4 May 97
Hold your horses, I'm working on it...
So here I sit, half dead, not wanting to stufy partial differential
equations. Who could blame me? Certainly not me. I've been spending too
much time playing with my new toy, the Thinkpad. I have entered 125+ of
my books, and I haven't even started on my books in my office.
I'll do that when PDEs is over.
Waiting for guests, I suppose I should clean up my room. Especially since
Nyree is getting back tomorrow. hmmmm.
Okay, requisite news commentary time.
I've been following a particular suit against "the tobacco industry" this
past week, and I've been somewhat amused by the main line of defense being
used. Basically, some lady had smoked most of her adult life, and a month
or so after she (after 40 years of smoking) she was diagnosed with lung
cancer. She's dead now, of course; her estate is suing the company that
made the brand of cigarettes she smoked, claiming the company knew it was
addicting customers like her, causing her early death.
Two arguments from the defense:
1) Smoking couldn't be addictive because she actually _did_ quit. Okay,
then neither heroin or cocaine are addictive either, because people quit
using those all the time. What do they consider addictive? Breathing?
Drinking water?
2) She knew the health risks and she decided to continue smoking.
Actually, this seems to be a reasonable argument, coming from anyone _but_
the tobacco industry.
For the longest time, I could not understand the phrase "You can't have
your cake and eat it, too." Now I have the perfect example for all those
who need this old saw explained.
Come on guys, for years you've been claiming that cigarettes do no
verifiable harm to smokers. Now you want to say that _of course_ smokers
knew that they were doing great harm to their health?
The eternal gall of tobacco company lawyers never ceases to amaze. That's
one line of defense I never thought they would try.
On a lighter note, I bought the Squirrel Nut Zippers' album _Hot_, and
it's very very good. It's great music to go to sleep to.
(How many to's in that last sentence?)