From: user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted:   
      
   > 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.   
   > >   
   > > MMP: One reason for reposting it, is that no one has any idea what you're   
   referring to.  In order to respond to your statement, I'm going to have to   
   open a second copy of JLA Forums in a new tab, then scroll up to the original,   
   unedited post in order    
   to figure it out.   
   > >   
   > > Not happening.   
   >   
   > >> Are you trying to pretend that Dance isn't a sh*thead?   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Neither of whom has a "malicious cyberbully agenda,"   
      
   You're obviously mistaken, as anyone who reads this newsgroup knows whether   
   they admit it or not.   
      
   HTH and HAND.   
      
   --   
   Poetry and songs of Will Dockery:   
   https://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)