Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we
can easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but
it is really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As
for the nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
(especially younger people), it is very difficult to get away from
it. It's all about addictive properites.


What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.

Good call - saying your statement was stupid was a poor choice of words.
I'll retract that statement if you'll allow.

--

-Mike-

On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.


Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.

Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.

On 9/21/2014 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
warning?
----------------------------------------
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Coca Cola.

Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
on test.

If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.

Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.

Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.

Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
addicits.

They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are sucking
on
as they walk down the street.


Lew


Exactly!

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, wrote:

There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.

If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,

Two different kinds of addiction. Doctors categorize things
as being physically addictive, meaning the body develops a
dependency on them and there are withdrawal symptoms if it
doesn't get them; and behavioral addiction, where a person is
emotionally dependant on the reward of a particular activity.

Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical. Junk food, etc,
are behavioral.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:50:36 -0400, "dadiOH"
Good trick as tobacco was unknown except in the western hemisphere until
the Spanish took it back to Europe.

Six hundred years ago they didn't have a clue as to what caused disease.
Leeuwenhoek didn't even discover microrganisms until the late 1600s.

Sorry, but that's a naive viewpoint. There's ample examples of
ingesting substance into the lungs throughout history that showed the
dangers of inhaling various substances.

The Chinese smoked. North American Aboriginals smoked. And even your
Europeon and English inhaled coal dust giving rise to black lung
disease. Societies and various histories were well aware of the
dangers of inhaling undesirable substances.

Do you really believe nobody in various societies were aware of where
of the what caused a number of illnesses?

wrote in message


Do you really believe nobody in various societies were aware of where
of the what caused a number of illnesses?

Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:24:44 +0000, John McCoy wrote:

Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical.

As I said in a previous post, that's true for most people - but not for
some.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ...

Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in


I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.

-- SNIP

-Mike-


I agree Mike. Lost two best friends. One to smoking lung cancer and one to
radiation lung cancer. He worked at a company that used radium or plutonium.
Not sure which one. WW

Leon wrote:
On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.


Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol
and smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was
bad for you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you
passed out, and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to
make you go blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight
than the next, again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings
did not hold true sorta watered down the seriousness.

Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.

As the average life expectancy increases, effects and side effects of
smoking become more obvious too.

On 9/22/2014 12:08 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The tobacco lobby spent a tidy sum suppressing it.

Warning labels came later.


Lew



A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
today. It was a great idea!

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
today. It was a great idea!

Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is the
above just wishful thinking?

From what I have read, a bit over 40% of the US population smoked in 1965,
just under 20% now which is about what it was in the 20s. And it isn't
hard to find cigarette vendors.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

WW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ...

Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in


I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.

-- SNIP

-Mike-


I agree Mike. Lost two best friends. One to smoking lung cancer and
one to radiation lung cancer. He worked at a company that used radium
or plutonium. Not sure which one. WW

Thank you. There are so many other causes of lung cancer - and amidst our
age group - Agent Orange from the days of Viet Nam, which are far more
conclusive in their effects on people today. Then again, there are the less
obvous causes. Cigarette smoking falls somewhere in between. We don't even
really understand the non-cigarette contributors well enough now to make
grand stand proclamations.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:lvpi3g$fkm$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:24:44 +0000, John McCoy wrote:

Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical.

As I said in a previous post, that's true for most people - but not for
some.

Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if
someone becomes addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But
not everyone that tries smoking becomes addicted. I recall
a co-worker who smoked precisely two cigarettes per day,
one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:24:44 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, wrote:

There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.

If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,

To some degree, yes. To some degree everyone is different. Some have
very serious addiction to such things. Some will become addicted to
just about anything, as you allude. AIUI, the endorphin connection to
food is connected through insulin, also a very potent hormone.

Two different kinds of addiction. Doctors categorize things
as being physically addictive, meaning the body develops a
dependency on them and there are withdrawal symptoms if it
doesn't get them; and behavioral addiction, where a person is
emotionally dependant on the reward of a particular activity.

No, not really. Endorphin addiction is as real, and very similar to
heroin addiction, for example.

Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical. Junk food, etc,
are behavioral.

There are many dietary professionals who will disagree with you.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.


Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.

Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new. The fact is
that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
decades before the Surgeon General's report. Parents *were* warning
their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
that.

Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.

That's a completely different issue. The fact is that it was known to
be a dangerous habit and people *chose* to do it anyway.

dadiOH wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
today. It was a great idea!

Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is
the above just wishful thinking?

I think he intended his remarks as *sarcasm*.



From what I have read, a bit over 40% of the US population smoked in
1965, just under 20% now which is about what it was in the 20s. And
it isn't hard to find cigarette vendors.

"Bill" wrote in message

dadiOH wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs.
sales of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking,
no one else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling
smokes today. It was a great idea!

Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is
the above just wishful thinking?

I think he intended his remarks as *sarcasm*.

Oh.

Never mind.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:52:35 +0000, John McCoy wrote:

Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if someone becomes
addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But not everyone that tries
smoking becomes addicted. I recall a co-worker who smoked precisely two
cigarettes per day,
one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.

OK, I think you described it better than I did. For example, I quit
smoking a carton or more a week after I had a heart attack 17 years ago.
Only problem I recall was the habit of reaching for my shirt pocket every
time I picked up a cup of coffee :-). But one might consider a heart
attack more motivation than most people have.

After that I limited myself to one cigar a month for 10 years - had no
problem sticking to that although I did allow an extra on my birthday.
After that, when I reached 70, I decided I could allow one a week with no
major downside - still sticking to that but I may give up that pleasure
if the prices keep going up.

A little arithmetic shows that when I was smoking that carton plus, my
lungs were inhaling smoke 20%-25% of the time. In comparison, my weekly
cigar works out to 0.03% of the time. Not a major source of contaminants.

Believe me, I'm not touting smoking. If you don't, don't start. If you
do, quit. Most people *do* get addicted so don't try my process unless
you're sure you're not.

On 9/22/2014 3:52 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if
someone becomes addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But
not everyone that tries smoking becomes addicted. I recall
a co-worker who smoked precisely two cigarettes per day,
one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.

John


At two a day, it is possible he was not addicted (did he ever stop for a
while?) and lung damage was minimal. Most of us could not do it that
way though.

I know a couple of people that did quit the pack a day habit and after
not smoking for a number of years decided to have just one. They were
immediately back to their old habit.

On 9/22/2014 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.


Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.

Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new.

DOH!

The fact is
that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
decades before the Surgeon General's report.

BS

Parents *were* warning
their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
that.

right~


Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.

Well no ****~! That is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Teenagers ignoring the warnings whether the warnings were as serious
then as they are today.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:33:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/22/2014 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.


Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.

Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new.

DOH!

The fact is
that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
decades before the Surgeon General's report.

BS

It's *not* BS. "Cancer sticks" and "coffin nails" were part of the
lexicon in the 40s and 50s, if not before. People *knew* cigarettes
caused death.

Parents *were* warning
their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
that.

right~

Fact. Perhaps yours didn't. Sue them. ;-)

Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.

Well no ****~! That is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Teenagers ignoring the warnings whether the warnings were as serious
then as they are today.

The warnings were just a serious though perhaps the government didn't
constantly nag us. The information (that tobacco caused illness and
death) has been generally known for at least a couple of centuries.

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------
Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung cancer
and has
never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.

As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her door
step.

When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Lew

On 9/20/2014 4:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
Whatever it is, I am grateful.

mahalo,
jo4hn

On 9/24/2014 7:52 AM, jo4hn wrote:
On 9/20/2014 4:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed
with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six
*weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market
this killer weed.

My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
Whatever it is, I am grateful.

mahalo,
jo4hn

;~) It proves that you have not yet lived to be as old as your dad yet.

On 9/24/2014 8:52 AM, jo4hn wrote:


My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
Whatever it is, I am grateful.

mahalo,
jo4hn


It proves there is always an exception. If you look at hundreds or
thousands of cases, the correlation is there.

May you outlive your father by a couple of decades.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:52:52 -0700, jo4hn wrote:

I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like a fish,
and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera.

And if you grew up in the midwest,you probably had a coal furnace in a
neighborhood full of coal furnaces - I can still remember the fumes :-).

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:52:52 -0700, jo4hn wrote:

I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like a fish,
and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera.

And if you grew up in the midwest,you probably had a coal furnace in a
neighborhood full of coal furnaces - I can still remember the fumes :-).

Remember the black when you blew your nose?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but
does anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who
have never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years?
Lung cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on
the Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much
bigger monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung
cancer and has
never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.

As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her
door step.

When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

------------------------------------------------
Her time came last night.

As had been said before, "When it is your time".


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but
does anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who
have never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years?
Lung cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on
the Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much
bigger monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung
cancer and has
never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.

As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her
door step.

When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

------------------------------------------------
Her time came last night.

As had been said before, "When it is your time".


Lew

Sorry, Lew...

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net