From: noreply@pugleaf.net.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:32:33 -0500, mpsilvertoneyah wrote:   
      
   >  Will Dockery wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 17:55:26 -0500, mpsilvertoneyah wrote:   
   > >> Will Dockery wrote:   
   > >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:   
      
   CC: Harry Lime, Jim Senetto ^^^   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   Again, Jim Senetto posted it.   
      
   > >> I'm baffled as well.   
   > >>   
   > >> Look at the start of the thread, the original post was by Jim Senetto.   
   > >>   
   > >> I have looked   
      
   So you can see Jim Senetto made the original post.   
      
   > Here is what i wrote:   
      
   Again, it's posted and available for all to read.   
      
   > In that case, I retract my above statement. It needs to be posted here.[END   
   QUOTE]   
      
   It's posted, as you know, but I don't feel the need to repost it.   
      
   > Are you trying to pretend that Dance isn't a shithead?   
      
   George J. Dance has always treated me fine.   
      
   > Don't you think that if a member of this group says or does shitty things,   
   that the other members of the group should be made aware of it?   
      
   Such as the malicious cyberbully agendas of posters such as NancyGene and   
   CujoDeSockpuppet?   
      
   Probably.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)