From: jclarke.usenet@cox.net   
      
   Bill Swears wrote:   
   > J. Clarke wrote:   
   >>   
   >> OK, what is the public health benefit?  I want to see _numbers_ and   
   >> I   
   >> want to indpendent, peer reviewed replication of the research on   
   >> which those numbers are based.   
   >   
   > Then open up Google and look.  It isn't at all hard to find viable,   
   > peer reviewed evidence of a correlation between second hand smoke   
   > and   
   >   cancer.   
      
      
   If it isn't hard then why not present some instead of saying "open up   
   Google and look"?  I don't find anything on Google to support the   
   contention that secondhand smoke in the workplace or in restaurants is   
   a public health problem.  According to the tiny bit of real research   
   that one finds, the only people who see to be at risk are spouses of   
   smokers.  Not "other family members", just spouses.   
      
   > But I don't care.  I don't want to smell either your body   
   > odor, or   
   > your cigarette while I eat my meal.  I'm not legally constrained to   
   > mask my body odor, but I do so, and most likely, so do you.  I wish   
   > that the millions of you who have willingly killed your sense of   
   > smell with burning tobacco would recognize that I don't want mine   
   > interfered with, and voluntarily stop trashing my social environment   
   > with toxic fumes, but you don't, so somebody wrote a law.   
   >   
   > Too bad.   
      
   The bottom line on this is that you admit that the real reason for US   
   smoking laws is that some squeaky wheels find smoking offensive.  In   
   other words you support it because you're a Puritanical asshole.   
      
   --   
   --   
   --John   
   to email, dial "usenet" and validate   
   (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)