DELTA AIRLINE'S ''NO MIMICKING OF SMOKING'' POLICY

One of our members had an intriguing experience with Delta Airlines that we would like to share with you. After reading the self-explaining correspondence that was exchanged with Delta corporate office you will understand that anti-smoking has now become a moral crusade that has absolutely nothing to do with non-smokers’ health. Not that it ever did, but at one time it was a lot less obvious than it is today. Today it has become so transparent that one would have to be totally blind not to see it.

Please do not hesitate to let Delta know what you think of their rabid no tobacco and their ‘’no mimicking the act of smoking’’ policy. You can write to them at: Delta.OnlineSupport@delta.com

Our member wrote to Delta inquiring about their no tobacco policy as follows:

I would like to know why smokeless tobacco is forbidden on Deltaflights. SNUS (which is spitless and smokeless) as well as electronic cigarettes can offer some comfort to smoking travelers. Why are they forbidden? Very very strange policy and for this reason alone I will never travel Delta again.

The reply from Delta:

Thank you for contacting us through delta.com. We are sorry for the delay in responding to your message.
A device known as electronic cigarette or e-cigarette is available to the public.

- It is marketed as a healthier alternative to smoking and used to assist users in their efforts to quit smoking.

- E-cigarette may look like a cigarette, cigar or pipe.

- The cigarette makes a mist that resembles normal cigarette smoke. The mist dissipates quickly and is both odorless and colorless.

- Due to continued instances of passengers attempting to smoke real cigarettes on board and the potential concern from passengers, the use of electronic, simulated smoking materials including cigarettes, pipes and cigars, is prohibited on all Delta flights.

- While Delta / Delta Connection do not permit the use of electronic cigarettes on board, they are permitted in the passenger's carry-on luggage.

Again, thank you for writing. We appreciate your selection of Delta and will always welcome the opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,

Serena BeckOnline Customer Support Desk

To which our member replied (pending answer) :

Thank you for replying.

I know exactly what an electronic cigarette is, I own one myself. But it's not tobacco, or smokeless tobacco. It is not much different in principle than a pharmaceutical nicotine inhaler. Why would you allow those, or do you? It is only a substitute to smoking and as you say it is colorless and odorless and it contains absolutely no tobacco. Perhaps if the attendants would explain to the ''concerned'' assistance in the plane what this device is all about at the very beginning of the flight, they wouldn't be so ''worried'' about thinking someone is lighting up? This would not only enhance smokers' traveling experience, it would also appease those craving nicotine and you would have less of the incidents of people lighting up as you say. Why not offer complimentary e-cigarettes on board, or even sell them? That would make you stand out, wouldn't it? What good is an e-cigarette in the carry-on luggage?

But this doesn't explain why all smokeless tobacco is banned. What about SNUS? Why would you not tolerate that? Isn't enhancing your customers' flight experience part of good business?

COLLISION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The article from the BBC we link to below is self explanatory and proof positive that scientific integrity and public health policy are not always synonym.

Professor Nutt was head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the UK. Obviously his qualifications had merit when he was first named to hold that position. Why then was his advice not only totally discounted but was also shown the door after alerting the UK government that reclassifying cannabis as a more potent drug than what it is presently classified did not have any scientific merits and would not do the population any justice?

The man deserves credit and the public's thanks for standing behind his scientific findings and having the courage to not cave in to what the higher authorities wanted people to hear. How many scientists simply parrot the predetermined results governments and private funders strongly ‘’suggest’’ for them to find in fear to lose their job or their grant money?

When will our elected officials learn that fear mongering based on puritan and moral values is not the solution that will ever bring positive results towards a healthier population? Thinking that the public will believe everything they hear regardless of their eyewitness and life experiences is not only an underestimation of people's judgement but a true insult to their intelligence. How much more credibility does public health intend to lose before they pull their act together and start basing public policy on scientific values?

Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

FATTISM

More disturbing than the article from the BBC itself ((linked below) are some of the comments from the readers that somehow condone discrimination against overweight people and blame them for being fat whether willingly or through no choice of their own.

While we may speculate that one woman’s assault against another because she’s fat may hopefully be just an isolated incident, how can we possibly let go unheeded the number of comments that blame overweight people for being who they are and the rising costs to the national healthcare system?

Have the anti-obesity propaganda and healthism in general rendered us so arrogant that we feel that the way public health deems we should be and act is the only right way to live? Who has died and named the approved ‘’normal’’ members of society the moral guardians of other citizens who don’t fit the predetermined mold? Are we as individuals no longer allowed to make the right or wrong decisions according to our own perceptions of what life represents for us and what makes it worthwhile?

Why are fat people abused?

SILENCE ON VACCINE

Afin qu’on puisse prendre une décision si l'on doit se faire vacciner ou non, on doit être en mesure de connaître les pours et les contres de la vaccination et ce selon le degré des risques et notre tolérance à ces risques. Le gouvernement, le milieu médical et les médias penchent plutôt du côté du ‘’pour’’ faisant en sorte qu’il nous est donné que très peu d’information sur l’envers de la médaille des vaccins et souvent on y perd notre latin à essayer de démêler les diverses théories de complot des vrais risques et effets secondaires de la vaccination.

Lina B. Moreco a produit un film auprès de l’ONF qui a permis la sortie du documentaire sous condition qu'aucune personne, aucun commerce, ne puisse acquérir le film pour la revente. De plus aucune publicité ne sera faite pour faire connaître la sortie DVD.

Sur sa page au http://argcitoyen.skyrock.com/2623019388-SILENCE-ON-VACCINE-Lina-B-Moreco.html on peut y lire ce qui suit :

‘’Loin de rejeter les avantages indéniables et largement documentés de la vaccination pour l'ensemble de la population, Silence, on vaccine met en lumière la nécessité de soutenir des recherches pour mieux comprendre les effets à long terme des vaccins et ainsi mieux protéger la minorité à risque. Ce documentaire profondément humain soulève une question aussi fondamentale que troublante : combien de personnes peut-on accepter de sacrifier dans le silence au nom du bien commun?’’

Si on fait abstraction des diverses théories de complot et tout-ce qu’on entend sur la vaccination dernièrement, il est néanmoins vrai que comme toute médication, il y a des personnes qui développent de l’intolérance et des effets secondaires graves à la vaccination et ils sont en droit de prendre leurs propres décisions sur les risques qu’ils veulent assumer.

Pour quelle raison alors est-ce qu’on soustrait à la population le droit d’être informée des contres de la vaccination en interdisant la diffusion de ce film au grand public tout en piétinant sur la liberté d’expression ? Est-ce que le gouvernement considère une fois de plus que nous sommes tous des imbéciles heureux incapables de prendre nos propres décisions sur l’avis de nos médecins et autres professionnels de la santé à qui nous faisons confiance ?

Le film ‘’Silence on Vaccine’’ est diffusé sur l’internet au : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8503852033482537965#

Bon visionnement et n’oubliez surtout pas de le faire parvenir à vos proches et connaissances. Il est également souhaitable que vous écriviez à votre député et autres instances gouvernementales pour exiger des explications sur l’interdiction de ce film. Serait-ce par hasard parce qu’au parlement il y a plus de lobbyistes pharmaceutiques qu’il y a des députés ?

INTERDICTION DE FUMER DANS LES PÉNITENCIERS LEVÉE PAR LA COUR FÉDÉRALE

La cour fédérale a renversé l’interdiction de fumer à l’extérieur des pénitenciers en statuant que les détenus ne devraient pas être soumis à des interdictions qui n’ont aucun lien avec leurs crimes et que de leur interdire de fumer dans la cour des prisons va trop loin surtout que ceci n’a aucune incidence sur la santé des non-fumeurs.

En voici une décision sage du juge qui présidait la cause soumise par des détenus représentés par nul autre que le constitutionaliste notoire Me Julius Grey.

Cette décision est plus que la bienvenue dans un contexte où fumer est considéré presqu’un crime en soi. Il est cependant triste de constater que dans notre système judiciaire c’est seulement ceux qui ont les moyens de se payer des avocats du calibre de Me Grey qui réussissent à trouver justice. Peut-on espérer que cette décision créera une jurisprudence pour les malades, les psychiatrisés, les personnes âgées, qui, selon la province, certains n’ont pas le droit de fumer nulle part sur le territoire des établissements publics qui les hébergent.

Nous félicitons Me Grey et les détenus qu’il représentait pour leur victoire et espérons de tout cœur que cette décision servira aux membres les plus vulnérables de la société qui n’ont pas d’autre choix que de cesser de fumer ou d’être forcés à consommer des produits pharmaceutiques tel que le Chantix/Champix, le Zyban ou les produits nicotiniques pharmaceutiques.

Les détenus peuvent fumer, tranche la Cour fédérale

THE WHO EXPOSED FOR THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AGENCY IT HAS BECOME

After rewriting the definition of obesity by lowering the acceptable Body Mass Index, redefining diabetes by lowering the permissible threshold and the same with blood pressure and cholesterol, now we have a newly manufactured definition for a ''pandemic''. (Read more at: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/epidemics-by-definition.html )

We will echo some of the comments posted following the article linked to below and congratulate the author for his audacity to expose the WHO for the politically motivated agency it has become. The health of the populations seems to be very low on their list of priorities. Validating and sustaining their existence is what’s on the very top. Using unjustified fear mongering and sustained social engineering to subtract independent nations of their right to govern according to the specific needs of their respective citizens, has become a very dangerous tactic used by the WHO through their healthscare campaigns and shenanigans. We certainly hope that this will soon be halted before it is really too late.

Michael Fumento: The WHO's political pandering

THE BULLY STATE

Rarely has anyone expressed so many thoughts about the ‘’bully state’’ more succinctly than the author of the article we link to below. His article perfectly expresses many of the points we have been bringing forward since our 5-year existence. Whether explaining the differences between a nanny-state and a bully-state, or the multi-issue aspect of government encroaching in our day to day lives based on misconceptions, or the even more harmful unintended consequences bully laws cause, he’s got the global plight of state bullying ‘’for our own good’’ down to a t.

Enjoy the article and please take a few minutes to drop Mr. Monteith a word in the comment section at the bottom of the page.

Live to a hundred? You choose!

HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR 2ND LETTER ON E-CIGARETTES

Health Canada’s reply to our 2^nd letter. Their analogy between pharma inhalers and electronic cigarettes namely the way in which the nicotine is absorbed hardly explains why inhaled conventional tobacco products are still lawful, or all energy drinks except for Red Bull that have not yet been approved by Health Canada remain on the shelves for people of all ages to consume. It is obvious that Health Canada is sending the message to all vapers that they should go back to smoking conventional tobacco products until such time as Health Canada gets around to testing the new e-cigarette technology, if ever! May we remind our readers that the only ones who profit from such policies are Big Pharma and Big Tobacco.

Thank you for your correspondence dated July 27,2009, in which you voice your concerns about the availability of electronic cigarettes in Canada. We apologise for the delay in our response.

Electornic smoking products that deliver nicotine are subject to the Food and Drugs Act whether or not they are associated with a smoking cessation claim.

Exemption (d) for nicotine under Schedule F., Part I, of the Food and Drug Regulations targets an inhalation device that differs from electronic smoking products like the electronic cigarette. Therefore, the 4 mg limit set in the exemption to Schedule F for the inhalation device does not apply to electronic cigarette. The nicotine delivered from the exempted inhalation device is deposited in the mouth and absorbed via the buccal membrane whereas the nicotine delivered by the electronic cigarette is delivered directly into the lungs. The absorption of nicotine via the pulmonary route is more complete and more rapid than via the buccal route would lead to a different pharmacokinetic profile. Greater and more rapid absorption of nicotine can lead to a greater risk of poisoning and addiction. In the absence of clinical data showing the pharmacokinetic profile of the substance administered under those conditions, the safety of nicotine inhalation from the electronic cigarette remains unknown.

Your suggestion that Health Canada stipulates recommendations and warnings about the product and guidelines as to what maximum nicotine levels per dose can be marketed would only apply after the safety, efficacy and quality of such a product has been demonstrated. This could only be done after Health Canada has assessed and successfully approved a submission for market authorization. The market authorization process for pharmaceutical products applies to all products in that category. For example, each of the four nicotine products currently exempted under certain conditions from Schedule F status (i.e., chewing gum, transdermal patch, inhalation device and lozenge) have been subject to this process prior to being granted market authorization.

Health Canada is committed to protecting the health of Canadians by ensuring that health products meet requirement for safety, efficacy and quality.

Yours, Truly,

Diana Dowthwaite

Director General

PRIVATE CLUBS ARE NOT PRIVATE IN CANADA

Jean-Serge Brisson, Deputy Leader of the Ontario (Canada) Libertarian Party provides an update on Mr. Mike Kennedy's legal challenge to allow for private members only clubs where people can enjoy tobacco products along with some potentially dangerous unforeseen consequences

C.A.G.E. will comment the decision once we will have analyzed the transcript.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziGBAYO9Kns

You can read the decision at: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/ onca...009onca685.html

''OBESITY IS NOT A RIGHT'' - Michael Smith

We came across an op-ed from an Australian daily that raises the anti-obesity campaign by one more notch, bringing it to a level that our critics claimed would never reach while dismissing us as fear mongerers when we first warned about it five years ago.

Well we are there folks and expect it to get a lot worse as the obese will soon be looked upon as fringe members of society labeled by their peers as a dreadful affliction that should be eliminated by any and all means much like the smokers are now relegated to second class citizens soon to be tolerated only in their own ghettos. After all, the author of the article claims that ‘’obesity is not a right’’. How then can the obese expect that society treats them with respect unless they vow to continuously struggle to lose weight in order to conform to what public health deems the right way to be? And please don't think that this will be the fate of the Australian obese exclusively. Healthism is a global movement with so called civilized countries setting the trend and taking cues from each other. One would think that they're inexorably competing as to which one will succeed to implement the toughest policies that not so long ago would have been unthinkable.

Demagoguery such as the one demonstrated in this article brings chills down our back and immensely saddens us as we imagine how, if the populace continues to adhere to the healthist philosophy, the obese will be forced to make the choice to either deny who they are, whether it is by choice or because of genetics and illness, or be denied by their peers. One can always hide the french fry, the cigarette and the bottle of booze to pretend to be a good obedient citizen, but how does one hide from his own body?

Euphemisms such as ‘’encouragement’’ , ‘’help’’, ‘’incentive’’ , to attenuate the effect of the once dreaded word ‘’force’’ seem to no longer be necessary as an excerpt from the article illustrates ‘’ Preventative Health Taskforce report, (…) recommended measures to force people to make healthier decisions through the tax system and prohibitions on promotion and advertising of unhealthy foods.’’ Can it possibly be that we are at the point where forceful means are now widely accepted by the indoctrinated populace that the healthist proponents don’t even attempt to sugar coat their propaganda? Are we now massively disregarding Benjamin Franklin's wise warning that ‘’ any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.’’ ? What a frightening perspective!

Obesity is not a right

POURQUOI TAXER SEULEMENT LES BOISSONS GAZEUSES SUCRÉES - LA POLÉMIQUE ENTOURANT LE STEVIA

Intrigués par ce qui a motivé le retour des pourparlers d’instaurer une taxe spéciale sur les boissons gazeuses sans pour autant taxer les boissons diététiques qui ne sont évidemment pas aussi engraissantes mais tout aussi néfastes pour la santé. ni des autres aliments hypercaloriques, nous croyons avoir trouvé la ou du moins une partie de la réponse.

L’auteure de ce commentaire, jardinière à ses heures, a fait pousser du stevia (herbe aromatique) dans son potager au début de l’été. Ayant entendu parler que le stevia remplace avantageusement le sucre, l’expérience fut alléchante. Or, le temps de la récolte venue, elle a fait des recherches sur l’internet sur la façon d’y procéder. En plus d’avoir en effet appris de quelle façon s’y prendre, elle a découvert les bienfaits de cette plante qui produit des feuilles délicieusement sucrées. En effet, elle favorise le maintient d’un taux normal de glycémie et elle permet de faire baisser la pression artérielle, entre autres. Quel fut son étonnement de découvrir également la gigantesque controverse et complexité politique par rapport à cette plante dont les amérindiens s’en servent depuis des millénaires.

En effet, le marketing de cette herbe comme substitut édulcorant fut interdit dans bon nombre de pays occidentaux y compris les États-Unis et la France, jusqu’à récemment. Santé Canada quant à eux l’approuvaient seulement comme supplément alimentaire pourvu qu’on ne vantait pas ses propriétés 300 fois plus sucrées que le sucre. Des études ayant dévoilé que la consommation de cette plante pouvait causer des problèmes rénaux ont servi de motif pour son interdiction. Bien entendu, les études conduites sur l’aspartame, le sucralose, le sirop de maïs, et le Splenda sur lesquels on a répertorié des effets davantage néfastes, ne motivent nullement les autorités sanitaires à les bannir du marché.

Depuis 2008, lorsque la FDA a approuvé l’utilisation des dérivés du stevia dans la chaîne alimentaire suite à des pressions des géants agroalimentaires Cargill et Merisant, qui fournissent les édulcorants à Coca-Cola et PepsiCo et que la France a suivi le pas cette année, on a fait breveté le rubiana un dérivé du stevia. Peu importe que quiconque, comme l’auteure de ce commentaire, peut faire pousser du stevia dans son potager et l’utiliser comme édulcorant dans son état naturel, ces géants corporatifs font breveter ce succédané de sucre en altérant ou en rajoutant des ingrédients au stevia sûrement dans le but non avoué de le rendre admissible à la loi des brevets.

Après avoir pris connaissance de toute cette polémique, il n'est pas illogique de fortement soupçonner que ces géants agroalimentaires font des pressions auprès des gouvernements afin de taxer les boissons contenant du sucre dans le but de faire propulser à grand déploiement les boissons diététiques sucrées avec leur propre succédané dérivé du stevia compétiteur autant du sucre que des édulcorants artificiels tel que Splenda et l’aspartame, dont les populations en sont rendues méfiantes.

Taxer le coca-cola pour payer les pontages

HOW LONG WILL THIS BILLION DOLLAR CHARADE CONTINUE? - John R. Polito

With Mr. John Polito’s, - a well known advocate of cold turkey tobacco cessation - explicit permission, we are posting here his comment on how far the pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the tobacco issue, more particularly the cessation methods. His passionate comment is rich with links you can follow that illustrate precisely his point. Mr. Polito has advised us that anything he publishes on the web is public domain, so please feel free to spread it far and wide. Politicians must be made to feel that we have had enough of allowing Big Pharma to operate without any accountability for the damage they are causing individuals and society through their unethical, immoral and fraudulent marketing tactics for economic gain.

As posted in Dr. Siegel’s blog at: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/8151429188389081481/

Dr. Siegel, thanks for helping expose the greatest research sham in pharmaceutical industry history. The ALF, ALA, ACS, RWJF, CDC, AHRQ, DHHS, GSK & Pfizer all are aware that they have been active participants in scamming smokers into believing that quitting without pharmacology is nearly impossible, when in fact that's how 9 out of 10 long-term ex-smokers succeed. It's a false and deceptive campaign done solely for economic gain.

By the way, Professor Simon Chapman, Australia's leading tobacco control voice, just released an attack upon Pfizer (entitled: "Pfizer's campaign to drug as many smokers as possible") that sounds an awful lot like something Dr. Siegel might say: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09...rs-as-possible/

The bottom line is that all of these organizations are by now fully aware that it's impossible to blind smokers with significant quitting histories as to the onset of full-blown withdrawal. As a study by the nicotine patch co-inventor (Jed Rose of Duke) just found, four times as many placebo nicotine patch users were able to correctly identify their group assignment as were wrong about it. More than 200 placebo controlled cessation trials have measured levels of frustration not efficacy. What's sad is how all of the above organizations insist on ignoring all real-world findings showing that real cold turkey quitters have yet to be beaten by any form of pharmacology and it's consumer fraud of the worst sort to suggest otherwise. Many of these quitters are fighting to save their lives and what do we do, we lie to them!!!!!!! God, help us!!!!!

Placebo use in drug addiction studies is a license to steal. Participants in these studies were not expecting to go cold turkey and endure full-blown withdrawal. Instead, they joined in hopes of obtaining weeks or months of a free chemical ("medicine") that would stimulate their dopamine pathways, thus diminishing their withdrawal syndrome. If assigned to placebo it didn't happen. Often 80-90% of the placebo group relapsed within the first few days. It isn't that they necessarily relapsed because they couldn't quit but because this particular effort failed to live up to expectations. The results aren't science. They're junk.

How much longer will this billion dollar charade continue? President Obama promised that science would be driven by facts not profits. When, Mr. President?

Thanks for focusing on the ALF's pharmacology sales site, www.BecomeAnEx.org, Dr. Siegel. Dr. Richard Hurt's name, face and advice are all over the BecomeAnEx site. But as disclosed in this 2009 paper, he also serves on Pfizer's Advisory Board - http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/...ct/ caac.20031v1

In this video clip Dr. Hurt crams pharmacology down the viewers throats by falsely asserting that pharmacology doubles "your" chances. Dr. Hurt knows that that is a real-world effectiveness representation he's making there, not a clinical trial placebo efficacy claim -

http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 2

Here's a second clip claiming medicine can double "your" chance of success (at tail end) - again, it's a clearly false effectiveness claim -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...earn_overview/ 3

Here Dr. Hurt explains how to pick the right pharmacology -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 3

In this ALF video Dr. Hurt teaches how to chew nicotine gum -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 4

Here the ALF's drug store teaches about the nicotine lozenge - http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 5

This is Dr. Hurt selling the nicotine patch - http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 6

This is his nicotine inhaler clip -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 7

This is his nicotine spray clip -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 8

This is his Zyban and Chantix clip. Amazingly he does not advise viewers of any adverse event or death concerns associated with using Chantix. As a member of Pfizer's Advisory Board, how does he get away with it?

http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 9

In this clip he again encourages quitters to talk with their physician about medications. If using an OTC product, why would they also need to make an appointment to see their doctor? http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...rn_addiction/ 10

This clip is about getting medication and setting a quit date. The problem with the ALF's advice is that we now have two studies asserting that not setting a quit date, that quitting spontaneously, doubles your chances. These are the study links:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 16443610

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 19509277

So which is it ALF? Get visitors to buy medicine and pick a quit date or advise them to jump in the quitting pool without meds? This advice should be immediately corrected. If not, it's a rather glaring admission that ALF's quitting site is nothing more than a pharmaceutical industry drug store. http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...#being_ex/ share

Overall, a fair assessment of the ALF's quitting site would be that it strongly suggest that quitting without medication is far less successful than quitting with it.

Did the ALF read the National Cancer Institute's quitting method survey showing non-pharmacology quitters actually doing better? How about the long-term results from the UK's NHS Stop Smoking Program? Do you care about "truth" or is that simply some job security slogan to tag tobacco companies with?

I used to think cessation pharmacology researchers were simply misguided but it has been way too many years and there's now far too much evidence for them to continue to claim ignorance. I hate to say this but I now believe that most are either amazingly stupid or criminally culpable in the deaths of untold thousands of pharmacology scammed smokers, who trusted the fancy credentials and lies into their grave. It's Dr. Drug Rep all over. It's pretty sad that history will record that money was more important than their legacy.

By the way, I see the word "quitting" getting bantered about when discussing the e-cig. Until the pharm industry extracted nicotine from the tobacco plant all quitting involved both quitting nicotine and its delivery device. For the sake of accuracy and both youth and user understanding I'd encourage use of the word "transfer" instead of "quitting" as delivery continues.

Regards,

John R. Polito

UNE INTERDICTION EXPÉRIMENTALE ?

La campagne anti-tabac et ses effets indésirables ne semblent guère avoir servi de leçon aux bien-pensants qui tentent désormais de changer les autres habitudes de la population.

Ils n’ont évidemment rien appris par le fait que les interdictions de fumer aux endroits déclarés arbitrairement ‘’publics’’ ont à peine fait baisser le taux ‘’avoué’’ du tabagisme et que pour certaines tranches d’âge il a même augmenté. Peu leur importe que les parents des enfants qui ne peuvent plus trouver des endroits pour fumer fument sûrement davantage à la maison exposant ainsi leur progéniture autant au tabac qu’aux parties d’adultes souvent bien arrosés. Sont-ils carrément indifférents ou ignorants du fait que la campagne incessante contre le tabac a rendu cette habitude attirante pour les jeunes qui y trouvent un intérêt accru à défier l'autorité et expérimenter avec le tabac dont ils peuvent se le procurer dans leur cour d’école pour aussi peu que 1$ ou 2$ le paquet souvent vendu par leurs propres camarades ? Ils n’ont sûrement rien appris non plus de l’expérience d’autres endroits au Canada où on y pratique le taxage et la ‘’contrebande’’ des friandises dans les écoles où on les interdit.

Non, nos bien-pensants québécois s’imaginent qu’ils peuvent changer le monde et que d’interdire la malbouffe à un périmètre donné aux alentours des écoles inculquera des bonnes habitudes alimentaires aux enfants. Ceci va tout à fait à l’encontre de toute psychologie de la jeunesse ainsi que les paradigmes du passé en ce qui a trait aux interdictions. À moins que les plans futurs de ces ‘’experts’’ soient de contrôler tout-ce qui rentre dans notre réfrigérateur et garde-manger, il serait prudent de leur demander dès maintenant ce qui sera leur prochaine interdiction lorsqu’ils se rendront compte que nos enfants s’y adonnent à cœur joie à la maison ou ailleurs à tout-ce qui leur est interdit à l’école et ses alentours et ce tant que les parents qui ont réellement besoin d'aide pour l'éducation de leurs enfants sont laissés à eux-même avec très peu de ressources.

Trois municipalités s’attaquent à la malbouffe

EXPANDING ON THE SIZE OF THE ANTI-OBESITY PROPAGANDA

After being force fed regularly with anti-obesity propaganda including but not limited to obesity being contagious , obesity being a disease, obesity causing global warming, obesity causing dementia, obesity causing cancer, obesity draining the healthcare system, obesity being an addiction, the obese to be banned from fast-food restaurants, obese children taken away from their parents, obese to be denied medical treatment, former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, - the same one who defied all toxicology principles by declaring that there is no safe level of second hand smoke – and his colleagues, now declare that obesity is A Threat to National Security !

Of course we have to take them on their word and be seriously alarmed because since they are part of the noble and humanitarian ‘’non-profit’’ organization Stop Obesity Alliance , their opinion must be based on scientific unbiased studies by independent third parties! And who would dare after all argue with not one but two former Surgeon Generals? The fact that the Stop Obesity Alliance is funded by Big Pharma is of course only a coincidence. That one of their pharma funders is aggressively marketing anti-obesity drugs such as Symlin and Byetta, and another was marketing Acomplia that has now been banned, is only a very happy stroke of luck that has absolutely nothing to do with any marketing ploys through astroturfing, or that’s at least what they want you to believe!

Richard Carmona and al working for a front group in full action to ostracize the obese for money? You decide!

LETTRE ENVOYÉE PAR C.A.G.E. À LA MINISTRE DES TRANSPORTS

Dans le présent contexte économique où la gestion du temps joue un rôle important dans la compétitivité de la société québécoise, nous trouvons tout à fait irresponsables et irréfléchies les recommandations que certains font au ministère en ce qui a trait à une interdiction future du dispositif à mains libres au volant.

En effet, plusieurs citoyens, pour économiser temps et argent, se servent de leur téléphone de véhicule pour mener à bien leurs affaires et pour toutes urgences et imprévus. Interdire totalement aux citoyens ce moyen que la technologie moderne a mis à leur disposition pendant tant d’années causerait de sérieux inconvénients à plusieurs en échange de bénéfices hypothétiques et non concluants qu’une telle législation pourrait apporter.

Des distractions au volant il y en a plusieurs comme par exemple discuter avec les passagers, lire les panneaux routiers, écouter la radio, boire, fumer ou grignoter. Doit-on les éliminer une par une selon l’intensité de pression que chaque groupe d’études ou d’intérêt emploie et qui n’a mieux à faire de son temps que de trouver des moyens pour embêter le peuple de plus en plus?

Les forces de l’ordre ont peine à faire respecter la loi actuelle en ce qui a trait aux téléphones cellulaires, alors qu’est-ce qui fait croire à ces bien-pensants qu’une loi davantage restrictive sera plus respectée ? Dans la réalité, de telles interdictions risquent d’être largement ignorées car elles font fi des vrais besoins du peuple en quête de solutions pratiques et accommodantes dans sa vie effrénée de tous les jours. Aussi, ajouter une interdiction impopulaire à une réglementation routière déjà lourde risque d’avoir comme malheureux résultat que les règles vraiment importantes pour la sécurité routière soient également et délibérément ignorées par les citoyens ce qui mettrait incontestablement leur vie et la vie d’autrui à des dangers réels.