On 7/2/2016 4:38 PM, Rene wrote:
On 7/2/2016 4:36 PM, Muggles wrote:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867



We all know smoking kills. Smokers are suicidal.

I guess the 64k question is should we allow smokers to commit suicide or
should we prevent them from jumping off the bridge.


(My gut tells me to give them a nudge but...)


Smokers want to take everyone to the grave with them that they possibly can!

--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until
they go away?


geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....

--
Maggie

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:07:24 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:42:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

The problem is to the anti-smoking crowd, the smell of smoke IS second
hand smoke.

No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes
the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.



When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses
from loons, let us know.

We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided
many links to scientific studies (proof).


Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed
here. And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a link
to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can't
read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just
provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentrations and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 room ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of every seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and regulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and day. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethenylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphthalene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced concentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemission increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concentrations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few weeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potential exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of
anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would
anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything about
smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're
walking into a building.




If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good
with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent
comments like you just made above.

How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't
provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you
waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the
difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie


I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.


What exactly qualifies as a "whiff of smoke"??

Get back to me when you have some concise scientific proof.

--
Maggie

That was the challenge I issued to you. Being the village idiot, you
respond with links that say a study was done, but not the study or
it's results. WTF is wrong with you?

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


+1

That's the problem I have, the lib anti-smoking crowd are just never

The issue has nothing to do with politics (liberal/conservative). It's
a health issue.


It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.
They want ever bigger govt, more govt programs, more govt regulators.
Conservatives want less regulations and to live people as free as possible.





satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.


Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.



Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't
stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best
for all the rest of us, we have no rights.

Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?


Yeah, Mr. Green here claims to be a Republican too, but he can't find one
Republican, including Reagan that was any good. I suspect you're his kind
of conservative. On the smoking issue, clearly the conservative position is
that if you are an adult and you want to have a cigar dinner in a private
room at a restaurant, it's none of the govt's business. If you can't see
that, then it sure sounds like you're a lib. You also take the side of jerks
who mouth off to cops, refuse to produce ID, resist arrest. You blame the
cops. No, doesn't sound like you're a conservative to me.



Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.


--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 12:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:07:24 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:42:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.



The problem is to the anti-smoking crowd, the smell of smoke IS second
hand smoke.



No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes
the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.



When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses
from loons, let us know.



We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided
many links to scientific studies (proof).



Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed
here.


Short memory? You responded to the "Where should smoking be ..." thread
at least 17 times from 5/28/16 - 5/29/16, and 9 of your responses in
that thread were you responding to about this same discussion.

Should I post the msg ids?




And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a link
to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can't
read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just
provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentrations and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 room ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of every seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and regulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and day. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethenylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphthalene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced concentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemission increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concentrations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few weeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potential exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of
anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would
anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything about
smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're
walking into a building.





If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good
with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent
comments like you just made above.


How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't
provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you
waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the
difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.




You can't even remember responding to this very discussion on May.

Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie


I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.


What exactly qualifies as a "whiff of smoke"??

Get back to me when you have some concise scientific proof.



That was the challenge I issued to you.

It's not my job to prove anything about the contenc of a "whiff of
smoke". You and others brought up the notion that a whiff wasn't enough
exposure to cause any physical damage or reaction.

Prove your own premise.

Being the village idiot, you
respond with links that say a study was done, but not the study or
it's results. WTF is wrong with you?


Well, obviously, I don't communicate well with blowhards.

--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 12:43 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:

satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.

Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't
stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best
for all the rest of us, we have no rights.

Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?

Yeah, Mr. Green here claims to be a Republican too, but he can't find one
Republican, including Reagan that was any good.

Don't complain to me about issues you have with someone else.

I suspect you're his kind of conservative.

Now, if I'm not "YOU'RE" kind of conservative, then I can't possibly BE
a conservative?? Is that what you believe?

On the smoking issue, clearly the conservative position is
that if you are an adult and you want to have a cigar dinner in a private
room at a restaurant, it's none of the govt's business.

CLEARLY, that is YOUR position, which doesn't automatically fall into a
conservative mindset. In fact, your kind of radical attitude is akin to
how many liberals approach how they respond to anyone they disagree
with. If you don't want people seeing you as being a liberal nutcase,
you need to reassess how you respond.


If you can't see that, then it sure sounds like you're a lib.

How 'bout you take a flying leap off a short pier into shallow water?
How does that trip your trigger, bubba?

You don't define what or who constitutes being conservative.

You also take the side of jerks
who mouth off to cops, refuse to produce ID, resist arrest. You blame the
cops. No, doesn't sound like you're a conservative to me.

Changing the subject? Hey, start a new thread and I'll take you to
school on that topic, too. It's already been discussed "why" I took the
position that I took, and if you can't accept that I'm a conservative
and have an opinion different from your own on 2 topics, then I guess
you'll just be an unhappy camper.


--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 12:51 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r


http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token



Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.


hahaha! Ok .. that was just funny.

--
Maggie

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:15:55 -0500
Muggles wrote:

On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack
per year. year one a buck, year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from
smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that
until they go away?


geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....


Just like FAT people really stink and should be banned from
being in public.

I noticed the wal mart welfare scooters now have a
500 pound weight limit warning on them.

On 07/02/2016 04:38 PM, Rene wrote:
On 7/2/2016 4:36 PM, Muggles wrote:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867


We all know smoking kills. Smokers are suicidal.

[snip]

It seems a lot of suicidal people follow the "golden rule". That is,
they assume that since they want to die, that others want to die too.
That, or they don't care.

On 07/02/2016 04:40 PM, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......


I had cancer in 1990, which had nothing to do with smoking.
When I was at the place where they give radiation treatments, there were
a lot of people with lung cancer. Some had to breathe through holes in
their throats.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It's not your fault that you're always wrong" -- Marilyn Manson

On 07/03/2016 08:34 AM, Red wrote:

[snip]

I believe the tobacco companies knowingly add chemicals to tobacco to
make it more addictive. Once addicted, the weak-willed smokers can't
break free.

Smokers often claim they smoke because they choose to but really they
have been unwittingly duped by big tobacco's drugs.

That makes sense, but leaves out something. How do the smokers get
started? I look at smoking and see a nasty fire hazard.

BTW, I can remember riding a bus where someone in the seat behind me was
smoking. The smell didn't seem to be a problem, and I was too young then
to be concerned about health problems. However, I was aware of FIRE less
than 2-3 inches from the back of my head.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It's not your fault that you're always wrong" -- Marilyn Manson

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.


Moron, she didn't post a "study". She posted a link to a short abstract
about a study, that only says the study was done, a little about the
methodology and NOTHING about the conclusions.

This would be like someone saying Mormons are a bunch of child molesters
and when challenged, some idiot posts a link to an abstract
that say a study was done, they looked at 5000 Mormons over 5 years.
Nothing at all about what they found.

No go **** yourself and take Muggles with you.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.


Moron, she didn't post a "study". She posted a link to a short abstract
about a study, that only says the study was done, a little about the
methodology and NOTHING about the conclusions.

This would be like someone saying Mormons are a bunch of child molesters
and when challenged, some idiot posts a link to an abstract
that say a study was done, they looked at 5000 Mormons over 5 years.
Nothing at all about what they found.

No go **** yourself and take Muggles with you.

YOU are being excessive/compulsive about a ****ing cigar? And everyone else is the idiot?

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:08:23 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 12:43 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:

satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.

Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't
stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best
for all the rest of us, we have no rights.

Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?

Yeah, Mr. Green here claims to be a Republican too, but he can't find one
Republican, including Reagan that was any good.

Don't complain to me about issues you have with someone else.


Who's complaining. I just pointed to a classic example here of someone
who clearly is not what they claim to be, just like you.


I suspect you're his kind of conservative.

Now, if I'm not "YOU'RE" kind of conservative, then I can't possibly BE
a conservative?? Is that what you believe?


Wooosh! Right over your pin head. The fact is that someone who chooses
people who tell cops to **** off, resist arrest, while condemning the cops,
doesn't sound conservative. Nor someone that thinks it's govt's job to
extinguish every cigarette in America, that people shouldn't be allowed
the freedom to choose for themselves. THAT is what libs do, smoking,
now soda sizes, salt on restaurant tables.



On the smoking issue, clearly the conservative position is
that if you are an adult and you want to have a cigar dinner in a private
room at a restaurant, it's none of the govt's business.

CLEARLY, that is YOUR position, which doesn't automatically fall into a
conservative mindset.

Of course it does. Which once again demonstrates that you don't even
know what conservatives stand for today. Explain to us where in the
Constitution as the framers put it forth, it gives the govt the right
to deny people the right to have a private cigar dinner at a restaurant.
You think Madison would support your position?


In fact, your kind of radical attitude is akin to
how many liberals approach how they respond to anyone they disagree
with. If you don't want people seeing you as being a liberal nutcase,
you need to reassess how you respond.


I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a group of people
to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the one that wants to
control people, FORCE your ways on everyone. THAT is what libs do.



If you can't see that, then it sure sounds like you're a lib.

How 'bout you take a flying leap off a short pier into shallow water?
How does that trip your trigger, bubba?


Go **** yourself, how about that. And take that moron Mormon with you.



You don't define what or who constitutes being conservative.


No your words and actions do and tells us all we need to know about
you. Explain to us how banning a cigar dinner in a private room in
a restaurant fits in with being a conservative. You can't. It doesn't.




You also take the side of jerks
who mouth off to cops, refuse to produce ID, resist arrest. You blame the
cops. No, doesn't sound like you're a conservative to me.

Changing the subject? Hey, start a new thread and I'll take you to
school on that topic, too. It's already been discussed "why" I took the
position that I took, and if you can't accept that I'm a conservative
and have an opinion different from your own on 2 topics, then I guess
you'll just be an unhappy camper.


--
Maggie

Yeah, you sure took us to school on that one. But, but, but they were
arrested for JAYWALKING! Wrong, village idiot. They were arrested for
RESISTING arrest which everyone else could see right on the freaking
video. You really are a total waste of protoplasm.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:23:36 PM UTC-4, bob_villain wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.


Moron, she didn't post a "study". She posted a link to a short abstract
about a study, that only says the study was done, a little about the
methodology and NOTHING about the conclusions.

This would be like someone saying Mormons are a bunch of child molesters
and when challenged, some idiot posts a link to an abstract
that say a study was done, they looked at 5000 Mormons over 5 years.
Nothing at all about what they found.

No go **** yourself and take Muggles with you.

YOU are being excessive/compulsive about a ****ing cigar? And everyone else is the idiot?

I'm not taking about cigars, I'm talking about people's right to be free,
to live their lives, make their own choices. But being a clueless lib,
none of that registers with you.

Per trader_4:
And abortion is
obviously a very special case because another life, who has no voice,
is involved.

If those people would lighten up and start talking about the number of
months before a fertilized egg becomes a person (i.e. try to roll back
the date where abortions are legal) they would have some credibility
with me.

But they are not; instead they are claiming that a single fertilized egg
is the same as a person - and that's irrational enough to me to strongly
suggest that their next agenda is making contraception illegal.

To be fair, maybe even *they* don't realize that.... but I would say
there is a good chance of it being in the cards.

--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
bob_villain wrote:

excessive/compulsive about a ****ing cigar?

How long have you taken cigars up the arse?
Did bubba clinton pop your cherry?

trader_4 formulated the question :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot?

To you, everyone *else* seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t=1134
https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t=3655

bob_villain was thinking very hard :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.


Moron, she didn't post a "study". She posted a link to a short abstract
about a study, that only says the study was done, a little about the
methodology and NOTHING about the conclusions.

This would be like someone saying Mormons are a bunch of child molesters
and when challenged, some idiot posts a link to an abstract
that say a study was done, they looked at 5000 Mormons over 5 years.
Nothing at all about what they found.

No go **** yourself and take Muggles with you.

YOU are being excessive/compulsive about a ****ing cigar? And everyone else
is the idiot?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

On 07/03/2016 01:12 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:

[snip]

I noticed the wal mart welfare scooters now have a
500 pound weight limit warning on them.


I noticed that (weight limit) a couple of days ago.

I've known 2 people who used those scooters. One with a permanent
condition (ALS) and the other temporarily (recovering from hernia
surgery). Neither had a weight problem.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
bob_villain wrote:

excessive/compulsive about a ****ing cigar?

How long have you taken cigars up the arse?
Did bubba clinton pop your cherry?

As long as you have been sucking on them...you spread so much ****, you must eat it.

–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–„– „–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–„–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–„–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–„–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘– ‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘– ‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘– ‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘– ‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–“–“–“–“–“–“–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘– ‘–‘–‘–‘–ˆ–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘
–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–€–‘–‘–‘–‘–€–€–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ– ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–ˆ–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘–‘

On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.


I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss
what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?

--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 2:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:08:23 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 12:43 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I suspect you're his kind of conservative.

Now, if I'm not "YOU'RE" kind of conservative, then I can't possibly BE
a conservative?? Is that what you believe?


Wooosh! Right over your pin head. The fact is that someone who chooses
people who tell cops to **** off, resist arrest, while condemning the cops,
doesn't sound conservative. Nor someone that thinks it's govt's job to
extinguish every cigarette in America, that people shouldn't be allowed
the freedom to choose for themselves. THAT is what libs do, smoking,
now soda sizes, salt on restaurant tables.

I think you've been smoking something illegal after reading that short
paragraph.



On the smoking issue, clearly the conservative position is
that if you are an adult and you want to have a cigar dinner in a private
room at a restaurant, it's none of the govt's business.

CLEARLY, that is YOUR position, which doesn't automatically fall into a
conservative mindset.


Of course it does. Which once again demonstrates that you don't even
know what conservatives stand for today.

'Scuse you, but you shouldn't presume to define what conservatives stand
for today. Feel free to define what you believe, though.


Explain to us where in the
Constitution as the framers put it forth, it gives the govt the right
to deny people the right to have a private cigar dinner at a restaurant.
You think Madison would support your position?

Do you think it is the right of the people to pursue LIFE??

Have you forgotten:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. €”€”"

What does it mean to pursue LIFE?? It isn't just about pursuing liberty
or happiness.


In fact, your kind of radical attitude is akin to
how many liberals approach how they respond to anyone they disagree
with. If you don't want people seeing you as being a liberal nutcase,
you need to reassess how you respond.


I'm the radical? Good grief.

You're a blowhard, and never listen to anything people say unless it's
someone stroking your ego and kissing your patootie. If you don't get
your way you resort to character assassination as if you think that
makes you sound superior or even smarter.

It just makes you look immature and unable to practice grown up self
control. Seriously, see a counselor.

I support the right of a group of people
to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the one that wants to
control people, FORCE your ways on everyone. THAT is what libs do.

Wake up and smell the stench - the era of smoking is declining and the
idea that it's cool, healthy, and something to be admired has gone the
way of the dodo bird.


If you can't see that, then it sure sounds like you're a lib.

How 'bout you take a flying leap off a short pier into shallow water?
How does that trip your trigger, bubba?

Go **** yourself, how about that. And take that moron Mormon with you.

Unlike you, I've got no experience with that sort of act.



You don't define what or who constitutes being conservative.


No your words and actions do and tells us all we need to know about
you.

hmmm So, basically, my words and actions have taken you to school on
this particular topic?


Explain to us how banning a cigar dinner in a private room in
a restaurant fits in with being a conservative. You can't. It doesn't.

It's NOT a political issue - it's a HEALTH issue.



You also take the side of jerks
who mouth off to cops, refuse to produce ID, resist arrest. You blame the
cops. No, doesn't sound like you're a conservative to me.


Changing the subject? Hey, start a new thread and I'll take you to
school on that topic, too. It's already been discussed "why" I took the
position that I took, and if you can't accept that I'm a conservative
and have an opinion different from your own on 2 topics, then I guess
you'll just be an unhappy camper.




Yeah, you sure took us to school on that one.

I did.


--
Maggie

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:17:41 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 formulated the question :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot?

To you, everyone *else* seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t=1134
https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t=3655

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't
a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero?
And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people.
In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR
being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many
times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as
a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she
posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted,
NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.


I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss
what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?

--
Maggie

I already went through it with you. Once again, you're the village idiot.
Time to change your screen name again, to better troll, perhaps?

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:15:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until
they go away?


geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....

--
Maggie

So, just stay away from us. But don't use the heavy hand of govt to
screw us, deny us the right to a cigar dinner at a restaurant in a private
room, and then pretend you're a conservative.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 13:51:53 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token


Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that
Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine
monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the
report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls.
And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.
Responding to Trader is a total waste of energy and time.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:55:49 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals

I can sy for sure a "whiff" can be more than enough to send me for my
inhaler.
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called “off- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie


I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.


What exactly qualifies as a "whiff of smoke"??

Get back to me when you have some concise scientific proof.



That was the challenge I issued to you.

It's not my job to prove anything about the contenc of a "whiff of
smoke". You and others brought up the notion that a whiff wasn't enough
exposure to cause any physical damage or reaction.

Prove your own premise.

Being the village idiot, you
respond with links that say a study was done, but not the study or
it's results. WTF is wrong with you?


Well, obviously, I don't communicate well with blowhards.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?


Can you not comprehend that I said, sure, that's just like all the times
Green comes in here and tells us he's a Republican. But since he's
demonstrated for years that he's not, no one believe him either. In his
case, he's yet to name a single Republican that he likes, he regularly
rants against all of them, even Reagan was no good.




Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.


--
Maggie

Then why are you against allowing me to have a private cigar dinner at
a restaurant in a private room? How about a bar that wants to allow
smoking, all the patrons that go there, the staff, are all OK with it,
how is it consistent with conservatism for you to use big govt to deny
them that right? And conservatives don't believe in "common sense", they
believe in smaller govt and allowing people the freedom to live their
own lives, eg smokers have rights too.

On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a group of people
to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the one that wants to
control people, FORCE your ways on everyone. THAT is what libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100 other people's right to clean air?
You're going to FORCE everyone else to breath your stinky cigar smoke?

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:17:17 PM UTC-4, Ralph wrote:
On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a group of people
to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the one that wants to
control people, FORCE your ways on everyone. THAT is what libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100 other people's right to clean air?
You're going to FORCE everyone else to breath your stinky cigar smoke?

A private room, with it's own ventilation. Or how about a bar that wants
to allow smoking for smokers. Anyone forcing you to go there? Anyone forcing
you to do anything? No, the forcing is of the smokers, who have no rights
anymore.

trader_4 wrote on 7/3/2016 :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:17:41 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 formulated the question :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot?

To you, everyone *else* seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t=1134
https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t=3655

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't
a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero?

It's a formula, and when the current is zero the resistance is infinity
and you can't multiply by infinity either.

And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people.
In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR
being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many
times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as
a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she
posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted,
NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

You're still wrong.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:17:17 PM UTC-4, Ralph wrote:

So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100 other people's right to clean air?
You're going to FORCE everyone else to breath your stinky cigar smoke?

A private room, with it's own ventilation. Or how about a bar that wants
to allow smoking for smokers. Anyone forcing you to go there? Anyone forcing
you to do anything? No, the forcing is of the smokers, who have no rights
anymore.

Smokers have all the rights they need...stay home and smoke. It's your right to harm yourselves. Have a happy and long life, but stay the **** away from me and my family!

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:58:43 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 wrote on 7/3/2016 :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:17:41 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 formulated the question :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot?

To you, everyone *else* seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t=1134
https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t=3655

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't
a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero?

It's a formula, and when the current is zero the resistance is infinity
and you can't multiply by infinity either.

And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people.
In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR
being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many
times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as
a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she
posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted,
NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

You're still wrong.

Your village idiot certificate is now awarded too.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:58:43 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 wrote on 7/3/2016 :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:17:41 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 formulated the question :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie

Serious question, are you the village idiot?

To you, everyone *else* seems to be the village idiot.

Have you figured out how 1^2 can equal 2 yet?

https://youtu.be/WwndchnEDS4?t=1134
https://youtu.be/5br-GWd_DpA?t=3655

HAve you figured out how a current of zero is a real value, isn't
a violation of Ohms Law, and doesn't involve division by zero?

It's a formula, and when the current is zero the resistance is infinity
and you can't multiply by infinity either.


See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is
zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic algebra.

I have a 100 ohm resistor. With 0 current, Ohms LAw gives V = 0 x 100 = 0.
With 0 current through a resistance of 100 ohms, 0 voltage is produced.
What moron would ever think that somehow that resistor now has a value of
infinity? Good grief. I even suggested last time that you graph it,
voltage versus current. It's a straight line, right through the origin.

Feel free to pick up your village idiot award anytime.




And no, everyone here isn't the village idiot, just certain people.
In your case, you earned it by arguing with everyone about V =IR
being undefined with a current of Zero. Muggles has earned it, many
times, many ways. The latest was posting an abstract to a study as
a reference to prove the dangers of a whiff of smoke, when what she
posted was just an abstract that says an experiment was conducted,
NOTHING about the results. Certificate awarded.

You're still wrong.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 8:03:18 PM UTC-4, bob_villain wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:17:17 PM UTC-4, Ralph wrote:

So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100 other people's right to clean air?
You're going to FORCE everyone else to breath your stinky cigar smoke?

A private room, with it's own ventilation. Or how about a bar that wants
to allow smoking for smokers. Anyone forcing you to go there? Anyone forcing
you to do anything? No, the forcing is of the smokers, who have no rights
anymore.

Smokers have all the rights they need...stay home and smoke. It's your right to harm yourselves. Have a happy and long life, but stay the **** away from me and my family!

Typical lib attitude. But whoooh, God forbid anyone say anything about
denying say a muslim some right, or a Mexican a right to come here illegally.
Then, OMG, it's a whole different story. But cigar smokers, wanting to have
a private cigar dinner, in a private restaurant, well, they have no rights.