From: Peter on
"Gary Theilsen" <nocontact(a)spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:ak7tj5hbtgealosvs70t75pq6s55pktemp(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
>>with your second hand smoke.
>
> You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
> episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
> person
> has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased
> and
> badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking any
> factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
> nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
> possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off in
> exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and exploit
> a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
> entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now using
> that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation tactics
> for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
> money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
> smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
> that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
> could.
>
> Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks'
> paranoid
> nonsense and stupidity.
>


Exactly in what way was the research flawed?


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2ImdnfSkBfrdO6PWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010010117333643658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-01-01 17:17:30 -0800, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
>>>> lungs
>>>> with your second hand smoke.
>>>
>>> You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
>>> episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
>>> person
>>> has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased
>>> and
>>> badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking
>>> any
>>> factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
>>> nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
>>> possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off
>>> in
>>> exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and
>>> exploit
>>> a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
>>> entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now
>>> using
>>> that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation
>>> tactics
>>> for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
>>> money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
>>> smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
>>> that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
>>> could.
>>>
>>> Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks'
>>> paranoid
>>> nonsense and stupidity.
>>
>> So, second hand smoke isn't going to kill me. I'll buy that.
>>
>> Now tell me how second hand smoke isn't going to make me choke & cough,
>> my eyes water, my clothes stink, and any other unpleasantness non-smokers
>> would have to endure so those addicted to a corporate drug can indulge
>> themselves.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> weg9 says: If you really believe its a drug, then why are you happy
> letting your government deal in it? Either make a law against it, or
> believe what I believe.....That everyone should be allowed access to any
> drug they want anytime they want it. (Including prescription drugs)


Do you drink alcohol?

--
Peter

From: George Kerby on



On 1/1/10 7:43 PM, in article 4b3ea4b2$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
>>> with your second hand smoke.
>>
>> You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
>> episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
>> has ever died from second-hand smoke?
>
> Smirk. That sound a lot like the claims of robacco companies who
> insist that there's no evidence proving that tobacco causes cancer.
> Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".

Again, Fish-Head, you have become irrelevant and your condition is indicated
by your typing.

See a doc, STAT!

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZfmdnckxMbInA6PWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

>
> Surely you're not serious? Do you think that we should all only take care
> of ourselves, and not pay any attention to the constitutionality of our
> laws. How about a law that takes all of Bill Gates' money away from him
> and distributes it to the rest of us? We would all vote for it, (except
> Bill Gates) because we would all gain from it. That's what the US
> Constitution is for.....To protect the minority from the tyranny of the
> majority. That's why we don't live in a Democracy, but rather in a
> Constitutional Republic. If they can control smoking by simply taxing the
> hell out of a pack of cigs, then they can control anything I might like to
> do by taxing the hell out of it.....And pretty soon they will....Tell me,
> Sduck, what is it you like to do?


they is us.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4CdnZyYp-hrOaPWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3ea0c5$0$12828$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:xZydneWphIfKC6PWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
>>> Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
>>> paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
>>> pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will
>>> (and should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will
>>> charge you more for endangering your life and health.But when the
>>> government just insures everyone automatically, then there is no
>>> individual responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live
>>> generally like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and
>>> that's the way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that you
>>> will fully realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself. It's
>>> the same old argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility,
>>> and this also takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay
>>> your own way. I have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is
>>> one of the reasons why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer
>>> smoke tobacco. I didn't need any laws to convince me of this.....It was
>>> my own choice.
>>
>> Your statement has nothing to do with the reality of insurance. At the
>> present time there is no firm "Obama health plan." However, the gut of
>> the Senate plan is that insurance companies will be prohibited from
>> denying coverage based upon pre=existing conditions. Don't confuse life
>> with health. e.g. There may be an exclusion from coverage for scuba or
>> stunt driving accidents on a life policy. On a health policy, they don't
>> do it,unless you get into the catastrophic coverage area.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>
> weg9 says: And so what would prevent me from living like there's no
> tomorrow for N years, and then, when I am getting old and sick, just
> applying for the government's health plan where some poor insurance
> company is forced to insure me, and then going into the hospital for some
> serious late stage health care?


The same thing that keeps me from doing that. It's called a sense of
personal responsibility.
You could always rob a bank, get caught and let the government take care of
you for the rest of your life.

Let's take a different tack. Isn't something wrong when you could lose all
your money because you get sick, even though you have done everything right?
Your long term nursing care isn't covered by your vaunted insurance. (Unless
you have long term care insurance. In which case see how quickly you will
reach the limit.)



--
Peter