Once again, the blind wish to hide behind some phony data. If you cannot abide hearing the truth from the sources cited - plus today's editorial in the StarTribune and last week's in the Pioneer Press, both of which have published all the necessary statistics plus the argument that the case is too compelling for responsible policymakers to ignore.
For people like Mr. Stinnett, Mr. Atherton, Mr. Lyngstad and Mr. Yorga, there is obviously no valid data other than whatever they've dug up somewhere that claims to refute all the known evidence. The only thing that makes smoking legal is the absence of a law regulating it. Try looking at things historically and the regulations that were invoked to bring an out-of-control health or safety issue to heel. Thousands of laws and regulations have been enacted for that purpose; smoking is just the next in line. In such a case, the burden of proof is on the defenders to prove that the studies substantiating absolutely no doubt about the harmful effects of smoke or the strong evidence that smoking bans actually enhance the bottom lines of almost all of the businesses in question is bogus. Now, I ask you again: prove your contention that the evidence does not exist showing the harmful effects of smoking on nonsmokers. I say you cannot without utter ignoring the massive volumes of data showing otherwise. To stubbornly refuse to accept that data merely isolates you from mainstream America, and from 98% of workers and 90% of patrons, surveys of whom are thoroughly documented as believing a smoking ban is the only safe alternative for public places and work places of every strip. Read the editorials and get educated. It's all over but the weeping and gnashing of your grinders. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 6/20/04 7:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/20/2004 8:59:23 AM Central Daylight Time, Andy Driscoll > writes: >>> Of course, every agency and research institution in the world affirms not > only > the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke, but new evidence shows that > short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of smoke is highly toxic to > human health. You may start with the National Institutes of Health, the > University of Minnesota and the World Health Organizations of the UN, then > add the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and the American Lung > Association plus every pulmonary and oncology organization in the world. > > If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid > research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it.<< > > Actually Andy, that's not the way the process works. You are the one who > wants to ban an otherwise legal activity; thus it's up to you to provide the > evidence which supports your proposal. > > > There's one little problem: you won't be able to. > > All of the organizations you mentioned base their arguements on the 1998 WHO > report and the 1993 EPA report. In the case of the former, the report admits > it finds at very best a weak and statistically insignificant link. With the > EPA report, a federal judge found that the agency had ignored contrary data > to > produce a report which agreed with the agency's political motivations. In > other words, they cheated. > > So, if you have good information, produce it. Otherwise, you're free to rant > any way you like. But don't act as if the weight of scientific evidence is > behind you, because it isn't. > > M. G. Stinnett > Jordan > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
