Law: Dekalb, IL Toughens Smoking Laws *update*
In Dekalb, IL the City Council will make it more difficult for a person to light up. This week they took the first step to banning smoking on public patios. The members of the city council are looking to change where tobacco store owners could set up in the city.
Bar owner, Cali Walker believes people will stay home to drink rather than come to her bar when they won’t be able to sit outside and enjoy a smoke with their cocktail.
The City Attorney, Dean Friends states that the ban is because of the known dangers of second-hand smoke, which has been disproved in a recent report.
The council is also looking to prevent shops from opening up, by requiring them to be at least 1,000 feet away from any school or university, they would not be able to have a liquor license and would be required to be in a freestanding building. The country does however plan to have a grandfather clause in effect provided that current ownership does not change hands.
Update: The City Council passed this measure 5-3 on August 25th.
The only way its going to change is to get the democrats/progressive greens gone from government along with the Rinos.
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!
It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):
https://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/
(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.
[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
harleyrider1777 Thanks for the great response and an interesting insight!