Wake up and smell the tobacco
Advertisement
To the editor:
I am shocked that the Beacon Star would publish Thomas Laprade’s letter regarding secondhand smoke, in the June 10 edition. Why would you give this person the forum to broadcast his uneducated, thoughtless message.
Maybe Mr. Laprade should butt out his cigarette long enough to go to a library and do some research on the effects of secondhand smoke. Or better yet, maybe he should have somebody go to the library to check out some material because libraries are usually smoke free.
Obviously he is a bitter smoker who feels his freedoms are being taken away. Maybe he should think about the lives that were taken of those people who were forced to inhale secondhand smoke their entire life.
He claims that cigarettes are nothing but “a handful of crushed leaves and some paper.” Maybe he should have rephrased that to say, “cigarettes are nothing but a handful of crushed leaves that contain nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and some paper.”
He could list all 4000 or so chemicals found in tobacco smoke, but that would take quite a while to write down, and between puffs from his cigarettes this task could take a number of days.
I suggest the editor of the Beacon Star refrain from publishing useless letters such as the one mentioned here because they do absolutely nothing but waste space which could be used to print something of interest or that has educational value. This only wastes the readers valuable time.
Rob McEachern
Parry Sound
Related Articles
Comments
Saturday, Jun 17th, 2006 @ 8:28pm
Smell the tobacco
from jeteas at zeuter dot com
Maybe he's just a bozo!
Thursday, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 1:02pm
Thomas Laparde
from looped_ca at yahoo dot ca
I notice (being the editor to the Smokersclubinc.com newsletter) that the arguments used to justify stopping someone from speaking etc. are always personal. When it comes to tobacco, why use personal attacks? Is it no wonder that smokers are rebelling against personal attacks like were baby killers (target commercial by Health Canada), that we stink (dog crap commercial), we have no value (denormalization campaign), our opinions aren't heard ( no smokers were heard during the committee hearings to bill 164, or implementation committee).
The only way smokers we hear from smokers, is when we say “oh it will be good..."
Too bad that the only thing unique to tobacco smoke is "Nicotine, Scopoletin, 3-ethenyl pyridine, solanesol, and myosmine", which you never hear about. It's called a science of Toxicology. Considering that one wisp of smoke doesn't kill yet they keep saying how dangerous, yet use no real numbers.
I refuse to be Chicken Little, even if you use "chemical", because exposure doesn't prove cause.
There is a larger concern dose; exposure to chemicals is not the danger. The chemicals mentioned are everywhere that’s using fact, not fear mongering. What is wrong with bringing science of toxicology (dose)to the discussion?
Friday, Jun 23rd, 2006 @ 10:06pm
Wake up and smell the tobacco
from garnetdawn at comcast dot net
Mr. McEachern
You obvously do not approve of smoking and, in particular, smokers. It appears you have no respect for freedom of speech either, unless it is your speech. Not only do you fail in your attempt to analyze Thomas Laprade's statement in a bullying manner, but manage to insert personal insults as well. His letter was purposely written in a simple style and WAS catering to readers. You were not. "Putting out some one else's light won't make yours shine any brighter" For that reason, your letter illustrates the lack of intelligence and anti-social attitudes of so many twisted smoke haters. It might be wise to follow your own suggestion and visit your local library to actually READ the studies on second hand smoke which show there have been NO conclusive studies that prove environmental tobacco smoke is harmful, rather than simply parroting phrases coined by Tobacco Control activists. Once again, the poison is in the dose.
The 4,000 chemicals quote [sic} was from the NRC 1986 report. "The number of chemicals was not measured but assumed to exist in chemical fractions off the methods used to detect organic compounds." So there we have it...assumed fractions. In truth, you ingest more carcinogens in a glass of drinking water than spending an entire evening in a smoky bar. Before you insult the unbiased position of the Parry Sound Beacon Star again, perhaps you need to take a good look in the mirror. If you don't like what you are reading, turn the page.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
...or
join a forum discussion on this story.
news
voice
market
explore