Try this one out for size - http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,518504,00.html - OK let's see Marijuana is illegal, cigs are legal? Or is is the other way around. Hope the link works. . .

But, of course, they are cracking down on cigarette smugglers trying to avoid the high UK tax.

Doesn't surprise me that ASH is courting the pot crowd as allies against tobacco (hey, we'll help you legalize pot if you help us bash tobacco and smokers).

So ASH's lawsuit against OSHA trying to force a nationwide Kookiefornia-style inclusive ban on smoking is going ahead. Does anyone have OSHA's answer to Banzhaf's complaint?

"Does anyone have OSHA's answer to Banzhaf's complaint?"

No, but I suspect they are fed up with him.

To find out, you can call OSHA at 202-693-1999. The last time I called I talked to someone by the name of Debra Jane, but I don't know if she's still there. It's worth a try, and if anyone finds out, let us know.

Spinner, in answer to your question does anyone have OSHA's answer to Banzhaf's complaint, the answer is yes.

I now have a copy of OSHA's reponse, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on August 10, 2001, and you can bet Banzhaf is not happy.

This is the seventh time Banzhaf has petitioned the court to force OSHA to ban smoking in workplaces. You'd think after all of his defeats he'd know when to quit.

I'm pressed for time right now so I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say that OSHA makes mince meat of ASH.

So much so that the U.S. Secretary of Labor is considering dumping the whole thing and I quote directly from OSHA's legal document: ". . . the Secretary is considering whether such an undertaking [a whole new risk assessment based on current data] is an appropriate use of OSHA resources and consistent with Agency priorities, or whether she should exercise her discretion to terminate the proceeding without issuing a final standard." (p. 10)

"...it is now clear OSHA cannot proceed simply to promulgate a final rule on ETS. Evidence indicates that the assumptions underlying OSHA's original risk and exposure estimates are not valid at this time. . . " (p. 9)

Not exactly music to the ears of ASH.

Regarding the above post, I'm told by one of the clerks of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, that we can keep track of the OSHA/ASH lawsuit by going to the U.S. Court of Appeals' website - http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ - and registering with PACER.

I haven't checked it out but there's a fee involved. The person I talked to was very nice and said that we can keep updated by calling 202-216-7300. The case number is 01-1199, "The Secretary of Labor's Response to ASH's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus," filed on August 10, 2001.

[This message has been edited by Martha Perske (edited 11-14-2001).]

One would think that Mr. BANzhaf would use his legal expertise to file lawsuits against Al Queda or Hezbollah or Al Fatah or some other organization which actually poses a threat to humanity.

Does anyone have a copy of the Secretary of Labor's response to ASH's petition for a writ of mandamus that Martha described? Someone sent me a barely legible scanned in copy. It's got some great comments in there that can stop anti's pushing for bans dead in their tracks. Everytime they say it's for the workers, then just say that OSHA doesn't see this as being such an urgent priority because of paragraph x of this document.

It should be part of everyone's tool bag to counter anti-smoker's arguments.

Also just call the anti-smoker at large an instigator of a lynch mob.

Anti-smokers fingered ETS as purpetrator of this great crime against humanity. They couldn't prove their case through OSHA since they had no hard scientific documentation and only prosecuted their case based on the eyewitness testimony of professional testifiers of the caliber of Glantz and Repace. The courts let ETS walk free, so anti-smokers today form lynch mobs calling for public referendum.

It's the best argument I can find so far.

I agree that OSHA is a chink in the armor of the banners and that this should be exploited to the max. Most people cannot understand the science, but they can understand this.