Weekly Highlight: 11.03.2008

Denmark: kids, no harming of your body…

Ethics council: No piercing for under 18s

If it were up to the Danish Council of Ethics and Council for Children, young people under 18 would not be allowed to have body or facial piercing, reports Kristeligt Dagblad.
Peder Agger, chairperson of the ethics council, said that many young people have extravagant piercing which can result in permanent scars.
‘That is why it’s necessary to discuss whether it’s the individual’s responsibility or if it is society’s job to set boundaries for our young people,’ he said.
Charlotte Guldborg, chairperson of the children’s council, said that minors were not capable of assessing the long-term consequences of body piercing. (LYT).


Majority Against More Smoking Restrictions
Published 10.03.2008, 09.20

Most Finns say they do not support tighter anti-smoking regulations.
Nearly two-thirds of the Finns say that they would not impose any tighter restrictions on smoking than those currently in place, according to a poll published by the Tampere-based daily Aamulehti. The biggest backing for anti-smoking measures was found among people in the 50 – 79 year age group of which 44% would like tougher regulations.
Of those who support restrictions, half would like to see a ban on smoking during working hours. Up to 32% are in favour of a smoking ban at all public events, even in the open air. A quarter would eliminate the separate, ventilated, closed areas in pubs and restaurants where smoking is permitted.
The survey also showed the highest rate of smoking to be among 15 – 24 year-olds. A quarter of people in this age group said that they smoke. Among 25 – 35 year-olds, that figure was one-fifth, as it was also among 35 – 49 year-olds. Only 15% of Finns over the age of 50 smoke.
The poll, carried out by Taloustutkimus for Aamulehti, interviewed 1000 people between the ages of 17 and 79.


One in three want more days off
Tuesday 11 March 2008

One in three people are unhappy with the amount of leisure time they have, according to a survey by Blauw Research published on Tuesday.
The most dissatisfied (43%) are those who live in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. The research was commissioned by holiday company Landal Greenparks.

Norway: Oslo more dangerous than New York?

Four times more crime in Oslo than New York
First published: 07 Mar 2008, 10:20

The crime rate in Oslo has been growing at an alarming rate and recent statistics show the Norwegian capital had 20 percent more robberies last
year than in 2006.
While crime in the rest of Norway has been going down, it has been quite another situation in Oslo, where personal and automobile thefts increased markedly last year.
There were 10,600 crimes reported in public places in 2007, up from 8,000 a year earlier, writes Norwegian daily newspaper Dagbladet.
Oslo had the highest rate per person in Scandinavia in terms of reported crimes, with 90 reported crimes per 1,000.
Copenhagen had 50 crimes reported per 1,000 and Stockholm had 79.
In New York, there were 22 reported crimes per 1,000 inhabitants.
This means there were four times as many reported crimes per person in Oslo as in New York.
The Oslo police are blaming the increase on an influx of East Europeans, and Minister of Justice Knut Storberget is reportedly partly in agreement.
However, Storberget said it is necessary to be careful drawing parallels with such statistics. “But regardless, we can say the crime figures in Oslo are too high,” he was reported to have said.


Sahlin: ‘Tell refugees where to live’
Published: 11 Mar 08 12:04 CET

Social Democratic Party Leader Mona Sahlin doesn’t believe that refugees should decide for themselves where to live for the first one or two years they are in Sweden.
“Södertälje has more refugees from Iraq than all of North America. That doesn’t work,” said Sahlin at a Riksdag press conference on Tuesday.
She believes a change in the law is needed which would require all municipalities to take a portion of incoming refugees.
“In the beginning a new refugee ought to stay in the municipality to which they are assigned; perhaps for one to two years,” she said.
Sahlin declined to label the suggestion “municipality arrest”.
“I detest that expression. This has to do with the opportunity to learn the language and find a job in one’s chosen field,” she said.


  1. March 12, 2008 at 5:45 am

    Smoking bans are the real threat

    The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation –
    from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
    threat of “second-hand” smoke.

    Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
    cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
    throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
    government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of
    unlimited government power.

    The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
    menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
    indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
    reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
    people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
    their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
    people to make the “right” decision?

    Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
    attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
    tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

    Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have
    actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
    offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
    customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local
    bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
    negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

    The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be
    answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
    of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
    every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
    or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
    or divorced, and so on.

    All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
    consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
    neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
    be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
    own judgment can guide him through it.

    Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
    smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
    unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
    power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

    That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
    inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
    favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
    at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
    intrusion of government into our lives.

    We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

    Thomas Laprade
    480 Rupert St.
    Thunder Bay, Ont.

  2. Virgil Kleinhelter said,

    March 14, 2008 at 1:51 am

    The research I have been doing since 1998 has shown me the real truth of the myth being spread about Second Hand Smoke worldwide by the Pharmaceuticals. They do this to boost their profits into the Billions through the sale of pills and patches.

    I found the largest studies ever done. These studies were completed by the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, the National Oakridge Labs, one simply called The Enormous German Study and many others. These were all long term and the largest ever done to date. NONE have been larger or longer in years to complete. None have ever been more complete in their investigation of the supposed problem. The largest percentage started their studies to prove the link of SHS to cancer.

    They all agreed in their findings. None found any connection of SHS to cancer. The World Health Organization even stated they also found no connection of SHS to Heart Disease. They also stated there is the possibility that SHS may have the beneficial effect of helping the immune systems of children to develop. The WHO also found that Children of smoking families are 22% less likely to contract cancer.

    I also fond an almost unbelievable co-operation between Government Agencies, Studies by non-profit organizations, scientist, National Media, Doctors and almost everyone who stands to profit by spreading the misinformation provided by the Big Pharma.

    The worst of the myth spreaders are the EPA and the American Cancer Society. The EPA study was no study. They came up with 3,000 deaths a year caused by SHS by computer generated junk science and that so called study has been proved rigged and false. Even our Surgeon General is still using that figure today,, and the 3,000 figure is still the same. He couldn’t even adlib. His review of studies was a farce and he is no longer the Surgeon General. He is currently working at a health spa.

    The Surgeon Generals study by press conference ( his study of selected studies provided by the EPA) is the product of politically connected charlatans led by Jonathan M. Samet, who has been the ringleader of every major anti-smoking fraud since the EPA ETS report. Like ALL the anti-smokers’ reports, it is founded on the deliberate and systematic use of defective studies to falsely blame passive smoking for diseases caused by INFECTION or VIRUS as stated by the ACS in 1955. It is also the most flagrantly politically corrupt: Fred Malek, who was deputy director of President Nixon’s board of directors of the contracting firm which concealed the identities of the anti-smoker authors of the EPA ETS report behind illegal pass-through contracts. The EPA’s own scientists would not stand behind this false study but it is being used by every Health Department here and overseas.

    The American Cancer Society is the worst offender of all the NON-Profits. The last figures I have are they have over a Billion dollars in cash and they have over 23 fundraisers a year and poormouth at every one of them. Most of their money goes into six figure incomes and more misinformation. The smallest part of their funding goes to research.They even get in a huff if there is mention of a cure. Why kill the Goose.

    The RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) was set up by Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals to fund the smoking bans through the ACS. Johnson and Johnson is the largest seller of stop smoking products. They own over 250 drug companies with the aim of controlling the nicotine market. The ACS was about to lose its tax free status because of their political funding of smoking bans and they had to create the ACSCAN foundation as a for profit agency to provide funds for pushing the bans.

    It’s been a long, deliberate process that continues to become evermore sophisticated in its manipulation of the minds of the American public.
    One of the principle architects in the takeover of the American mind is a man named Edward Bernays, who is considered the father of the American public relations industry. If his name doesn’t ring a bell, then maybe his Uncle Sigmund Freud’s will.
    In 2002, the BBC broadcast a four-part documentary called “The Century of Self,” covering the story of the relationship between Freud and his American nephew, as Bernays learned about the human mind and how to manipulate the masses. Bernays’ goal, from the early part of the 20th Century, was to be able to teach corporations how to make people want things they didn’t need through a variety of manipulative techniques appealing to people’s unconscious fears and desires.
    What makes this production interesting is that it covers post-war America and illustrates how politicians and policymakers learned to use Freud’s ideas in their desire to control the masses as well. It shows how Sigmund Freud’s daughter, Anna, and his nephew Bernays, were central players, along with the U.S. Government, corporate America, among others by controlling the masses via engineering consent.

    Lasker (a student of Bernay) and his wife, Mary, longtime board members of the American Cancer Society, realized that really big money could be had for research, if only the public could be convinced that tax dollars — if poured into research year after year — might lead to cures for all sorts of diseases, particularly cancer.

    Over the years, Lasker had developed a number of Madison Avenue propaganda techniques similar to Bernays that he applied to motivate people to generously fund the American Cancer Society (ACS). Lasker’s campaign strategy detail Lasker’s central role in creating the money hungry machine we call the National Institutes of Health, which began when he retired as the richest man in the history of advertising. was based on our fear of death and the hope that with enough money, we could cure cancer. He coached his friend, Elmer Bobst, president of the American branch of Hoffmann-LaRoche and later Warner-Lambert drug company, to start every fundraising speech with the following statement, “One in five of us here – every fifth person in the audience – will die of cancer.” He would then turn the fear he had engendered into hope with his next line, “We want to cure cancer in your lifetime…donate generously.”

    If you have been mislead into believing that SHS is killing people you are just part of the millions so don’t feel too bad. Our City Councils have fallen for this overload of junk science by hearing and reading the same lies everyday in our major media since Surgeon General Coop had the first cigarette labels warn about cancer.

    The Fat Police are coming. Can you even guess how many Billions the Big Pharma will make on diet pills? I may be wrong on this; they may go after alcohol next.

    I’m up to over 330+ studies and reports on the myth of SHS and growing. I know I can’t stop this control of our lives by myself. There are too many people and too much money against me and too many people who won’t believe and won’t take the time to find the truth.

    We don’t have an immigration problem either. Do you believe that?

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

    I have all the facts needed to show that this push for smoking bans is about money and control not health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: