|
July 28th, 2008 | #61 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mazonnawar Citadel
Posts: 775
|
[quote=Randolf Facto;813520]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There wouldn't be a race problem if all blacks were like toby here^^^^ |
||||||
July 28th, 2008 | #62 | |
Mad Science
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,686
|
Quote:
__________________
Thinking... Please wait. |
|
July 28th, 2008 | #63 | |
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
|
Quote:
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/jewi...s/vjforum.html.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together. |
|
July 28th, 2008 | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
|
[quote=Adi18;814786]
Quote:
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan |
|
July 28th, 2008 | #65 |
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
|
Painter fined for smoking in his own van
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/25/smoking
A painter and decorator has been fined £30 for smoking in his own van because it was deemed to be a workplace. Gordon Williams, 58, of Llanafan, near Aberystwyth, west Wales, was on the way to buy teabags for his wife when he incurred the on-the-spot fine. He claims the van is insured as a private vehicle and he only uses it to travel between jobs. He has lodged an appeal with Ceredigion county council. "Of course there are tools and things in the van, but a barrister would carry about documents in a briefcase in his own car. This is no different to my mind," he said. Williams had lit up after being stopped by police for a routine roadworthiness check. A council official approached him and handed him the fixed penalty notice. The self-employed painter and decorator said he had gone to the garage to buy teabags for his wife and was not travelling to work. "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my private vehicle as well as my work van. I was just having a cigarette and causing no bother to anyone else. But this is like big brother is watching you." A passenger in his van, who had also just lit up, received a £30 fixed penalty notice as well. A spokesman for Ceredigion county council said that it would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together. |
July 28th, 2008 | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,377
|
Quote:
Same with bars, you can’t smoke inside but if you take your drink outside you are drinking in public, leave your drink inside now you’re drunk in public. It’s a scam. |
|
July 28th, 2008 | #67 |
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
|
The revenue is important, of course, but more important to the ZOG agenda is that Whites mentally become children at 24/7 day care; afraid to even use the toilet without gaining the permission of some picayune commissar!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together. |
July 28th, 2008 | #68 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
|
July 28th, 2008 | #69 | |
Nice shot Troy you got him
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28th, 2008 | #70 |
Mad Science
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,686
|
You fear yourself ! According to liberals you're anti-racist (since they explain the whole "racist" thing by "they're afraid of other people"... so fearing oneself is antiracist... or am pushing it too far... meh )
__________________
Thinking... Please wait. |
July 28th, 2008 | #71 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
OH SHIIIIIIIIII *Gets sucked into a vortex as the Universe implodes* |
|
July 29th, 2008 | #72 |
Tat Steve
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 9
|
ADI18------I posted this question to you personally on another thread and I will do it here as well. Besides whining and name calling and posting a bunch of pictures (most of which are childish) what have you do as a positive action to promote NS or WP in the real world (face to face with strangers) in the last thiry days?
Think you can answer without acting like an elementary school student on the playground? And why the fetish cocks and with calling everyone gay or fag? And all the gay photos in your collection; something you need to get out in the open?
__________________
It's not that I hate jews.....It's gotta be my love of gas chambers!!! |
July 29th, 2008 | #73 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TriState
Posts: 7,208
|
'second hand smoke' eh?
Quote:
|
|
November 5th, 2008 | #74 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Occupied California
Posts: 32
|
Secondhand smoke kills
It's not a big risk, but the nitrosoamines in the slip-stream smoke are deadly.
The body can process some of it out, but the devil is in the details. By way of background, I have been a chemist for over thirty years. |
May 6th, 2011 | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
Gio Batta Gori Special to washingtonpost.com Tuesday, January 30, 2007 Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure. Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time." Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests? Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location. In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured. Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures. In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory. Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected. In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk. Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured." It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are. By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception? Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures. A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology -- uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully. Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012901158.html |
October 16th, 2012 | #76 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Another argument I heard from one utterly stupid liberal woman who smoked those self-rolled ones (at least 25 a day) was that "she could die tomorrow" so there's no point giving up. After pointing out that if that were the case why not rob a bank or murder her enemies etc. she remained silent. Smokers themselves have an inferior personality which causes them to want to lust after something. After all only an idiot would pay for something that kills you. When I was at school 95% of the ones who started smoking were remedials. Alan |
|
October 16th, 2012 | #77 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Torontoistan
Posts: 369
|
I agree with Alan.
|
March 13th, 2013 | #78 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
|
second hand smoke
If someone pulls in a drag and then blows it out. There lungs did not absorb all the crap. Second hand smoke is bad. If you walk into a bar where they smoke your clothes smell like smoke after a few minutes. They are stinking up everyone's air. I think we shold close the cigarette factories and if you want to smoke you can grow your own tobacco and roll your own.
|
March 16th, 2013 | #79 | |
professional critter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
|
Quote:
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause." |
|
April 1st, 2013 | #80 |
Doesn't suffer fools well
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
|
My neighbor, Claude, was just diagnosed with stage 4 throat cancer...
He's 40 and smoked "a pack a day" since he was 18. He's dying. He's convinced the cancer is merely a coincidence and continues to smoke apace. And a word to the wise is sufficient.
Thanks to whomever it was who just gave me a "thumbs up" for what must have been my two posts that started this thread in which there's such remarkable energy. My dad used to say that there was nothing as indignant as someone criticized for one of their addictions and nothing as self-righteous as someone who conquered one. |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|