|acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg)||arsenic (500+ ng)||benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)|
|cadmium (1,300+ ng)||crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg)||chromium (1,000+ ng)|
|ethylcarbamate 310+ ng)||formaldehyde (1.6+ µg)||hydrazine (14+ ng)|
|lead (8+ µg)||nickel (2,000+ ng)||radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)|
|acetaldehyde||3,200 ppm||200.0 ppm|
|acrolein||150 ppm||0.5 ppm|
|ammonia||300 ppm||150.0 ppm|
|carbon monoxide||42,000 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|formaldehyde||30 ppm||5.0 ppm|
|hydrogen cyanide||1,600 ppm||10.0 ppm|
|hydrogen sulfide||40 ppm||20.0 ppm|
|methyl chloride||1,200 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|nitrogen dioxide||250 ppm||5.0 ppm|
"The danger cigarettes . . . pose to health is, among others, a danger to life itself . . . a danger inherent in the normal use of the product, not one merely associated with its abuse or dependent on intervening fortuitous events. It threatens a substantial body of the population, not merely a peculiarly susceptible fringe group."
|Data exists "on the meaning of . . . smoking in connection with the incidence of accidents. The incidence of injuries rises as distinctly in the group of smokers as does the incidence of diseases of the repiratory pathways."
"The results show a prevalence of smokers in the group of injured workers."
Notice various reasons that "smoking causes injuries due to the loss of attention and to the occupation of hands or to the irritation of eyes, to the cough, etc., or . . . because the prohibition of smoking during some work operations is not strictly obeyed."—V. Engler, et al., "Work Injuries and Smoking," 35 Industrial Med and Surgery (#10) 880-881 (Oct 1966).
“Smoking . . . contributes to the cause of vehicular accidents,” says U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) Report No. 86-13, “Smoking and Soldier Performance,” by Frederick N. Dyer, Ph.D. (Fort Rucker, AL) (June 1986), p 7. [Click here for more from that Report.]
In the 1980 Transactions of the Society of Actuaries, Table 9, p. 200, shows the smoker death rate in “Motor vehicle accidents” as 2.6 times higher than the nonsmoker rate.
The high smoker rate of deviant behavior, combined with the brain damage caused by smoking, makes such facts foreseeable. For example, see the article, “Human Factors in Highway Safety,” by Ross A. McFarland, Ph.D., and Roland C. Moore, Ph.D., in The New Engl. J. of Med., Vol. 256(17), pp. 792-799, 25 April 1957. At 795, “although superior intelligence per se is no guarantee of safe driving, a certain minimum mental ability is required by the nature and complexity of the driving situation. As brought out in one ‘job analysis' of driving, to avoid accidents, drivers must react within such brief intervals that factors of foresight, planning and the appreciation of hazards are of special importance. Moreover, more continuous attention is required of the motor-vehicle driver from moment to moment than of the operator of any other type of transportation equipment.” At 794, data is presented that is clearly insightful concerning smokers, “‘a man drives as he lives’ ––that is, if he makes mistakes in adjustment to the personal and social demands of living, he will make repeated errors in his driving.”
Such data provides insight on smoking and driving. Brain damage produces symptoms such as an impaired orientation for time, “for place,” “impairment of learning, comprehension, and judgment . . . with inability to think on higher conceptual levels and to plan,” and “Impairment ot inner reality and ethical controls,” noted by James C. Coleman, Ph.D., in Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (Scott, Foresman & Co., 5th ed., 1976), p. 461. The DSM-III cites symptoms that appear early (after only “at least several weeks”) in smokers, for example, “irritability,” “difficulty concentrating,” “restlessness,” and “drowsiness,” among others.
Thus there is “the well-established association between smoking and drinking and between drinking and automobile accidents,” says Dr. Joseph Stokes III, in The New Engl. J. of Med., Vol. 308(7), p. 393, 17 Feb 1983.
Note the scientific medical data measuring the increase in driving fatalities caused by smoking. TheWaller study, for example, found that smokers with less than 0.02% BAC experienced 3.16 times more fatal auto wrecks than nonsmokers with the same blood alcohol content. Perhaps even more startling was the finding that nonsmokers with 0.02-0.09% BAC had only 1.79 times more fatal wrecks than nonsmokers with less than 0.02% BAC. What that means is that smokers with little or no alcohol in the blood are nearly twice as likely to cause highway fatalities as nonsmokers with a moderate amount of alcohol in the blood. Reference Julian A. Waller, MD, "On Smoking and Drinking and Crashing," 86 N Y St J of Med (Issue # 9), September 1986.
Smoker Shannon Marie Bugge was killed by a train when "she decided to run across the tracks and buy cigarettes [and] was hit after she purchased the cigarettes and was returning," says "Woman killed in Detroit Lakes train accident identified" (7 April 2010).
Such an adverse impact is a foreseeable "natural and probable consequence" of smoking factors including but not limited to
Smokers' Higher Sickness Rate
|Such data has long been known, for example, "in 1671 . . . the Italian biologist, Francesco Redi, published an account of the lethal effects."—Susan Wagner, Cigarette Country: Tobacco in American History and Politics (New York: Praeger, 1971), p 64.
"Wilson found that cigarette smokers reported about 45% more days lost from work per person per year due to illness of all kinds that did persons who had never smoked," pp 443-444. "Schmidt noted that the number of days of illness with restriction to bed was 44% higher for smokers than nonsmokers in the Federal Armed Forces," p 443. "Smith reported that employees who smoked had more workloss days than those who had never smoked. In every age group, as the number of cigarettes smoked per day increased, so also did sickness absence. The rate of absenteeism in those who smoked more than two packs per day was nearly twice that of non-smokers," p 443. —James A. Athanasou, "Sickness Absence and Smoking Behavior and Its Consequences: A Review," 17 Journal of Occupational Medicine (#7) 441-445 (July 1975).
"In the survey year 1964-1965 there were an estimated 399 million workdays lost in the United states; of these 77 million or 19% were excess workdays lost because of the higher rates which exist among persons who smoke. . . . Cigarette smokers had higher rates of disability than non-smokers whether measured as days lost from work, days spent ill in bed or days of restricted activity," p 443. "Higher rates of overall morbidity have been reported among cigarette smokers than non-smokers. People who smoke tend to have a greater incidence of ischemic heart disease, lung cancer and other brocnhopulmonary diseases, peptic ulcers and an overall larger proportion of chronic diseases." Athanasou, supra, p 441.
"It is no longer necessary to reaffirm in the industrial setting the association between smoking and serious disease . . . reported . . . and repeated time and again." Athanasou, supra, p 444.
And at premature careeer-end, note the need to account "for transfer out of, premature retirement from and death in service . . . as a result of emphysema, lung cancer, coronary heart disease and other smoking-related disease." Athanasou, supra, p 444.
Additionally, "Study: Obesity Increases Driver’s Risk Of Being In Car Accident" (7 August 2012), "morbidly obese drivers may be at increased risk of a crash due to weight-related health complications. Additionally, car designs that are less than sympathetic to larger frames could leave obese drivers in more critical condition following an accident."
Almost three decades ago, the Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and Health Now (London: Pitman Medical and Scientific Publishing Co, Ltd, 1971), p 9, called the cigarette death rate a "holocaust" due to the then "annual death toll of some 27,500." This high a death toll is not "accidental" but "premeditated." "Premeditation" means "thought of beforehand for any length of time, however short." See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed (1990), p 1180.
|As Carrie Nation said in the alcoholism context a century ago, prosecutors do take bribes to not enforce some laws. As a cover-up measure, records falsification does occur, e.g., to under-report hazardous quantities, e.g., recording "42,000" as "4.2"|
"If you poison your boss a little bit each day it's called murder; if your boss [or smoker coworker] poisons you a little each day it's called a Threshold Limit Value. —James P. Keogh, M.D." cited by Prof. Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p 153. Hah, hah!!
Pursuant to standard lawbook definitions, nonsmokers' involuntary foreseeable deaths constitute murder. The high, continuing number of deaths is indeed a "holocaust" according to the Royal Society of Physicians' 1971 criteria, and is part of the total genocide problem. Remember, it is "premeditated," known in advance. (No other product has 37 million "accidents"!)
|As the legal right to "fresh and pure air" exists everywhere, do not deem a partial smoking ban as adequate. Why? Well, ask Dr. Kevorkian! He has learned that it is not legal to kill a person, even a consenting adult, ANYWHERE. The laws against killing people apply everywhere! There is no place, no "free-fire zone," as in combat, where it is ok to spray toxic chemicals and kill people! Wherefore partial bans are unconstitutional. See our website elaborating on the unconstitutionality of partial bans.
This does not mean to REFUSE any offer. You can "accept" anything, then appeal it. Jews "accepted" being killed at Auschwitz. But The Nurnberg Trial, 6 FRD 69 (1946), disregarded such "acceptances." Nobody's "consent" to less than full compliance with the law has any legal standing whatsoever! (See our website on legal definitions, including so-called "consent.")
So "accept" all offers, then appeal, citing the offer of less than full compliance with the duty of "fresh and pure air" as showing bad faith on the perpetrator's part. The making of an offer shows that they recognize the hazard, and proves malice, specific intent to harm, by their refusal to eliminate the hazard.
If you "refuse" an offer, some corrupt officials may hold that against you. Remember, there is corruption and bribery among officials, lawmakers, judges. So they may retaliate. Be careful to couch your words in words unlikely to trigger their retaliation. (Get a lawyer if need be.)
Think like a police officer. If you are being shot at, and the shooter offers to reduce the rate of fire against you, "accept." But keep on shooting back, keep on prosecuting!
Daum, Susan M. Daum and Jeanne Mager Stellman,
Work is Dangerous to Your Health:
A Handbook of Health Hazards in the Workplace
and What You Can Do About Them
(New York, Vintage Books, 1973)
Daniel Berman, PhD, Death on the Job: The
Politics of Occupational Health in the United States
(San Francisco: Medical Committee for Human Rights, 1974)
"Smoking as hazardous conduct,"
86 N Y St J Med 493 (September 1986)
|Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed|
Jeanne M. Stellman and Mary Sue Henifin,
Office Work Can Be Dangerous to Your Health:
A Handbook of Office Health and Safety Hazards
and What You Can Do About Them,
Rev. and updated
(New York: Fawcett Crest, 1989)
"[Indoor Air Quality] IAQ Already Regulated,"
3 Indoor Air Rev 3 (April 1993)
|Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed|
"Alternative Models for Controlling
Smoking Among Adolescents,"
87 Am J Pub Health 869-870 (May 1997)
Elizabeth Heitzman, "Hospitals ban all smoking on premises,"
Columbia (Missouri) Tribune (29 April 2006)
|Discusses preventing smoking among children
by doing for them as for all other people:
a law providing that only safe products
be manufactured, given away, and sold
Case law shows that those in the media who provide disinformation leading to deaths can be held legally liable, details at the personal responsibility for words site. Disinformation by employers in support of smoking can also result in liability.
|ALZHEIMER'S||BIRTH DEFECTS||Brain Damage||BREAST CANCER|
|Hearing Loss||HEART DISEASE||LUNG CANCER||Macular Degeneration|
|Mental Disorder||Seat Belt Disuse||SIDS||SUICIDE|
|Action on Smoking and Health||Am Council on Science and Health|
|Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights||Jack Cannon's Website|
|Mid-Coast Maine Clean Indoor Air||People Against Smoking|
|Secret Tobacco Company Documents||Smokescreen Action Network|
|State Tobacco Information Center||Tobacco Industry Information|
|Count 1: Violation of the Common Law "Right to Fresh and Pure Air"
2: Violation of Your Constitutional Right (Ninth Amendment) To Same
3: Violation of the Federal Safety Law 29 USC § 651 et seq
4: Violation of the State Safety Law
5: Violation of Your Federal Freedom of Speech to Raise The Issue
6: Violation of Your State Freedom of Speech to Raise The Issue
7: Violation of State Whistleblower Protection Law If You Are Punished For Raising Issues of Unlawfulness
8: Negligent Hiring of Smokers By Employer
9: Aiding-Abetting Violations of State Cigarette Law (Example)
10: Violation of the ADA - Granting Smokers Accommodation Without Their Asking or Qualifying
11: Pattern of Violations - Linking to The Overall Pattern of Misconduct and Racketeering As Cited in the 1990's Attorney General and Department of Justice Litigation
Four Examples of Such Cases
145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976)
Paul Smith v Western Elect Co,
643 SW2d 10 (Mo App, 1982)
Lauren Hall v Veterans Admin,
EEOC Case 054-086-X0097 (Detroit, 5 Sep 1986)
Leonard Perkins v Ford Motor Co,
Case 86-633018-CZ (Wayne Cnty Circ Ct, Mich, 25 Nov 1986)
The Parallel DOJ Racketeering
Case Against Tobacco Companies
DoJ Press Release
Law Writer Analysis
Health Group Analysis
Petition To Aid Private Litigants
List of AG Websites
List of Anti-Trust / Fraud Cases
List of Fire Cases
Tobacco Hazards Cases
The 4 May 1886
Legal Reources Overview
|"The proof of the pattern or practice [of willingness to commit racketeering acts, hire dangerous people, allow hazardous acts, endanger others] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).
Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).
Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).
Benefit of Citing RICO In Your Case
RICO is the anti-organized crime law that the 22 September 1999 Department of Justice case cited to recover damages from tobacco companies. RICO covers all defined racketeering acts, generally, extortion, mail fraud, falsification of documents, killings, etc.
The benefit to the crime victim, the litigant, you, is that RICO provides for TRIPLE damages, pursuant to 18 USC § 1964.(c). In legal terms, this constitutes the value of the underlying claim, Basic Food Industries, Inc v Grant, 107 Mich App 685, 691; 310 NW2d 26, 29 (1981).
RICO is comparable to, and likely additional to, state law, for example, the Michigan trebling law, MCL § 600.2907, MSA § 27A.2907, as the harm caused is malicious. A pertinent Michigan trebling case is Pauley v Hall, 124 Mich App 255; 335 NW2d 197 (1983). Check your state for your pertinent laws and cases.
For Further Reading
(NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1981) (cities the then seven redress laws often overlooked)
Paul H. Tobias and Susan Sauter, “Was Your Termination Discriminatory?” and Job Rights & Survival Strategies: A Handbook for Terminated Employees (NERI, 1997).
Prof. David Yamada, “Workplace Bullying and the Law” (12 March 2005).
Richard Peres, Dealing with Employment Discrimination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), "losing one's job is the most adverse thing that can happen to a person in the employment world. A discharge for cause can have damaging and lasting consequences in one's career and life."
29 USC § 141 and 5 USC § 7117(a)(1), which provide that laws and government-wide regulations are non-negotiable, not subject to repeal by contract. See also West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943) and Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996) (no vote allowed to repeal constitutional rights). Employers are of course not allowed to negotiate mental disorders (smoking is a medically recognized mental disorder).
This site is sponsored as a public service by For Email contact: email@example.com.
Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten
The Crime Prevention Group. Please visit our homepage.
For Email contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten