My Twenty Little Friends.....My Cigarettes

Yes....driving around at night when the world is asleep...it's so peaceful. Or just sitting outside on a hot summer night, again when most people are asleep. I don't know what all the hoopla's about....we just want some peace right?

I like to smoke....that's it! I think we all want to be healthy but, let's face it. Depending on where you live, the air quality might not be great. What if I enjoy cookies or pies? Beer? Lasagna? Where do we draw the line?

I think that it's best to do what you want....tomorrow is not promised to any of us. Yes, someday I might change my mind, maybe it'll be too late. But shouldn't this be my decision? And shouldn't people respect that? Don't put down my vices and I won't put down yours.

You are making a conscientious decision to smoke and I respect that. I am a civil libertarian and believe that you own you and I own me, so I have no right to tell you what to do or what to put in your body. The only quarrel I have is having to second hand smoke your cigs.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

The way I see it, there is no point arguing here. The way it's set up in this country now, you don't have to worry about second hand smoke. Smokers have so few places to go that I don't see why anyone would HAVE to deal with us if they didn't want to. Second of all, our air is so polluted you might wanna worry more about that. And finally does this also mean that, if I don't wanna smell your beer breath, then you're committing a "crime" too? Hey I can smoke a whole pack in an hour and still drive a car and not kill someone...unlike the people who have their drinks, which apparently is still okay.

Let's just agree to disagree....and thanks for respecting me jdubhub.

You are absolutely right, mrbronco. We will have to agree to disagree on second hand smoke because there is no way to reconcile an inherent "right" to do something with the sad fact that what a smoker considers a "right" does have a profoundly negative effect on people who choose not to smoke. My grandmother lost a lung to cancer and never lit up once in her life; her late husband was a chain smoker and never considered the negative health consequences for his own wife, so, yes, I do take the argument personally.

Your comparison of cigs to beer is inaccurate. Try comparing smoking cigarettes in public to someone standing on a street corner and popping off a few rounds from a handgun. Whether it be from having a bullet hit a vital organ and killing him or her, from being grazed by the bullet and merely being wounded, from having the fear of being killed or wounded aggravating an existing medical condition, everyone in the vicinity is negatively affected by the person firing the handgun. Would you argue that a person has a right to fire a handgun randomly on a busy street corner during midday? And owning a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, while smoking is not. It is a medical fact that second-hand smoke has a negative physiological effect on the human body--for some that effect can be lethal.

Global warming takes into consideration many factors that are out of the direct control of the average citizen on the street. However, smoking is a choice we all make to smoke or to not smoke. If I choose not to smoke, I should not be penalized for that choice.

Okay, we can agree to disagree, but I wanted to finish the rest of my last comment, since I cut it short for time.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Is smoking a crime? Only if fat people are criminals and stupid people too.

If you're walking down the street and happen to smell someone's cigarette smoke, you're not going to get cancer. If you're at a bar and happen to breathe in someone's cigar smoke, you're not going to get cancer. If you live with someone for 50 years who is a full-time smoker, then you may have a little more to worry about. Cancer is not caused by one factor only.

You actually do have a greater risk of getting cancer by walking down the street and breathing someone's cigarette smoke...but the risk is from exposure to radiation, not the smoke.

Why should fat people be criminals too? For the same reason some people here cited that smokers are. They are exposed to health risks when someone else is smoking. They can also be exposed to health risks when a fat person is walking down the street and they have to move out of the way of this fat person...they could step off a curb and twist their ankle.

What about stupid people? Well, stupid people do stupid things. Some of them do these things while using deadly devices, like vehicles, guns, or lawn equipment. Others take their stupidity to the ballot booth where they can subject every U.S. citizen to their stupid ideas of the functions of our federal government.

The fact of the matter is, real world analysis of second-hand smoke has not been conducted. Most of the reports you hear about "deadly second-hand smoke" are based on lab testing and misinterpreted or fabricated statistics. When second-hand smoke is tested, it is done in an enclosed environment (a lab) and the cigarette is burned inside a "box" where the smoke can be analyzed, which does not allow for natural dissipation into the air. This is how they are able to make such preposterous claims that non-smokers inhale more deadly chemicals than smokers do. Who would actually believe that? Oh, wait...

Is smoking a filthy habit? Sure it is. Are smokers dumb for doing it? Sure they are. Is it annoying to breathe in someone esle's smoke? Definitely. Am I going to die sooner for visiting a smokey bar for a few hours on a Friday night once a month? No. But I might die sooner because I'm worried about such nonsense every hour of every day of my life.

And we all know that stress can cause cancer.

What Causes Cancer?

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

FACTS about Secondhand Smoke:
Facts You Should Know About Secondhand Smoke
Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS)

Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk

Your ego is huge, Publius, but do you really expect us to believe your mere opinion trumps FACTS and scientific research of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Surgeon General?

Well, we all know the answer to that question. You would have us believe that everything that proceedeth out of your mouth is the Gospel truth because it is what YOU believe. I believe we should allow the people who aren't aware of the health effects of secondhand smoke read some actual studies for themselves--as opposed to your dismissive interpretation of them--and decide for themselves.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

He said it best.....I'm gonna go light up now....thanks all for making my article so popular!

Oh honey I remember when, i use to love my menthol cigs nothing like a good cigratte after a meal. Thought i would never quit but i did it. no longer in bondage to those little packs of cigs.

Usually, in cordial bloodletting in the sciences the group mistaken in their publications are approached in much the same manner even though the wording may not be the same.

From the person rebutted, there is sometimes a single defensive letter as a response often, and it is as cordial as it can be. Where there were misunderstandings in published wording or misinterpretations of data by the publisher there is adequate room for a defense.

As an arbiter and referee who has an interest is tenor and attitude or it's adjustment, I hope to have an opportunity to contribute to the drug addicted and yet conversant parties.

Sometimes, though rarely in the public forums, there is groveling, bowing, reticence to make further broad pronouncements without a serious data search. For new research, the data if gathered as observational quantities that might be reproducible is open. Medicine and health now are not nearly as scientific as other domains of the pursuit of truth and happiness, because few volunteers want to give their lungs to the knife. (Lots of dead mice.)

There now and then are admissions of superficiality and hubris, but seldom is the general audience given a shot at the throat or the heart of the matter.

This case is different.

=========================================
I quote from the following from the National Academies page.

http://www.nas.edu/headlines/20060629.html

"All Secondhand Smoke Exposure Dangerous"
By Lisa Pickoff-White

June 29 - "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke, according to a new report issued by the U.S. Surgeon General. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 percent to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 percent to 30 percent. Nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

"Exposure to secondhand smoke also causes of sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, according to the report. --Credit Lisa Pickoff-White

Text above cited as "educational use."

See the following for a complete rebuttal of any denialists claims of the harmlessness or lack of dangerous effects of secondhand smoke.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm

These analysis are always double blind, but as with many recent drug tests FDA, EPA, Surgeon General, and other public health officials -- under the current administration there has been serious deleterious editing of the truth. Possibly the sources of Mr. Publius's erroneous information was either old tobacco industry influenced publications or newer climate denialists poison farms publications.

In any event, I surely hope he can cite the tripe he used, to earn a reinstatement for his potential position before the board of "certifiers."

(Aw. Come on. Smile)

Keep your twenty friends to your self. Try, anyway.

Nice article.

Come back in ten years.

I wrote this article because someone else had written an article talking about people smoking, why they do it, etc. The writer didn't have a clue as to why someone chooses to smoke. I gave him my reasons. The second-hand smoke stream was not started by me. I don't know the facts and I doubt any of these studies can get any real numbers to any of this.

Anyway...you'll be happy to know I go out of my way to not annoy people with my cigarettes. I would like the same in return. I don't like walking by a bunch of drunks on a Friday night, a situation which could be more dangerous than my cigarette. I don't like driving on a Friday or Saturday night or any "drinking" holiday. Again, a situation that has the potential to be much more dangerous than my cigarette. And that was my point in an earlier comment. I think people should be more concerned about other things, like people that drink and drive, or people that are just dangerous. I hardly doubt that all the people out there that hate cigarette smoke so much are non-drinkers. So any of you excessive drinkers out there reading this? Stay out of my way when I walk by you and stay off the roads for all of us.

Of course, if they did anything to me, you'd all have one less smoker to worry about.

mrbronco

You don't have to smell my beer breath because I don't drink alcohol. Point taken thought about drunk drivers, but that doesn't make smoking any less of a problem.

BTW, I am the person who wrote the other article and I am a female. I also have a pretty good idea why people smoke, I just wrote that article to get some sense into smokers. Smokers are obviously pretty aware of what smoking is capable of doing to them, yet they continue to do it...

End of story.

Well I'm glad I don't have to smell your breath....and smoking is not a problem for me. I'm sorry it is for you!

I have no problem with you smoking or putting any other chemicals in your body whatsoever. The point I was trying to make is that your right to smoke and put other chemicals into your body ends the moment it affects the right of a non-smoker not to inhale cigarette smoke or put those chemicals in their body.

There is ample evidence that shows that secondhand smoke in any amount is hazardous, which is why it is important to make that distinction. If I believe you have every right and freedom to do what you want and make your own choices, then you must respect that I get to reserve every right and freedom NOT to breathe in smoke and other harmful chemicals.

You cannot have your rights if I cannot have my rights. That's the bottom line. If you're willing to respect that, then I say "smoke 'em if you got 'em." Fair enough?

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

And I said I do my best to NOT annoy you or anyone when I smoke. I understand what you said....

I appreciate your consideration for other people who don't smoke.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Well, here we go again...

Why am I not surprised that jdubhub and Les Porter are questioning my character (again)? Let's start with the former.

"Yes, of course, Publius, you're right and the EPA is wrong."

Actually...that's exactly right. You seem to love to cite things that just aren't true for a variety of reasons. The EPA's 1992/1993 release of their "study" was in fact severely flawed. Their flawed "study" has been recognized by the courts and they have not disputed the judge's findings on that matter. This wasn't my opinion, judubhub...so sorry.

Flue-Cured Tobacco v. EPA District Court Decision

Although this decision was later vacated and remanded by the Appeals Court, that later decision was not based on the merit of the EPA study; it had to do with technicalities concerning certain agency actions.

The rest of your comment was just rhetoric disparaging me and referencing the debunked EPA study, so I will now move on to Les Porter's comment.

"Possibly the sources of Mr. Publius's erroneous information was either old tobacco industry influenced publications or newer climate denialists poison farms publications. In any event, I surely hope he can cite the tripe he used, to earn a reinstatement for his potential position before the board of 'certifiers.'"

Wow - what a fascinating display of faulty reasoning! In my old critical thinking classes, we used to call that the "poisoning the well" fallacy. I guess it doesn't matter what I cite now because it's all just rubbish. Oh, and I love the "denialist" argument. It makes you appear so brilliant when you compare people who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers. You have such class.

Despite your attempt to ridicule me, like jdubhub before you, here are some of my references:

Covance Laboratories: Passive Smokers Inhale Six Cigarettes a Year

Congressional Research Service: ETS and Lung Cancer Risk

World Health Organization study finds no statistically significant link to ETS and cancer

Lies About Second-hand Smoke - Translated from Dutch

Now, for both of you...listen carefully to what I am saying.

You missed the point I was making (again). Smoking doesn’t “cause” cancer; it just increases your chances of getting it. That’s why everyone who smokes does not have cancer and everyone who has lung cancer is not a smoker. The amount of smoke from smokers that is released into the air (outside) quickly dissipates and poses no threat to a passerby. If you're that concerned and happen to see a smoker outside, then try to avoid their smoke when you pass.

The fact of the matter is, there are many "causes" of cancer. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what factors cause which cancers...we only know what contributes to increased chances of developing it. No one factor causes cancer.

I agree that an enclosed workplace should not allow smoking indoors (not including bars and restaurants). But I find it quite ironic that the two of you are constantly whining about the government being too powerful and too controlling over Americans and intruding on their rights, yet you have no problem with the government telling individuals what they can do (concerning personal habits) and demanding that private businesses enact certain policies inside their own doors. And you constantly whine about how corrupt the government and it's agencies are, yet you take everything the EPA has to say as the "Gospel truth" (as jdubhub would say).

In addition, the two of you are always complaining about rights, yet you fail to grasp the concept that you neither have a "right" to frequent a privately-owned business, nor do you have a "right" to work there. So, if you don't like the fact that they allow smoking, don't go there. Jdubhub - you claim to be a libertarian on these issues. It would appear that you're not. Show me where libertarians claim to have a right to go into a privately owned business or where they believe the government ought to tell business owners what rules they should have inside their own doors.

I find this faulty logic and reasoning very revealing about the two of you...especially when you claim that I'm the one who always thinks he's right. The two of you ought to be embarrassed about your repeated conduct and blatant contradictions. Between jdubhub's attempts to make me out to be some extreme, right-wing know-it-all (yet you said you mostly agree with my positions) and Les' attempts to label me as a "denier" (which is not only despicable because of the negative connotation, but it is actually an inaccurate analysis of my position), I don't think the two of you have any authoritative legitimacy to speak of. And you certainly don't take the proverbial "high road" - so I'm not sure how your rhetoric is much different from what you accuse me of doing.

Maybe instead of attacking me every chance you get, you could try to understand my position from my point of view and have an actual discussion. Maybe your opinion isn't always as right as you believe it to be. Maybe my opinion isn't always as wrong as you believe it to be. In case you haven't noticed lately, I'm not the one who causes these comments to degenerate into personal insults. The two of you have done a wonderful job of that all by yourselves.

Congratulations on another job well done.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I will be happy to rebut your comment, Publius, since you seem to have selective memory/amnesia/whatever you want to call it regarding your past debates, not to mention your off-the-mark rebuttal to what Les and I posted.

But, just off the top of my head, you attempt to claim some moral high ground viz "what causes these comments to degenerate into personal insults" yet--for example--you imply if not state outright in many of your articles and in many comments that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you say is an idiot or misguided or lacking in education; not much gray area for intellectual discussion there, chief, especially if you expect the reader to understand "your position from your point of view".

It is also worth noting, Publius, that your mock outrage that anyone would dare question your sources is because you don't post the sources for your positions. In the comment you posted initially, you don't bother to post anything in way of support for your claims regarding secondhand smoke, yet you piously decry that what Les and I posted didn't have anything to do with what you posted.

Either you are being disingenuous or you are not as good a debater as you think you are. If you are going to attack Les and me for our perceived "lack" of sufficient evidence, then you need to give more than just your opinion the first time you are going to comment. That is the REQUIRED first step for debating in good faith.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Isn't that what you did when you stated that "Fact: Second hand smoke kills" w/o citing sources. I know that you and/or Publis try to bait people into discussions to get more hit/readers/whatever to your articles to get more clicks on your ads to get more money. A more reasonable line of rebuttal would have been to argue why your citations and sources are correct and not flawed and why Publis are flawed and how.

Yes, you are correct. If you take the entire thread as a whole, I didn't cite my sources for that particular comment. However, inasmuch as I didn't cite sources there, my quarrel here is with Publius and his lack of citations over several threads over several months. There is a history here and that has come into play, which makes the point I was making to him a little broader in scope than just this article.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Perhaps you're not reading the articles...which would explain why you can't comprehend the arguments I make. There are plenty of citations - you just refuse to acknowledge them. Lying about it to people who may not have read them doesn't make your statement true.

"...my quarrel here is with Publius and his lack of citations over several threads over several months."

Let's look at some of these "threads."

The Iraq War Is Illegal...Isn't It? - 18 links provided in the body of the article and several more in the comment section. This was from last July.

Why We Are In Iraq - 42 links provided in the body of the article. And I need to add one that was left out. This was from just last month.

Climate Change Stupidity: Great Ball of Fire - 11 links provided in the body of the article. This was from just last week.

If you're referring to the articles where I'm simply writing my opinion of certain political matters or news events, I'm not really sure what citations I'm supposed to make. I didn't notice any in your "Comments" article. Maybe you should provide some.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Mrbronco, Jim, pubby, If you get reads, good.

This is the way it used to be, but a lot of things have changed here at xomba for the coin.

Jim --

Water does expand as ice -- and -- water does expand slightly as a liquid as it warms. There is lots of physics on this stuff. About half of the global sea level rise that will occur in the next 60 plus years is a thermal volume expansion. The majority of the sea level rise will be displacement of air, filling the bath tub, by adding much icemelt.

Maximum density occurs as a liquid at about 34 degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)

=

=
Image: Wikipedia, Cigarettes have become very expensive in places that want to reduce the amount of smoking in public; pictured is the cost of a carton of 200 cigarettes in New Jersey.

Ethical research or statistical research. Insurance?

I linked to and scanned Pubs "old articles", most, I think about ten years old or slightly older.

Pub really had to be selective, on what he decided to post as reference, because current work does not support the ideas he is positing, or posting.

Image: Wikipedia, from United States Department of Health and Human Services
===============

But I want to point out, if you read only the articles he linked you might want to drink fluid trickled through the ashtrays and butt collection from a smoking pool-playing bar. And if it was pasteurized, heck, it might be good for you. You could improve the "taste" by squeezing the residue from the filters into the mix -- or you might want to only use use the portion of the cigarette above the filter, one that someone has already smoked!

Skoal Brother!
http://www.quittobacco.com/facts/effects.htm
This will encourage the use of smokeless tobacco, much like the recipe I am describing!

=================

Image: Wikipedia, "smoke by a window in a pub.

((((Imagine. And some writer's have an imagination,(do you?)and can use imagination to frame a picture. . .

Image: Wikipedia -- An extremely carcinogenic (cancer-causing) metabolite of benzopyrene, a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon, produced by burning tobacco.

Okay. Imagine, to prepare your elixir, you half-smoke or three-quarter smoke your favorite brand -- say unfiltered Camels! The ones you would walk a mile for. You extinguish the cigarette and peel the paper, and remove the ash portion. When you have accumulated so the residue from several packs of smokes toss the stuff in a blender, say with a touch 1/2 cup of warmed butter or margarine. Puree. You have at least two options with the residue. One is to fold into your chocolate brownie recipe as though it were hemp residue for a delightful ingestion; and the other is to heat and press the butter or margarine out of the blend. You can make an aluminum foil container to reconstruct a cube of spreadable butter/margarine and use it on your toast; The residue mass, which still has plenty of butter in it can be burned, like incense in your residence and enjoyed again like it was in the puffing stage of the Camel.))))

Generally, however, I think Pub did a good job in citing this old stuff. It ixs just that I guess he is in denier training. It is too pointed to be skepticism.

Most of those have now been dead-ended, and sunk by the progress of medical research. It helps to realize, that because of ethical concerns, human medicine and even some areas of medical research are statistical exercises, not chemical/carcinogenic direct hands-on research. It is great that rats and mice are so much like us, or we like them. (If your wife tells you you are a "Rat" that is one thing but if she calls you a "mouse", she could be really meaning . . .well, it is clear if she calls you an A-Ho. . .)

Image: Wikipedia, H&E (haematoxylin and eosin) stained lung tissue sample from an end-stage emphysema patient. RBCs are red, nuclei are blue-purple, other cellular and extracellular material is pink, and air spaces are white.

After the dinosaurs, likely the primate's ancestors, existed on African, Indian, and South American plates, and evolved similarly from the tiny mammals present during the age of the dinos. But whatever you believe, we and the rest of the mammals have a lot of characteristics in common so that "medical research" using mice/rats and primates in leiu of human subjects continues -- and yields results! A lot of mice and rats, and monkeys have been forcibly addicted to tobacco -- and rendered (that means "killed and processed" at particular points in the process. I am not now particularly fond of our behavior in that regard.

Image: Wikipedia, Gross appearance of the cut surface of a pneumonectomy specimen containing a lung cancer, here a Squamous cell carcinoma (the whitish tumor near the bronchi).

I especially liked Sturman's English language version of his Dutch site. He is a character! Most of the time he pushes into the ad infinitum extreme in spite of his admiration of Occam's Razor.

I used to smoke Flying Dutchman pipe tobacco along with Ambrosia, both of which had exceptional "taste" in a meerschaum. Then, one day, they tasted bad, I do not know why. I guess I reached the end of them. Soon none of the tobaccos tasted good. I smoked cigarettes. They tasted good, but not so good. Because it was pure addiction. My fingers stained from the smoke, and I have workingman's hands, tough from all the work my part of science entailed. The final time I decided the evidence was enough for me to quit. It took several years, patch, gum, finally the patch and a lot of will power.

I think you, Pub, and my friend mrbronco should both consider doubling or trebling your smoking. Show a little moxie, "really" inhale.

Image: Wikipedia,Cross section of a human lung. The white area in the upper lobe is cancer; the black areas indicate the patient was a smoker. --Wikipedia.

And do some pratical research! Submit your bodies to "science," And heck, pub, you don't have to smoke to sell them to kids. Tell them how grown-up and mature they look. They are immortal when they start smoking.

You should ask the GrantDoctor -- though if you read this it makes your wonder.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/3710/smoke_but_no_fire/(parent)/13199

http://dccps.nci.nih.gov/tcrb/TRIP/html/appendix.html

From which is copied," The tobacco research portfolio analysis revealed support for a broad spectrum of tobacco-related research. Proportional to tobacco's cancer burden, however, tobacco research reflects a disproportionately small portion of the NCI budget. While tobacco use accounts for almost 30 percent of cancer deaths, the total annual budget for tobacco-related research represents only 3 percent of the NCI budget."

(Scientific ethics is at work here.)

Image: Wikipedia, Source NIH,

This is probably some of your propaganda, huh? To me the interesting part is the apparent work by the tobacco companies between 1920 and 1935 with cigarettes to make them more addictive, and it really helps to have them in your c-rations or k-rations in the military. With match.

Concerns about teens. . .

Dealing to kids! A lot of money here. This is the place to really reel them in. And is "so easy!"

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N5/tearoff.html

This one ought to clarify the stance.

http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/tobaccoresearch.pdf

Image: Wikipedia --Chest x-ray showing a cancerous tumor in the left lung

When they do an x-ray, try to get a look at them -- they should show them to you.
But there you go!

--------------------
If you smoke you should buy your own healthcare. I don't want there to be a social cost for your smoking. I do not want to pay for your health/tobacco related issues or well-being. I do think the tobacco industry should be closed. I think its assets need to be devoted to the health care of its former customer group. Who knows what can happen. Imagine. What if they devalued your home and neighborhood by 1/5 and said. "We can't reduce your payments. You are going to have to pay for the devaluation."

Then you go in the hospital. Then it just looks like a little "smoky area." Maybe you live a while if you could sell your place to pay for the care? At 80% or less.

I think it would be much better for the species to have full control over this situation.

I can't really think of a good use for tobacco. If I could go after the last plant, I guess we could store it safely in some deep cavern on the moon in case we felt some future need to return it to earth for some good thing. . .just can't really imagine what that might be. Maybe it could compete with hemp for rope or something. . .?

http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/tobaccoresearch.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat2.chapter.7644

mrbonco, I assume you are a football fan? A Bronco fan?

This year???? Go Broncos.

The hemp brownies are mind-altering. Don't know if the tobacco brownies would even be palatable.

But I'm way past this stuff.

Pub. How is your process of educating the **** masses going?

Be careful so you can get older. We could cite statistics on that, but the actuaries do it for a living. Thanks for your come back. I can't recommend smoking even after smoking on and off for thirty-some years.

From what I write, you can see what effect it has had on me. Devastating!

I'd like to say something ironic here for poor Pub. But he'd misunderstand it for sure.

That should answer your question :)

The truth is you can put up all your pictures and statistics and it doesn't matter. The bottom line is when your number's up, it's UP! Live healthy if you want, it doesn't mean you'll live any longer or happier than the next guy. I'd rather enjoy the healthy and not so healthy pleasures given to us on this planet.

You'd probably be shocked to know that I rarely drink and prefer to eat healthy salads and meals but that's because I like them! Not because they're healthy. I think more of you should just enjoy what time you have on this earth and stop worrying so much.

Agreed.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I should have checked it more thoroughly before posting it.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Yes, yes, I read your treatment of the events that led up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. I cut-and-pasted it so I could print it out and dissect it, which took 17 pages in landscape; verbose you are, accurate you are not. In just a preliminary comparison between your last article and a neutral timeline of events, I can see that you disingenuously left out everything that showed your position in a bad light. Not to worry, I am in the process right now of impeaching your sources and that information, so at least one article in rebuttal will be written. It may end up being as many as five articles because I am not going to do to the reader what you did and lull them to sleep.

On the subject of impeaching sources, you say that you put 18 links in your July article without saying that many were impeached by other sources that I and others provided. You never replied to those challenges and slipped away into the night. So, this simply means that your latest article is largely a rehashing of the same impeached positions.

While you may want the newer readers to forget that you never replied to old challenges, it is important for them to know that your current article does not tell the whole story--it merely maintains that anyone who doesn't believe that everything happened exactly as you say it did is somehow less than intelligent and honest, which is another way of saying that your opinion is somehow better than anyone else's, which is why you come across as a "right wing know-it-all".

Analysis of quote: Many people challenge the official story of the Iraq invasion of 2003, including serving and retired military officers, historians of different nationalities, citizens of nearly every member of the United Nations, the American government, politicians of every party and position, and anyone else who has considered ALL the facts (read: those who were not content with being told what to think and actually looked at the underlying motives). The Bush Administration has acted illegally by ignoring international law and twisting the language of UNSC 1441 to rationalize an invasion that would have gone forward with or without UN approval.

I find it interesting, Publius, that you claim to be a champion of international justice and law, yet you take the position that France, Russia, and "possibly" China ought to be expelled from the UN Security Council because those nations had the brass to stand up to the bully and not give license to Bush's illegal invasion. The only way that justice will work in the world is if people will agree to disagree and not impose naked military aggression against other countries without laying out ALL THE REASONS WHY. Bush didn't which is why his invasion of Iraq was illegal on its face.

Before you get your undies in a wad over the past couple of paragraphs, Publius, I will have a supported dissection and analysis of the key points of your article, Why We Are In Iraq, sometime this week. You can complain all you want about my position, but your position is unsustainable without some glaring omissions in the true historical record. Correcting what you've disingenuously omitted will be the focus of my reply.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I think you've already wasted enough space on mrbronco's Xombyte on something not related to his topic.

And while I admire your persistence to make this same failed argument, I don't believe this is the place to do it - especially when you cannot even represent my article correctly. You insist on lying and taking parts of the article completely out of context, then pretend you're able to refute my arguments.

Oh, yeah...good luck with "impeaching" my sources too. I'm not sure how you're going to "impeach" transcripts of speeches, U.S. public laws, congressional documents and records, CIA records, the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions, court decisions, and polling data. You're so funny when you're wrong.

You know where to find me. This is no longer the place. TRY GOING HERE - if you have the courage to discuss it on my actual Xombyte, of course.

Mrbronco...I'm sorry these two insist on trying to disparage me on your Xombyte. But I guess that's what I get for leaving you a comment, right? It must be well deserved.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

The Iraq War thread wasn't even brought into the discussion until YOU brought it up here:
http://www.xomba.com/my_twenty_little_friends_my_cigarettes#comment-19789. Of course, you will claim that I misunderstood your mentioning the Iraq War when you "really" mean the Iraq War on Tobacco, which is the only way YOUR comment would have been germane to this thread.

The fact that you point fingers at other people and piously claim the high ground while you yourself are responsible for dragging down the discussion in the first place is a well-known and long-understood Publius debating method. You take one narrow view and list a few sources to "prove" that it is the only valid way of looking at it, calling those who refuse to believe that things are exactly the way you claim them to be as "idiots", "uneducated", or worse. When unimpeachable sources are provided proving your position to be invalid, you do one of three things: (1)attack them without addressing them; (2)ignore them completely then later claim that the contrary-to-your position has never been supported; or, (3)cut and run, which you did at the end of the Iraq War thread from last July. When someone tries to engage you in direct debate, you make a statement like "only idiots believe that" then piously claim that you never attacked anyone ad hominem.

What is funny about your last comment regarding my quoting you, claiming that I took your quote out of context is that I quoted you verbatim from the preamble to your monstrous verbosity and nailed the exact way you presented the opening to your argument. You didn't like that I called you on your BS, so you threw up your hands and cried that I twisted your words around. Let's let the reader decide.

(By the way, you left so many things out of your "Why We Are In Iraq" article contextually I have my hands full filling in the gaps. Don't worry though, when I am through, people will understand the WHOLE story, which is what should have been told in the first place without your using less-than-honest journalism practices.)

Or, perhaps "Publius" is the Latin word for "Chickenshit" after all.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

"The Iraq War thread wasn't even brought into the discussion until YOU brought it up here."

You can't even tell the truth about something that happened on this very Xombyte. You challenged my integrity by claiming that I don't cite any sources. I gave you examples of some of my more recent articles, then you claim that I brought up the Iraq discussion? That's quite absurd of you.

"The fact that you point fingers at other people and piously claim the high ground while you yourself are responsible for dragging down the discussion in the first place is a well-known and long-understood Publius debating method."

Really??? I'm the one responsible for "dragging down the discussion"? Let's review...

I left a comment about tobacco, smoking tobacco, and how it relates to other behavior, and also whether or not we ought to be worried about second-hand smoke. Because I chose to leave a comment on mrbronco's Xombyte, I got the following in response from you...judubhub:

"Yes, of course, publius, you’re right and the EPA is wrong...Your ego is huge, Publius, but do you really expect us to believe your mere opinion trumps FACTS and scientific research of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Surgeon General?
Well, we all know the answer to that question. You would have us believe that everything that proceedeth out of your mouth is the Gospel truth because it is what YOU believe. I believe we should allow the people who aren't aware of the health effects of secondhand smoke read some actual studies for themselves--as opposed to your dismissive interpretation of them--and decide for themselves."

Then when another person challenged you by demonstrating how you did the same thing I did (not citing a source), you decide to lie about me:

"However, inasmuch as I didn't cite sources there, my quarrel here is with Publius and his lack of citations over several threads over several months. There is a history here and that has come into play, which makes the point I was making to him a little broader in scope than just this article."

So, no...I was not the one who "dragged down the discussion." It was YOU (and you had some help from Les Porter). But let's address the Iraq War part of your argument. You said I brought up the Iraq War discussion. Actually, I didn't "discuss" it at all...I used my Xombytes as an example of how you were wrong when you claimed I don't cite sources. Then you replied with the following:

"Mistaking quantity for quality...Yes, yes, I read your treatment of the events that led up to the illegal invasion of Iraq...verbose you are, accurate you are not...I am in the process right now of impeaching your sources and that information...I am not going to do to the reader what you did and lull them to sleep...you say that you put 18 links in your July article without saying that many were impeached by other sources that I and others provided...this simply means that your latest article is largely a rehashing of the same impeached positions...it is important for them to know that your current article does not tell the whole story--it merely maintains that anyone who doesn't believe that everything happened exactly as you say it did is somehow less than intelligent and honest, which is another way of saying that your opinion is somehow better than anyone else's, which is why you come across as a 'right wing know-it-all'."

And you go on and on about my article here, instead of making these points where they are relevant. And when I tell you this isn't the place for this debate, you try to pull a fast one and blame me for "bringing it into the discussion." On top of that, you also try to claim that I'm the one "dragging down the discussion."

The funniest part is, you refuse to debate the Iraq War topic on my Xombyte that deals with the Iraq War, but you call me the "chickenshit". You gotta love that. But don't worry...I'll have the debate there anyway, whether you choose to partake or not.

I think everyone here is aware of your tactics jdubhub. You really can't hide from it when you are caught in your own lies all in the same thread. And you have the nerve to attack my character?

So much for having moderators...

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I'm enjoying this actually. It supports my feeling on why a little nicotine is not such a bad thing. Maybe you all should light up and then lighten up :)

helps that it keeps the search engines interested too! smoking is not that bad - see the revenue it generates, taxes on tobacco form the largest chunk, tobacco cultivation keeps farmer busy, anti - tobacco suits keep courts, lawyers busy and RICH, tobacco always ignites discussion (this post was a case in point), so uses up print space we really dont need...and if in the process a few ignoramus die, its not for lack of information - its their fault - they didnt learn, and yes I wouldnt want to die caught in other people's smoke! I agree with Broncos - when your time's up - its up!

To read all of my writing here at Xomba please visit my profile page

... ummm ... You okay smoking by bring up Al Gore's fairy-tale monster? Next thing you know, you'll be asking me to join the Aryan Whities because Satan and his Unicorn fly for de-segregation and leprosy!

Well why are the ice caps melting? What do you think this will do to the environment? A lot more water and where will it go?

It is generally understood in science that water expands when frozen and contracts when heated. If global warming is indeed causing the melting of the polar ice caps, then that means the melted water should be of less volume than the previously frozen ice, which means that the ocean levels shouldn't be rising. If the levels are rising, then there has to be another reason.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Years back I was so addicted and I said I liked it; BUT I also the outlined "The Plan" . . .

The Plan:

Were tobacco to be banned like Small Pox, and eradicated from this Earth as soon as possible. . .I swore I would find the Last Plant and harvest it. I would track it across the planet, I would cut it down and savor the leaves, and cure them. I would make certain I and I alone, would access this final plant.

When cured I would build it into a thousand cigarettes or a hundred small cheroots, or a dozen cigars, and I would smoke them all.

Now, I do not at all feel that way.

In secret, and as long as you want to puff away. Do it.

Use a sealed room to strengthen the effect, do not open the room till all the smoke has coated your lungs, or your surroundings. Keep the stuff to yourself, to your share of the Earth's air, to your 766,000 tons of air, your faction of it from the 5135.2 trillion tons. That is plenty for you to breathe and even allow the smoke to dissipate, perhaps harmlessly.

I quit, finally, many years ago in my late 40's. I wish I had been able to quit earlier. It took the patch, and many prior efforts.

It is fine to enjoy the killer weed.

mrbronco, no, it's not a crime.

You want to smoke, smoke away, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you that smoking is peaceful or relaxing or fun or simply enjoyable. As I feel the exact opposite and see smoking as a horrible thing. Just the other day I was walking down the street in my neighborhood when about two or three people passed by me and they were all smoking. I was caught in the middle and I felt like I was going to faint. I can't breath around smoke, be it from cigarettes or fire or whatever. You know what I take what I said back, it IS a crime. If I have to reach for my inhaler every time someone smokes in the street, then smoking is a crime.

See that's what I hate the most, you Choose to fill your lungs with this thing, I don't, yet I have to endure it...

In a truly free society, a smoker's right to smoke ends where a non-smoker's right to breathe air begins. That's why just because a smoker goes outside, the potential harm caused by second-hand smoke doesn't automatically go away.

When I lived downtown in San Diego after leaving the Navy in 1996, I used to walk from my room up Broadway for the few blocks it took to get to my PO Box. Because it was downtown and often crowded during midday--two big court buildings were two blocks from where I lived--I could count on getting stuck in a crowd of people on the sidewalk with someone walking on their lunch hour with a lit cigarette in hand; they make one or two puffs, but they let it burn and smoke out everyone who was behind them for the duration of the walk.

The fact that you had to reach for the inhaler after passing smokers who didn't even have a clue that their smoke may harm other people in their proximity is the problem and certainly eliminates any "rights" they may claim to smoke in public.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?