🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34D25F4F.53FE@usa.net>, Terese <tereseb@usa.net> wrote:
>Sam McClintock wrote:
>> 
>:> charliew@hal-pc.org wrote:
>:> 
>:> > Let's see.  3,000 deaths/year. 250 million U.S. citizens.  25% of
>the adult
>:> > population smokes.
>:> >
>:> > Assume 60 million smokers.  Also assume 60 million non-smokers are
>exposed
>:> > to this "threat" per year.  3000 deaths/year equates to 1/20,000
>chance of
>:> > dieing from this cause per year.  Yea, that's a REAL threat.
>
>And there's *proof* that these people died from second-hand smoke?  And
>without smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke, they wouldn't have
>died?
> 
>:> It is a real threat if you have no chance of avoiding that smoke (can
>you
>:> saychildren) and all other factors are minimalistic.  In other words,
>if you
>:> are the
>:> person being directly impacted with second hand smoke your odds of
>:> encountering a problem are greatly increased.  In the event you just
>wish to
>:> consider randomized exposure, it is still a problem in terms of
>health of
>:> those who do not do well under those circumstances (asthma, etc.) and
>:> those who in the past could not escape the problem in the workplace
>:> which were considerable (a problem since corrected).
>:> 
>:> More importantly, the example is a clear case in which the source
>being
>:> very biased towards any science which remotely jeopardizes
>conservative
>:> interests.
>
>--------
>
>Can you tell us the criteria for determining if someone has died from
>second-hand smoke?
>
>What if a person has a family history of heart disease, and this person
>is married to a smoker, but doesn't smoke.  If this person dies from
>heart disease at age 75, was this person's death labeled as smoking
>related?  I believe this is the case.  These statistics are so deceptive
>that they have turned societies into paranoid freaks who gasp if they
>pass someone in the street smoking.  The irony is that the exhaust put
>out by vehicles driving by are much more dangerous.  Sometimes the
>things you can't see and smell are more toxic.
>
>If smoke is offensive to non-smokers, why can't they be satisfied that
>they are not subjected to smoke in the workplace and that there are
>non-smoking areas where they can dine, etc.?  
>
>But stop the insane hysteria of second-hand smoke.
>
>-------

My bet is that you have just seen "the start of something big".  Our 
bureaucracies run amok have an insatiable impulse to justify their own 
existence, even if this requires ridiculous claims and action.  Until the 
majority of the U.S. public decides that they will not tolerate more 
bureaucracy and regulation, we will continue to see ever more stringent 
rules and regulations.

In my opinion, a bit more emissions (and risk, uncertainty, etc.) for a lot 
more freedom is more than an even trade.  What I *don't* understand is 
people who want to give up most or all of their freedoms for the *promise* 
of a slightly cleaner environment.