|
GUESS WHAT'S COMING FOR BREAKFAST?Guess what I had for breakfast? I'll give you a hint -- here's the chemical composition.Benzo(a)Pyrene, Acetone, Arsenic, Butane, Cadmium, Lead, Formaldehyde, Ammonia and Benzene Make it any clearer now? No? Okay, if you thought 'Cigarette', you're absolutely right. If you thought steak, bacon or other smoked foods, milk, eggs, tomatoes, potatoes, fish, nuts, grain, water, etc., you're also right. Wow, look at all those chemicals. You'd think I'd have to be CRAZY to ingest, smoke or consider association with anything so potentially dangerous, right? Wrong!! It would take the equivalent of smoking more than 9,000 packages of cigarettes in one DAY to equal the amount of Butane approved by Health Canada as a propellant for vegetable oil-based cooking pan coatings. I did use a Teflon-coated skillet to prepare the bacon. I suppose I'll have to resort to using butter or margarine for frying now -- but then I'll have to worry about all that cholesterol. So here's the dilemma. Which of these must I give up, butter, margarine or Pam? Well, honestly, I do love the taste of butter much better. So I'll die of heart disease, not lung cancer. Holy smoke, I can't even use Peanut Oil because that contains LEAD!! As for bacon, since it is 'smoked' in the first place, then fried or grilled over heat, and worse, because you EAT it, the levels of Benzo(a)Pyrene would be considerably high, or at least considerably higher than smoking, or breathing second-hand smoke. As most people don't know, B(a)P is far more dangerous when ingested than inhaled. It is prevalent in almost anything or any food associated with anything 'combustible'. I guess I better give up bacon, too. Worse still, I had home fried potatoes along with my bacon and eggs. Potatoes ubiquitously contain a high concentration of indigenous Benzo(a)Pyrene and LEAD (what a combination) -- so much for French Fries, Potato Chips, Mashed, Baked, Scalloped, Boiled, Roasted and Creamed potatoes. My fried eggs, well they have a lot more BENZENE and BUTANE than my cigarettes. I always wondered why I get heartburn when I eat them fried. Imagine lighting a cigarette with a butane lighter, smoking it and eating eggs at the same time. Now that would be a really inflammatory experience. Perhaps that's why they call ailments related to digesting 'inflammatory bowel syndrome'. But why, then, does tobacco work so well to either prevent or alleviate the symptoms of Crohn's disease, one of the most deadly bowel diseases? Go know. Along with my bacon, eggs and home fries, I also ate some sliced toast and tomatoes, both natural sources of CADMIUM. But it sure beat having crab. A one-half pound serving of crab contains more than one-eighth of the cadmium found in twenty cigarettes per day. Ugh. On my eggs and tomatoes I used various spices. ACETONE is approved by Health Canada for use in the extraction of spices. Must I give those up too? As if this wasn't enough, I had a full glass of water to wash down all my breakfast. I knew I was taking a big chance with the ARSENIC (and Benzo(a)Pyrene) contained therein. I could have had a glass of milk, but that contains CADMIUM. Rather than steak or bacon, I could have had some nice fish, perhaps sole, but a 200 gram serving of the latter contains up to .0018 grams of Arsenic, whereas I'd have to smoke 3,000 packages of cigarettes to get the same effect. Twenty cigarettes a day equal about .00000064 grams of arsenic or less than one per cent of the daily tolerable level established by Governmental Industrial hygienists. Furthermore, AMMONIA is naturally produced by the human body as well as, and along with Formaldehyde, both by-products of combustion. A 20-cigarette-per-day smoker would ingest about 0.7% of the daily permissible exposure limit for ammonia set by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The daily permissible exposure limit set by the USOSHA is more than six times greater the level of formaldehyde ingested by a 20 cigarette a day smoker. But, don't take MY word for this, look up the evidence yourself. **I've only listed the chemicals evident in tobacco. A complete inventory, analysis and breakdown of chemicals inherent in our body, the foods we prepare and eat, the water, dairy products and beverages we drink, the air we breathe, the plastics we use, the fuel we burn, the cosmetics we apply, the medications we administer, etc. etc. would obviously take much more time and space than is available at present. For a scientific breakdown of the chemicals heretofore mentioned, visit the Internet site: http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/ctm.htm September 8, 2002 Dear Mr. Diotte: I'm responding to your article of September 8, 2002 entitled "Council Set to Butt us All Out". Enough has been said about the outrageous loss to businesses supporting the anti-smoking by-laws. Enough is known but never published about the lies being told about second-hand smoke. The scientific proof of its harmlessness, along with Judge Osteen's dismissal of ETS as a 'Class A Carcinogen from the list of EPA's carcinogens in 1998, resulting from faulty evidence provided by the World Health Organization and other related associations, made headlines but it seems no one was paying any attention. But enough about that too, since it's obvious the public has been brainwashed into believing that the very sight, smell, thought, inhalation, association, presumption, perception and existence of second-hand smoke constitutes a threat to health that renders the Black Plague, AIDS, Smallpox, Leprosy and every other epidemic known to man combined pale in comparison. There is, however, a much greater threat to our children -- one which we seem to be overlooking in our zeal to wipe out smokers, smoking and second-hand smoke. I believe this issue must be addressed, and quickly, before the smoking bans reach proportions that will ultimately have parents lamenting the days when smoking was permitted everywhere. My letter, published in the Thornhill Liberal Newspaper on August 22, 2002, is self-explanatory. Its contents read as follows (but if you like you can go to http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/opinion/letter/story/549377p-676660c.html and see it for yourself under 'Letters' to the Editor -- 'Smoke ban will lead children to worse habits'), but I'm providing you with my original unedited letter as an attachment. Though quite lengthy, the letter clearly addresses an issue so pressing, the media owes the public a closer look. I therefore request, on behalf of ethical, honourable journalism, that you publish this letter in its entirety.
Bayla Pernica Wednesday, 28 Aug 2002
Dear Ms.
Reynolds:
I won't bore you with more
rhetoric describing the scathing remarks you have made against smokers.
Obviously you've been receiving your fair share of angry testimonials.
Mine would be along those same lines. I have learnt long ago to ignore the
ravings of those who are so hell-bent on proclaiming their self-righteousous,
while ignoring the rights of all other people who don't fit the particular
'model' of such a fanatic's perfection
Here, though is an issue I
think even you might possibly understand, though I have to admit this is an
assumption on my part. Obviously, since I am a smoker, there is nothing
I can say that will make an impression on you, since you have so adamantly
labeled all of us in terms I, as a self-respecting, sensitive individual, refuse
to repeat. You should be ashamed of yourself. Following is a
letter I sent to the Liberal, a newspaper with a large circulation in the York
Region area of Ontario.
I suggest you read it, if you
have the guts.
Re:
Article in Liberal by Jeff Mitchell -- Smoking Battle Ignites
Again
I'm getting so tired of hearing about smoking, smoking bans, anti-smoking, etc. It's all I hear about in the newspapers; all I see in TV commercials; it's all anyone talks about. It's become a raving epidemic, this anti-tobacco-itis. In light of last week's bombshell about Ontario's air pollution levels -- none as a result of smoking, I think more time should be spent on dealing with those issues and the people/companies/politicians responsible for exposing the cities of Ontario to 1,000 premature deaths, lung cancer, asthma, other respiratory illnesses. All that aside, there is another, far more important yet sinister issue that is not being addressed at all, and as a concerned mother, I believe someone should point this out now, before it's too late. My daughter is a non-smoker who has smoking friends. Prior to the ban in June of 2001, she accompanied them to various restaurants and donut shops to socialize. But when those establishments prohibited smoking, her friends opted for bars/taverns/pubs/strip joints/bingo halls/etc. to do their smoking. It didn't take long before my daughter, who never drank before, started coming home quite drunk. She explained that it was difficult to refuse a drink when her peers were doing so, and in a bar, where drinking is obviously encouraged. Now all I do is worry about how she's getting home at night and what condition she's in when she and/or her friends are driving home from a bar. It's just one more horrible worry added to a number of serious issues that never came up until these smoking bans came into place. She goes to Bingo Halls and gambles money she doesn't have -- because her friends can smoke at Bingo Halls and other places where gambling is legal. She also told me that many of her friends have been taking illegal drugs like Ecstasy, Cocaine and Marijuana because these are easily accessible and becoming less expensive than cigarettes. My daughter swears she does not take these drugs and I believe her. But it's only a matter of time before she, too, gives in to the pressures of her young society. Despite all that's been said about second-hand smoke, I would prefer my daughter did that than indulge in other habits, unsupervised, that would lead her to a life of crime and worse. I know I speak for many mothers and fathers when I say this. By enforcing more bans, particularly ones where the tolerance to smoking would be zero percent, you are literally forcing our children to do the one thing they've been predictably doing since the history of mankind -- whatever they're told not to do. But what makes this so dangerous is that, with all these bans in place, they'll do it where we can't see them. With a 100% smoking ban in force, the kids will no doubt take their habits to secret, underground places and we as parents will have absolutely no control over what they drink, smoke, toke, snort or, worse, inject. Then we have to consider the matter of AIDS. Another issue rears its ugly head. Anyone can readily see how the issue of imposing an all out ban on smoking is not merely an attempt to curtail it, but a radical imposition with extending consequences that make smoking look like child's play in comparison with the terrifying threat of AIDS, street drugs, alcoholism gambling, etc. etc. Is this what we want for our children? In the name of common sense and humanity, I say we should re-examine the existent smoking bans and consider laws that offer a lot more tolerance. At least that way we can see and supervise what they're doing. And that way, we won't be exposing them to other, more dangerous addictions. I did some research on the Internet about second-hand smoke and was very surprised to learn that there's no danger at all, that the original study by the EPA and World Health Organization was a stack of lies and thrown out of court back in 1998 by Judge Osteen. Someone should definitely be reporting this issue. Perhaps other parents should know this truth. Why are the newspapers not telling us this? And why, after all the controversy about SHS, do we now learn that it's pollution that is the real culprit, yet the province still wants to enact an all out ban on smoking? Does this make sense to anyone? You've got to admit that having a kid who goes to a bar or gambling joint just to appease their smoking friends, is NOT a good idea. Am I the only one who sees the bigger picture here? By preventing our kids from smoking in supervised areas, we're unwittingly setting them up as potential alcoholics, street drug junkies, big time gamblers, and far worse, potentially dangerous drivers, and most frightening of all, potential AIDS victims, all of which pose a far worse threat to health than exposure to second hand smoke. I invite all other concerned parents to comment on this issue. Bayla Pernica, 100 Glenmanor Way, Thornhill ON L4J 3E5 Phone: (905) 731-5510 E-mail: miswryte@netzero.net
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 newsroom@theliberal.com Re: Article in Liberal by Jeff Mitchell -- Smoking Battle
Ignites Again I'm getting so tired of hearing about smoking, smoking bans, anti-smoking,
etc. It's all I hear about in the newspapers; all I see in TV commercials; it's
all anyone talks about. It's become a raving epidemic, this anti-tobacco-itis.
In light of last week's bombshell about Ontario's air pollution levels -- none
as a result of smoking, I think more time should be spent on dealing with
those issues and the people/companies/politicians responsible for
exposing the cities of Ontario to 1,000 premature deaths, lung cancer,
asthma, other respiratory illnesses. All that aside, there is another, far more important yet sinister issue that
is not being addressed at all, and as a concerned mother, I believe someone
should point this out now, before it's too late. My daughter is a non-smoker who has smoking friends. Prior to the ban in June
of 2001, she accompanied them to various restaurants and donut shops to
socialize. But when those establishments prohibited smoking, her friends opted
for bars/taverns/pubs/strip joints/bingo halls/etc. to do their smoking. It
didn't take long before my daughter, who never drank before, started coming home
quite drunk. She explained that it was difficult to refuse a drink when her
peers were doing so, and in a bar, where drinking is obviously encouraged. Now
all I do is worry about how she's getting home at night and what condition she's
in when she and/or her friends are driving home from a bar. It's just one more
horrible worry added to a number of serious issues that never came up until
these smoking bans came into place. She goes to Bingo Halls and gambles money she doesn't have -- because her
friends can smoke at Bingo Halls and other places where gambling is legal. She
also told me that many of her friends have been taking illegal drugs like
Ecstasy, Cocaine and Marijuana because these are easily accessible and becoming
less expensive than cigarettes. My daughter swears she does not take these drugs
and I believe her. But it's only a matter of time before she, too, gives in to
the pressures of her young society. Despite all that's been said about
second-hand smoke, I would prefer my daughter did that than indulge in other
habits, unsupervised, that would lead her to a life of crime and worse. I know I
speak for many mothers and fathers when I say this. By enforcing more bans, particularly ones where the tolerance to smoking
would be zero percent, you are literally forcing our children to do the one
thing they've been predictably doing since the history of mankind -- whatever
they're told not to do. But what makes this so dangerous is that,
with all these bans in place, they'll do it where we can't see them. With a 100%
smoking ban in force, the kids will no doubt take their habits to secret,
underground places and we as parents will have absolutely no control over what
they drink, smoke, toke, snort or, worse, inject. Then we have to consider the
matter of AIDS. Another issue rears its ugly head. Anyone can readily see how
the issue of imposing an all out ban on smoking is not merely an attempt to
curtail it, but a radical imposition with extending consequences that make
smoking look like child's play in comparison with the terrifying threat of AIDS,
street drugs, alcoholism gambling, etc. etc. Is this what we want for our children? In the name of common sense and
humanity, I say we should re-examine the existent smoking bans and consider laws
that offer a lot more tolerance. At least that way we can see and
supervise what they're doing. And that way, we won't be exposing
them to other, more dangerous addictions. I did some research on the Internet
about second-hand smoke and was very surprised to learn that there's no danger
at all, that the original study by the EPA and World Health Organization was a
stack of lies and thrown out of court back in 1998 by Judge Osteen. Someone
should definitely be reporting this issue. Perhaps other parents should know
this truth. Why are the newspapers not telling us this? And why, after all the
controversy about SHS, do we now learn that it's pollution that is the real
culprit, yet the province still wants to enact an all out ban on smoking? Does
this make sense to anyone? You've got to admit that having a kid who goes to a bar or gambling joint
just to appease their smoking friends, is NOT a good idea. Am I the only one who
sees the bigger picture here? By preventing our kids from smoking in supervised
areas, we're unwittingly setting them up as potential alcoholics, street drug
junkies, big time gamblers, and far worse, potentially dangerous drivers, and
most frightening of all, potential AIDS victims, all of which pose a far worse
threat to health than exposure to second hand smoke. I invite all other concerned parents to comment on this issue. Bayla Pernica, 100 Glenmanor Way, Thornhill ON L4J 3E5 Phone: (905)
731-5510 E-mail: miswryte@netzero.net
I'm getting so tired of hearing about smoking, smoking bans, anti-smoking, etc. It's all I hear about in newspapers and TV commercials. It's all anyone talks about.
It has become a raving epidemic, this anti-tobacco-itis. In light of last week's bombshell about Ontario's air pollution levels -- none as a result of smoking -- I think more time should be spent dealing with those issues and the people, companies and politicians responsible for exposing Ontario to 1,000 premature deaths, lung cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
That aside, there is another far more important, yet sinister, issue not being addressed at all and, as a concerned mother, I believe someone should point this out now before it's too late.
My daughter is a non-smoker who has smoking friends. Prior to the ban in June 2001, she accompanied them to various restaurants and doughnut shops to socialize.
When those establishments prohibited smoking, her friends opted for bars, taverns, pubs, strip joints, bingo halls, etc. to smoke.
It didn't take long before my daughter, who never drank before, started coming home quite drunk. She explained it was difficult to refuse a drink when her peers were doing so in a bar, where drinking is obviously encouraged.
Now all I do is worry about how she's getting home at night and what condition she is in when she and her friends are driving home from a bar.
It's just one more horrible worry added to a number of serious issues that never came up until these smoking bans came into place.
Despite all that has been said about second-hand smoke, I would prefer my daughter inhale that than indulge in other habits, unsupervised, which may lead her to a life of crime and worse. I know I speak for many mothers and fathers when I say this.
By enforcing more bans, particularly ones where tolerance to smoking would be zero, governments are literally forcing children to do the one thing they have been doing since the history of mankind -- whatever they're told not to do.
Anyone can readily see how imposing a ban on smoking is not merely an attempt to curtail it, but a radical imposition with extending consequences that make smoking look like child's play in comparison with the terrifying threat of AIDS, street drugs, alcoholism, gambling, etc.
Is this what we want for our children? In the name of common sense and humanity, I say we should re-examine smoking bans and consider laws that offer a lot more tolerance.
That way, we won't be exposing children to more dangerous addictions.
BAYLA PERNICA Date: Friday, 23 Aug 2002
The Toronto
Star
1 Yonge
Street
Toronto,
Ontario
Dear Mr.
Cribb:
RE: Article, 'ONTARIO
AIR WORSE THAN IT APPEARS', August 17, 2002
I wonder what the government
plans to do about this newly reported but evidently long
thriving threat to our health. Perhaps they should suggest that on
bad air days we simply 'avoid breathing'. After all, that's what they used
to put on cigarette packages -- 'avoid inhaling'. Maybe
there should be warning labels
on all gas/petrol operated vehicles, especially SUVs, reading: 'Driving
Kills -- avoid filling stations'. And, of course, let's not forget
all those resourceful refineries blowing noxious death our way on a daily
basis. What do we do about them? Warn the chimneys to 'quit
smoking'? Let's get the pharmaceutical companies to produce and
market the ultimate panacea, the All Purpose Withdrawal from Reality
Patch. First there was Nicoban, next, we'll have BanBan. This of
course to be worn in conjunction with an equally expensive, prescribed
drug, orally administered and equally contra-indicated like Zyban --
the anti-depressant preferred by most wanna-be non-smokers. This way
everyone can get onto the same pro-health band wagon and make lots of money from
the threatened, perceived (or otherwise) ill-health of others. Sound
crazy???? That's what we thought back in the early '90s when tobacco
was something you gave your friends, relatives and loved
ones on special occasions like Christmas.
But don't worry, you're in
good hands with the Ontario government. They will simply continue to blame
smokers for all of this, despite the fact there are less and less of them,
more and more 'smoke-free' environments and an ever growing number
of respiratory illnesses. With smokers providing the
perfect monetary scapegoat for the past couple of decades, it makes sense to
'blame a smoker and save a million lives!'
In the meantime, scare the
hell out of everyone by reporting the dangerously high levels of pollution, but
don't dare suggest there's anything anyone can do about it, save quitting
smoking. Do, however, keep raising the price of those nasty, but
consistently 'legal' cancer sticks. Yep, that's the ticket. Just keep
those cigarette taxes climbing -- Ontario's going to need all the
money it can steal to pay for the sick puppies who'll suffer
from its Bad 'Air' Days. No butts about it.
P.S.
In the meantime, I'm relieved to learn that the
source of asthma, lung cancer, a host of other respiratory
illnesses/diseases/maladies/etc., is finally being revealed. It's been
such a 'drag' having the general population accusing me and others who smoke of
'endangering the health of everyone, especially children'.
Since about May of this year
I noticed that most of my non-smoking friends were experiencing a plethora of
cold-like symptoms including sore throats, blocked nasal passages, coughs,
wheezing, ear aches, sneezing, sniffles, shortness of breath, irritated eyes,
etc. etc. etc. Of course my first guess was allergies. But it became
apparent that this was more than a mere allergic reaction to ragweed, pollen and
other seasonal irritants when these same people complained that
their traditional anti-histamines were proving ineffective. More
surprising is the fact that the smokers I know (yes, there are still some of us
left ALIVE) myself included, have experienced no such allergic
symptoms!!! Could it be that smoking is actually protecting our lungs from
all that pollution? I wonder!! In any case, concerned as I am about
the future health of the population, particularly the 'children', I fully intend
to continue enjoying my tobacco habit. But now when I smoke
I'll breath easier knowing that the huge guilt trip inflicted on
smokers by a brood of tax-hungry politicians has finally been lifted from my
shoulders. So good to know the blame likes elsewhere. Of course those
of us with any common sense knew this all along. Second-hand smoke was
NEVER the issue. It's harmlessness has been proven, documented, but
unfortunately suppressed for too long. With the 'smoke
screen' now lifted, the public will quickly discern where
and WHO the REAL culprits are.
B.
Pernica
100 Glenmanor
Way
Thornhill,
Ontario
L4J
3E5
(905)
731-5510
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 Subject: New York's proposed ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.Dear Mr. Hitler, whoops, Miller: I am writing to you from Toronto, Canada. As a smoker, I am outraged at your current proposal. I only hope that the politicians, bar/restaurant establishments and citizens of New York City will be smarter than those of us in Ontario, Canada. As a result of 100% smoking bans introduced in Ontario a year ago, countless restaurants, bars, night clubs and donut shops have gone bankrupt. Thousands of people have consequently lost vital jobs. All in the name of 'health?'. Assuming you are a fairly well educated man, I suggest you exercise your brain and do a little research into the harmlessness of second-hand smoke before condemning an entire city to suffer from your proposed imposition of such a completely preposterous ban on smoking. However, I suspect you are well aware of the lies being generated about ETS anyway. But we all know it's far more expedient for a politician to tow the party lie. And the lie in this case is the most insidious and damaging one ever generated by the mass media. It's a known fact that Judge Osteen ruled out the EPA's claim of second-hand smoke being a 'Class A Carcinogen' as 'unconstitutional, resulting in its removal from the list of Class A carcinogens -- that was back in 1998. But don't take my word for it. Yet nowhere is this fact published, and I believe it is intentionally being withheld. But, science aside (science, as truth, is obviously an unnecessary commodity these days, not important unless it's misused or deliberately skewed for the benefit of politicians like yourself -- to condition the minds of masses of people into believing (against all logic and common sense) that environmental tobacco smoke is actually killing people. By any stretch of the imagination, if this were true, the entire population would be deceased. Obviously most of us are still alive and, well, living, if you call it that (draconian measures, the likes of which you are planning to introduce on such a grand scale, are not conducive to 'living' -- at least not in MY book. My mother, a healthy 85-year old smoker recounted this story to me shortly after the smoking by-laws were introduced in Toronto. She was talking to a survivor of the Holocaust, a man who had operated a restaurant in this city for forty years. Shortly after the ban on smoking was implemented, his establishment went belly up. "You know", he said to my mother, tears in his eyes, "They did this to us back in Germany -- and now the same thing is happening all over again HERE!!!" My mother walked away crying. You see, she, too is Jewish and many of our family members were gassed or tortured to death in Nazi concentration camps. Hitler used smoking as a powerful propaganda tool. Again, don't take my word for this, visit the Holocaust site -- its on the Internet. By claiming that smoking was an 'unclean' habit, paying off scientists to claim it caused cancer, then specifically targeting Jews by depicting them with long noses and puffing cigarettes in propagandized cartoons, he, like you, was able to convince the entire German population that the Jews (by 'virtue' of their cigarette habits) were proving how racially unclean they were. And we know what Hitler did to the racially impure!!!! I was once proud of my country, Canada because it represented freedom and democracy. Now I'm ashamed to admit our government has become so perverse as to introduce the concept of social engineering -- all in the name of health and 'saving the children'. But from what? Benzo(a)pyrene, which by the way, is what the EPA claims is the cancer-causing chemical in tobacco. Yet if you go to the EPA's own site and search the word 'Benzo(a)pyrene, you'll be amazed to learn that this chemical has been in existence for as long as the earth itself. It is a by-product of most things 'combustible', i.e. coal/gas/electric/forest fires, wood-burning stoves, char-broiled or barbecued food. And most amazing is the fact that man has managed to evolve through the eons inhaling this chemical without becoming extinct. Furthermore, Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)p), is far more dangerous when ingested, than when inhaled -- 97% of the B(a)P we are exposed to is from what we EAT. When I lost confidence in my own country, I hoped the U.S. would not be so stupid as to follow suit. But clearly stupidity is contagious and knows no boundaries. Here you are slinging the same bullshit, using the same underhanded tactics and, worse, demoralizing and demonizing an unwitting public while collecting billions of dollars in taxes on cigarettes. As I've said to so many people in my country. "You can't buy plutonium at the local variety store. Why, because it's dangerous. If smoking is as dangerous as so many claim it to be, how can any member of the government, in good conscience, allow it to be legal? My guess is, the government would never be able to permit its legitimacy if it were truly so dangerous. Therefore I can only surmise that you are well aware that ETS poses no threat at all to the population and, in so knowing, are committing the greatest crime of all time. Deliberately punishing millions of tax-paying citizens for smoking a legal product, while you, addicted to their money, collect their taxes and come out smelling like roses by claiming you're doing this 'for the good of the people'. If that's good, I'd rather have Hitler governing. He didn't limit his gas chambers to Jews. Nope, he also slotted the 'mentally' impure for those same gas chambers. That, Mr. Miller, would include YOU!!!!!
Bayla Pernica If you think that the smokers of New York will stand for such an all-out ban on smoking; if you think that people like myself (potential tourists to your city) will even contemplate visiting your one-time 'fair' city, think again. I would avoid New York like the plague now. I wouldn't spend one cent encouraging a city that discourages smokers, but more Importantly, imposes its healthist, Big Brother Dear Cab: Hi there, and thanks for putting into words what so many of us are feeling. If they could bottle the ANGER, FRUSTRATION, HUMILIATION, SHAME, SHOCK, INCREDULITY, RAGE, SORROW, DEPRESSION, DESPERATION, DEPRIVATION, DISAPPOINTMENT, CONFUSION, BEWILDERMENT, HORROR, FEAR, VICTIMIZATION, RIDICULE, MIND-BOGGLING and other seething sentiments concurrently experienced by the smokers on these sites, the container would be so big, the contents so heavily under pressure, we could probably blow the entire world up with it. Yet rather than acting on our anger, using whatever means are necessary (and legal) to finally put an end to this apocalyptic anti-smoking nemesis, all we do is complain. Surely one third of the North American population can, in sheer numbers alone, effect some kind of change. Got any ideas? 'Thou Shalt Not Smoke' is NOT one of the Ten Commandments!!!!! But, "Honour they Mother and Father' is. Do we honour our families by punishing them for smoking? I think not!!!! I read recently that candles, incense, etc. (burned routinely and religiously in most churches and synagogues throughout the world), contain as much if not more BAP (Benzo(a)Pyrine) -- the alleged cancer-causing chemical found in anything combustible, than cigarette smoke. Does this mean we should pass laws to prohibit the use of such religious paraphernalia? Where does all of this end?
Bayla Pernica |