Make your own free website on Tripod.com

The Writing of Thomas W. Laprade
Page Two


June 17, 2003
(This letter was sent to towns in the ospreymediagroup ex.sarnia & Pembroke)

Dear Mayor and Council,
If you want to know the 'real' truth about second-hand smoke and the devastation it has on the hospitality sector please visit these web-sites.
http://www.forces.org/canada
http://www.smokersclub.com
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay,Ont.



June 16, 2003
Risk???

Dear Editor,
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix. Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes to "dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.

Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.

The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.

The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.

Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?

The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did, they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants. That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health.

It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places? What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?

Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?

Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade




June 11, 2003
Passive smoking
Mayor and Aldermen

Passive smoking will not kill you, give you heart disease or lung cancer, according to a study that will inflame the controversy over tobacco bans in restaurants and the pariah status of smoking at work.

The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventative medicine at the State University of New York, analyzed data from more than 100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.

The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived with a spouse who did. The authors found that passive smoking was not linked to death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much the spouse smoked.

The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30-per-cent increased risk of heart disease.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



June 9, 2003
Banning an illegal product on private property is illegal(logical)
Banning a legal product on private property is illegal(illogical
God Bless
Thomas W. Laprade



May 20, 2003
Mayor and Aldermen,
Passive smoking will not kill you, give you heart disease or lung cancer, according to a study that will inflame the controversy over tobacco bans in restaurants and the pariah status of smoking at work.
The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventative medicine at the State University of New York, analyzed data from more than 100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.
The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived with a spouse who did.
The authors found that passive smoking was not linked to death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much the spouse smoked.
The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30-per-cent increased risk of heart disease, although a small increase cannot be ruled out.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade
The complete study and more information are posted here.



May 20, 2003
Thunder Bay,Ontario
Some schools in Thunder Bay have banned children from bringing peanut butter sandwiches to school.
A few children are allergic to peanut butter.
It has been suggested to separate the children, instead of banning everybody from bringing peanut butter sandwiches to school.

Thomas,
Here in Ottawa, as well as peanut butter bans, we have school bans on latex balloons, peas and other lentils and other stuff that escapes me for now.
In my grandson's school the kids can no longer even throw snowballs, and now the city of Ottawa is considering a by-law against bullying (of course the by-law will do nothing to eliminate the ethnic gangs that are now a normal part of Ottawa school life).
There are so many people making a living out of telling others how to live their lives, but few have the guts to speak out about the real problems undermining our society.
Regards
Barry McKay



May 13, 2003
Letter to the Editor,
Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped, wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of circumstances, his future is bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organically
grown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, want inmates to take programs to help them break the habit.
Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.
Thomas W. Laprade



May 13, 2003
Subject: Opinion Polls--Scams

As for opinion polls, these are the biggest scam of all. The main question asked is always along the lines of "Are you in favour of a 100% smoking ban in public places?" A majority of those polled vote "Yes" because they are under the impression that "Public Places" means schools, libraries, shopping malls, government buildings and the like. Most have no idea at all that, under the provisions of the by-law, "Public Places" also includes the local corner bar or billiard hall.

If another question is asked such as "Are you in favour of arrangements to accommodate smokers in bars?" again the answer will be an overwhelming "Yes". Thus this second question is rarely posed. It was asked in the Ottawa poll, but when over 70% voted 'Yes' to special arrangements for smokers, the medical officer of health kept this a secret from both the public and Council. PUBCO eventually obtained the truth through access to information proceedings - but by then the damage had been done. These are the kind of dirty tricks that public servants - people whose wages you are paying - are up to.

A classic example of this subterfuge is now underway in Thunder Bay. That City Council, not having the guts to make an honest decision on the smoking issue, voted instead to have it dealt with by plebiscite in November's municipal election. "Fine" we hear you say "let the people be heard" - but first take a look at the question! "Do you support a ban of smoking in public places and in work places in the City of Thunder Bay?" As explained, average voters will have no idea "public places" includes the local pub - and even if they do, how are they supposed to decide when a "No" vote technically means agreeing to smoking in day care centres? It's a lose-lose situation for owners, and demonstrates the skullduggery and trickery that we face every day when fighting the Antis. In this case, obviously a "No" vote has to be cast, thus kicking the issue back to council to be dealt with honestly - an unusual approach to a lot of our elected politicians.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



May 12, 2003
As for opinion polls, these are the biggest scam of all. The main question asked is always along the lines of "Are you in favour of a 100% smoking ban in public places?"
A majority of those polled vote "Yes" because they are under the impression that "Public Places" means schools, libraries, shopping malls, government buildings and the like. Most have no idea at all that, under the provisions of the by-law, "Public Places" also includes the local corner bar or billiard hall.
If another question is asked such as "Are you in favour of arrangements to accommodate smokers in bars?" again the answer will be an overwhelming "Yes".
Thus this second question is rarely posed. It was asked in the Ottawa poll, but when over 70% voted 'Yes' to special arrangements for smokers, the medical officer of health kept this a secret from both the public and Council. PUBCO eventually obtained the truth through access to information proceedings - but by then the damage had been done. These are the kind of dirty tricks that public servants - people whose wages you are paying - are up to.
A classic example of this subterfuge is now underway in Thunder Bay. That City Council, not having the guts to make an honest decision on the smoking issue, voted instead to have it dealt with by plebiscite in November's municipal election. "Fine" we hear you say "let the people be heard" - but first take a look at the question! "Do you support a ban of smoking in public places and in work places in the City of Thunder Bay?"
As explained, average voters will have no idea "public places" includes the local pub - and even if they do, how are they supposed to decide when a "No" vote technically means agreeing to smoking in day care centres? It's a lose-lose situation for owners, and demonstrates the skullduggery and trickery that we face every day when fighting the Antis. In this case, obviously a "No" vote has to be cast, thus kicking the issue back to council to be dealt with honestly - an unusual approach to a lot of our elected politicians.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



May 5, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
Who did they do a economic impact study on? The doughnut shops and big restaurant chains?
These bastards are very, selective. They will never admit that smoking bans hurt hospitality venues even if there is solid proof that the bans are killing and bankrupting many businesses.
Everything else is blamed instead from 9-11 to owner incompetence. Even though many of the affected businesses were successful for several years or decades before the implementation of fascist smoking bans, within the hospitality industry.
Along with the politically correct media and governments, these pollsters are acting in a criminal fashion. These pollsters are directed by the governments and health groups, they are sure they ask loaded questions and look for businesses that would be the least likely affected by smoking regulations.
"One size does not fit all" in the industry of hospitality. There is a huge difference between a fast-food restaurant or take-out drive true restaurant than a small "Mom and Pop" diner.
There is also a huge difference where bars, clubs and gambling venues are concerned when compared to restaurants, depending on their regular clientele.
No matter what the anti-smoking people and pollsters may claim: Few hospitality venues can afford to disenfranchise and lose even 10% of their regular customers.
In most bars, gambling facilities and clubs smokers make up from 50%-90% of the businesses regular customers.
Many of these people will not frequent such establishments once smoking bans have been enacted. It gets "old" real fast going outside to smoke especially where weather conditions are unfavourable.
Many smokers just stay home and drink instead. They get used to saving money that they would have otherwise spent in the hospitality industry. Their friends and families also will stay home with the smokers.
Non-smokers do not come out in the great numbers that the politicians, health groups and social engineers claim.
They cry from the hospitality industry businesses everywhere smoking bans are enacted is: "Where are all the non-smokers?"
People who rarely if ever attend smoke-filled bars will not change their entertainment plans and become frequent hospitality industry patrons, just because businesses become smoke-free.
Most smokers will never get used to being treated as social lepers and kicked to the great outdoors in order to smoke. Most non-smokers who never went to bars in the first place will not change their habits, either.
Business owners, not the governments or health groups should be allowed to set their own smoking policies. If was a market for totally smoke-free businesses, there would be no need for imposed smoking bans or bylaws.
Business owners would choose to go smoke-free on their own. If non-smoking businesses really did as well or better business than venues that allow smoking... Every hospitality establishment would go smoke-free willingly.
The media, governments and health groups are all pathological liars, where this issue is concerned.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


May 5, 2003
Hi Guys,
I watched a program on TV, about the insect spray 'DEET.'
They were spraying it on a little child.
The Doctor said the spray is absorbed into the skin and goes to all the vital organs of the body.
It begs the question, where are those Doctors who are screaming, child abuse, from second hand smoke, in the home???
And while I am at it, what about the hundreds of chemical substances in the kitchen, under the sink, twenty four hours a day, every day, down in the basement, in the garage, etc…?
God Bless
Tom



April 16, 2003
EQUAL RIGHTS
The 'Right' or 'Choice' of a person to enter or not enter a restaurant, or bar (Age of Majority) is equal to the same 'right' or 'choice' of a restaurant, or bar (Age of Majority) to permit smoking or not permit smoking on their premises.
Thomas W. Laprade



April 4, 2003
Mayor and Council,
It is not a democracy, when 'one' person, directly or indirectly, whether it be right or wrong, imposes their morals on another person.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



April 1, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,

I would suggest that you would add this question under the plebicsite question.
"Do you agree that the smoking restrictions that exist now are sufficient?"
This would give the smoking issue a form of balance.

Another question that could be added to the ballot next November:
Would you be willing to let smokers be accommodated so long as those who choose not to be exposed would not be exposed.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



March 21, 2003
Mayor and Aldermen,
I stated on live TV, not 1 death or sickness etiologically assigned to tobacco or second-hand smoke.
Have you noticed, Simon Hoad, Dr. Dhaliwal, Dr. Morris did not challenge or rebuff me, whether it be on TV or the media?
Why?
Simple!
Because they know it is the truth.
Dr. Simonci has stated--The con work of the anti-smokers is on the ignorance of the people.
The 'Nazis' perfected the Big Lie Technique.
Make a lie huge, repeat it over and over and over, and pretty soon most people will believe it, even if it has no basis in fact.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



March 13, 2003

Good evening Smoke free by-law...


My name is Thomas w. Laprade. I am a Freedom of Choice Activist
I belong to a non-profit organization who are run by volunteers like myself.
I do not own or manage, a pub, tavern, lounge, restaurant or bar.
Please ask yourself this question:
Prove to me that secondhand smoke, by itself, causes Lung Cancer.
If you can't prove it, then it is not an issue.
I can prove to you that second hand smoke by itself, does not cause lung Cancer.
To quote Dr. Simonici MD of Italy, Dr. Ahmad and Dr. Morgan of London, Ont. from the Chest Clinic:
Not 1 illness nor death has ever been ETIOLOGICALLY assigned as caused by tobacco, let alone second-hand smoke.
Demand for a no smoking policy is not based on "Demand," as in "Supply and Demand".
It is a demand of a small but VOCIFEROUS number of people.
Council should be doing what is in the best interest of the city. There are approx.120,000 people in the city. Just because 50 to 100 people want a no smoking policy doesn't mean we should have one.
I ask the council to forget about the proposed smoking by-law.

I have a letter that was refused by the Chronicle Journal.
I accuse the Chronicle Journal of suppressing the truth.
I have hundreds of e-mails from my organization, and not one has been published.
I accuse the Chronicle Journal of Lying, lying by Omission.
Here is the letter that was refused publication.
NO NEED OF A SMOKING BY-LAW
We are well on the way to reaching a smoke free environment.
We just don't need more gov't regulations to impose it on everyone.
In my view, all smoking policies should be set at the discretion of the private property owners.
This is where the radical anti-smoking faction misses the point.
Smoking bans are an unreasonable intrusion into private enterprises
Bars, restaurants and the like are not truly public spaces, they are private property, where the owner invites the public.
Bars and restaurants are not public places, like civic pools and arenas, and libraries.
But restaurants and bars have a lot more in common with your own private residence.
Would many people support a law banning smoking in private residence?
I think not.
Tobacco is still a legal product in Canada and the U.S.A., from which the federal gov't earns billions of dollars in taxation.
How hypocritical is it when one level of gov't sells a product to the public and another level of Gov't bans its use.
City council should not undermine such a basic sacred right as a persons freedom to choose.
It could be very simple.
If you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, stay away.
If you enjoy smoking before a meal and after a meal, find a place that allows it.
(that was the letter they refused to print.)
I have another letter. "Why are so many opposed to referendum questions. Especially in British Columbia, the gov't there have big problems.
A referendum permits the majority to decide on the rights of the minority.
Critics contend, they are worded in a Motherhood fashion, that an overwhelming response is inevitable.
Pertaining to Thunder Bay
The non-participants( the majority) can impose or dictate their morals to the participants(Minority) of the hospitality sector.
The referendum would be lopsided, slanted unfair, undemocratic and wrong.
FASCISM--A strongly nationalistic movement in favor of Govn't control of business.
People can vote with their feet.
ZEAL--is very blind, or badly regulated when it encroaches on the rights of others.

"IF IT'S NOT BROKEN,DON'T FIX IT!"




March 11, 2003
Dear Mayor and Aldermen,
After viewing the hearing video, I've a better wording for the resolution, "Because of misleading facts and outright lies in the handling of their community health responsibilities, do you prefer that anti-smoker leaders be tarred and feathered and driven out of town or fined and jailed?"
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



March 11, 2003
Open Letter to the Mayor and Councilmen
Dear Editor,

Gary Shchepanic is the only councilor who had the "Guts" to stand up and tell the 'Truth'. There is no health problem, if you don't want to walk through those 'doors', if you think there is a health problem, if you think it is going to 'kill' you. Don't walk through those doors. It is your choice. (To impose more regulations on the rest of the hospitality sector is ridiculous.) One size does not fit all.

The two lawyers, played it smart, they wanted to pass a smoke free bylaw, but they opted for a plebiscite, knowingly, if the plebicsite was passed, they would win; if the plebicsite is defeated, they would still win!! They covered their rear-ends.

Talking about "Gutless Wonders"

I attended a ward meeting, put on by the alderman T.Giertuga. He asked for a show of hands--How many people wanted a smoke-free bylaw? Over 80% of the people put up their hands.

I looked around and thought to myself, how many of these people do not or very seldom, patronize the hospitality sector, on any given day?

The 'Old Warhorse' alderman Timko, pointed his finger at me and said, "He wanted to give Freedom of Choice" a 'chance', but it didn't work.

Didn't freedom of choice work for you? You got elected, 'didn't you'?.

What country did he think he is living in? Russia? Iraq? China?

Timko is one of those 'Gutless Wonders', that puts his finger in the air, and finds out which way the wind is blowing.

It has been said that Prime Minister Chretien has been in power too long, because he is becoming too dictatorial.

I think alderman Timko, has been in power too long, and he is becoming too dictorial.

Any person who suppresses the Freedom of Choice, 'must' be voted out of office.

Time to move on,Mr.Timko.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade
Thunder Bay,Ontario



February 18, 2003
Dear Mayor and Councilmen
Demand for a no smoking policy is not based on "demand" as in "supply and demand." It is the selfish whim of a small, but vociferous number of people.

The Council should be doing what is in the best interest of the entire city. Not pandering to the wishes of selfish, special interests groups, that will damage many businesses in the hospitality sector. Creating unemployment and the bankruptcies of many private hospitality venues.

There are approximately 120,000 people in the city.

Just because 50 to 100 want a no smoking policy doesn't mean we should have one.

The Ontario Government is in the process of dealing with this type of issue.

The stress and strain of the employees of the Hospitality sector is tremendous. They don't know if they are going to have a job in the few weeks' time.

Before Simon Hoad came on the scene, how many people were banging on your doors, yelling: "We want a smoke free by law. We want a smoke free by law." or employees of the hospitality sector, yelling, "Please protect us from "second-hand smoke."

I ask council to forget about the meeting on Feb.25/03 and to forget about the proposed smoking bylaw.

These smoke-free advocates should put their money where their mouths are: Let them open their own non-smoking hospitality establishments and let them wait for the hoards of non-smoking customers that never materialize.

Don't attempt to play "God" with the livelihoods of others for the sake of a politically correct notion. Especially when the people that such regulations are designed to help, will be hurt the most by the rules that are meant to protect them.

Even if second-hand smoke were a health risk: minor or major... No one is forced to work in or patronize a smoke-filled hospitality establishment.

By the same token no one is forced to allow smoking in their own private hospitality business.

The market should dictate. Not well-meaning, misinformed governments.

Real objective science does not support the "second-hand smoke" health-hysteria. Why then, should city council?

Smoking bans should be handled at the federal or provincial level. Let the big governments be the "bad guys." You have a sworn duty to protect the rights of all citizens. Including smokers and business people in the hospitality industry.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



IN ORDER TO BE FAIR, LET US COMPARE!
February 6, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,

The big complaint from anti-smokers and non-smokers, about second-hand-smoke, is that innocent people are subjected to potential diseases, like, "Cancer" and Heart Disease", which would show up in people, in about 10 to 40 or 50 years from now.

Short term effects: irritates the eyes, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and last but not the least is the "odor".

We all know what happens to a person who indulges in alcoholic beverages. Some, but not all, become alcoholics: some but not all, die from Alcoholism, cirrhosis of the liver, heart Disease, wet brains, and even fatal accidents.

In my view, second-hand smoke, and the "attitude or actions" of the drinker is "One of the Same", it has an effect on innocent people.

Let me explain this debatable, contriversial, deniable, and "holier than thou" attitude, of the people of North America.

The "immediate" results of the "attitude" or actions, feelings, emotions are known "instantly", to the innocent people around them, also to the people they have never seen before in their life.

Look at the attitude or actions of the drinking person, when they beat up their spouse, or children (abuse-in the strongest sense of the term), verbal abuse-degrading your spouse and your children, arguments-"fights" within the family, Divorce, Separation, Family break-ups.

What about the fights, brawls, and even killings--in homes, bars, taverns, pubs.

What about the fatal accidents on the streets… highways--families get wiped out--innocent people die... people you don't know, people you have never seen in your life.

Have you ever heard of a fatal accident, that was caused by somebody who was smoking a cigarette, or inhaled second-hand smoke.

When you look at the Big Picture, would you call it a Fair Comparison?

Remember: when you point a pious-self-righteous finger at someone, there are numerous fingers pointing back at you in rightful condemnation..

God Bless
Sincerely Yours
Thomas W. Laprade



February 5, 2003
Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

As you read my letters, you will get a sense of what happened in the sixties and up to now. Every town and city is not quite the same, only you know that because you live there. I know the people, how they think and what information they have, or what they have been fed by the zealots.

I seem to get a gut feeling on what buttons to press and what not to press. You have to understand how get to know the aldermen and the mayor on how they feel about the issue as politicians. Some just put their fingers in the air and find out which way the wind is blowing.

I love the statement, "I rather be right than President."

It is a beautiful stance, but politicians are politicians. The question is how do you get politicians on your side without them jeopardizing their position at election time?

My first letter shook up a lot of people when it was written.
Here is an example of a reverse situation I couldn't pass up. It was a "natural" and caught everyone off-guard.
There was a live TV, phone in show prior to election time. You could ask any questions you wanted to ask the mayor, the aldermen, the new candidates running for alderman.
I asked the question, "Do you believe the hospitality sector has the intelligence to handle this smoking issue without interference from council, smoke-free, Thunder Bay or a smoking by-law.(It was my intention to ask a loaded question. What could they say? .NO!
The mayor agreed with me, 10 aldermen agreed with me, (the two alderman that disagreed with me were voted out of office) and all of the new candidates agreed with me.

Last May at a public meeting there was to be a debate about the smoking by-law. I stood up, and told the crowd about the phone in show and my question, and the answers.

You could have heard a pin drop. You could have cut the silence with a knife.

I thought to myself, "GOTCHA!"

My letter, Nov.3,2002 NO NEED OF A SMOKING BY-LAW, was so close to the truth, the local fish-wrap paper refused to print it. Our newspaper is "for" a bylaw, and everybody knows it. I would have been happy if they printed it, but I was happier when they didn't print it.
I informed the Mayor and Council that the local paper is suppressing the TRUTH, and they know it. Some aldermen wrote letters to the paper and were never published.

A renegade councilor, named Orville Santa, is an alderman. He has a monthly paper, and he locks horns with the local paper. There is a lot of animosity between the two.
Alderman Santa is also a frustrated musician, like I am. I known him for years. He would lock horns with the POPE if he has an inkling he could win an argument. He has been sued left, right and center. He is a poop disturber. I think every council needs one just to keep everybody honest!! He believes in a cellophane council with everything up front.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W.Laprade



January 28, 2003
STAND UP,AND DECLARE YOURSELF.
Facts: Lets establish four undisputed facts,according to Thorndike Barnhart Dictionary:

Private............Not Public

Public..............Not Private

Private enterprise...business as conducted without public (Government) control of ownership.

Facism...a strongly Nationalistic movement in favor of Government control of business.


You must ask yourself this question. Am I a Fascist?
If you are a Fascist, you must declare yourself.
A rose is a rose, no matter what you call it, it is still a rose.
If you are not a Fascist, then you must strike down this ANTI-FREEDOM OF CHOICE, SMOKE-FREE BYLAW.
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!!
Are you or are you not a Fascist?
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


January 23, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
When people run for Mayor and Council, they have an agenda, platform or a promise to do "this" or a promise not to do "that".
If they reverse their promises, they will jeopardize their re-election.
I would like to refresh your memory about an episode that took place on live TV. It was a "phone-in" just prior to last election time. I put this question to the Mayor, aldermen, and the new candidates, that were running for aldermen.
" Do you believe, that the hospitality sector has the intelligence to handle this smoking issue, without the interference from council or smoke-free Thunder Bay or a smoke-free by-law."
The mayor agreed with me, 10 of the aldermen agreed with me,{the two aldermen who disagreed with me-{the former aldermen, Mr. Vanderwees and Mr. Badani}.."Where are they now?"
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


January 21, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
Anti-smokers are asking why they should pay for health costs for smokers.
Let's get some other questions out there.
Why should people with no children pay school taxes?
Why should childless people have to pay for childcare resources?
Why should working people have to pay to cover social assistance benefits to others if they don't use them?
Why do people who never go to the Community Auditorium help pay to keep it running?
Why should people who don't gamble pay for Gamblers Anonymous?
The answers to all these questions are, they have to.
Simple as that. It's part of life.
Maybe some tax money should be used to help cover costs for smoking rooms in bars, businesses, malls restaurants and such.
Maybe the money from the casino could be used for programs to help people quit smoking.
Maybe ALL the money that is derived from the casino could go towards health care, or help finance our new hospital.
Also maybe some tax money should be used to offset the loss of revenue to businesses. Then you will see anti-smokers complaining again.
Paying taxes, is like paying into an insurance policy, the benefits are there, if the need arises. e.g:. Doctors, hospitals police social programmes, sports, CPP OAS. etc…
Businesses around here should try what was done in Toronto -- turn their establishments into private clubs, where patrons pay a small membership fee, and then they can make their own rules.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


January 20, 2003
Dear Aldermen,
As you know, I am a "Freedom of Choice Activist. "
I became interested in the Freedom of Choice issue, when the Fluoridation debate began, in the early Sixties. If that plebiscite was passed, parents of children could have saved thousands of dollars and most importantly, their children could have the benefits of fluoridation. All my children have nearly perfect teeth. One of my daughters had her first cavity at the ripe old age of 32. I bought "Tri vi Flor" for my children. My wife's doctor instructed her to take calcium fluoride pills, while she was pregnant with the next 3 children.
I took a vow to myself, that if an incident ever happens again, I will get involved-right up to my teeth.
The TIME IS NOW.
I will seek the truth, I will find out what the zealots don't want you to know.
The devastating damage that can happen to the hospitality sector with jobs lost, and businesses going bankrupt.
I attended a meeting of about 30 people at Scutlebutts--what a beautiful place. I asked the owner, could you picture this place without ashtrays?
He replied, "It scares the hell out of me."
One restaurant owner was in tears, as she told us, "If this by-law goes through, I am finished, my business will go down the tubes."
I listened with great intent, with compassion, with understanding, and with the knowledge I gathered over the last three months.
I went home after that meeting and thought about the "before and after scenarios." I wept, yes you heard right, I wept.
I attended a boogie at Newfie's Saturday night. I sat in a corner and watched the people. They were smiling, they were laughing, and they were really enjoying themselves, having a terrific time. The place was jammed packed. I asked the owner, Don Perry, can you picture this same place, if a smoking by-law is passed?
90% of the customers smoke and I think all the workers smoked too.
He said, "My business, which I built up over the years, goes down the tubes."
I went home and sat on the couch, and thought about that evening, and believe it or not, I wept again.
I am determined to seek the truth. I wanted to know what the zealots are not telling the people. I wanted to know, why the zealots are telling you only what they want you to know. I want to know what the "Real Agenda" is. I wanted to know why the zealots have never mentioned publicly, the damage a bylaw could have on the businesses, restaurants, Bingo's, pubs and taverns. I wanted to know why they are suppressing the truth, the reality of life.
They have convinced the Chronicle Jounal, and even Ron Bourret.
The Chronicle Journal is suppressing the true facts of this issue--I have proof, copies of the e-mails that were sent to the Chronicle Journal and not one has ever been published.
I accuse the Chronicle Journal of LYING -- LYING BY OMMISSION.
I belong to a non-profit international organization that is run by volunteers, like myself. Our primary goal is to keep Freedom of Choice alive, to fight smoke-free bylaws, to fight the banning of a legal product.
They have a wealth of knowledge--they have names that are for and against our fight, they have names of businesses that have suffered and "died." They have the real truth. The truth speaks for itself; they do not have to LIE.
I plead with you, I urge you, I beg you to seek the "TRUTH" before it is too late.
THE HOSPITALITY SECTOR IS YOUR PEOPLE, THEY ARE MY PEOPLE.
I will fight until hell freezes over, I will mow anybody down who gets in my way.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


January 20, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,

I was always under the impression, that when you were elected to office, you were elected to run the business of the city of Thunder Bay, not the businesses of Thunder Bay.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



January 16, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
I fully understand the political rationale for wanting to protect children from "Second Hand Smoke." Children should not be used as a determining factor to discriminate between smoking and non-smoking in the hospitality business.
Many restaurants that cater to children have already decided to go non-smoking.
If the government is truly interested in stopping children from being exposed to second hand smoke, it should start with the smoking parents in the home where the concentration and duration are much greater.
The possible exposure to second hand smoke for an hour or two at a restaurant is negligible compared to the prolonged exposure a child could be subjected to in an enclosed vehicle or the home of a smoking parent
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade


January 15, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
Located beside the Marathon Centre Mall, the towns A-W closed unexpectedly two weeks ago, after 12 years of operation.
The restaurant was the first and only eatery in Marathon, to go completely smoke free, a few months ago (Freedom of Choice) The Puritans has stated, over and over again, "Business will get better, if you go smoke free".
Where are the Puritans now?
I cannot emphasize, what I have said, over and over
IF IT'S NOT BROKEN,DON'T FIX IT!!!
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade

P.S. The Mayor and council should consider themselves lucky. They could have been blamed for 25 part-time and full time employees who have lost their jobs, if a smoking ban was in place.



January 13, 2003
Dear mayor and Aldermen,

Whether you are a smoker or not, or in favour or out of favour with smoke-free indoor work places, you have to admit we are in a sad state of affairs. We have six members of the Northwestern Health Unit wandering around Northwestern Ontario acting as undercover police and harassing hard-working, honest business people who are just trying to make a living.
I would like to inform Dr. Sarsfield and his staff that we have some very serious health issues in the district and as one of the taxpayers who pay their salaries; I would prefer that they get out there and try to solve them.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



The right to NOT go there
January 11, 2003
Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

There are some business owners in Thunder Bay who have already decided to make their businesses smoke-free. They have the right to do that.

If a smoker wants to enjoy a cigarette with their meal, they have the right to choose NOT to visit that establishment .In the same manner, If a business owner decides to allow smoking, they should have that right and a non-smoker would have the right to choose NOT to visit that establishment.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W.Laprade



Show me the Proof!!!
January 10, 2003
Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

Simon Hoad and his zealots say Second-Hand Smoke causes Cancer.
You must ask yourself this question.
Prove it to me! Show me the proof.
If you can prove to me that second-hand smoke, by itself causes Lung Cancer...PROVE IT!!
If you can't prove that second-hand smoke, by itself, causes lung cancer, then it is not an issue.
I can prove to you that second-hand smoke, buy itself DOES NOT cause Lung Cancer.
Not 1 illness nor death has ever been etiologically assigned as caused by tobacco let alone second-hand smoke, Dr. Simonicini, MD, Italy; No link has been proven between lung diseases and second-hand smoke. Dr. Ahmad and Morgan, London, Ontario Chest Clinic.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



What the zealots want you to know
January 9, 2003
Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

What Simon Hoad and his zealots want you to know that there are many carcinogens in Second Hand Smoke.

What the zealots don't want you to know…

Littlewood & Fennell,P.A. Independent Public and Health Policy Research center Austin, Texas, Study Report Sept. 1999:

In a Sealed room of approx.100 cubic meters, or 20 feet square by 9 feet high, to reach the EPA published ETS danger levels requires the following # of cigarettes being smoked--simultaneously:

Benzo(a)pyrene......222,000 cigarettes

Acetone.............118,000 cigarettes

Acetaldehyde.........14,000 cigarettes

Hydrazine............14,000 cigarettes

Hydroquinone..........1,500 cigarettes

Toluene...........1,000,000 cigarettes

This Means it is Essentially Impossible Any Health Risk From Second Hand Smoke when Patronizing Your Favorite Hospitality Spot.

Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



January 7, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
It is nobody's business, whether it be the Council or Tobacco Free Thunder Bay, if the public wants to patronize a restaurant which has a smoking and a no-smoking section on their premises.
If there are any complaints, they are between the customer and management.
Management has repeatedly stated that there have been no complaints from their customers about second hand smoke.
There are over 40 Smoke-Free establishments in Thunder Bay.
I have come to the logical conclusion that the people who are complaining are the people who DO NOT patronize these establishments.
People can vote with their feet.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



January 6, 2003
Dear Mayor and Council,
A popular and well-liked alderman said at a council meeting, "A person should be accountable for his actions."
Council should be prepared to fund charities if it decides to take away the Bingo's venue for raising money to serve the community, if you pass a Smoke-Free-ByLaw.
If you truly believe that a 100 per cent No-Smoking ban will not negatively impact the ability to continue our work, are you willing to guarantee us the funds if you are wrong?
And I haven't even mentioned the loss in revenues and loss of jobs in the Hospitality Sector.
IF IT IS NOT BROKEN...DON'T FIX IT.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



December 16, 2002
Dear Mayor and Council,
I constantly hear the anti-smokers and non-smokers complain bitterly about the high cost of smoking related diseases that cost the taxpayers and the government, millions and billions of dollars.
Did it ever occur to you, that the smoker who buys a pack of cigarettes, is actually prepaying his medical bills (providing he gets a smoking related disease)?
Also, he is prepaying the non-smokers and the anti-smokers medical bills, as well.
I haven't even mentioned the taxes the government makes on the booze they sell
Sincerely Yours
Thomas W. Laprade



December 2, 2002
Dear Editor,
My congratulations go out to Swiss Chalet (Memorial Ave.) for going Smoke Free (Freedom of Choice).
Also my congratulation to Boston Pizza, for catering to the smokers and non-smokers--Dining Room (Smoke Free), B.P. Lounge-will remain a smoking area (Age of Majority).
There is no need for a Smoke-Free By-Law, imposed on everybody.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



November 3, 2002
No Need of a Smoking By-law
Dear Mayor and Council,
We are well on the way to reaching a smoke-free environment. We just don't need more government regulations to impose it on everyone.
In my view all smoking policies, should be set at the discretion of the private property owners.
This is where the radical ant-smoking faction misses the point. Smoking bans are an unreasonable intrusion into private enterprise.
Restaurants, bars and the like are not truly public spaces. They are private property where the owner invites the public.
They think private restaurants and bars are no different than true public places such as civic pools, arenas, etc…
But restaurants and bars that are on private property have a lot more in common with your own private residence.
Would many people support a law banning smoking in private residence? I think not!!
Tobacco is still a legal product in Canada and the U.S.A. from which the federal government earns billions of dollars in taxation.
How hypocritical is it when one level of government sells a product to the public and another level of government bans its use?
A city council should not undermine such a basic, sacred right as a person's freedom to choose.
It could be very simple. If you don't want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, stay away.
If you enjoy smoking before and after a meal, find a place that allows it.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade
P.S. THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL REFUSED TO PRINT THIS LETTER (THE TRUTH)


October 29, 2002
An Open Letter to Ron Bourret and Simond Hoad
Let's set the record straight.
In B.C.,a study into the economic impact of the first 80 days of the 1998 smoking ban revealed that 730 jobs were lost, nine businesses were forced to close and more than $16 million was lost.
Thomas Laprade




September, 2002
There was an ad in the Chronicle Journal in Thunder Bay Ont. Canada
"IS YOUR HEAD IN A CLOUD?
If you were in this location, for this long, you've smoked this many this many cigarettes
Smoky bar                     2 Hours       four cigarettes
Restaurant                     2 Hours       one and one half cigarettes
Office                            8 Hours       6 cigarettes
Pack-a-day smokers's home       24 hours      3 cigarettes
Port Arthur Stadium (outside)      3 hours       1 cigarette
Car                               1 Hour        3 cigarettes

I sent this ad to the mayor and council.saying, "These statements are impossibilities and therefore they are all lies. It is impossible to get a "definte"number (4 cigarettes) from an "indefinite"situation. (smoky bar)
Thomas Laprade




September 20, 2002
Dear Mayor and Council,
In the last six months, I took a survey of about 90% of the restaurants and taverns in Thunder Bay.
I sat in the smoking sections of these establishments. I watched the second hand smoke rise straight up in the air and into the ventilation system.
I did NOT see second hand smoke rise about 12 inches or more, make a right angle turn and drift across the aisle and into a non-smoker's nose.
I asked most of the owners of these establishments, if there were any complaints from non-smokers about second-hand smoke. They all said, there were no complaints. I challenge the mayor and aldermen to conduct the same survey I did.
The mayor of Fort Francis, Ontario-Glen Witherspoon, said on TV "that decision should be left to the business owners. If it's beneficial to their business-they will go smoke free."
Smoking and No-Smoking sections have been around for years. ”If it's not broken, don't fix it." I detest the fact that Simon Hoad and his zealots are "using" the mayor and council to propagate their morals on the hospitality sector.
The Prime Minister of Canada - Jean Chretian said, "I don't believe pushing my morals on other people."
Sincerely Yours
Thomas W. Laprade



April 17, 2002
To Mayor and Council
WHY ARE SO MANY OPPOSED TO REFERENDUM QUESTIONS?
The referendum permits a majority to decide on the Rights of a minority.
Critics contend they are worded in such a "Motherhood Fashion",that an overwhelming "YES" response is inevitable.
Pertaining to Thunder Bay Ontario:
The non-participants(Majority)can impose or dictate their Morals to the Participants(Minority) of the Hospitality Sector. The referendum would be lopsided, Slanted, Unfair Undemocratic and WRONG!!!!
FASCISM - Thorndike Barnhart Dictionary - A strongly nationalistic movement in favor of government control of business!!!!
People can vote with their feet.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



November, 2001
Dear Editor,
I noticed an article in the Chronicle-Journal on Oct.20/01 "Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down"
A reader tells of attending a recent concert in the city. We had a lady sitting close to us with an overpowering amount of perfume on.
Please folks, be considerate when you are going out in public.
Could this incident be the start of a "Perfume-Free Bylaw"?
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



June 15, 2001
Letter to the Editor
Smoking the least of inmate dangers
Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped,wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can lose his wife, children and friends; even under the best of circumstances, his future is bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from non-organically grown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals and authoritarian impulses, as most crusaders do, wants inmates to take programs to help them break the habit.
Why would a method that often fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens be successful in the tense environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition of middle class values on a population that is largely under-educated and thus, as statistics show, more likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their dues and their cell is their home. How far can the state invade someone's privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse than whiffs of second-hand smoke.
Thomas W. Laprade



October 28, 2000
Dear Editor,
I firmly believe that anyone who suppresses the "Freedom of Choice" on the public or private enterprise, should be voted down in any Municipal, Provincial or Federal Election.
"Freedom of Choice"is a pillar of our Democratic Society.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W.laprade
There were two aldermen who did not believe in the freedom of choice. They were voted out of office in the last election.



October 4, 2000
RETAIN OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Dear Editor,
Back in the 1960's there was a fluoridation plebiscite held in Port Arthur.
That plebiscite affected every single person, every single day.
The Ontario Dental and Medical Association approved the fluoridation of our drinking water.
They said it was good for the teeth of our young children.
There was a man named Capt.Medwid who fought that plebiscite tooth and nail.
He lied, took the information out of context, he twisted surveys and percentages to further his cause.
He made outrages statements without proof.
He used fictitious doctors and dentists statements from all over the world.
He did not care about his methods, it was the end results that mattered.
He knew the power of TWO Emotions: FEAR and DOUBT.
He aimed all his guns on those two emotions.
Capt. Medwid won and the plebiscite was defeated.
He did not believe in mass medication; His message was Freedom of Choice.
He told the young mothers of Port Arthur (Thunder Bay), if you want the benefits of fluoridation, you can go to a drugstore and buy fluoridated tablets for your young children.

I see the same scenario playing out again.
Only this time,I see an ugly twist to the end results of this scenario.
Simon Hoad and his zealots are using the exact same tactics as Capt. Medwid used during the fluoridation plebiscite.
The ugly twist is the suppression of the freedom of choice on the public and private enterprise.
One of the most valuable gifts a person can receive is the freedom of choice; it is probably the one gift that is most treasured in our democracy.
Ask any person who lived in an occupied country during the Second World War if they enjoyed the freedom of choice.
Freedom of Choice is like your eyesight; you appreciate it when you lose it.
Those veterans fought and died in other countries in order to give the freedom of choice back to the people.
The plebiscite is on the border of Fascism.
The non-smoking majority imposes their will on the minority and free enterprise.
Fascism comes in many disguises; some even look good. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why these aldermen voted for the plebiscite.They know the majority of the population are non-smokers; they know this plebiscite will pass;they know their re-election will almost be guaranteed at election time.
Any politician,whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level, who suppresses the freedom of choice should be voted out of office.
This plebiscite has already been passed even before it gets on the ballot.
The majority of the public does not - or very seldom does - go to a restaurant or a bar on any given day.
On behalf of all the Capt.Medwids and the veterans in this city, I stand up and salute the aldermen in this city who had the guts to oppose this plebiscite, even though they knew their council seats were in jeopardy.
They did the right thing
Thomas Wilfred Laprade



August 11, 2000
An Open Letter the Mayor and Council.
I would like to explain the strategies that the anti-smoking lobbyists use to convince some of the gullible people in Thunder Bay.
One strategy they use is called half-truths. One of their favourites is "the smoke (in a room) does not know where to go". What they don't tell you is, that there are two conditions that must exists before that half-truth is true.
First, all the windows and doors must be sealed air tight, and two, there must be no ventilation system in the room.
Another analogy the antismoking lobbyists use is "it's like peeing in a swimming pool."
In this case, the swimmer has two choices (freedom of Choice) to make. Either he does not go swimming in the swimming pool or if he does go swimming in the pool, he better keep his mouth shut.
What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision on whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in bars and restaurants just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand-smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that need not be done in light of informed risk assessment is not grounds for public policy.
Banning smoking is not about health; it's about government paternalism and the attempt to legislate morality. Council is not in the health business and should not be. They were elected to run the business of the City.
John Norris, a doctor at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre in Toronto, stated "there is not a shred of evidence that "secondary smoke" damages health." He thinks that mobile phones are a far greater threat to society.
According to the Medical Tribune News Service, children do not seem to develop the disease as a result of second-hand smoke, according to the largest study to date, conducted to assess a possible link between passive smoke and lung cancer.
In Squamish, B.C., council rescinded their smoking by-law. It devastated the restaurants and bars.
The cure is worse than the disease; if it is not broken, don't fix it.
Thomas W. Laprade



June19, 2000
Dear Mayor and Council,
The Mayor of Marathon, Pat Richardson accomplished in 5 minutes what Thunder Bay council could not do in 4 years. "Mayor Pat Richardson said she would prefer business owner's to control smoking rather than trying to do it with a by-law.
I think businesses should dictate what's good for their business". Richardson said, "we've got enough to do on our own'.
This whole scenario is a farce-a joke. The time and the taxpayers money that was wasted, trying to determine the RIGHTS of a person, was ridiculous.
Don't forget, it will be the taxpayer who will be footing the bill, e.g. Smoke Police, administration cost, etc.
Pat Richardson has made a laughing stock of Thunder Bay council.
Freedom of Choice belongs to the public and private enterprise.
Whether you admit it or not, Simon Hoad and his zealots has duped City Council. Simon Hoad is compromising his demands in order to take the pressure off him so he can get his foot in the door. The same tactic was used in Toronto.
Swallow your pride and drop this charade and get on with running the business of Thunder Bay.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



April 5, 2000
Dear Mayor and Council,
We take "Freedom of Choice" for granted in our country.
If you want a reality check, take a look at what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Where were their "Freedom of Choice"?
In a free society, people should be allowed to indulge in pleasures that cause damage to no one but themselves.
An awkward feature of other people's freedoms is that they will sometimes get in your eyes.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



January 27, 2000
Dear Editor,
I'd like to tip my hat to Simon Hoad, the health promotion planner for the Thunder Bay District Health Unit for his ingenious ways to quit smoking ("Butting Out--Contest gives lots of incentive to quit",Jan.19).
Aim your big guns on the young smokers-to-be.
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W.Laprade



December 18, 1999
Dear Editor,
I tip my hat to the restaurants and coffee shops who went "Smoke Free".
You are now witnessing the results of "Freedom of Choice" without a "Smoke Free By-law."
There is no argument against "Freedom of Choice."
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



November, 1999
Dear Editor,
ADULT SMOKERS PAY WHEN TEENS ARE TARGET
Anti-smoking groups and some politicians want to raise taxes on cigarettes to deter teenagers from smoking. Propaganda against smoking has been aggressively aimed at school children for decades with virtually no effect. Young people think they are immortal, and they can smoke and drink and take drugs with impunity..
Teenagers will still smoke and drink, no matter what the price of cigarettes and booze are.
My beef: Why should every adult smoker be penalized by paying higher taxes, just because these anti-smokers and bleeding hearts are concerned about teenagers smoking?
The politicians use this "smoke screen" as a tax grab.
No wonder there is cynicism between the public and politicians.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



October 1999
Open letter to workers Compensation Board. Vancouver B.C.
Dear Editor
The niceties of risk management seems to go out the window when it comes to human health and safety, especially when morality is added to the mix.
Asbestos is one example of the suspension of critical judgment when it comes to"dangerous goods" .Asbestos is safe unless it gets into the air and is taken into the lungs. There are many applications in which the risk of this extremely low to absent, yet the word "asbestos" is enough to tear buildings down and ban the entire substance from commercial use.
Cigarette smoke is another topic that sends many people to the barricades irrespective of data on risk.
The topic of second-hand smoke is especially prone to hysterical reaction and statistical exaggeration.
The fact that smoking itself is addictive and causes a host of "terrible diseases" in a minority of people who fall prey to this habit tends to polarize discussion of anything to do with smoking.
Why, for example, should a municipality ban the existence of bars and restaurants spaces that are well ventilated for those who smoke, or for non-smokers who agree to assume the risk of second-hand smoke that comes with being in such places?
The non-smokers who occasionally spend time in such places are unlikely to experience any significant health problems as a result. Even if they did,they surely have a right to assume the risk in the context of a market that assumes the alternative of non-smoking bars and restaurants.
That leaves non-smoking staff of such places who spend much more time in the smoky environment and who therefore experience more significant risk of damage to their health. It can be argued that they are not "free" to reject this employment because jobs are hard to find. But is the only sensible answer to this problem, the complete banning of smoking in these places?
What is the actual risk in a ventilated space of second-hand smoke to non-smoking employees over time? If it is small, should they not have the right to make an informed decision whether to work in such places?
Should we ban smoking in ventilated portions of bars and restaurants just to address the employment interest of a minority of potential workers who will not want to work around second-hand smoke?
Feeling good about doing something that needn't be done in light of informed risk assessment is no ground for public policy.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



September, 1999
Open Letter to the Workers Compensation Board-British Columbia
The English Language has an expresion to bring over excited lawmakers back to reason." IF IT DOESN'T ITCH, DON'T SCRATCH IT".
If "designated areas" are working well and most people don't complain, why tamper with it?
The cure might be worse than the disease.
Banning smoking from buses, airplanes, Government offices and public agencies make sense. Banning smoking in bars is just plain ridiculous, because nobody is obliged to go into a bar.
This is an area where the market can meet the needs of the clientele. As the number of non-smokers keeps growing, non-smoking bars will appear, because such ventures will be profitable.
As the years go by I notice that non-smoking sections tend to get larger and larger, while the smokers are relegated to smaller and smaller areas. This evolution came naturally, simply because the restaurant business needs to satisfy the growing non-smoking clientele.
Therefore there is no need of a smoking by-law.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



September 6, 1999
Letter sent to the Mayor and Council in Thunder Bay Ontario, Canada
An open questionare to the mayor and aldermen regarding the smoke-free by-law
Dear Mayor and council,
Do you believe that freedom of choice is a pillar of our democratic society?
Do you believe that you were elected to run the business of the city of Thunder Bay?
Do you believe that if you were elected by freedom of choice, you would give that same choice to the public and private enterprise, where it belongs?
Do you believe that more coffee shops and restaurants are going smoke-free ( according to the zealots)?
Do you believe that the public can make their own decisions whether to enter a smoking or non-smoking section of a restaurant or smoke-free restaurant?
Do you believe that the natural course of complaints is between customers and management?
Do you believe that the hospitality sector has the intelligence to handle this situation without interference from city council?
Do you believe that the zealots are telling you half-truths?
Do you believe the credibility of the zealots is highly questionable?
Do you believe that you are NOT in the health care business or the "brother's keeper" of the public?
If you answered "Yes" to 9 out of 10 questions, you must believe that this smoke-free topic must, and should be voted down and out of existence forever.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



August 9,1999
Dear Editor,
I have been told,when the food court in Keskus went smoke-free on May 1,1997, their business dropped about 70 per cent.
Simon Hoad and his Puritans, said business would get better if the mall went smoke free.
Where are the Puritans now?
You can shoot a canon at the busiest time of the day and not hit anyone.
Management, realizing the error, re-introduced smoking in the food court.
Management learned a hard lesson; if it is not broken, don't fix it.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Laprade



October 1998
Sued over smoking at home
SALT LAKE CITY. A Utah couple fed up with a neighbour's smoking have filed a lawsuit seeking to bar him from lighting up at home, saying his smoke is making them miserable.
Matthew and Amanda Parrish of Centerville are suing Douglas MacFarlane who lives downstairs in their condominium complex,contending his smoke wafts into their living quarters.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first to challenge the right of people to smoke in their own homes, said a spokeswomen for the couple.
The court issued a temporary restraining order to stop the smoking soon after the suit was filed.
Thomas W. Laprade



May 16,1998
Dear Editor,
Congratulations to the Scandinavian Home for going smoke-free.
This is another reason why Thunder Bay does not need a smoke-free bylaw.
Freedom of choice is alive and well in Thunder Bay.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas Laprade



June 16,1997
Dear Editor,
I tip my hat to the Intercity Shopping Centre for going smoke free.
This is a perfect example of freedom of choice in the private industry; the trend today, toward smoke-free establishments.
Therefore, you do not need a smoke-free bylaw -- now or in the future.
Sincerely.
Thomas Laprade



September 21,1996
An open letter to the Mayor and Council
SMOKE FREE BY-LAW
Dear Editor,
Freedom of choice is the pillar of our Democratic System.
How can you suppress that right on the public and private enterprise, when in essence, because of it, you were elected into office.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas W. Laprade



Read my Dreambook guestbook!
Sign my Dreambook!
Dreambook



Thomas W. Laprade

480 Rupert St.
Thunder bay Ontario
P7B3Y1 Canada


More Writings Here


HOME

http://www.smokersclub.com

The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
























.