Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Smoking . . . (Slow Motion Suicide) Message-ID: <5355@unc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Jun-83 22:24:30 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5355 Posted: Fri Jun 10 22:24:30 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jun-83 02:20:47 EDT Lines: 18 Actually, I'm not prepared to argue this point in detail, having neither the information nor the medical expertise to evaluate the studies that have been done in this area. But I suspect the same is true of you. You can't dismiss the research in this area with- out giving some indication of what is wrong with it. I'm sorry, Ken, but the burden of proof always rest on the claimant, regardless of the issue. Here, the claimants are the people who are saying that their inconvenience is sufficiently strong to deny other people their freedoms. The accused, the smokers, must in fairness be considered innocent of any such wrongdoing until a sufficiently large body of evidence appears. How else can we insure fairness? Are you arguing with Vickie Click that perhaps "innocent until proven guilty" is not such a good idea after all? Tim Maroney