Pro-smokers still fuming

In reading Scott Jones’s attack of Dr. Romano’s views on smoking bans, I was really saddened to see how people in our society have been misled by the anti-tobacco industry’s unethical scare tactics [Letters, “Smoke-free satisfaction,” May 25].

The public should not take Dr. Romano’s nor the anti-tobacco zealots’ word to tell the difference between truth and manipulation. A little common sense and research on the issue would convince even the most sceptical individual of the fallacies behind the anti-smoking propaganda.

Smoking bans are not in place to protect non-smokers from the fictional harms of second-hand smoke, but to coerce smokers to comply to the government’s view of an ideal citizen through immoral, fear-inducing propaganda. Dr. Romano, a political science doctor, is exactly the type of doctor needed to recognize political manipulation when he sees it.

Wake up people, and smell the odour of dangerous precedents being set in your own so-called democratic country

» Iro Cyr

This is in response to Scott Jones’s letter in response to my colleague Dr. David Romano—whose PhD in political science, by the way, is a better qualification than medicine to assess this situation.

The trend nowadays is definitely to gut our hard-earned liberties under pretexts of protection from imminent dangers. The dangers are exaggerated, and then authorities can step over our fundamental rights to “protect” us with some approval.

This is especially true when it comes to health. Obesity crusaders, for instance, are starting to review the success of anti-tobacco and consider applying the same strategies. So much for denormalization. It is nothing but the opposite of democracy to impose an “expert”-decreed normality on citizens’ personal lifestyle choices.

About the smoking ban and “such scare tactics”: If people weren’t scared of second-hand smoke, few would support such draconian bans, and the polls suggest a split opinion even after years of unidirectional propaganda.

But the truth is, second hand smoke is not any more harmful (at a risk factor 1.17–1.30) than chlorinated water (at 1.5) or whole milk (at 2.4!) if one is exposed daily for many hours. According to a May 12 ABC News story on non-smokers

who lived with smokers (abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1), “they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect... [Dr. Michael Siegel], who helped ban smoking, now says his movement is distorting science.”

Even working daily in a smoky environment is an annoyance that can easily be ventilated to a comfortable level. And should it even be a risk we, adult citizens, as owners, employees or patrons should be allowed to choose it if we so please. We members of CAGE (Citizens Against Governments’ Encroachment) are not suggesting that anyone should be forced into smokey places, just that they should have the choice.

As for Heather Crowe, her case actually raises a lot of questions beyond the capacity of the anti-smoking establishment to curve the Workplace Safety Board’s decisions and exploit a dying lady. What of the Hamilton fireman who was denied benefits for his cancer? He likely caught it fighting a toxic fire, but, according to a CTV News story (toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060504/ firefighters_private_members_060504/20060504?hub=TorontoHome), his cancer “could not be definitively linked to the fire.” How was Mrs. Crowe’s cancer “definitively linked” to ambient smoke? All evidence is conveniently unavailable (see this Moorish Orthodox Social Justice Committee page at www.geocities.com/defendliberty2004/heathercrowe. html).

And why are we paying for all this propaganda with our tax dollars? That is no matter for medicine.

» Joel Demers, Citizens Against Governments’ Encroachment

Vegetarians as target

Sean Mallard’s contention that “more people would be vegetarian if more vegetarians had a sense of humour” is valid [Letters, “Vegetarians, humour and hot air,” June 8]. But vegetarians should not be a target for humourists just because they expose animal cruelty in factory farms and slaughterhouses, and talk about the billions of animals killed every year in abattoirs.

While I look forward to more soccer World Cup action, the Jazz Festival and other summer fun, I am pleasantly distracted by this animal-rights debate. All I can say is that we have a right to make fun of vegetarians, but out of respect, sensitive people usually decide not to poke fun at animal suffering or human suffering. I hope intelligent people like Sean Mallard realize this.

» Tony Reese

Correction

Rick Trembles’ Motion Picture Purgatory headline last week (June 8) should have read, “‘Eight to 80, blind, crippled, or crazy’ inmate.”

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.