FROM THE HEART: Part II

On, March 8th, 2011, a date on which the International Women’s Day coincided with the date that the City of L.A. was scheduled to extend smoking bans to outdoor patios and spaces surrounding restaurants, we brought you the thoughts of one young woman, Juliette Tworsey, who lives in L.A. Juliette explained how the bans affect her personally and directly.



Today we bring you a follow-up on Juliette’s thoughts as she takes her specific experiences and applies them to a more general analysis of the smoking ban on the lives and leisure of the ordinary people who are affected.


FROM THE HEART: Part II

My personal experience with the Smoking Bans

By Juliette Tworsey

De Facto Tobacco Prohibition: Direct and Indirect Consequences

Few crusaders in the anti-tobacco movement take the time to consider many of the unintended consequences that arise as a result of singling out a significantly large minority for increased restrictions. They say that smoking bans and prohibition will not have any negatives effects on the economy, and that no, there have not been any deleterious social effects on the faction of the population that is being singled out.

Now, I am no economist and I am not going to attempt to explain the definitions of inputs vs outputs or how they affect the economy in scientific terms, but there are a couple of things that should be glaringly obvious to anyone who dares to think outside of the ‘politically-correct’ box when it comes to the issue of smoking and prohibition:

1) If you exclude 20-25% of the population from taking part in the overall economy (emphasis on the hospitality industry) via behavioral modification and exclusion by force, how is that NOT going to have an effect on the economy in aggregate? Just because we don’t always frequent the same establishments, does not mean that your non-smoking establishment will be exempt from the resulting fallout. The loss of businesses where smoking was allowed, along with the corresponding loss in jobs, has an effect of the community as a whole. Many charity fundraising events are affected, property values deflate, and the unemployment line increases, thus putting more strain on already strained public services. The taxes that these venues generate directly affect the health of your local and state economy. When your neighbor’s “smoking allowed” business closes down the street, it is not just their business that is affected. Average folks and small business owners don’t need a scientific paper or “study” to state the obvious: When you interfere with the self-correcting forces of the free market, everyone ends up paying in some manner or another.

2) Again, if 20-25% of the population are forced to modify their everyday behavior almost overnight by not going out to restaurants, bars, concerts, community events, and parks as frequently as they once had, how can there NOT be any social repercussions from such forced isolation? The most egregiously affected in this situation are the elderly, the single, the poor, the disabled, the un-employed, those who suffer from depression, etc… However, these are not the only groups to be affected. What about non-smokers? Aren’t they too affected by this social segregation?

One can only wonder about all of the lost opportunities for friendship to be made via exposure to new acquaintances that span our many cultural and class factions that now many never take place due to the segregation and isolation of a relatively large segment of the population. One also has to wonder about living in an intolerant society such as this and how it contributes to increased animosity, as well as a lack of understanding and proper communication with one another. It doesn’t take a social scientist to tell us that there are bound to be many deleterious social effects that follow the stigmatization of smokers, as is always the case with the marginalization of any minority.

To the anti-smoking bishops of Neo-healthism we say, prove to us that there are NOT any grave and un-intended consequences that result from smoking bans and anti-smoker campaigns. We ask them to be honest. And if that honesty ever manifests itself, we will wait for an apology for all of the harm that was caused.

To learn more about Juliette Tworsey and her band “Firebug”, we encourage you to visit their website at:
http://www.firebugmusic.com/

Science is conclusive: Tobacco increases work capacity

As promised on our posting of March 2/11, the English translated article from Danish authors Niels Ipsen, & Klaus Kjellerup is posted at http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html where you will also find all the referenced documentation that supports it. 

FROM THE HEART

Today, March 8th, 2011 is a special day for two reasons. It is the International Women’s Day, a special event that has been observed since the 1900's. It is a day to celebrate the achievements and advancement of women the world over, as they exercise greater rights and self-determination, mainly as a result of greater economic potential.

This year, March 9th will also be the day that the City of L.A. extends smoking bans to outdoor patios and spaces surrounding restaurants. One young woman, Juliette Tworsey, a talented singer who also, as so many do, makes ends meet by working in the hospitality industry, explains what this means in real terms. She explains how these bans affect her aspirations, and her livelihood. She does not address the issue as an economist or as a political scientist, although she is fully familiar with those respective approaches. She relates to us, on a personal level, how the smoking bans affect her and her entourage. Her message is clear and sound, and needs to be heard because she speaks from the heart, and she speaks for many.

FROM THE HEART

My personal experience with the Smoking Bans

As a songwriter, performer, and hospitality worker that has worked consistently in one form or another for many years in bars, restaurants and concert venues, I can from my personal observations and experiences say that smoking bans and the war on smokers in general have detrimental effects on my personal life, my social life, and my ability to prosper and make a living.

The economic and social effects

Before coming to Los Angeles from my hometown Chicago with my band, finding extra work in the hospitality business had never been an issue, as there was always something available in what has always been well known as being an industry with high turnover rates, especially in venues with a demographic that’s largely comprised of transient students, artists, musicians, authors, and working class folks who often live from paycheck to paycheck.

After moving to Los Angeles in the early 2000's (note, this is long before the advent of our current recession), one of the first things that I noticed was the difficulty in finding a service or bartending job. Granted, Los Angeles is a town that is subject to a constant onslaught of young people moving into town from all over the country looking for work in the entertainment industry, along with immigrants from all over the world looking for work; hence, there is a high demand for work. However, keep in mind that both the service and the entertainment industries have high turnover rates; therefore, this fact alone does not explain the lack of jobs in these fields. One thing that comes to mind is the state smoking ban that came into effect in the late 90s.

Upon the observation of countless numbers of smokers standing outside of establishments, especially those restaurants, bars and venues that were not equipped wit the money or space to retrofit their establishments with smoking patios, the realization came to me that many folks were just not hanging out as long or spending as much as they used to. When people don’t hang out as long or spend as much there are going to be social and economic consequences. I have witnessed, time and time again, a mass exodus from live music venues as soon as a band hits its last chord. Often the fans and friends of any already known act do not return to the club to check out the next new and unknown act. This was not my experience as a performer in what was then a smoke-ban-free Chicago.

Blanket smoking bans and over-regulation have the unfortunate consequence of making it even more difficult for a new act to acquire the much needed exposure that it needs by adversely affecting the prospects of future bookings, due to the fact that many clubs now demand that an act have a pre-existing audience so that the club may insure that it makes enough money to cover its overhead costs without having to lay off bartenders and waitresses. It has never been so difficult. Again, these difficulties were apparent before, not after the current recession. Now it has only gotten worse. This leads me to my next point….

When one sector of the hospitality or industry is hurting, a domino effect is set into motion. It is so hard to find a bartending job here now, that some have even said that in order to get a job here, someone needs to either move out of town or die in order for there to be an opening. That’s not a joke, I’ve really been told that, and I do have a resumé. Another unintended consequence of smoking bans has been the disappearance of the neighborhood bar. There are a few to be sure, mostly in affluent neighborhoods, but largely the establishments that once accommodated many in the working class, as well as students and starving artists have gone by way of the dinosaurs. These neighborhood bars also once served as springboards for aspiring bartenders and musicians trying to get their foot in the door, as well as important social breeding grounds for many folks who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to go out.

No one, save for a lucky few, starts at the top of any business. This lack of work in bars and music venues leads to more demand for jobs in the restaurant sector, making it more difficult to find work there as well. Many restaurants (up until now) managed to survive California’s indoor ban by retrofitting their establishments by building outdoor patios as a way of keeping their smoking patrons. This was a semi-workable situation, due to California’s temperate climate, along with the use of outdoor heating devices in the winter and tent/overhangs in the rainy season, though I have to admit that I, along with many of my smoking friends, have not been regular patrons to any facility that does not at least provide some sort of hospitable place for its smoking customers. That is how it has been up until now.

The city of Los Angeles is currently about to introduce a comprehensive smoking ban of its own that supersedes the California smoke-free act as of this Tuesday, March 8th, 2011. This new ban will now extend to all outdoor spaces of restaurants, coffee shops within the entire city limits. The patios that so many restaurants, bar/restaurants, and coffee houses built to accommodate their smoking customers is now being taken away from them against their will. It shouldn’t be a hard sell in convincing non-believers that this is going to be yet another blow to the hospitality industry, its workers, and those looking for work within the industry. Smokers are indeed a part of the overall economy and the hospitality industry in particular, is one industry which cannot be outsourced. I know from personal experience, as I am yet again on the search for work. Many places are already not doing so well; now they’re going to have to turn away many of their customers as well.

In considering the economic effects of the current smoking ban on restaurants, bars, and music venues in aggregate, it is clear that the smoking ban has had a very real and profound effect on my ability to find work, my social life, and my ability to advance my music career. Never in my life has it ever been so difficult, and remember, these difficulties began before, not after, the current economic crisis; hence, it is safe to assume that smoking bans create their own economic deficits by not allowing establishments to accommodate the demands of the free market.

Prospects for the Future

It is so hard to find work in L.A. in the music AND in the hospitality industries already as is, and NOW there's a new outdoor smoking ban set to take effect this Tuesday. I'm currently looking for work in an environment that is already plagued by the over-regulation of the little guy, as well as the empty storefronts that now litter many of our once prosperous boulevards (even in once affluent neighborhoods). It’s everywhere you look around this city, even in those areas that were once considered as being recession proof. It is time for us all to work together, smokers and non, wealthy and working class, Left and Right, so that we may demonstrate to the world at large and the deaf ears of the mainstream media that we all have a right to exist, and that yes, we smokers have a right to exist and yes, we are indeed a part of the overall economy. We also have the right to assemble as persons of free will. An affront on this most basic of liberties, harms not only the overall economy, but the notion of freedom itself.

To learn more about Juliette Tworsey and her band “Firebug”, we encourage you to visit their website at:

http://www.firebugmusic.com/

PRIMUM NON NOCERE

Nous vous signalons la parution d’un récent article du Pr. Robert Molimard dans le site du groupe français le FORMINDEP, qui examine les origines, la façon qu’il agit sur les récepteurs du cerveau, l’efficacité, les effets indésirables, et les considérations éthiques quant à la continuation de la mise en marché du Champix, médicament pour le sevrage tabagique

Des centaines d’Américains et de Canadiens ont déposé des requêtes en recours collectif contre Pfizer - le fabricant - qu’ils accusent de ne pas avoir assez informé le public des risques liés à son utilisation. La FDA a ordonné que la mise en garde la plus sévère permise en vertu des règlements fédéraux (black box warning), soit apposée sur le produit. On reproche au médicament d’augmenter le risque de changements dans le comportement, la dépression, l'hostilité, les pensées suicidaires et même le suicide.

Le professeur souligne dans son article exactement ce qu’on dit depuis longtemps, à savoir que malgré que fumer peut conduire à la maladie, le tabagisme en lui-même n’est pas une maladie. En effet, nombreux sont les exemples des fumeurs qui vivent vieux et en santé pour éventuellement mourir de causes aucunement liées à leur tabagisme. Nous nous posons d’ailleurs la même question que le professeur, à savoir s’il est justifié de soumettre des gens en santé à des risques importants qui peuvent les mener jusqu’à la mort, pour hypothétiquement leur éviter des maladies futures qui ne se manifesteront que plus tard et possiblement même jamais. Et ce, non seulement sur le plan physique mais aussi sur le plan psychologique comme le Dr. Jean-Jacques Bourque nous a expliqué dans son livre ‘’Écrasons la cigarette, pas le fumeur’’.

Malgré qu’il doit y avoir plusieurs anti-fumeurs qui le pensent tout bas, Il y au moins une lobbyiste anti-tabac anglaise qui a admis publiquement qu’il n’y a pas de prix trop cher à payer pour arrêter de fumer. ‘’De toute façon, nous parlons d'une partie assez malsaine de la population . . . un sur deux va mourir à cause du tabagisme.’’ (We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking.) a-t-elle déclaré sans aucune honte ni remords apparents. Cela évidemment sous-entend qu’il vaut mieux soumettre les fumeurs au risque de souffrir et même mourir immédiatement avec le Champix, que de continuer à fumer. Quel contraste avec le Pr. Molimard pour qui le ‘’primum non nocere’’ conserve encore toute sa signification. C’est tout à son honneur ! 

Champix®, le jeu en vaut-il la chandelle ?

Le fumeur n'est pas un malade

HE WHO CONTROLS THE MEDIA (PART 3)

Part 2 here

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls practices willful censorship of those ideas with which its editors do not agree.

We at C.A.G.E. have repeatedly publicized evidence that the media shows bias against opinions and even facts that are not politically correct, especially when it comes to the issue of tobacco and smoking bans. The typical mainstream newspaper will print only a very negligible number of letters on such topics, and even then only if they are not too compromising to their political comfort level.

By posting opinions and information in various mainstream media sites, we have unfortunately encountered some biased moderators that simply ignore our posts and decide never to publish them. The CBC is one example that readily comes to mind. Their form of biased censorship is frustrating and unacceptable, especially when practiced by a corporation sustained by the citizens’ taxes. In the past, our complaints have yielded some results, but we still have much ground to cover in order to overcome the mainstream media bias against politically-incorrect opinions. Notwithstanding this perennial bias, organizations and citizens with values such as ours have been effective in freely expressing themselves through diverse channels and have thus contributed positively to the growing shift in public opinion away from nanny-statism .

As it has become customary, when smoking bans are to be or have been recently enacted, media forums attract an increased participation of both pro and anti-ban contributors. There is, however, an abnormally high apparent participation rate from the pro-ban side, probably because they have received their cue from the tobacco control directors as part of their campaign tactics such as we have illustrated in our blog entry of February 11th. Be that as it may, we have no difficulties in countering their arguments on a rational and factual level and we are in fact quite happy to have our own beliefs challenged. The ensuing debates provide us with the much desired opportunity to debate the issues in public and to offer to the general audience a challenging viewpoint to the politically correct pre-determined side of the story. This is one of the reasons why open debate and free speech are considered among the most crucial principles of democracy, and the media fulfill a crucial role in facilitating such open debates. It is in no way an exaggeration to refer to the media as being an important “guardian of democracy”.

We have recently uncovered another newspaper that does not appear to value nor respect its role and obligations as a ‘’guardian of democracy’’. The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, SD, does not only practice blatant censorship, but they do so in a most despicably hypocritical manner. Not only do they remove comments of which they do not approve, but they also use a technique called ‘’shadow posting’’ whereby the comment is invisible to everyone but to the person who has posted it. The latter can post as many opinion pieces or arguments as he wishes to, and no one will see them but himself! This means that the contributor is not even aware that he is being censored and is thereby fooled into thinking that his comments have been duly shared, but nobody else actually sees what he posts. This under-handed practice was discovered by the vice-president of C.A.G.E. as she logged out of the Argus Leader forum and suddenly realized that she could no longer see her own comments. The following notification appeared instead:

Name withheld

10:26 PM on March 1, 2011

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

When she logged back onto the forum -- lo and behold -- her comment reappeared unaltered.


You are probably wondering if the comment which she had posted was uncivil, distasteful, or an ad hominem attack that should have rightfully warranted some form of censorship. We will allow you to be the judge. Here below is what happened when the comment was copy-pasted from the visible (logged in) version of the site. Please note that the sections highlighted in red were not apparent on the forum but only suddenly appeared like magic in the Microsoft Word document upon which we pasted the block of text that we had copied:

Cyzane

2:40 PM on March 1, 2011

This comment has been removed from our system.


This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Cyzane. Show DetailsHide Details

If protecting the non-smoking public and employees was what concerns anti-smoking activists and governments, solutions to keep harmony within society without killing businesses and jobs, do exist. Designated smoking rooms, and smokers’ only venues, are good alternatives, yet they are forbidden.

In fact smoking bans have nothing to do with non-smokers' health or comfort. They are designed to coerce smokers into quitting their habit by making their life as miserable as public opinion will permit. Winding up non-smokers against them, combined with the fact that they have brainwashed smokers to believe that they are too severely addicted to quit on their own, profit the powerful pharmaceutical industry who makes billions selling nicotine replacement treatment throughout the world, albeit their very low rate of success. What better business partnership between governments who collect taxes, the pharmaceutical industry that profits from the repeat sales of virtually useless nicotine replacement treatment as well as dangerous drugs such as Chantix and Zyban (and soon the anti-smoking vaccine) and anti-smoking activists who profit from the grants of both?

We are confident that you will agree that the above text hardly qualifies as material that should be censored in a free and enlightened society such as the one aspired to in North America. Far less should such a comment be censored in such a hypocritical manner as to mislead the contributor into thinking that the message had actually been duly posted.

Upon discovering this hypocritical and very biased form of censorship, the C.A.G.E. Vice President wrote a letter of complaint to a person in charge of the forums at the Argus Leader asking for an explanation and requesting that her comment and the one from the previous night (similar in content and style) be reposted. Seventy-two hours have passed without our receiving so much as a letter of acknowledgement from the Argus Leader.

We consider the unprincipled behaviour of the Argus Leader to be a story in and of itself, and for this reason the present C.A.G.E. blog entry will be distributed to all other media outlets in the same area and a link will be posted in Facebook and other social networks and blogs. We invite you to do your part to spread this story far and wide. The goal is not only to shame the Argus Leader for their censorship practices in a country that so highly values free speech, but also to serve as warning to other forum participants to be on the lookout for such practices if ever they are posting comments on a site where the administrators are motivated by misguided ethics and a rather totalitarian approach to public debate.

We also provide you with the URL for the comments section of the article in question in the Argus Leader:

http://www.argusleader.com/comments/article/20110228/NEWS/102280330/Smoking-ban-changes-bars-restaurants

We invite you to write short letters to the editors of the competing media outlets, making reference to your outrage at the censorship practiced by the Argus Leader and to this C.A.G.E. blog article. We provide you here below a list of other media  in the region. We trust that these competitors will be quite interested in how the actions of the Argus Leader can affect the reputation of media outlets in general.


http://www.keloland.com/news/
http://www.ksfy.com/
http://www.kdlt.com/
http://www.topix.com/city/sioux-falls-sd

WOMEN AND THE ''WORKING DRUG''

Anti-tobacco activists used to tell us that the tobacco companies marketed their product as a glamorous activity for the cool, the fearless and the popular. We believed them because the tobacco ads unequivocally confirmed it. They later changed that to smoking being predominantly practiced by poor and uneducated people. Statistically speaking, this is a defendable argument, so again we didn't find any reason to disagree. But it now appears that women no longer fit the latter paradigm. In fact, tobacco control is now accusing the tobacco industry of targeting ‘’empowered women’’ because this group of women allegedly has a higher smoking prevalence.

The study from the University of Waterloo, Ontario that you can read about in an article here, describes ‘’empowered’’ women as more politically involved and wealthier.

How reasonable is it to blame the tobacco industry for the ‘’empowered’’ women’s higher smoking rates, we ask. Should we believe tobacco control when they infer that these women are gullible and uninformed enough to be influenced by the tobacco industry? 

Notwithstanding that being politically active and having a higher social status both involve increased stress and tobacco could therefore be used by these women in an effort to cope with the pressure, there seems to be an even more compelling reason that can explain the higher smoking prevalence in this particular group of women. 

We refer you to a Danish article written by Niels Ipsen, environmental biologist and Klaus Kjellerup, researcher, who after examining the available scientific literature, have confirmed what everyone knew at one time but had mostly forgotten because it was buried under the incoherent cacophony of the anti-tobacco industry for far too long: Tobacco enhances the brain functions
.   
Indeed, this article to which an English translation is forthcoming, is supported by sound science and analysis, that the human brain performs 10 – 30% better when it is under the influence of nicotine and especially through cigarettes, the most direct and rapid delivery method of getting it to the brain. It maintains concentration levels up to several hours longer than a nicotine abstinent individual, it helps focus, it enhances the brain’s alertness and increases its speed of reaction as well as the working memory, and all in all it rightly deserves the title of the ‘’working drug’’.

Which brings us to the following question relevant to the Waterloo study: Do women smoke more because they have been empowered, or is it nicotine that has assisted them in becoming empowered?  
The scientific conclusions are indisputable that men or women who use tobacco, reach higher levels of performance than those who don't.  Did the researchers at Waterloo examine that angle before blaming the tobacco industry and going off on another expensive ''good'' vs. evil crusade?  That was a purely rhetorical question of course! 

As for the writers of the article, they conclude with this stimulating thought:


‘’ Everything has a price, and the advantage of achieving health benefits in the war against smoking may very well be matched by paying a high price in the economy in terms of loss of innovation and economic growth.


The question is, in other words, whether the so-called smoke free society is an economic growth-free society? And if so, can the irritation of smoke in the workplace be solved in other ways?'' 

The article will be posted in this blog once its English translation is completed. In the meantime you can read the Danish original at Forskere er sikre: Tobak øger arbejdsevnen
or read a shorter English version at Smoking Boosts Brain Power

DE LA GASTRO À LA PSYCHOSE EN PASSANT PAR LA VARICELLE

Les dépenses en santé au Québec atteindront le sommet historique de 32,3 milliards pour 2010-2011 selon un article de Argent Canoë. Parmi d’autres facteurs - tout à fait normaux pour une population vieillissante - on explique cette hausse par l’augmentation des coûts et une consommation accrue des médicaments, une explosion des consultations, et les coûts reliés aux services psychosociaux dispensés à 121,000 jeunes.

L’histoire qui suit, relatée par une de nos membres, est un exemple parmi tant d’autres des cas qui remplissent nos urgences, hypothèquent nos urgentologues, personnel infirmier, psychologues et psychiatres, font accroître la prise des médicaments et contribuent à cette hausse faramineuse des coûts de la santé. Nous vous présentons ici l’essentiel de l’histoire tel qu’elle nous a été relatée en vous invitant de faire la réflexion suivante : Qu’est-ce que la médecine préventive et les messages de peur de la santé publique accomplissent autant sur le plan de la santé que sur le plan économique ? En quoi est-ce que cela aide nos jeunes et moins jeunes de s’épanouir, de profiter de la vie et de contrôler leur stress et anxiété – tous des facteurs déterminants pour une bonne santé autant physique que mentale ?


Des membres de ma famille traversent une grosse crise dont j’attribue la majeure partie du blâme à la santé publique et leurs diverses campagnes de prévention et de santé.


Ma nièce, qui est dans le début de la vingtaine, a de toute évidence été sérieusement affectée par ces campagnes soi-disant préventives puisqu’elle développe une peur morbide à chaque fois qu’elle attrape une maladie aussi bénigne qu’une grippe. Malheureusement pour elle (et pour toute sa famille), elle a attrapé le virus de la gastro à la fin décembre.


Je vous relate les événements comme ils se sont produits pour vous montrer comment et en quoi ce virus ordinaire a fini par se développer.


Le tout a commencé avec des nausées et des maux de ventre.  Pour une raison obscure, elle s’est mise dans la tête qu'elle souffrait d’une insuffisance cardiaque. Sans permis de conduire pour se déplacer, elle a demandé à ses parents de la conduire à l'urgence. Elle fut renvoyée chez elle avec tous les conseils de forme pour soigner une gastro tout en se faisant rassurer que son cœur n’avait absolument rien d’anormal.


Environs 2 ou 3 semaines (et au moins 2 autres visites à l'urgence pour se faire rassurer) passent et sa santé ne s'améliore pas. Ayant fréquenté quelqu’un qui avait un membre de la famille qui souffrait du cancer, elle est maintenant persuadée qu’elle a ‘’poigné’’ le cancer et que ses jours sont comptés. Retour à l'urgence pour entendre de la bouche des médecins que le cancer n'est pas contagieux. Les médecins, cependant, commencent à trouver que sa gastro traîne trop en longueur et ils lui prescrivent toutes sortes de tests et d’analyses qui ont motivé cinq différentes visites aux différents départements externes de l’hôpital.


Les scans et diverses analyses ne démontrant rien de négatif, le corps médical se trouve devant un impasse pour expliquer ses symptômes. En ce moment il est pertinent de vous dire qu’elle a compromis son semestre à l’université et elle s’est mise en congé de maladie de son emploi rémunéré, sur des prestations de l’assurance chômage puisqu’elle ne possède pas d’assurance privée. Chaque fois qu'elle ressent une nausée ou autre malaise, elle exige qu’on l’amène aux urgences car c’est le seul endroit où elle se sent en sécurité. Pendant tout ce temps ses parents se relaient pour s'absenter du travail et se privent de salaire qu'ils ne peuvent vraiment pas se permettre. Ils sont en train de se ruiner autant physiquement que financièrement à force de passer des jours ou nuits interminables à l'urgence. De mémoire, je peux compter au moins 14 visites à l’urgence en l’espace d’un mois dont au moins une en ambulance.


Sur l'entrefait, comble de malheur, elle a attrapé la varicelle, probablement à force de fréquenter les urgences remplies d’autres patients. La varicelle étant la seule maladie qu’ils ont pu diagnostiquer, les médecins ne trouvent absolument rien d’anormal avec sa santé physique et ont finalement fini par comprendre que son problème est psychologique. On lui diagnostique donc une psychose reliée à sa phobie de mourir. Elle est dorénavant prise en charge par le département psychiatrique de l’hôpital et on lui a administré des anxyolitiques et calmants pour dormir.


Aberrant. Imaginez ce que tout cela représente comme dépenses pour le système de la santé. Combien de gens se trouvent dans des cas semblables et remplissent nos urgences pour un éternuement de trop et une petite fièvre passagère ? C’est fou.  En bout de ligne, c’est à se demander ce que la médecine préventive réussit à sauver en tant que vies et coûts. Je dirais qu’elle contribue plutôt à créer une paranoïa générale dans la population qui cherche à tout prix d’éviter la maladie même la plus bénigne.

INSIDE THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DECEITFUL TACTICS

06-01-11 Please note that since this was posted, Dr. Michael Siegel has also commented on the Physician For a Smoke Free Canada unethical tactics to inact outdoor smoking bans.  Read his commentary here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.htmlhttp://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.html
and here:  http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada_03.html

When it comes to the smoking issue (and to a lesser extent the obesity issue), many people have expressed to us how amazed, baffled and even disgusted they are at how some of our fellow citizens have turned into arrogant, obnoxious, hateful individuals almost overnight.
  

Indeed, as we read open letters to the various media, listen to open lines on the radio or television, follow newspaper and other forums on the internet, we can not help but notice how ugly some individuals become when they hide behind the veil of relative anonymity. 
 
When opponents of banning smoking scenes in movies attempted to have a civil debate in a CBC forum, one poster using the alias of Dennis Brady had this to say : 

“Smoking is hated - as is any foul smelling addiction. We would have no less disgust for people whose habit was sh*ting on public beaches or on park benches. We would be as disgusted by people who refused to bath or use deodorant.

We DO want smokers segregated - removed from all contact with non-smokers.

Do you understand? Need I repeat it”

In a Globe & Mail forum about beach bans, one poster using the alias “doggiez” suggested this final solution to the “problem”:

“Put even MORE cancer-causing chemicals -- tar, formaldehyde and the other 700 -- into cigarettes to hasten their deaths.”

When challenged with logical arguments and unable to offer any reasonable responses, many such commentators accuse their opponents of being in the pay of what they refer to as “Big Tobacco”.   Here is a response from the so-called  “Dennis Brady” that is  typical of many smoker de-normalization proponents with very little substance to defend their point of view: 

''The people have learned to never trust anything coming from the tobacco industry or its shills and apologists.''

You may want to read or reread how C.A.G.E. was also a victim of the same tactic:  ''THE RIGHT THING TO DO'' NSRA STYLE
 

We strongly suspected that this hostile attitude demonstrated toward individuals or associations with differing opinions were not the doings of ordinary citizens, however one must always give the benefit of doubt:   perhaps public opinion had changed overnight when public smoking bans were adopted?  

Well, you can relax folks.  All this time, it was not your next door neighbor, co-worker, friend or relative who was turning into an aggressive “Mr. Hyde” when protected by the cover of anonymity.  We now have tangible proof that most of the people who are posting obnoxious and hateful material are simply following orders from the anti-tobacco industry: 

We have obtained the manual on how to effectively implement outdoor bans published in September 2010 by Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada (PSFC) :  SMOKEFREE OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES:  A COMMUNITY ADVOCACY TOOLKIT.

We share with you here below a few of the more disappointing passages that we have uncovered.

For proof that they have tobacco control advocates planted in the various internet forums look at the footnotes on the page that gives advice on how to refute arguments from the tobacco industry or their ‘’front groups’’ (page 22):   

‘’ Comments from tobacco control advocates also appear refuting “Vince’s” comments. Accessed August 6, 2010 at http://openfile.ca/node/908/.’’

Note that we at C.A.G.E. know ‘’Vince’’ and we can assure you that he is an authentic grassroots poster from Manitoba who has absolutely nothing to do with the tobacco industry. 

 

Also appalling and very hypocritical is the manner in which they recommend infiltrating their opponents whom they conveniently label as “the tobacco industry and their front groups” :

“Whether they are funded by the industry or not, to stay on top of any organized opposition sign up for their mailing lists, preferably using an alias. You can also search online for organizations that oppose your campaign and sign up to receive email alerts, preferably at a home email address or some other location that doesn't link you to your position in the coalition. Be sure to share these communications with your key coalition members so that everyone is in the loop and you can collectively decide how to counter the industry most effectively.”

The entire 101 page manual is a most interesting document that exposes the tactics of the anti-tobacco industry and we suspect that after they see us bringing this document to the attention of the public, it will quickly be altered or totally vanish.  Not to worry we have made back- up copies in anticipation.
 
The following are some of their other tactics and while they did not shock us as much because we had noticed them practicing these strategies since a long time, we are, nonetheless, surprised that they would be so arrogant and self-confident as to make their tactics public. 

.....write (or sign ghost written) letters to the editor, etc.  (pages 31 & 33)
 
.....submit at least two letters to the editor each month during the campaign, under the names of different authors”.  (page 33)
 
.......Nothing can ruin a campaign faster than public disclosure of financial wrongdoing (intentional or unintentional) ? something your opponents would love to expose if given the opportunity.  (page 34)

Interestingly, in the following paragraph they acknowledge that there are in fact authentic citizens (labeled as angry smokers) expressing themselves and that it is not the tobacco industry and their ‘’front groups’’ who are doing the complaining.  Furthermore, they are acknowledging that most non-smokers don’t complain leaving us to conclude that indeed most of what we read in the various media must therefore be plants of the tobacco control industry. 

....... A key aspect of any smoke-free campaign is to mobilize the silent majority. Most non-smokers do not speak out against smoking, but you have to tap into their power to win your case.   Angry smokers who feel they are losing what they feel is their right to smoke will likely speak out in a variety of ways

--- letters to the editor, comments sections of online articles, radio call-in shows, etc. Their voices can seem very loud, even though they represent a significant minority of the population.  (page 36)

........ For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes. In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call-in shows, etc. Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing. It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation. (page 48)
 
........ Plant stories in the media about non-smokers politely asking smokers to move to a designated smoking area or outside the smoke-free area and smokers complying. Create the impression that the bylaw is working and it will! (page 48)

 
There are many other examples, far too many to list here, but we invite you to peruse the whole document yourself and get an eye-opening education about how anti-tobacco operates. 
  
The late Gian Turci often said that this was a war.  Sometimes we thought he exaggerated.  To our dear freedom and justice-loving friends, we must now admit that Gian was right and that this is in fact a real war.   But rest assured that we will continue to use the truth as our only weapon because when this war will be over, we do not only want to stand victorious but we also want to stand proud for not having stooped to such depths of deceit.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

If anyone wanted an example of how a campaign to interfere in people's lifestyle choices on one issue transfers readily to more interference on other choices, the latest government initiative in Turkey fits the bill perfectly.

After legislating an uncompromising indoor smoking ban, the current government decided to apply the exact same series of strategies and rhetorical justifications (Think of the children! Promote healthy lifestyles!) to alcohol. This includes alcohol advertising and display bans, tax increases, marketing bans, and so forth:

Shocking: Recent Regulations in Turkey’s Wine and Alcohol Industry

Not so shocking, really, since we've been warning about this sort of thing since several years.

INTERDICTION DE FUMER EN VOITURE - LETTRE AU MINISTRE DE LA SANTÉ DU QUÉBEC

Cher Monsieur le Ministre,

Nous avons été très surpris d’apprendre que le gouvernement du Québec a l'intention d'interdire de fumer dans les voitures en présence de mineurs pendant qu’au même moment les médias anglophones nous apprenaient que la science est très ambigüe à cet effet.

Un article de Canoë (1) prétend que la ‘’concentration de fumée secondaire est jusqu'à 60 fois plus grande dans un véhicule, selon les plus récentes études.’’ Il serait intéressant de savoir de quelles études il s’agit car pas plus loin que le 10 janvier dernier les journaux The Ottawa Citizen et The Montreal Gazette (2), entre autres, nous informaient qu'il était impossible pour les chercheurs d’évaluer avec plus ou moins de précision la concentration de la fumée dans une voiture. Même la moindre mesure que plusieurs groupes anti-tabac répètent en tant que fait scientifique, à savoir que la concentration de fumée est 23 fois plus grande dans un véhicule, a en effet été inventée de toute pièce selon des chercheurs qui se sont vainement donnés beaucoup de peine pour retracer son fondement (3). Instituer une loi qui porte atteinte à l'autonomie parentale et à la vie privée, peut à la rigueur mériter un débat si les motifs étaient appuyés par des faits scientifiques incontestables. Cependant, légiférer sur des à peu près, des peut-être et surtout des pressions de la part des lobbyistes anti-tabac qui n’ont que pour seule mission obsessive de forcer le fumeur d’arrêter, ne relève que du chantage et de la manipulation émotive.

Il est connu et généralement accepté que la fumée peut aggraver les symptômes de certaines affections, telles que l’asthme et les otites récurrentes, chez un nombre d'enfants vulnérables. Mais il s'agit quand même d'une minorité tout comme ceux qui sont intolérants aux arachides, au lactose, au pollen, aux animaux, aux produits de nettoyage, à la pollution, etc. Qui mieux positionnés que les parents pour connaître les facteurs qui affectent leurs petits et pour prendre les mesures nécessaires pour les protéger ? Il va sans dire qu'il existe des gens irresponsables et négligents qui font fi des besoins spéciaux des enfants affectés et il y en aura toujours - avec ou sans loi - mais n’est-ce pas que le Québec s'est doté depuis longtemps d'une foule de mesures sévères contre précisément la négligence et l'abus envers les mineurs ? Pourquoi est-ce qu’on envisage une législation de plus au lieu de mettre l’emphase sur les lois déjà existantes pour lesquelles nous peinons de trouver les budgets pour les appliquer adéquatement ?

Risque n’égale pas méfait. Les parents québécois prennent régulièrement des risques en voiture ou ailleurs au nom de leurs enfants et, dans une société où c’est encore eux qui sont les gardiens légaux et les premiers responsables, le gouvernement et la justice s’abstiennent d’intervenir à moins qu’il ait méfait démontré hors de tout doute. Alors pourquoi est-ce que le Québec devrait se voter une loi interdisant de fumer en voiture plus que des lois contre des pratiques réellement dangereuses telles que conduire avec un enfant à bord lorsque la visibilité est réduite, lorsque la chaussée est glissante, dans une voiture plus ou moins en bon état, ou encore contre sortir un enfant à l'extérieur en pleine alerte de smog, pour ne nommer qu'une infime partie de risques qu'on prend au nom des mineurs ?

Malgré cela, la plupart des québécois évitent d’exposer les enfants à la fumée dans la voiture si ce n’est que pour aucune autre raison que pour leur épargner l’inconfort. Nous osons espérer que tout comme leur électorat, nos élus feront preuve du même bon sens et nuances avant d’adopter une loi qui violerait l'autonomie et l'autorité parentale et qui a comme objectif - à peine voilé - de stigmatiser et dé-normaliser davantage le citoyen fumeur.


Iro Cyr - Vice-présidente
C.A.G.E. (Citoyens Anti-Gouvernement Envahissant)

(1) Québec veut renforcer la loi antitabac – Canoë - 13/01/2011 http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2011/01/20110113-204835.html

(2) Science shouldn't stand in the way of sound smoking policy: study – Ottawa Citizen - January 10, 2011 http://www.canada.com/health/Science+shouldn+stand+sound+smoking+policy+study/4086184/story.html#ixzz1AyyljFYi

Kids' health, policy trump junk science – Montreal Gazette - January 11, 2011 http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Kids+health+policy+trump+junk+science/4088854/story.html

(3) Researchers Criticize Secondhand Smoke Hype - Science 20.com - April 12th 2010 http://www.science20.com/news_articles/researchers_criticize_secondhand_smoke_hype

SOUND SMOKING POLICY SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND SCIENCE NOT ON ''UNSTOPPABLE MOMENTUM''

Readers might remember that we brought to their attention back in April of 2010 an article that claimed that second hand smoke was twenty-three (23) times more toxic in cars, yet said claim was not based on any scientific evidence whatsoever. Of course, as we have highlighted frequently, the absence of solid scientific evidence has never stood in the way of public health policy when it comes to the smoking issue, but now the anti-tobacco crusaders are openly admitting to this.

Unable to quantify how dangerous second hand smoke is in a car , Rob Cunningham of the Canadian Cancer Society, now urges lawmakers to legislate based upon what he refers to as an “unstoppable momentum” and the perceived popularity of proposed anti-smoking measures instead of on the basis of scientific evidence. Little does it matter to this crusader that such a legislation is invasion of privacy and an undermining of parental authority. Forcing open the door even wider for the State to violate even more parental and privacy rights, these crusaders just want to get on with the program whether or not such legislation is actually justified.

Without even having to spend thousands or millions of dollars from the public purse on agenda-driven studies that torture the figures to come up with the desired results, we as a society should take a moment to think about and acknowledge that there are many other behaviours that parents engage in that are truly risky to their children when travelling by car. Driving in conditions of poor visibility, in snowstorms and on icy roads, in poorly maintained cars or with the distractions of eating and texting are some of the true risks parents regularly take when driving with their children.

Why are these do-gooders, professed protectors of other people’s children, obsessively focussing on second hand smoke for which they can not even properly appraise the risk instead of denouncing proven risky behaviours which are tangibly quantifiable? Why are some people supporting and applauding such agenda driven legislation that is based primarily on hype? These questions are not purely rhetorical. The answer is because anti-smoking has now become a profitable moral crusade where Mr. Cunningham’s so called “unstoppable momentum” is what drives policy and legislation.

This being said, most parents do not smoke with their small children in the car if for no other reason than to not to cause them discomfort. Those parents that do smoke usually crack a window open and allow the negative air pressure thus created to dissipate the smoke fairly quickly. Let parents be parents and let the Canadian Cancer Society use our donations to do research towards cures for real ailments instead of wasting them on agenda driven advocacy.

Sound smoking policy should be based upon sound science.

Science shouldn't stand in the way of sound smoking policy: study

PLUS ON EN SAIT MOINS ON EN GAGNE

Une fois de plus nous sommes tout à fait en accord avec le point de vue de Marie-Claude Lortie chroniqueuse à LaPresse, en matière d’alimentation.

Dans son article 10 résolutions alimentaires elle fait preuve de beaucoup de sagesse lorsqu’elle nous rappelle que manger est une question de plaisir et de s’en priver en s’empêchant de manger des choses qu’on aime ou bien suivre un régime pour maigrir, est assurément plus néfaste pour notre organisme qui finit par répondre d’une façon tout à fait contraire à ce qu’on a tenté d'obtenir à raison de grands sacrifices.


Manger pour se délecter le palet ou pour satisfaire une petite fringale qu’importe l’heure de la journée, n’a rien de mauvais en soi pourvu qu'on ne verse pas dans les excès au-delà de notre point de satiété. Ce qui est en fait néfaste est de stresser et de se culpabiliser à chaque fois qu’on va à l’encontre des 1001 conseils de la santé publique, des bien-pensants, des diététistes et des nutritionnistes gurus de l’heure. Pourtant, il n’y a pas pire que le stress pour la santé selon bon nombre d’experts crédibles.

Avec beaucoup de nuance, Mme Lortie nous conseille de simplement écouter notre corps lorsqu’il nous parle, lorsqu’il nous signale la faim, la non-faim, ses envies, ses caprices.  Il n'est aucunement nécessaire de manger religieusement nos trois repas par jour lorsqu’on n’a pas faim. Heureusement, il n’y a pas de loi qui nous dicte qu’on doit manger un tel repas à une telle heure. On ne commet aucun péché mortel si on laisse un peu de nourriture dans notre assiette lorsqu’on a atteint notre point de satiété.

La population n’a jamais été autant bombardée d'informations sur les valeurs nutritives des aliments, la dangerosité de certains, les vertus de certains autres, le nombre de calories, de gras, de glucides, de protéines…et pourtant si on se fie sur l’avis des experts, on n’a jamais été aussi mal en point. Serait-ce que plus on en sait, moins on en gagne? La réponse se trouverait-t-elle précisément en ce qu’on n’est pas assez à l’écoute des besoins de notre propre corps et trop à l’écoute des formules de santé conçues pour la collectivité mais qui ne répondent pas aux besoins propres à nous ?  À en croire les données du sondage Léger sur le nombre de personnes qui se préoccupent de leurs poids avant tout autre état de santé, force est de constater que la campagne anti-obésité a malheureusement une trop grande influence sur nos vies.  Ils ont réussit à nous inculquer à coups de millions en campagnes publicitaires, qu'obésité égale nécessairement maladie.  Il est grand temps qu'on arrête d'associer automatiquement surplus de poids avec mauvaise santé.  On peut tout autant faire de l'embonpoint et être en santé qu'être mince et malade ! 

2011 en 10 résolutions pour manger librement

BUREAUCRATS SEEK ''TROPHY CONVICTIONS''

With the permission of our friends at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, we are posting this newsletter which you can also read right at their website at:  http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/newsletter.php?newsletter_id=154

Bureaucrats seek 'trophy convictions'


Drop the pig and put your hands up in the air!

By Karen Selick, CCF Litigation Director

The National Post

The maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” made sense back in the days when the only kind of acts that were illegal were genuine crimes that caused palpable harm to innocent victims: murder, rape, theft, etc.

But with the growth of the regulatory state, every individual is now subject to thousands of pages of densely written federal, provincial and municipal statutes and regulations. The law is also embodied in innumerable judicial decisions. And it’s all in continual flux: regulations are passed without parliamentary debate, and courts release new judgments daily.

There is probably not a single law professor, judge, or legislator in Canada who has even a passing familiarity with, let alone full comprehension of, all the laws we are required to obey. The average joe doesn’t stand a chance. We are all potential offenders every day, no matter how law-abiding we might wish to be.

Given this welter of law, how should those responsible for enforcing it conduct themselves? A legal battle unfolding in Ottawa provides a prime example of how not to do it.

Mark Tijssen is a major in the Canadian Forces. He grew up on a farm, attending livestock auctions and helping his father butcher animals for the family’s own table. He’s also a hunter who dresses his own game. And he has a University of Guelph degree in biomedical toxicology. In short, he can tell a healthy animal from a sick one. He’s concerned, like many Canadians, about the safety of commercially produced meats, especially since the Maple Leaf Foods episode of 2008 that left 21 dead and dozens of others seriously ill. He knows of the study showing that as much as 10% of the pork in Canadian supermarkets is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus germs.

Tijssen uses his farming and butchering skills to opt out of the commercial food supply. For years, he has inspected his own meat while still on the hoof, slaughtered it himself, and packaged it for later use. In November, 2009 he and a friend bought a pig, intending to share it.

But for unknown reasons, a neighbour reported to the Ontario government that Tijssen was running an unlicensed slaughterhouse on his property.

It’s perfectly legal to butcher your own pig and serve it to your immediate family in your own home. What’s not legal, as a result of new Food Safety and Quality Act regulations that quietly took effect in 2005, is letting someone else take home-butchered meat off the property.

It fell to conservation officer Graham Ridley of Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to deal with Tijssen’s neighbour’s complaint.

Ridley could have phoned or visited Tijssen to make sure he knew about the 130-page regulation and warn him against violating it. A responsible person like a Canadian Forces major would surely have wanted to avoid getting into trouble with the law if he knew about it.

But instead, Ridley staked out Tijssen’s home for five full days in November 2009, watching from a tree-house on the neighbour’s property, waiting to see whether anyone would leave Tijssen’s property with meat. How gratifying it must have been when he finally saw the co-owner of the pig leaving with a box of pork. At last, a charge could be laid!

Ridley sprang into action, following the friend down the road and confiscating the pork.

Tijssen, on learning from his friend what had happened, telephoned Ridley the next day and acknowledged having butchered the pig. But faced with this golden opportunity of explaining the 2005 regulations to Tijssen, Ridley once again declined.

Instead, the following evening, after dark, Ridley raided Tijssen’s property accompanied by four police cars and two MNR trucks, lights flashing. Armed police officers searched the property painstakingly and carried off 14 articles of butchering equipment—evidence of Tijssen’s heinous offence—even though Tijssen had already acknowledged in the previous day’s phone call that he had killed the pig.

Tijssen now stands charged with four offences and theoretically faces penalties of up to $100,000. The MNR lawyers quickly offered him the chance to settle for a fine of only $8,000. They then reduced their demand to $2,000 and eventually to a paltry $1,000—not nearly enough to pay for officer Ridley’s five-day surveillance and the multi-officer raid, let alone their lawyers’ services

But Tijssen refuses to plead guilty and will be tried in February.

Meanwhile, one can’t help wondering: does the MNR really want compliance with the law, or trophy convictions to terrorize other unwitting citizens?