E-CIGARETTES - LETTER TO HEALTH CANADA

July 28/09 - You will find follow-up to this letter at: CORRESPONDENCE WITH HEALTH CANADA ON THE E-CIGARETTE BAN


May 12, 2009

Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate
Health Canada
Address Locator: 2003C
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9

Sir/Madam,

It is beyond comprehension to see that Health Canada is calling for a ban on the sale and distribution of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in this country.

In our opinion, this decision is totally counterproductive to the efforts of Health Canada, who have long been in the vanguard internationally in the reduction of tobacco consumption. While the results of Canada’s sustained efforts through educational campaigns have generally been positive in reducing smoking prevalence right up to and including the year 2004, the decreasing trend has halted and smoking rates in Canada have remained the same ever since draconian smoking bans were instituted in many provinces (1). As history has taught us, coercive methods have never yielded positive results.

Apart from the public reacting negatively to coercion, another likely reason why the remaining citizens who smoke may be reluctant to quit their habit is the lack of realistic alternatives to the act of smoking itself. Public health authorities tend to see smoking as a function of addiction to nicotine, and pharmaceutical companies have cashed in on that perception by marketing various nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) devices. These products, in the form of variously flavored chewing gum in colorful packaging, or lozenges, patches, or even inhalers, are advertised extensively in all media. No doubt NRT sales are high and profitable, but the long term success rate of quitting smoking by use of NRT products as they are marketed now is a dismal 1.6% (2 & 3).

Electronic cigarettes are seen by many as a more attractive alternative to the NRT products available from the pharmaceutical industry and a viable alternative to those who wish to continue profiting from the benefits of nicotine. The use of the e-cigarette simulates the physical acts and sensations characteristic of smoking, including holding a cigarette-shaped device, inhaling nicotine vapor from it, and exhaling propylene glycol vapor. This vapor is a relatively inert gas which is odorless and does not linger in the air around the e-smoker. There is no environmental smoke produced by e-cigarettes therefore there is no annoyance to by-standers.

The popularity of the e-cigarette has spread virally through means such as word of mouth and internet forums. Large numbers of people around the world claim that use of e-cigarettes has helped them quit or cut down on their smoking and that it provides a degree of comfort, satisfaction, and convenience to those who do not wish to give up nicotine intake for various reasons.

In light of all of this, it is beyond disappointing to see that Health Canada is calling for a ban on the sale and distribution of electronic cigarettes in this country. We as a group representing smokers find it absurd that Health Canada would keep it legal to smoke tobacco and ban the marketing of e-cigarettes, which offer an effective alternative and we are not alone to feel this way (4).

Contrary to conventional cigarettes emissions, E-cigarette vapor only contains two chemicals: nicotine and glycol propylene. Nicotine is generally accepted as relatively harmless by authorities, and is an approved legal substance. After all, NRT products, some of which are inhaled nicotine, are allowed to be freely marketed over the counter with no legal age for purchase and Health Canada has either authorized or is in the process of authorizing clinical trials of such nicotine products on pregnant women (5). Propylene glycol is approved as an additive for various foods, is used as a preservative substance to maintain moisture in products, and has been animal tested (including on simians, not just laboratory rats) as relatively harmless when inhaled. (6 & 7)

The electronic cigarette is in essence a nicotine delivery device in the same mould as pharmaceutical NRT products. What is it in the combination of nicotine and propylene glycol that has Health Canada thinking that e-cigarettes are more hazardous than tobacco and NRT products such as inhalers? Surely e-cigarettes, which are neither tobacco products nor pharmaceutical products, should be permitted to be marketed and distributed freely providing they are not advertized as therapeutic devices.

Unable to comprehend what motivated Health Canada to ban e-cigarettes while keeping tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy as well as the dangerous drug Chantix legal, we are forced to conclude that the only parties worthy of protection from Health Canada are the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries whose profits are threatened with the advent of this smart invention that had the potential of reestablishing harmony between smoking and non-smoking citizens and bringing much needed business back in our hospitality sector.

We strongly urge Health Canada to rethink their e-cigarette policy immediately, in the interest of the people they represent as opposed to the financial interests of powerful corporate lobbies.

Sincerely,


Iro Cyr
for:
C.A.G.E., Citizens for Civil Liberties and mychoice.ca

Disclaimer: C.A.G.E, Citizens for Civil Liberties and mychoice.ca* are grassroots non-profit organizations with no financial ties to the Tobacco, Pharmaceutical or e-cigarette industries.

References:

1) Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey - The Daily Monday, August 25, 2008 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080825/dq080825b-eng.htm

2) Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis - BMJ 2009;338:b1024 Published 2 April 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1024 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/338/apr02_3/b1024

3) New Study Demonstrates How Conflicts of Interest with Big Pharma Influence Reporting of the Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Drug Treatment - Tobacco Analysis blog by Dr. Michael Siegel, professor Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health.http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=Conflicts+of+Interest+with+Big+Pharma+Influence+Reporting

4) Absurdity Gone Wild: Health Canada Asks Smokers Not to Use E-Cigarettes Because of Safety Concerns, But Not to Refrain from the Known Toxic Ones - Tobacco Analysis blog by Dr. Michael Siegel, professor Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=Absurdity+Gone+Wild

5) Correspondence between C.A.G.E. and Mr. Yadvinder Bhuller, Manager - Clinical Group II , Office of Clinical Trials and Mr. William King, Chief of Staff, Ministry of Health. http://www.cagecanada.ca/index.php?pr=Nicotine_Replacement


6) Safety Report on the Ruyan® e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol - Murray Laugesen Health New Zealand Ltd Christchurch, New Zealand. - 30 October 2008 http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

7) Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol. - PMID: 18158714 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18158714?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

*Please note that as of January 1, 2009, mychoice.ca no longer receives any funding from the tobacco industry.

DANS L'ACTION EN JUSTICE CONTRE L'INDUSTRIE DU TABAC, LES GRANDS PERDANTS SERONT NOUS LES CITOYENS

À l’instar de la Colombie Britannique et 7 autres provinces, le Québec a déposé un projet de loi le 13 mai dernier qui établit les règles pour actionner l’industrie du tabac afin de récupérer les coûts pour les soins de santé des fumeurs.

À cet effet le projet de loi modifie les règles légales présentement établies dans le but de rendre l’action en justice recevable auprès de nos tribunaux. On peut prendre connaissance de ces modifications en consultant le projet de loi 43 ici.

Hormis le fait que c’est terrifiant de constater avec quelle facilité un gouvernement en place peut changer les lois au gré des besoins du moment, nous avons plusieurs autres craintes par rapport à ce projet de loi que nous qualifions de régressif et immoral pour les citoyens fumeurs et même les autres.

À cet effet, le Gouvernement du Québec a été en toute évidence poussé avec insistance par les lobbies anti-tabac puissants vers l’adoption de ces mesures. Dans le milieu de l’industrie de l’anti-tabac lorsqu’un ou plusieurs organismes d’une province réussit à obtenir la faveur des politiciens pour une loi ou politique, les autres suivent dans un effet de domino. D’ailleurs l’anti-tabagisme travaille mondialement en concert et leurs campagnes se suivent et se ressemblent. Certains pays réagissent moins vite que d’autres, mais en occident la synchronisation est généralement très bien réussie.

Ainsi, le gouvernement du Québec, Yves Bolduc comme instigateur allégué, a jugé bon d’entamer des procédures pour actionner l’industrie du tabac, afin de récupérer les coûts des soins des fumeurs. Pour ce faire, il établit une loi qui a pour but de permettre de recouvrer collectivement ces dits fonds et pour faire reconnaître les études épidémiologiques et statistiques comme preuve de causation des maladies des fumeurs, entre autres ‘’ajustements’’ que le projet de loi propose. Rappelons-nous que l’épidémiologie, n’étant pas une science qui peut faire la preuve d’une cause de maladie, il est très difficile, parfois même impossible, pour un individu qui désire actionner une compagnie de tabac d’avoir gain de cause en se servant de l’épidémiologie comme preuve. Et bien, le projet de loi 43 remédie à cette lacune pour le but de ce recours au nom de la collectivité.

Que grand bien leurs fasse s'exclameront certains en évoquant les manigances passées des compagnies de tabac ! Mais est que ce sont vraiment les compagnies de tabac qui seront pénalisées si le gouvernement du Québec réussit à avoir gain de cause ?

Si nous examinons ce qui s’est passé avec nos voisins du sud lorsqu’ils ont réglé hors cours à travers le Master Settlement Agreement qui a obligé les compagnies de tabac de verser 245 milliards en 25 ans aux gouvernements de la plupart des états, nous comprendrons que cette entente n’était qu’une taxe déguisée que les fumeurs ont comme à l’accoutumé absorbé, car les cigarettiers ont repartie cette somme sur le prix des cigarettes. Qui plus est, les montants versés au gouvernement à travers cette taxe déguisée étaient sensés servir pour éduquer et assister les fumeurs. Certes plusieurs organismes anti-tabac ont profité des octrois pour faire de ‘’l’éducation’’ (et c’est probablement ce qui fait saliver nos anti-tabagistes québécois qui applaudissent le projet de loi 43), mais le plus gros de ces sommes a servi et sert encore pour des fins toutes autres que l’assistance aux fumeurs. D’ailleurs les gouvernements des états suppriment petit à petit des organismes anti-tabac, faute des fonds. Alors non seulement les fumeurs du Québec qui paient déjà des taxes d’extorsion sur le tabac qui servent à toute autre fin que leurs soins de santé, mais, si le gouvernement du Québec a gain de cause, le coût du tabac sera augmenté d’avantage car si les compagnies de tabac canadiennes ont des délais semblables à leurs homologues américains pour payer, ils ne feront que majorer le prix du paquet de cigarettes ou tout autre produit de tabac pour les récupérer à long terme.

Dans l’éventualité que les compagnies de tabac ne se voient pas accordées un délai pour payer, il est fort probable que certaines, si non toutes, seront tentées de faire faillite. Qu’est-ce que la société aurait gagné ? Non seulement ces procédures judiciaires qui vont s’étaler sur plusieurs années auraient coûté une fortune aux contribuables, c’est la contrebande et le tabac importé qui remplacera les compagnies locales. En plus, non seulement les taxes directes sur le tabac seront perdues, mais également des milliers d’emplois, des impôts et des taxes indirectes dans ce secteur de l’économie. Est-ce que cela éliminerait le tabagisme ? Non, cela ne ferait que transférer les gains aux contrebandiers en majeure partie.

Mais il n’y a pas que des enjeux économiques qui nous préoccupent dans ce recours. Nous trouvons tout à fait hypocrite qu’un gouvernement qui est au courant des risques du tabagisme depuis des décennies mais qui continue de collecter des taxes sur un produit qu’il qualifie de létal, insiste encore et toujours de le maintenir légal tout en actionnant les compagnies de tabac. Aucune intention dans ce projet out tout autre projet de loi de rendre le tabac illégal pour éviter des dépenses futures pour les soins de santé, même pas une loi pour instaurer un âge légal pour fumer. L’hypocrisie à son paroxysme quoi ! Ce même phénomène peut être observé auprès des anti-tabagistes ‘’applaudisseurs’’ de ce projet de loi.

Il y a également le phénomène de la pente glissante dans laquelle des telles lois nous engagent qui nous préoccupent encore davantage. Car, qu’on se le dise, cela ne s’arrêtera pas avec le tabac. Si les gouvernements ont gain de cause avec leurs actions en justice contre l’industrie du tabac, l’appât du gain fera que cet exercice immoral s’étendra sur d’autres industries dites ‘’irresponsables’’. Nous n’avons qu’à observer à quel point que la malbouffe est ciblée pour prédire avec beaucoup d'assurance que si la tendance se maintient et nous ne faisons rien pour la renverser, dans quelques décennies sinon avant, l’industrie alimentaire se trouvera exactement dans la même position que l’industrie du tabac. Le seul facteur qui fait qu’elle ne l’est pas encore, est le temps. Nous n’avons qu’à reculer une couple de décennies en arrière, dans les années 70 et 80 lorsque les campagnes anti-tabac étaient très raisonnables, pour comprendre que les lobbies anti-tout ne s’arrêteront jamais. Déjà que localement la Coalition poids se fait de plus en plus agressive et la Canadian Obesity Network au Canada (examiner les sources de ses revenus corporatifs ici) on peut imaginer ce que ça sera dans quelques années. Et que dire des lobbies anti-alcool avec en tête l’organisme MADD dont les demandes deviennent de plus en plus exagérées ?

N’hésitez surtout pas de combattre des telles tendances, car si certains d’entre nous pouvons rester indifférents devant le sort des compagnies de tabac, nous ne devons jamais oublier que ce sont nous en tant que consommateurs qui sommes pénalisés à travers le prix de détail en bout de ligne dans toute industrie qu’on attaque. Incidemment, avez-vous remarqué à quel point que les prix des repas des restaurants ont augmenté depuis les interdictions de fumer ?

Québec pourrait poursuivre les fabricants de cigarettes

AVOIR ÉLIMINÉ LES HELLS PEUT AVOIR CRÉÉ DES PIRES PROBLÈMES

Dans un monde idéal il y aurait ni drogue ni crime et tout le monde vivrait en harmonie. Mais nous ne vivons pas dans un monde idéal et la drogue est omniprésente dans notre société causant beaucoup de ravages et actes criminels.

Aussi, lorsqu’il y a une demande comme il y en aura toujours, ce n’est pas en éliminant ceux qui comblent cette demande qu’on réussit à la baisser. Le dernier exemple de ce phénomène est l’élimination des membres des Hells au Québec tel qu’on peut lire dans l’article de canoë ici bas.

Qu’a-t-on gagné en éliminant les Hells ? Rien à part de pénaliser les usagers des drogues, certains plus accros que d’autres, qui se trouvent obligés de débourser des prix artificiellement gonflés à ceux qui ont pris le contrôle du commerce illicite.

C.A.G.E.se rallie derrière le message de LEAP et soutient que la seule solution pour baisser la criminalité, pour contrôler la qualité des drogues et pour désengorger nos prisons et système judiciaire tout en aidant les usagers des drogues illicites de s’en sortir, est de décriminaliser la drogue et de la rendre disponible à prix raisonnable dans des milieux contrôlés. Les taxes que l’état percevra de la vente de ces drogues pourraient servir pour offrir une assistance accrue et soutenue aux personnes aux prises avec l’addiction de ces substances. En autant bien entendu qu’on n’exagère pas sur les taxes et qu’on ne s’en serve pas pour renflouer les coffres de l’état. Bien sûr ceci n’éliminera pas tous les problèmes reliés à la consommation des drogues mais il éliminera au moins une bonne partie du crime organisé et moins organisé comme les gangs de rue sans aucun scrupule qui ont remplacé les Hells depuis leur élimination.

Une semaine de pénurie

ALLERGIE AUX ÉTUDES !

L’obésité est en compétition intense avec le tabagisme en ce qui a trait au nombre de maladies qu’elle cause ! On en invente…pardon, découvre, des nouvelles presqu’à toutes les semaines. Et tout comme l’étude au lien ici-bas, les chercheurs n’oublient jamais de dire que leur recherche n’est pas concluante et qu’il faudrait en faire des études subséquentes pour confirmer leurs hypothèses.

On ne peut évidemment pas empêcher les chercheurs de fouiller, cependant serait-ce vraiment irraisonnable de demander aux médias d’arrêter de nous rapporter chaque petite ou grande étude qui apporte du beurre sur la table des chercheurs ? À part de quelques hypocondriaques qui doivent trembler à chaque publication d’étude, le peuple en en a marre de ces nouvelles médicales non-concluantes et souvent tout à fait contradictoires !

Association entre l'obésité et les allergies

TRUTH IS FINALLY SURFACING IN NONE LESS THAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

After years of trying to get some mainstream media reporters to investigate the issue, it is heartening to see that someone is finally digging deeper into the Pharmaceutical interests of smoking bans.

Kudos to the authors Jane Zhang and Brody Mills for an honest article on pharma's direct and through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding towards implementing smoking bans to boost their profits. Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for publishing the article. We certainly hope this will motivate more reporters to dig deeper as there is a lot more to bring to light!

Please take the time to drop a note to Jane Zhang and Brody Mills to thank them for their honest work at: Jane.Zhang@wsj.com and brody.mullins@wsj.com .

Excerpts from the article: Nomination Tests Antilobbyist Policy . Please take the time to read the whole article because it is an excellent read.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the organization's work to reduce smoking because they sell products that help people quit, such as Nicorette gum and NicoDerm patches.

(…)In the past five years, the drug industry has contributed $3.3 million, amounting to 3.2% of the Campaign's funding, said spokesman Vince Willmore.

Most of the money was donated by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which has contributed nearly $3 million since 2004, according to Campaign records.

Pfizer Inc. donated $385,000 since 2007 and Johnson & Johnson gave $50,000 for an award in 2008 and 2009.

The Campaign was founded in 1996 to take on the tobacco industry. Its first grant came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nonprofit established with the personal fortune of Robert Wood Johnson, who helped build Johnson & Johnson. The foundation, a large shareholder of J&J stock, is the Campaign's biggest contributor, donating more than $85 million since its founding.

What is brought to light in this article is only the tip of the iceberg. There are billions of dollars being funneled through foundations and non-profits into the smoking bans and into the increase of tobacco taxation worldwide to profit the bottom line of the pharma industry. You can find extensive research on the issue at: http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/grantlist.jsp?iaid=143&gsa=1 and many other links on the same blog http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

DREW EDWARDS AND ''THE RECORD'' DISRESPECT AND ABUSE A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION

A couple of our readers brought to our attention a distasteful and hateful article that recently appeared in a Waterloo / Guelph newspaper -- the Waterloo Region Record -- written by a local journalist and family man, Drew Edwards.

We will not dignify the author and the newspaper that printed this hateful piece by linking it here. In summary in his article, I'm going to turn my back on all those stinky smokers, the author expresses that he has decided to let go of unbearable flatulence any time he passes a group of smokers huddled outside smoking, in an effort to get back at them for polluting the air he breathes. He furthermore thinks that smokers should be sent to the zoo with the monkeys and targets on their backs on a spicy food night.

If smokers were a protected identifiable group the editors of this newspaper would have never published such trash. Not only would it have been qualified as hate literature against an identifiable minority but it would have also been considered an incitement to violence towards an important segment of the population.

Obviously The Record believes that at least a quarter of the population is not worthy of respect from their newspaper and those that write for them and as long as it is a less politically correct group of people that is targeted all is well in the wonderful world of journalism. This same newspaper allows to be published ads that discriminate smokers against employment.

Does this newspaper deserve its readership? We dare hope that anyone with any respect for their fellow citizens and themselves stops reading and advertizing in this paper and takes the time to let the editors know exactly why.

''JE VEUX ÊTRE SÛR QUE CE SOIENT LES FAITS QUI MOTIVENT LES DÉCISIONS SCIENTIFIQUES ET NON L'INVERSE'' Barack Obama

Obama semble voir clair en ce qui a rapport à ce qu’on ose appeler la science. «Avec mon administration, les jours sont révolus où la science cédait le pas à l'idéologie [...] Je veux être sûr que ce soient les faits qui motivent les décisions scientifiques et non l'inverse», s’exclame-t-il !

Va-t-il réussir à ramener un peu d'intégrité à la science ? Il faudrait peut-être qu'il commence par faire le ménage de ce qui doit être qualifié comme science et qui est rapporté par tous les médias ad nauseam sans aucune recherche ou même vérification des faits et des études elles-mêmes par les journalistes, à un point tel que le peuple ne croit plus à rien y compris ce qui risque d’être vrai.

Avec un peu plus de budget consacré à une recherche neutre peut-être aurions droit à de la science dans le vrai sens du terme au lieu de la science politisée souvent financée par des intérêts corporatifs qui ne font que servir leurs propres intérêts en biaisant les recherches ou en utilisant des prête noms pour propulser leurs produits. Peut-être aussi que les scientifiques n’auront pas à se travestir pour gagner leur vie en acceptant les dictats de leurs bailleurs de fonds corporatifs.
Cela relève du devoir des politiciens de par le monde entier et non seulement des États-Unis. Il nous est permis d’espérer.

Obama veut redonner à la science la place qui lui revient...

LETTRE DE C.A.G.E. AU MINISTRE DE LA SANTÉ YVES BOLDUC

Docteur Yves Bolduc
Ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux
1075, chemin Sainte-Foy, 15e étage
Québec (Québec) G1S 2M1

Objet : Projet de loi du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux sur l’interdiction de l’usage du tabac dans la voiture privée en présence de mineurs.

Monsieur le ministre,

Nous avons pris connaissance de votre projet de loi aux fins d’interdire l’usage du tabac en voiture en présence de personnes mineures.

En premier lieu, nous tenons à vous mentionner que nous sommes tout à fait d’accord que fumer en présence des enfants peut leur causer de l’irritation et de l’inconfort. Ainsi, la plupart des parents ont pris la décision de ne pas les soumettre à la fumée. Nous croyons que ceci est tout à fait correct tant que cette décision est basée sur leur propre jugement et sur l’avis du pédiatre de l’enfant, puisque la fumée secondaire peut empirer l’état de santé de certains enfants malades.

Dans un contexte du cas par cas, il existe déjà des lois bien implantées pour protéger les enfants de la négligence parentale et qui sont beaucoup plus sévères qu’une simple contravention lorsque la santé de l’enfant est sérieusement compromise. Cependant, voter une loi qui vise la collectivité et qui n’a que comme seul appui l’épidémiologie biaisée et non concluante serait, à notre avis, très irresponsable et irréfléchi.

En effet, le Québec ne devrait pas davantage se voter une loi interdisant de fumer en voiture que des lois contre des pratiques réellement dangereuses, comme par exemple interdire à un parent de promener son enfant en voiture lorsque la visibilité est réduite ou que la chaussée est glissante, ou encore de permettre à son enfant de manger de la malbouffe, de le laisser traverser la rue avant un tel âge, de s’occuper de son enfant malgré qu’on est soi-même porteur d’un virus, de le laisser jouer dehors sans surveillance ou de le faire sortir de la maison lors des périodes de smog, pour ne nommer que quelques-uns des nombreux risques que des parents tout à fait normaux prennent au nom de leurs enfants dans la vie de tous les jours.

Des lois répressives basées sur la rectitude politique et sur la chasse aux sorcières dans le but de se donner bonne conscience finissent par avoir des résultats tout à fait contraires à ceux recherchés. Voir à cet effet la mise en garde du Professeur Robert Molimard, expert tabacologue, sur le lien suivant (1).

D’ailleurs, Statistique Canada rapporte que le taux du tabagisme stagne au Canada (2) depuis 2005, année où le Québec et l’Ontario ont adopté des lois anti-tabac draconiennes. De plus, et comme vous le savez certainement, la contrebande est devenue un fléau incontrôlable et les mêmes mineurs qu’on tente de « protéger » avec des lois qui envahissent la vie privée se procurent des cigarettes et autres produits du tabac auprès des contrebandiers et ce, avec une facilité déconcertante et à une fraction du prix légal.

Par la présente, nous sollicitons donc respectueusement une invitation aux tables de réflexion à ce sujet afin d’exprimer les avis et les revendications de nos membres.

Dans l’attente de votre invitation, nous vous prions d’agréer, Monsieur le ministre, l’expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.

Iro Cyr
Vice-présidente de CAGE

1) http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html
2) http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 5b-fra.htm

ABOUT GUN CONTROL

We asked a newly registered C.A.G.E. member who is a member of the Canadian Shooting Sports association and currently active in lobbying for our ancient right to keep arms in our defense, to explain to us why he disagrees with gun control and particularly with the views of the police forces.

His reply is the side of the story you will not read too often, if at all, in the mainstream media since gun control is an emotionally loaded issue and the media do not want to ruffle any feathers. You will however read it right here complete and unedited:

‘’It is a question of credibility. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is a lobby group in the guise of a professional association like the society of automotive engineers. With the resignation of CAPC's ethics adviser over their sponsorship practises it then begs the question just how honest are they? Since one of the generous sponsors of their annual meeting was the CGI group the company responsible for selling the computers and software to the CFC would suggest that their considered opinion of the Registry was bought and paid for by their benefactors the CGI group. Two things suggest that this is the case, First is the statement on record by Chief Julian Fantino when he was still the Chief of the Toronto Police Service "The registry has neither prevented not solved a single crime". Then his ringing endorsement of the use of Tasers. I should mention that TASER International was also a major contributor to the annual conference. Now as a member of CAPC he is part of the endorsement of the registry. Why the about face? Indeed they have used their position in society to the benefit of their corporate sponsors.

The Police Association is a Union, again it is not a professional development association in the classical sense of the word either. They would not be the first Union to cross the line into the political arena. I suspect and I say suspect only because proof remains to be seen, that there is some political bone waiting for them in the wings. What they seem to forget is that they are "Our employees" the fact that they are armed is a privilege granted to them by the public. In mother England the police are not armed and have not been armed for 178 years. They make the claim that the registry is used 9400 times per day, well as it turns out the way in which the system is set up that every time a police officer makes a routine traffic stop and the drivers licence is ran through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) it also registers a hit on the registry.

The CFRO computers get "hit" 9,413 time a day on average.

Where this figure falls apart is in the breakdown of these "hits" as follows:

Individual Name: 6440
Address: 2574
Serial#: 202
Licence#: 141
Certificate#: 19 <-- This is the ONLY one that relates to an acutual FIREARMS INQUIRYTelephone# :15
Certificate# = Firearm

This is from the Canadian Firearms Centres own figures. So there is at the least a deliberate misrepresentation of numbers, at worse just a bald face lie.

Which brings me to the next claim that they use the registry to know if a firearm is present at the scene of a call. This is only true if the firearms are registered. Since the gangbangers and other n'rr do wells do not register their firearms how is the registry so indispensable? It would only work where the firearms are registered. Secondly since the bill does not do away with the licencing requirement it is still possible to ascertain that a firearm might be present. This renders the argument moot. I have also read that the concern of the Police Association is the safety of their members. But that is the reason that we allow them to openly carry a firearm and access to other arms as well. Are they suggesting that if they get a negative on a firearm they proceed without caution?

Finally on this point I have to ask what did they do before the registry? Indeed we only need look south of the border where there is not a universal registry and in some states not even the requirement to get a licence, life goes on their. Contrary to what is seen in the news and Hollywood the streets are not running with blood.

The weapon of Choice? This is another little phrase that gets trotted out but when you look at the numbers, in fact guns barely make it over a quarter of the homicides. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others. Putting it into perspective 406 people out of 594 were murdered without guns. This also tags their argument as silly because if you follow their logic the flip side of that coin is that it is okay to be murdered as long as it is not with a gun. It also assumes that had their not been a gun present another method would not have been used. Logically if someone is angered to the point of wanting someone dead do you honestly think not having a gun changes that? four hundred and six murders say otherwise.

I almost left out one of the most pernicious statement made by Chief Chabot of the Sûreté du Québec also president of CAPC? "All guns are potentially dangerous, all gun owners need to be licensed, all guns need to be registered, and gun owners need to be accountable for their firearms.". There are three ways to analyze this statement, if you follow the obvious logic he uses, then it could be said that everyone is a potential criminal therefore we should lock everybody up. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, the fundamental principle of that is the presumption of innocence until proved beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. Again a statement designed to cultivate fear rather than reason. The second manner is the underlying bigotry that Mr Chabot possesses swap "gun owner" and "gun" for Jew, blacks, foreigners or any other ethnicity to read," All ____ are potentially dangerous, All ______ should be licenced and registered. All of a sudden the statement becomes less acceptable, less palatable to ordinary Canadians. Lastly Chief Chabot makes a very telling statement of himself he in fact is projecting his own fear of self onto guns and gun owners. Maybe he is the one who should in fact be disarmed? Firearms are inanimate objects they posses no will of their own and cannot influence human thought, they are after all just junks of metal, wood, and or plastic. They have no arms, legs nor consciousness. Are both the CAPC and CPA suggesting they do?

On a final note it is often said that we register cars, boats and children, This of course is true up to a point, There is not a law compelling anyone to do so. We do not have to register any of these. We do however have to register cars if we wish to drive on public roads, or want your boat recovered should it be stolen. We register our children if we wish to partake of the social benefits our society affords to us. A couple living in the boonies can deliver a child and never once have the local authorities come busting through their door with a warrant for their arrest and seizure of their offspring. (The Romani and donkuburs come to mind not that they don't have their scrapes with authorities). When you get a parking ticket or a ticket for a moving violation they do not automatically suspend your licence and seize all your cars and vehicles. Nor do you face criminal prosecution for a speeding ticket. We can also own as many and of different types able to travel at speeds well beyond the speed limits of most of our highways. Rarely is someone charged criminally when they have an accident even if someone dies in the crash. So no, we are not comparing things equally when make this observation. Oddly enough driving your car is not a right, where as keeping arms is.’’

SABOT DE DENVER VIRTUEL OU LES PLAISIRS DE LA NOUVELLE TECHNOLOGIE

Nous avons récemment commenté sur le nouveau permis de conduire avec puce RFID qui peut être obtenu sur demande en remplacement du passeport désormais obligatoire pour voyager aux E.U. Nous avons parlé des risques qu’un tel permis présente et nous avons invité la population à répondre avec un NON retentissant à cette technologie.

Pourquoi une telle antipathie envers certains gadgets technologiques ? Parce-que la technologie de plus en plus sophistiquée, aussi attrayante qu’elle puisse paraître en raison de quelques avantages certains, finit presque toujours et très certainement par nous soustraire de beaucoup de liberté et d’intimité.

Dans notre article en anglais, nous avons prophétisé que si bon nombre de citoyens se prévalaient de cette option pour leur permis (il est facultatif pour le moment), on finirait sûrement par nous l’imposer tout en éliminant le passeport traditionnel car tous les pays tôt ou tard suivront la tendance -- mondialisation oblige. Non seulement, avons-nous mis en garde la population contre le risque d’une ingérence indue de la part du gouvernement dans notre vie privée puisque nos déplacements pourraient être suivis au gré des bureaucrates, mais nous avons aussi exprimé nos craintes face à l’usage que le secteur privé pourrait éventuellement en faire.

Bien sûr le permis de conduire à puce intégrée est encore trop nouveau pour pouvoir observer des abus quelconques, mais le GPS qui l’est moins, commence à devenir un vrai sabot de Denver pour des citoyens à qui on a caché une fonction sournoise du GPS.

En effet, on apprend par l’article lié ci bas, qu’on peut immobiliser à distance le véhicule de quiconque est en retard avec ses paiements. Très commode pour le créancier vous en conviendrez, mais peut-on en dire autant pour les endettés que, si ils disent vrai, n'étaient pas mis au courant de la présence d'un tel dispositif dans leur véhicule lors de la signature du contrat ?

Leur voiture stoppée par un «sabot de Denver virtuel»

A MESSAGE FROM LEAP

Have you noticed that there's been a great awakening about the harms of the "war on drugs"? The media and politicians are paying attention like never before.

I'm writing to tell you about a new way you can help keep this wave going and show your support for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at the same time.

When I co-founded LEAP seven years ago I used to say I would not see the end of the "war on drugs" in my lifetime. But over these past weeks I've changed my mind about that, because things are changing. And fast.

Just look at all the media attention LEAP has been getting lately: 30-year veteran federal anti-drug agent Terry Nelson was recently on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, Judge James Gray was on Fox Business Channel and CNN, and LEAP speakers have recently been featured in newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald and the Houston Chronicle.

More people are talking about the "drug war" than ever before, and you can help continue this conversation by wearing an official LEAP badge lapel pin just like our law enforcement speakers do. When you wear the LEAP shield, people will ask you about it, giving you the opportunity to talk about the harms of prohibition and invite them to join our movement.

Please go to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MtxIF5BV6XVb209vk%2BreE6yAi7OtaU7a right now and make a donation of just five bucks (or more, if you can afford it), and we'll mail you a badge so you can start wearing it and helping to build our movement.Of course, our efforts aren't just all talk. LEAP is making a real impact on prohibitionist policies both on a national level and regionally:

On Capitol Hill, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia just introduced a bill to create a blue ribbon commission to investigate whether we should keep sending so many people to jail for drugs (you and I already know we shouldn't, but the commission will help more politicians to realize it). This is exactly what LEAP's education specialist Howard Wooldridge has been advocating in the halls of Congress; last year, he met with all 535 congressional offices, asking them to create a commission -- and now it's happening!

In November, LEAP was proudly involved in helping pass - by a two-to-one margin - a voter initiative to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. Now, citizens there no longer face arrest just for possessing small amounts.

These are just two examples of how our cops are making more of an impact than ever before. But we simply cannot do this important work by ourselves. We need your help.

Imagine for a moment what we can accomplish when thousands of citizens stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our law enforcers, not only with their dollars but by being advocates on the street and helping to build this movement through one-on-one conversations sparked by simple gold badges.

Please make a one-time donation or monthly pledge of just five dollars today to receive your official LEAP badge lapel pin.

Of course, it's great if you want to donate more, because we sure need it. It costs money to put our speakers in front of legislators, media and other audiences around the U.S. and the rest of the world. Whether you can give $5.00 or $500.00 to get your LEAP badge, this type of grassroots effort is how this movement has gained so much momentum and it's how we'll win the war against the "drug war." We will succeed because no one can make a legitimate argument against what our law enforcers and civilian supporters have seen with our own eyes. So please, show your support for LEAP today with a donation so you can show your support for LEAP tomorrow by proudly displaying our shield on your lapel, shirt, backpack or hat. It's fast, it's easy and it's time.

Sincerely,
Peter Christ

Co-Founder
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

P.S. Five dollars probably isn't a lot of money to you, but it adds up to a lot for LEAP when combined with generous donations of hundreds or thousands of other supporters just like you, especially if those gifts are sustaining monthly pledges. So, please, go to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Zp%2FBFOi05MQZjWoUr0abCqyAi7OtaU7a to do your part by chipping in today.

THE YEAR THE CUPCAKE BECAME A KILLER

It is mind boggling how public health can justify their outrageous fear mongering using vulnerable children. Children take at face value anything they hear, see or read and can’t tell the difference between propaganda and fact. As if parents didn’t have enough in their hands to properly educate their children against a number of real dangers in society, they now have to fight exaggerated public health messages coming from their own government paid for with their own taxes.

Where, oh where will all this lead and when oh when will we see some measure and common sense return? No matter how hard we try to educate our children against hyperbole, no matter how forcefully we try to push back the message of extremists, our children are being indoctrinated by school, governments and their peers to be fearful of anything that is deemed unhealthy by public bureaucrats regardless of how counterproductive such messages have become. All one has to remember is how bulimia and anorexia now afflict children in their pre-puberty years.

In the following link you will read one example of such fear mongering tactics. C.A.G.E. has filed official complaints to different advertizing ethics commitees in the past for similar Canadian advertizements, but they somehow found a way to spin their way out of the necessary sanctions to be taken against the advertizers. Massive complaining however, can and will eventually make a difference. Please do not hesitate to officially complain to the proper authorities any time you consider that a message, public or not, has gone too far.

Knives out for 'death by fairy cake' advert

LA POLITIQUE ''AU CAS OÙ'' DU GOUVERNEMENT DU QUÉBEC SOUS ATTAQUE

Dans le site de Santé Canada on peut y lire :

L'Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire (ARLA) de Santé Canada, organisme fédéral qui réglemente les pesticides au Canada, a terminé sa réévaluation de l'acide (2,4-dichlorophénoxy)acétique (2,4-D). Santé Canada a conclu que le 2,4-D satisfait aux normes rigoureuses relatives à la santé et à la sécurité et qu'il peut continuer d'être vendu et utilisé au Canada.

Le rapport de l’INSPQ arrive à la conclusion suivante :

Les données de toxicité aiguë disponibles indiquent que le 2,4-D est faiblement à légèrement toxique pour les voies d’exposition orale, cutanée ou par inhalation. Lorsque les règles d’utilisation sont respectées, il devrait y avoir peu de risque d’intoxication aiguë à cet herbicide. Or, il apparaît important que ces règles soient connues de la population qui utilise souvent les pesticides sans se soucier de leur exposition. Même quand ce sont des professionnels qui effectuent les tâches de contrôle antiparasitaire, il n’est pas rare de voir de jeunes enfants jouer sur les terrains peu de temps après l’application des produits.

Le 2,4-D a été néanmoins banni au Québec et très récemment, l’Ontario a suivi. Par la lecture du document complet du rapport de l’INSPQ on peut conclure que le 2,4-D a été banni uniquement par précaution et pour protéger les enfants des parents mal informés ou insouciants puisqu’aucune étude a pu démontrer la nocivité du produit à moins de s’y trouver en contacte directe, en jouant sur la pelouse fraîchement traitée par exemple. Dans quel monde vivrions-nous s’il fallait qu’on bannisse tout produit tel que les arachides, les couteaux, les allumettes, les produits nettoyants, l’alcool, les médicaments pour ne nommer que quelques uns, qui sont laissés à la portée des enfants par des parents insouciants et irresponsables !

Or, en raison de l’irresponsabilité de certains parents qui ne respectent pas les mises en garde qui accompagnent le produit 2,4-D, tous les citoyens du Québec se trouvent pénalisés.

Un autre phénomène très intéressant qu'on a observé est le fait que toutes les études présentées dans le rapport de l’INSPQ arrivent à des failles et des résultats plus ou moins semblables à celles de la fumée secondaire. Or, pendant qu’on accentue et on exagère les méfaits de la fumée secondaire basés sur des facteurs de risque aussi faibles (voire inexistants) que ceux de l’herbicide 2,4-D, les scientifiques sont beaucoup plus objectifs lorsqu’il s’agit de se prononcer sur les méfaits de ce dernier et sur les résultats de ces études qu’ils qualifient de non-concluantes.

Aussi, il serait très intéressant de suivre l’action en justice de Dow Chemicals contre le gouvernement du Québec pour deux raisons : La première est de voir jusqu’à quel point on peut légiférer sur une base de ‘’au cas où’’, la deuxième est de voir jusqu’à quel point ces études épidémiologiques seront acceptées comme preuve légale de part ou d’autre.

Herbicides: Ottawa doit défendre la loi québécoise

DR. KAMAL CHAOUACHI BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON TOBACCO KONTROL

We refer you to an interview Chris Snowdon from Velvet Glove Iron Fist did with Dr. Kamal Chaouachi.

Dr. Chaouachi, a world renown hookah tobacco expert analyst and an enemy of smoking bans, is outraged by what he observes is happening in Tobacco Kontrol and has become very vocal about it.

He doesn’t have too many good words for any of the Big Pharma puppets starting from the top with the WHO right down to the globalink community – a list serve comprised of approximately 6000 members who among other things give their version of ‘’expert’’ advice to the decision makers in various countries that want to follow the tobacco de facto prohibition trend.

None of it surprises us in the least, but it’s good to have it confirmed from yet another scientist from the inside. Let’s hope Dr. Chaouachi’s actions will motivate more and more conscientious scientists to blow the whistle. Compared to the anti-tobacco industry the tobacco industry is beginning to look like boy scouts.

A global prison?

DRUG PROHIBITION CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES

The logic is infallible. By making drugs illegal, you push them underground and create an uncontrollable market. Producers and suppliers cannot solve their problems with lawyers and letters, so they resort to guns and bullets. As long as there is a demand there will be competition to supply the users, and as long as it is illegal, the profits will be huge.

Attacking the demand by jailing drug users is creating a huge problem of prison overcrowding and the costly redirection of resources from other more important needs of society. People's lives are being ruined by Criminal Records in ways fare worse than any token drug use could ever amount to, and drug addicts are being jailed instead of receiving assistance and treatment.

The "War On Drugs" is a failure on almost every count. Certain Canadian provinces as well as Mexico realized how detrimental to society was this failed Drug policy, but failed to implement reform due to pressure from the U.S. and its all-powerful Drug Enforcement Agency.

Now that the U.S. Senate is preparing to take a hard cold look at the facts surrounding drug prohibition, it is important that all lovers of freedom and enemies of Nanny Interventionism speak up and be heard. We encourage you to write to Senator Jim Webb, as per the link provided below leading to an article from L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), and voice your support for a more rational, logical approach to recreational drugs.

Finally, Congress discusses prohibition!

FORUM

FRANÇAIS À SUIVRE

We are happy to announce that through a collaboration between C.A.G.E., Citizens for Civil Liberties and mychoice.ca, we have now reestablished a public forum for our respective members and the public in general. Please don’t hesitate to register and invite your friends to join us in the sharing of ideas.

You can access it at: http://www.civilliberties.freeforums.org or by clicking on the icon FORUM on the right hand of this page.

Hope to read you there often.

Nous sommes heureux d’annoncer que nous avons rétablit un forum public pour l’usage de nos membres et le public en général. Le forum est le fruit d’une collaboration entre C.A.G.E., Citizens for Civil Liberties et monchoix.ca et nous invitons donc tous les membres de ces trois organismes de s’inscrire et inviter leurs amis d’en faire autant dans le but de partager nos idées.

Vous pouvez y accéder en cliquant ici : http://www.civilliberties.freeforums.org ou sur l’icône à la droite de cette page.

Au plaisir de vous y lire souvent.

DANS L'ATTENTE DE MOURIR...EN TOUTE SÉCURITÉ

Voici un exemple parfait d’une société qui favorise la sécurité (réelle ou utopique) à la liberté et à la dignité humaine.

Les personnes âgées autonomes, résidentes des foyers privés, sont soumises par la loi à des règlements dignes de ceux destinés aux enfants préscolaires sous le seul prétexte que c’est pour leur bien. En évoquant l’absence de préposés qualifiés (sic) tels que ceux des CHSLD pour justifier ces règlements, ces personnes âgées, mais entières tout de même, sont ainsi réduites à être tout à fait dépendantes des préposés qui en ont soin, condition qui les soustrait de toute motivation de continuer de s’occuper d’elles même dans la dignité et le respect selon le degré d’autonomie de chacune.

Les bureaucrates versent encore dans la généralisation en considérant que les responsables de ces résidences privées sont trop bêtes pour juger ce que chaque résident est capable d’accomplir par lui-même et on dicte ainsi des lois applicables à tout le monde, autonome ou pas, lucide ou pas, sous le soin des gens responsables ou pas. Les bureaucrates se déchargent ainsi de tout effort supplémentaire de faire un suivi régulier pour détecter les abus et assurer le bien-être de nos ainés et on remplace celui-ci par des cadenas pour ne pas accéder à l’armoire qui contient les médicaments, la salle de lavage ou les marches qui mènent au sous-sol.

Un parking pour personnes en attente de mourir en toute sécurité quoi !

Pour quand le jour que le gouvernement va rentrer dans nos maisons privées et nous exiger les mêmes règlements en tant qu’aidant naturel d'un parent qu’on maintient à domicile ?

Des règles plus strictes dans les résidences privées

CREATING POLICY ON FACT

Letter from one of our members to Mr. R. Liepert, Alberta Health Minister.

Our politicians should be flooded with letters such as this one. They can ignore a handful, but they cannot ignore hundreds and hundreds of them. Sending your letters regular mail will get more attention every time.

Mr. R. Liepert.
Health Minister
Province of Alberta

I heard Mr. Stelmach on the radio last week saying that our Provincial Government MUST base legislation on fact. Why, then, does the Government continue to keep the AlbertaTobacco Reduction law in force?

The anti-smoking lobby based the majority of it's campaign to pass these 'Freedom Crushing' laws on false information, as you are aware. Your administration did the same, using information from this lobby & Health Canada (whom also has lied to us.)

For example: "smoking causes lung cancer" (Health Canada). If this were true, all smokers would die of lung cancer-which they don't. A falsehood!

I've enclosed yet another link in the "false information chain" that proves the smoking laws in this province are based on anything BUT fact.(pdf-courtesy C.A.G.E.)

I ask you again to bring back the freedom of choice for Alberta's Business owners whether to allow smoking or not.

In these times, you would be bringing back some of Albertan's high level of morale which, in the past, has helped us turn things around. Not to mention restoring lottery-charity revenues generated at VLT machines, Casinos & Bingo halls. (This revenue is way down as you are also aware). People would have a CHOICE again.

Sincerely,
D. Watt

OUR PERSONAL LIVES ARE NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENTS

Support those who are truly and effectively investing time, effort and money into the fight for our personal freedoms and liberties.

Pierre Lemieux is one of those individuals par excellence, and he fights our battles on many different fronts.

Whatever your thoughts or feelings may be regarding firearms, the point of this constitutional challenge is important to us all: OUR PERSONAL LIVES ARE NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S.This upcoming court case is quite important and senior members of C.A.G.E. will be there to support him.

FIREARMS LICENSING:
My love-life is no business of the government!

I am Paul Rogan, publisher of Canadian Access to Firearms, and a friend of Pierre Lemieux. I am helping raise money for Pierre Lemieux's fund in his challenge to the Canadian gun controls following the revocation of his right to have "armes for his defence" to paraphrase our English forebears. He will be in court in Mont-Laurier on May 26 and 27.

See http://www.pierrelemieux.org/ and especially http://www.libertyincanada.com/.
More details on Pierre's case are available at http://www.pierrelemieux.org/policecanada/cafc-cfc.html.

The gist of the case is that, in renewing "his" firearms licence (as he is forced to do every five years), Pierre refused to answer a question about his love life. Question 6(d) asks, "During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?" As an answer, he wrote, "My love affairs are none of your business." This form, like all the documents related to his case, is available on-line at the above address.

In the National Post of June 2, 2007, George Jonas wrote a column about Pierre's refusal to answer one of the intrusive questions. And Pierre himself wrote a column in the Ottawa Citizen of November 8, 2007.On December 1, 2007, Pierre received a registered letter from the Québec provincial police, which administers the federal gun control in cooperation with the RCMP's Miramichi bureaucracy. It was a "Notice of refusal to issue a firearms licence". The reason is clearly stated as his refusal to answer the intrusive question.

As a consequence, he was also notified that the "registration certificates" of his legally registered guns were revoked.

He filed a motion of appeal before the Québec provincial court. While he asks for the licence refusal to be quashed and apologies be issued, he argues that the Firearms Act and related Criminal Code provisions are unconstitutional, and that he does not need any licence to exercise his traditional liberties - his, and our, RIGHT to possess firearms.

His pro bono counsel is Richard A. Fritze, the well-known Alberta lawyer and committed defender of firearms owners and their rights. Financial support for travel and accommodation expenses, including for their high-powered expert witnesses, in what promises to be a long, difficult and protracted battle to reclaim our liberties is needed. The experts are all attending for only the cost of their travel and accommodations, a very generous donation in and of itself, but one which shows the level of dedication and commitment to this vital cause.

Pierre represents the best chance the gun community in Canada has had since Oscar Lacombe in 2001.

Already help is being pledged to his case (more details will be provided in my newspaper, Canadian Access to Firearms, regarding donors and expert witnesses). Richard Fritze is offering his time - for free at this stage of the proceedings (the Provincial Court) - a contribution worth over $50,000. My newspaper is giving three full pages of advertising, worth $500 each, and I have myself thrown another $500 cash in the pot. Mr. Barry Holland, has already donated $1,000. The Canadian Shooting Sports Associations (CSSA) has pledged $500. Other donations are starting to come in. But we need more.

We should be able to keep the out-of-pocket expenses to reasonable limits - we estimate we need around $10,000 in Provincial Court - again excluding Richard's time, which is provided free.

TAX DEDUCTIBILTY FOR ALL DONATIONS

All it will take is for 100 of us putting up $ 100, or 200 of us putting up $ 50.
Better, I suggest that you give $168, $268 (or $568), in "honour" of the 1995 Bill C-68 which brought us this infamy.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/) has graciously agreed to help us, so that any donor of $68 or more will receive a charitable tax receipt making the full donation deductible from your taxable income.

There are several ways to make your donation:

1) You can send your check directly to CCF:

Canadian Constitution Foundation
235, 3545 - 32 Ave. N.E., Suite 641
Calgary, AB Canada T1Y 6M6

Do not forget to indicate on your cheque that that you wish to donate to the "Pierre Lemieux Legal Fund".

2) Go to http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/ and make your donation online credit card.
Go to "Donate to CCF"
Go to "Optional: Designation"
Mark the "Property rights research and court cases" tab, the fifth one down on "Optional Designation" .

ALL donations made under this option will be earmarked exclusively for the Pierre Lemieux's Defence fund.

If you want your donation to be reflected immediately in our statistics, feel free to send me an e-mail ( firearms@northwestel.net ) confirming the amount of your donatio.

Any money over and above what the April 26-27 court case will cost will be spent on the follow-up court battle - or on similar cases. If we win, it is certain the Crown will appeal. If we lose, we will appeal.I know we can do it!

My warm thanks to all for taking the time to acquaint yourself with this case! Looking forward to your kind and generous response!

Paul RoganPublisher of Canadian Access

Nota Bene: Please feel free to forward this appeal to anyone you know who is interested in this cause. With our warmest thanks!

WHO BETWEEN TOBACCO AND ANTI-TOBACCO IS EXACERBATING POVERTY?

Straight from the great masters of public health - the WHO - who in an overflow of limitless compassion and immense concern for these less than fortunate citizens of the world, they state:

‘’Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco's role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields.’’

So God bless them, among others, they came up with two of the most efficient solutions in their exemplary philanthropic efforts to save the most impoverished of the citizens of the world and their families. And this despite their incessant proclamations that tobacco addiction is comparable to heroin and cocaine addictions! (Emphasis ours)

Experience has shown that there are many cost-effective tobacco control measures that can be used in different settings and that can have a significant impact on tobacco consumption. The most cost-effective strategies are population-wide public policies, like bans on direct and indirect tobacco advertising, tobacco tax and price increases, smoke-free environments in all public and workplaces, and large clear graphic health messages on tobacco packaging. All these measures are discussed on the provisions of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

And let’s not forget that they also refuse to hire smokers thus setting the trend for an ever increasing number of employers to do the same!

Who between tobacco and anti-tobacco is exacerbating poverty?

Why is tobacco a public health priority?