Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: a reply to Paul Borman Message-ID: <876@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Aug-83 02:36:48 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsstat.876 Posted: Mon Aug 15 02:36:48 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Aug-83 03:05:44 EDT Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 116 A reply to Paul Borman. Please, Paul, do not think that I hate you over this. I have been answering hate mail all day, and my sarcasm may not be under control. laura, I don't think you have brought about a reasonable compaireson. First, smokers are not the majority, unless the downward trend of smoking has reversed itself. In 1980 I believe that only 49% of the adult population smoked, and I am sure this number is getting smaller (I can only hope). 1. 51% didnt smoke! 51%! gee, what a wonderful clear majority you have there. I bet your survey said nothing about being good for +/- X% either! What a wonderful survey. I have yet to see any statistical survey that was *that* good. How did they get their results? Were they sure to ask those who did not have a permanent place of residence at the time they were doing their survey? What about those on vacation? What about those who were camping up north? When you only need 1% such numbers are significant. 2. Assume your figures are perfect. (I dont believe this, but it doesnt matter). In Canada the rate at which women are taking up smoking is reported to be greater than the rate at which men are quitting. I heard this on the radio a few days ago; I do not have a reference; but this survey is at least as good as Paul's (so far unquoted) survey for the purpose of this discussion. your hope is not good enough, Paul. I would like everyone to quit smoking tomorrow, as well, but I am not legislating on the basis of my hopes. And I am definitely not SURE of something just because I would like it to be true. 3. You have introduced a terrific falacy here. You assume that all smokers will be opposed to your laws and all non smokers will be in favour of them. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Tim Maroney and I have made it perfectly clear that we do not smoke and we are opposed to your legislation. If you are building on that 49% figure you had better count us pretty carefully, for we too can add up to a percentage point. Moreover, you have excluded the group of people who simply do not give a damn about the whole question. You have looked at whether they smoke or not, and have counted their votes on the basis of your arbitrary decision that all smokers will vote this way and all non-smokers will vote that way. this is not fair. the people who would rather abstain from the whole matter should get their chance to do just that as well, and you have not let them. Second, we are not discriminating against them as in the Blacks and German Shepards (which undoubtably wrong), we are saying that they are violating our rights to FRESH CLEAN AIR. Blacks have always been Black, man has not always smoked. We have banned certain popular things because they where indeed harmfull. Take Cocaine, the substance Coca-Cola got its name from. Cocaine is what gave Coke it's kick from originally. I would be in support of an all out ban on tobacco, but that is unreasonable in the eyes of the majority, and I respect that, but a ban of public smoking is no different than a ban on public urinating (surely we would not totally ban urinating.) I could introduce you to a group of people who think that banning cocaine is wrong as well, you know. you still have not proven to me that smoking is harmful to non-smokers. Or do you want to ban it because it is harmful to smokers? better be clear, here, because they are two different arguments. Pehaps you think that your 'right to air' is more important than their 'right to smoke'. Why? I see nothing but your personal opinion, which is no better to me than somebody else' personal opinion that he should smoke wherever he damn well pleases. By the way, you can catch nasty diseases from people's urine. I agree that no absolute 100% proof positive evidence linking passive smoking with cancer, emphasema (how ever you spell it), and other nifty things that smokers have a surplus of, all though there is a corralation. Why does everyone think that I want 100% proof positive? i would like that, sure, but i am willing to settle for 90%. I might even be willing to settle for 80%. Again you are being unclear, as you introduce the diseases that smokers have into your sentence about passive smoking. This is generally known as a non sequitur. But, there is 100% proof positive that passive smoking irritates eyes, noses, and the lungs of those being subjected to smoke. The eyes i know about. i do not know about the lungs, but i will take your word for it. Seems to me that the eyes are only irritated under certain concentrations of smoke in the air. perhaps you need better ventilation. You can buy fans that are battery powered at a joke store for 8$ Canadian around here. I am not one to support excessive legislation, but I am not against needed legislation. I would be perfectly happy not to have a law on the books banning public smoking IF people would be curteous enough not to do it on there own. They wont, hence I support the ban. You have yet to prove to me why there is a need for legislation. You also assume that if people are not 'being courteous' then you need to ban them from smoking. perhaps you would be better off trying to get better ventillation in buildings, for instance. Perhaps you should investigate non-legislative means to get things you want done done. I know that all the money being spent on 'ban smoking' campaigns could build a lot of movie theaters and restaurants, for instance. Some people have asked me why i want a legal system that is not based on "thou shalt not"s. This is a good example why. If people did not have the option of making things that they find objectionable automatically *wrong* via legislation, they would have to work out their differences in other ways. Too many people use the legal system as a way to express their hatred for other people. i find this frightening. Note: i am not saying that Paul is guilty of this here, but I am commenting on what I consider a 'leap for the law' before other possibilities have been adequately considered. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura