go to find out what the health report says billions needed for elderly care Jan 27/05http://hcc-ccs.com/index.aspx

*** investigate A&W growth, and famous players losses!!! 

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/25/c6319.html

http://toronto.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/to-theatres20050126.html

Its worth considering that in Alberta those making the case for smoking bans have dropped the Health argument entirely as it has become totally discredited. The new mantra is smoking bans are supposed to make smokers quit. There's not much evidence for that either, but never mind. When the smoking ban was being imposed via a Banana Republic style plebiscite in Thunder Bay, didn't those pushing it assure all those who  would listen that smoking bans don't hurt business?
Non-smokers would surely flock to the smoke- free hospitality venues.
It didn't exactly work out that way, did it? If the issue is one of health and not money, "profits before principles" as Mr. Smith put it, then why not ban tobacco entirely?
 If the only thing keeping tobacco legal is taxes, how does this compare with the Utopian health benefits of banning it completely? Indians and the hospitality industry are morally deficient in putting profits before health, but the government is altruistic in "controlling" and" denormalizing" a legal product consumed by consenting adults?
 It is worth noting that last year in North Dakota, all the anti-smoking groups made their usual presentation calling for smoking bans,  increased taxes, propaganda campaigns etc, when one legislator asked why not just ban the sale of tobacco in North Dakota.
 The groups lining up to oppose the bill banning tobacco in North  Dakota were not smokers rights groups, but anti- smoking groups.
 Why?
 If tobacco is as harmful as they claim, should't it be banned?  If tobacco
 were to be banned, the anti-smoking groups would lose their annual hundreds of millions in funding, their six figured salaries, their endless winter conferences in Miami on teen smoking, etc. etc. No, its much easier for the media to potray Indians and the hospitality industry as morally deficient for resisting transparent social-engineering.
 Warren Klass (President Forces Canada.www.forces.org)

www.chronicle-journal.com

http://www.mychoice.ca/discussions2/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3471
Posted By: roxxon in Smoking Laws/Policies
Subject: Re: Tell me this isn't ridiculous...

__________________________________
Where I live the municipality of Burnaby and about ten others that I am aware of have enacted their own school board smoking bans on all school property indoors and out.  This all took place over the past 5 years.
I play a lot of basketball at the local school by my house.
I know the janitor( a smoker) who leaves the lights on for me after dark, so I can shoot hoops.
I read about the Burnaby school boards' proposed outdoor-school grounds smoking ban.It was to include sports fields, parkland, playground areas and any outdoor areas on any school board property.  I believe it was during the year of 2001, the janitor and I had a discussion about the school board outdoor smoking ban. The janitor informed me that he and his fellow custodial union members were told about the ban during a union meeting. THEY were expected to enforce the ban.   A school board member told them that all school staff including teachers, principals and other school staff were supposed to tell smokers not to smoke anywhere on school board property during their hours of work. Also, no school board staff would be permitted to take any personal smoke breaks even outdoors on school property. When enforcing the school board property smoking ban... If the smokers became confrontational, the school staff were supposed to phone the Burnaby RCMP. The janitors pointed out it was not part of their job description to be smoke-police.   They also expressed concerns about confronting adult sports teams that lease school sports fields for baseball, football and soccer leagues. Especially adult leagues where a number of the athletes smoke. The union also expressed concerns about telling youth gangs, parents and groups of youths about the school board's non-smoking policy on all school property. The union told the school board that their members did not want possibly dangerous confrontations with the public over the school property smoking ban. When the meeting was over and the school board representative left the membership voted almost unanimously to ignore the school board's smoking ban enforcement policy that would have effectively turned the membership into smoke-police.   About 2 weeks later... All school board employees received a letter stating that it was now considered a condition of employment for all school staff to enforce the school board's 100% non-smoking policy on all school board property.   I have never seen anyone who is employed by any school enforcing that insane school board smoking policy where adults are concerned. The policy is not worth the paper that is was written upon. Stupid rules, laws and regulations were made to be broken. And so they shall be....

    OTTAWA, Jan. 26 /CNW Telbec/ - The Honourable Joe Fontana, federal Minister of Labour and Housing, and the Honourable Chris Bentley, Minister of Labour for Ontario, will host the Federal-Provincial-Territorial meeting of Ministers responsible for Labour in Toronto, Ontario from January 27-28, 2005.
    The topics to be discussed include Canada's international labour cooperation agreements, wellness in the workplace, including work-life balance and psychological harassment, and occupational health and safety.
    Ministers will be available to meet the media. Upon arrival, media are asked to go to the registration desk located at the entrance to the Executive Boardroom, 2nd floor.
  ________________________________________________________________________
    DATE:          Friday, January 28, 2005
    -----
    TIME:          10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    -----
    LOCATION:      Toronto Marriott    Bloor Yorkville Hotel Toronto, Ontario
    ________________________________________________________________________

For further information: Peter Graham, Office of the Minister of Labour and Housing, (819) 953-5646; Peter Fitzpatrick, Office of the Ontario Minister
of Labour, (416) 326-7710; Kirsten Goodnough, Communications, Human Resources  and Skills Development Canada, (416) 954-0114; Belinda Sutton, Media Relations, Ontario Ministry of Labour, (416) 326-7405

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/26/c7222.html

    CGA-CANADA report outlines impact on Canadian society
    VANCOUVER, Jan. 26 /CNW/ - The impact of Canada's aging population requires immediate action from governments, businesses and consumers to ensure a viable economic future, says a report released today by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada).
    CGA-Canada's report Growing Up: The Social and Economic Implications of an Aging Population is the most comprehensive compilation of current Canadian data and recommendations on aging, gleaned from demographic experts in government, the private sector and not-for-profit organizations. The report's key findings are presented under four distinct headings:
    -   Health Systems Pressures
    -   Labour Supply Concerns
    -   Intergenerational Relationships
    -   Social and Private Income Security Programs
    "As accountants who are business leaders and who operate in multi-disciplinary environments, we believe that economic planning on this issue is critical," says Rock Lefebvre, CGA-Canada's Vice-President, Research and Standards. "The financial implications of our aging population require immediate attention while our economy can still support such initiatives."
    The report estimates that total health care spending in Canada, adjusted for inflation, will increase to $147 billion in 2020 from $80.7 billion in 2000. CGA-Canada says these upcoming pressures on the health care system can be more easily managed if appropriate planning and action are taken now, while healthy economic conditions and federal budget surpluses exist.
    Eliminate Mandatory Retirement
    The Canadian labour market will also be greatly affected by our aging population. In 2001, the median age in the core workforce (20 to 64 year olds) was 41.3 years of age. By 2011, it is projected to rise to 43.7. To ensure a productive society, the report suggests Canada should eliminate mandatory retirement and discourage early retirement incentives.
    CGA-Canada says it's imperative that Canadians understand the benefits of personal financial planning and know the advantages and limitations of existing social income programs. Canadians should take more responsibility for their own personal financial planning to complement government programs.

    Shrinking Net Worth of Canadians Under 54
    CGA-Canada also recommends further study on the intergenerational transfer of wealth as there is limited information currently available about how future generations will be affected by inheritances. Recent data on wealth among the different age groups reveals that Canadians nearing retirement have experienced a significant gain in their net worth, while those under 54 have seen it shrink.
    "CGA-Canada is committed to making a meaningful contribution to the current debate on aging," adds Lefebvre. "We believe this report can serve as a starting point so Canadians can examine their future financial needs and plan accordingly."
    Immediate Actions Required
    CGA-Canada believes that positive actions in the near term can significantly improve outcomes for the aging population. The association recommends that:
    -   Governments consider establishing a 'seniors health account.'
    -   Mandatory retirement and related incentives be eliminated.
    -   The Income Tax Act be adjusted to implement phased-in retirement.
    -   There should a reconciliation of projected increases in public spending with future wealth transfers and increased government revenues from current
            pension plans.
    -   Personal retirement financial planning should be encouraged.
    -   Canadians must promote policies which provide a minimum standard of living for all.
    -   Canadians need more education on social income program benefits and limitations.
    -   A national dialogue is needed on ethical issues around dying.  (Community-based palliative care and living wills may offer cost savings.)
    -   Canada should invest in older workers to ensure a viable, skilled workforce.
    "To maintain Canada's economic and social strength as our population ages will require strong leadership to change attitudes, policies and practices at all levels," concludes Lefebvre. "I would like to think that Canada's aging population presents a wonderful opportunity for us, rather than a problem."
    About CGA-Canada
    CGA is the second-largest and fastest-growing accounting designation in the country. With a focus on integrity and ethics, and one of the highest education requirements in the profession, CGAs have become the country's accounting and business leaders, providing strategic counsel, financial leadership, and overall direction to all sectors of the Canadian economy.
    The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada represents 62,000 CGAs and students in Canada, Bermuda, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and China. The association sets standards, develops and maintains education programs,publishes professional materials, advocates on public policy issues, and represents CGAs nationally and internationally.
          The full report can be found at www.cga-online.org/canada

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/26/c6931.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/legislation/rip.html

Jan 27/ 05

Hidden logic escapes me

Let me get this straight. Youths are so impressionable we have to hide cigarettes from them or they will immediately go out and smoke, but we not only put ultra-violent video games in the centre aisle of department stores, we advertise them on TV and do write-ups on them in the newspaper.

Hmmm. The logic is lost on me.

Cathy Gilmore Winnipeg

Who said anything about logic?

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Letters/

EDMONTON - Smokers who look to a government-sponsored phone line for help quitting are being given wrong and outdated information.

And the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission says it has known about the problem for seven months.

The province-wide help line offers support to those who call in, and refers them to other services in their communities.

 But callers are being told the Lung Association runs support groups – although it hasn't for more than two years – and are being given old, out-of-service numbers for other referrals.

A CBC reporter who called was given three numbers – one was out of service, one sounded like a home and the message on the third was unclear. Messages left at the two working numbers weren't returned.

As well, the counsellor on the phone said there was a help group called Nicotine Anonymous, but had no phone number or other contact information for it.

"Why are we spending money on commercials getting people to phone in when there is no help? It's really silly," smoker Maggie Zanuttini, who has tried to use the line, said.

Les Hagen, president of Action on Smoking and Health, says the problem with the AADAC line underscores the need for continued funding for anti-tobacco services, so they can maintain their level of support.

Lloyd Carr, who runs the toll-free line for AADAC, says the problem with the numbers was brought to their attention seven months ago. AADAC is now updating the information it has on anti-smoking programs so that it will give out correct information.

"We need to be more current with what information we are providing Albertans," Carr said.

The new numbers should be ready by the end of March, and Carr says those will be regularly checked to make sure they are correct.

In the meantime, Carr says people who staff the phone line will warn callers that the information they're being given is out of date.

He also says that the line is still a good resource for people trying to quit, because the counsellors who answer the phone can help people develop plans to stop smoking and offer support when they're tempted to light up.

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/ed-smoking-line20050127.html

By Charlene Tebbutt | Herald Staff Thursday, January 27, 2005
The manager at one Prince Albert bingo hall says his facility will comply with a recent warning about smoking in public places because it cannot afford to pay a fine.

Marv Radchuk said there will be no more smoking at Central Avenue Bingo after the facility received a warning Jan. 18.

He said the facility was completely non-smoking three days later.

The bingo hall has received several complaints since going non-smoking on Jan. 21. But Radchuk said it is too early to tell what effect the ban might have on business.

“We can’t really determine what it’s done to our crowds,” he said Wednesday. “We’ll see what happens.”

Businesses such as bingo halls were forced to prohibit smoking in light of a provincewide smoking ban in enclosed public places that came into effect in Saskatchewan on Jan. 1.

Breaking the ban carries a fine of $500 and a $50 surcharge.

Colin McLeod, manager at Carnival Bingo in Prince Albert, said the smoking ban is unfair.

He would not confirm whether customers are still smoking at his hall, but said he does not harp about the issue with them.

“I don’t disallow them,” McLeod said.

The Prince Albert Parkland Health Region says business owners who break the smoking ban will get a couple of chances before they are fined. Owners will first get a visit from an inspector, who will talk to them about the new law. They will receive a warning on a second visit, the health region said recently.

After that, the business will be fined.

The South Hill Inn in Prince Albert was fined this week for not following the ban. The hotel was issued two $500 tickets.

Josef Tesar, the hotel’s owner and chief executive officer, said he will fight the tickets.

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/news.aspx?storyID=28565

High court says masturbation at home not an offence if seen by neighbours

Wendy Cox Thursday, January 27, 2005

VANCOUVER (CP) -- The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that masturbating at home is not an offence, even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours.

The case centred on whether a private space -- Daryl Clark's living room -- became public because others could view it.

The high court said No in a unanimous ruling Thursday.

"The living room of his private home was not a place 'to which the public (had) access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,"' Justice Morris Fish wrote, quoting the Criminal Code.

"I do not believe it (access) contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within."

On Oct. 28, 2000, Clark's neighbours across his backyard in Nanaimo, B.C., noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room.

The woman had been watching television with her two young daughters in their family room, a room lit only by a television screen and light from the adjoining kitchen.

The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.

The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment.

The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."

The neighbours, who are identified only as Mr. and Mrs. S, called police.

The officer was able to see Clark from his belly up from the neighbour's bedroom and from the neck or shoulders up from the street level.

But Clark was charged after the police officer shone his flashlight in Clark's window at close range.

The trial judge concluded he had "converted" his living room into a public place and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

Clark was given a four-month sentence.

Gil McKinnon, Clark's lawyer, said his client is happy with the outcome and glad to be getting on with his life, but not interested in talking to reporters about his court fight.

McKinnon said the Supreme Court rejected the notion that people's private living spaces can be turned into public places just because someone can see inside.

"A person has the freedom in his or her own living room to do whatever they choose to do and is not caught by the criminal law if they have no intent to offend or insult someone who may not be on that private property."

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

But in this case, the evidence suggested Clark had no idea he was being watched, the court found.

John Russell, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was surprised the case got before the courts in the first place.

But he said he was relieved the ruling when the way it did.

If it had gone the other way, "we would have to be a lot more careful about closing the drapes or covering up.

"In fact, most Canadians are careful in those ways and it would appear that the poor man had just failed to take the formal precautions."

http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/story.html?id=f3a0a241-cba0-4ef7-b76a-2a46d435758c

Diverse range of opposition fighting ban in Saskatchewan

Deanna Herman Thursday, January 27th, 2005

SASKATOON -- The war against smoking in Saskatchewan is being fought battle by battle, and right now it's not clear when a winner will be declared.

On the one side stands the provincial government, with majority opinion polls in its favour. The government's provincewide smoking ban came into effect Jan. 1. On the other side of this dispute is a diverse range of opposition, which includes the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN). The FSIN is asserting its jurisdiction on Indian reserves, allowing Indian-run casinos to permit smoking.

The province recently won a battle in the smoking fray, but it lost one, too. And the outcome of a Charter challenge to Manitoba's smoking ban could influence the outcome of the anti-smoking war in Saskatchewan.

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Saskatchewan can reinstate its law that bans store displays of tobacco and product promotion. Under the law, which came into force in 2002, most stores had to cover tobacco displays with a curtain or put tobacco products in a closed cabinet. Tobacco companies challenged the law, and the province's Court of Appeal struck it down.

However, the Supreme Court said the province does have the authority to legislate in this area, and the product display ban is back. In appealing its decision to the Supreme Court, Saskatchewan had support from the federal government, as well as several other provinces and anti-smoking groups.

The thrust of the law is to change the views of children and young people about the acceptability of smoking. The province asserts that if young people don't routinely see tobacco products every time they enter a store, they will no longer view tobacco use as normal.

The provincewide ban on smoking which just came into effect is also part of an attempt to "de-normalize" smoking. But smoking still is the norm in some places across the province, particularly the White Bear First Nation, near Carlyle in southern Saskatchewan. The Bear Claw Casino is located on

the reserve.

The federal government decided this week not to overturn a bylaw which allows businesses such as the casino to set aside up to 40 per cent of their establishments as a smoking area. Band councils can pass bylaws under the Indian Act, but the bylaws must go to the federal Indian Affairs minister, who can disallow them.

The decision by the federal government makes White Bear the only place in the province where patrons of some businesses can legally smoke. Under the Indian Act, provincial law applies unless it is inconsistent with a bylaw made under the act.

Other Indian bands which operate casinos have not indicated whether bylaws will be passed to allow smoking in the casinos, however, the FSIN said last month that First Nations would be unlikely to follow the province's smoking ban. After a recent meeting between the province's First Nations and Metis relations minister Maynard Sonntag and the FSIN, Sonntag told the media that the FSIN's position has not changed.

Some bar owners in other communities have said openly they won't comply with the legislation. Many of those owners are in Lloydminster, a city which straddles the border with Alberta. The neighbouring province does not have a smoking ban.

Lloydminster bar owners would like an exemption from the provincial law, similar to one which says businesses on the Saskatchewan side of the city don't have to collect Saskatchewan's provincial sales tax, since there is no provincial sales tax in Alberta.

The province has refused to waive the smoking ban for Lloydminster, attempting to avoid creating a patchwork application of the law, and no doubt hoping to avoid the situation that has arisen in Manitoba.

Basis

The uneven application of Manitoba's anti-smoking law is the basis for a Charter challenge to the legislation. Since the law does not apply to Indian reserves, a Winnipeg lawyer is arguing that the ban is not treating his client, a Treherne bar owner, equally under the law. Art Stacey is also arguing that the province is stepping into federal jurisdiction by creating a criminal law.

Such arguments are the substance of Supreme Court hearings, so it is easy to imagine this case, or a similar one from another province, eventually being ruled on by the court.

That process will take several years, however. In the meantime, Saskatchewan's law is likely to uncomfortably co-exist with bylaws that permit smoking on Indian reserves. And after the two-month "grace period," during which health inspectors will attempt to educate business owners about the necessity of the new law, the province is likely to be strict about pursuing fines against businesses that do not comply.

In those years until the Supreme Court decides on the legality of provincial smoking bans, perhaps Saskatchewan's law will have enough time do what it is designed to do, which is to stop young people from taking up smoking.

If young people see that there are no public places (excluding those on reserves) where it is acceptable to smoke, and tobacco products are not ubiquitously displayed in public view, attitudes are likely to gradually change.

The reduced health-care costs that will come with lower smoking rates will create a "win" for everyone in the province.

www.winnipegfreepress.com

Letters to the Editor Thursday, January 27th, 2005

A recent editorial rightly questions how many teens actually start smoking because of tobacco displays.

Health Canada's latest Youth Smoking Survey indicates that the most commonly stated "perceived reason that youth start smoking" is the behaviour of friends.

That same survey has various categories of reasons of why youth start smoking -- retail displays and impulse buying do not appear amongst them. It does however include: peer pressure/friends; mother or father smoke; brothers or sisters smoke; popular kids smoke; curiosity; it's cool; something to do; it's not allowed; it's relaxing weight control; and an unspecified "other" category.

Retail display bans ultimately penalize adult smokers and legitimate businesses. Displays of our products do not influence the decision to smoke, but rather the decision as to which brand to purchase.

In some retail outlets adult smokers can choose amongst more than 400 tobacco products. These retail displays are currently the only legal means available to let adult smokers know about price and availability -- including information about new brands.

For tobacco companies this is important because it allows us to compete to become the choice of adult smokers -- something important in a constantly shrinking market.

Banning these displays inevitably penalizes many convenience store owners who rely on the money these displays provide as a key part of their livelihood.

 CHRISTINA DONA

Manager, Media Relations,

Imperial Tobacco Canada,

www.winnipegfreepress.com

Although three months are often prescribed for cardiac rehabilitation, it takes nine months for patients to reach peak improvement, say researchers from the University of Toronto.

The study, published in the December issue of the Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, found a 52-week rehabilitation program that combined supervised and unsupervised exercise sessions was effective in improving both physical and mental health, with the peak occurring at 38 weeks (nine months).

"To receive the optimal benefits in physical fitness and quality of life, patients should attend cardiac rehabilitation programs which last for at least six, and up to nine months," says Dr. Terence Kavanagh, a professor in U of T's Faculty of Physical Education and Health and the Faculty of Medicine. Increased program length also gives health care professionals a longer period to help patients make heart-healthy lifestyle changes that lower the risk of future cardiac events, such as quitting smoking or switching to a low-fat diet.

In the study, 623 male patients with coronary heart disease were randomized to one of two programs. The first used weekly supervised exercise sessions over 52 weeks, while the second used weekly supervised sessions for 26 weeks followed by one supervised session per month for the remaining 26 weeks. Patients were kept on their drug therapies and had nutritional interventions as well as being prescribed a walking or walk-jog (where appropriate) program.

Dr. Larry Hamm, an adjunct professor in U of T's Faculty of Physical Education and Health and program director of cardiac rehabilitation at National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, D.C., says that Ontario and most of Canada already have programs that extend sessions beyond 12 weeks. "They would need very minor modifications to achieve these optimal benefits."

However, American programs typically employ supervised sessions three times a week for 12 weeks, a regime that is determined in large part by insurance company rules and regulations, Hamm says. While the number of supervised sessions used in U.S. programs is similar to that used in the study, the length of the program is considerably less, at three versus nine months. "We hope this data may increase the willingness on the part of insurance companies to consider paying for programs that use an extended period of time and possibly some unsupervised exercise sessions," he says.

According to Kavanagh, one of the primary arguments against prolonging the time for outpatient rehabilitation services has been cost. "Our study has shown that the costs associated with the modified 38-week program are comparable with programs that use 36 sessions in a shorter period," calling into question the practice of terminating outpatient programs at 12 weeks.

The researchers also found that in the later period of the study, from 26 to 52 weeks, there was little difference in response between the format that used weekly supervised sessions and the format which decreased the supervised sessions from weekly to monthly after 26 weeks. Kavanagh says this shows that more money can be saved by introducing a progressive tapering of supervision.

"Our results justify the approach first taken by the Toronto Rehabilitation Centre in 1968, and which has made it one of the largest, best-known and most effective cardiac rehabilitation programs in North America," says Kavanagh.

This study was supported by a research grant from the Canadian Cardiac Rehabilitation Foundation and was undertaken at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, formerly the Toronto Rehabilitation Centre.

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Toronto.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222006.htm

I COMPLETELY agree with a provincial ban on smoking. However, stopping there seems irresponsible. Alcohol is the cause of many problems, so it should go as well. As I recall, fat and sugar can also be hazardous to your health, so perhaps we should ban junk food, pop, some meats, etc. But rather than go on, let's just skip to the last logical step: ban life. After all, if you're not living, you don't have to worry about what could kill you.

James Draganiuk

(Living causes dying - avoid inhaling.)

----------------------------------

SMOKERS SHOULD be charged with aggravated assault if they smoke in public places, because the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 268. sub. 1) states that anyone who "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant" is guilty of that crime. We have evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and that endangers the life of non-smokers.

B. Scott Robb

(That's going a bit too far.)

http://canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Letters/

IAN GILLESPIE, Free Press News Columnist Jan  29/05

According to some readers, I'm heartless, out of touch and narrow minded. I suffer from tunnel vision and occupy a "comfy perch."

And I bet dollars to doughnuts I've lost my chance to two-step with the Flue-Cured Queen at this year's tobacco growers' grand ball. (I don't know if tobacco farmers actually stage a grand ball. But if they do, I won't be going.)

After writing two columns about last week's farmers' blockade of Highway 401, I received a few, um, messages from tobacco farmers.

After expressing my lack of sympathy for tobacco farmers looking for government cash, Fred Neukamm, chairperson of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, described my column as a misinformed rant.

"Families that have prospered for generations are now verging on financial ruin because of the negative effect of government policies," Neukamm wrote.

"Are our rights less compelling than those of anyone else whose business is driven to ruin by government policies?"

Several readers posed the same analogy to me: What if, they asked, my job was in jeopardy through no fault of my own?

"What if all of a sudden newspapers were under the microscope for excessive waste of paper . . . and your job was terminated with no severance package?" e-mailed Andrew Sebok.

"Would you honestly accept being let go for no other reason than society's perception of what newspapers are doing to the environment . . . or would you get a lawyer and try to sue someone for wrongful dismissal?"

Well, let's think about that.

If I knew newspapers were causing the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, I might do a bit of soul-searching and decide that I didn't want to be part of it.

Failing that, if I was told my job would be eliminated a week, a month, or a year from now, yes, I'd be perturbed. And I'd seek severance pay.

But I don't think I could justifiably complain too loudly if I'd been hearing this news for 50 years.

And that's where this argument comes unglued. Consider the following:

* In 1950, the first modern studies connecting smoking and lung cancer were published.

* In 1963, the late Judy LaMarsh, then minister of national health and welfare, stood in the House of Commons and said smoking caused lung cancer. That same year, the federal Health Department started its anti-smoking program.

So the news tobacco is bad and that the government wants to stop its citizens from smoking isn't exactly a bolt from the blue.

Furthermore, I talked to a bunch of tobacco farmers at last Friday's blockade. Some were younger than me. And I'd venture very few of them were growing tobacco 50 years ago.

So, despite steep investments, government discouragement and the vagaries of weather and marketing boards, these farmers have chosen -- I repeat, chosen -- to grow this toxic leaf.

If somebody warned me for half a century to get out of the newspaper business, I don't think I could plead I didn't see it coming.

And if everyone was saying newspapers were unhealthy and the industry was doomed, I certainly wouldn't choose it as a career.

Neukamm blames the government for the tobacco industry's crisis. But some, like Canadian Cancer Society analyst Rob Cunningham, argue the main problems facing local tobacco farmers are the rising Canadian loonie, the high cost of labour, our shorter growing season and international competition.

One argument I heard at the highway blockade was that the Canadian government wants it both ways -- that for years, it has profited from tobacco taxes while bleeding the farmers dry.

But that argument doesn't cut it with Cunningham. He says the numbers vary, but right now, the federal and provincial governments combined collect about $8 billion from tobacco taxes.

But he says tobacco costs the government far more -- about $15 billion a year in health care and economic costs.

"Society pays because of tobacco," Cunningham says. "When a mother or father dies and a family loses their wage earner to smoking, they don't get compensated."

Now there's a novel idea. Instead of compensating struggling tobacco farmers, maybe we should ask them to compensate all the Canadian families who've watched a loved one die from inhaling their wretched product.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/London/Ian_Gillespie/2005/01/29/913547.html

CBC News WebPosted Jan 28 2005 11:21 AM NST
ST. JOHN'S  —  The lawyer hired by clubs and bingo halls to fight an all-out smoking ban is warning the provincial government its decision could hit Confederation Building in the pocketbook.

 "If the bar owners are able to show losses, the government could open itself up to a class suit in the millions and millions of dollars," says Richard Rogers, whose law firm has been hired by the Beverage Industry Association.

 Government announced in December it wanted a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places, including bars, nightclubs and bingo halls.

 However, it is still gathering public opinion on the issue, and next week starts a month-long series of hearings on the issue.

From Jan. 21 Smoking ban plan heads to public hearings

The bars want the hearings postponed, and for an analysis to be done to show the economic harm caused by a smoking ban.

 Marcel Etheridge, president of the Beverage Industry Association, says his members are "under attack" from a government that is asking for too much change, too quickly.

"We're just saying to government, for God's sake, just go out and look at the facts and figures in other places," Etheridge says.

Health Minister John Ottenheimer, however, has no plans to accede to the bar owners' demands.

"It is a public health issue," he says.

"The statistics and information we have before us on second-hand smoke [are] quite convincing … We plan to move forward," Ottenheimer says.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/nf-bars-smoking-20050128.html

they want to know who is buying by age sex quanity etc.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/advspo/html/internetthreat.html

Updated: 01-26-2005 01:26:23 PM

ST. PAUL (AP) - A statewide smoking ban could be put to its first test tomorrow, when the House Health Policy and Finance Committee is expected to vote on the issue.

Lawmakers got an earful from both sides today.

Supporters say a smoking ban would protect restaurant and bar workers and patrons. Opponents say a ban would hurt some bars, restaurants, private clubs and tobacco lounges.

Representative Ron Latz, one of the bill's sponsors, says he expects the health committee to give the smoking ban a thumbs up tomorrow. The bill has to clear several other committees before it makes it to the House floor for a vote.

http://www.kaaltv.com/article/view/84834/

Anti-smoking efforts in Missouri are in line for their first infusion of money from the state's 1998 settlement with tobacco companies.

Governor Blunt is proposing to spend $875,000.00 next year on programs to fight teen smoking.

Blunt says Missouri ranks last in the nation in efforts to help young smokers quit and stop other teens from taking up the habit.

Missouri has received $822 million dollars so far under the legal settlement.

http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=2874593&nav=0jshVkz6

A man spent almost 8 weeks in an Osceola jail. A photo could have freed him sooner.

By Willoughby Mariano
Sentinel Staff Writer January 29, 2005
KISSIMMEE -- After nearly eight weeks in jail, Hector Omy Collazo pleaded with deputies one last time: Let me go. You have the wrong man. A criminal stole my identity.
The Kissimmee man had made the demand dozens of times since Dec. 4, when police arrested Collazo outside his grandmother's house on a Texas warrant for felony forgery. He has never been to Texas, he insisted. Collazo has proof he was in Orlando on the date of the crime.
No one checked out his story until Thursday at Orlando International Airport, just as a Harris County, Texas, sheriff's official was about to escort him onto a flight to Houston. Collazo said that didn't happen until the Orlando Sentinel began making inquiries. After faxing Collazo's photograph to Harris County authorities, the cop handed over $45 for cab fare and told him he was free to go.
Now Collazo, 23, and his family are asking why authorities allowed him to spend 54 days in jail when deputies, jailers and other authorities in Texas and Florida had access to a photograph and other identifying information that clearly show they were holding the wrong man.
"All I was asking for over and over again was for them [authorities] to fax my picture over to Texas," Collazo said. "All it takes is five minutes."
The Osceola County Sheriff's Office is looking into the matter to see whether authorities here followed proper procedures.
"I've extradited people all over the United States. I've never heard anything like this," said Lt. Mark Thompson, who took over as head of the sheriff's extradition office Jan. 4.
The local agency that arrests a fugitive is responsible for verifying his identity, said Scott Haywood, a spokesman for the Texas Governor's Office, which asked Florida officials to extradite Collazo. Texas' Office of the Governor sends information such as fingerprints or mug shots to verify the identity of a suspected fugitive as part of its extradition request. A photograph was sent to Osceola, but it is unclear if prints arrived. If the request meets state requirements, Florida's Governor's Office allows the extradition.
Used birth date
The man who remains at large called himself Hector Omy Collazo of Houston and listed his birth date as Nov. 10, 1981 -- Collazo's birthday, said Gabriel Vasquez, an investigator for the Harris County District Attorney's Office. He is a 5-foot-6-inch black man who weighs 120 pounds, according to Vasquez.
Prosecutors think he is an undocumented immigrant who forged someone else's name on a federal immigration document Aug. 8, 2003, so he could keep his job, Vasquez said. His real name is not known. Collazo said he lost his Social Security card in 1998 in Puerto Rico; that's how he thinks someone was able to steal his identity.
Collazo of Kissimmee is a 5-foot-5-inch, 185-pound, light-skinned Hispanic. On the date of the crime, he was at Hogar Crea, a drug-treatment program in Orlando.
"The residential program is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There's no way possible he was in Texas," said Joseph Hammerl, assistant to the program's executive director.
Soon after Collazo arrived from Carolina, Puerto Rico, in 2003 to join his mother and grandmother, he entered the rehab center to kick a drug habit. After Collazo left treatment in late fall 2003, he found work at Walt Disney World in housekeeping. He moved in with his grandmother, Carmen Jimenez, 60, who has cancer, to care for her and help pay her bills.
Collazo's life was improving. Then, late on the night of Dec. 4, he was walking outside his grandmother's house smoking a cigarette. A Kissimmee police car approached.
"Are you Louis?" Collazo recalls an officer hollering.
"No, I'm Hector," he replied and showed his drivers license. He was taken into custody when a computer check showed a person with his name was wanted in Texas.
Collazo thought he would straighten everything out at the jail and that he would be back at his Disney housekeeping job the next morning.
"I said 'Man, this can't be true,' " Collazo said during a jailhouse interview Thursday.
Instead, he entered a complex extradition system involving multiple agencies in Texas and Florida.
An arresting officer must verify the identity of a suspected fugitive, Thompson said. Harris County officials sent a description of the fugitive to the Osceola Sheriff's Office, which handles extradition issues in the county. A judge can assign the suspect a public defender to help straighten out a mistaken-identity issue.
In January, the Osceola County Jail obtained a copy of the fugitive's mug shot, which clearly does not match that of Collazo, according to jail documents. Jail officials said they play no part in verifying the identity of their inmates.
"I don't know if it's for us to determine the identity. We go by the paperwork we have," said the Osceola County Jail's interim director, Joyce Peach.
Family in disarray
After Collazo went to jail, his family fell into disarray.
Collazo's family retained an attorney in Texas who was unable to sort out the mess.
"We're a good family. We're a close family," Sandra Rivera, 40, Collazo's mother, said Friday. "What happens to one, happens to all."
Rivera took days off from work at an assisted-living facility in Hunter's Creek to fight for her son's release.
There was no one to care for Collazo's grandmother, Jimenez, so his cousin, Jacob De La Cruz, 17, had to help out. But he couldn't pay the bills as Collazo had done. Jimenez filed for bankruptcy in early January, Collazo said.
Collazo also missed a trip to Jamaica with his brother, a soldier serving in Iraq who was on leave during the holidays.
Now Collazo and his family must put their lives back together. This morning, he plans to ask for his old job back.
"All it took is a fax," Collazo said of the mistaken-identity case. "They've spent all this money to jail an innocent person rather than send a fax."
Willoughby Mariano can be reached at wmariano@orlandosentinel.com 407-931-5944.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/orl-asecwrongguy29012905jan29,0,6237655.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005
EDITORIAL Publication Date: January 12, 2005

This article first appeared in the January 12, 2005 Washington Times:

Rodents are an insidious health threat -- but I am not talking about disease-carrying vermin. I am talking about rodents in our nation's most prestigious research laboratories. These animals, through no fault of their own, have been scaring us to death for 50 years while restricting our pursuit of an improved standard of living and longer, healthier lives.

A thicket of current federal and state laws and regulations (including Superfund, Proposition 65 in California, and Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration regulation of pesticides and food additives) assume a rodent is a little man. Such laws substantially disrupt our nation's economic productivity (including diminishing our food supply) by banning any chemical that at high doses causes cancer in animals. This hasty practice poses a threat not only to our quality of life but also to our very lives and health.

Perhaps you remember some specific examples of government's attempts to ban useful chemicals (like the sweeteners cyclamate and saccharin) because at high dose they cause cancer in rats. Probably you recall the great Alar-apple panic of 1989 when actress-turned-toxicologist Meryl Streep and an activist environmental group (with the EPA's blessing) told us apples presented an "intolerable risk" of cancer in children because they were treated with Alar, which at high doses caused cancer in rodents. More recently, you may remember self-appointed consumer groups argued french fries were a cancer risk because frying high-starch foods produces a chemical called acrylamide, another rodent carcinogen.

But what you might not know is that the rodent-is-a-little-man premise now has spawned unprecedented increases in environmental regulation (purportedly to protect us from cancer) and has contributed substantially to the cost of most goods and services, insurance premiums, legal fees and federal taxes while reducing job opportunities and incentives for innovation. All this without offering any known public health benefit whatsoever.

For example, the so-called Delaney Clause, passed b