From: cujo@petitmorte.net   
      
   mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) wrote in   
   news:B4SdnVPXPMrd5dz0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com:   
      
   >> Will-Dockery wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:   
   >>> Smokin’   
   >>> June 10, 2008 by George J. Dance Leave a Comment   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> To smokers like me, anti-smoking legislation is a serious threat to   
   >>> our personal liberty and property rights. A prime example is the old   
   >>> Toronto bylaw banning smoking in restaurants. That law died quickly   
   >>> in the face of public and media criticism, restaurateur lobbying,   
   >>> and widespread civil disobedience, but is being revived under the   
   >>> new megacity's bylaw consolidation process.   
   >>>   
   >>> No-smoking bylaws rest on the rationale that ETS (Environmental   
   >>> Tobacco Smoke, or “second-hand smoke”) is a threat to   
   >>> nonsmokers. A typical claim is the oft-repeated one that ETS causes   
   >>> more than 3,000 cases of lung cancer per year in the United States "   
   >>> a claim that originated with a 1992 summary report by the US   
   >>> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   
   >>>   
   >>> That report has often been challenged. Critics have charged the EPA   
   >>> with violating scientific procedure, and manipulating and   
   >>> suppressing data, to reach a prejudged conclusion. This past July   
   >>> [1998], Judge Osteen of North Carolina's Middle Court agreed, ruling   
   >>> that the EPA had acted unscientifically and therefore illegally   
   >>> under its mandate, and ordered the report nullified.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Osteen decision, and the evidence on which it was based, are   
   >>> dealt with in a new book from Vancouver's Fraser Institute, Passive   
   >>> Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy. In a clear and   
   >>> readable style the authors, biologist Gio Gori and philosopher John   
   >>> Luik, make a convincing case that the EPA report was “corrupt   
   >>> science” and dangerous for public policy.   
   >>>   
   >>> Smokers in particular will welcome the scientific discussion. The   
   >>> authors give all the details of how the EPA misrepresented research   
   >>> data, cherry-picking supportive studies and suppressing unfavourable   
   >>> ones. But they do much more. They explain why such studies are   
   >>> never, and can never, be scientific.   
   >>>   
   >>> They then review the known scientific facts about ETS to show that   
   >>> “smokers cannot be accused of posing a significant risk to   
   >>> non-smokers” . The argument that smoking endangers others   
   >>> collapses, and with it the case for governments' involvement.   
   >>>   
   >>> Non-smokers, too, will appreciate the public policy chapters. The   
   >>> authors present a chilling portrait of a government agency engaging   
   >>> in deceit to further its own political agenda, and of the threat   
   >>> that agenda poses to “the democratic values of autonomy,   
   >>> diversity, and respect”.   
   >>>   
   >>> The myth of the impartial bureaucracy, serving only the public good,   
   >>> dies hard. The facts presented in Passive Smoke are a welcome new   
   >>> nail in the coffin.   
   >>>   
   >>> [reprinted from Libertarian Bulletin, 19:3 (Spring 1999)]   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Has his stanch changed today?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Speaking of 'nail in the coffin'   
   >>> the proof is in the pudding   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> The old smoking debate.   
   >   
   > Dunce wants to blow cancer causing smoke in enclosed public areas   
   > where pregnant women, babies, immuno-compromised individuals, etc.,   
   > are forced to breathe it in?   
   >   
   > Why am I not surprised?   
      
   Make the drunks go outside. The lushes likely can use the fresh air   
   before polluting their lungs again.   
      
   > I doubt this is what Ayn Rand meant by "The Virtue of Selfishness."   
   >   
   > But why are you reposting an Off-Topic rant over a Canuckian law that   
   > was passed 26 years ago?   
   >   
   > It should never have been posted to this group in the first place.   
      
   I'm baffled as well.   
      
      
   --   
   "Post-editing someone's statement before replying to it is a sure sign   
   that you have already lost the argument." - Little Willie Douchebag gets   
   another asskicking from Pendragon   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)