The Straight Dope 04/21/2006

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 04/21/2006

Dear Cecil:

A character in Christopher Buckley's 1994 novel Thank You for Smoking
(now a film) quotes a then-current prediction in the medical journal the
Lancet: "[In the] next ten years, 250 million people in the
industrialized world are going to die from smoking--one in five." It's
now 12 years later. I certainly hope the Lancet's prediction--which I am
guessing was bona fide, and not an invention of the novelist--proved to
be overpessimistic. In the best estimate of the experts (and by
"experts" I do not mean tobacco spokespersons), how many lives were lost
to smoking during that ten-year period? --David English, Somerville,
Massachusetts

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! 
See http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

You'll excuse my jumping immediately into the arithmetic, David, but
let's think. If Buckley meant that 250 million deaths due to smoking
would account for a fifth of all deaths in the coming ten years, we'd be
talking 1.25 billion total deaths in the industrialized nations by
itself --absurd given that the population of those nations in 1994 was
right around 1.25 billion. But even if he just meant that the 250
million smoking deaths would claim a fifth of all people then living in
the industrialized world, that's still nuts. The U.S. Census's
international database tells us there were 539 million deaths worldwide
between 1995 and 2004; tobacco's a scourge all right, but if smoking in
the industrialized nations alone accounted for half of human mortality
over a decade, it'd make the Black Death look like a bad cough.

This isn't to say Christopher Buckley manufactured that horrifying
statistic . . .

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060421.html

STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

Every run-of-the-mill cop movie I've ever seen involves a car chase in
which, at some point, an officer commandeers a civilian's vehicle. You
know what I'm talking about--the cop's car crashes and he or she jumps
out, flashes a badge at an innocent motorist and announces that he or
she is "commandeering the car." The civilian then jumps out of the car
and the cop continues the chase in the civilian's car (which usually
gets wrecked as well). I don't know much about constitutional law, but
this seems to be an impermissible taking of a citizen's private
property. My question is: Is there any U.S. jurisdiction that actually
permits this, or is it simply a figment of a screenwriter's imagination
perpetuated by Hollywood? --Kyle in Austin 

SDSTAFF gfactor replies:

This is a complicated question. It presents at least six issues. 

First, there's an empirical question: Do police officers ever demand the
use of vehicles or other property? Yes. For example, snopes.com found an
interview with one officer who had commandeered three vehicles in a
26-year career. Blackman v. City of Cincinnati, a 1942 Ohio Supreme
Court case, refers to a police officer who ordered a driver to use his
vehicle to chase a fleeing felon. So yes, police do commandeer vehicles.
Daniel Engber, in Slate's Explainer, notes: "Policemen used to
commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City
cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring
arrested criminals back to the station house." Commandeering isn't
limited to cars. After Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flood,
police commandeered a pharmacy to help the sick. 

Second, is it legal for the police to order me around and take my stuff?

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 08/30/1991

Dear Cecil: 

I was sitting at the Montreal Pool Room eating my all-dressed hot dog
and suddenly the question hit me: why is there no ketchup in an
all-dressed? Is ketchup not as respectable a condiment as relish or
mustard? Is there a conspiracy? Does Dirty Harry's remark about ketchup
in a hot dog have anything to do with it? I would be so thankful if you
could shine a light on this obscure bit of knowledge for a passionate
and perplexed user of ketchup. -- Paul Macneil, Dorval, Quebec  

Cecil replies:  

Paul, I know you don't mean to act like an alfalfa-chewing
barbarian, but this is like asking why Leonardo didn't paint the Mona
Lisa on black velvet. Ketchup is destructive of all that is right and
just about a properly assembled hot dog (and we're talking about a pure
beef hot dog, not one of those things you could serve with dressing on
Thanksgiving). 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_095.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2006 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]