Re: NAR Board of Trustees

so how old are you ? 45-50 ?

so you have used up half your life. not that much of a different to me.

I th> >

I contest that a non smoker inhales MORE harmful byproducts than the smokers does.

When he is inhaling he has a filter. I do not.

either way your claims are not relevant to me. I do not care How much of this or how much of this. WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS it is HARMFUL and UNNECESSARY

they server NO benifit to you but they HARM me. that their all by itself is enough to justify making them illegal.

their is exactly ONE reason they are not illegal. and that is that it would be political suicide to try. FAR to much money is made from it.

NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER !!

other drugs that can be used with NO DETRIMENT TO THOSE AROUND YOU (I use none at all) are outright illegal.

Why ? because it is politically GOOD to fight those otherwise harmless drugs (remember if you want to kill yourself F> >

Replying to your crap below

Does not matter. My ingestion of salt has NO effect on YOUR life or health.

At lower levels it is harmless and even REQUIRED by our bodies. Cigarettes have ZERO benifit at ANY level and are DANGEROUS as far as I am concerned as ANY level. when I get into a car where someone was smoking I know it immediately. if it was recent IE smoke still apparent I actually have difficulty breathing. (it becomes labored) I do NOT have allergies and I do NOT have asthma.

your analogy has ZERO basis in reality. not even a vague one.

Since I am forced to breath the atmosphere which resides around this planet.

Since I am forced to breath the air outside my house.

Since I am forced to breath as I walk into classes through a cloud of cigarette smoke so thick is is VISIBLY tangible.

Since I am forced to breath as I walk into work through a cloud of cigarette smoke so thick is is VISIBLY tangible

Since I am forced to breath in order to enjoy my meal at a restaurent through a cloud of cigarette smoke so thick is is VISIBLY tangible

So you are saying I should be forced to NOT go to school to NOT go to work to NOT go to the park to NOT go to my favorite restaurent or bar just because you want to kill me and everyone around you with you NOT required NOT benificial but COMPLETELY HARMFUL ADDICTION to smoking cigarettes. you have your prorities ass backwards.

I never said anything about cancer. I do not know or care what it could do to me. I just know it is bad and can not be good under any conditions. thats enough for me.

Last I checked cars do not contain cyanide and the other nasties in cigarette smoke. Last I checked cars were a NECESSARY part of todays society and lifestyle. Last I checked cars served a USEFUL and NEEDED function. (I live 45 minutes from my one job and 80 minutes from my other job which both MANDATE a car) with my hours public transport (still using petrol) is not an option.

Cars are NEEDED for me to even LIVE (trucks trains etc.. etc..)

Cigaretts provide NO useful function. They have ZERO benifit to anything anywhere except the pocket books of companies and government. and they are HARMFUL to everything.

again your analogy is so irrelevant as to have no basis whatsoever in reality.

Well you just made it quite clear that a logical discourse with you is impossible.

Have a nice life

Chris Taylor

Answer your crap below

First I drive a Cherokee which gets 20-24mpg and a VW Thing which gets something like 40mpg.

If I ate brocoli I would fart. and I would s*it whats your point ? and I would have to drive just as far to get it.

Food serves a purpose cigarettes do not.

Food does not DIRECTLY kill you. CIgarettes DIRECTLY kill you.

once again your analogy is so full of s*it as to be completel devoid of what is commonly referred to as reality.

Mutual. See above.

Chris Taylor

So is plain ordinary H20. Drink too much and it WILL kill you. In fact there was a case in the news recently of a couple of SOB's who forced their

When I start feeling that way, a quick trip to the mall for a new pair of pumps does wonders to cheer me up.

One big problem with this is "if it affects others it can be banned/taxed/regulated" attitude is that it can be applied to anything, and always is applied only to those things which happen to be politically incorrect.

EVERYTHING anyone does can be said to "affect" others in some way.

Want to paint your house with your favorite color? Sorry, unless it's an "approved color" it wouldn't "blend in" with the rest of the neighborhood, and thus would be an "eyesore" or "decrease property values", so you can't be allowed to do it. Want to drive a certain type of vehicle? Sorry, someone else thinks it pollutes to much or might give you a greater degree of survivability if they run into you. Want to park an RV in your driveway, or put a "for sale" sign on your car? Sorry, there's that "eyesore" thing again.

Want to fly big rockets? Sorry, allowing citizens to do that might increase the risk of criminal misuse, thus affecting the rest of the population. Want to fly R/C planes? Same problem. Want to be able to protect yourself and your family from criminals? Sorry, allowing you to do that might increase the risk of weapons falling into criminal hands. Want to ride a bicycle or motorcycle without wearing a helmet? Sorry, that might increase insurance premiums or taxes. On and on it goes.

I'll be 47 next month. I HOPE that I'm only 1/2 way through my life. At my age, almost all of my father's side were already dead, but most on my mother's side made it to their 90's. I'm not at all unhappy with my life. I've been married to the same woman for just shy of 25 years (we were married on my 22 B-day and have three intelligent, moral kids. I can be happy with that kind of legacy.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

But Chris, rocket exhaust is toxic. Imagine what would happen if BILLIONS of people flew rockets and polluted our air. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

What's the point, Mark? Are you agreeing that second hand smoke in the workplace should be banned or not? We're talking about a person sitting at a desk in the adjacent smoke-filled room for 20+ years. It was an unquestioned medical conclusion that she died from 2nd-hand exposure. I'm starting to think you want to deny any aspect of cigarette dangers to minimize your subconscious fear of the long-term affects of your previous bad habit. ;)

I hear it's contagious... I'm starting to feel a cranium cramp right about now! So, you can either accept my example or not, that's ok with me. Just don't group me with the ban-everything wackos. There is scientific evidence of the unacceptable increased health risk from repeated exposure to 2nd-hand smoke in the workplace, on par with 1st- hand smoking and many occupational exposure hazards. Go do some reading and enlighten yourself (something you usually direct other people to do, and rightfully so). I agree with you, of course, on the limited role of government, and I agree that there is no basis for illegalizing tobacco products, but you are absolutely wrong in ignoring the chronic affects of second hand smoke. Maybe we're both wrong and we should have a mass degree-burning party at the next NYPOWER and go back to stone knives and bearskins. ;)

-John

Isn't it ironic that phone solitations are not harmful, only annoying. Yet almost nobody in the U.S. has a problem with making it illegal to be bothered on the phone at supper time. (Remember the state and federal "no call" lists?)

Smoking, on the other hand, is much more than just annoying to many people, yet a good portion of the country's population adamantly defends a person's "right" to smoke. Even at the expense of annoying others at the least, and the possibility of health issues at most.

Ok, now I've given both sides something to chew on...you guys get back to work arguing! ;)

Now your cooking! Give the man a cigar! We're talking a closed low- ventilated area. Do that every day or loose your job. I see the smoke clearing between your ears even as I type... ;)

-John

OK then, what about *my* production of carcinogens via my car exhaust?

Should we outlaw them because they're harmful to *you*?

What about *my* production of carcinogens because the excess electricity I use causes the big-ass coal burning plant down on the Ohio River to run *just* a little bit harder to produce *just* a little more acid rain...

Now, should we begin arresting excess electricity users because they're "harming other people"?

Now, in your terms, multiply these "offenses" by BILLIONS!

As a matter of fact Chris, please shut your computer off. Your excess, indirect emissions are bothering me here in Ohio. Also, please stop driving your Jeep. The excess gas it uses is producing way too many carcinogens for me to handle.

And if I _ever_ catch you burning a piece of Wolmanized lumber!

Uh huh. Chris, before you pontificate, please lay off the cough syrup..

tah

Stay tuned for future ramblings about diesel exhaust health hazards. There is building evidence that the submicron coated particles generated in the combustion process are "tiny time pills" that release carcinogens in the lungs (and further into the system). The wheels of industry won't want to hear this. Who would have the guts to tell all truckers and rail operators to ditch their efficient engines? And who would go up against the oil industry? Ah, the price of progress. Fuel cells anyone?

-John

Combined with the fact that I filter CT's messages, your responses appear nothing more than a certain form of self-induced pleasure. It's not something I "like to watch". Get a grip, Mark. Go pick on somebody your own size! ;)

-John

John,

I'm sorry but I just can't resist chiming in here...

Unacceptable risk? Just what do you mean by unacceptable risk? First of all, it was obviously an ACCEPTED risk, or the woman wouldn't have subjected herself to it everyday for 20 years. The subject of second-hand smoke is far more than 20 years old, and the subject of cigarettes being dangerous was well known in the 1800's (else why would they have been called "coffin nails"?). If she had been sitting in a room with metal slivers spewing out randomly at her, but didn't leave, you would consider her (perhaps) STUPID, but by not leaving, she accepted the risk!

There is nothing in this country that guarantees her a specific job. There are many, many people who would HAPPILY accept the 'unacceptable risk' of sitting in close proximity to a smoker in order to have a job. There are many OTHER ways she could have earned her living. I don't know the situation in regards to this specific woman, but I'll assume for the sake of argument that it was a sole proprietership and that she worked directly for the owner. Why SHOULDN'T he decide that if he is going to provide a job for somebody that they would have the 'risk' of his second-hand smoke? Why is this any different than (for example) back when I was in school and working as a gas jockey (remember those?) and had to pump gas into dozens of cars a day, without wearing a mask, etc. Or any of the other myriad risks that people take?

Or here's an even better example: it's proven that one of the highest causes of death for young-to-middle-aged folks is car accidents. Yet, virtually every job I've EVER had has required me to travel to their location to work! Isn't it unacceptable for them to require me to do something that DEFINITIVELY is the highest cause of death among my age group? You would have to argue that employers be REQUIRED to allow employees to work at home, in order to deny that people judge the 'acceptability' of risks such as second hand smoke.

Please don't label such nonsense as 'unacceptable'. I've seen far too many situations where a group of people, all smokers, can't even smoke if they unanimously agree to it, because of these 'nanny-state' laws. I, frankly, find this government intrusion to be FAR MORE unacceptable than the purported health risks.

Why do I say purported? Because, frankly, everybody has to die of something. If I was younger (frankly, even though I'm not...) and someone offered me a good paying job, doing something I'd like to do, etc., but the cost was I had to sit next to a smoker, guess what? I might well take them up on that! Your friend had the same choice, and it really WAS her choice!

Unfortunately, I can actually see where this is going to lead (and remember, as always, that you heard it here on rmr first!). Sooner or later, someone will sue a spouse for smoking. Yes, it will come down to that. What's worse, in today's judicial and social environment, that person will win! And I speak as someone who married a smoker (though she did give it up after a few years, when she was pregnant with our oldest child). But (part of) the reason she gave it up was because of my objection to it (okay, granted, it was only a SMALL part, but it WAS a part... ). That's the way this type of problem ought to be handled, through social pressure, not LEGAL pressure.

David Erbas-White

There's a HUGE difference between being in an office next to a smoker and breathing the same concentration of smoke as the smoker. I might buy the argument if the woman worked in a phonebooth with her boss, though. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Final comment about this person: this was many years ago. We should be thankful that the laws have changed using a little more common sense and respect for humanity than you appear to have. Let's hope you aren't being exposed to something everyday right now that you are too STUPID to realize is bad for you. Will you be any less sick or any less demanding of "a change" when you come to realize the hazard? Hmmmm?

-John

The fact that I quit about 13 years ago should be proof enough that I believe it is harmful to suck on a burning tube. My problem lies in the statements that non-smokers inhale the same amount of smoke that smokers do. That is a physical impossibility unless they do "shotguns" from a pipe. (My misspent youth is starting to show ). When I read about waitresses suing former employers because they worked in a smoke-filled bar, I have no empathy for them. They chose to work there. I think that there are some work environments that are more "hazardous" to work in and unless someone is forcing you to work there at gunpoint, you make the choice and should live with the consequences. The friend of yours chose to work in that environment for 20 years knowing that cigarette smoke was harmful. It's been on packs for ~40 years, IIRC. While I'm sad that she died from lung cancer, if, indeed, being exposed to second-hand smoke was a contributing factor, she accepted the risk knowingly.

I never accused YOU of being one of those wackos. I only accused Chris of being one of them. If some splashed on you, I apologize. ;-)

I will do just that. I just hope that I can find an objective scientific study on the subject. There's a lot of junk and pseudo-science being spread like manure out there.

If we become Luddites, what will our rockets look like? Something to ponder. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless oyr peacekeepers