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