposure on all this?
Or put another way, if a business goes bankrupt in the next few months, and can show the ban on smoking
was a contributing factor, and it can further be shown that the city misled, misrepresented or outright lied
about the public support for the bylaw and its economic impact, then what should the damages be?
The Heather Crowe File
by MOSJC
Heather Crowe has been cold-heartedly manipulated and exploited. So have you.
Heather Crowe is one of the most famous Canadians of all time. Her well-known and tragic story has appeared in newspaper reports and television and radio programs around the world. She has appeared in Health Canada poster ads plastered on every bus shelter across Canada, as well as heavy-saturation movie preview and television ads. She has made public appearances and presentations to Provincial Legislatures in most provinces and the City Councils of many major cities. Everyone knows the story of the spunky little Ottawa City waitress who is dying from exposure to second-hand smoke in her workplace.
Unfortunately, there are convincing reasons to believe that many things about the Heather Crowe story are not what they appear to be. Some critical "truths" which most people believe they know about Heather Crowe and her story, are not true at all!
And there's more - if Heather Crowe's story inspired anger against injustice, in you, the never before told "behind-the-scenes" story of her recruitment, manipulation and exploitation by ruthless fanatics ought to inspire genuine rage in you!
[Disclaimer; Despite Heather Crowe's obvious eagerness to be 'used' as an anti-smoking and public smoking ban advocate & spokesperson, I still believe she is sincere. I don't believe her involvement in misleading and manipulating us all, was intentional. I believe she is herself a victim, and even now probably remains unaware of the full extent to which she, herself, has been manipulated and exploited. There are no criticisms of Heather Crowe herself, in this article.]
PART ONE : Myths about Heather Crowe 1) MYTH - Heather Crowe was an average, typical restaurant worker - so what happened to her could easily happen to anyone who works around second-hand smoke.
FACT - Heather Crowe was far from an average or typical restaurant worker. In the first place, waitressing full-time for 40 years is very rare. The vast majority of persons who have ever worked as serving staff in the hospitality industry have only worked part-time, or for a few years before moving on to jobs in some unrelated field of work. The average "fast-food" company employee leaves their job within six months, for example.
By her own words, there were years when Heather Crowe worked "three shifts a day, at three different restaurants, from 6am to 2am". Working 20 hour days for years at a time is so far from "average" or "typical" for hospitality workers, that it would be more accurately described as a "one-in-a-million" work routine. The extreme level of exposure to second-hand smoke that Heather Crowe would have experienced throughout her working years, would therefore also be best described as "one-in-a-million".
Heather Crowe was not an average hospitality worker, with an average level of exposure to other people's smoke. The people in the anti-smoking organizations that misled her into believing that she was, or reinforced any such mistaken belief she might have held - betrayed her trust in them, manipulated her for their own purposes, and through her have attempted to manipulate us all.
2) MYTH - When Heather Crowe says; "I want to be the last person to die from second-hand smoke", she is referring to the many other documented cases of people being killed by exposure to second-hand smoke.
FACT - There has never been a case of someone dying from exposure to second-hand smoke, documented by death certificate or autopsy report, in our country. If Heather Crowe does end up dying from her lung cancer, (she is currently in remission, and may not die from her lung cancer at all, despite having allegedly been told that she had no more than a year to live), she will be the first and only person in the history of Canada to "officially" die from second-hand smoke.
Figures used by anti-smoking groups and government health agencies, of some number of persons supposedly "killed by second-hand smoke" every year, are not based on documentation of individual person's cause of death. "These estimates are made by...epidemiological estimating procedures that do not involve direct examination of individual death certificates." - Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
That is why every health unit across our country seems to be using different numbers for the alleged "killed by second-hand smoke each year", and each of them contradicting the others. It seems very odd that, if you are in Lambton Ontario - 5000 people will die from second-hand smoke this year, but if you hop on a plane and go to Calgary Alberta - suddenly, only 3000 people will die from SHS. If you fly back to Ottawa and hang around the Health Canada buildings, the number of dead will magically drop to 1000/year. We should probably all move to B.C. because, standing on the healing soil of B.C. causes the national "death by SHS" rate to drop down to 500/year. No matter where you are standing in our country, however, not one of these alleged fatal victims of SHS can be found in your local morgue - with an autopsy report certifying that to be their cause of death, attached to them. They exist only on the pages of epidemiological estimating reports.
When Heather Crowe won compensation for allegedly contracting lung cancer through her workplace exposure to SHS, anti-smoking organization spokespeople gleefully predicted that her case would "open the floodgates" - that there would now be dozens or even hundreds of similar successful applications for compensation by similar victims across our country. In the eighteen months since her highly publicized successful claim, however, there has not been even one - not a single other application for compensation by any similar victims. No other "Heather Crowes" have surfaced.
It seems very probable that Heather Crowe and her tragic story are entirely unique in the history of our nation. Certainly, no documentation exists to the contrary. Heather Crowe may have been fated to be the first, last and only 'documented' fatal victim of exposure to SHS in the workplace, even if she had never gone public and campaigned for smoke-free workplaces.
3) MYTH - After working 40 years as a waitress, non-smoker Heather Crowe was diagnosed as having "a smoker's tumor" in her lungs.
FACT - There is no such thing as a "smoker's tumor". The phrase; "smoker's tumor" is not a medical term, and cannot be found in any credible medical dictionary.
Lung cancer can manifest as any one of four different cancerous tumors, all of which have been linked - through statistical analysis - to the smoking habits of the people who developed them. (The four types of lung cancers will be discussed in more detail in Part Two)
Since all four types of tumors have some level of association to tobacco smoke, all of them could be called "smoker's tumors". There is no type of lung cancer tumor that only occurs in smokers, or which is exclusively associated with carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.
The phrase "a smoker's tumor" may have been fed to Heather Crowe so that she would falsely conclude her tumor could only have been caused by inhaling tobacco smoke, just as her constant use of that phrase has falsely led thousands - possibly millions - to believe that she had some type of lung cancer tumor that could only be caused by inhaling tobacco smoke.
The evidence for this possible motivation includes the apparent suckering of Windsor-Essex County Health Unit staff - who really ought to know better - into drawing that exact mistaken conclusion; "Heather Crowe, a lifelong non-smoker, was diagnosed with a lung tumour normally only found in smokers." 1 If county health unit staff were hoodwinked by that phrase into believing that Heather Crowe had a type of lung tumor that is exclusive to smokers, how many ordinary people with no medical background likely came to the same, false, conclusion?
The exact type of tumor found in Heather Crowe's lung has never been made public.
4) MYTH - Heather Crowe's doctors were able to prove, beyond any doubt, that the second-hand smoke she was exposed to in her work was the cause of her lung cancer.
FACT - Because the biological processes involved in triggering cancerous mutation of healthy cells is not fully understood, it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty - even after examining and analyzing a sample of the tumor, as in a biopsy - that any specific substance caused the cells to go cancerous. For this reason, the association of smoking with the development of each kind of lung cancer is only described in medical literature as "strong" (many of the people who developed this type of tumor, were smokers) or "weak" (few of the people who developed this type of tumor, were smokers).
Heather Crowe's doctors could not have submitted, to the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, irrefutable proof that cells in her lung were made to mutate into a cancerous tumor by inhaling tobacco smoke. No doctor on the planet can demonstrate such a direct causal relationship. Even the presence of carcinogenic substances found in tobacco smoke, in the tissue of her lung, could not prove such a direct causal relationship - because the processes involved in triggering cancerous mutation of healthy cells is not fully understood.
This is why the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ruling was so "groundbreaking", and why "her lawyer, Phillip Hunt, told her it would be an "uphill battle." 2 Since a direct causal relationship could not possibly be demonstrated, the possibility of winning her compensation claim must have appeared remote to everyone involved. The ruling is, therefore, somewhat suspicious.
There are strong reasons to believe that political pressure was exerted upon members of the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, quite possibly influencing a favorable ruling despite the lack of proof for a direct causal relationship. (See #5 below and also discussed in Part Two)
The full OWSIB ruling has not been made public.
The names of the doctors who submitted reports supporting Heather Crowe's claim, have not been made public. Their submissions to the OWSIB have not been made public.
For the record, what is publicly known about the submissions made to the OWSIB on Heather Crowe's behalf, is that they consisted primarily of statistical studies alleged to demonstrate an association between exposure to second-hand smoke and increased risk of developing lung cancer. "Mr. Hunt said his submissions to the compensation board relied on information that included studies done on the California food-services industry. The study found that heavily exposed restaurant workers inhaled the equivalent of 1½ to two packs of cigarettes a day." 3
5) MYTH - The fact that the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ruled in Heather Crowe's favor, proves that second-hand smoke causes cancer (and heart disease, stroke, emphysema, asthma, and every other respiratory or circulatory ailment) in non-smokers.
FACT - The OWSIB ruling established no new medical or scientific findings. The Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board is only a worker's compensation board, a bureaucratic body. It is not a panel of world experts on cancer, nor is it a gathering of the greatest scientific researchers of our day. The extent to which exposure to second-hand smoke contributes to disease in non-smokers is still being debated and disputed, within the world of medical research. The OWSIB ruling has not changed that fact in any way.
If the OWSIB ruling proved anything at all, perhaps it has proven that having very powerful political friends can result in having compensation board standards of evidence tossed out the window in your case; "Crowe drew up a list of important people she had waited on: Ottawa West MP Marlene Catterall, former Gloucester mayor Claudette Cain, Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli, Nepean-Carleton MPP and Energy Minister John Baird, former regional chair Peter Clark, councillor Alex Munter and former Ottawa mayor Jacquelin Holzman. She met with Dr. Robert Cushman, the city's medical officer of health, and asked him to help her write letters to these people asking for support for her claim." 2
6) MYTH - It was Heather Crowe's tragic story that inspired all the anti-smoking organizations to mount fanatical efforts to secure total public smoking bans in every community across our country. The members of these organizations have no motives for wanting total public smoking bans other than to protect other workers from suffering Heather Crowe's fate.
FACT - Total public smoking bans have been a staple of all anti-smoking organizations since they came into being - in some cases, decades ago. The fanatical drive to achieve the goal of 100% public bans began many years before Heather Crowe was even diagnosed with lung cancer.
There are many provable motivations for anti-smoking organizations wanting total public smoking bans, other than protecting workers like Heather Crowe. (Discussed in more detail in Part 2).
One of the primary motivations for these campaigns, is a motivation that has been downplayed in recent years and which often lies hidden beneath more obvious motivations. Many members of anti-smoking organizations subscribe to a delusional yet passionate belief that they are 'heroes' fighting a "David vs. Goliath" war against "evil" multinational tobacco companies. Total public smoking bans would serve this motivation indirectly - by contributing to making ordinary life impossible for many smokers. Anti-smoking advocates assume and hope that being turned into social pariahs, with the civil liberties that other citizens enjoy denied to them, will "motivate" large numbers of smokers to quit -
"Under Section 115 of the Municipal Act 2001, municipalities are permitted to pass bylaws regulating when and where a person can smoke in the community. This is part of the Ontario Tobacco Strategy aimed at reducing the use of tobacco in the province, and in the longer term reducing the health related costs that come from tobacco use." 1
which would in turn deal the tobacco companies a serious blow through the loss of customer dollars this would represent.
The myopic fanaticism underlying this convoluted method of striking at the tobacco companies is plainly shown by the fact that such a plan would necessarily inflict misery and suffering, in the lives of the very people that anti-smoking organizations have always claimed to be dedicated to protecting from misery and suffering (the misery and suffering of contracting and dying from lung cancer, for example) - people who smoke.
Before Heather Crowe, anti-smoking organizations rarely emphasized the idea of protecting workers from SHS health dangers, in their literature and public statements calling for 100% public bans. After Heather Crowe "fell in their laps", the idea of protecting worker's health suddenly became the central focus of all such group's campaigns for public smoking bans. Heather Crowe and her tragic life circumstance have been, ironically and ghoulishly, the best thing that ever happened to anti-smoking groups and campaigners around the globe.
In fact, if Heather Crowe did not exist, it would be necessary for these organizations to "invent" her. Can you be absolutely certain, that they didn't? (Discussed in Part Two)
Attention Business Editors:
Government Data Shows Smoking Bans Devastate Bar Industry Reports Leading Economist TORONTO, April 19 /CNW/ - Confirming the worst fears of Canada's
hospitality industry The Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) and The Pub and
Bar Coalition of Canada (PUBCO) released the most comprehensive economic
analysis yet done on the impact of complete smoking bans on bars and pubs.
The economic impact study offers definitive proof that smoking bans, like
the McGuinty government Bill 164, will lead to widespread devastation
throughout one of Canada's largest employment sectors - the hospitality
industry - in communities across the Province.
The study shows smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real
and dramatic impact on revenue. Bar and pub sales were reduced: 23.5% in
Ottawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener.
The study was conducted by Michael Evans, Ph. D., one of North America's
leading economists and a former advisor to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), NASA, U.S. Senate Finance Committee and the U.S. Treasury. Dr. Evans
was also a Professor of Economics at the Kellogg Graduate School of
Management. The world-renowned economist used Ontario Ministry of Finance
sales and tax receipts data between 2000 and 2003 to ensure the veracity of
his report. The study has been verified by Wade Cook, Ph. D, Associate Dean of
Research, Schulich School of Business.
Prof. Evans concluded, "Government data clearly demonstrates smoking bans
materially reduce sales in bars and nightclubs. The evidence is quite clear.
To suggest that smoking bans don't have a dramatic negative impact on bar
sales would be an opinion - not fact."
"While we do agree that smoking has health risks associated with it, we
believe that adults should be free to exercise their choice to smoke so long
as there are separate, properly ventilated rooms," said Karen Bodirsky, CEO of
the FAAC. "The Province's hospitality industry and its 491,000 employees need
amendments to Bill 164 for the provision of separate ventilated smoking
rooms," added Edgar Mitchell, Chair of PUBCO.
The results not only bring grim news to bars and pubs but also to
community organizations. "This study shows the devastating impact the
government's legislation will have on bars but other sectors are threatened
too. A province-wide ban will have a negative impact on Legion Halls and
charity bingos when the ban is fully in place," stated Bodirsky.
Bodirsky and Mitchell also called on the McGuinty government to conduct
an economic impact study of their own and release the results publicly of the
economic effects of a full smoking ban on Ontario's hospitality industry
before the government passes and implements Bill 164.
The study results echoed reports from other jurisdictions facing smoking
bans.
"We know a smoking ban will have a devastating impact on Newfoundland and
Labrador's hospitality industry. Ontario's economic impact study is further
proof of why the government of Newfoundland and Labrador should choose
ventilation over outright bans," noted Marcel Etheridge, President of the
Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland. "The same 18 to 25% drop in
business that was seen in Ontario's smoke-free communities will be seen in
communities across Newfoundland and Labrador and will have the same results:
lay offs and business closures."
"There is no doubt that people are losing businesses that were popular
local spots in Saskatchewan communities for 20 years or more. Once the
provincial smoking ban came in, business dried up and the lay offs started.
It's a very tough thing for our local hotel owners to do because they've known
these people for years and still see them every day in the community," said
Tom Mullin, President & CEO, Hotels Association of Saskatchewan.
Sheree Davies, Chair of Central Alberta Businesses for Choice stated that
"The smoking ban will really have an effect in my surrounding communities. The
old spots many of the locals meet at to chat will no longer be around. It's
really sad to think about the nature of our local communities changing so
dramatically."
The Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) is a diverse group of
organizations, businesses and individuals committed to the promotion of sound
ventilation science and support of the hospitality industry. Find out more
about the FAAC and ventilation solutions at www.faac.ca or call 416-214-2737 /
416-648-4325.
Founded in 2001, the Pub and Bar Coalition is a not-for-profit
organization committed to effectively representing and protecting the
interests of licensees in Ontario when issues arrive that could affect their
livelihoods. To find out more about PUBCO, go to www.pubcoalition.com or call
1-613-321-0603 or 1-866-314-2179.
For further information: please contact: Karen Bodirsky, CEO, Fair Air
Association of Canada, (416) 214-2737, (416) 648-4325; Regional Media
Contacts: Newfoundland: Wade Gravelle, Vice President, West Side Charlie's,
Cell: (709) 682-1601; Gerry Connolly, Atlantic Star Satellite Bingo Hall,
Cell: (709) 682-7397; Marcel Ethridge, President, Beverage Industry
Association of Newfoundland, Cell: (709) 727-6999; Manitoba: Jim Baker,
President & CEO, Manitoba Hotel Association, (204) 942-0671; Saskatchewan:
Tom Mullin, President & CEO, Hotels Association of Saskatchewan,
(306) 522-1664; Alberta: Sheree Davies, Chair, Central Alberta Businesses for
Choice, (403) 357-0003; British Columbia: Doug Grant, General Manager, The
Royal Canadian Legion, Esquimalt Dockyard Branch No. 172, (250) 386-7635;
Quebec: Mr. Renaud Poulin, Corporation des propriétaires de bars, brasseries
et tavernes du Québec (CPBBT), (450) 692-8443, cell. (514) 928-4757