Smoking Ban Questions Blow through City Council Chambers

Smoking bans are the ‘real’ threat to Democracy Smoking bans are the real threat to democracy

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has
nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of
“second-hand” smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a
cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic. This
cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government
power.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” smoking bans
have actually targeted many privately owned places such as bars and shops –
places whose owners should be free to ban smoking or not and whose customers
are free to patronize or not. Outdoor bans even harass smokers in places
where others’ health is obviously not the issue.

The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question for
each individual to answer based on his own values and judgment.  This is the
same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their
lives. All lifestyle decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; many are controversial and invite disapproval from others. but
the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free,
because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own judgment
can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking this freedom of choice for a minority, is being
seriously limited by a majority made baselessly fearful through massive
media campaigns often funded by tax dollars.

The real threat we face here, no matter how strongly it is denied by the
anti-smoking lobby, is the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government
into our lives.

We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour. They are
in office to serve us, not vise versa.

Thomas Laprade

Democracy threat Bans on private property will be proven

Unconstitutional.
  Private property is described by a piece of land or a building not owned or purchased by the Public with taxpayer funding.

Resaurants, bars, dance halls, nursing homes, assisted living quarters, apartment buildings,casinos, veterans halls, clubs, golf courses,etc are private properties.

A minority can not make  rules on ordinances involving private property rights.

Washington DC residents have been given, by the Supreme Court, the freedom to have a gun in their homes,lifting a ban regarding private property rights.

Dangers of second hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated,

as compared to other dangerous pollutants,eg automobile exhaust.

Do we not have a democracy here in the United States? The great thing about democracy is that it needs capitalism to be successful. And the great thing about capitalism is that if there is a true need or demand in our society, such as smoke free establishments, then that demand will be met by privately owned businesses. That is right, I said privately owned. People have this misconception of a bar being “public”. Well, it is not public people! It would like you coming over to my house and telling me I can't smoke. It's my house, just as it's the bar owner's bar, if you don't like the smoking DON'T GO TO THAT ESTABLISHMENT! I don't go to strip clubs and complain about the girls showing too much. I don't go to a comedy club and complain that the comedians shouldn't be allowed to cuss. The government has no right to step in. If the government is so concern about the effects of cigarettes, how come it is still legal for pregnant women to smoke? So, let me get this right, I can't smoke at a bar, but a pregnant woman can smoke, which I just happen to see the other day. How come anyone is allowed to smoke? Better yet, it would make more since to outlaw all fast food and red meat in general, seeming how consumption of red meat and unhealthy diet leads to way more diseases and deaths per year than smoking. If you don't believe me, ask any physician. The point is, the government has no right nor a legitimate excuse to have this ban in effect. And no, I am not a smoker.

Do we not have a democracy here in the United States? The great thing about democracy is that it needs capitalism to be successful. And the great thing about capitalism is that if there is a true need or demand in our society, such as smoke free establishments, then that demand will be met by privately owned businesses. That is right, I said privately owned. People have this misconception of a bar being “public”. Well, it is not public people! It would like you coming over to my house and telling me I can't smoke. It's my house, just as it's the bar owner's bar, if you don't like the smoking DON'T GO TO THAT ESTABLISHMENT! I don't go to strip clubs and complain about the girls showing too much. I don't go to a comedy club and complain that the comedians shouldn't be allowed to cuss. The government has no right to step in. If the government is so concern about the effects of cigarettes, how come it is still legal for pregnant women to smoke? So, let me get this right, I can't smoke at a bar, but a pregnant woman can smoke, which I just happen to see the other day. How come anyone is allowed to smoke? Better yet, it would make more since to outlaw all fast food and red meat in general, seeming how consumption of red meat and unhealthy diet leads to way more diseases and deaths per year than smoking. If you don't believe me, ask any physician. The point is, the government has no right nor a legitimate excuse to have this ban in effect. And no, I am not a smoker. Just an intelligent liberal that cares about his rights and a TRUE patriot.

An Open Letter, sent to the following recipients, July 23, 2008

Dear Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario; The Honourable Peter Miliken M.P., The Speaker of the House of Commons and other Members; Honourable Members of the Senate of Canada:

This letter is my appeal to refuse Royal Assent to Ontario's new legislation banning adults from smoking in cars where children under age 16 are present, refers to the following email.

*An open letter that was emailed to all Ontario MPP's in early May, 2008. No replies!

Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children

We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!

Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.

This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government's pernicious slogan “health and safety.”

By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!

The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!

The most”dangerous smoke” comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not 'health and safety.'

Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!

Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies– honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War– disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!

From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, “It doesn't matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true…..You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine.” We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!

For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.

In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, “I was acutely conscious of the pressure to 'adapt' and to absorb the values of the 'tribe'—family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?”

Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality–that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country's interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea's truth or falsehood–that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people–that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority–in short, gang rule and mob rule–if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in–and camouflaged by–the notion of 'Government by Consensus.”

'Rule by Consensus,' (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays' anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from 'Rule by Consensus' is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.

Note this recent example, Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to “too much intrusion into people's private lives.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker's individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker's family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.

In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930's, 1940's, Germany used “politicized ecology and public health” to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government's shameful anti-smoking agenda.

References:

Paul Watson – Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) – book
Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem – book
Ayn Rand – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal – book

The information in these (2) paragraphs was not sent to the Ontario MPP's.

This quote contains an overt 'blueprint' by Sir George Godber, British representative to WHO, World Health Organization, suggesting intentional misrepresentation of second-hand smoke, at a WHO conference in 1975. He stated “for the anti-smoking movement to succeed it would be essential to create an atmosphere and belief that second-hand smoke would hurt the infants, children and all people around smokers. Without that fear, and the ostracization it would bring, smokers would continue to insist on the right to enjoy their habit socially, and the goal of official denormalization would never occur.”

Sir George Godber's quote is a serious breech of ethics and objectivity, resulting in an hysteria that widely afflicts the anti-smoking movement and why it is necessary to return to science with the total rejection of politicized environmentalism.

Please, refuse Royal Assent of the proposed Ontario legislation banning adults from smoking in cars where children under age 16 are present! Thank you.

IMO..
Even the government couldn't stop people from smoking.
It's been an addictive habit of most people a long time ago..

Democracy threat Bans on private property will be proven
Unconstitutional.
  Private property is described by a piece of land or a building not owned or purchased by the Public with taxpayer funding.
Resaurants, bars, dance halls, nursing homes, assisted living quarters, apartment buildings,casinos, veterans halls, clubs, golf courses,etc are private properties.
A minority can not make  rules on ordinances involving private property rights.

Washington DC residents have been given, by the Supreme Court, the freedom to have a gun in their homes,lifting a ban regarding private property rights.
Dangers of second hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated,
as compared to other dangerous pollutants,eg automobile exhaust.