Conference back40::soapbox

    Ha "try".

    Pre-election brownie point tactic.

Close, but no cigars...

He wants to declare it a regulated drug which includes some narcotics but
a great many other types of substances.

The righteous are saying that this is just political grandstanding,
which, of course is ture. They argue that everyone is opposed to underage
smoking, which, of course, is false. For one, the smoking industry is not
only not opposed to this but actively recruits new clientelle from the
youth.

It must be somewhat frustrating losing your customer base because your
successful at marketting you product to them. Of course, if'n they
wouldn't keep dying off the tobacco people wouldn't have to keep
recruiting young people.

TTom

    This actually belongs in the, "I hate do-gooders" string.
    
    He figures he already lost the southern vote and the tobacco states so
    why not!
    
    -Jack

    
    Tobacco farmers...should...like...umm...be like enCOURaged, man...by
    like the government...to grow...like...HEMP, mannn...instead of like
    tobacco.
    

    a) I agree with the regulation of nicotine as a drug. (After all, it
    is, isn't it?)
    
    b) Alcohol should be regulated the same way.
    
    Wait! whaaaaat am I saying! That means the BATF would be the...BF!
    (Nightmares)
    
    Anyway, they're both drugs and should be treated as such.

    What about caffeine?

	.6  what about cocoa, Jack?  you, of all people, should know
	    how dangerous that stuff is.

    Yup, caffeine, too.

    
    how this will play out:
    
    1. clinton baits newt and dole knowing the republicans have a
       strong base in the tobacco states, forcing them to take
       action which could potentially splinter their power base.
    
    2. clinton proposes feel good legislation, making it illegal
       to sell cigarettes to minors, like it isn't already...
    
    3. clinton uses get tough rhetoric during the campaign,
       knowing full well that he hasn't done anything to really
       piss anyone off.
    
    4. pretty much everyone who voted for clinton last time will
       be lulled into doing it again, mostly because they can't
       think of anything he's seriously effed up, and by god,
       that's good enough for them...
    
    clinton is a skilled politician; a skilled politician is
    one that only hurts politicians on the other side, and never
    ever does anything which either helps or hurts anyone
    else. at least nothing they can pin on him...
    
    -b

    And transmission fluid, don't forget _that_.

    >> He figures he already lost the southern vote and the tobacco states so
    >> why not!
    
    He's already lost almost all the vote, everywhere, so why not...
    he must figure he'll go out in a haze of glory.
    
    In any event, it's too little, too late, and of course it's
    politically motivated.  But it's the right kind of thing, if
    he really is interested in health care.  Much like a flipped
    coin that lands on edge at some statistically-determined
    frequency, Bill Clinton occasionally does something even
    half-right.
    
    But he probably would have gained more votes had he shed a few
    Weldesque croc tears on hearing of Jerry Garcia's death.
    
    Chris

Yep, Clinton wrote the south off a while back. Besides, there's very few
Democrats left down here. At least very few will admit to it.

Yep, southern farmers have a real tradition of growing hemp, like ol'
Tommy Jefferson_not_Airplane.

Yep, regulate nicotine like beer. I think that would do it fine.

Nope, keep the ATF outta this here issue, but I can't tell if'n the FDA
is any better.

TTom

Some discussion on RKO yesterday, if I recall, was going on again
with the (what appears to be urban legend) bit about the tobacco
companies artifically fortifying the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
(I give the concept even less credence since the speaker was also claiming
that the tobacco companies were also fortifying the amount of tar, which
would be both difficult and rather stupid in any event, since the tars
ain't desireable by anybody's way of thinking except, apparently, that
of the uninformed.)

Now, logic dictates that if the tobacco companies want to make more
profits, they don't do that by putting more nicotine into cigarettes
so people can satisfy their nicotine craving with fewer cigarettes
and thus decrease their purchases, but rather by cutting the amounts
(notice how they try to sell the lite brands?) and thereby requiring folks
to buy MORE in order to satisfy the same craving.

The next question that springs to mind is, Do these idiots who are suspecting
the Tobacco Industry Conspiracy of fortifying smokes, also believe that
the industry has such a powerful and fearful army of thugs at its disposal
that they've been able to successfully squelch any disgruntled or former
employee of the industry from ever providing proof that this ridiculous
process takes place? 'Cause, it would appear to me that no such evidence
has ever even been remotely hinted at, other than having been fabricated
in the minds of the whiners.

    perhaps they should follow their previous solution to a "crisis"
    
    
    hand out filters in the schools

Ah yes, that's what's needed: Safe Smoking!

Of course, any education that tries to teach that some drugs are good,
some are bad, and some or OK if'n you're of age is going to have some
problems.

'Now children, the following are RED drugs. Stop!
The following are YELLOW drugs. Procede in a couple of years.
The following are GREEN drugs. Have at 'em.'

TTom

    There's some logic to increasing nicotine quantity to meet the
    changes in smoking habits that have been enforced on smokers.
    Smokers have had to to put up with increasingly long intervals between
    cigarettes due to legislation on where and when they can smoke.
    A higher level of nicotine might be required to keep the customers
    satisfied.  Heaven forbid that the enforced abstinence might make them
    inclined to quit.... 

    Yes, but the urban rumor has been around a lot longer than the recent
    significant anti-smoking legislation movement.

    is it really fair to call tobacco a drug when it is the nicotine that
    causes addiction??  don't they make nicotine-less cigarettes, which
    still contain tobacco???
    
    

    They would be as regulated as O'Douls, I imagine.

    <---- Those are good to smoke?

    
    <---  Probably better than they are to drink!
    

    Cigarette filtered genuine draft?

More than twenny years go, during my struggle toward a psych degree, we
used two books in a "Drugs of Abuse" course. One was put out by the
Gummint. It documented all the "recreational" addictive drugs:
forms of cannabis, coke, heroin [,...] and <tada> nicotine and caffeine.

Lemme say that again. ...addictive... ...nicotine... ...caffeine...

HTH,

Art

    .23
    
    You (and the gummint) forgot alcohol.

re: -.1 

Nope, that was covered in the [,...] which means, in technical terms,
blah, blah, blah, blah, all kinds of other stuff including
uppers, downers, pocket rockets, red devils, Georgia overdrives, booze
and other stuff plus what I want to tack on at the end of the sentence.

hth,

Art

    Aha. Just checkin. Most people have a tendency to leave it out of the
    "addicitve recreational drugs" category.

    
    
    .13 Logic is flawed.
    
    Higher nicotine means faster addiction.
    
    The industry already studied that lower nicotine doesn't automaticly
    mean more cigarettes smoked. 
    
    Users can get their precise needs forfilled by inhaling deeper and
    holding longer.
    
    Why would the average smoker even fight these rules? 
    Who cares if its harder for teens to smoke 
    or if there will be less cigarette advertisements in
    teen magazines, on bill boards or at games. Who crys for more
    advertisements?
    
    Only the "Money" cares. Follow the money, its screaming today for law
    suits. 
    
    It will be interesting to watch over the next few months this war
    of Money Vs the President.   
    
    I would have simply raised the tax on cigarettes $1.75 more, to cover
    the healthcare costs that cigarettes incure with users over a lifetime.
    Let the users pay their way...no more free rides from the government
    to smokers.
    
          

    
    During my short but bitter struggle to a psych degree we used liquid
    snuff, a concoction of nicotine that was squirted up the nose.  Worked
    so well for me I was able to cut down to a few ciggies a day for
    the duration of the experiments.

.27 Powers of observation are flawed.

The vast majority of folks making conscious decisions as to which brand
to smoke are already addicted. The level at which you feed their craving
is indirectly proportional to the quantity of product you sell.

    
    
    
    .29 and how does that apply to the arguement so far?
    
    

Having trouble following, are you?

.27>    Higher nicotine means faster addiction.

This was your contention. I pointed out that the vast majority of smokers
consciously deciding which brand to smoke, whether low- or high-nicotine,
are already addicted and have been smoking for some time. The tobacco
industry has no need to feed their craving with high quantities of
nicotine in order to "addict them faster". The addiction is a fete accompli(sp?)
at this point and the only responsibility remaining for the tobacco
industry is to milk their cash cow for all it's worth, which is best done
by convincing them that they want more of a less potent product, rather
than less of a more potent one. (Since they all sell for the same price,
in general.)

Is this becoming too difficult for you?

Perhaps you'd care to attack the corollary, then. Where are all of the
tobacco industry employees (past or present) who are ready to testify that
the process of nicotine fortification has credence?

Trust me - after smoking for 27 years I can attest to the fact that a
smoker doesn't necessarily habitually try to overload on nicotine by smoking
more of the strongest weeds he can get his hands on.

	it should come as a surprise to no one that the slickest
	anti-smoking crusader in the country has no intention
	of quitting to set an example.  

	bill

    Who dat?  Do I take it that you're implying that President Clinton is a
              smoker?  
              

Does he inhale?

    	If the govt were really serious about tobacco woes, they would
    	cut out all tobacco subsidies as their first step.

    
    re:.27

    > Why would the average smoker even fight these rules? 

    Fight more restrictive legislation on basic principle.

    > Who cares if its harder for teens to smoke 
    > or if there will be less cigarette advertisements in
    > teen magazines, on bill boards or at games.

    It is already illegal for teens to smoke cigarettes.  How are you
    proposing to make it more illegal?  If they're gonna smoke, their gonna
    smoke.  I am not suggesting that we make it easier for them to get
    cigarettes, but I am fundamentally opposed to creating more useless 
    legislation.

    > I would have simply raised the tax on cigarettes $1.75 more, to cover
    > the healthcare costs that cigarettes incur with users over a lifetime.
    > Let the users pay their way...no more free rides from the government
    > to smokers.

    Would you be in favor of a new tax, solely for homosexuals, to help pay
    for the cost of AIDS treatment and research?  Let the homosexuals pay 
    their way...no more free rides from the government to homosexuals.

    Dan

    With the wantons of the American public to have nationalized health
    care, I would like to see regulations on tobacco and other sin fun
    substances. If I have to Reach into my pockets, AGAIN, to help those
    who cannot afford.... then by the Gods, they, the poor down trotted,
    better be ready to clean up their act. And for those who can afford it,
    WE all still pay for it out of pocket each week to support your final
    calling in the hospitals. If the insurace companies said to the public
    that they would not insure someone who induldges into tobacco and
    booze, I wonder how quickly people might think of shagging the habbits?
    
    

    
    
    That's been the excuse to tax tobacco for the past 20 years.  Where's
    the money going?

    The BATF, of course.

>    	If the govt were really serious about tobacco woes, they would
>    	cut out all tobacco subsidies as their first step.

If'n the government were serious about anything they'd do a lot of things
to help out a lot of issues.

TTom

Ever try Sherman's Natural Lights?
Boy, are they smooth.

    I've always wondered what a "smooth" cigarette is like.
    
    Is the smoke loaded with anesthetics so that your lungs don't try to
    reject the irritants?

    The Atlanta Constitution reported recently that only 4% of blacks
    teenagers smoked, while 17-18% of white teenagers did.  The lower rate
    among blacks was based on three factors:
    
    1. Smoking was not part of the image that they wanted to project.
    
    2. That athletics/sports were very important to blacks and smoking and 
       success at sports did not go together.
    
    3. Black girls were not as concerned about being "thin" as white girls
       were and white girls associated smoking with appetite suppression.

>I've always wondered what a "smooth" cigarette is like.

Well, these are made of 'pure' tobacco.  No additives or
other chemicals are added.  That's why they are so expensive.
And smooth.  

    re: nicotine levels
    
    Back in my smoking days (years), after I switched to a low-nicotine
    brand, I used to suck those things so hard that the insides of my
    cheeks met in the middle.  And I smoked many more of them, than
    the old "high-nicotine" brands.  After years of those, I ended
    up switching back to "hi-test", and smoked far fewer of them,
    saving money in the process as well.
    
    Of course, since I've quit (for ten years now), I'm saving even
    more money!
    
    Chris

    DrDan:
    
    Sliq says he only smokes cigars these daze; 'bout 1 a month.
    
    

    
    I see, that makes it OK then....
    
    Dan
    

>       Nocotine is not only a drug, it is a carcinogen.

Sorry, Jason, but you are wrong, again.

NIcotine is not carcinogenic in the least. It is the tars in
and other compounds in the smoke which are cancer causing.
Likewise, it is not the nicotine in tobacco juice which causes
mouth cancer in snuff and tobacco chewers, but other constituents
of the juice.

    
    
    .39 The tax isn't high enough. It would have to be $1.75 a pack to
    	cover the costs.
    
    

 >   Sliq says he only smokes cigars these daze; 'bout 1 a month.
 
After all, he doesn't inhale :-)  

    Re. .38 -- same old thing about, "if I have to pay for health
    insurance for other people, then they better not smoke...and
    that's why it should be illegal..."
    
    Fine.  Then what we need is a change in insurance rules that
    says if there is any human activity for which you, the subscriber,
    do not want to pay for resulting health problems, then you just
    specify which such activities or conditions or whatever when you
    sign up for your health insurance, and *your* problem is thereby
    solved for you.
    
    And presumably then you'll be signing up for an exclusion on 
    paying any money for diseases related to smoking.
    
    And I'll be signing up for exclusions on paying any money for 
    diseases related to drinking, drug use, anything but healthy
    diets, suntans, living near power lines, sky diving, driving
    a two-wheeled vehicle, driving a four-wheeled vehicle, riding
    in any vehicle, flying, living where the epa says you don't
    meet the requirements of the clean air act or the clean water 
    act, allowing yourself to remain alive when you have any genetic 
    disease, failing to exercise vigorously several times a week, 
    being a democrat, being a republican, being a person.
    
    You get the idea.  Actually, I believe we ought to do one of two
    things and then leave it alone:
    
    	A. Eliminate all insurance.
    	B. Insure everyone equally.
    
    

    
    
    D.A.R.E. TO THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
    
    

    
    re .50, Jason,
    
    Grilling meats causes potent carcinogens to appear.  Coupled with
    the presence of high levels of saturated fats, which have been
    shown to increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, and a host of
    other medical problems, these carcinogens in red meat contribute
    toward millions of Americans dieing from cancer and heart disease.
    Should we therefore ban the sale of a.) red meat, b.) barbecue
    equipment, c.) all of the above, d.) none of the above?
    
    The correct answer is d, of course.  Once you start banning things,
    you find out that nearly anything, in large enough quantities, 
    contributes toward the risk of some kind of deadly malady.  You can
    try to educate people to make better, more healthy choices, but banning
    things almost invariably causes more problems than it is worth.
    
    If the War on Drugs is a disaster now (and it is,) can you imagine 
    how bad it would be if tobacco became one of the banned drugs, with
    millions of addicts already present in this country who will need
    to feed their habit?
    
    You can't save everybody.  And you especially can't save them just
    by arbitrarily banning the products that you don't happen to like.
    
    
    Rob
    

    Everything in moderation.
    Moderation in everything.
    
    Pretty boring but........

    Another reason to curb the anti-smoking hysteria is that it is based
    on some very questionable statistics that have been shoved down our
    throats for the past decade or so by media that will say anything to
    sell media, and by politicians who will say anytning to get a vote.
    
    Example:  We keep hearing that heart disease is the nation's #1 killer,
    and that cigarette smoke is a large contributor to heart disease.
    
    So pick up one of those almanacs you can find at book stores, and look
    at the chart that lists causes of death in the US.  You'll see that,
    sure enough, heart disease is right up there at the top of the list.
    So it would appear that maybe they're right.
    
    But if you look at the list long enough, and add up all the causes of
    death listed and compare the total to the number of people who die each
    year, you'll see that they match.  So far so good.  But there is still
    something wrong.
    
    If you stare at the list of causes of death long enough, you'll notice
    one cause of death that is conspicuous by its absense from the list:
    Old Age.  Nobody in this country dies of old age, according to the
    official government statistics.
    
    Now that's news!  Someone cured old age and they never even told us!
    
    So I noticed that they listed the National Safety Council as their
    source of info for that chart, and I sent for a booklet from them that
    shows not only the major causes of death, but at what age those happen. 
    You guessed it:  The number of deaths from heart disease peak
    dramatically out around age 80 or so, with a fairly narrow steep peak
    that starts rising around 65 or so.  
    
    So our government, and the media too, and especially the anti-smokers,
    are attributing many deaths from old age to heart disease and tobacco,
    and we're all in a lather about it because we trust and believe them.
    
    That's why we should be real slow to pass laws based on any statistics
    until everyone can really understand and agree on the accuracy and
    relevance of the statistics.
    
    We'll get into drinking and driving some time, too...  :-)

>    You can't save everybody.

Exactly my point as to why we should abolish the welfare system!

Oh... sorry... wrong topic ...

The leading cause of death is...


LIFE!!!

    
    
    
                         B A N   L I F E   ! ! ! ! ! 
    
    
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Don't they do that some places?

    If everyone had to go to casinos to buy insurance, people would have a
    better understanding of what they are actually doing.  :-)
    

    >    If everyone had to go to casinos to buy insurance, people would
    have a better understanding of what they are actually doing.  :-)
    
    I'd put it more along the lines of:
    
    If everyone had to go to casinos to NOT buy insurance, people would
    have a better understanding of what they are actually doing. :-)

    That's what they'd have you believe -- if you don't have insurance
    you're taking a terrible chance of disaster happening to you.  So it's
    your duty, moral and in some cases legal, to purchase insurance.
    
    But buying insurance is gambling.  You're placing bets that you will
    encounter disaster, in which case you may win.
    
    And like casinos who ban gamblers who are good at blackjack (casinos
    don't gamble, only their marks, I mean patrons, do), many insurance
    companies and their marks, I mean customers, would like to ban players
    who they perceive to have a better chance than they do of winning.
    
    

    Ban players who have a good chance of winning? How about just raising
    the bet and lowering the odds? (e.g. charge smokers x% more than
    non-smokers.)
    
    I agree: Flood, fire, theft, collision, etc insurances are gambles.
    Health insurance is not. Many places don't even call it insurance
    anymore; they call it a health plan. Why? You're not betting (except
    against catastophic illness.) You're paying a monthly fee that helps
    even out the bills you'd otherwise pay on a per-visit charge. Since you
    pay whether or not you go to the doctor, it only makes sense to take
    advantage of what you've paid for and use it.

        > (e.g. charge smokers x% more than non-smokers.)
    
    Only if you can prove it a whole lot better than they have yet, and
    only if you do the same with every other human activity that has any
    affect on health.
    
        >they call it a health plan. Why? You're not betting (except
        >against catastophic illness.) You're paying a monthly fee that helps
        >even out the bills you'd otherwise pay on a per-visit charge.
    
    Right, so I would prefer to have some health insurance -- preferably a
    national health plan providing equal protection to all -- only for
    catastrophic illness, and pay as I go for all the rest.  That way this
    stupid war between those who do and those who don't enjoy tobacco can
    have one less dimension to it -- the economic one.
                                                      

    .67
    
    Is liver cancer (from excessive drinking) catastrophic?
    Is lung cancer (from excessive smoking) catastrophic?
    
    I was using the word in the financial sense, not the traumatic sense.

    Now car insurance is a whole other subject.  IT's the only insurance
    you buy to insure someone else's loss.  That ought to be changed --
    insure yourself only (or your stuff), and then it can be optional
    again, they way it should be.  I drove for two years in New Jersey with
    no valid plates or insurance, and I definitely "won"  in that corrupt
    system.

    .70
    
    > Now car insurance is a whole other subject.  IT's the only insurance
    > you buy to insure someone else's loss.
    
    I don't know about you, but I pay a hefty annual premium for liability
    insurance that covers injuries to, and losses by, other people if they
    happen to occur on my property.

    I think any kind of illness that involves a hospital stay is
    financially catastrophic.  When I used to pay for all my own insurance,
    it cost me $5K / year, and I thought that was catastrophic too, but
    that's maybe only a week or less in a hospital.
    
    The increased insurance expense due to smoking (if there is in fact any
    significant such expense due solely to smoking), must pale in contrast
    to the expense due to litigation.  A doctor I used to use -- one doctor
    with one part time nurse and his wife for a receptionist -- paid over
    $90,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums.
    
    If you want to save money on health insurance, do something about that.

    Other people on your property:  Yes, good point.  Forgot about that.
    
    More welfare for lawyers.

    re .74
    Why? is someone suing you.      8^)

    I heard about that cap Calif put on malpractice suits.  I think their
    real motive is to get all the lawyers to move out of California.

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. (Aug 21, 1995 - 19:54 EDT) -- ABC News
settled a $10 billion libel suit Monday by apologizing to Philip
Morris Cos. for reporting the tobacco giant had manipulated
the amount of nicotine in its cigarettes.

A February 1994 report on ABC's "Day One" newsmagazine
charged that tobacco companies, including Philip Morris,
"spiked" cigarettes with extra nicotine to addict smokers.

Philip Morris denied artificially increasing the level of nicotine
above what occurs naturally in tobacco. The company's
cigarette brands include Marlboro, Benson & Hedges and
Virginia Slims.

Trial on the lawsuit was scheduled for Oct. 10 in Richmond,
where Philip Morris has a large cigarette factory. The company
filed the suit in March 1994 in Circuit Court.

ABC denied reports in June that it planned to issue an apology
to settle the suit, but spokeswoman Patricia J. Matson said
then that the network and tobacco company were talking.

"We now agree that we should not have reported that Philip
Morris and Reynolds add significant amounts of nicotine from
outside sources. That was a mistake that was not deliberate
on the part of ABC, but for which we accept responsibility and
which requires correction," said a statement released Monday
night in New York by Matson at Capital Cities/ABC Inc., the
company that owns ABC. "We apologize to our audience,
Philip Morris and Reynolds."

Circuit Judge T.J. Markow withdrew his order last month that
ABC reveal its so-called "Deep Cough" source for the story.

The anonymous source, said to be a former manager at R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., made the most damaging allegations
about the tobacco industry in the report.



    
    
    I like the "not deliberate" part........

    So why haven't they sued anyone for claiming it causes cancer?

    
      It causes cancer.  But the nicotine content of almost all
     cigarettes is LESS than that of pure tobacco leaf, as is used
     in pipe tobacco or cigars.  In fact, there are many non-tobacco
     additives in munged, processed gunk that goes into cigarettes,
     including, prominently, sugar.  These companies do indeed do
     elaborate tests involving hundreds of variations with volunteer
     smokers, like any other product.  Smokers prefer the reduced
     nicotine kind.  Nicotine itself is addicting, but is not a
     carcinogen.
    
      bb

    	Actually, cigarettes are not carcinogenic, UNTIL YOU LIGHT 'EM.
    
    	Imagine, cigarettes are the only product on the market ....
    
    	that are harmful when used as intended.
    
    	Sheesh, death for sale...

    
    >	Imagine, cigarettes are the only product on the market ....
    >
    >	that are harmful when used as intended.
    
    
    	Don't forget about guns.
    
    	Ban firearms!!
    

    	Maniac, cigarettes weren't designed to provide personal
    	protection. Unless you can get the lit end in someone's
    	eyeball.
    
    	I can see the bumper-stickah now:
    
    	Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill people!~

    I`m not a smoker,but I do enjoy the occaisonal "Old Holborn" or "Golden
    Virginia" roll up whilst drinking lager.
    
    Mind you,you can stick your Silk Cut etc up your arse.
    

    You can inhale it that way?
    
    What about colon cancer?

    Heard on the radio this morning, we will soon be seeing the same
    warnings on MEAT, any MEAT, that we now get on Cig's.
    
    Some-one has desided that the human race was not born to eat MEAT.
    
    Have i missed something all the years I have been around?
    
    I was told
    
    Milk is good for you
    Beef is good for you
    Chicken is good  you
    
    Over last few years I've been told, all these things are bad for me.
    
    In that case, 
    
    
    Why am I still here?
    
    
    
    joan
    
    

    
    Some absolute moron of a woman made me empathise with smokers tonight
    8^/.
    
    The theatre this show is in is in a public building - all sorts of groups
    meet there; Council on Aging, Boy Scouts, AA, bla bla bla.  We're in
    the middle of dress rehearsal - it's being reviewed; it's being filmed.
    
    Suddenly there's a stomp-stomp-stomp on the stairs and the stage door -
    the STAGE DOOR - is flung open, and this moron shouts out, "Who's
    smoking?  Who's smoking?".  Evidently somebody had been smoking in the
    hallway.  The public hallway that everyone has access to, mind you.
    
    The Stage Manager shushed her and tried to push her back out the door,
    but no - she stood there backstage with the rehearsal going on and
    shouted, "I'm calling the police!  Somebody was SMOKING!  This is a
    public building!  I'm calling the police!"
    
    I wonder if she went into every group that was meeting and threw the
    same fit.  For goodness sakes, YES, obviously somebody had been
    smoking, who and when I don't know.  But did she have to have such a 
    hissy?  Why couldn't she ask politely and quietly?
    
    The video is ruined.  It'll have to be taped again.
    

    Some people are just a pain in the ass. That is what they do, full time.
    It is their purpose, their being and our curse.

 Reminds of an outdoor gathering I was at several years ago..I was smoking
 a pipe, and well out of range of those whom I thought might be "offended"..
 or so I thought..out of the blue came this 5 or 6 year old little girl, 
 who  came up to me from across the yard and says "Do  you mind..that smoke
 is bothering me"...eessh..




 Jim

    	re .-1
    
    	Jim, I don't get it.  Are you faulting the little girl for that
    	incident?  Or yourself?
    
    	I think that girl was very much within her rights to express
    	her discomfort.  And you had every obligation to accommodate
    	her request.

    
    <------
    
    Well Joe, it all depends on a few things.... no?
    
    Was Jim upwind or downwind? 
    
    If down-wind and as he clearly stated, far enough away from trying to
    offend anyone, this little girl was obviously practising her PC/victim
    skills on him. 
    
     I wonder if she thinks, or has been taught to do the same in traffic
    jams with, say, a diesel truck pulled up next to the car she would be
    in?

 <<< Note 518.91 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

>     I wonder if she thinks, or has been taught to do the same in traffic
>    jams with, say, a diesel truck pulled up next to the car she would be
>    in?

    	Ahhhhh!  Wouldn't life be so much better if we could get those
    	diesel vehicles to stop belching those gakky fumes!

    
    <------
    
    Being a General Vehicle Repairman in the Army waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back, I
    got kinda used to those fumes...
    
     Nowadays, the only way I notice is by the noise they make ;) ;)
    

>     Nowadays, the only way I notice is by the noise they make ;) ;)
    
why do bus manufacturers never seem to fit exhaust silencers?  Every time
one passes I can't hear myself think, and they seem to be much louder than,
for example, my car when the exhaust manifold fell off!

Chris.

    
    
    Actually Chris, I was refering to the distinct sound the diesel engine
    makes... There's no way you can mask that... But you're right... it
    seems they can do a better job of silencing all that noise!!
    

 I'm not necessarily faulting the little girl, but I also don't fault
 myself.  I was in a big yard, well away from those who may have been
 offended, or so I thought.  At the time, I figured she was mimicing some
 behavior she had witnessed either by her parents or some other adult.  The
 point being that some folks will go out of their way to be offended just
 so they can tell somebody they are offended.



 Jim

>				At the time, I figured she was mimicing some
> behavior she had witnessed either by her parents or some other adult.  The
> point being that some folks will go out of their way to be offended just
> so they can tell somebody they are offended.


Bingo!

    .94
    
    Yes, but does your car have the horsepower to carry 70 people?

    
    
    	sure....downhill....
    
    
    :)
    
    

    re: .99
    

    One reasonable response to the little offended one would be 
    "touch s***, kid".
    
    This would then give her something else to discuss with her parents,
    which would most likely take her mind of her extreme discomfort, not to
    mention the great danger to her life, from the whiff of aromatic pipe
    tobacco smoke she found herself trapped with in the great outdoors.

    
    
     The other thing would have been to fart up-wind of her...
    
    :)

    As long as you don't light it up in a public place...  :-)

    So if you're not very bright you won't get in trouble?

    <---- one of the movies I saw this weekend had a good line.  The
    character was a bit of a pit to start with and while working the field
    with three other guys, he leans over and proceeds to fart.... and
    immediately afterwords says "ahhhh, it's a sad ass that can't rejoice!"

    re: .96
    
    While I commend you for being so considerate, it is possible 
    the smoke did bother her even from that distance.  I have
    severe asthma and I swear my lungs can detect smoke a quarter
    mile away.  There have been times I have simply had to leave 
    a gathering and go home when people have been smoking, even
    in a "smoking area", and I've been sick and unable to breathe
    for hours afterwards.  I had to spend 4 days recently in a 
    hotel room which was a "smoking" room (no other rooms availabe).
    Even though no one was smoking in it the entire time I was there,
    I was up on every asthma medication I had, and I came home with
    bronchitus.
    
    I do not generally go out of my way to ask people not to smoke,
    but honestly, some poeple really get very sick from it.

    
    	Sounds like a psychological disorder to me.
    
    	Tell me about your childhood.
    

    
    re:.89
    
>  Reminds of an outdoor gathering I was at several years ago..I was smoking
>  a pipe, and well out of range of those whom I thought might be "offended"..
>  or so I thought..out of the blue came this 5 or 6 year old little girl, 
>  who  came up to me from across the yard and says "Do  you mind..that smoke
>  is bothering me"...eessh..
    
    Jim, the only response I'd have made would've been "That's nice, now go
    run and play..."
    
    re:.102
    
    One reasonable response to the little offended one would be 
    "touch s***, kid".
     ^^^^^
    eeerrrr.....uuuummmm.... never mind :-)))
    

    re: .108
    
    Now now, be nice.  It is a very physical thing, be lucky that you don't
    have such reactions.  Though I do not have asthma, I do have allergies,
    and can understand Mary-Michael's reaction to smoke.  My reactions may
    not be as extreme, but saying that second-hand smoke causes me
    discomfort, would be an understatement (if I am exposed too long, my
    lungs will hurt, my sinuses DO shut down, and my eyes get quite red and
    irritated).
    
    Those that have no allergic/asthma disorder have little comprehension
    of what these things are all about (at least in my experience)- they
    have no frame of reference, really.  
    
    One of my friends, who owns several cats, still can't comprehend why I
    don't come over to his house more often- this after knowing me for
    several years.  He simply does not understand the misery that allergies
    can inflict upon a person.  He even suggested that I should
    deliberately expose myself to cats for periods of time "to get used to
    them".  Yeah, right.  
    
    To be fair, though, he DOES go out of his way to keep the felines out
    of harms way when I do come over.  He also does what he can to
    ventilate the house, with regards to second-hand smoke (his house is a
    double-whammy for me- cats and smoke). 
    
    Those without allergies should also be aware that allergy symptoms do
    not normally vanish right away, either.  The longer the exposure, the
    longer it takes to recover.  If I stay too long at my friend's house, I
    will suffer not only that night, but sometimes for the entire next day
    or even longer (particulary with exposure to cat dander- and cats need
    not be present, if you have them, you will have cat dander all over
    your house).  I've had asthma-like reactions when exposed too long in a
    "cat environment", and these DO take a while to recover from.
    
    
    -steve (who can't figgure out why he has allergies, since no one in his
    entire family does)

    touch = tough.  Oops.
    
    I have asthma too, but I don't expect the rest of humanity to turn the
    entire world into a hospital room just because I have a disease, which
    by the way is entirely treatable.
    
    I have no problem with smoke, but I have a big problem with pets --
    dogs and cats -- can't be in the same room where they are or where they
    were.
    
    But that is MY problem, not everyone elses, and I can't imagine asking
    people to give up their pets just so I won't have a problem when I go
    where they are.  I just don't go where they are.
    
    I don't agree with the recent trend to make laws to force everyone to
    abide by the lowest common denominator of society in all ways.  We lose
    the benefit of too many good people that way.  What we need to do is
    develop better tolerance rather than develop more restrictions.

    
    I have a story to top them all:
    
    About 4 years ago, my wife and I went to the Grand Canyon, and took a
    hike down the South Rim, a good 12 miles in distance.  LONG hike.
    
    All the way down, I didn't light a cigarette (and certainly not on the
    way back up).  At any rate, we get to the bottom, right in the middle
    of a fairly good wind storm, winds being about 20 MPH from the east,
    with a spectacular view of both the river and the South Rim.  There
    are 12-15 people who got there ahead of us.
    
    One of the hikers is this woman, who has brought her baby along.  She
    sets the baby down about 25 feet away from me to the south.  I had just
    lit a cigarette, and the woman comes stamping up to me screaming "YOUR
    SMOKE IS AFFECTING MY BABY. WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO SMOKE DOWN HERE ?"
    The baby is 25 feet away, and the smoke is blowing west, while her
    baby is south.  I've just lit my first cigarette in 2 hours, and am
    attempting to enjoy the view.
    
    I handed her the cigarette and asked if she would be so kind as to put 
    it out for me.

I used to know a girly who claimed that smoking was beneficial to her
asthma.  She was daft as a brush, though.

Chris.

    
    re: <<< Note 518.103 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady
    
    >>The other thing would have been to fart up-wind of her...
    >> :)
    
    Then she probably would have complained about the release of 
    "greenhouse" gas....
    
    :)
    
    
    

    re: .111
    
    Nor do I, as a matter of fact, as a pet owner with five cats
    and three ferrets and an antiques dealer with a house full of
    overstuffed furniture and bric-a-brac, I don't even run my
    own life in the best interests of my illnesses. :-)  
    
    However, if I patronize a store or restaurant on the basis
    of it's advertising a smoke-free environment, I expect not
    to be treated to smoke, after all that's why I'm paying money
    to be there.  If I am uncomfortable there, I will speak up.  
    
    I try and be sensitive to the needs of people who smoke and
    in an outdoor environment they are entitled.  
    
    Nit:
    
    All asthma is not controllable.  Some, which unfortunately
    includes me, are susceptible to multiple small attacks almost
    daily, rather than two or three major episodes per year.  
    This makes dealing with allergens particularing challenging.
    Fortunately, you can be allergic to things without being
    asthmatic to them.  My pets and knick knacks fall into
    this category.  I am asthmatic to smoke (of any nature), pollen,
    cold air, exercise and some foods.  
    
    

    I agree that if a store advertises no smoke, then there should be no
    smoke there.  I believe that about anything a store advertises.
    
    And by the way, my asthma is the same as yours, a few times a day most
    of the year round, except it gets much worse around pets, mold, pollen,
    etc.
    
    And it is 100% treatable.  I have had no asthma whatsoever for a year
    and a half now, even around the worst of external conditions.  
    
    The secret was to control the asthma, not the allergy, although they
    took care of that entirely too.  There is some new stuff out that is
    amazing, and you don't need weekly allergy shots, antihistamines, or
    any of the rest of that crap -- just a few squirts a day with a couple
    of inhalers -- one for asthma and another for yer nose.  
    
    It's a miracle, I tell ya!  :-)

    
    I'd be interested in hearing more about that medication...

    -b (another chronic asthma/allergy sufferer)

    Re. the medication for asthma and allergies:
    
    Got it from a pulmonary specialist in New Jersey -- they have lots of
    asthma problems in South Jersey for some reason -- and am continuing it
    up here, also from a pulmonary guy.  No allergy or GP doctor I ever
    went to knew anything about it.
    
    The latest theory for treating both nasal allergy symptoms and asthma
    is that they are both caused by inflammation that is there for no good
    reason, which then causes swelling and all the rest.
    
    They used to try to treat it by treating the causes -- allergy shots,
    avoid allergens, avoid exercise, avoid cold air, etc.  Avoid life.
    
    Now what they do is treat the inflammation directly wtih a form of
    steroids (not the anabolic type) that go only onto the surface of your
    airways, and therefore do not enter your system, so you can keep taking
    them for years with no known side effects or problems of any kind.
    
    The particular brands I am using are:
    
    	Beclovent:  The steroid (cortisone) you inhale several puffs twice
    		a day, and it prevents the inflammation that causes asthma.
    
    	Ventolin:  The inhaler that dilates your airways when you are 
    		experiencing asthma (I never have to use this any more).
    
    	Serevent:  A 12-hour version of ventolin.  I do use this one.
    
    	Vancenase:  The nasal spray that has totally eliminated all allergy
    		symptoms from inhaled allergens, including pollen, mold, 
    		pets, etc.
    
    You can do all these things twice a day, so you don't have to take them
    to work with you.  They come in other brands too, at least some of them.
    
    I can now go anywhere and do anything except stay for a long time in a
    house where there are very strong pet odors, where even some people I
    know who never have allergies have problems.  I have a dog of my own. 
    I can exercise outside in warm or cold weather with no problems.  I
    have gone through 1-1/2 years worth of allergy seasons with 0 symptoms,
    even lying down through the night.  No more waking up in the middle of
    the night and not being able to breathe.
    
    You have to stay on the stuff for life, because you have asthma and
    allergies for life, or until they come up with stuff that will have a 
    permanent effect, which I undestand they are working on, but that's OK 
    because now you have a life!   
    
    It's amazing how many things you stop doing or avoid over the years, 
    because you can't breathe, and you tell yourself you don't miss them.  
    Now you can do 'em all again.
    

    
    That is _excellent_ information, and I sincerely thank you
    for it!
    
    -b

    
    	Useful information in SOAPBOX?
    
    	Now I've seen everything.
    

Wow, Dick! And when I think back to 1981 or so in the RSTS group when you
and I used to sit in meetings at MKO blowin' smoke rings at each other
across the table (along with the other half dozen smokers in the room.)

Never knew you were asthmatic.

    
    	I remember back in 1988 when I could walk into HLO smoking a
    cigarette and not have to put it out until I got within 5ft of my
    "cleanroom". :*)
    
    	I ended up in a car accident at the end of the year and when I came
    back, Digital had gone PC and banished smoking to designated areas
    only. I can't leave for a minute!  ;*)
    
    jim

    
    A word of caution.  As mentioned, corticosteroids are not the 
    anabolic kind.  Rather, they exert a definite catabolic effect.
    Just as anabolic steroids cause nutrient repartitioning to occur,
    with nutrients being redirected into use by the muscle cells rather 
    than being stored for energy by fat cells, corticosteroids have the
    opposite effect, with more calories being driven into storage by
    fat cells.  It's something to think about, for more reasons than just
    vanity.  After all, your heart and other vital organs are made up 
    of muscle tissue.
    
    More advanced beta agonist drugs like clenbuterol or the ancient
    ephedrine may be part of the answer to this problem, although the 
    FDA still has not approved the use of clenbuterol, mostly for 
    political reasons.
    
    Also, it is completely silly to flatly state that asthma is 100% 
    treatable.  Certain medications either work, or don't work, for
    certain individuals, which is why their use must be monitored by
    a doctor.  What works for Dick Goodwin may not work at all for 
    Rob Cashmon, or Mary-Michael Scanlon, or Steve Leech.  No medication
    works 100% of the time, thus no problem is 100% treatable.
    
    
    
    Rob
    
                      

    Right, should have said 100% treatable for me.  After years of allergy
    shots, antihistamines, avoiding everything, etc., even if it isn't
    perfect all the time, by contrast it seems like 100% to me.
    
    As noted, your mileage may vary, but then, that's why you have to get
    all this stuff from a doctor.
    
    Also, the comment about side effects of steroids, no matter what kind,
    would depend on their getting into the bloodstream in order to have any
    effect.  The inhaled versions do not get into the bloodstream -- they
    act only on the surface to which they are applied.  Or at least that's
    what all the docs have said in response to my specific questions about
    that.  
    
    And I have talked to some other people who have had the same experience
    I have from these new drugs, and are just as entusiastic as I am about
    them.  Some of these have received fda approval only in the last year
    or two.

    Yeah, Jack, I remember that well.  The old smoky rooms.  But smoke
    never bothered me.  In fact asthma got to be a significant problem
    for me only after I quit smoking.  I used to swear I was gonna start 
    again to see if the asthma would go away.  :-)
    
    I have a theory about why smoking has become such a problem in recent
    years.  Look at the timing -- all this anti smoking drive started
    growing by leaps and bounds after the 1970s after the first oil crisis. 
    
    Remember the gas lines?  Heating oil doubling, tripling, etc.?
    
    So we got in a panic and started build all our houses and other
    building to be as airtight as we could to save energy.
    
    Result:  Indoor air pollution in some homes that is even higher than it 
    is outside on days when they warn you to stay inside.
    
    Result:  The fresh air that used to infiltrate our houses, public
    buildings, and workplaces is no longer allowed in, so smoke and all
    other odors have to stay inside with us, and HVAC just can't handle it
    any where near as well as could the infiltration of fresh air and the
    exhaust of stale air along with all the contaminants.
    
    One of the side effects of all the anti smoking laws is that now
    everyone things the air is nice and clean in our homes and other
    buildings, but it's not at all, and we are now much less likely to do
    anything about it. 
    
    It was easier to blame the whole thing on smokers, and not
    coincidentally much more satisfying to have a scape goat for all our
    unbreathable air problems.  
    
    So now the rates of asthma and other lung problems are steadily rising
    and have been for the past couple of decades, and nobody knows why.
    
    My bet is on indoor air pollution.  If we had solved the smoke problem
    by providing better ventilation, then we would have solved the other
    problem too.  But NooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo...   :-)

    Actually some of us have problems with inhaled steriods too....
    
    The first time I had a real problem they put me on a ten day
    taper of Prednesone (sp?).  On the ninth day I had a nervous
    breakdown at the office.  So, we moved to Azmacort next time I
    had a problem.  On the 14th day they pulled me off.  If someone
    came up behind me and surprised me, you could peel me off the
    ceiling.  I've been on Azmacort this time for about 2.5 weeks, 
    and we're there, I tell you.  Unfortunately, I still can't 
    breathe so I'm still taking it.  
    
    My mother has an extreme sensitivity to medication as well, so
    I assume fine genetics are to thank for this....
    
    Inhaled steriods are what you go to when there's nothing else left.
    The jury's not in on the impact of long term inhaled steriod use.
    It's the only game in town if you have bad asthma and want to
    control the inflammation, not treat the symptoms.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Injected steroid is where you go when nothing else is left, isn't it?
    (it was with my two younguns with asthma)  Been a bead year (at least
    in this area) for asthma sufferers.  Lack of precip means the pollen
    levels are real high.
    
    Mike
    

    Injected steroid is effective right away, but has lots of nasty
    problems, which is why the taper you off it.  I had that too when I had
    a real bad attack.   That's what they give you when you are not
    breathing much and they have to do something right away.
    
    But the inhaled stuff is not supposed to get into your blood.  You have
    to rinse your mouth out with salt water after you use it.
    
    Also, Azmacort and Beclovent and the like take quite a while to start
    working.  Like several weeks -- at least a month is what I was told.
    Same with the nasal spray for allergies.
    
    So you have to use it, and use enough of it, religiously before you can
    expect results.  In the meantime you may have to use dilators too,
    since the corticosteroids only work on inflammation, not on swelling.
    
    But then when it starts to work, what happens is you no longer get the
    inflammation that was always there, and since the inflammation was
    what caused the swelling of the bronchial tubes, you don't get that
    either, so the asthma goes away.
    
    Asthma can be caused by allergens, but it can also be caused by stress,
    disease (like colds or flu), by cold air, and by exercise.
    
    The immediate underlying cause is this inflammation that has no
    justifiable cause, but is apparently inherited.
    
    Kinda makes you wonder what we're doing to the gene pool, doesn't it?
    But that's a question for another note...  :-)

    
    > Kinda makes you wonder what we're doing to the gene pool, doesn't it?
    > But that's a question for another note...  :-)

    To steal a quote from another 'boxer's p_name:
    "the gene pool needs chlorine"

Are inhaled steroids what Hans and Franz were always referring to?

    I don't think so or I'd look like Arnold by now.  :-)
    

        <<< Note 518.96 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'd rather have Jesus" >>>

> At the time, I figured she was mimicing some
> behavior she had witnessed either by her parents or some other adult.  The
> point being that some folks will go out of their way to be offended just
> so they can tell somebody they are offended.

    	I know I cut into you for this incident, Jim, but I also couldn't
    	help wonder how a 6-year-old even knew to say what she did.  I
    	was torn between my original response and suggesting that the girl
    	was put up to it by cowardly "activist" adults.

    My college son tells me that Clove Cigarettes are all the rage at
    school. Anybody ever hear of these?

    Yes, a roommate of mine used to indulge in those as well. 

    Are they like good for you or sumthin?

    
    	Good for you?
    
    	If a college student is doing it, it's NOT good for you.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    I seem to remembering reading that clove cigarettes are more
    damaging than tobacco cigarettes, in terms of all that toxic
    stuff.

    >If a college student is doing it, it's NOT good for you.
    
    But, it's probably fun!
    
    >I seem to remembering reading that clove cigarettes are more
    >damaging than tobacco cigarettes, in terms of all that toxic stuff.
    
    Do you know where I can find any info like this. I'd like to show my
    son, in case he is considering the habit. 

    
    Care! They make you want to take all your cloves off.
    
    Lots of spices contain mild hallucinogens, but they also
    contain toxic substances.  A Pharmological index might list
    the risks.
    
    We used to smoke cinnamon & nutmeg, until we discovered that nutmeg
    is fairly toxic in large quantities.
    

    Clove cigs have been traced to some nasty things like...death.  Very
    toxic, they are.  From personal experience many years ago, they give
    one a "buzz"- if a mild one.
    
    During my experimentation period, I read several newpaper accounts of
    young folk (my age at the time) dying from them after only a couple of 
    years of smoking them.  One report stated that one youth literally had 
    holes in his lungs.  I can't confirm the accuracy of these reports, but 
    that didn't stop me from ending my experimentation quite abruptly.
    
    I guess I'm not surprised to hear of its resurrgence in popularity in
    this day and age of "huffing" things like spray paint.
    
    
    -steve

    I remember smoking them many years ago (about 14 ish) when a a friend`s
    Dad used to get all sort of exotic fags from around the world. They
    were quite foul,if I remember.
    
    The worse ones were from somewhere like Peru or Paraguary,which were
    coated in sugar. 
    
    

Assuming a clove cigarette contains cloves, and, assuming that the
combustion of the cigarette causes volatile compounds to be carried
into one's lungs if they're inhaling the vapors, then one of the
effects to the mouth, throat and bronchial passages would be like
having a local anesthetic applied (i.e. oil of cloves). I can believe
that that would produce an effect that might be "sought" in some odd
way, though I don't see the tie-in to any specific danger (and I admit
to having insufficient knowledge of the by products of combustion, which
may very well be nasty in and of themselves.)

    I dunno Jack, you're pretty mean with a gas grille.

	I smoked clove cigarettes in high school, way way back in
	the early eighties ;-)

	They never gave me a buzz, more like a sick feeling if
	I smoked more than one or two in the same night (smoked 
	frequently during all-nighters in the dormitory "common-room").

	Lucky Jack is quite right, they tend to numb the lips a bit
	(and then the tongue, if you lick your lips).  No such affect
	on the throat - I think you had to actually touch the cigarette
	to get the oils on you (and produce the numbness).

	I actually liked the taste for the first 5 or 6 drags.  In fact,
	I used to snuff them out and save them sometimes (they were 
	too expensive for my budget most of the time).

	Haven't had one since freshman year of college, and I quit the
	other cigs 9 years ago.

	Karen

    
    > 	Haven't had one since freshman year of college, and I quit the
    > 	other cigs 9 years ago.

    oohhhh....and what kind of "other cigs" would those be...hhhhmmmmm??
    ;-)   MUST be reffering to tobacco no doubt.  I'd have to be a dope to
    think otherwise.... ;->

    	To continue the previous discussion, I don't believe non-smokers
    	should hassle smokers.
    
    	Quite the opposite, I believe non-smokers should carry matches
    	around with them, so as to more quickly light the cigarette
    	of a fellow human being who smokes. Non-smokers should offer
    	to buy entire cartons for people who enjoy smoking:
    
    	So the smoker will die that much sooner.
    
    	Thank you, I know this will be enjoyable to read.

    
    <------------

    Now there's a pleasant thought!

    
    	We love you, too, Patrick.
    
    	8^)
    

    	Sorry, I knew I should not have entered that note, but this is
    	the soapbox file.
    
    	Flames are part of the experience in here.
    
    	Thanks for the love though, I wasn't expecting that  :^)

    
    	If you REALLY loved me, you'd send a carton or 2 of Marlboro 100's
    	to me at MRO1-3/K23.
    
    	8^)
    

    Has anyone ever seen a study of how much productive time is lost going
    to have a cigarette?  It's 10 minutes just to walk down to the smoking
    area here at ALF.  Since it takes so long most of us have to smoke 3-4
    to get enough nicotine to last us till the next time we go.  Add to
    that the production lost cause one can't think sometimes for wanting
    one.  I believe the production improvement would be sufficient to buy
    vents for every smoker in the building so the obnoxious non smokers
    here would not have to worry about second hand smoke.  Course many I
    have had the unfortunate privilege of hearing whine, would not settle
    for anything less than a total smoking ban from all the world!!!
    
    :-< 
    Mikey

    ...and yet another loser checks into 518.*
    

    >Has anyone ever seen a study of how much productive time is lost going
    >to have a cigarette?  
    
     Good point. We ought to do a study and reduce the pay of smokers by
    the percentage of unproductive time they spend "going for a smoke" each
    day. If you can't get your addiction under control...

    
    
    And then we'll have the Digital police go around and see how much time
    people spend chatting, and doing other non work related stuff.  Also,
    we better install a timeclock so that we know how long the lunches
    are.......
    
    
    

My theory is that people in the high-tech industry who smoke are less 
likely to get carpel tunnel(sp?) syndrome because they are more likely to 
take regular breaks and do other things with their hands than just punching 
a keyboard.

--Geoff    

    re: .152
    
    You are right.  The company would save time and hassle simple by hiring
    only non-smokers.  8^/
    
    FWIW, there are other reasons beside the obvious health reasons that
    non-smokers complain about smoking; one of which is simply the smell. 
    Though smokers may not notice it, the smell of cigarette smoke gets on
    clothes and hair, and is not pleasant in the least (even in my current
    condition of stuffy/runny nose, I can instantly smell someone who is
    coming back from a smoke break).
    
    For example, bowling night was last night.  Due to my cold, I went
    further out of my way (than usual) to avoid contact with smoke.  I did
    not stand next to anyone smoking, nor did I hang out anywhere near
    those who were smoking.  Even by isolating myself in this way, not only 
    did my lungs STILL hurt by the end of the night (due to the unavoidable
    second hand smoke), but my clothes smelled just
    as nasty as if I had been smoking myself.  The moral of the story being
    that you cannot be in the same room- or building, in this case- and be
    free from smoke, regardless of ventilation.  I'm glad Digital's policy
    is what it is.
    
    
    -steve

    
    On this, The Right Honorable Steve Leech -- Founding Father of
    All That Is Good About America -- we most whole-heartedly
    agree.

    -b

       
       The Boston Globe reported today that the guy who played the
       Marlboro Man in TV ads died yesterday.  Of lung cancer.

    
    Ironoclastic.
    

       Class Dismissed.
       
       Which, now that I think of it, is probably a good way of
       characterizing Soapbox.

          The Boston Globe reported today that the guy who played the
          Marlboro Man in TV ads died yesterday.  Of lung cancer.
    
     Second "Marlboro Man" to die of lung cancer in the last 3 years...

       I hope the horse is ok.

    
    
    Takes a little longer for second-hand smoke to work...
    
    Stay tuned
    

    Employees should be evaluated based on their output, along with the
    quality of that output, not on how much time they spend producing that
    output. Though I think smoking is pretty stupid, smokers should be
    judged in this way, as well as everyone else. 
    
    Perhaps we should investigate coffee drinkers as well. After all they 
    spend much more time going to the restrooms then do non-coffee drinkers. 
    
    :-)
    
    

    Mike S.
    
    Alas, you work in a telephone support environment; our "productivity"
    is measured by how much time we spend on the phones and how many calls
    we take and the quality of the answers we give.
    
    Although you and I are on different teams, my team has quite a few
    smokers.  Don't know if you've ever been shown the girations we go
    through to maximize our headcount over a 12 hour work day.  Lunch
    hours are especially critical; each team has approx 1/3 of their people at
    lunch.  That means if a non-lunch hour person(s) is outside having a
    cigarette, all we mean ole non-smokers are pounding calls twice as
    hard because we have hit our peak volume time.
    
    Personally, I was happy when we had the 'smoking rooms', it kept
    most of the smoke at bay and kept my upper respiratory problems at
    bay (I'm a life-long non-smoker).  The decision to make Digital
    facilities smoke-free was made quite awhile ago and smokers had
    plenty of notice (and even had programs offered to help them quit).
    
    I think I understand the impact when a smoker cannot smoke freely
    (I was married to a 3 pack-a-day man); the few times he tried to
    quit I was almost as relieved as he was when he'd give up and
    go back to smoking (it was like living with Freddie Krueger going
    through nicotine withdrawal).
    
    I can't speak to how much nicotine deprivation impacts a person's
    performance (I've read enough on the subject to know it has a very
    real impact). But when I'm on a complicated call and I look at
    the real-time display for my team's queue and see 17 calls holding,
    it's difficult NOT to get resentful with team members who are outside
    relaxing with a smoke when I feel as though I've just stumbled into
    Custer's last stand ;-}
    
    I know some members of the district are very vocal about how smokers
    off-line impacts the teams; I prefer NOT to complain about it.  I've
    weighed the impact of breathing the smoke or pushing harder to take
    a few more calls, right now I can deal with handling a few more calls
    rather than inhaling second-hand smoke.
    

    >>   I hope the horse is ok.
    
    He's okay, but from all the smoke, he's a little hoarse.
    
    Chris

    
    	RE: .167
    
    	Ahhh, stunted his growth, eh?
    

    
    
    RE: .162  Mark, did they say how old he was?
    

    I didn't pay that much attention; my trivial facts buffer was already
    full and the data was dropped on the floor (no overwriting allowed.)
    Sorry. :-)

    
    
    Sounds like it's time to upgrade, Mark. :')
    
    
    I thought that I heard he was 73 and I was trying to get some
    confirmation on it or to have someone tell me I'm FOS as I'm sure I
    could count on some fine box poisen to do. :')
    
    
    Mike

    Local rag says 73 also.

    
    
    Heck, he could have lived to 74 or 75.........

    
    > I hope the horse is ok.
    
    Why does this attitude not surprise me... :-/
    Disgust me perhaps, but surprise me, no.
    

       <-----YOU GOT ME WITH THAT ONE, DAN!!  GOOD ONE!!!

    you wouldn't say that if the horse was your mother ! :*)

    Nay, I wouldn't.

    Was the horse sick too? Of cancer? What with all that second hand
    smoke....

    
    You HAD to do that didn't you Glenn!  
    

Hay, lucerne up. Don't ride him the wrong way.



\C

    	{cough}

    Dan, explain yourself.  Why would you be disgusted?  Do animals not
    suffer from the irresponsible behaviors of their human companions?  
    
    Brian

    Oh, to die of galloping consumption must be awful.

    
    > Why would you be disgusted?  

    No condolences for the human being, but concern for the animal.  
    What is the value of a "smoker"?  Less than an animal?  Less than a human?
    And this from Topaz....  
    Him I would not have expected to be so callous.

    > Do animals not
    > suffer from the irresponsible behaviors of their human companions?  

    Certainly, but that was not my bone of contention.

       
       
       <----------  GOOD ONE, DAN, GOT ME AGAIN!!

    
    .184
    
    Y'see, Dandy thinks that Topes is a big meany for not being all
    soppy over that fact that the Marlboro Man died of a SELF-INFLICTED
    illness.  This, after callously dismissing the murder of a Green-
    peace photographer as being a justifiable act of self-defence.
    
    TTWA:
    
    Could Dan get any more obtuse?
    

    
    Kirby, I really don't see how you managed to get 'lack of concern for
    a person just because he's a smoker' from "I hope the horse is all
    right". 
    
    They're not mutually exclusive, ya know.
    
    If you want to pick on Mr.Topaz, at least try to find something
    worthwhile.  Don't leap on a note, any note, just because you want to
    pick on him.  It makes you look kinda lame.
    
    

    LAME!
    
    ROOOLLLLLLLING!!!!!!

       
       HEY.  STOP PICKING ON MY PAL DAN!!
       
       WHEN HE'S RIGHT, HE'S RIGHT!!

    
    AND WHEN HE'S RONG, HE'S RONG.
    

    Look, Dan got a late start out of the gate.  He's saddled himself with
    this burden just can't seem to shake it.  
    

    
    Don't bet on him to win, place, OR show.
    

    Are we jockeying for position in the pun war now?

    
    Some will go to any length to nose ahead.
    

    Oh yeah?  Well that's just about a furlong short of a trifecta. 

    
    You all aren't very stable, are you?
    

    
    Hey, if you can't keep up the pace, then just trot along.
    

    This is my mane objective so don't rein on my parade.

    	I'm way out of sync, forgive me...
    
    	re .157 ...   see .147
    
    	remember to bring matches to work every day, and be happy...
    
    	---> just joking %^))

    
    re:.187
    
    > If you want to pick on Mr.Topaz, at least try to find something
    > worthwhile.  Don't leap on a note, any note, just because you want to
    > pick on him.  
    
    Ms Deb, surely you know me better than this.  I'm not picking on donny,
    I have much better things to do with my time.  His note implied that to
    me.  Knowing how exacting donny likes to be, I felt that it could not
    have been an accident.  If I was wrong and donny didn't mean to imply
    that, I'm sorry, but then I have not heard him contradict what I said. 
    Until such time, what I said stands.
    
    > It makes you look kinda lame.
    
    :-)
    

    
    I personally think, we should rein in this discussion.

    
    Woah, Mark, let's not put the cart before the horse!
    

Would a person who did not smoke be less dead if he died from any other cause?

    is this some kind of a trick question?

    Is this some kind of bust?

    i, for one, never inhale.

Blowhard.

    blowhole

    and the answer is no. 

    
    	RE: Glenn
    
    >Is this some kind of bust?
    
    
    	Yes, it's very impressive, but that's not why we're here.
    

    Cuban?

    
    
    and what about those poor horses?????
    

    andy, full moon tomorrow.  pass the word.

    
    <------
    Bonnie...
    
    Okay.... should I not inhale though???
    
    :)
    

    .214
    
    don't inhale.  it's not sanitary. :-)

    
    But.. but... that's what those filters are for...no???
    

    well, if you do inhale, take Gerald's advice and
    blow hard.

    
    
    Now wait a minute.... which is it???
    

    	re .203
    
    	Ask that person as he dies of lung cancer.
    
    	Or ask the non-smoker during his theoretical extra years
    	he gained as a non-smoker.

    
    	Is that before or after [s]he's hit by a cross-town bus while
    	partaking in a nice jog or some other healthful activity?
    

    
    <------
    
    Not a bad way to go....
    
    This way, the heart and other vital organs will be primed and ready to
    go for transplant!!
    

    
    <----------

    If they didn't get squished by the bus....

    ;-)

    Time Mag:
    
    Five major cigarette companies accused the Food and Drug Administration of 
    an "illegal power grab" with new efforts to curb teen smoking that the 
    firms contend would cost them $1 billion a year. Tuesday, the deadline for 
    public comment on the plan, they filed 2,000 pages of arguments and 
    additional 45,000 pages of research. The new rules,
    which President Clinton requested last summer, would ban vending
    machine sales of cigarettes, restrict advertising in
    areas frequented by minors and force cigarette makers to pay for a $150
    million annual advertising campaign directed at
    young people. Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown and Williamson,
    Lorillard Tobacco, and Liggett Group argue that
    the rules aren't needed since states already ban cigarette sales to
    minors. Moreover, they say, nicotine is not a drug as
    defined by law nor do its effects fall under the legal classification
    of addiction. Expect a bitter, no-holds-barred court
    fight after the rules are finalized, says TIME's Elaine Shannon.
    "Fleets of law firms are being retained merely to collect
    documents. This is a very powerful industry that pursues its interests
    with a vengeance."
    

    that evil FDA!

	The FDA is really the anti-Christ. 


		For
		Da
		Anti-Christ

    the anti-Christ is rapper? 

    It would explain a great many things.

    My car is the anti-chrysler

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ ~
                  / |     ||\~  
                 *  ||W---||    
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    Sorry if I've asked this already somewhere (it sounds like a note
    that I probably started and then deleted), but does Bill or Hill
    Clinton smoke?
    
    Chris

    Clinton smokes cigars on special occasions.
    
    DougO

    
    yes, but he doesn't inhale.

    
    	RE: .232
    
    	Geez, no one's said "like when he tells the truth" yet?
    

    Then he'd never smoke cigars, would he?
    

    
    	I've been smoking cigars exclusively for over a month now.  I
    	started with Swisher Sweets, but they seem to be in somewhat
    	short supply in local stores [probably because I bought them
    	all].  So I decided to try a few other brands.
    
    	ALl the following are little cigars, 100's, 20/pack.
    
    	Swisher Sweets - $1.19/pack - good
    	Hav-A-Tampa Sweets - 50 cents/pack - good
    	Omega Cherry - 50 cents/pack - not good, or maybe I just don't
    				       like cherry cigars
    	Omega regular - 50 cents/pack - OK
    	Muriel Sweets - 50 cents/pack - not good
    
    

    Hava-Tampa Sweets for 50 cents?!?!?!
    
    {grundel}

How 'bout Havatampa Jewels? Middleton Cherry Blend Tips? Parodis?

    Swisher Sweets rule.
    

    I like the Hav-A-Tampa Jewels, and yes they still make those.

Not the Parodis, though, eh?

I used to have an Italian uncle who smoked Parodis and DeNobilis.

Then, I had another Italian uncle who smoked Yara, Red Man, and Day's Work
in his pipe.

    
    I know where to get Swisher Sweets in large quantities.
    

 I used to love those Cherry Blend things



 Jim

    
    
    	I have a buddy here that smokes $12 a piece cuban cigars. He gave
    me an $8 one while we were at the range this weekend. Nice. Glad he
    paid for it. ;*)
    
    
    	jim

    My brother's been smoking Arturo Fuentes cigars lately. About $25 a
    box- not sure what that translates into per cigar. How many cigars come
    to a box?

    
    
    	20cigars in a box I think?
    
    

>    I know where to get Swisher Sweets in large quantities.
    
The South End?  P-town?

    
    	RE: Doc
    
    	I'm pretty sure that the # of cigars/box varies on the type and
    	size of the cigar.  I get flyers from the Thompson Cigar Comp-
    	and and there are all sorts of different size/number combinat-
    	ions.
    

    If you can find it in America,buy "Old Holborn" rolling tobacco.
    
    When I was there in May,a confirmed non-smoker liked mine so much he
    purchased a 200 gramme tin of it. I only smoke it when I have a few
    beers,so it doesn`t seem to be as addictive as normal tabs. Though
    it obviously is addictive as it`s got nicotine and all that bad stuff.
    
    er,maybe you should avoid it instead. Though it is a "smooth smoke".
    

    .240
    
    I grew up in Tampa.  Remember there cigar boxes rather well.  When my
    Dad died I threw away about 200 cigar boxes that dated back to the
    early 60's, at least 75 of those were hav-a-tampa's. :-) :-(

    
    	Now that I think about it, Doc, I believe that most "big" cigars
    	come 40 or 50 to a box.
    

    I think 20 is probably closer to the number of cigars in the box my
    brother had. It was only two rows deep.

     Bay State Sued Over Cigarette Disclosure Law

     By Frank Phillips, 08/03/96

     With the ink barely dry on Gov. William F. Weld's
     signature creating a first-in-the-nation law to
     force cigarette makers to reveal additives in each
     brand, the tobacco industry yesterday launched a
     legal assault to block the law's implementation.

     Four cigarette manufacturers, declaring the law is
     ``patently unconstitutional,'' filed suit in US
     District Court in Boston, saying the state is
     violating federal statutes by forcing them to
     reveal trade secrets as a condition of doing
     business in Massachusetts. Philip Morris Cos., RJ
     Reynolds, Lorillard, and Brown &Williamsonall
     entered into the suit.

     ``Massachusetts has erred by injecting itself into
     an area where the federal government has exclusive
     authority,'' reads a statement released by the
     Tobacco Institute just after Weld signed the bill
     yesterday.

     The industry holds that a 1986 federal law
     requiring that a list of tobacco additives be
     filed with the US Department of Health and Human
     Services preempts the new Massachusetts law.

     The federal law prohibits the Department of Health
     and Human Services' public release of the data,
     which is not broken down by brands. Recently, it
     was disclosed that the industry has filed a list
     of nearly 600 additives.

     ``The Commonwealth should not, and legally cannot,
     require information to be disclosed that Congress
     has said should not be disclosed,'' the statement
     reads.

     But advocates for the new law, including Weld,
     argue that the statute does not violate federal
     law. ``I don't think the trade secret agreement
     argument holds up,'' Weld said, asserting there is
     case law to back the Massachusetts statute.

     The bill's sponsor, Sen. Warren Tolman
     (D-Watertown), said smokers and nonsmokers alike
     should be offended by the industry's legal action.

     ``Eighty-eight percent of the smokers favors this
     bill,'' Tolman said, citing an American Cancer
     Society poll. ``What are the tobacco companies
     hiding? I am offended and every smoker, parent,
     and consumer should be offended as well.''

     Besides forcing disclosure of additives, the bill,
     which also applies to chewing and pipe tobacco,
     would also require what advocates say would be a
     more accurate reading of nicotine levels.

     The industry argues that the additives are used to
     help give brands their distinctive tastes and that
     to force each company to reveal their ingredients
     raises ``obvious legal and competitive issues.''

     ``It would be hard to imagine that the
     Commonwealth would ask soft drink or food
     manufacturers to divulge their recipes or
     formulas, the equivalent of the requirements the
     bill places on cigarette manufacturers,'' the
     institute's statement reads.

     The industry's suit came as Weld held a signing
     ceremony at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Brighton,
     where the new law was hailed as a groundbreaking
     effort in the battle against smoking.

     Weld has been reluctant to join other antismoking
     efforts, such as cigarette tax hikes to fund a
     health care bill and suits against the industry to
     pay for Medicaid costs. He even cut the tobacco
     control budget in 1993.

     US Sen. John F. Kerry charged Weld was ``a
     Johnny-come-lately on tobacco disclosure'' and has
     stalled on other antismoking issues.

     ``Gov. Weld can sign this bill with great fanfare
     but that's just a smokescreen for the fact that
     just recently he stood firm with the industry and
     vetoed health insurance for 160,000 kids,'' Kerry
     said.

     This story ran on page B2 of the Boston Globe on
     08/03/96.

    I agree with the tobacco companies -- if they have to do this, then so
    do Coca Cola and every other company that has "trade secrets" in their
    ingredients.
    
    But I agree with the government that we have the right to know what is
    in anything we consume, and that overrides company's right to its
    "trade secrets".
    
    I disagree with tobacco sin taxes and with all laws and other
    government coercion with respect to tobacco and other substances, but I
    think the one area where the government (being the people) has rights
    is to KNOW what is in what it consumes.  We have the right to this
    information -- screw the tobacco industry if it doesn't like it.

>    I agree with the tobacco companies -- if they have to do this, then so
>    do Coca Cola and every other company that has "trade secrets" in their
>    ingredients.

But Coke does list their ingredients.  The "trade secrets" are in the amounts
of each item and the nature of the last item listed, "natural flavors". 

They should have the tobacco law pretty much the same as the food law, but
you have to watch forming a huge loophole in what can be placed into "natural
flavors" category to prevent labels that read: "Ingredients: Tobacco, natural
flavors." no matter what's in it.

    I'd go even further -- not only do they lump some items under the
    "natural" or "flavoring" umbrellas, but others they just use chemical
    names for, which is find if you are a chemist or have the time and
    resources to look each one up.
    
    I think they ought to list ingredients completely and by their most
    common names, and have a reference somewhere in the store for looking
    up names nobody understands.  The labelling laws have helped, but they
    need their loopholes tightened.

>They should have the tobacco law pretty much the same as the food law,...

If'n that were the case, tobacco prolly woulda never been allowed in the
firsted place.

Unfortunately for those that smoke, all them flavors aint natural.

TTom

    
      Um, tobacco is an ingredient.  In some pipe tobacco and some
     cigars, tobacco is the only ingredient, and they say so.
    
      So what ?  The tobacco itself kills you.  The buyer knows it, too.
     There's even a label that says so.
    
      bb

    They say tobacco kills you, they say alcohol kills you, they say drugs
    kill you, they say fat kills you, they say sex kills you, ...
    
    Whatever.  The point is not whether something is the best thing in the
    world for you, the point is whether we have a right to know what we are
    eating, drinking, smoking, etc.
    
    For people who assume that cigarettes contain tobacco, it might be a
    nasty surprise to find out what else is in them just as it is for
    people who like orange juice or heroin or cocaine or mj.
    
    All it would cost to have an informed citizenry is for the government
    to get out of the control business and get into the information
    business.  But that would be too useful, too beneficial, and not nearly
    enough profitable, I guess.

	What should catch people's eyes is when a company makes a product that
causes cancer and has former employees who state that they put stuff into the
product to get people addicted, are screaming that they don't want to list what
is in the product. Shouldn't it just be tabacco, paper, and whatever the filter
is made out of?


Glen

    All that *has* caught people's attention, but without laws forcing
    companies to divulge what is in their products, what can people do
    about it?
    
    I never have understood why tobacco isn't subject to truth in labelling
    laws.

	I agree that they should have to state what is in their products. But
with all that is out there, if people are still buying the things, will they
stop if they know the ingredients?

    If you don't like the fact that ingredients, or any other information,
    is missing from a product label, you have an alternative, DON'T BUY IT!
    If the consumers refused to buy products that didn't meet their
    specifications, businesses would soon add them because profitability 
    demands it. 

    Re. if you don't like it then don't buy it
    
    Then why do we need *any* truth in labelling laws?  The problem is, if
    nobody labels things, then you wouldn't be able to buy anything.  That
    theory is not going to work for tobacco any better than it worked for
    orange juice.
    
    Re. Will it make people stop smoking?
    
    Probably a few, but by and large, no.  But if people choose to buy
    cigarettes with fewer nasty sounding ingredients in addition to the
    tobacco, then the market pressure will have the usual effect.  It's a
    win for consumers no matter how you look at it.

    >Government figures show that of 3,000 teens who start smoking every
    >day, 1,000 eventually will die from the habit.
    
    Another government BIG LIE.
    
    I wouldn't mind seeing a ban on ads that target kids, though.  And
    I wouldn't mind seeing more *accurate* information from the gov't
    about the affects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.  In fact, that
    is the ONLY government involvement in these things that I would
    like to see.
    

    Ahem. Rhetoric is all very well, but on what basis do you say this is
    another "BIG LIE"?
    
    Bluster does not an argument win.

How to lie with statistics ...


Kind of like 'alcohol related accidents' consisiting
of many accidents caused by factors other than the
presence of alcohol ...

    > on what basis do you say this is another "BIG LIE"?
    
    The government claims that smoking kills many thousands of people every
    year, mostly from heart disease.  Some from cancer, but heart disease
    is their biggest claim.  And they claim that for both smokers and those
    who breathe 2nd hand smoke.  The typical government assertion is that
    smoking causes heart disease, and heart disease is the nation's biggest 
    killer.
    
    OK, so if that is true, then we should be able to see all those heart
    disease deaths in the statistics somewhere, shouldn't we?
    
    Pick any source you want, like those Information Please Almanacs you
    find on the news stands, and find a chart that shows the most prevalent
    causes of death in the US.  You will see that, sure enough, heart
    disease is by far the biggest single killer of people in the US.
    
    But wait, look at the chart some more and find a cause of death called
    "OLD AGE".  You can't do it.  The statistics listed by the US
    government for leading causes of death in the US do NOT include OLD AGE
    as a cause of death in the US.
    
    Either the government has cured old age and never told us, or the
    deaths from old age are hidden in one or more of the "causes of death"
    statistics.  
    
    It took me a couple of months of searching, but I finally came up with
    a little paperback booklet from the National Safety Council (chartered
    and controlled by guess who ... congress), for $25, which shows just
    what I expected to find:
    
    	Deaths due to heart disease, the nation's "biggest killer", 
    	peak sharply around age 80.  Cancer peaks out there somewhere
    	too, but not as sharply.
    
    So the government, which has decided to crusade against smoking,
    probably to distract us from the real problems that they have no clue
    how to solve or are unwilling to solve, and from their other
    shenanigans that they don't want us to notice, are leading us in a
    holy war against the tobacco industry because most of the country's
    elderly, when they die of old age, have their deaths officially
    attributed to heart disease.  And some heart disease has been seen to
    be related to smoking.
    
    The best description I have heard of the effect of smoking on health is
    that some people, due to genetics or chance or whatever factors, will
    have health problems due to smoking, up to and including death from
    related causes.  Many other people will have no problems due to
    smoking.
    
    Another thing that is never mentioned is how much other factors, such
    as indoor and outdoor air pollution, predispose people to having
    trouble from smoking.  The government never even mentions things like
    that, even though I hear warnings on the radio about the dangerous
    levels of ground level ozone and its caustic effects on lungs almost 
    every hot sunny day in the summer.  Most of us are being made to
    breathe reformulated gas now because air pollution is considered bad
    enough to warrant the extra expense and the side effects that cause
    some people to become ill.
    
    But smokers, not any other single group of people, are the ones singled
    out to be the witches of the late 20th century.  It's a BIG LIE, I tell
    ya, in the finest tradition of government big lies throughout the ages!

>..., predispose people to having trouble from smoking.

The background issues cited, or whatever else you wanna throw into the
mix isn't even on the charts for the one thing that really predisposes
people to having trouble from smoking, namely, smoking itself.

Having read with interest -.1, I conclude that at issue is not whether
smoking causes heart disease, death, etc., but whether people who smoke
care whether smoking causes heart disease, death, etc.

Cause no matter how you slice it and dice it, smoking aint healthy.

As for the role the government plays in all this, I think they should
either make cigarettes illegal or else just get off the smokers' backs.

TTom

from the Abortion topic:

 20.5166  RUSURE::GOODWIN 
    
>    So if you are not a non-smoker, then your previous statement would 
>    seem to indicate that you are one of those people who tries to 
>    exhibit consideration for other people.  In which case, you have 
>    exactly the sort of attitude the world needs more of.

	I did not say I'm a smoker.  I did not say I'm a non-smoker.
	I said there's no reason that non-smokers should have to tolerate
	smoke in their breathing space.  (And, by "their breathing space", I 
	don't mean "the entire planet".)  You were calling for "better
	ventilation, consideration, and tolerance".  I was trying to
	ascertain what, specifically, you meant by "tolerance".

    Organized crime would love nothing better than the government make
    tobacco illegal or tax it to death. Contraband cigarette smuggling
    became such a problem in Canada that the governments had to slash taxes
    in order to match the contraband prices in order to end the crime that
    the smuggling was encouraging.

    
    	I don't think that non-horrible-perfume owners should have to
    	tolerate horrible perfume in THEIR breathing space, either.
    
    	I think that all restaurants should provide "perfume" and "No
    	perfume" sections.
    

    
    And "children" and "no children" sections.
    

Here, here, Slab!~

Ever notice that the worsted the smell of the perfume, the more they seem
to use it?

>        <<< Note 518.273 by BUSY::SLAB "The new phone book's here!!" >>>
    
>    	I think that all restaurants should provide "perfume" and "No
>    	perfume" sections.

    If perfume were shown to cause cancer, you'd have a case for that,
    I suppose.    

or idiots and no-idiots sections...

>Cause no matter how you slice it and dice it, smoking aint healthy.

Smokers who excersize regularly are far healthier than non-smokers
who do not exercise (stated in a recently published research paper).

Smokers who smoke fewer than 5 cigaretts a day, have no buildup of
crud in their lungs. 

Smokers who smoke a moderate amount and exercise have no buildup of
crud in their lungs.

Smokers with multiple pack/day habits for 20+ years, can clean their
lungs out in less than 18 months after quiting.

Smokers with multiple pack/day habits for 30+ years have the greatest
health risks.

Just as with consuming alcohol, woman should not smoke during pregnancy.


Doug.

    > or idiots and no-idiots sections
    
    According to Shawn, there is no need for this in the US.

    
    	At least SOMEONE reads what I write.
    
    	AND admits it.
    

    Actually Shawn there was a touch of irony in the "idiot" note.
    
    On same day that you were taken to task for implying that all Americans
    might be idiots (not that you meant such a thing, but that's how it was
    taken) another note was posted that implied that all Americans not
    armed to the teeth were irresponsible cowards.   I was waiting for an
    objection, but never observed one.
    

So maybe we should have a guns and no-guns section, too...

    >Kind of like 'alcohol related accidents'
    
    Funny you should mention that.  The same National Safety Council
    booklet I found the heart disease vs. age chart in has several charts
    about alcohol and driving.
    
    One chart shows that since raising the national drinking age from
    18 to 21 (yeah, I know it was done state by state, but only in response
    to federal highway funds blackmail pressuring all states to comply),
    the peak rate of new driver DWI accidents has moved from the age
    range 16-18 out to the age range of 21-23, and gotten larger.
    
    That tells me that we didn't solve the problem, we merely pushed it out
    of our homes so we wouldn't have to deal with it -- so we CANNOT
    deal with it.  This is federal meddling at its worst, IMO.
    
    They also mention in the NSC booklet that any accident in which the
    driver has .01 or greater Blood Alcohol Content is said to be "alcohol
    related".
    
    NOTE THAT:   .01    not .10 or .08 or even .05, but  .01
    
    So their stats were geared to deceive us right from the start.

    I shot the Chef
    But I never shot the Maitre-de,

  maybe "smoking guns" and "non-smoking guns" sections.

    
    	RE: .283
    
    	So, the obvious solution is to push the legal drinking age out
    	to about 125.  As far as I know, there's only 1 or 2 people
    	that even make it to that age every 5 years or so, so that'll
    	reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths to .4/year.
    
    	Problem solved.
    

And the age of consent could be changed to 125. Maybe you shouldn't be
able to vote unless you're 125, too...

    >Having read with interest -.1, I conclude that at issue is not whether
    >smoking causes heart disease, death, etc., but whether people who
    smoke
    >care whether smoking causes heart disease, death, etc.
    
    The government's bill of goods about how MUCH of a problem smoking 
    is, and FOR WHOM it is a problem, as their excuse for turning a 
    whole segment of the population into an underclass and/or criminals, 
    is a typical governmental BIG LIE.
    

    A candidate for Cook County Jail.

    >I did not say I'm a smoker.  I did not say I'm a non-smoker.
    >I said there's no reason that non-smokers should have to tolerate
    >smoke in their breathing space.  (And, by "their breathing space", I
    >don't mean "the entire planet".)  You were calling for "better
    >ventilation, consideration, and tolerance".  I was trying to
    >ascertain what, specifically, you meant by "tolerance".
    
    What I meant by tolerance, as well as consideration, is that we
    oughta make ventilation systems good enough that if people want
    to smoke at work or in a restaurant or other building, especially
    private homes, there won't be enough of it in the air to bother
    people who don't like the smell of it MUCH, and that smokers
    ought to try to separate themselves to a REASONABLE extent from
    people who don't like smoke.
    
    Banning smoking outright, or making smokers go stand outside in
    cold rainy snowy weather is inhumane and is carrying a good thing
    to a fanatical mean-spirited extreme.
    
    But we do it to them because the government has convinced us that
    we have to or we'll all keel over any minute now from heart disease
    or lung disease if we even hear the word "tobacco" whispered
    in the distance.  (I'm exaggerating a little)
    Do people have some absolute right not to smell tobacco smoke?
    
    NO, IMO, I don't think so.  If they do, then I have an absolute
    right not to smell anything I don't want to smell either.  And
    I don't believe that for a minute.  Not, that is, if I want to
    live in association with other human beings.  Hell, even my dog
    smells bad now and then.
    
    >If perfume were shown to cause cancer, you'd have a case for that,
    >I suppose.
    
    Perfume can cause great discomfort and even death, as can a whole
    host of other things, to someone who is allergic to it or who
    has bad asthma.  But I always considered allergies and asthma
    MY problem to deal with, not the problem of all those people who
    wore perfume or who owned pets or whatever else caused me to have
    problems.
    

>    oughta make ventilation systems good enough that if people want

Have you been to Las Vegas?

Out there, you get up in the morning and go to the casinos and it's as if
no one had ever smoked inside 'em.

This proves to me that the ventilation issue can be worked out.

As a non-smoker, I'd be willing to even pay a fee or the like to eat in a
restaurant that allows smokers the right to smoke and the non-smokers the
right to not inhale it.

TTom

    .5171
    
    Here is your note .5153.
    
    There's no reason why non-smokers should have to tolerate
            smoke in their breathing space, so hopefully that's not what
            you mean by "tolerance".
    
    Your statement, particularly the "no reason" part seemed to indicate
    that there should be no tolerance for smokers when it came to
    non-smokers.  If this is not what you meant, perhaps you could clarify
    your note.
    
    Thanks.
    

>        <<< Note 518.291 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>As a non-smoker, I'd be willing to even pay a fee or the like to eat in a
>restaurant that allows smokers the right to smoke and the non-smokers the
>right to not inhale it.

	I'd be willing to pay for that too, if that's what it took.
	

>	I'd be willing to pay for that too, if that's what it took.

If'n you make a restaurant or other business add the necessary
ventilation equipment, I'm sure we'd be asked to pay for it in one form
or the other.

    .5174
    
    Smokers are free to smoke as much as they want.  So long as they do it
    in such a way that it:
    
    a)  does not impinge on nonsmokers' right to breathe smoke-free air,
    
    b)  does not result in butts' being strewn hither and yon, and
    
    c)  does not raise the cost of health insurance for me, a nonsmoker.

 from the Abortion topic:

 >20.5174 ACISS1::ROCUSH    
    
>    Your statement, particularly the "no reason" part seemed to indicate
>    that there should be no tolerance for smokers when it came to
>    non-smokers.  If this is not what you meant, perhaps you could clarify
>    your note.

	I didn't say "there should be no tolerance for smokers".  I
	said there's no reason why non-smokers should _have to_ tolerate
	smoke.  Don't you see the difference?  It would be grand if
	all smokers and non-smokers tolerated each other, but there's
	no reason why people who wants to decrease their chances of
	getting lung cancer should _have to_ tolerate someone foiling
	their efforts.  Since smokers are the ones introducing the
	carcinogens into the air, the onus is on them to do it without
        impacting the air that non-smokers are currently breathing, if
	the non-smokers object.  I'm not advocating fanaticism of any kind.
	But Mr. Goodwin seemed to be implying that a give-and-take was
	required.  Consideration (presumably by smokers) and tolerance
	(presumably by non-smokers).  I disagree that non-smokers should,
	as a matter of course, be tolerant of smoke and was trying to
	establish if that was, in fact, what he was getting at.

    >Have you been to Las Vegas?
    
    >Out there, you get up in the morning and go to the casinos
    >and it's as if no one had ever smoked inside 'em.
    
    >This proves to me that the ventilation issue can be worked out.
    
    Now that's interesting.  I was there for a convention once, but
    didn't notice the ventilation.  Of course the air in LV is nice
    and clean too, which no doubt helps a lot.
    
    Even casinos in AC were pretty clear-aired, if I remember right.
    Never really noticed.  Maybe that's a clue -- if I didn't notice
    smoke, maybe that's because of good ventilation.
    
    Of course the air in NJ is worse than pure smoke anyway, kind of
    like LA.  I thought the windows of the Bonaventure in LA were
    tinted brown, but when we went outside the brown color was still
    there.
    
    Thing about casinos is that they have so much money they can
    afford to do anything they want to make their marks, I mean
    customers, happy.  Cost really is no object, unless you are an
    employee that is.
    
    Notice one thing about the timing here.  The attack on smoking
    begain in earnest in the 70s after the first big oil crisis
    caused homes and other buildings to be built airtight to cut
    down on heating and AC expense.  When they did that, indoor
    air pollution because a factor for the first time, and people
    started really complaining about smoking, and rightfully so,
    because the smoke just hung around instead of being ventilated
    out of the building as it used to be.
    
    So we picked on one pollutant -- tobacco smoke -- and ignored
    all the rest of indoor air pollution.  It is always easier and
    more satisfying to pick one scapegoat to go after, then to fix
    things right.
    

Extra apostrophe!

    .5174
    
    I assume from this entry that you also think that those who indulge in
    fast-food should be restricted in their activity so that they do not
    impinge on non-fast-food eaters right to breathe and smell grease-free
    air.
    
    They do not strew packaging, etc hither and yon, and
    
    Their unhealthy lifestyle and increased fat and cholesterol does not
    raise my insurance premiums.
    
    Seems like a fair trade, if indeed you actually hold those views.
    

This reminds me of those people who are against nuclear power plants even
though they've been shown to save a lot of lifes due to the decrease in
air pollution.

Course if'n you're standing nexted to a reactor when it melts down, you
might not care about any one else's problems.

TTom

    Nuclear reactors have the same problem that smoking has, namely, the
    danger is in the long term, and most people tend to think in the short
    term.
    
    Hell, I'll be dead in another 50 years or so, why should I care if they
    want to bury radioactives with a half-life of 24,000 years under the
    place where I'm living?  Let my kids' kids' kids' kids worry about it.
    
    Just like their kids' kids' kids' kids are going to have to worry about
    the tanks at Hanford that are leaking NOW.

>             <<< Note 20.5176 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Extra apostrophe!

	mebbe not.

line b.

>line b.

	yes, i knew what you meant.  but i still say, "mebbe not".

    >Smokers are free to smoke as much as they want.  So long as they do it
    >in such a way that it:
    
    >a)  does not impinge on nonsmokers' right to breathe smoke-free air,
    
    Non-smokers do not have any such "right" to breathe smoke-free air,
    any more than I have a right to breathe air without perfume, farts,
    oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, woodsmoke from fireplaces and stoves,
    jet exhaust, car exhause, ground level ozone from midwest factories,
    microwave popcorn, body odor, cold germs, flu germs, etc., etc.
    
    But we should as a society attempt to build buildings and ventilate
    them so that smoke will bother people as little as possible.  And
    smokers should try to bother people as little as possible with their
    smoke.  This is the "consideration" I'm talking about.
    
    >b)  does not result in butts' being strewn hither and yon, and
    
    I agree.  This is part of "consideration" too.  Same thing applies
    to candy wrappers, McDonald's bags, bags full of household trash,
    hot water heaters, and all those other things I see along the road.
    
    >c)  does not raise the cost of health insurance for me, a nonsmoker.
    
    I'd like to not have drivers raise the cost of health insurance by
    getting into accidents.  I'd like not to have people who eat what's
    bad for them or who don't exercise enough not raise the cost of my
    health insurance.
    
    The "health insurance cost" objection to anything is such a glass
    house, I don't even think it should be considered.  If we are going
    to start creating underclasses in this country based on the cost
    of health insurance, then we would be better off without any
    insurance at all.  I'd rather see a national health insurance safety
    net that performs only one function:  limits how much of your
    personal wealth can be taken for catastrophic medical costs.  And
    we can each pay our own way up to that point.  "That point" would
    be a very high deductible, but something you could eventually
    absorb, like 1 year's salary or something like that.
    

    
    	RE: .299
    
    	We all participate in activities that are detrimental to our
    	health and wallets [via health insurance costs].  Do you drive
    	or ride in automobiles?  They crash sometimes, injuring people
    	and driving up the cost of health insurance.
    
    	So why should those who don't drive or ride in automobiles
    	have to subsidize your bad habit?
    

>    	So why should those who don't drive or ride in automobiles
>    	have to subsidize your bad habit?

I don't know why but in NC, even though it's insurance is required
I have to pay a_uninsured motorists fee.

    Auto insurance is the only type of insurance I can think of where you
    are paying to insure SOMEONE ELSE's property, health, etc.
    
    A lot of insurance expense would be cut back if we all insured only
    ourselves, and if it were not required by law.  Driving is a risk.  If
    you choose to do it, then you accept some risk.
    
    Then again, we buy insurance because we want someone ELSE to pay for
    things that go wrong with US, so I'm not real impressed with anyone's
    claims that they have a "right" not to have riskier people join in the
    insurance pool.  

    .5171
    
    Following is the note that I responded to:
    
    There's no reason why non-smokers should have to tolerate
            smoke in their breathing space, so hopefully that's not what
            you mean by "tolerance".
    
    You use of the words no reason would seem to indicate that tolerance
    for non-smokers was out of the question.
    
    If this is not what your response meant, then I would appreciate a
    clarification.
    
    Thanks.
    

I gotta buy insurance on my house to pay for some idiot who hurts hisself
while on my property.

TTom

    
    	I'm not referring to auto insurance, I'm referring to health
    	insurance.  As far as I know, in extreme cases, auto insurance
    	doesn't cover ALL medical bills and is bound to run out such
    	that health insurance will have to take over.
    

    > insurance on my house to pay for some idiot who hurts hisself
    >while on my property.
    
    Yeah, that too.  And general liability insurance to pay for some idiot
    who decides to sue you.
    
    I wonder how much better or worse off we would all be without:
    
    	o Any lawsuits
    	o Any insurance
    

    There would be some vacant sky scrapers to be sure.

      <<< Note 518.313 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>


	I already responded.  See .294.

    .300
    
    Wrong.  The word "being" is a gerund.  Gerunds are substantives
    (nouns).
    
    "I petted John's cat."
    
    The substantive "cat" is modified by the possessive substantive
    "John's" and so should "being" be modified by a possessive substantive.

   see, John?  it helps to know Richard's semantic bugaboos. ;>

    she knows vat makes ze man tick.
    
    

  i love it ven you tock like dat.

Cuckoo!  Cuckoo!  Cuckoo!

    Cigarette smoke isn't simply a "nuisance" problem for some
    of us.  Inhaling cigarette smoke, even a small amount, gives
    me an asthma attack.  Now I accept that fact that, given my
    medical condition, there are some places I can't go.  I don't 
    go to clubs much, or concerts, or most places I know I have to 
    cross a smoke-filled area to get to.  However, I would like to 
    work in my office without having an asthma attack.  I don't see 
    any problem with having smoking and non-smoking areas.  If there 
    are places I can't go because I don't smoke, there should you 
    places you can't go because you do.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    	Just because I'm a smoker it doesn't mean I should be denied
    	access to a place.  I mean, I could actually go somewhere
    	and refrain from smoking for the entire time I'm there, but
    	your last reply seems to be saying that I can't get in.
    

>     <<< Note 518.322 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

Yep, I learned it from my wife... I'm not really bothered by butt smoke, but
she can't breathe it for more than a few moments without coming down with a
debilitating attack that lasts a couple of hours. Sometimes she tags along
when I hit the barber shop (the barber's a kewl dood), but if someone lights
up, she has to go out and shop or something... it's not just a matter of
choice for some.

    So we need a side for smoking sons of guns too?  This is all getting
    rather complex.

    
    	I agree, M-M.
    
    	We were at Faneuil Hall on Saturday, and folks were smoking in
    	the bull-market area.  It was a beautiful day, these two people
    	were 10 feet from being "outside", but instead, they chose to
    	lean up against a wall in a crowded area to catch a smoke.
    
    	I was stuck in the smoke stream for a few minutes, and was
    	fairly nauseous by the time I could move forward.
    
    	Shoulda shared my lunch with 'em ;-/
    
    

    re: .323
    
    No, that wasn't what I meant, but if there were enough of
    you there, I couldn't be in a non-smoking area either.
    
    You see, there is a difference between "non-smoking" and
    "not smoking".  You may not be smoking, but if you stand 
    next to me, I will smell cigarette smoke from your clothes
    and your hair, and yes, if the air circulation is poor and
    the area is crowded, I'll have the same dang attack as if
    you lit up right next to me.
    
    My SO's parents smoked like chimmnies in their house for
    30 years.  It took us two years of paint and scrubbing to
    get the smell out of the house, and my asthma is still
    worse up there than it is at home.
    
    I would actually like to see some poor ventilation areas
    restricted to completely smoke free (and perfume free)
    individuals.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

    
    	"Hello, party of 4?"
    
    	"Yes."
    
    	[sniffs air] "I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you
    	would prefer to be seated in the B.O. section."
    
    
    
    	"Hello, party of 4?"
    
    	"Yes."
    
    	[sniffs air] "I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you
    	would prefer to be seated in the ferret-owners section."
    

    Bwahahahahahahahahhaha, I'm dying......

    I used to have a real bad problem with asthma too.  Put me in the
    hospital 3 years ago, where a Doc who actually knew something (for a
    pleasant change) and some new inhalers that are available now got rid
    of it completely.  Haven't had any asthma or allergies/hay fever since
    then.  
    
    But the point is, I never thought my disability should be everyone else's
    disability.  I feel even more that way now that I no longer have the
    disability.
    
    DEC in zk3 has one big smoking room off the caf, closed in with doors
    and apparently with pretty good ventilation, since it doesn't look
    gray in there ever.  Why can't there be areas at work, like there are
    areas in restaurants, where smokers can have their offices, and
    non-smokers can have their offices in other areas, and the ventilation
    system can be designed to keep smoke out of the non-smoking areas.
    
    If buildings all had better ventilation, we'd all be better off anyway.

    .330
    
    Why should the company's facilities budget - and ultimately its bottom
    line - have to support the costs associated with employees who smoke? 
    That room in ZKO has negative-pressure ventilation so that none of the
    poisonous, stinking miasma will leak out into the rest of the building. 
    It's not a cheap room.
    
    Why should the company's productivity - and ultimately its bottom line
    - suffer from the costs associated with employees who smoke? 
    Actuarially, smokers are absent due to illness more often than
    nonsmokers.  In addition, smokers take longer breaks from work than do
    nonsmokers.
    
    Why should nonsmoking employees - and ultimately the company's bottom
    line - suffer from the discomfort of being required to associate
    personally with smokers, whose clothing frequently reeks and who
    sometimes, in order to cover up the stench, slather thmselves with
    enough perfume or cologne to inflict hypoxia on nearby workers?
    
    Why should my health insurance payments be enlarged to defray the known
    and not at all trivial costs associated with smokers' health problems?

Yeah, but smokers die earlier, saving companies a bunch, too.

    >Why should the company's facilities budget - and ultimately its bottom
    >line - have to support the costs associated with employees who smoke?
    
    Why should they support an employee's need for a nice big cubicle?
    Why should they support an employee's need for lunch?
    Why should they support an employee's need for vending machines?
    Why should they support an employee's need for personal phone calls?
    Why should they support an employee's need for internet access?
    Why should they support an employee's need for an exercise facility?
    Shy should they support an employee's need for coffee everywhere?
    Why... and on and on and on
    
    Answer:  Because making employees comfortable keeps valuable employees
    working for the company and being productive and comfortable.
    
    >Why should the company's productivity - and ultimately its bottom line
    >- suffer from the costs associated with employees who smoke?
    
    The bottom line would go up, not down, if employees could smoke
    while they work instead of having to go outside for periodic breaks.
    It's hard to work effectively while you're distracted by an ever
    increasing desire for a cigarette.
    
    >Actuarially, smokers are absent due to illness more often than
    >nonsmokers.  In addition, smokers take longer breaks from work than do
    >nonsmokers.
    
    So what?
    
    >Why should nonsmoking employees - and ultimately the company's bottom
    >line - suffer from the discomfort of being required to associate
    >personally with smokers, whose clothing frequently reeks and who
    >sometimes, in order to cover up the stench, slather thmselves with
    >enough perfume or cologne to inflict hypoxia on nearby workers?
    
    Hey, people have to put up with YOU, don't they?
    
    >Why should my health insurance payments be enlarged to defray the known
    >and not at all trivial costs associated with smokers' health problems?
    
    Health insurance is optional.  If you don't like the cost of
    insurance, then don't buy it.
    

    .333
    
    All your "why should they"s can be answered by "They don't."  They find
    that it makes for better business.
    
    Having a smoke-free workforce would also make for better business.
    
    As for people's having to put up with me, I don't smell like the
    wetted-down remains of a torched forest.

    |wetted-down remains of a torched forest.
    
    he's talking serious smokers here.

    Why should the company's productivity - and ultimately its bottom line
    - suffer from the costs associated with employees who 'box? 
    Actuarially, 'boxers are absent due to hangovers more often than
    non-'boxers.  In addition, 'boxers take longer breaks from work than do
    non-'boxers.

  what about those who 'soft pack?

Filter
Flavor
Pack or box.

    > Having a smoke-free workforce would also make for better business.
    
    I doubt that.  In fact I believe the opposite is true.  Anything you do
    to distract people from their concentration on doing their jobs is only
    going to slow them down.
    
    Besides that, there are some very good people who simply won't work for
    a company that doesn't allow smoking.
    
    So how do you figure it makes for "better business", whatever that
    might be?
    
    >As for people's having to put up with me,
    
    I would vastly prefer the company of people with cigarettes in their
    mouths to the company of vociferous bigots, no matter what group they
    hate.

    you know what i can't stand?  coffee breath!!  eeeuuww.

    A lot of people love garlic, and a few seem to have a fondness for
    either old cat food or dead fish.
    
    Anybody remember that guy in MKO, upstairs at the helipad end of the
    building back in the early 80s, who apparently never bathed or washed
    his clothes?  Any conference room in which he attended a meeting
    smelled really bad for hours afterwards.  On the up side, meetings
    never lasted too long in that group.

>  <<< Note 518.339 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>

>    I would vastly prefer the company of people with cigarettes in their
>    mouths to the company of vociferous bigots, no matter what group they
>    hate.

	I wouldn't be so free and easy with this "bigot" label, if I
	were you.  If you start trying to apply it people such as
	Dick Binder, it'll make you sound very foolish, I can assure you.

    > I wouldn't be so free and easy with this "bigot" label,
    
    I do not know Dick Binder personally.  I am referring to his attitude
    toward all people who smoke, as evidenced by the strongly insulting
    words he uses to describe them.  To me that is pretty much the
    definition of "bigot".
    
    But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

>  <<< Note 518.343 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>

	I don't know too many people who would disagree that the
	aroma coming off people who smoke is most unpleasant. 
	Is anyone who thinks that a bigot?

    actually, the wetted-down remains of a torched forest
    probably smells _better_ than cigarette smoke residue.

Maybe it depends on the liquid used for wetting down...

    
    
    	I dunno, I've always like the smell of cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke.
    Of course, I like the smell of gasoline too so.....;*)
    
    
    

    
    	nah, I don't huff. I've just always liked the smell that drifted
    into the car when my dad would pump gas into the tank. ahhh....:)
    
    
    

    
    I like the smell of cigars and pipes.
    
    I like the smell of the grocery store freezer, tho, too.
    

    i like the smell of marshmallows cooking over an
    open fire.  

I like the smell of napalm...

    .339
    
    >> Having a smoke-free workforce would also make for better business.
    >
    > I doubt that.  In fact I believe the opposite is true.  Anything you do
    > to distract people from their concentration...
    
    Bingo.  You win the brass ring.  Knowing there are smokers in my group,
    with whom I am likely to be forced into contact daily, is a distraction
    from my concentration.
    
    > Besides that, there are some very good people who simply won't work for
    > a company that doesn't allow smoking.
    
    And there are some very good people who would PREFER to work for such a
    company.
    
    > I would vastly prefer the company of people with cigarettes in their
    > mouths to the company of vociferous bigots...
    
    That's your prerogative.  I am particularly vocal in my objections to
    smoking because my wife is allergic to cigarette smoke - put her in a
    room with a smoker for an hour and she will suffer serious respireatory
    distress for a week - and because cigarettes killed both of my parents
    in their 60s.

    >I don't know too many people who would disagree that the
    >aroma coming off people who smoke is most unpleasant.
    
    I know plenty of people who would disagree with that statement, myself
    included, and I don't smoke.  In fact, I find the aroma of tobacco
    quite pleasant.
    
    >Is anyone who thinks that a bigot?
    
    No.  Anyone who expresses strong feelings indicating hatred of an
    entire group of people is a bigot.  That is quite different from
    expressing dislike of an aroma.
    

    >I am particularly vocal in my objections
    
    Well then I can certainly understand why you feel the way you do.  If I
    were in your position, I would undoubtedly feel exactly the same way
    you do.

>  <<< Note 518.354 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
    
>    Anyone who expresses strong feelings indicating hatred of an
>    entire group of people is a bigot.

	Right.  Quite different from voicing an opinion about the effects
	that a behavior has on people.  For instance, if I were to quote the
	saying that kissing someone who smokes is like licking an ashtray,
	that would not be bigotry.  It would be my opinion and wouldn't mean
	that I hate smokers.  

>    Anyone who expresses strong feelings indicating hatred of an
>    entire group of people is a bigot.
    
     So "expressing strong feelings indicating hatred" for murderous
    pederasts is just bigotry? How quaint.

    > kissing someone who smokes is like licking an ashtray 
    
    I assume if you were *really* given a choice of either kissing
    someone you really want to kiss, but who smokes, and licking an
    ashtray, you would not choose to lick the ashtray.
    
    The slight exaggeration of your statement, which shouldn't bother anyone 
    with a normally thick skin, could be considered colorful speech.
    
    The gross exaggeration of other statements, which could certainly be 
    considered insulting if said to a stranger in a public place, remind me
    very strongly of people I know who express similarly exaggerated negative
    feelings about people who are not caucasian.  The word that springs to
    my mind immediately is "bigot".

    >I assume if you were *really* given a choice of either kissing
    >someone you really want to kiss, but who smokes, and licking an
    >ashtray, you would not choose to lick the ashtray.
    
    That's silly. She said "like", not "worse than". /hth 
    
    >The word that springs to my mind immediately is "bigot".
    
    Oh, so you are stereotyping.
    

>  <<< Note 518.358 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
    
	What's your point?  You consider Mr. Binder's assessment of how
	much smokers reek to be a "gross exaggeration"?

    > So "expressing strong feelings indicating hatred" for murderous
    >pederasts is just bigotry? How quaint.
    
    Exactly how many murderous pederasts do you know?

    
    Does anyone use the smoking room for a single cigarette? I suspect that
    people who use the room "mega-load" on nicotine at each visit -- prolly
    chain-smoking intensely for 10-15 minutes as a time.
    
    If so, the smoking room may be a device to accelerate the onset of
    smoking-related illnesses.

    >Oh, so you are stereotyping.
    
    No, actually I use more than 2 fingers when I type.
    
    >What's your point?
    
    Nothing beyond what I already said.
    
    >You consider Mr. Binder's assessment of how much smokers reek to be a
    >"gross exaggeration"?
    
    Yes.
    

    i don't use the smoking room.  it stinks in there!

    I worked here before and after the smoking changes took place.
    It was very difficult to interact with people who smoked in 
    their offices because I couldn't go near them.  It was difficult
    to have an office near someone who smoked.  I got colds and
    brochitis more often than I do now and they took longer to
    get rid of.  I don't mind buildings having areas for people
    who want to smoke.  I'd rather have them there than outside
    the front entrance, where I have to walk through the smoke
    every day.  
    
    There is a big difference between having to put up with an
    odor that is unpleasant for a short time, and having to put
    up with an odor that makes you nauseous, gives you an allergic
    reaction or causes an asthma attack.  Look at what some companies
    have done for people with "Sick Building Syndrome".
    
    Mary-Michael (who doesn't reek of ferrets, Shawn :-)
    

    > Look at what some companies have done for people with 
    >"Sick Building Syndrome".
    
    What have they done?  They have fixed the building, right?
    Nobody had to give up anything in the process. Nobody was
    made to go outside periodically in the winter.
    
    A better solution than banning smokers from the building 
    would be to have better ventilation and better separation
    for those who really can't stand the smell of smoke or who
    have specific problems.  Maybe it's those people who need
    to work in a special environment, free of any odors at all.
    

>  <<< Note 518.366 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>

>Maybe it's those people who need
>to work in a special environment, free of any odors at all.

    aagagagagagag.  this is just getting too funny.
    

    >>In fact, I find the aroma of tobacco quite pleasant.
    
    the smell of tobacco is rather different than the smell of burning
    tobacco (imo).  i enjoy going into a tobacco shop on occassion, but i
    detest the smell of cigarette smoke, and the smell of cig smoke on
    clothing/hair/etc.  
    
     
    
    

    Shouldn't trysting rooms be provided for those who can no longer
    concentrate on work because they're so horny?

    This certainly might increase the comfort level of some work places and
    it might also curb sexual harassment.

    I agree.  There's nothing quite like a rich dark shag.  

  .370  oh, so you want carpeting in there too?  demanding, i must say.

    ...in a slipper.

    > trysting rooms
    
    Hey!  Is it too much to ask for a cot in every cube, then?

    Having a cot in every cube would be too distracting for the employees
    not engaged in using the cots at any given time.  Bad for the bottom
    line.

    
    I should think trysting on the carpet would negatively impact the bottom
    line.                                
    

    If you *really* want to make an impression, give 'em wicker cots.

    I prefer strapping young things in lawn chaises.

How about a bed of nails?

    
    	Binder, meet Walker.
    
    	Walker, meet Binder.
    

    fakir orgasm?

    re: .366
    
    I think you mis-understand me.  I don't *want* people smoking
    outside the building, summer or winter.  They always cluster
    near the entrance and I have to wander through the smoke to 
    leave.  I would much rather give them a nice room to go to.
    
    People with "Sick Building Syndrome" have also been put 
    on LTD as well as give the opportunity to work from home.
    
    Personally, if y'all want to light up in the building and
    let me work at home, I'd be quite happy with that.  Just have
    a smoke-free conference room near the entrance so I can meet
    with you when I come in :-) :-)
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    	But if you DO need to meet with MM, be sure and have a change
    	of clothes ready and make sure you wash your hair before you
    	even THINK of walking into that conference room.
    

    I have heard of companies that will not hire anyone who smokes at all,
    because they want to save money on their health insurance cost.
    
    Does anyone know if any of these companies are still around and if so,
    how they are doing?

    >I have heard of companies that will not hire anyone who smokes at all,
    >because they want to save money on their health insurance cost.
    
    I will never hire a smoker, in my business. 

    
    
    	You cannot work for the Rutland Fire Brigade (fire or ambulance) if
    you smoke. Something to do with insurance coverage....
    
    
    jim

    re: .383
    
    I know of one company that tried that back in the '80s.  The problem
    they had was that the percentage of the population that smokes tends to
    be inversely proportional to the education level of the individual.
    This company had a very hard time finding maintenance and grounds
    people who didn't smoke.  They finally instituted a 'no smoking in
    company buildings' policy.
    
    Bob

    
    >The problem
    >they had was that the percentage of the population that smokes tends to
    >be inversely proportional to the education level of the individual.
    
    
    	Ummm, what does this mean, exactly?  Not only are you comparing
    	apples to oranges [% of population = 1/education_level] but it
    	appears that if I guess what you mean you're saying the oppos-
    	ite of what you actually mean.
    

    re: .387
    
    Shawn, it means that a person who did not finish high school is more
    likely to smoke than one who is a college graduate.
    
    Bob

    >	Ummm, what does this mean, exactly?
    
     The probability that an individual smokes is inversely proportional to
    the highest level of education they have attained. Thus low level of
    education implies a higher probability that the individual is a smoker
    than a high level of education.

    .366
    
    Brilliant.  So the natural environment and those who live well in the
    natural environment, should be boxed away so that those who disturbe
    the natural environment can enjoy themselves...
    
    Utterly brilliant, I'm blinded by such savvy...

    
    	re .356
    
    	I wonder how many folks tossed their cigs in trash after
    	reading that reply.
    
    

    Yabbut, when Mr. Ashtraylips has a real hot bod, nice buns, piercing
    brown eyes, carved chin etc. much of this can be overcome, I'd wager.

    >Utterly brilliant, I'm blinded by such savvy...
    
    There are two kinds of people -- those who will walk into a cold room
    and put on a sweater, and those who will turn up the thermostat.
    
    Those who will adapt to their environment, and those who want their
    environment to adapt to them.
    
    I don't mind compromises, but throwing smokers outdoors is just as bad
    as forcing someone who can't stand smoke to sit in it all day.
    
    We haven't solved the problem at all, we have simply traded it for
    another problem, and all on the basis of government exaggerations and
    very questionable statistics.
    
    It is the witch hunt of the 90s.  It is almost the 21st century, and
    Americans would still rather hunt witches than solve problems and live
    together comfortably.  Valuing differences, my eye!  The only
    differences anybody values are their own, unless the law forces them to
    do otherwise.
    
    But in the long run, who cares?  The more polarized we become, the more
    hate groups spring up, the more we treat each other in little
    mean-spirited ways, the faster the pot boils, the more fun it'll be
    when it boils over.  :-)

    
    	I wonder if Dennis Quaid smokes.  Or if he even finished high
    	school.
    

    oh, dennis smokes, alright.

  .395 aagagag.

    
    	More like
    
    	a-gag-gag-gag-gag.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    Jesus, I just found this note. I must be an illerate slob because I
    smoke. Though I did graduate college. Having been to ZKO1, 2, 3 and
    been in there smoking room before, I can comment on the smell etc...
    It not being greatly venilated does tend to make the odor linger. Since
    that is the only place to smoke in the entire building, I had no
    choice. At least my soapbox friends didn't give me the 3rd degree
    because I smoke, but then again that might change next time.
    
    Just because i smoke does not make me a leper. With that said, I'm
    going OUTSIDE to have a Marlboro. 

    .392
    
    > Yabbut, when Mr. Ashtraylips has...
    
    Let me put it this way.  When Ms. Astraylips has a real hot bod, nice
    buns, a pair of appropriate size, blue eyes with the Gaussian force of
    the world's biggest superconducting magnet, straight nose turned up
    just the least bit, ruby lips to drown in, and a personality to win
    over the most hardcore misogynist, the sight of a cigarette in her hand
    will put the idea of window-shopping irretrievably out of my mind.

    Good.  More for the rest of us.  :-)

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    .398
    
    The thing about you, Mark, is that you are polite enough and observant
    enough of others' comfort that you neither smell of tobacco smoke nor
    make it obvious that you're dying for a puff.  In my experience, most
    smokers do not measure up to you.  I wish you'd stop, but I won't make
    you into a pariah because of your smoking.

        Hare Binder, don't be a bigot now!

    re: .399
    
    Not only that but a cigarette in an attractive lady's hand is the
    quickest way to make them unattractive!  IMO etc....

    
    	That's OK, Battis ... I smoke, too [small cigars, though], but
    	even if I didn't I was spared, from birth, of the psychological-
    	ly-induced breathing problems associated with 2nd-hand smoke,
    	and have always been tolerant of smoke.
    
    	So come on down to Marlboro and have a Marlboro [or a Swisher
    	Sweet] with me.  8^)
    

    I've never been able to figure out when people are smoking with their
    second hand. How is this ascertained?

    
    	If I'm a righty and my left hand is holding the cigar, well,
    	you get the picture.
    

    
    You've got a cigar AND a picture?
    

    Are you counting your hands from right to left or left to right?

re .404:

>    Not only that but a cigarette in an attractive lady's hand is the
>    quickest way to make them unattractive!

Worse, a cigarette in their mouth!

(notice cigarette ads _never_ show the babe/hunk taking a drag, the cigarette
is in their hand..)

    
    Oh, it's so unattractive when people leave the cigarette hanging out of
    their mouth while performing any sort of activity, walking, talking,
    etc.  Especially when they talk and it flaps up and down.  Blurrgh.
    

    I saw somebody jogging with a cigarette in his mouth. Funniest thing I
    ever sawer.

    
    	I used to smoke, and my then-future-husband would walk
    	away if he stopped by my office and I was smoking.  I
    	once had a cigarette an hour before our date, and when he
    	greeted me with a kiss, he could smell the smoke in my hair
    	and wouldn't sit near me.
    
    	His cold shoulder approach was the impetus to get me to quit
    	(10 years ago last month).
    
    	Not that I'm any bodacious babe or anything, but he did like
    	me enough to marry me, and still wouldn't kiss me if he thought
    	I'd been smoking.
    
    

    
    Karen, would he have married you if you still smoked?

    Bit of a quandry for Mark.
    
    If he gives up smoking to live longer, but his taste buds will
    come back on line.  Then he'll find out what vending machine food 
    relly tastes like, and he'll startve to death.
    
    This troubles me gratly.
    

    I smoke because it makes me look cool, sexy and sophisticated.
    
    {cough, wheeze, snort}

   .415  all of a sudden, he can't spell.  colin, have you been
	 smoking?

    Yep, shredded AHD.  Rauchen roll babe!

    
    	re .414
    
    	I don't think so, no matter how much my father paid him.
    
    

    
    nice to see you again 'pril. haven't seen you in awhile.
    
    Colin, that was very good. I'm impressed

    A friend of mine claims he saw a woman smoking once over in nam, but
    not with her mouth.  Always wondered if he was having me on or what.

I thought that was supposed to be a stripper trick, right up with there
with picking quarters up off the bar.

Urban legend?  Sad that people even think of these things.

    we can't help it now, eh?

    More educated people smoke less these days because they are more naive,
    owing to the years of institutional brainwashing, and therefore more
    susceptible to anti-smoking propaganda.

    Well, it's obvious to me now, smoking is good for you.

  .424  oy.  up until now, i was giving you a little credit. 

    >up until now, i was giving you a little credit. 
    
    Yeah, *very* little credit, right?  :-)

>  <<< Note 518.427 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
    
	A good deal of what you say makes sense, and I wouldn't doubt
	but that you have a heart of gold, but that last bit was just
	absurd, I must say.

    You're good.  And I agree with you -- absurd it is.  Gotta have a
    little fun once in a while, especially when things get too quiet in
    here...  :-)

    .429
    
    Yang chanker!

    
    
    	re: women smoking
    
    	Let me just say that there are some women out there who can smoke a
    cigarette and look even sexier for doing so. 
    
    	IMHO anyway...:)
    
    	jim (ex-smoker who sometimes still indulges)
    

    Get cancer before it gets you!
    
    
    Mike

    Add my voice to the chorus of people who consider smoking to be a
    turnoff. No more effective way to douse the fire than for a hot babe to
    light up a cigarette.

    What about if she steams?

"Baby, it's scald outside!"

    agagagag.  Da iawn Sio^n.

    
    re: all these women and smoking notes...
    
    why i am suddenly feeling bad for 'tine??
    
    :>
    
    

    well, you shouldn't, since i don't.

    
    <----- you go woman

    I agree with several noters (all at the same time, even  8^) ). 
    Smoking is a *big* turnoff... even if the second-hand smoke didn't shut
    down my sinuses in no time.
    
    Nothing worse that seeing a beautiful woman with a cigarette in her
    mouth.  What a waste.
    
    
    -steve

    It means she's a goer, eh? Know what I mean? Know what I mean eh? Nudge
    nudge! Likes smoke eh? Knew she would, knew she would. 
    She's been around a bit eh? Been around? Say no more, say no more!

    <--  As I said earlier -- Good.  That leaves more for the rest of us.
    
    :-)
    
    This thread has devolved into a discussion of who does and who doesn't
    like one particular characteristic of women.  There are millions of
    characteristics to like or not like in any person, and whether they
    smoke or not is just one.  
    
    Personally, I am more concerned by what comes out of people's mouths in
    the form of words than in the form of aromas.  Even talking only
    about smells, there are IMO far worse ones than tobacco smoke, which I
    actually enjoy.
    
    And "IMO" is really the operative word in the current context.  Each to
    his/her own taste, and so what?
    
    I am a little bit suspicious, though, of any guy's claims of being
    turned off by even a fantastic looking woman with a cigarette.  Most
    guys I have ever known wouldn't care if she had a dead fish in her
    mouth as long as she's good looking enough.  :-)

    
    .442
    
    Hardly. I for one am extremely turned off by dead fish in women's
    mouth.
    You weird or something?

but live fish in a woman's mouth is a whole nother thing...

    Those of you who like neither may subscribe to
    "Cigar and Fish - Nada" magazine. 

    <guffaw>

    How about the proven adverse health affects of smoking? Are those who
    continue to smoke, disregarding the data, just weird, or do they have a 
    death wish? Can a smoker be trusted with something of mine, when they
    obviously don't GAS about themselves? 

    
    Tom, yes, i have a death wish. Yes, I'm extremely trustworthy. ask
    anyone who knows me. Please don't make assinine comments like that
    again, ok?

Nicotine is highly addictive.  Even the tobacco industry admits it (in their
formerly secret memos).

    Re: .448
    
    You may find it strange but having you consider a statement of mine
    assinine shows me that I'm on track. Thanks.

    and it's asinine. /hth

    
    	RE: Tom
    
    	"effects".  Your welcome.  8^)
    
    	And how many things do you do that are potentially dangerous
    	to your health?  Do you drive a car?  Do you cross a street
    	on foot?  Ever been on an airplane?  Ever eaten Tobin's food?
    

    Re: .452
    
    Smoking is not just "Potentially" dangerous. 

    
    	So you're saying that everybody who smokes dies because of it?
    

>    Personally, I'm more concerned with what comes out of someone's
>    mouth [...]
    
    Isn't this the point?  When I see smoke come out of a woman's mouth -
    pretty or no - any attraction that may have been there is now gone.

        How superficial of you.

    
    yes, us smokers can't be trusted. we are pond scum, and should be
    treated as such. in fact, we should all be herded into one state,
    say Illinois or Texas. this way you have all the other 49 states as
    smoke free.

    
    	Yeah, but then the Oklahomans start to complain about those
    	smelly Texans blowing smoke over the state line, and then a
    	major feud could start.
    
    	However, this is not an entirely bad thing.
    

Hey, I, for one don't care if'n you smoke or not.

It's not one of my litmus tests.

I do find it "interesting" that parents smoke around their children.
Second hand smoking hasn't been fully defined in terms of harm done to
the others but I would think that a parent would wanna do ever thing they
could to provide a healthy environment for the children.

Of course, I aint a parent so what do I know...

TTom

    Slab, I think you are in error there. The prevailing winds would cause
    the folks in Louisiana to complain.

    It's not a "litmus test", but it is a strong negative factor. I have
    dated smokers before, so it's not the end of the world. It's just a
    negative factor. In fact, it's less negative than some other factors,
    like obesity, poor personal hygeine, stupidity, etc.

        |Isn't this the point?  When I see smoke come out of a woman's mouth
        |pretty or no - any attraction that may have been there is now gone.
    
        hmmm, effective bug spray?
    

    
   >age. Some 3,000 a day begin smoking and 1,000 of them will eventually
   >die, government figures show.
    
    	According to my calculations, it appears that the government fig-
    	ures are off by about, oh, 2000.
    

    .413
    
    > I used to smoke, and my then-future-husband...
    
    My daughter was attracted to a colleague in her new job (three years
    ago).  He smoked.  She told him she wouldn't go out with him until he
    stopped smoking, so he did it.  They were married on June 17, 1995.

    
    	So now you have a spineless, "whipped" wimp for a son-in-law.
    
    	Congratulations, I guess.
    

    
    
    	re: .467
    
    	{snicker}

<---you just made Jim and raq hungry.....

    
    shawn, you do say the nicest things.

    
    	The niceness of my replies is very often directly proportional
    	to the intelligence quotient of the reply being remarked on.
    

    
    whoa!!! if you're referring to hare binder, this should be a doozy.

    If nicotine is so addictive, more so than heroin is what the government
    claims, then how come so many people have been able to quit when they
    really wanted to?
    
    I guess that means heroin is not all that addictive.
    
    Sounds like another government lie to me, though.

    >Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature
    death
    >in the United States.
    
    A high school chemistry teach of mine went to work for the
    National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, where I also
    used to work summers.  At NIH they do a lot of research projects,
    many of which consist of mailing out questionnaires, pulling
    data from death certificates, etc., to study statistical
    relationships between diseases and lifestyle or other factors.
    
    My teacher told me after he had been there a couple of years
    that the way they operate is for congress to give them money and
    a directive, like "Prove that cigarettes cause health hazards."
    
    They will contract with NIH, universities, and just about anybody
    who thinks they can make a study that will produce the desired
    results.
    
    My friend was a little disgusted with the open bias involved
    at all levels, especially by so-called scientists.
    
    Did anyone notice that when C. Everett Koop mailed a letter to
    everybody in America urging them to wear condoms for protection
    from AIDS, he was no longer Surgeon General shortly thereafter?
    
    Did anybody notice that the Centers for Disease Control in
    Atlanta would not mention that condoms were an effective
    defense against the spread of AIDS during the Reagan and Bush
    administrations, but that one microsecond after Clinton got
    elected they became very open about it?  I did.  I called them
    and talked to them on several occasions.
    
    The government produces "research" that shows whatever the
    government wants research to show.
    
    And so it is with this "smoking research".  The statement that
    "[smoking] accounts for about 417,000 of the more than 2 million
    annual deaths" is blatantly exaggerated.
    
    The fact is that deaths from heart disease peak at around age 80,
    at which time death used to be attributed to "old age".  But not
    any more.  The government does not recognize "old age" as a cause
    of death in any of their statistics that I have seen recently.
    
    Rather, they always attribute old age deaths to some specific
    cause, the most common of which is "heart disease", and if the
    deceased also happened to smoke, then "smoking" is the cause,
    as if they would have lived forever if only they hadn't smoked.
    This is an obvious exaggeration.  Because of the way the
    government uses these statistics to justify their jihad on the
    tobacco industry, I would call it a BIG LIE.
    
    Do some people die as a direct result of smoking?  Yes, most
    likely they do.  Do 417,000 people die as a direct result of
    smoking?  Of course not.
    
    And neither do 47,000 people die from 2nd hand smoke.
    
    The government is engaging in blatant propaganda, and we are
    swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
    

>If nicotine is so addictive, ...

Just to be sure: are you saying that you don't think it's addictive?

Heroin, alcohol, nicotine, barbituates, etc. are all addictive and daily
people are able to quit 'em.

All this means is that some people have enough will power to overcome
their dependency.

That people can quit 'em doesn't invalidate the fack that they're
addictive.

    Actually, a smoker once said to me (when I was a smoker, too), "It
    doesn't take a rocket scientist to figger out that pulling smoke and
    fire down into your lungs ain't gonna be very good for you."
    
    Maybe I can get some gummint grant if I can prove that whacking
    yourself on the head with a bat will cause health problems?

    Can I get some volunteers for a medical study?  Should be long in the
    arms, and short on brains...

I qualify on the second count

    .467
    
    > So now you have a spineless, "whipped" wimp for a son-in-law.
    
    Nope.  Just a young man who saw what he want, was made to understand
    the requirements for winning the prize, and chose to go after it.
    
    On the other hand, I suppose I could give him your name and suggest he
    come over and explain to you how whipped he is.  I'll come along to see
    if we can find any pieces after he's through with you.

    Although I don't subscribe to the line of reasoning over health risks, 
    it's clear that nicotine (and caffiene, and possibly grass) do not
    follow the same patterns of dependency and tolerance as the "hard"
    drugs.

    A person's susceptibility to a substance has more to do with addiction
    than the substance itself.

>    it's clear that nicotine (and caffiene, and possibly grass) do not
>    follow the same patterns of dependency and tolerance as the "hard"
>    drugs.

From what I've seen there nearly identical when it comes to quiting.
I base this on my experiences running a drug treatment program.

The most significant differences between nicotine addiction and heroin
addiction are that former is legal and cheaper.

IMO, alcohol seems to be the hardest to quit, both in terms of physical
pain you have to endure - DTs, etc. - as well as recidivism.

TTom

    re: .456
    
    Actually, my statement is off a bit.  It is not that I would not find a
    lady unattractive due to her smoking (who is otherwise very pleasant to
    look upon), but that smoking is a heavy negative right off the bat.  So
    much so, that I would be unlikely to ask her out regardless of the
    "yowza" factor.
    
    To keep this in context, I have allergies and sinus problems.  Smoke
    reaks havok on my sinuses, and if my allergies are flaring up at the
    same time, it gets pretty ugly.  The net result from exposure (for any
    length of time) to second hand smoke is a full day of stuffy sinuses
    and usually a sore throat - not to mention a soreness in my lungs
    (sometimes with a noticable shortness of breath).
    
    I would have a hard time of it dating a smoker; therefore, I generally
    find smokers "unattractive" in this sense.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 518.480 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

| it's clear that nicotine (and caffiene, and possibly grass) do not follow the 
| same patterns of dependency and tolerance as the "hard" drugs.

	Grass makes you take drugs. Without grass, I could probably have a
better summer. I'm thinking of moving to the beach. Would anyone want to help
me move away? :-)

    >To keep this in context, I have allergies and sinus problems.  Smoke
    >reaks havok on my sinuses, and if my allergies are flaring up at the
    >same time, it gets pretty ugly.  The net result from exposure (for any
    >length of time) to second hand smoke is a full day of stuffy sinuses
    >and usually a sore throat - not to mention a soreness in my lungs
    >(sometimes with a noticable shortness of breath).
        
    I know exactly what you mean -- I used to have severe allergies
    and asthma too, and if you substitute the word "cats" for the 
    word "cigarettes" or "smoke", then I could say the same thing.
    
    >I would have a hard time of it dating a smoker; therefore, I generally
    >find smokers "unattractive" in this sense.
    
    Except I would not characterize the lady as unattractive as a
    result.  My genetic diseases are certainly not her fault.
    

> Grass makes you take drugs.

Your honor, it wasn't my fault! That nickel bag wrestled me down and injected
me!!

    > Grass makes you take drugs.
    
    If you are allergic to grass then you might take an antihistamine,
    which would make you drowsy and therefore possibly a dangerous driver.
    
    But since it's not fun, they won't throw you in jail if you run over
    someone as a result, so no worries.
    
    And since you may depend rather heavily on antihistimines to get
    through allergy seasons, you must be addicted -- better make these 
    controlled substances too.
    
    The only difference I can see between antihistamines and some
    recreational drugs is whether they are fun or not.  Sort of tells you
    where the whole WoD is coming from.

and then there's the interaction between anithistamines and the said same
grass...

I like the distinction about fun. Unfortunately, with regard to drugs
we're hardly the home of the brave or the land of the free...

    >we're hardly ...  the land of the free...
    
    Too true.  A friend of mine from Denmark was telling me we are a bit of
    a joke around a lot of Europe, calling ourselves the Land of the Free
    while being so uptight about so many things.
    
    It's embarrassing.  All I could do is point at the Religious Right and
    admit that I don't understand how this minority has managed to infect
    so much of our life and laws with their anti-pleasure dogma.

    
    If you say the word "addiction" then you tend to think of the
    problem in terms of the hard drugs like heroin and cocaine.
    In fact, cocaine is rated to be easier to kick than nicotine.
    Few people understand that in terms of the clinical definitions
    of appetites for drugs, nicotine is at the top.
    Yet, on the other hand, many people seem to have no problem giving it up
    after long use, which seems to belie the clinical rating.
    
    A bit of data on the rating systems:
    
    
    Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal
    symptoms.  
    
    Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and
    animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in
    preference to other substances. 
    
    Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing
    cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually
    reached. 
    
    Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate,
    the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating
    users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the
    substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. 
    
    Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in
    itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and
    increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do. 
    
    Now look at the psycopharmological ratings and note the differences
    for nicotine.  Even the experts can't agree, except that cocaine is
    less "addictive" than nicotine - and most people would find that hard to
    believe.  The problem with playing the addiction definition game is
    that it plays right into the hands of the tobacco companies.
    
    1 = Most serious  6 = Least serious
    
    HENNINGFIELD RATINGS
    
    Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
    ----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
    Nicotine        3           4         2           1          5
    Heroin          2           2         1           2          2
    Cocaine         4           1         4           3          3
    Alcohol         1           3         3           4          1
    Caffeine        5           6         5           5          6
    Marijuana       6           5         6           6          4
    
    
    BENOWITZ RATINGS
    
    Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
    ----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
    Nicotine        3*          4         4           1          6
    Heroin          2           2         2           2          2
    Cocaine         3*          1         1           3          3
    Alcohol         1           3         4           4          1
    Caffeine        4           5         3           5          5
    Marijuana       5           6         5           6          4
    
    *equal ratings
    
    
See also some work done by my Prof at Reading (with me as a smoking
    subject!)
    
    
    

    Alcohol is number 1 for intoxication.
    
    That explains it.
    
    That's why it's the drug for me.

    Re. "playing into the hands of tobacco companies"
    
    If the truth happens to "play into" someone's hands, so be it.
    
    If we, like the government, try to hide, distort, ignore, or just plain
    lie about the truth, then we aren't doing ourselves any good at all.

    So we're stuck with this pack of liars then?

re: .490

Good chart.

One class of drugs not listed is barbituates. Cold turkey withdrawl often
leads to death. You have to be very carefully weaned from these.

TTom

    > So we're stuck with this pack of liars then?
    
    If you mean the government, yes.
    If you mean the tobacco industry, yes.
    
    We have set things up legally so that there is tremendous incentive for
    companies, not just tobacco companies, to lie to us in order to avoid
    law suits.  We have shot ourselves in both feet.  
    

    I wish was as certain of the truth or lack thereof as you claim to be,
    especially after having been a smoker who studied smoking appetites.
    
    If you re-read my notes, you'll find that I simply don't support the view
    that nicotine follows the same clinical definitions as other drugs and adheres to the
    traditional definition of "addiction".  Therefore, to equate its use
    to heroin and cocaine is "playing into the hands of the tobacco
    companies" because their scientists can point to the glaring 
    inconsistencies in the "addiction" model.  Which is exactly what they
    have done to date.
    
    No more and no less.
    
    BTW If you want to read further, Warburton is a good source and I can
    vouch for his objectivity:
    
    
    Warburton, D.M. The functional conception of nicotine use. In: Clarke,
    P., Quik, M., Thurau, K. and Adlkofer, F. (eds), Effects of Nicotine on
    Biological Systems. Basel: Birkhuser Verlag, 1995,
    257-264. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. The effects of caffeine on cognition and mood without
    caffeine abstinence. Psychopharmacology, 119, 1995, 66-70. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. Environmental Nicotine and Behavior. In: Isaacson, R.L.
    and Jensen, K. (eds), The
    Vulnerable Brain and Environmental Risks, Volume 3, Toxins in Air and
    Water. New York: Plenum
    Press, 1994, 153-156. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. The Reality of the Beneficial Effects of Nicotine.
    Addiction, 89, 1994, 156-157. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. and Arnall, C. Improvements in Performance Without
    Nicotine Withdrawal.
    Psychopharmacology, 115, 1994, 539-542. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. Psychological Resources from Nicotine. Journal of
    Smoking-Related Disorders,
    5, 1994, 149-156. 
    
    Warburton, D.M. The Appetite for Nicotine. In: Legg, C.R. and Booth,
    D.A. (eds), Appetite: Neural
    and Behavioural Bases . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 264-284. 
    

    I understand what you meant by "playing into the hands...".  And I
    agree.  One of my pet peeves with the government is that when they
    exaggerate everything in their naive attempts to modify the behavior of
    everyone in the country, they do nobody any good, and in fact can do
    harm.
    
    When I was in high school and college in the 60s, and half the
    population my age was smoking grass, and the government was proclaiming
    the dangers of grass in terms that we knew either from observation or
    from personal experience were blatantly false, we then suspected that
    _everything_ they were saying about drugs was also false.  
    
    This led many people to simply ignore the government altogether and go
    ahead and try stuff that is a whole lot more dangerous than grass.
     
    Because of that experience, I tried always to make sure my own kids 
    had more accurate information than what is generally available from 
    government or everyday media sources.
    

    .492
    
    You expect the government to tell the truth?  I think that's a bit much
    to ask these days... too many agendas to persue and all that.
    
    However, distortions aside, smoking *is* bad for you.  Period.  It
    *can* cause cancer (my step-father recently passed away due to cancer
    that was most certainly caused by smoking), it *can* cause heart
    disease, and it *does* **definitely** restrict oxygen intake into the
    lungs, thus reducing athletic ability.
    
    Since I've been into one or another sport all my life, smoking was
    never really an option for me (though I did experiment with it during a
    lapse in my sports participation - in my former, dumber years).
    
    A friend of mine smokes.  He's alway coughing, hacking, etc.  He's got
    an inhaler he uses for some or another reason, and I've watched him
    time and again use it to open up the air passages... just before
    lighting up.  It is painful to watch a friend slowly poison himself.
    Makes me want slap some sense into him, it does.
    
    
    -steve

    Re: Grass smoking
    
    Hash, grass, pot or whatever you call it has more of a hype surounding
    it that is actually true. It is has to look bad for the governmet to
    continue to make it illegal to deal/posses/smoke it. 
    
    The government cant make it legal because they make to much money out
    of alocohol sales. Where is the sense in that you ask? 
    Think back to your college days, when you were stoned you do not want
    any alcohol do you. So with everyone smoking dope no one is going to buy
    large amounts of alocohol, because 3 or 4 joints will do the same
    thing.
    
    There has been no recorder deaths from smoking dope. On the contrary a
    number of people get relief from pain. You have all heard of people
    smoking pot for stiff joint, (no pun intended), etc. Pot is not
    addictive, and if it became legal the price would come right down,
    there fore bringing into direct competion with cigarettes, which are
    addictive.
    
    So if you have no objections to smoking cigarettes you have
    no leg to stand on if you disagree with pot. If you disagree with pot
    because it is illegal then maybe you should change your opinion,
    because it will not be illegal for ever. If you disagree because it is
    dangerous then, think again, cigaettes are more addictive then smoking
    pot. Oh I know you are still smoking but you are smoking pipe tabacco
    not cigarette tabacco, and there is little/or no nicotene in that. 
    
    Steven

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\ Smoke smoke smoke that cigarette snarf 
               ~  \__U_/  ~ 

    
    <<----- The American Cancer Society has concluded that snarfing is
    dangerous to your health. wise up.

    I'll grant you that smoking is not good for people in some ways,
    although I'll bet if the government offered as much money to
    researchers to "prove" that it has benefits, they would find some,
    perhaps psychological at least.
    
    But the question is, is it harmful _enough_ to justify running smokers
    out of town on a rail?  I don't believe the government has proven any
    such thing, and I'm very suspicious of their data when it leaves such
    obvious contradictions unexplained.
    
    As for those who complain about the cost of their health insurance,
    we've all heard the rebuttals to that:  if you're going to exclude
    smokers then you'd better exclude those who eat too much fat of the
    wrong kind, those who don't get enough exercise, those with genetic
    diseases, anyone, in short, who is not the perfect human speciman
    genetically and behaviorally.
    
    And I'll add to the list of exclusions people who do not drink, since
    it has been shown that teetotalers have 3 times the liklihood of heart
    disease as moderate drinkers.
    
    It gets real silly when you start excluding people from health
    insurance for your favorite reasons. 

A Federal judge today upheld a new Massachusetts law that requires tobacco
companies to disclose their ingredients.

The large tobacco companies have said that they would pull their products off
the shelves in Massachusetts to avoid the law (while they spend billions to
appeal it).

This will open the Mass market to lots of little terbacky companies that
aren't afraid to list their ingredients.

/john

    I'm still trying to figure out how drug stores (especially ones
    that call themselves "Health Mart") can sell cigarettes with
    a straight face.
    
    Chris

kickbacks? :-)

    drug stores can't sell cigarettes in Ontario.

    
    
    	Chris,
    
    	I saw something about that on TV the other day.  It was an
    	ad for a small pharmacy that doesn't sell ANYTHING but medications
    	and healthy type stuff.  They think it's hypocritical of the other
    	stores to sell all that other stuff and tout themselves as a 
    	'better health' store.
    

    Well, good for them.  There may have been one like that in the South
    Shore, wayyy back when I was a kid, strangely enough.  Either that,
    or the ciggie rack was so small that I just don't remember seeing it.
    
    Back then, there were only ten or so brands, so you didn't need a
    whole wall full of complicated bins and racks and trays to dispense
    the various varieties.
    
    Chris

    <frown>
    
    You mean there is something in this besides tobacco?
    
    FJP

>    I'm still trying to figure out how drug stores (especially ones
>    that call themselves "Health Mart") can sell cigarettes with
>    a straight face.

They're a drug delivery system.

>        <<< Note 518.552 by USPS::FPRUSS "Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347" >>>
>                 -< I've been had!  Where's that lawyer's #! >-
>    <frown>
>    You mean there is something in this besides tobacco?
>    FJP
    
    
    Oh yes! Saltpetre to help it burn better, added nicotine to enhance the
    addiction, bleaches in the ciggy papers....the list goes onward.

    
    
    	...and they still taste good...:)
    
    

    Not to the majority.

>    You mean there is something in this besides tobacco?

I've heard a long list of nasty chemicals allegedly used.  I've even heard
DDT mentioned. (wish I caught more of _that_ accusation!)

One thing that should strike funny - the Tobbaco Institute is fighting this
on the grounds of trade secret revelation.  But while individual tobacco
companies would be interested in protecting trade secrets from each other,
why would the Tobacco Institute, a conglomeration of these companies, care?

    Smokers get a new legal weapon, but its power is uncertain
    
    Associated Press, 03/21/97 06:31 
    
    NEW YORK (AP) - As tobacco opponents celebrate Liggett Group's
    admission that cigarettes cause cancer, Wall Street analysts say the
    announcement is old news and should not harm the industry. 
    
    ``This is a media event and has no relation to the rest of the
    industry,'' said Jack Maxwell, tobacco industry analyst with Wheat
    First Securities in Richmond, Va. ``I've been telling my clients today
    it's a damn good buying opportunity for the tobacco group.'' 
    
    Industry critics reacted gleefully to Liggett's confession Thursday, in
    which the Durham, N.C.-based maker of Chesterfield, Lark and L&M
    cigarettes agreed to settle 22 state lawsuits by putting warning labels
    on packs that say smoking is addictive and causes cancer. 
    
    It also agreed to pay up front cash of about $25 million, plus 25
    percent of its pretax profits over the next 25 years, and provide
    documents about the marketing of cigarettes to children. 
    
    Others in the industry have refused to say cigarettes are addictive and
    successfully blocked the release of the documents, at least
    temporarily, by claiming they are recordings of confidential
    conversations among industry officials. 
    
    Critics see the confession as a crack in the legal wall tobacco
    companies have built for protection. 
    
    ``I think their credibility is shot before the first witness is called
    now,'' said critic Richard Daynard, head of the Tobacco Products
    Liability Project at Northeastern University in Boston. 
    
    Investors appeared worried, selling off shares of the four other
    tobacco companies that continue to maintain no direct link between
    smoking and health. 
    
    But tobacco analysts said the admission is mostly symbolic and does not
    indicate a breaking of ranks in the industry. Liggett is a small
    company and the others are resolved to scrap with their enemies in
    court indefinitely, they say. 
    
    ``The evidence is already out there of addiction,'' said Tom Hennessey,
    managing editor of Andrews Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter, which
    seeks to provide objective coverage of tobacco litigation. 
    
    Still, John Banzhaf of Action for Smoking and Health in Washington
    believes Liggett's admission will make a big impression on juries. 
    
    ``The fact that a tobacco company admits that smoking causes diseases
    and that nicotine is addictive is a lot more forceful than testimony by
    a scientist,'' Banzhaf said. 
    
    While hundreds of lawsuits remain pending against tobacco companies,
    some of which accuse them of trying to cover up the harmful effects of
    smoking, Maxwell said the admission should have little impact. 
    
    ``I'll guarantee you there ain't no smoking gun in there,'' Maxwell
    said of the documents Liggett Group agreed to release. ``They've been
    suing these guys since 1954 ... and there is nothing more to
    discover.'' 
    
    Some said the move was more a reflection of Liggett's position in the
    industry than its savvy or scruples. 
    
    ``For a company that's as small as Liggett, bearing the costs of the
    ongoing legal difficulties is more expensive than for larger players in
    the industry,'' said Duke University law professor Deborah DeMott. 
    
    Hennessey predicted, however, that in the long run the Liggett
    admissions will help weaken the tobacco industry's position. 
    
    ``It may take some time, but the plaintiffs will draw blood and after
    they've drawn enough blood, the tobacco companies will start settling
    if they're smart,'' he said. 

	The $750,000 vacation home of RJR President Andrew Schindler was
	destroyed by a fire believed to have been caused by a discarded
	cigarette.

	A workman installing tile tossed a cigarette butt into a
	shrubbery bed shortly before leaving for lunch.

	Embers from the fire, fanned by a 25 mph wind, also did about
	$250,000 damage to four other oceanfront homes.

/john

    a disaster I could only dream of experiencing.

    
      Interesting Va civil case win by Joe Camel - lady dies grisly
     smoker's death, records video saying she knew it was killing her
     but  was addicted and couldn't stop.  Her estate lost.  Jury ruled
     she was herself to blame, not RJ Reynolds.
    
      bb

Florida.

    another cosmic tear in the in the universe. an adult held responsible 
    for her actions. 

RE: -1

I can't believe that would happen in America!!

Renouven Barzilai has filed a $6.5 million lawsuit against TWA after
New York Port Authority police arrested him when he complained about
a ban on smoking on his 11-hour flight to Tel Aviv, causing him to
miss a farewell visit with his dying father.

William Cahill, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said Barzilai was
arrested after he became loud and disorderly.

Barzilai maintains he was very calm and did not raise his voice.  His
suit seeks damages for false imprisonment, slander, and mental torture.

By the time he arrived in Tel Aviv after a three-day delay, his father
had lapsed into a coma and died a few days later.

/john