 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Acura Cars / January 2005CHOKE on this!
Cigarettes Worse for Air Than Cars Ivanhoe Newswire www.ivanhoe.com September 1, 2004 Holy smoke! The air pollution emitted by cigarettes may be 10-times greater than diesel car exhaust. Investigators hope the negative comparison can be a valuable educational message against tobacco use for adolescents. Environmental tobacco smoke produces fine particulate matter, the most dangerous element of air pollution. According to the new study, levels indoors can far exceed those outdoors because new engine models and lead-free fuels have cut the levels of particulate matter emissions from car exhausts. The study was conducted in a garage in a small, Italian mountain town where there are very low levels of particulate matter air pollution. A turbo diesel engine was left idling for 30 minutes in the garage with the doors closed. Then, the doors were left open for four hours. The car was fueled with low sulphur fuel. Three filter cigarettes were also lit up sequentially, and left smoldering for another 30 minutes. Results of the experiment show the diesel engine exhaust doubled the particulate matter levels found outdoors at its peak. The environmental tobacco smoke particulate matter reached levels 15-times higher than those measured outdoors. This article was reported by Ivanhoe.com, who offers Medical Alerts by e-mail every day of the week. To subscribe, go to: http://www.ivanhoe.com/newsalert/. SOURCE: Tobacco Control, 2004;13:219-221 Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences. That seems to be the reason behind this study, and I hope it works, because not starting to smoke is so much easier than trying to quit. I think I tried 10 times to quit, including cold turkey, the patch and the chewing gum and nothing worked. The only thing I found reduced the number of cigarettes I smoked was keeping myself busy. My record was 3 cigarettes in one day, and that was because I had to completely reassemble my old Yamaha RZ350 before a trip (I had the engine, carbs, front end, swing arm and brakes rebuilt, and needed to put everything back together). Cosmin > Cigarettes Worse for Air Than Cars > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > SOURCE: Tobacco Control, 2004;13:219-221 Hope peer pressure does not lead to teenage girls leaving lipstick marks on the exhaust pipe of their VW Cabriolet TDI's.  Signature~Philip. > Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> >> SOURCE: Tobacco Control, 2004;13:219-221 > Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cosmin I used to think smokers who couldn't quit were just copping out. That was until I worked in an OB/Gyn clinic! Those women would be terrified that their babies would be affected, but were able to eat right, exercise, and everything we told them they needed to do, but often could *not* stop smoking. It was then that I realized what a powerful addiction cigarette smoking is - wow! Natalie >> Cigarettes Worse for Air Than Cars >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> SOURCE: Tobacco Control, 2004;13:219-221 On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:27:57 -0500, "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Natalie Sorry to hear that. I tried filters, patches, training programs, but none worked for me. One day, it came down to that I couldn't afford college for my wife, and my 3 pack/day habit. I said I had to quit and I did. I promised myself I would start back up when I could afford it, but that was 10+ years ago. Now with a mortgage and a child, I"m guessing I'll have to remain smoke-free, but I do enjoy the smell now and then. Everyone who says they can't just doesn't want to. imho, tom @ www.ChopURL.com >>> Cigarettes Worse for Air Than Cars >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>> >>> SOURCE: Tobacco Control, 2004;13:219-221 >>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > tom @ www.ChopURL.com I think it's a lot like other addictions, such as food - some people haven't been able to lose weight by any methods, which is tougher because you don't need cigarettes to survive (just the opposite, of course), but you need food to live. I saw a lady on a documentary who had dropped well over 200 pounds. She began to go insane; not from temptation, but because her body reacted as though it were starving! She became psychotic and very ill. She ended up gaining the weight back, and in doing so, regained her sanity. Isn't that nuts?! For smokers, they see others lighting up, which is even more powerful than an obese person walking by a restaurant and resisting the temptation to chow down. Personally, I usually was slightly overweight, but not morbidly so. Then my blood pressure went up, which woke me up to the reality that my heart was being affected. I decided I'd rather not be a sick old lady some day (I'm now 46), so I had to drop the weight and get in shape. I exercise no less than 30 minutes every single day, and have never regretted it. By the way, the bargain that you made for your body should be reneged. Please believe me when I say you'll be so much more healthy without cigarettes. What people don't realize is that while lung cancer is relatively rare (I've only seen a handful of cases in 28 years), smoking does a lot of damage in other ways, such as COPD (emphysema - folks on home oxygen because their lungs have shriveled and hardened to the point of no elasticity), not to mention heart attacks and strokes. Plus they're very expensive! My mother-in-law, a Nazi death camp survivor smokes (I can't say I blame her after what she went through), and while we lived in New Hampshire (She lives in Massachusetts) she'd ask if I'd buy her cigarettes either in NH (They're quite a bit cheaper there) or at Westover AFB in Chicopee, MA. I told her that while I know she won't stop smoking because I refuse to buy them for her, I could not in good conscience do that for her, because that would be like handing a syringe to a heroin addict. I can't be a party to her slow suicide. My husband used to get them for her, and I didn't chastise him for it, because I knew he just wanted to do what he can to help his mom be content. I just couldn't do it myself, and she (thankfully) understands that. But she's so awesome anyway, she'd naturally not cop an attitude. The woman's incredible, and I wish she could stop so we could have her on this planet longer. Natalie, former food junkie - or is that junk-food junkie? ;-) > I think it's a lot like other addictions, such as food - some people haven't > been able to lose weight by any methods, which is tougher because you don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > day (I'm now 46), so I had to drop the weight and get in shape. I exercise > no less than 30 minutes every single day, and have never regretted it. On cold days I walk at our mall. I spoke with a lady one morning who has diabetes. She told me that she started a vigorous walking regime some time ago and after a while she was able to shed ALL of her medications. One more reason for exercise. > By the way, the bargain that you made for your body should be reneged. > Please believe me when I say you'll be so much more healthy without [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Natalie, former food junkie - or is that junk-food junkie? ;-) Signature>> I think it's a lot like other addictions, such as food - some people >> haven't [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > some time ago and after a while she was able to shed ALL of her > medications. One more reason for exercise. Amen! Natalie 1) Did this woman lose too much too quickly? 2) My wife smokes only sporadically and then not much, but I have refused to buy her duty-free cigs (I travel a lot) on same grounds. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > to live. I saw a lady on a documentary who had dropped well over 200 > pounds. She began to go insane; not from temptation, but because her body > reacted as though it were starving! She became psychotic and very ill. > She ended up gaining the weight back, and in doing so, regained her > sanity. Isn't that [...] > (She lives in Massachusetts) she'd ask if I'd buy her cigarettes either in > NH (They're quite a bit cheaper there) or at Westover AFB in Chicopee, MA. > I told her that while I know she won't stop smoking because I refuse to > buy them for her, I could not in good conscience do that for her, because > that [...] > 1) Did this woman lose too much too quickly? Nope, doctor-supervised (at first in a hospital) > 2) My wife smokes only sporadically and then not much, but I have > refused to buy her duty-free cigs (I travel a lot) on same grounds. > > DAS Back when I was single, I tried to date a smoker, but it was just too disgusting. I acknowledge their right to smoke, but I just can't have it around me on a regular basis. And before the secondhand smoke protesters say they don't believe smoking affects anyone other than the smoker, let me tell you - even if the FDA said secondhand smoke is actually *good* for us, I'd still not want that nasty smell around me! And while there's no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoking causes the same effect of smoking directly, I certainly have seen evidence of secondhand smoke being harmful to others. Children of smokers are *way* more likely to have upper respiratory ailments as a result of irritation of the respiratory mucosa, such as chronic sinusitis, asthma attacks, etc. I feel sad every time I see a child in a car with smoke filling the interior. I've seen smoking parents storm out of doctor's offices in anger when told they're harming their children, rather than accepting responsibility for their actions. To me it's at least child neglect, if not out and out abuse to poison the air your children breathe. No, I don't go up to a car and chastise the smoking parent(s), but I'm... Natalie, a smoking Nazi, who will go up to strangers in public places, to remind them that they're in a no-smoking area > [...] >> to live. I saw a lady on a documentary who had dropped well over 200 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> that > [...] Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and never in front of our son. Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Back when I was single, I tried to date a smoker, but it was just too [...]> > Natalie, a smoking Nazi, who will go up to strangers in public places, to > remind them that they're in a no-smoking area [...] > Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very > appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and never > in front of our son. > > Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... *ahem* HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one > In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned that our > (UK) government is going the North American way by trying to impose a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DAS cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry tobacco in a pipe. See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by we smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present wants to be around other smokers. Natalie > > Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very > > appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and never [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Natalie I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? SignatureNext time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep breath...and get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned to be carcinogenic... DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace > or pit), cooking smoke ect.? Wonder if the same can be said about biodiesel aroma refined from used deep fat fryer oils! LOL Signature~Philip. > Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep > breath...and get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? Who cares? It goes through the on-board cleaning-up process. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > Wonder if the same can be said about biodiesel aroma refined from used > deep fat fryer oils! LOL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >>> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep breath...and > get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned to be > carcinogenic... > > DAS So much crap gets into our systems, it's a wonder any of us live past age 50 Natalie > [...] > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace >> or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > "So much crap gets into our systems..." > > Natalie Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) Please kill this annoying thread! >> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >> >> Natalie > > Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-) > Please kill this annoying thread! Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a bad thing? You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" :-) Natalie >>> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Natalie Re: You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT" In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup. As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen. >>>> "So much crap gets into our systems..." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps > reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup. And we're to blame for that? When I kill something with OE and Individual, it dies - no other outcome > As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are > preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new > or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen. You have no way of knowing who is reading this thread. It's clearly marked OT, so why do you keep reading it? I still believe there are people reading the info here for the first time. Yes, it's old news, but it's still relevant, as the struggle between smokers and non-smokers is ongoing. Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work. For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them without making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a flame war. It's not worth it. Natalie > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Natalie Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself upon us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to filter the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite selfish and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may offer some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air, give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your soapbox down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for caring about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your welcome is worn out here. >> Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without >> reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > like you. Thanks for caring about our well being. Now do us all a favor and > find a new pulpit. Your welcome is worn out here. Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the dungeon of your displeasure. Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack > Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me Natalie, you simply cannot rationalize your propagation of such an intrusive topic in an automotive NG. Your persecution complex goes hand-in-hand with your intrusive behaviour. Trust your instincts grasshopper - if you think you've dragged this string on long enough, you probably have! > By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the > rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the > dungeon of your displeasure. Nat, (May I call you Nat?) you may not have started this thread, but you have certainly been keeping it going. Isn't it time to give it up? We all know your opinions inside out and we are exhausted. > Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack Funny how you consider yourself as being attacked, when it is you who perpetuate an OT post. We were feeling the same. *sigh* >> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > grasshopper - if you think you've dragged this string on long enough, you > probably have! Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that outta your a.s >> By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the >> rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have certainly been keeping it going. Isn't it time to give it up? We all > know your opinions inside out and we are exhausted. No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that much, you're in for a lot of grief. >> Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack > > Funny how you consider yourself as being attacked, when it is you who > perpetuate an OT post. We were feeling the same. *sigh* I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending sh.t you said earlier, you certainly attacked me. OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as you seem to be the only one really upset about it. Natalie >>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that > outta your a.s Oooh! Temper, temper! >>> By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the >>> rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that > much, you're in for a lot of grief. My gosh Nat, with all your aggresive talk of "killfile me", "kill the others", we can only hope that you don't have a pointy object in your hand! >>> Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending sh.t you said > earlier, you certainly attacked me. Hmmm, could I buy a vowel? What the hell are you talking about? What personal attack? Quote? > OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as > you seem to be the only one really upset about it. No Nat, I'm not the only one upset about it. I am the only one to challenge it and that's a big difference. The rest have probably either filtered the thread or killfiled us both. That's reality! > Natalie >>>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >> Natalie Stingray, I have not read half the posts in this thread but ISTM that you are the one perpetuating this thread by not letting it die. Your protestation about another is like a pot calling a kettle black. We all can the that both are the same apart from one bleating like a wounded sheep while still crossposting to all and sundry. Generally this is the behaviour of a low-life TROLL. Huw > Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional 204 off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of staying on topic :^) You know...."do as I say, not as I do". >> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You know...."do as I say, not as I do". LOL yup Natalie >>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Natalie Nat, don't get too excited that Bradburn agreed with you. His meds haven't kicked in yet! > >>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nat, don't get too excited that Bradburn agreed with you. His meds haven't > kicked in yet! He's not the only one who noticed, just the only one who commented. >> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You know...."do as I say, not as I do". Bradburn! When did you learn to count? Shame on you for not telling Mamma! > > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without > > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your > welcome is worn out here. That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest of the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it. "Hagrinas O.T. Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> continued spewing OT diatribe when she/he wrote in message news:9qWdnVX5U_Bdk0LcRVn-qA@giganews.com... >> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without >> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > giving > advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that last post was directed at you as well! ;-) Don't let the screen door hit your butt as you leave the room! > "Hagrinas O.T. Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> continued spewing OT > diatribe when she/he wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that last post was directed at you as > well! ;-) Don't let the screen door hit your butt as you leave the room! I'm not going anywhere. You are the only one participating in this group (where I'm reading it) who has posted nothing but off topic posts. You may be reading it in a different group, but you are cross posting it all over the place. I have no doubt that in most of the groups you are posting to, you never posted anything on topic at all. >> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without >> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving > advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it. Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing I can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on the offensive for something that has been around since the inception of Usenet. OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be created for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe a bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts and attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the netkkkopping anyone could want... and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure. *rolling eyes* Natalie > Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can > help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Natalie That's it Nat. When you sense that you've lost a battle of wits (One that you were completely unarmed for!), don't respond to the one who has outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the chorus! LMAO!!! > > Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can > > help you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > outwitted you, just talk to the air and hope that your ilk will join the > chorus! LMAO!!! Another possibility is to take the gm group off the list and hope he doesn't continue going tit for tat because of it. > Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can help > you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > *rolling eyes* Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the charter for the group in question exists (and for many groups they don't) and the charter dictates that OT posts are not allowed, then one should desist. After all newgroups basically work on the honor system and that is the only thing that keeps unmoderated groups effective. I suggest he post the charter here for you to see, and then you can strike that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear you haven't done anything remotely wrong. > Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being > posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear > you haven't done anything remotely wrong. Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey! >> Rolling eyes not withstanding, there are 10 or 11 groups this is being >> posted to so I don't which one he is actually concerned with, but if the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Bradburn, you are such a wuss! Take your meds now honey! And the true troll has shown himself to be such. Hey, I know cross-posting is a no-no, so I'm with him there, but OT posts are not a part of any of these NGs he's ALSO cross-posting on. I'll concede to that, and will only post to the Toyota NG after this reply (It's the only car one I'm subscribed to anyway). Natalie, plonking yet another twerp and moving on >> Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can > help [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > that group from the cross-posting list. If he can't, then it would appear > you haven't done anything remotely wrong. Even if I had, he didn't say it in the same way you did. There is no need to be nasty, but this guy feels there is Natalie > Even if I had, he didn't say it in the same way you did. There is no need to > be nasty, but this guy feels there is Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around the web since the early '90's. It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing great :^) > Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the > topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing > great :^) Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . . doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad? > > Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the > > topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults > that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^) You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you "StingRay"? ha ha ha! "Bradburn Mentally Challenged Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> whined in message news:soFDd.89$Y86.3670@news.uswest.net... > Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one > single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last > ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^) I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha! > You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you > "StingRay"? ha ha ha! Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"? If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you"? We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go Brad!!! [...] > Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in > the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"? > If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people > in this world....are you"? I think he meant cite, as in "provide a citation"... > We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is 'tis an easy task :) A SignatureTony Blair, a Minister of the Crown, acted as the agent of a foreign power: He is a Traitor > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >'tis an easy task :) Quite. ------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century. > Quite. > > ------------------------------------------------ > The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century. Ric, (May I call you Ric?) this stupidity thing is spreading fast! Now turn around and go back and read what Brad said, not what you think he meant to say. Then if you still agree with Al, bend your legs around behind your back and kick your a.s for being so silly! [...] > Ric, (May I call you Ric?) this stupidity thing is spreading fast! Now turn > around and go back and read what Brad said, not what you think he meant to > say. Then if you still agree with Al, bend your legs around behind your back > and kick your a.s for being so silly! StiR, (may I call you StiR?) had you corrected "cite" to "citation" you would have had a point... ...but you didn't. A SignatureTony Blair, a Minister of the Crown, acted as the agent of a foreign power: He is a Traitor > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ...but you didn't. Al, you seem to have missed the relevent post where I responded directly to your comments. Let me repeat it here: "Now we have a mind reader amongst us! "I think he meant cite, as in "provide a citation"... ". Just one problem. Brad said "cite", not "provide a citation". It seems that you have just joined the dumbass ranks Al. (May I call you Al?) Go back and read Brad's comment. No. Let me cut and paste it: "Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one single cite showing that phrase ...". Even in the U.K., "cite" is not a noun. It is a verb. Look it up. You're right Al . . . " 'tis an easy task ". ;-) " Even those of you from the Serene Republic of Leith should now understand the matter under discussion. Perhaps you and Ric would now like to apologise (I spelled it that was in deference to your country of reference.) and kick each other in the a.s. ;-) >> Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when >> in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 'tis an easy task :) Now we have a mind reader amongst us! "I think he meant cite, as in "provide a citation"... ". Just one problem. Brad said "cite", not "provide a citation". It seems that you have just joined the dumbass ranks Al. (May I call you Al?) Go back and read Brad's comment. No. Let me cut and paste it: "Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one single cite showing that phrase ...". Even in the U.K., "cite" is not a noun. It is a verb. Look it up. You're right Al . . . " 'tis an easy task ". ;-) > >> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without > >> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the > netkkkopping anyone could want... At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators tend to be intolerant of posts that are off-topic or in some cases that do not address the topic appropriately. For example, they may reject a post that merely says, "What sort of zipzap should I buy?" They will say that a proper post should list the qualities one expects from a zipzap, etc. Of course, the same moderators will accept off topic posts from regulars, but that's another story. Now can we get back to the topic of smoking? *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas* See below: > At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow > off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, the same moderators will accept off topic posts from regulars, > but that's another story. I know - but to chastise someone for cross-posting and being off-topic then doing the same is just plain dumb. > Now can we get back to the topic of smoking? LOL I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to any of these other NGs anyway) Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf > *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas* > I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you > care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to > any of these other NGs anyway) > > Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to frienlier environs. If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-) >> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas* >> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > miss you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your > hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-) Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke. Wipe yourself on the way out. Huw >>> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas* >>> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Huw The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! Signature~Philip. "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > > The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! That's what comes of multiple crossposting off-topic stuff indiscriminately. At least there was some car content in it I suppose. Arsewipe has not mentioned any vehicle even once AFAICS. Huw > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > >> The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Huw Hardly indiscriminant. That copy/paste header took several seconds to accomplish! LOL I just want to know if cigarette exhaust should be classified similar to biodiesel exhaust since they both orginate from plants. (staying marginally on topic) Signature~Philip. > Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about > exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk. Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You can always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that someone British (the keepers of the English language) would post such gutteral language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England has its ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can still smell the stench. ;-) >> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about >> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > has its ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can > still smell the stench. ;-) Dear Arsehole. Pot, kettle, black. You'll have to do better than that. And yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of our mother tongue. You, on the other hand, are just a bore. A festering stinking, puke inducing one at that. Far worse than diesel exhaust. [just to keep on-topic]. Huw Just for my edification, Huw, are you actually English or Welsh? ... :-) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message [...] >> Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You >> can always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that [...] > yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of [...] > Huw > Just for my edification, Huw, are you actually English or Welsh? ... > :-) Welsh and British. Huw Yes, obviously British, but I liked the assertion from that StingRay chappie about always being able to tell an "Englishman"... :-) Sort of reminds of the time when I lived in digs in Penarth (suburb of Cardiff, capital of Wales, for those not in Europe) many moons ago. My parents once sent me a letter from abroad (they're not English or British) addressed to me in Cardiff, England. My landlord gave me quite a lecture... :-) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Welsh and British. > > Huw "Hovel in your element"? "Revel"? DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Then you can hovel in your element. [...] > "Hovel in your element"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > [...] > > Then you can hovel in your element. Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are incompetent stupid ones. Think how much more enjoyable this knucklehead is when he thinks he's being witty, rather than understanding he's quite dimwitted. Geez....some people kill all the fun :^) > Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the > people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Geez....some people kill all the fun :^) Brad, that was truly spoken like a man who "thinks he's being witty, rather than understanding he's quite dimwitted." Your inferiority complex is shining through. It's well deserved Brad. ;-) Just keep reading those studies Brad and you may someday get a clue. You would have been better off remaining quiet and appearing stupid, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt. >> Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that >> the people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have been better off remaining quiet and appearing stupid, rather > than opening your mouth and removing all doubt. Plagiarizing without giving due credit again? "You would have been better off remaining quiet and appearing stupid, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.? (earliest version seems to be Proverbs 17:28) 28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: >> "Hovel in your element"? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Geez....some people kill all the fun :^) The problem with that theory is that you too could be deluding yourself into thinking that you are clever and witty when you are not. I suppose you'll have to fall back on school grades, IQ tests, and general concensus to show otherwise. StingRay can go down to a community college and sign up for a logic 101 class to see how lacking his reasoning skills are, but he probably doesn't care. After all, he might even have a Stingray, and it's probably the high point of his life. >After all, he might even have a Stingray, and it's probably the high >point of his life. I'd wager it DEFINES his life...pathetic dullard that he is. ------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century. >> Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the >> people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > high > point of his life. Hmmm, Hag, I'm sure that a Stingray (Families Dasayatidae & Potamotrygonidae) is a carnivorous animal that feeds mainly on crustaceans and other invertebrates. It would appear that I reeled in you and Eric Dreher ericd@cox.net hook, line and sinker! You two invertebrates really don't have a clue between you. Why don't you both troll over to alt.dolts and join your ilk. By the way, I don't "have a Stingray". It's illegal! *still shaking head in disbelief at stupidity of Hag & Ric ericd@cox.net * It's been fun feeding on you and Ric ericd@cox.net ! *Plonk* > >> Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the > >> people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > *still shaking head in disbelief at stupidity of Hag & Ric ericd@cox.net * > It's been fun feeding on you and Ric ericd@cox.net ! *Plonk* Oh, oh....someone spent some time on Google before posting. Did he fool anyone? :^) >Oh, oh....someone spent some time on Google before posting. > >Did he fool anyone? :^) As to having anything more than two firing synapses? Nope. This supercilious twit/killfile fodder took about 0.2 seconds to enter my bozo bin. He's shrieking in the dark...in more ways than one. ------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century. > Hmmm, Hag, I'm sure that a Stingray (Families Dasayatidae & > Potamotrygonidae) is a carnivorous animal that feeds mainly on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stupidity of Hag & Ric ericd@cox.net * It's been fun feeding on you > and Ric ericd@cox.net ! *Plonk* I would think that even you are not so stupid that you don't know that Stingray has more than one meaning, and when started with an upper-case letter, it's a proper noun, not a common noun. Your definition is therefore completely wrong. Furthermore, even if it were correct, you cannot comment about laws relating to them in any meaningful way. Each nation has different laws. In the US, state laws would govern ownership of animals, and each state has different laws. If there's a federal law covering this, or you have evidence that it's illegal in every state and every country, then by all means let me know about them. I can find many people on the Web who must be breaking the law according to you. Perhaps you want to report them. > >> "Hovel in your element"? > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > have to fall back on school grades, IQ tests, and general concensus to show > otherwise. No, that's the glory of the theory....everyone falls under the same assumption. Including you and your comment here. > StingRay can go down to a community college and sign up for a logic 101 > class to see how lacking his reasoning skills are, but he probably doesn't > care. After all, he might even have a Stingray, and it's probably the high > point of his life. Well if he does own a Stingray I'd give him credit, but something tells me he is more likely a latter day Corvette owner, gold chains and all. > "Hovel in your element"? > > "Revel"? > > DAS That should have read grovel, as in "cringe". Hey, it was late at night Dori. I'm surprised that you only found one error in that rather lengthy piece. Mea culpa. > At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow > off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now can we get back to the topic of smoking? LMAO!!! Good one Hag! What's the difference between a good nun and a bad nun? A good nun says "Amen". A bad nun says "Ah...men!" DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] Amen. >>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >> wants to be around other smokers. It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. It's just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot work. In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of bartenders who smoke. > I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from > fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? Those are not good for you either. Wood smoke is highly carcinogenic. The builder of my home could have put in a media room and even thrown in the equipment for the cost of the fireplace, chimney, and gas lines (that's for lighting the wood fire.) Also, fireplaces are not very efficient ways to heat a home, especially when you have a furnace on anyway. They suck air up the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat. I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly use it at all. I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I was growing up, there were no studies on second hand smoke. Yet, people who were around smokers ended up with red eyes, coughs, headaches, stomachaches, etc. It should not have been hard to figure out that if somebody came near me with a cigarette and it made me cough that my body did not like it. It should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started that his body didn't like it either. I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was told that getting headaches at the end of the day was just a normal part of life. That's what aspirin was for, and everybody used it regularly. I also thought that coughing was normal. I knew that people coughed a lot when they were sick, but I also thought that coughing was something that people normally did occasionally on a daily basis as a way of reacting with the environment. Having clothing that needed washing at the end of the day was normal too. It didn't matter if it still looked clean, or never came in contact with anything dirty. It was understood that if I went to any affair, I would have to get my suit dry cleaned the next day. How anybody could believe that smoke could impregnate everything around it, stink up rooms, clothing, cars, and anything it contacted, turn ceilings brown, and cause obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure sign of how people can delude themselves. >>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. No No No, a thousand times no! Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? Or they can choose not to work in a bar. If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in a perfume factory. Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? >>>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work > in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? I did finish my sentence. If there is a job available, they cannot have it if they do not want to be around smoke. You should have been able to understand that from the context. > If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? A dislike for booze or it is effects (whatever that means) does not cause them physical harm and is not relevant. The government has no obligation to protect workers from something they merely dislike. > Or they can choose not to work in a bar. Why should they have to make that choice? If the job is available, they should have the right to take it if they are qualified, and should not be subjected to unreasonable health risks. If I advocated that the asbestos laws are stupid and people should just work somewhere else if they don't want a contaminated workplace, I don't think I'd get much support. But cigarette smoke is more harmful than asbestos. People should get the same protection when it comes to smoke as they do for any other poison or substance that causes cancer. > If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any > degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. Any state OSHA will have rules protecting them from these. They must be vented to the outside, and should not exceed certain levels. If anybody had to work in a garage where exposure to those fumes was a serious issue, you could expect that garage to be closed down, and the owner either sued or jailed, depending on the extent. > If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in > a perfume factory. Perfume is not a substance that has been shown to cause cancer. It is not something that causes problems for people in general. If the concentations in a factory were high enough to cause problems for most people, it would have to fix the problem. This cannot be compared to cigarette smoke, which is harmful to everybody. > Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? Wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out why, and I'm tired of explaining the obvious. >>>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? I totally agree - if you know how things are before you start a job, then you decide to put up with everything legally associated with that job. Natalie >>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. If you go to (or work in) a place that you know was primarily a smoker's haven, then that's *your* problem, IMO. The fact is that there are a lot of smokers, of course, so I don't see anything wrong with a group of people participating in a legal activity (health risks or not), as I think they have a right to poison their lungs, just as I have the right to use way too much salt in my diet. I know the risks of eating so much salt, but I choose to disregard it. I see a smoking club/bar as the same category. > In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day > smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders > healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of > bartenders who smoke. See above >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > up > the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat. We had ours modified in some way that was supposed to decrease the residue, but I doubt it did very much (back when we lived in New Hampshire and burned firewood) > I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly > use it at all. You must not be in New England :-) > I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. > What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started > that his body didn't like it either. My parents were both potheads in the 70s (ironically, I never could stand the smell of the stuff), and burned incense regularly, of course. I usually left the house when they were tokin' > I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, > I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure > sign of how people can delude themselves. Whenever we visited my mother-in-law for the weekend, we'd come back and wash all of our clothes, both clean and dirty. Nasty smell, that. It does permeate everything. The bitch of it is that while in her house, you don't notice the smell, but as soon as you go outside, you realize you reek of it! I hated going anyplace while we were visiting my MIL, because we smelled like heavy smokers. - yuck! Natalie > >>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very > >>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > salt in my diet. I know the risks of eating so much salt, but I choose to > disregard it. I see a smoking club/bar as the same category. Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make my food saltier. Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together. It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar. Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for a bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said that smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the nearest percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke. In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's haven because it turned other potential customers off. > > In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day > > smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders > > healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of > > bartenders who smoke. > > See above See above > >> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from > >> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > but I doubt it did very much (back when we lived in New Hampshire and burned > firewood) I don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get rid of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others. > > I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly > > use it at all. > > You must not be in New England :-) No, I'm not. > > I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. > > What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > smell of the stuff), and burned incense regularly, of course. I usually left > the house when they were tokin' If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others. > > I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, > > I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I hated going anyplace while we were visiting my MIL, because we smelled like > heavy smokers. - yuck! I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around smokers any more. > "Wickeddoll?" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make > my food saltier. I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying that some bars in AZ decided to make themselves 'smoker-friendly'. I think they have the right to serve their customers as they (legally) see fit. > Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message