Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Let The Lawsuits Begin!

Some genius filed a lawsuit today in Woodland Hills against Oakwood Apartments because -- you guessed it! -- the landlord allows other tenants to smoke, which, of course, has imperiled the life of the plaintiff tenant's child. KABC Channel 7 reported on the lawsuit during the 6:00 p.m. news.

Thank you, Surgeon General, on behalf of the legal profession.


Coming up soon: tenants who get evicted for smoking will sue their landlords, saying that smoking is an addiction, which is a disease, which requires a reasonable accomodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

More money for lawyers? Walty, you should be supporting this. Aren't you a lawyer? No, wait, you're a realtor...no, wait, you're an English teacher...no, wait, you're a Mayoral candidate. By the by, what does this have to do with Los Angeles politics?

All the people involved are renters, why should you be paying attention to them at all? Hell, I bet some of them are illegals.

June 29, 2006 8:37 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

The legal relations between renters and landlords is a huge part of L.A. politics: rent control, "affordable housing," condo conversion, density, etc. When the Surgeon General's report came out, I predicted local legislation re same (http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2006/06/prediction-city-hall-will-attack.html). The legislation, in my opinion, will probably try to reach into people's homes and cars, especially if they have children.

Also, as I pointed out, lawyers will benefit from this. Indeed, they are probably the only group that will. Brokers and English teachers -- probably not so much.

June 30, 2006 7:23 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

I looked up the figures at the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control.

The U.S. population is about 300 million.

The number of smokers is 44.5 million.

The total number of people estimated to die of respiratory cancer in 2006 is 167,050.

So what do you think your odds are of contracting lung cancer from second-hand smoke? Assuming that even HALF the lung cancer deaths are from second-hand smoke, your odds would be about 83,500 / 255.5 million, which is about .03% -- not 3%, but .03%. And that's if HALF of all lung cancer deaths are due to second-hand smoke.

June 30, 2006 7:57 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wacko, that's 83,500 deaths too many. Why should I as an American citizen put up with people using a product that kills those around them?

But this is no surprise coming from you. You're a selfish bastard and a racist. You were the one that claimed that the Latin American people as a whole do not value education.

June 30, 2006 10:59 AM  

Anonymous Amando Navajas said:

There is no hard proof that second hand smoke kills. No researcher in his or her right mind would come out and say it. The fact remains that there is a substantial amount of properties in the atmosphere that contribute to ones decline in health. In order to find IF second hand smoke kills, a person would have to be tested in a controlled environment free of any other "contaminant." As it is, oxygen makes up about 10% of the atmosphere or "air" we breath. agian a power play of statistics and proper rhetoric in court.

June 30, 2006 11:14 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

I have yet to see an autopsy report listing the cause of death as "second-hand smoke."
Okay, admittedly, I've never seen an autopsy report, but I've seen enough people tell enough lies with statistics that I am not buying the "second-hand smoke kills" assertions.

June 30, 2006 4:15 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

The American Lung Association claims, as of March 2006: "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

So, even accepting their figures, that's a minimum of 38,000 deaths per year and a maximum of 65,000 deaths per year, out of a population of 255 million non-smokers.

Now, to see what their methodology is. . . .

June 30, 2006 4:26 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

For a cogent explanation of why the "second hand smoke kills" studies are bogus, visit: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

June 30, 2006 4:37 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

To read a World Health Organization study which found no statistically significant link between second-hand smoke and illness, read this:

June 30, 2006 4:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


The obscurious report was done in Europe, not America.

The 'cogent' report lists as it's sources the New York Daily News and the Washington Times. Right up your alley, ain't it?

Find some convincing evidence before burping out of your snout. You must also beleive that global warming is a myth.

June 30, 2006 11:31 PM  

Blogger Davefordemocracy said:

Come on, people. I think the danger of secondhand smoke is a little overblown, but anyone can see it's not good for you.

I think it's fair to say that secondhand smoke CONTRIBUTES to almost every respiratory disease death in America. The exceptions would be situations where another contaminant clearly caused the infection. A firefighter, perhaps, who died of smoke inhalation, or a guy who eats asbestos.

But look, lots of things contribute to lung cancer and heart disease. If you're going to blame smokers you might as well blame drivers too. Oil companies. Shipping companies. You see where I'm going here.

Smokers get blamed when people are trying to win elections. Just ask the mayor of Calabasas.

July 01, 2006 12:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

guess what Einstein: the Supremes have already rejected alcoholism as a disability in a major case involving the VA.

July 03, 2006 2:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home