F A R T S
Fighting About Right To Smoke
Attention: smokers, non-smokers, pro-tobacco, anti-tobacco, those who have never smoked and never will, teenagers, adults, children, males, females and anyone I may have inadvertenly omitted.
This "war" is not so much about tobacco use as it is about the government deciding what is good and bad for us and taking "appropriate action". What is next? I've read that eating and overweight is the second largest killer of people. So, is food the next target? The so called experts* say that exercise is important to good health. Are they going to make it illigal not to exercise? People are killed in car accidents; will automobiles be the next target on the "hit" list? Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Why haven't they outlawed alcohol or sued the distilleries for billions of dollars? Could it be that the distilleries are "paying their dues" to our representitives in DC? Could it be that the people in DC don't want to pay more for their booze; they don't want to go after the distilleries?
Remember in the fifties when Sen. Joe McCarthy spent billions and billions of our tax money looking for communists? Remember the Cold War? (See article: THE IMPACT OF MCCARTHYISM) Again, the U.S. spent billions and billions of our tax money to keep the Free World free? The idea behind both of those ideas was we didn't want the government telling us what to do, what to think, what to say, etc. We wanted the freedom to make our own choices, right or wrong, it would be our choice. How many governments has the U.S. "shut down" and replaced the leader with one of our choosing? Is it time for Castro to replace our leader(s)?
Please, do not misundersand what I'm trying to say. I am not advocating the vilont overthrow of the U.S. government! What I am trying to say is that it is time for you to stand up for your freedom! Tell them, our elected (and they can be "unelected") representatives in D.C. that we want to be informed, not forced to do what they think is good for us. I know what is good for me, you know what is good for you. You and you alone should be responsible for what you do and don't do!
Go to .FORCES (link below) and read what Federal Judge Osteen had to say about ETS (second hand smoke). Once you get to FORCES, click on "The EPA ETS fraud" and then click on "The text of ... of the EPA". Below is a quick synopsis.
Logically, I should have died about 80 years ago (I'm between 50 and 60). The combination of smoking and my own second hand smoke should have been very, very deadly, if you believe the EPA. And, I would like to know, why my dog lived to be 17 years old and my 2 cats didn't/don't have any problems if ETS is as deadly as the EPA proclaims.
What I would like from you is the name of public places that don't/won't accommodate us "second class" citizens. I will keep this list updated and send to anyone who requests it. Check following pages for places to avoid by clicking on link below.
Thank you
*EXPERT: in mathamatics, X is an unknown quantity. A spurt is a drip of water. Therefore, an expert is an unknown drip.
Judge Osteen
The United States Federal Court Decision
Judge Osteen
July 17, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, THE COUNCIL FOR BURLEY TOBACCO INC., UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY INCORPORATED, PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, and GALLINS VENDING COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
V.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and CAROL BROWNER, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Defendants.
6:93CV00370
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
OSTEEN, District Judge
For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion entered contemporaneously herewith,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted [1171.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is denied [1261. The court vacates Chapters 1-6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992). To ripen its judgment for purposes of appellate review, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the court finds there is no just reason for delaying entry of judgment.
This page has been visited times.
Sign
My Guestbook 
View
My Guestbook
|
drschunke@juno.com
Tucson
USA
 |