For all of you "second hand smoke" ninnies.

[Muggles]

The issue has nothing to do with politics (liberal/conservative). It's a health issue.

Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.

[Muggles]

No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.

[Muggles]

Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke (3). Cigar smoke has:

A higher level of cancer-causing substances: During the fermentation process for cigar tobacco, high concentrations of cancer-causing nitrosamines are produced. These compounds are released when a cigar is smoked. Nitrosamines are found at higher levels in cigar smoke than in cigarette smoke.

More tar: For every gram of tobacco smoked, there is more cancer-causing tar in cigars than in cigarettes.

A higher level of toxins: Cigar wrappers are less porous than cigarette wrappers. The nonporous cigar wrapper makes the burning of cigar tobacco less complete than the burning of cigarette tobacco. As a result, cigar smoke has higher concentrations of toxins than cigarette smoke.

Furthermore, the larger size of most cigars (more tobacco) and longer smoking time result in higher exposure to many toxic substances (including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ammonia, cadmium, and other substances).

[Muggles]

+100

[Rene]

We all know smoking kills. Smokers are suicidal.

I guess the 64k question is should we allow smokers to commit suicide or should we prevent them from jumping off the bridge.

(My gut tells me to give them a nudge but...)

[bob haller]

australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck, year 10 .........10 bucks:)

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

[trader_4]

When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses from loons, let us know.

[trader_4]

I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer, leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short, I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill you.

[Red]

I believe the tobacco companies knowingly add chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive. Once addicted, the weak-willed smokers can't break free.

Smokers often claim they smoke because they choose to but really they have been unwittingly duped by big tobacco's drugs.

[trader_4]

It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative. Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish. They want ever bigger govt, more govt programs, more govt regulators. Conservatives want less regulations and to live people as free as possible.

Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best for all the rest of us, we have no rights. Conservatives believe that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to have a cigar dinner in a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that the country Madison and the founders saw?

[trader_4]

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until they go away?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per trader_4:

Like birth control and abortion, right?

[FromTheRafters]

(PeteCresswell) was thinking very hard :

Thank you, that needed to be pointed out.

[trader_4]

I don't know of any conservative movement to do anything with regard to access to birth control with the exception of abortion. And abortion is obviously a very special case because another life, who has no voice, is involved.

[Muggles]

We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided many links to scientific studies (proof).

If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent comments like you just made above. I am totally prepared to argue this topic, and have done so previously many times, and those who take the opposing side usually just GIVE UP - they either don't or can't respond to the evidence, or they resort to ad homs as their main argument.

Subject: Re: Where should smoking be illegal? Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:25:09 -0500 Message-ID:

[Muggles]

What exactly qualifies as a "whiff of smoke"??

Get back to me when you have some concise scientific proof.

[Muggles]

Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out and said I'm a conservative?

Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be exposed to hazardous waste.

[Muggles]

Smokers want to take everyone to the grave with them that they possibly can!

[Muggles]

geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like moderate smokers STINK ....

[trader_4]

e:

Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed here. And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a lin k to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can' t read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentration s and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 ro om ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of ever y seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and re gulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and d ay. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethe nylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphtha lene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced c oncentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemissio n increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concent rations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few w eeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potent ial exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything abou t smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're walking into a building.

How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.