# Ok so I'm a smoker and this is my rant...



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I am one of those, the ones you see lurking outside buildings and hiding in alleys... I'm a smoker.. I admit it is a bad habit, and it is also a hard one to shake. My rant is about the smoking shelters at work. I don't find it a problem to take my habit outside and I respect the rights of the non smokers, but what about some of my rights.. At home I don't smoke in the house, haven't for about 15 years now. I take it out to my shop. At work they made us a bus shelter type building, it was suitable, sheltered with a door way. Then along came the smoking police. The shelter was not allowed to have all four walls two had to go.. Now we had a wind tunnel. My question, why can't there be four walls, nobody but us smokers in there and we know the risks?
Why does it have to be uncomfortable to go out there and have a smoke ?
We had hung a plastic curtain across one end to stop the wind effect and along came the smoke police and told the company it had to come down or charges would be laid. Then she made the comment " HA spoiled your fun", what is this all about?? Smoke police, now there could be trans fat police in our future.....


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

Will it ever end.....


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

I smoked but was able to break the habit many years ago. That said I'm not sure why a company should have to pay for any walls to help someone slowly kill themselves. Freezing to death, the same end result isn't it?

 :wink:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'm a "social" smoker who supports the rights of both smokers and non-smokers (except for those smokers who think the earth is their ashtray!).

i do not believe your employer is obligated in any way to provide a smoking area. how is that his problem?

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Don't break your heart..."*



PaulS said:


> Why does it have to be uncomfortable to go out there and have a smoke ?
> We had hung a plastic curtain across one end to stop the wind effect and along came the smoke police and told the company it had to come down or charges would be laid. Then she made the comment " HA spoiled your fun", what is this all about?? Smoke police, now there could be trans fat police in our future.....


Paul, you're absolutely right. They want smokers to be uncomfortable so they'd be more inclined to quit. The thought that smokers might see what they're doing and resent them for it never entered their minds. If you die of pneumonia they'll just mark "smoking related" on your death certificate anyway. The "Ilsa of the NicoTroopers" woman you mentioned was of course enjoying herself. Those kind of people LOVE to force others to do what they tell them to!

That being said, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Just hide, try to keep your children away from such people and enjoy your vice in secret. Console yourself with the thought that what goes around comes around and someday you may be able to force HER to give up something she likes that YOU think is bad for her!

Well, maybe not. People like that don't seem to like much of anything - except control over others.


The problem is bigger than any of us. Someday things may change but for now don't keep whacking your head against the wall.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Paul, you're absolutely right. They want smokers to be uncomfortable so they'd be more inclined to quit. The thought that smokers might see what they're doing and resent them for it never entered their minds. If you die of pneumonia they'll just mark "smoking related" on your death certificate anyway. The "Ilsa of the NicoTroopers" woman you mentioned was of course enjoying herself. Those kind of people LOVE to force others to do what they tell them to!
> That being said, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Just hide, try to keep your children away from such people and enjoy your vice in secret. Console yourself with the thought that what goes around comes around and someday you may be able to force HER to give up something she likes that YOU think is bad for her!
> Well, maybe not. People like that don't seem to like much of anything - except control over others.
> The problem is bigger than any of us. Someday things may change but for now don't keep whacking your head against the wall.



...i'm in complete agreement. anti-smoking nazis are no better than smoking nazis. but i still don't understand why an employer is obligated in any way to provide a smoking area. 

-dh


----------



## Xanadu (Feb 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i'm in complete agreement. anti-smoking nazis are no better than smoking nazis. but i still don't understand why an employer is obligated in any way to provide a smoking area.
> 
> -dh


good point.. at least you wont get rained on, paul...


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The whole notion of smokers' "rights" is problematic: you are a drug addict, not the victim of a civil liberty breach.

I don't really know why your smoking shelter keeps getting halved. My guess is that any structure with 4 walls and a roof is legally considered a building and employees cannot smoke in a company building; tearing two walls off helps comply with the law (just a guess).

BTW, I smoked from 18-29. It will soon be 6 years since I had a smoke: without a doubt the smartest thing I've ever done and the best gift I've ever given myself. Once you really quit, you will be shocked at how much smoking controled your life. Things you didn't even realize (thing you do, won't do, think, structure your day) are all related to nicotine but you won't realize it until nicotine is out of your system.

Just remember: once a smoker always a smoker. Alcholoics can't be social smokers and ex-smokers cannot go on to be social smokers.

TG


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Paul, you're absolutely right. They want smokers to be uncomfortable so they'd be more inclined to quit.


 I disagree. The reason being the government makes a shit load of money putting taxes on smokes, and everyone knows the government wants our money. 

If they really didnt want people smoking wouldnt they have banned it? I mean they did ban trans fats.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

Some misconception here, I never ranted at my employer. They did not have to provide but they did, and I thank them. It is the Smoking Police and there guidelines. The company gave us four walls the SP took away two. My question was why does it matter how many walls when the only people in there are smokers....


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

traynor_garnet said:


> The whole notion of smokers' "rights" is problematic: you are a drug addict, not the victim of a civil liberty breach.
> 
> I don't really know why your smoking shelter keeps getting halved. My guess is that any structure with 4 walls and a roof is legally considered a building and employees cannot smoke in a company building; tearing two walls off helps comply with the law (just a guess).
> 
> ...


Your absolutely right smokers are drug addicts, unfortuneatley when I was growing up there was no education or even a smoking problem at that time. When you got caught smoking by your parents the response was , you might as well smoke out herew than hiding and burning the place down. By the time society deemed it harmful I was well hooked. I applaud your quitting, I wish that I could and stay off them, but I keep coming back. I do not encourage anybody to smoke and if I see young ones smoking I relate my woes.. 
So I guess it's back to hiding again......


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i'm a "social" smoker who supports the rights of both smokers and non-smokers (except for those smokers who think the earth is their ashtray!).
> 
> i do not believe your employer is obligated in any way to provide a smoking area. how is that his problem?
> 
> -dh


The employer is not required to supply an area, our company was good enough to take it on there behalf and give us one. And again I thank them for there gesture. They even supplied benches to sit on.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"It depends on who's asking..."*



mick7 said:


> I disagree. The reason being the government makes a shit load of money putting taxes on smokes, and everyone knows the government wants our money.
> 
> If they really didnt want people smoking wouldnt they have banned it? I mean they did ban trans fats.


You're right, of course. They haven't banned it because of the tax revenue. What's more, maybe a third of adults WHO GET TO VOTE still smoke! What do you think would happen to a politician who banned nicotine?

Still, you talk as if the government is one intelligent, logical personality who makes decisions. It just ain't so! Government is made up of a whole passle of folks who have greater or lesser power in a whole spectrum of areas. These folks never talk to each other, either.

Why do you think you have to give all your personal info everytime you deal with a different branch of government? It's because there is no common data base. Every department has their own.

Governments are perfectly capable of having conflicting departments, and often do. 

More simply, you start off with a fixed quantity of intelligence and then you divide by the number of people involved. As you put more civil servants on the job the ones you deal with face to face get dumber and dumber.

Politicians appeal to voting groups and will always suck and blow to contrary groups any time they can get away with it.

As an aside to David H., you asked why a company is obligated to provide a smoking area. The answer is that they're not, but they can either out of simple compassion or to try to keep good employees. Some folks are lucky enough to work in fields where they can bail out of a large company and work from home as a consultant or whatever. To an addicted smoker the temptation can be strong.

I still remember working in the late 80's at a Westinghouse plant as the nico laws started to kick in. The manager had a real problem in that some of his most productive workers were smokers and some of the office worst complainers and "sticky beaks" were demanding smoking bans. The sticky beaks couldn't care less about his productivity concerns. 

Before the flames start I wish to state again that I haven't smoked in years. I'm just someone who deplores watching some folks seize opportunities to tell their neighbour how to live his life.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

No flames here Bill, just agreement.....


----------



## Rattlesnake (Jul 20, 2006)

*Dats IT !!!*

hmmm....I'm a smoker and prefer to smoke outside. Windows open in my car all year around when I do have one, outside in front of my apt. In fact, until my first daughter was born, I never understood how smoking outside would be so beneficial. Have you seen what smoking indoors does to everything in your house? yuk. Yellow, sticky film that's just impossible to completely wash out. Not including the stench it leaves behind. O.k. so my clothes stink, my lungs filled with toxins, but I can enjoy my smoke outside, whereas indoors i'm not only smoking my cigarette, but everyone elses as well. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who smoked around me as a child, for blessing me with this curse I now have to cope with for the remainder of my days. Gotta love sarcasm.

P.S. Why should my daughters suffer for my choices. Take it outdoors, it's the habit thats killing us and not the cold weather!!


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Not meaning to be unsympathetic...*



Rattlesnake said:


> I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who smoked around me as a child, for blessing me with this curse I now have to cope with for the remainder of my days. Gotta love sarcasm.


Hey, nobody put a gun to my head when I started smoking. And even in that era (the Pleistocene) everyone knew that smoking wasn't a healthy habit.

I smoked for nearly 30 years. I quit for financial reasons. I just - stopped smoking! No patches, no hypnotism, no excuses. I just stopped.

I had zero cravings. I think that this time it was because I had realized that my finances were such that I couldn't include tobacco in the family budget. So slipping wouldn't hurt just me but also those I loved. Now I'm a guy whose first book was a science book, even before Dr. Seuss! I'm very skeptical of the claims about passive smoke harming others in the house. My mother is still laughing about how she saw in the newspaper that smoking causes smaller babies. She says that if she had known that when she had me and my siblings she'd have smoked even more! 

However, money issues are much more black and white. I stopped and haven't had a desire to start again since.

Still eat too much, 'though. I'll make a lame excuse. I married a girl of Italian extraction who could boil rocks and make 'em taste good! I guess to everyone some things come easier than others...


----------



## Rattlesnake (Jul 20, 2006)

*Dats IT !!!*

I think you may have just ended up trading your smoking habit for an eating habit.


----------



## Lowtones (Mar 21, 2006)

I could care less one way or the other. If you smoke, Enjoy. If you don't and people smoking bothers you, stay away from them when they are smoking.
What I feel with certainty is that once nobody smokes anymore, and it will happen, the smoking police/nazis will not just go away. They will simply focus on another vice. Coffee Drinkers perhaps. Donut eaters, Gum Chewers, Beer Drinkers, people who ride bicycles on city streets. So as long as smokers aren't blowing smoke in your face, just be glad that the nazis are still picking on them and not the rest of us. And, as friend pointed out to me...
There is so much tax on a package of cigarretres in this country, it's almost unpatriotic not to smoke. LOL


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Libertarian principles would say you have the right to smoke as long as your smoking doesnt infringe on other people's right to not be exposed to the smoke. Arent principles great?..................


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I have no problem taking it outside, or refraining from smoking if asked. I do not smoke in my own house and do not allow anyone else to. I respect the rights of non smokers and hope they respect mine. Now with all that said my rant at the beginning was more aimed at the smoking police and there attitude. The company I work for was good enough to give us a shelter, not because they had to but because they cared. The smoking police had to pick apart our shelter and rub it in our face that they were spoiling our fun? That is the weird part. Can they not ammend the law so we can have back our four walls or a least three. It is a place for only smokers and they now the liabilities. Would that be too much to ask ? Maybe someday smoking will be phased out and that will probably be a good thing. But on the other hand as stated previously, where will they make up the tax loss ?? Who will they pick on next ?? :confused-smiley-010


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I'm very skeptical of the claims about passive smoke harming others in the house. My mother is still laughing about how she saw in the newspaper that smoking causes smaller babies. She says that if she had known that when she had me and my siblings she'd have smoked even more!


Why are you skeptical of the dangers of second hand smoke? Just take a look at any electronics that are exposed to second hand smoke for any length of time: now what do you think happen to other people's lungs?

As far as your story about your mother, you didn't seriously mean to imply that because you were a big baby, smoking doesn't harm babies? There is a problem here in comprehending statistical averages if you did . . .

TG


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I'm sooo tired..."*



traynor_garnet said:


> Why are you skeptical of the dangers of second hand smoke? Just take a look at any electronics that are exposed to second hand smoke for any length of time: now what do you think happen to other people's lungs?
> 
> As far as your story about your mother, you didn't seriously mean to imply that because you were a big baby, smoking doesn't harm babies? There is a problem here in comprehending statistical averages if you did . . .
> 
> TG


Hey TG, we beat this topic to death in an older thread so I don't have a lot of interest in boring folks with repetitions of long-winded posts I made before. If you're interested check the thread out.

As for old electronics, I'm 54 years old and have been working on old gear since I was 11. I've worked on old TRF receivers from the late 1920's and more stuff from early crystal cat's whisker sets to the latest Boogie.

The idea that all the smoking going on somehow did big time damage inside those old units seems totally unsupported to me. There often IS a lot of greasy crud inside old amps but it's never looked like nicotine residue. Rather it seemed like a mixture of transformer oils (full of PCBs in that era!) and common dust/dirt. Pretty well all those old parts slowly release oily vapours. The oils make the crud brown. Electrostatic attraction (tube stuff had much higher voltages) makes dust particles cling together and stick to parts. I think that perhaps some folks that are younger and new to seeing that stuff may not have recognised it and jumped to a conclusion that it was the "evil weed". 

That being said, I've never seen a failure in one of those old units due to that crud anyway. I suppose there could be a difference between old point to point wiring having wider spacing and close-packed traces on circuit boards acting up if there's a high resistance film of oily stuff across them. 

Maybe so. I've never had the problem in that area either.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but just that in all these years with all that gear I've never seen it personally. Unless I come across hard evidence I'm afraid that I just can't buy it. It seems to me to just be more nico-bashing. Once you accept that it's "evil" then it must be responsible for as many bad things as you can stretch to pin it on.

As for statistical averages about small babies, I've got another perspective. If the perils of passive smoke were so great then how the hell did we get through all those decades without thousands of babies dying before they hit kindergarten?

Frankly, from my own memory and from written accounts from those times it would appear that the average citizen was much more healthy than today's Xbox warrior.


----------



## mick7 (Mar 20, 2006)

PaulS said:


> The smoking police had to pick apart our shelter and rub it in our face that they were spoiling our fun?


If they didnt do that, than they wouldnt do their 'real' job, now would they?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> As for old electronics, I'm 54 years old and have been working on old gear since I was 11. I've worked on old TRF receivers from the late 1920's and more stuff from early crystal cat's whisker sets to the latest Boogie.


Ask computer guys what happens when smoke gets sucked into a tower via the fan . . .

Have you ever been in a person's home where they have smoked for years in one spot? Take a look at the roof above the spot: yellow. Take a look at the filter when you drag: yellow. Take a look at this:













> As for statistical averages about small babies, I've got another perspective. If the perils of passive smoke were so great then how the hell did we get through all those decades without thousands of babies dying before they hit kindergarten?
> 
> Frankly, from my own memory and from written accounts from those times it would appear that the average citizen was much more healthy than today's Xbox warrior.


You didn't originally say smoking leads to dead babies, you said it leads to underweight babies and offered (problematic) anecdotal evidence. Your remark about the average citizen's health isn't relevant: we are talking about smoking not about a zillion other intervening variables that are linked to health. If people were healthier 30 years ago (regardless of weather this statement is true or false) they would certainly have been even more healthy had they not smoked.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

We all know the dangers of smoking, as well as crossing the street and so on.... the post is starting to wind a bit off topic, quess that's normal. I was hitting more at the gov't and how they are deciding what we can and what we can't have or do. Is freedom of speech still freedom of speech, will it always be ??


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Two things you should never argue..."*



traynor_garnet said:


> Ask computer guys what happens when smoke gets sucked into a tower via the fan . . .


YOU ASK THEM! I've worked on personal computers since they were invented!

Fans suck in everything that's in the air and not just nicotine particles. Just because your computer is in a non-smoking house means diddley-squat to how clean it is inside. I bet 2 beer that if I opened up the power supply in YOUR computer it would have a fair amount of gunk inside, if it was more than even a few months old.

The dust inside the power supply gets sticky and tends to interfere with the operation of the fan and the free flow of air. This causes the cooling to suffer and accelerates the aging of the components, particularly the filter capacitors.

We live in a dirty world. Get rid of tobacco and you'll still have these problems. 



traynor_garnet said:


> Have you ever been in a person's home where they have smoked for years in one spot? Take a look at the roof above the spot: yellow. Take a look at the filter when you drag: yellow. Take a look at this:


Geez you're in a real hurry to preach, aren't you? I haven't smoked in years but when I did I CLEANED those rooms! Use the same bathroom for years and don't clean it and I guarantee some odd colours will be there as well.

We were talking about passive smoke screwing up electronics and PRESTO! Out comes pictures of diseased lungs! What are we talking about here? Electronics or banning tobacco? I won't argue that smoking isn't an unhealthy habit. I just won't accept unscientific claims about electronic problems, or about anything else for that matter.

Just because you think a cause is important has nothing to do with science. A fact is true or it isn't, period. Linking passive smoke to anything you can think of just to discourage usage is not science. It is evangelicism.



traynor_garnet said:


> You didn't originally say smoking leads to dead babies, you said it leads to underweight babies and offered (problematic) anecdotal evidence. Your remark about the average citizen's health isn't relevant: we are talking about smoking not about a zillion other intervening variables that are linked to health. If people were healthier 30 years ago (regardless of weather this statement is true or false) they would certainly have been even more healthy had they not smoked.


Evidence being anecdotal does not automatically make it untrue. Besides, I was not presenting the point as evidence but rather making a common sense rebuttal of the claim about babies being underweight from passive smoke. When claims are made about anything you must consider the source. Nowadays a lot of people make a good living jumping on the cigarette bandwagon. If I see a claim that seems a bit of a stretch and when I investigate the source it comes from an anti-tobacco group I have as much skepticism as when I saw advertising from a tobacco company years ago. Both sides have an agenda which makes their claims subject to more rigorous scrutiny. Making scary unscientific claims about everything from baby birth weight to old Tweed Bassman problems weakens the anti-tobacco cause. When you start sounding like you'll say anything to scare people into quitting you find that many smokers (especially teenagers) will write off your ENTIRE message as bogus and keep smoking!

If you want to tell me that smoking is unhealthy I can accept that. If you want to tell me that passive smoke destroys electronics you'll have to do better. A scary picture of a bad lung has got nothing to do with a capacitor failure.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> What it boils down to is that Wild Bill forms opinions. He then seeks out evidence to support his opinions. If he can find any such evidence at all, no matter how nefarious, he hangs his hat on it and calls it a day - comfortable in the fact that he is a man of utmost reason. If, on the other hand, he finds himself faced with mountains of evidence that indicates that his opinion is wrong, he rejects that evidence on the basis that he's a free thinker and not willing to buy into propaganda.


...your credibility would be greater enhanced if you were able to attack bill's words and ideas rather than the man himself.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

PaulS said:


> We all know the dangers of smoking, as well as crossing the street and so on.... the post is starting to wind a bit off topic, quess that's normal. I was hitting more at the gov't and how they are deciding what we can and what we can't have or do. Is freedom of speech still freedom of speech, will it always be ??


...i originally thought you were railing against your employer, not the government.

politically, i agree, there is some heavy-handed hypocrisy going on here.

-dh


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

No actually I was praising my employer for the shelter they had provided.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Hey, I'm ok Jack!*



david henman said:


> ...your credibility would be greater enhanced if you were able to attack bill's words and ideas rather than the man himself.
> 
> -dh


Thanks for the support, David! It's nice to debate with someone else old enough to understand hippy values and courtesy.

However, it's not a problem to me anymore. I was tipped off about the "Ignore" list control for these forums. 

This thing is great! Except for something posted by another user as a quote I no longer even see any msgs from someone on the list.

AAH! Blessed quiet!

Gee, if only years ago I could have had a real-world filter on my radio. No BeeGees, no Abba...


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Gee, if only years ago I could have had a real-world filter on my radio. No BeeGees, no Abba...


No Abba, are you insane?? Abba rules! :bow: 

I'm not kidding either! :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I'm so old..."*



Jeff Flowerday said:


> No Abba, are you insane?? Abba rules! :bow:
> 
> I'm not kidding either! :smile:


Jeff, I'm so old when I think of dance music I think of Foghat!


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

There's nothing wrong with Abba or the Bee Gees. You can learn alot from listening to them both, as they were masters of harmony and the all mighty hook.............


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Forbidden knowledge..."*



Accept2 said:


> There's nothing wrong with Abba or the Bee Gees. You can learn alot from listening to them both, as they were masters of harmony and the all mighty hook.............


Hey, I acept that others have different tastes. It's just that I was once one of those young fellers who took Disco records to Ivor Wynne Stadium in Hamilton to smash on the field at games' end! It felt great! Bless the radio station that sponsored that event.

To me it was always a low-brow scene that was all about style and little of substance. My generation grew up with Bob Dylan, Janis and that flowed into modern rock. Disco seemed like an attempt to control the market by the "suits" so that they could complement each other between snorts of snow on how smart and important they were.

Harsh and bigotted, I know. To each their own. I'll keep my Janis and they can have their Donna Summer - or Disco Duck!


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> YOU ASK THEM! I've worked on personal computers since they were invented!
> 
> Geez you're in a real hurry to preach, aren't you? I haven't smoked in years but when I did I CLEANED those rooms! Use the same bathroom for years and don't clean it and I guarantee some odd colours will be there as well.


I HAVE asked them and have been told by many electronics and computer repair guys that smoke can screw up electronics. 

The issue about room discolouration due to smoking has nothing to do with weather one can clean the rooms. It has to do tar's ability to accumulate and stick to surfaces. What on earth does this have to do with me preaching???



> We were talking about passive smoke screwing up electronics and PRESTO! Out comes pictures of diseased lungs! What are we talking about here? Electronics or banning tobacco? I won't argue that smoking isn't an unhealthy habit. I just won't accept unscientific claims about electronic problems, or about anything else for that matter.


No, we were talking about weather secondary smoke causes damage to human beings. Electronics, tar stained walls, the colour of the filter, were all offered as evidence that smoke leaves residue on what ever it comes into contact with. So why a picture of a lung? Because it too shows that smoking leaves a lot of residue behind.




> Evidence being anecdotal does not automatically make it untrue. Besides, I was not presenting the point as evidence but rather making a common sense rebuttal of the claim about babies being underweight from passive smoke.


No, anecdotal evidence is not _necessarily_ untrue, but when it flies in the face of decades of science it is highly suspect. 



> When claims are made about anything you must consider the source. Nowadays a lot of people make a good living jumping on the cigarette bandwagon. If I see a claim that seems a bit of a stretch and when I investigate the source it comes from an anti-tobacco group I have as much skepticism as when I saw advertising from a tobacco company years ago. Both sides have an agenda which makes their claims subject to more rigorous scrutiny. Making scary unscientific claims about everything from baby birth weight to old Tweed Bassman problems weakens the anti-tobacco cause. When you start sounding like you'll say anything to scare people into quitting you find that many smokers (especially teenagers) will write off your ENTIRE message as bogus and keep smoking!
> 
> Just because you think a cause is important has nothing to do with science. A fact is true or it isn't, period. Linking passive smoke to anything you can think of just to discourage usage is not science. It is evangelicism.


Ok Bill, come with me to my University's health sciences department and lets talk with the Doctors there. Would you believe them or do they also have an agenda? 

Since you seem to consistently position yourself as the Grande arbiter of scientific validity I am going to call you on it: what are your credentials? Have you ever studied health? Do you have an advanced degree in science or, in particular, scientific methodology or the philosophy of science? Why, but what means, are you able to separate valid science from agendas?

It seems you are the evangelist here, simply dismissing science as an agenda if it goes against your common sense and world view. Your salute to the ignore button seems very dubious given the nature of this thread, but I'll turn the floor over to you and assume you are honest in your intent.

TG


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

The last one got closed and this is going to go on forever so she's done.


----------

