Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

The Washington Post ^ | John Schwartz

[SheLion]

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

[SheLion]

This really needs to be seen.

[Wolfie]

The WHO suppresses report data all the time. Too bad we can't take them to court over all of it.

[RandallFlagg]

Yeah, but we can expose them to the point when people place their "Findings" right up there with the "Bat Boy" and "Elvis Sighted" newsflashes.

[Drango]

You left out the date of the article: Sunday, July 19, 1998

It's hard to tell we should care less about, The Federal Court or the EPA.

[robertpaulsen]

What's going on here? The article is 4 years old! (Hint: Christie Whitman is EPA head). Interesting reading, however.

[SheLion]

It's funny how the anti's continue to rave about the EPA's "1993" report, and how quickly the Federal Court's Ruling is swept unde the rug from 1998. I would go with the newer version, myself.

Federal Court is Federal Court.

It took the Federal Court 5 years to go over the EPA's study before they reached their decision.

[SheLion]

It's a lot newer then the EPA's account from 1993 wouldn't you agree. And no one has overturned the Fed Court on this.

[SheLion]

Read more about the second hand smoke fraud here

[lewislynn]

NEWS FLASH!

Second hand smoke is:
Offensive
Disgusting
Intrusive
Repulsive.

And if you don't want it banned, stop thinking it's your right to blow it in other peoples faces just because some court says it's not harmful.

[SheLion]

And if you don't want it banned, stop thinking it's your right to blow it in other peoples faces just because some court says it's not harmful.<

We do not blow it into other people's faces. I don't know who YOU hang out with, but that is not in the nature of most smokers.

Your a Situation Conservative, I see.

[kylaka]

I find liberalism repulsive and repugnant. Can I have it banned as well?

[Max McGarrity]

Anti-smoker tyranny is:
Offensive
Disgusting
Intrusive
Repulsive
Far more dangerous to our lives and our way of life than Big Tobacco has ever been.

And if you don't want it banned, stop thinking it's your right to blow it in other peoples faces just because some court says it's not harmful.

Small minds, mean spirits and delusional paranoia...and these people want to tell US what's best for US?

[lewislynn]

I'm not an anti-smoker, I couldn't care less what you ingest...You can cough and gag yourselves to death, wallow in the stench or even shoot it up as far as I care.

So, other than selfish inconsiderate nitwits, who would expect others would enjoy the same fate from their smoke?

[I'm_With_Orwell]

I'm not an anti-smoker...

ROTFLMAO!!! Not an anti-smoker??? Who are you trying to kid?!

[Miss Marple]

Hey, lewislynn...step closer to your computer...

PUFF!

[Max McGarrity]

LOL, Miss Marple, couldn't have said it better myself!