New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

Killer Plants

How many alias' do you have? I've counted three so far:
1. Killer Plants
2. The Plan
3. Tobacco Kills
(I believe there is a fourth one, but, cannot recall it)

Pick one will you! Apparently, you are trying to hide behind different names.

Also, please stop 'reposting' the same posts. Once is enough.

And Flutey and Aloxety are the same person too.

Well I will ask you this question Big D
This is the list of Cancer Causing Chemicals in a cigarette.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?

Ask them this accept only a yes or no

Just a yes or no

Its a question I have for people. Its a good question stupid. Just yes or no.

Harley-Honey wrote:

And Flutey and Aloxety are the same person too.

I am not convinced they are the same. I just don't understand why some posters feel it necessary to have more that one 'name'.

If I decided to change mine (which I would not do, there is no reason), I would state it in a post. I am not ashamed of anything I post. Maybe that is the reason some change names, they are embarrassed/ashamed.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Well I will ask you this question Big D
This is the list of Cancer Causing Chemicals in a cigarette.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?
Ask them this accept only a yes or no
Just a yes or no
Its a question I have for people. Its a good question stupid. Just yes or no.

I see you avoided my question. I will answer your question, AGAIN, I have answered it at least five times. I do not advocate smoking in a car with children!!! I do not believe one should smoke in front of children at all! PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN!!! You have a very short memory, or, you do not read all posts. Only those you choose to.
I think you try to convince those that are new to reading the forum, or joining the forum, that I think it is OK. Otherwise, why ask the same question every few days?

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Linda wrote:"
Thanks for the birthday wish. To bad you think the world should think just like you do because you are to blind to open your eyes and look at the facts that surround you. Its also a pretty sad creature that thinks the world should exist according to wht you think..you're pathetic.
Facts you need facts. What a pathetic person you are. Here are Facts. Cigarette Smoke Has Cancer Causing Agents in it. Here is a list.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Now I ask you since you say your a good mom why would you expose your child to these chemical tha you kwnow are there.
My point is your not a good mom. Or else you would not. Its your choice to smoke in the car. You think people should with children in the car. So after knowing that cigarette smoke has this in it why would yo continue to want to be so stupid?
I really dont need you to come back with a diversion tactic about how there is this and that other pollution. You make the choice to light up in the car. You Linda. Its a choice you made. Dont throw off on all the other toxins in the air or other bad things. You made the choice to light up in car with children in it and smoke.
This makes you the bad parent.

Actually, your continued re-posting of this nonsense is showing you to be without critical thinking skills.

Do you know the AMOUNTS of these chemicals?

I already challenged you to find that information, from whatever site you trust to be accurate.

Don't forget that just because there is a chemical present, there also needs to be a measured quantity of it.

I think you will find that the specific quantities of most of those chemicals is minuscule, and nearly infinitesimal, especially in mixed volumes of air.

The dose makes the poison.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Well I will ask you this question Big D
This is the list of Cancer Causing Chemicals in a cigarette.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?
Ask them this accept only a yes or no
Just a yes or no
Its a question I have for people. Its a good question stupid. Just yes or no.

By the way, what are you trying to communicate with 'Ask them this accept only a yes or no'?

Ask 'who', and 'this accept'???? Seriously, is English your second language? No need to call people stupid, only confirms you insult posters to avoid answering questions.

I see you avoided my question. I will answer your Big D wrote"
question, AGAIN, I have answered it at least five times. I do not advocate smoking in a car with children!!! I do not believe one should smoke in front of children at all! PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN!!! You have a very short memory, or, you do not read all posts. Only those you choose to.
I think you try to convince those that are new to reading the forum, or joining the forum, that I think it is OK. Otherwise, why ask the same question every few days??

You totally avoided the yes or no question. You Big D anser the question. I have to post the question to ask you this question its not reposting to ask the question. I have to post the whole question. I need nothing but a yes or no.

You Non Cas Fan you answer the question to yes or no. Yes or No. Just this question its a simple question.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?

Ask them this accept only a yes or no

Just a yes or no

Its a question I have for people. Its a good question stupid. Just yes or no

Tobacco Kills wrote:

I see you avoided my question. I will answer your Big D wrote"
question, AGAIN, I have answered it at least five times. I do not advocate smoking in a car with children!!! I do not believe one should smoke in front of children at all! PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN!!! You have a very short memory, or, you do not read all posts. Only those you choose to.
I think you try to convince those that are new to reading the forum, or joining the forum, that I think it is OK. Otherwise, why ask the same question every few days??
You totally avoided the yes or no question. You Big D anser the question. I have to post the question to ask you this question its not reposting to ask the question. I have to post the whole question. I need nothing but a yes or no.
You Non Cas Fan you answer the question to yes or no. Yes or No. Just this question its a simple question.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?
Ask them this accept only a yes or no
Just a yes or no
Its a question I have for people. Its a good question stupid. Just yes or no

You gotta be kidding me! What part of my response to your question did you not understand??

Now answer the questions I asked you. Or, do you not have a reasonable answer so you just ignore it? Pathetic.

It pretty clear Big D that your not going to answer my simple little yes or no question. As far as your question. Your obviously one of the monsters that want to subject children to the toixic substances that are in cigarette smoke.

I will ask you one more time just answer the question.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?

Ask them this accept only a yes or no

Just a yes or no

Its a question I have for people. Its a good question. Just yes or no

Big D wrote:

Killer Plants
How many alias' do you have? I've counted three so far:
1. Killer Plants
2. The Plan
3. Tobacco Kills
(I believe there is a fourth one, but, cannot recall it)

We Are Sheep. He dropped it as soon as he realized how silly it made him sound.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not convinced they are the same. I just don't understand why some posters feel it necessary to have more that one 'name'.

Not convinced? Dunno man, I don't know what you can do aside from taking my word for it.

1.6 million people in the Indy metro area in 2000. That number has since increased. The fact that H-H thinks it impossible that 2 out of 1.6 million people might post on the same message board is funny.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?

I've no idea why the people continually responding to you allow you to dictate the terms of the discussion like this. Everyone here has answered your questions at least twice, while you've dodged all questions asked in return.

Again:

Do you or do you not understand the difference between >40 ug/m3 and >40 ug/m3 (24 hour weighted average)?

Do you realize how foolish you look by posting 'stats' like the one in the article summarizing the Rees paper, when it's clear that not only have you not read the paper itself, but you don't really even understand the summary of the paper?

Again:

Aloxety wrote:"
Do you or do you not understand the difference between >40 ug/m3 and >40 ug/m3 (24 hour weighted average)?

Do you realize how foolish you look by posting 'stats' like the one in the article summarizing the Rees paper, when it's clear that not only have you not read the paper itself, but you don't really even understand the summary of the paper?"

I dont think your paper takes into account the differences in the way people smoke in a car. Will they roll the windows down will they roll the windows up. There is no way you can put a set number on the amount.

If that is your big polint >40 ug/m3 and >40 ug/m3 (24 hour weighted average)? So what? I dont see a point in it. Is this the number related to a child being in a car with the windows up.

I see Non Cas Fan's point. It would be a good idea for them to crack a window. You cant be sure they will though. So you err on the side of reason and the childs health. After all our exposing the child to these:

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

So I doubt very seriously that you will answer yes or no. I did answer your question now.

Also if I change my name its no business of yours. Infact I make it clear to everyone when I do that Iam the person formly known as someone else. This I dont see happening with you. You are also Flute Man Greg as your Ips are the same.

Aloxety wrote:

<quoted text>
Not convinced? Dunno man, I don't know what you can do aside from taking my word for it.
1.6 million people in the Indy metro area in 2000. That number has since increased. The fact that H-H thinks it impossible that 2 out of 1.6 million people might post on the same message board is funny.

Aloxety, I stated I am NOT convinced you & Fluteman Greg are the same person. Personally, I don't think you are the same person.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

It pretty clear Big D that your not going to answer my simple little yes or no question. As far as your question. Your obviously one of the monsters that want to subject children to the toixic substances that are in cigarette smoke.
I will ask you one more time just answer the question.
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Tell me do you want to expose a child to these chemicals in a car. yes or no?
Ask them this accept only a yes or no
Just a yes or no
Its a question I have for people. Its a good question. Just yes or no

It has just dawned on me that perhaps you need a simple answer. Anything more complex than a one word answer is to much for you to process.

So, to make it easy for you to comprehend:

NO.

I do not smoke in a car at ALL. I do not smoke in front of children.

Talk about toxic fumes, stick your noise in the exhause pipe of any vehicle; even non-smokers drive cars and add to polution, it is destroying the environment/ozone layer far more than tobacco.
Now, answer my questions. Simple words will suffice.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Again:
Aloxety wrote:"
Do you or do you not understand the difference between >40 ug/m3 and >40 ug/m3 (24 hour weighted average)?
Do you realize how foolish you look by posting 'stats' like the one in the article summarizing the Rees paper, when it's clear that not only have you not read the paper itself, but you don't really even understand the summary of the paper?"
I dont think your paper takes into account the differences in the way people smoke in a car. Will they roll the windows down will they roll the windows up. There is no way you can put a set number on the amount.
If that is your big polint >40 ug/m3 and >40 ug/m3 (24 hour weighted average)? So what? I dont see a point in it. Is this the number related to a child being in a car with the windows up.
I see Non Cas Fan's point. It would be a good idea for them to crack a window. You cant be sure they will though. So you err on the side of reason and the childs health. After all our exposing the child to these:
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
So I doubt very seriously that you will answer yes or no. I did answer your question now.
Also if I change my name its no business of yours. Infact I make it clear to everyone when I do that Iam the person formly known as someone else. This I dont see happening with you. You are also Flute Man Greg as your Ips are the same.

Use the Reply button when responding to a comment.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Use the Reply button when responding to a comment.

Thinks for the how to on the reply thing. I do agree with you about cars being bad but its all we have to drive. Its like eating you have to eat.

I do hope that will change. There are other alternatives. I have hopes electric will be the choice of the future. Or a Hybrid electrc. I do think they need to be simple and cheap enough that the working classes and the lower middle classes like me can afford one. But for now we have to drive the cars that we are presented with.

So when it comes to smoking in a car its a matter of choice and as I have said having once been a smoker I can understand the cravings. But that parent needs to control those creavings till they are out of the car. Then they can light one up.

But since alot of people dont beilieve the way we do that it is better not to smoke in cars with kids a nationwide ban on it is what is needed.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

<quoted text>
Thinks for the how to on the reply thing. I do agree with you about cars being bad but its all we have to drive. Its like eating you have to eat.
I do hope that will change. There are other alternatives. I have hopes electric will be the choice of the future. Or a Hybrid electrc. I do think they need to be simple and cheap enough that the working classes and the lower middle classes like me can afford one. But for now we have to drive the cars that we are presented with.
So when it comes to smoking in a car its a matter of choice and as I have said having once been a smoker I can understand the cravings. But that parent needs to control those creavings till they are out of the car. Then they can light one up.
But since alot of people dont beilieve the way we do that it is better not to smoke in cars with kids a nationwide ban on it is what is needed.

If a person (does not have to be a parent) smokes in a car with children, and it is against the law, people will still do it. People do many things that they should not (smoke pot for instance). From what I understand from this forum, there is a low percentage of smokers in Canada. Out of that percentage, how many smoke in the car with children? I suspect it is a low amount.
People drink (and do drugs) and drive, sometimes they get caught sometimes they don't. Sometimes they kill themselves and/or others; including children. I think that is a bigger concern.

So, why all the alias'? You are avoiding that question.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
If a person (does not have to be a parent) smokes in a car with children, and it is against the law, people will still do it. People do many things that they should not (smoke pot for instance). From what I understand from this forum, there is a low percentage of smokers in Canada. Out of that percentage, how many smoke in the car with children? I suspect it is a low amount.
People drink (and do drugs) and drive, sometimes they get caught sometimes they don't. Sometimes they kill themselves and/or others; including children. I think that is a bigger concern.
So, why all the alias'? You are avoiding that question.

I will answer the first last. The different aliases are no big deal since I let people know I am the samer person. My style of writing my typos are easy to recognize.

Nothing sinister in it. Just trying different names. I do tell people its me right off the bat. I hope its not a bad thing. I like this name Tobacco Kills best for now.

Ok I hope that settles that. I do thiink my passion for this topic would give me away no mattter what my name was.

As to Canada. I cant say about there awareness. I live in Kentucky. It has many problems. I am not going into those here. Its very bad here. Canada is more progressive. I wished I lived there.

As to smoking here its pretty bad here look.

http://e-archives.ky.gov/_govfletcher/records... (aug06)/20060711smoking.htm

When Non Cas Fan and others talk about smokers and how they see them doing this and that when they are riding in cars. They really should come to Kentucky. It has the highest rate of smokers in the country.

“Kentucky ranks first among the states in the rate of adults who smoke and has the second highest percentage of pregnant women who smoke. This is an important first step in combating the harmful effects of smoking.”

Yeah every other person you see smokes here. Its disgusting. This state also has the highest cancer rates.

http://notapundit.wordpress.com/2006/09/08/ke...

So when these people get on here and talk about how its Tobacco is ok. I really think Kentucky is the biggest damn case study out there. Its an epidemic here. I do see parents in cars with kids driving around constantly.

I am glad other states and Canada is so progressive. I live in a state where you cant eat out without breathing cigarette smoke in public.
A smoking area here in Kentucky means the smokers sit on one side of the restaurant and the non smokers sit on the other.

Smoking and non smoking is a joke here.

So maybe you see. Me being from smoking hell would give me an insight into this that others will not have. Maybe now you and others can see why I am passionate about the issue of children in cars with smoking parents.