|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 18 2004,4:16 pm |
|
   |
Page 4 Albert Lea Tribune Dr Burns states " Pro Smoking Activist again raise the tired argument ........property owner rights. He states rights have limits and responsibilites.
Dr Burns You have never set foot in Eddie's Bar nor you ever will, unless you manage to get your way, and that will be only to see if the bar is breaking the ordinance.
I say you want a smoke free bar build one and capitalize. Insted of your communist approach.
As far as I am concerned, the only possible legitimate reason for the government to enact such a ban would be public health. The other reasons are just whining that your world isn't perfect. Unfortunately, anyone who reads with a critical eye the studies on the negative effects of secondhand smoke is forced to conclude the risks are vastly overstated. The statistic Jennifer Maerz cites (50,000 deaths/year to secondhand smoke) was based on pure statistical correlation. In other words: "We believe there is a link between Diseases X, Y, and Z and smoking. Fifty thousand people who did not themselves smoke but met or exceeded a certain baseline level of exposure to secondhand smoke died of Diseases X, Y, or Z. Therefore, smoking caused those deaths." The study made no effort to correct for or even observe other factors that may have been more significant, such as genetic predisposition or other environmental exposures.
Assertions that exposure to secondhand smoke increases by 25 percent the risk of lung cancer are similarly flawed. A study showed that the occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers without exposure to secondhand smoke was 10 in 1,000,000, while the occurrence in nonsmokers with exposure was 12.5 in 1,000,000. In other words, for every 10,000,000 nonsmokers exposed, 125 will develop lung cancer. That's called statistically insignificant, and fails to show a correlation, let alone causation. So let each establishment make up its own mind, and if you don't like its rules, go elsewhere.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 18 2004,5:08 pm |
|
 |
609 posts GEO and about 400 of them are related to your stupid crusade to keep indoor air harmful and dangerous to the general public, what a waste of bytes.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 18 2004,5:39 pm |
|
|
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.
“Almost all human beings have an infinite capacity for taking things for granted.” — Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
“The Constitution exists precisely so that opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature, can be formed, tested, and expressed. What the Constitution says is that these judgments are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority. Technology expands the capacity to choose; and it denies the potential of this revolution if we assume the Government is best positioned to make these choices for us.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, United States et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
“It has long been recognized that the First Amendment needs breathing space and that statutes attempting to restrict or burden the exercise of First Amendment rights must be narrowly drawn and represent a considered legislative judgment that a particular mode of expression [413 U.S. 601, 612] has to give way to other compelling needs of society. Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 258 (1937); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S., at 116–117. As a corollary, the Court has altered its traditional rules of standing to permit — in the First Amendment area — ‘attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.’ Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S., at 486. Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own right of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.”—Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Article 14 of the Bill of Rights)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Navin
Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 18 2004,5:52 pm |
|
|
Someone named Ross sent that first post to thestranger.com you should at least credit the original author of the letter.
http://www.thestranger.com/2003-03-13/letters.html
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
LisaMarie
Group: Members
Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2004,11:04 am |
|
|
Burnsey is VERY against smoking. If you ever see him as a patient and you mention you smoke you'll get a big long lecture from him.
--------------
Bush & Son - Sending America to war since 1990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
