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