No stinkers allowed

In my last post, I mentioned the odour activists in the US who seemed hell bent on banning everything that smelled, from Chanel No. 5 to Old Spice. But it’s not just in the US that the fanatical fragrance foes are intent on saving the populace from exposure to the deadly toxins in scented body deodorant.

The odour activists have been active in Canada for a number of years, some say as far back as 1991. For example, it was reported in 2000, that a Toronto resident had filed suit against a neighbor for invading her air space with cooking smells from his bar-b-que. At the same time, on Prince Edward Island, a joint union-employer recommendation was made to ban perfumes and aftershaves from government offices. And, Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa embarked on a "No Scents Is Good Sense" campaign.

But the real hotbed of the anti-fragrance fanatics has been identified as Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 2000, it was reported in the national press in both the US and Canada, that Halifax was in the grip of anti-odour hysteria.

The local newspaper, the Chronicle-Herald, prohibited its employees from using perfume, aftershave, scented deodorant, shampoo, or even strong-smelling mouthwash on the job. Many of the city's public institutions, and private businesses, demanded that workers be "scent-free." The city’s hospitals began instituting bans, leading people to believe it was a serious health hazard.

As one of the fragrance fanatics told the Toronto Globe and Mail, "The main point we've been making is that it's a health issue, not a matter of likes and dislikes." Uh-huh. The health issue she was talking about was Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a generic condition that has not been proven to even exist.

Although some studies have shown that high concentrations of some perfumes can cause annoyance to allergy and asthma sufferers, there is no evidence that perfumes pose any real threat to the general public.

Karen Robinson, an anti-scent campaigner, during the height of the Halifax hysteria, claimed: ''Aromatic chemicals are poisoning people and the planet as much as tobacco or pesticides,''

Other people have likened exposure to fragrances to the alleged health hazards of exposure to secondhand smoke. Many of the chemicals found in second-hand smoke, are the same chemicals that are found in perfume products, they claim. That’s likely true, since there are literally thousands of chemicals in each, it shouldn’t be surprising that both products share many in common.

However, there is no legitimate scientific evidence that either exposure to secondhand smoke or Giorgio represents a serious health hazard to otherwise healthy human beings.

Said one Haligonian, “I don't think in the beginning people realized quite how invasive this might become". Uh-huh. The same thing could also be said about secondhand smoke.

Banning body odour

While doing some research for my other blog, Stand FAST, I came across an item on the Forces International website about stinkers and smellers. Uh-huh. I said stinkers and smellers.

Apparently, the Murfreesboro (Tennessee) City Council adopted a good hygiene policy back in 2003, to the effect that: "No employee shall have an odor generally offensive to others when reporting to work. An offensive body odor may result from a lack of good hygiene, from an excessive application of a fragrant aftershave or cologne or from other causes."

That’s right folks. Up here in the Great White North, Ontario’s Liberal government passed the Smoke Free Ontario Act to control the alleged health hazards of exposure to secondhand smoke. Down in Tennessee, they’ve passed a fragrance free Murfreesboro law to protect society from the hazards of exposure to Chanel # 5, Irish Spring and Old Spice.

According to the anti-fragrance fanatics, fragrances contain neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and other toxic chemicals. The toxic chemicals contained in fragrances can make anyone sick in large enough quantities. People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) are especially susceptible to the dangers of this public health hazard and will virtually always get sick from even slight traces of these chemicals.

People don’t speak out about the dangers posed by inconsiderate stinkers for very good reason. Your fragrance may have already affected someone so much that she or he has trouble speaking, thinking, taking action or even remaining awake and conscious. Uh-huh. They could be knocked unconscious by a whiff of Bounce from your freshly washed shirt.

And, just what criteria will be used to identify and define offensive odours?

Well, according to City Councilman Toby Gilley, the standard would be the same one a U.S. Supreme Court justice used to identify pornography. "We'll know it when we see it," Gilley said. Or, in the case of the Murfreesboro anti-fragrance ordinance, "We'll know it when we smell it."

Now, I don’t want to make fun of people with MCS, even if the National Institute of Environmental Health Science says the very existence of such an affliction is in dispute. But, I do think that banning people who wear perfume, cologne, scented hair spray and the like from public places is going a little too far.

Besides, I don’t think it’s all that funny.

There are people out there who don’t like the smell of burning tobacco. So, they turned secondhand smoke into a health hazard and banned smoking in all public places, bars, restaurants, etc. Anti-smoker fanatics, through distorted science and suspect statistics, managed to turn smokers into social misfits.

The odour activists want to eliminate harmful smells.

I know what you’re thinking. You’ve made up your mind that this is a joke. And, you’re wrong. “So what?” You say. That kind of nonsense won’t work in Canada.

Wrong again. More in my next post.

To be continued

Burn the fields (Part 2)

If you believe the latest results from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS), slightly fewer than 5 million people, representing 19% of the population aged 15 years and older, are smokers. There is no indication if those figures are based on the legal sale of tobacco products or if black market sales would raise those figures significantly. I suspet, however, that smokers buying on the black market have not been included.

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care claims provincial tobacco taxes produced $1.452 billion in the 2004-2005 fiscal year. In the next fiscal year, 2005-2006, following yet another increase in sin taxes, provincial tax revenues dropped from $1.452 billion to $1.379 billion, a decline of 73 million dollars. Over the same period, combined federal and provincial tax revenue on tobacco dropped from $7.605 billion to $7.086, a drop of 517 million dollars.

However, says Dr. Atul Kapor, president of Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, “There is a growing gap between the amount of cigarettes that Canadians say they are smoking and the tobacco tax revenues collected by federal and provincial governments.”

A report from Imperial Tobacco in October 2006 suggests that a quarter of the cigarettes consumed in Quebec and Ontario, are supplied by the black market. Reporters from the Toronto Star confirmed this estimate by using undercover shoppers to demonstrate just how easy it is to get cheap cigarettes in Toronto. Some sources suggest the sale of contraband cigarettes might be as high as 40%. Is anyone surprised?

The RCMP website says: “The sale of illegal tobacco products often benefits criminal organizations. The profits are used to: finance drug trafficking in Canada; purchase illegal weapons; and fund other illicit activities.

They also point out that, “These activities affect the safety and security of our communities and our children. Buying and selling illegal tobacco has other negative consequences for Canadian society, including, eroding respect for the law and federal and provincial governments losing millions in tax revenue.”

According to the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, "Taxation of tobacco is an effective policy for preventing and reducing cigarette consumption. However, the widespread availability of contraband cigarettes can undermine the effectiveness of this policy, negate the intended health benefits of tobacco taxation and reduce taxation revenues."

The simple truth is that confiscatory taxes and biased regulation do undermine public respect for the law.

Prohibition did not work in the States because a large segment of the population refused to accept the premise that “Big Brother” knew what was best for them. Prohibition, and the law of unintended consequences, contributed significantly to a surge in criminal activity, including smuggling and the illegal manufacture and distribution of alcohol. Those laws were repealed.

Taxation, as a tool for enforcing public policy, can have only a limited effect. There is a point where people will rebel and strike back. They will do so by ignoring attempts to control their behaviour through confiscatory taxes and draconian regulations on a product that is still perfectly legal.

A “smoke free Canada” is a pipe dream. Not everyone will simply quit smoking because of usurious levels of taxation. Many will simply turn to the underground economy with a shrug of the shoulders and a quiet: “Screw’em.” The danger is that this largely justified cheating may well spread to other areas of public morality.

Quote of the Day
Thank heaven, I have given up smoking . . . again! God! I feel fit. Homicidal, but fit. A different man. Irritable, moody, depressed, rude, nervy, perhaps; but the lungs are fine. ~A.P. Herbert

Burn the tobacco fields?

They claim it’s because they want to protect us, and those around us, from ourselves. Smoking kills, they tell us while they keep raking in the cash; billions of dollars a year in taxes. And, they continue to allow the harvesting of tobacco as well as the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products.

They’ve outlawed smoking in public places, restaurants, bars and private clubs of all manner and description. They’ve banned the advertising of tobacco products in newspapers, magazine and all forms of electronic media. But, they won’t outlaw smoking. They recognize the socio-economic impact of an outright ban. There’s too much money to be made; by growers, by the tobacco industry, by the government.

Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada point out that the big three manufacturers in Canada earn over a billion dollars a year. But the combined tobacco tax revenue for the federal and provincial governments exceeds 7 billion. It’s government which has the most to lose by an outright ban.

They won’t pick a fight with the farmers who earn their livelihood from growing the alleged killer weed. The consumer is an easier target. They’re afraid to do battle with the big corporations who manufacture, package and distribute the deadly toxins. The consumer is without the resources to fight back.

They can’t provide alternatives to the jobs that would be lost. And, they can’t replace the tax revenue generated by the growing, manufacture and sale of tobacco products, especially cigarettes. And, they won’t, ever, convince everyone to quit smoking.

So they take a little money from their sin taxes and hand it over to the anti-smoking lobby to make life miserable for smokers. They pass draconian laws to control when and where people can use what is still a perfectly legal product. They turn honest, hard-working men and women into social pariahs and criminals, just because they choose to smoke.

They proudly proclaim their commitment to the health and safety of the nation. And, all the while, they keep filling government coffers with billions of dollars in taxes.

The anti-smoking fanatics tell them, “The most effective tobacco reduction tool is decreasing the affordability of tobacco through tax policy.” And they, the government, listen; ignoring other available tools to reduce smoking.

Of the over 7 billion dollars collected in taxes on tobacco, governments spend roughly 90 million on other measures to control the addiction; less than 2% of revenue from taxation. Tax revenue, it appears, is their first priority.

I don’t pay their sin taxes. I get my cigarettes from sources currently outside the reach of the government. Yes, it’s illegal. And, no, I don’t feel one bit guilty.

---

Word of the day
Hypocrite (hyp·o·crite) Noun
a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

Bottle of wine, fruit of the vine

"Actually, I find it a rather backward little entry, lacking balance and texture; a little too austere for my taste."

Huh. Run that by me again. Oh, you’re talking about the wine.

I’ve always found the rituals associated with wine tasting to be a little pretentious. It all looks so complex, like the wine itself.

Now, let’s see, what do I remember from Wine Tasting 101? Wines described as backward are undeveloped and not ready to drink; they have to be aged. They’re often young and tannic, and may also be described as austere. The texture of a wine describes how the wine feels in the mouth; is it silky, velvety, rounded, or smooth? Wines said to have balance have a harmonious combination of tannin, acidity, texture and flavour. Balance is a vital attribute of a good wine. Uh-huh.

Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about wine tasting. I am sometimes a wine drinker, but wine tasting is definitely beyond my capacity. To me there are only two kinds of wine; stuff that’s drinkable and stuff that isn’t.

Nor do I have any desire to learn about wine tasting. Did you know that tasters spit, er . . ., excuse me, expectorate the wine after swirling it around in the mouth and allowing it to brush the palette. I wouldn’t even consider doing that with a cheap bottle of 999 (a port wine most commonly associated with bootleggers in my younger days in Cape Breton). It was an indelicate little wine, both dense and complex. OK, the wine wasn’t all that complex and I was just dense.

I know what you’re thinking. Just why in the hell is he talking about wine?

Because, dear reader, as I was surfing the web, looking for nothing in particular and going nowhere at all, I came across an article on the world’s most expensive wines. And, I have a thing about people who pay outrageous prices for commodities of dubious value, be it Barry Bonds’ baseballs, OJ’s lucky suit or John Kennedy’s rocking chair. The one thing most of these people have in common, besides too much money, is a definite and definitive lack of common sense.

In 1985, Christie’s auction house sold one bottle of wine for $160,000. It was a bottle of Bordeaux, a 1787 Chateau Lafite, and, according to The Guinness Book of World Records it is still the world's most expensive bottle of wine. Its great age alone would have ensured a good price but what really made it special, particularly to American collectors, and ensured the record price tag were the initials Th.J. etched in the glass. Th.J. was, of course, Thomas Jefferson, one time president (and founding father) of the United States.

In addition to his duties as a statesman, Jefferson was also an avid oenophile. That’s right a oenophile, pronounced zee-new-file. Isn’t that a great word? An oenophile is a lover of wine. Oenophiles are also known as wine aficionados or connoisseurs. They are people who appreciate or collect wine. Uh-huh.

While most people will marvel at the price tag of 160 thousand dollars, I find myself marveling at the lack of grey matter which could be attributed to the purchaser. Is he perhaps unaware that he could get just as pissed on a five dollar bottle of Zing? Would he really pay that kind of money to roll the stuff around in his mouth and spit it out?

Actually, neither question is of any import, because the wine in no longer drinkable. The outside limit for a Bordeaux to remain fit for drinking is 50 years. So what the buyer really paid all that money for was to let the bottle, with its fancy label, sit on a shelf and gather dust. He got diddly-squat for his money, except bragging rights to a very expensive bottle of vinegar.

Unless, of course, another dummy should come along and offer to buy it.

Fine art and the forger

Just for the fun of it, I think I’ll talk about painting to-day. No, not house painting; the paintings of the old masters. Have you ever wondered how much precious art is selling for these days? Well, you should have asked. I‘d have written this piece earlier. I have this thing about people who pay ridiculous, inflated prices for items of questionable value. And, nowhere is this more obvious than in the world of fine art.

For example, last year a painting by Jackson Pollack called “No 5, 1948” sold for 142.7 million dollars in a private sale. It’s true. I swear. It was in the news. And, the man who paid that outrageous price is walking around without a straight-jacket.

Yes. I agree. Jackson Pollack was a fine artist. But to suggest his work, either individually or collectively, is worth 142.7 million dollars is delusional. The same holds true for any other artist, from Picasso to Van Gogh. Fortunately, the truth is out there; so let’s look at the cold, hard facts.

Many years ago a fellow named Elmyr de Hory sold a forgery of a Matisse to the prestigious Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University. Hory was a skilled forger whose eye for detail allowed him to create forgeries that fooled even the most knowledgeable connoisseurs of fine art. And, Elmyr de Hory was not, is not, alone. There are many examples of forgeries that required forensic examination to distinguish them from the real thing. Little scraps of paint or canvas examined under a microscope to see if the paint or the canvas material was of the same composition as that most likely used by the original artist.

If a forgery is of such quality, won’t it be just as beautiful to look at as the original? If it requires forensic evidence to disprove its authenticity, won’t it be just as valuable to the student of art to demonstrate the finer points of the original artists’ technique, whether it be his use of colour, light and shade, perspective, etc.

And, if it’s true that an artist can replicate the work of another to such a degree, then why would one painting be worth 142.7 million dollars and the other worth only a “Go to jail” card from the Community Chest”? It makes no sense.

In a time long ago and far away, painting replicas of other peoples work was, in fact, an honoured tradition. It was done without malice, to preserve for posterity the works of the renowned artists of the day, and as a learning tool; to understand and appreciate the techniques that made some paintings works of art and others just pretty pictures.

It was not until the wealthy and powerful, including the church and the state, began trading art as a commodity that these replicas became “forgeries”. To be sure, if someone passed his work off as the work of another, more renowned artist, in an effort to increase the value of his own, he was doing a disservice to all concerned. But, if none but the most knowledgeable can tell the difference and, even then, not without the help of modern forensics, how can anyone say the originals are one of a kind or “priceless”.

If a so-called “priceless” work of art were destroyed and a good forgery hung in its stead, would the many visitors who pass through the Louvre on a daily basis be able to tell the difference? Would they not still gaze in awe and admiration at the forgery as they do now at the original?

And, if you agree that the awe, admiration and inspiration would likely continue then you’ll understand that paying 142.7 million dollars for paint on canvas is obscene.

Barry's balls, OJ's suit & John's rocker

Recently, I wrote a post about some super clown spending over three-quarters of a million dollars to buy a baseball which baseball super star, Barry Bonds, had once struck with a baseball bat. The fact that this particular ball was the one Bonds sent sailing into the stands for his 756th career home run does not justify the $750,000.00 price tag. Nor should it keep super clown, Mark Ecko, out of the looney bin.

Nobody in their right mind pays that kind of money for something you can pick up at the local Wal-Mart for under ten dollars. But, it got me to wondering just how many other nut bars, masquerading as “collectors of memorabilia”, might actually be out there running around without supervision.

I’m not talking about fans who spend 50 or 100 dollars on a football jersey, or 20 bucks or so on an autographed baseball. Fan is, after all, short for fanatic.

No, I’m talking about those collectors who spend thousands, tens of thousands and much more on items of questionable value, simply because some player has soiled it with his sweat, or drooled on it, or some such. To me, those individuals are a few bricks short of a load.

Think about it people. If I were to substitute the ball that bounced off little Buddy’s bean at the local high school game for the baseball Barry Bonds sent over the wall, how in the hell would you be able to tell the difference?

In the news recently, it was reported that OJ Simpson had been arrested in conjunction with the robbery of two memorabilia collectors. OJ claims he was trying to recover signed collectibles: books, photographs, his wedding video and the suit he wore when he was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her boyfriend.

Memorabilia “experts” suggest the suit could fetch between $5,000.00 to $25,000.00 at auction. I can buy the same suit, probably better, at Moore’s Men Shop for under 200 bucks. And, it will fit. Who the hell pays that much for a suit they’ll never wear? Unless, of course, they’re a little kinky and inclined to do strange things in the privacy of their bedroom.

But sports enthusiasts aren’t the only ones paying big bucks for second hand stuff. At a 1996 New York auction of the belongings of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, two rocking chairs were sold; one for $442,000.00 and the other for $453,000.00, for no other reason than that it was one of roughly a dozen similar rocking chairs in which John Kennedy had parked his posterior prior to his assassination.

Similar rocking chairs go for around $169.00 at Wal-Mart. Although I can’t swear to it, I suspect the Wal-Mart specials are every bit as comfortable as the four hundred thousand dollar Kennedy model. And, would you really want to rock your grand kids on that kind of investment? What if little Percy piddles on the padded upholstery? Wouldn't steam cleaning be likely to cause undue depreciation?

For the record, sitting in John Kennedy’s rocker will not make you a great polititian, wearing OJ’s suit will not make you rich and famous, or famous and poor, whichever is the reality, and branding Barry’s balls will not make you a baseball super star.

What spending that kind of money on second hand junk should get you is an insanity hearing.