Bullshit with big words is still bullshit.

"The actual result of the Liberal’s “pet project,” anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour."

Really? Do you feel that your "minds are being preyed upon"?

These arguments are far weaker than the weak to moderate connections that have been claimed to link cancer to secondhand smoke. Even without a link to cancer, it is still an irritant to peoples eyes, throat, and lungs, as well as an allergen and a danger to people with breathing problems, young children, and elderly. I am not saying it will kill anyone, but only 20% of the US population smokes cigarettes (as per the American Heart Assoc.) I will restate my prior comment that it is selfish and there is no need for allowing smoking in restaurants or bars. There are also places that simply get around the bans by creating "open air" rooms with space heaters and seating. This is a perfectly acceptable solution.

Multiple states have smoking bans and the world hasn't ended. It also saves me hundreds on dry cleaning bills.

Please cite articles that aren't from blogs and college newspapers when trying to link Anti-smoking, Fascism, and the Government causing mental illness.

Government’s that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, “Today, we live in the age of envy.”

I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930′s, 1940′s. Do you?

Exactly how can our government “create a healthier society for all” when they betray the smoker’s sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?

This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker’s to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.

A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government’s suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person’s struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.

In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker’s as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?

Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.

The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the Ontario Liberal government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.

'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."

Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda.

'Medical Journal critcizes WHO for neglecting evidence, The Associated Press, May 7, 2007.' When developing evidence-based guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence. The medical journals (Lancet) criticism of WHO will shock many in the global health community, as one of WHO's main jobs is to produce guidelines on everything from fighting the spread of bird flu and malaria control to enacting anti-smoking legislation. WHO's director of research policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of the WHO colleagues were shocked by Lancet's study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.

The actual result of the Liberal's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.

Anti-smoking is not only a loss of rights…it is the foothold of Fascism! Do we care?

I definitely do not go out as much if I am in a place where the bars are filled with smoke. I have some allergies that get worse in those areas and it is just not worth it to smell like smoke when I did not make the choice to have a cigar.

I also don’t like cigarettes and it bothers me much more than cigar smoke (especially allergy-wise). This tends to make it worth it to me to have smoking bans since the large majority of indoor smoke at public places comes from cigarettes.

As a cigar smoker, I understand that it is nice to smoke indoors but it is selfish to disregard other people at a bar or restaurant and light up.

Outdoor smoking bans, on the other hand, are definitely a step too far.

Back to the health concerns, I would sincerely like to see peer-reviewed scientific journals saying that second hand smoke is NOT dangerous. Although I smoke cigars and accept that risk, I doubt there is no negative health effects towards others around that smoke. This argument strikes me as akin to the “global warming is a myth” people who have one or two studies that they flaunt around in order to better their own self-interest.

Some friends and I had a few cigars last week (for the last time) at J Gilberts. The place will never be the same.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/artic…