Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.arts.poetry.comments    |    Feedback on eachothers poetry apparently    |    45,517 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 43,657 of 45,517    |
|    WillDockery to Cujo DeSockpuppe    |
|    Re: George Dance on Smoking    |
|    16 Dec 25 19:15:27    |
      From: noreply@pugleaf.net.invalid              On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 17:31:28 -0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppe wrote:              > mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) wrote i       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.       > >       > > 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.              Look at the start of the thread, the original post was by Jim Senetto.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca