Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site stolaf.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!bormanp From: bormanp@stolaf.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Smoking . . . (Slow Motion Suicide) Message-ID: <1028@stolaf.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-Jun-83 11:47:17 EDT Article-I.D.: stolaf.1028 Posted: Sat Jun 11 11:47:17 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 17:13:59 EDT References: <365@spanky.UUCP> Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN Lines: 58 So now, to defend yourself, you claim they [anti-smokers, health organizations, the kid down the block] have not shown proof positive that I, a non-smoker, am harmed by the guy standing next to me who is a chain smoker. Several years ago I looked up extensive evidence both pro and con this issue. I found massive quatities of 'proof' for both sides. It is amazing what the tabacco industries studies show, NO HARM. Then I look at a anti-smoking article and find ABSOLUTE HARM. The more acceptible studies (people who did not employed by either of the above groups) came out around 50/50, may leaning against smoking. Okay, there is only a 50% chance I am being harmed. I would think that is rather significant. 50% chance! There are sillier things in the law books, why not banning public smoking, or something like that? Or at least smoking in enclosed areas. What, you still don't buy it. Oh, I see, there is only a 50% possiblity of being possibly harmed, lowers my number way down so it is no longer significant. I don't buy that, but anyhow, I am prepared to give you that arguement. 'Cause there is PROVEN harm, the type of harm we make laws on, in smoking in public. What is this harm? I am proof, and so are many others out there, that smoking can be very irritating to those of us who do not smoke. Eyes water, noses icth/run, lungs become upset, we cough, etc. . . You CAN NOT say that it doesn't. (If it didn't, why would we fuss so about it?) As for laws which are similar to this. . . At least in every place I have lived there has been a law about disturbing the peace. This includes having stereos loud, running up and down streets while screaming (at 2:00am), harmless things like that. The harm in this case is public annoyance, just as is smoking. If we wish to further assosiate current laws with smoking, how about the title of this article "Smoking . . . (Slow Motion Suicide)". Yes, I originally worded it that way for a reason. More people die prematurley in the US each year due to smoking, than US soldiers killed Viet Nam. Yes, I wish I still remebered the source (but it has been a while). These people choose to smoke, these people are killing themselves, hence, these poeple are committing suicide. Suicide is illegal, hence they are breaking the law. Now, BEFORE you flame back. . . NO, the suicide example is not the one I want to follow though with, the Public Harm one is. Why did I present the suicide arguement? Because there is precident for having such a law, and also to show just how many people ( > 315,000 ) are killing themselves due to it. -Paul R Borman St. Olaf College ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!paul