Posted on 05/02/2002 10:52:12 AM PDT by Just another Joe
Smokers to butt out amid fear of lawsuits
By Freya Petersen
May 3 2002
Anti-tobacco lobbyists have warned that the closest Australia may come to Norway's pledge to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, hotels and cafes is stricter policies by proprietors fearful of litigation.
Norway announced its nationwide ban on Tuesday, saying it could be made law as early as 2004. The move is largely a response to the country's high death rate among passive smokers, 500 people a year out of a population of 4.5 million.
Norway already has one of the strictest anti-smoking laws, and its policies are likely to be copied by most European countries.
The head of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Ron Edwards, said that while most Australian state and territory governments had moved to ban smoking in enclosed public places, a recent spate of successful law suits against employers and big tobacco firms would provide more incentive for a total ban.
He said cases such as that of Marlene Sharp, a Port Kembla bar worker who was awarded $466,000 by a jury last year for injuries caused by passive smoking, showed publicans and restaurant owners there was a risk of being sued.
Norway already has one of the strictest anti-smoking laws, and its policies are likely to be copied by most European countries.
I thought it was worth posting for this nugget only.
Norway has one of the strictest anti-smoking laws but the deaths from "passive smoking" are higher than normal?
They say that wisdom comes with age but sometimes age comes alone.
In my case wisdom made the date but has stood me up so far. heh heh
This is such a crock! I have worked in cancer clinical trials and cancer data. I want these people to tell us how they came to the conclusion that these deaths were caused by "passive smoking" as opposed to other genetic, environmental, occupational hazards or random occurrences
Ok... This is just nonsense. A passive smoker is a non-smoker. Can they attribute these numbers to actual contact with a smoker? Or were these people hit by a bus when they were fleeing the guy that just lit up?
Would be nice, huh?
Maybe they do like the US antis do and figure that if you've EVER been exposed to "passive smoking" and then you die, it MUST have been a "passive smoking" death.
BWAHAHAHA
Until these Nazis give us some empirical evidence I won't believe a thing they say.
On a similar note, my bronchial tubes slam shut whenever I get around someone who has bathed in their cologne--I haven't been able to wear perfume for years. I guess I should start a movement to outlaw all colognes, perfumes and after shave lotions, eh?
We thought about that but then we realized that the politicians have to cover their stink somehow so would never let this movement out of the womb stage.
Yes there are. However, they wouldn't give the antis near as much satisfaction as demeaning a smoker.
Maybe you guys can do the math. Cancer and other disease deaths are measured in X deaths per 100,000 of the population. These numbers don't sound like squat to me. And if the other factors I mentioned previously aren't factored into the study it is absolutely meaningless.
And as for statistics you are exactly right. Even the most honest investigator can miss factors that will skew the results. And guess what, there an awful lot of investigators who only want to prove their point. But then you knew that right!!
BTW Joe, thanks for the laugh--I almost lost my Pepsi.
Thank you - this needs repeating.
Even if that were the case, it would still be a death attributed to exposure to someone else's smoke. That is about the only way I can figure they come up with some of this stuff.
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.