Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some questions and answers about: Second Hand Smoke
alt.smokers FAQ ^ | Joe Dawson

Posted on 06/12/2002 10:32:54 AM PDT by Just another Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
Just some research I was wading through.
1 posted on 06/12/2002 10:32:55 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Puff_List
Good reading.
2 posted on 06/12/2002 10:40:51 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Puff_List
Trying again
3 posted on 06/12/2002 10:59:25 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: red-dawg; Fiddlstix; RikaStrom; robomatik; ladyinred; error99; Max McGarrity; Gabz; sneakypete...
Can't get it on the Puff List, so I'm pinging the Smokers' Lounge ping list.
4 posted on 06/12/2002 11:00:34 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
It seems that the common trait among "anti-" groups is using false and distorted statistics.
5 posted on 06/12/2002 11:13:36 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
You are correct. That IS one of the favorite anti ruses.
6 posted on 06/12/2002 11:15:31 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Thanks, Joe, I'll have to read the original later.
7 posted on 06/12/2002 11:18:51 AM PDT by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Interesting Q&A. Just curious though, is the source where you were researching any less biased against the possibility of danger of SHS than the sources it criticizes. It seems the author may be using the same twisting of facts that he/she deplores in the organizations being criticized.
8 posted on 06/12/2002 11:19:29 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
I got to this source from Smoking from all sides .
9 posted on 06/12/2002 11:39:28 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
A few years back there was a study that "proved" human saliva caused cancer.

One could just as easily "prove" that breathing causes cancer.

10 posted on 06/12/2002 11:39:59 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe;Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; JohnHuang2 ; Tumbleweed_Connection; red-dawg...
Great post, Joe. Pretty good reading here!
11 posted on 06/12/2002 12:09:16 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Thanks, Joe. I read Dawson's analysis so long ago I'd forgotten how good it is. After reading it, I tracked down references that prove what he says. Damn, we've come a long way from common sense, haven't we?
12 posted on 06/12/2002 12:18:22 PM PDT by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
This is from Archie Anderson. He might be onto something here:

Howdy everyone:

this is effective......... yesterday I tried to download NY State statutes in the criminal code looking for criminal defamation statutes.(without success) The bald faced lie that smokers murder thousands of non smokers every year fits the criteria for violation of this state law that exists in every state.The law includes individuals or groups of people that are singled out by any matter for disgrace ridicule and contempt by the general public as a result of the defaming matter is usually a gross misdemeanor.

Our civil law obligates the police department and the county attorney of the jurisdiction where the defamation takes place to investigate and prosecute the slanderers.

You do not need an attorney, one just needs to file a police report of the incident, Newspaper ad Radio ad or any matter used violates the civil rights of the citizen.

If a county attorney is playmates with the antis and refuses to investigate, because this is a statutory law one may complain of denial of civil rights for equal protection under the law.

Remember that no one in the U.S has made this challenge to the criminal defamation statements made by the anti's that make the mistake of believing they are above the law.

Make our laws work for us ,file a police report the next time you feel the sting of ridicule and contempt by the lies told about second hand smoke. We have been too accommodating for too long, Demand equal justice.

13 posted on 06/12/2002 12:24:48 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Interesting Q&A. Just curious though, is the source where you were researching any less biased against the possibility of danger of SHS than the sources it criticizes. It seems the author may be using the same twisting of facts that he/she deplores in the organizations being criticized.

If you question the source, which it is always wise to do, follow the facts and find out for yourself. For every argument I put forth, I have at my fingertips the proof behind it. Unlike those who parrot the anti-smoker line.

14 posted on 06/12/2002 12:35:27 PM PDT by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
That sounds great in theory, but I would guess there is case law in every state that disallows defamation claims based upon the (presumably) false use of statistics.

Now, some of the more blatant and criminal speech, such as calling smokers "murderers", may not be protected. But, this may just lead to the stifling of more speech.

15 posted on 06/12/2002 12:35:42 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
turning them into social "lepers", and ultimately convincing even smokers themselves that they are killing their children and co-workers.

I always include in my resume':

I am a social leper.

I kill my children.

I kill my co-workers.

I'm still unemployed.

PUFF!

FMCDH

16 posted on 06/12/2002 12:38:31 PM PDT by nothingnew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Well, Archie is pretty smart on these issues. I posted it as food for thought.
17 posted on 06/12/2002 12:45:58 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
But, this may just lead to the stifling of more speech.

But isn't that the purpose of defamation laws? If you cause someone harm by defamatory speech, you must desist and/or pay a consequence?

It just occurred to me, though, that there might be great difficulty in proving harm; I'm not sure how it would be quantified.

18 posted on 06/12/2002 2:14:04 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
That sounds great in theory, but I would guess there is case law in every state that disallows defamation claims based upon the (presumably) false use of statistics.

In Maine there is this statute which sounds interesting:

Chapter 19: FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS §451 - §457

§456. Tampering with public records or information

1. A person is guilty of tampering with public records or information if he:
A. Knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the government, or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

B. Presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in subsection 1, paragraph A; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

C. Intentionally destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or thing, knowing that he lacks authority to do so. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).] [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

2. Tampering with public records or information is a Class D crime. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

Sounds like section B could be used against every lying Health Department in the state.

19 posted on 06/12/2002 2:35:18 PM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

is it just me...or did cigs in california suddenly jump about 20 cents everywhere? are they easing us into some new tax I didn't hear about???
20 posted on 06/12/2002 3:44:00 PM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson