Posit

I would suggest that you go back and follow the references you provided. They make opinions based on statisitical information and are not derived from bonifide medical studies. There is NO medical study linking second hand smoke with any illness. That is a fact! That is worth repeating.

The fact is there are NONE. The conclusions of lobby groups...like the EPA.... do not make a "medical study". They merely present an "opinion without basis". I suggest that you start reading some of the literature you cite. There is NO medical study linking second hand smoke with any illness. That is a fact!

Substituting emotional conjecture for fact is neither "good" nor "healthy". The fact is there has never been ANY medical study that has linked second hand smoke to health problems. Legislating what we do in our homes out of someone else's fears is neither moral or democratic nor helpful towards those we are pretending to protect. Really the issue is about the anti-smoking lobby using emotional blackmail to enlist legislators to make laws where none is warranted. The same blackmail is used by the anti-abortion camps to assert religious priviledge over personal freedom.

On the other hand, alcohol consumption HAS been proven to be detrimental to society. Higher risks for cancer, and heartt desease. The most lost work hours in the workplace. Highest among causes of accidents and death. Yet, where are the concerns in society about alcohol consumption and abuse? Oh wait....the majority drink, now don't they..... ("Do as I say, not as I do") Sounds a whole lot hypocritical.....

There are no medical studies or statistics that support this assertion. This is one of those myths perpetuated by anti-smoking lobbies. In fact the kids at greater risk from these ailments are farmers kids, suggesting that either the pollen laced air, or prolonged exposure to the chemicals used in the production of food, poulty and cattle are the antagonists. If there is a link to city children it is more likely that it is from the food rather than any other connection. There are no medical studies that have ever been made that support health effects from second hand smoke are anything but a myth. If anyone can find them I would be interested in reading them. However, be careful and read the article you present first, since there is a preponderance of opinion being presented as fact. I have studied many......

Well, I think it is time that we ask the police to charge any parent engaging in sexual deviant behavior (of course any parent that has sexual relations that is not to procreate in the missionary style). These behaviors encourage lascvious acts in children and corrupt the moral ethic of society. Punishment should consist of 100 strikes with a cat of nine tails and second offenses should result in one or both parents being subject to cruxifiction. Never mind smoking in the home, there are far worse acts that affect society in general enough to warrant the thought police to enter every bedroom in Canada.

22,000 Canadians of Japanese descent interned - stripped of their money, their rights and their homes - in prisoner of war camps during WW2.

There is no such thing as "freehold title" since there are no property rights guaranteed in Canada. In essence everything is by right of the Crown and in turn is held in trust on behalf of the Indian Treaties and in accordance with the Royal Proclamation. It would seem to me you would have to negotiate any stay on Indian land if the same scenerio arose. As to ownership, the onus is on the federal government to prove that there was a valid and lawful surrender of any lands in Canada, since we all know that every chunk was once owned outright by natives. The problem is there is no such lawful record since most of the land transfers were underhanded. Canada is in serious trouble where it concerns the land rights and treaties of First Nation people. Just like the Mckenzie Valley pipeline, EVERYTHING is subject to original Native title.

Manitoba has no jurisdiction. The precedent has already been set by the SCC for the reasons I cited.

The Provincial Government has no authority over smoking on reserves. Only the federal government and the Band Government through the authority of the Indian Act can make laws and by-laws. However, a safety requirement can be extended to a reserve if the Band By-Laws or the Indian Act are silent on the issue. In this case the Native leaders have instructed each nation to write their own by-laws regarding smoking. All they need do is prescribe that smoking is allowed in any building at any time and the provincial safety requirments can no longer be used. This has already been tested in Ontario. Ontario lost.