Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!cbostrum
From: cbostrum@watdaisy.UUCP (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Smoking and the Burden of Proof
Message-ID: <207@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jun-83 16:49:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.207
Posted: Wed Jun 15 16:49:04 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 07:21:36 EDT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 38

Tim seems to have "<<the burden is on the claimant>> on the brain" from his
net.religion submissions, where this phrase figures heavily.
The trouble with this phrase is that it is a very simplistic rendering
of a more complex idea, and as a result, it can often be taken in an
incorrect fashion. Tim's attempted use of it to justify the toleration
of smoking in public places is an example of this.

His use would uniformly apply to all possible enterprises that could
possibly damage the public property (air, water, land, etc) with their
by-products. We would have to prove chemical dumping, nuclear reactors,
factory and car exhausts, etc. dangerous before we could insist that 
something be done about the mess they are causing. Now this seems entirely
backwards. Surely it would be more sensible that we determine that they
are safe *before* we begin to use them, insofar as this is possible.

So, yes, Tim, I would agree with Vickie here (altho I am not sure any
of her edicts have been serious) that "guilty until proven innocent"
is a better idea. (Actually, she didnt say that, I believe thats a bit of
a slur). Let me put it this way: would you ingest some unknown substance
unless you had some proof that it was not harmful? Would you dive into
a lake without proof that there were no dangerous rocks there to meet you?
If so, I label you foolish. These situations are not innocent until proven 
so.

There are two other points about Tims argument I would like to make.
First, the putative danger of secondhand smoke is not the only reason
to outlaw it in public places. There are plenty of things whose dangerous
nature are far more suspect that are not allowed. Various types of nudity,
for example. Issues of public preference, as well, should be considered.
But, second, this is largely beside the point. I disagree, as do all 
health experts that I have ever heard voice an opinion, with Tim regarding
the dangers of secondhand smoke.
From what I have read, and even from common sense, it seems very clear that
it is quite a serious health threat; one that should definitely not have
to be tolerated.

		Calvin Ostrum, Dept Computer Science, University of Waterloo
		...{decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watdaisy!cbostrum