Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

May 23, 2012 Full story: Cincinnati CityBeat 1,192

Since 2006, the Ohio Smoke-Free Workplace Act has banned indoor smoking at public establishments and places of employment, making Ohio the first Midwestern state to enact a state-wide ban.

Full Story
Need A Light

London, Canada

#400 May 31, 2012
Pop's you might have been a little too harsh on the kid it might be the start of him living on his own. It's pretty tough getting away from Nannies apron strings and finding out other people live in this world too.
datruth

Waleska, GA

#401 May 31, 2012
It promotes the health of the general public. How in any way could this possibly be considered unconstitutional?! The courts made the right decision!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#403 May 31, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>Actually death guesstimates are 88,000-144,000. Good point. IF someone or some drug company can be proven or convicted of fraud, malfeasence or whatever, they should hang their certain body parts on a fence for the buzzards.
On the other hand, IF it takes years or decades to learn that 1 out of 1000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 after using a certain drug for years & years has side effects, there should be some sort of immunity. After all, even asprin & acetametafin(sp) are over the counter & they have side affects to some people. ALL meds have side affects to some number of people & we all know that.
We can't expect drug companies to 'test' or research something for 10-20 yrs B4 it hits the market.
However, if fraud, deception or malfeasence can be proven....OFF WITH HEADS!!!
Judge Gladys Kessler, in her opinion in the RICO case against Altria, RJReynolds, and Lorrilard:

This "is about an industry, and in particular these Defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national health care system. Defendants have known many of the facts for at least 50 years or more. Despite that knowledge, they have consistently, repeatedly and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, the Government, and to the public health community."

"Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted."

"Over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement' smokers about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke."

==========
Or, as Judge H. Lee Sarokin put it in an earlier decade,

"All too often in the choice between the phisical health of consumers and the financial well-being of business, concealment is chosen over disclosure, sales over safety and money over morality. Who are these persons who knowingly and secretly decide to put the buying public at risk solely for the purpose of making profits and who believe that illness and death of consumers is an appropriate cost of their own prosperity! As the following facts disclose, despite some rising pretenders to the throne, the tobacco industry may be the king of concealment and disinformation."

==========
Nicotine IS a drug. The tobacco companies' internal documents make it very clear that they SEE nicotine as a drug, and cigarettes as simply a delivery system for that drug. Moreover, they also regard their true product as ADDICTION to nicotine and the servicing of that addiction once established.

Yes, indeed, there should have been significant prison time.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#404 May 31, 2012
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm, you were going on about the level of toxins from second hand smoke and I provided a solution for you which was to stay away from SHS altogether. That sure didn't seem "unrelated to the post".
No, I was not. You created that fantasy world in order to delude yourself into thinking your comment had some connection and/or continuity.
I was addressing the claim that ETS left no discernible trace in the human body. There are multiple tests that can show exposure at differing levels of sensitivity. The closest I came to saying anything like what you proclaim that I was "going on about" was my mention that some of the substances often tested for are a group of carcinogens that so far found nowhere else BUT in tobacco products and/or smoke. At that, I was identifying the nature of the substance tested for, and not saying anything about what it does to me.

My personally avoiding SHS (which requires that there be a predictably clear path between where I am and where I want to be, as well as clear places at each end of each journey--which will require significantly more regulation than is presently in place) has absolutely nothing to do with the measurability of markers for SHS exposure.

Those tests will continue to be valid even if I never encounter another smoker. Your "solution" has nothing to do with the discussion where you jumped in with it. Your entire premise is insupportable.
Of course, that comes as no surprise to anyone who has noticed your content in the past.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#405 May 31, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
xxxrayted, you don't know what you're talking about with this smoking thing. The nanny-state government will not expand because of our smoking ban or any other nanny-state initiative going on against smokers right now. You are wrong. The nanny-state government will stop right here now that we have a smoking ban:
NYC soda ban could another blow for drink makers
By CANDICE CHOI
NEW YORK
Is the Big Gulp to blame for obesity in the Big Apple? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks so.
But Bloomberg's proposal Thursday that the city ban restaurants, delis and movie theaters from serving large cups of sodas and other sugary drinks is a bitter twist for companies that make beverages like Coke, Dr Pepper and Pepsi. The ban, which would be the first of its kind in the nation, comes at a time when soda consumption has been declining.
The industry has struggled in recent years as more health-conscious Americans have shifted away from sugary sodas toward bottled water and sports drinks like Gatorade. That's led to a 20 percent reduction in the calories consumed per capita through carbonated beverages over the last decade, according industry tracker Beverage Digest. Under Bloomberg's proposed ban, soda consumption could slip further.
The ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on any sugary bottled or fountain drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not affect diet soda and any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempt. The proposal requires the approval of the city's Board of Health -- considered likely because its members are all appointed by Bloomberg.
It's difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of the proposed ban because there's no breakdown of what percentage of drinks sold are over the proposed the size limit or how consumers and retailers would adjust if the ban were in place.
But Mark Kalinowski, an analyst with Janney Capital Markets who covers companies including McDonald's, said that sodas carry high margins for beverage companies. Any successful effort by the government to ban large drinks, he said, would be bad for the industry.
Kalinowski said he doesn't think the ban will pass. But he joked that if it did, customers would revolt.
"Folks who want to buy Big Gulps and Frappuccinos, a lot of those customers, you're only going to be able to take it away from them by prying it out of their cold, dead hands," he said. "What are you going to do? Post a guard making sure that no patrons order no more than two or more beverages? Maybe the mayor can outlaw all soft drinks and outlaw all fun while he's at it."
PepsiCo Inc., the nation's second largest soda maker, declined to comment on the proposal, referring questions to the New York City Beverage Association. But Coca-Cola Co., the largest U.S. soda maker, on Thursday blasted the move.
"The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes," the Atlanta-based company said in a statement. "New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate."
This certainly is not the first time the industry has had to defend itself from those blaming sodas for America's expanding waistline.
In announcing the proposal, Bloomberg's office said the single largest driver of rising obesity rates is sugary drinks, which have grown in size over the years. The mayor's office noted that the size of a large drink at fast food chains has doubled to 64 ounces. The Center for Science in the Public Interest said sugary soft drinks are "nutritionally worthless products" in applauding the proposal.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9V3UF...
Nah, that could never happen in the state of Ohio.
Let us know when it becomes law and doesn't die as a bill like the Salt ban all the slippery slope chicken littles were crying about.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#406 Jun 1, 2012
BluesCat1980 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not as easy as just staying away from second hand smoke. For instance, here where I live, people smoke in their apartments. I live on the 5th floor, and the guy below me smokes all the time. When the smoke rises, it's got nowhere to go but into my apartment. This building was not built with very good ventilation, so no matte what I do, I can get rid if the smoke. In fact one day I was sitting watching TV and the sun was coming through my window, and I could literally see the smoke floating in my apartment because of the sun rays.
It gets so bad that at night I can't even sleep sometimes because I'm gagging and cough with my watering like crazy. And the Housing Authority told me there's nothing they can do about it, because he has the right to smoke in his apartment. At the same time, I'm being exposed to dangerous chemicals in that smoke. I can't move, because I've got no other place to live.
So again as I posted, why am I having to suffer because this guy below me has a nasty habit of smoking? It's fair to him, because he can keep on and on while I have all this issues, not to mention my apartment smells like a friend cigarette factory.
I've had to move out of a 1st-floor apartment because of the smoke from others living on the floor (and from their visitors). I can absolutely empathize with your plight.
HUD is making an effort to help people with that by encouraging housing authorities to provide smoke-free housing. As I recall, providing such housing is one of the criteria HUD now uses in determining where grant money goes.
Here is the URL for an Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights page on smoke-free housing. There are links to a variety of sources.
http://no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php...

I spent months homeless because I tried to find smoke-free housing after moving out of that one place. I finally gave up, and my current apartment isn't as bad but could be if more smokers move onto the hall.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#407 Jun 1, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>Not intending to be mean BUT only direct & clear & plain....IF you can't live there ...you need to move at the end of your lease. I do NOT accept that you can NOT move. That's whining B.S.
I am sympathetic that you are being violated so to speak get an air filter, a mask a fan, a new home or something but the problem is YOURS. YOU solve it without limiting someone elses legal rights...whimp. Do you have a crying towel? Use it.
For not intending to be mean, you seem to be willing to be pretty mean. You also are stepping into territory that you apparently know little to nothing about.
I don't know the specifics of the housing program involved, but I do know that those who really can't afford housing in today's economic reality (and there ARE such in the US--don't let all the BS and PR about helping people in other countries fool you on that one) without the help of a government program have few options. If you add to the general list of problems an inability to remain healthy enough to find/fulfill employment because of something like inescapable clouds of tobacco smoke in your home, it becomes that much tougher.
It's a "catch 22" situation. If the smoke weren't causing such disruption, then perhaps he/she could get it together to be able to move somewhere else--but if the smoke weren't causing such disruption, maybe he/she would be happy where he/she is. Too, but for the chronic debility caused by the smoke, he/she might actually be able to find a way off the housing program.
It isn't as cut and dried as you want it to be.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#408 Jun 1, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, the tired old "the government" trope. PEOPLE voting is not 'the government'. It's 'the PEOPLE'. Do you also think that 'the government' elected our President?
Is 'the government' opposing health care in Ohio? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/08/ohio...
Let me guess, when the vote is something YOU support, it's a grass-roots mandate from the people. When the vote is something you oppose, it's "the government".
Sure, why who could have missed the massive demonstrations in NYC demanding the removal of large size soda's...eh?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/big-soda-ban-...

You are a Nanny State "useful idiot".
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#409 Jun 1, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was not. You created that fantasy world in order to delude yourself into thinking your comment had some connection and/or continuity.
I was addressing the claim that ETS left no discernible trace in the human body. There are multiple tests that can show exposure at differing levels of sensitivity. The closest I came to saying anything like what you proclaim that I was "going on about" was my mention that some of the substances often tested for are a group of carcinogens that so far found nowhere else BUT in tobacco products and/or smoke. At that, I was identifying the nature of the substance tested for, and not saying anything about what it does to me.
My personally avoiding SHS (which requires that there be a predictably clear path between where I am and where I want to be, as well as clear places at each end of each journey--which will require significantly more regulation than is presently in place) has absolutely nothing to do with the measurability of markers for SHS exposure.
Those tests will continue to be valid even if I never encounter another smoker. Your "solution" has nothing to do with the discussion where you jumped in with it. Your entire premise is insupportable.
Of course, that comes as no surprise to anyone who has noticed your content in the past.
Since the smoke generated from grilling is known to be highly carcinogenic...surely you support this lawsuit....right?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2010/1...

Prestigious law firm sues burger joint over smell
By: Emily Babay
Examiner Staff Writer
October 14, 2010

Pedestrians read a note posted in the window at Rogue States, a burger joint on Connecticut Avenue Northwest, after the restaurant was ordered to close by a judge because the nearby Steptoe & Johnson law firm complained about the smell.(Andrew Harnik/Examiner)

It's a classic David and Goliath story: A white-shoe law firm staffed with hundreds of D.C.'s most-powerful lawyers has moved to shutter a hamburger eatery on the grounds that the lawyers didn't like the aroma of cooking meat wafting into their offices.

So far, Goliath is winning.

D.C. Superior Court Judge John Mott ordered the restaurant, Rogue States on Connecticut Avenue near Dupont Circle, to shut down its grill this week. Neighboring law firm Steptoe & Johnson had sued the restaurant, saying the firm's employees suffered nausea, watery eyes and headaches from Rogue States' fumes.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#410 Jun 1, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
For not intending to be mean, you seem to be willing to be pretty mean. You also are stepping into territory that you apparently know little to nothing about.
I don't know the specifics of the housing program involved, but I do know that those who really can't afford housing in today's economic reality (and there ARE such in the US--don't let all the BS and PR about helping people in other countries fool you on that one) without the help of a government program have few options. If you add to the general list of problems an inability to remain healthy enough to find/fulfill employment because of something like inescapable clouds of tobacco smoke in your home, it becomes that much tougher.
It's a "catch 22" situation. If the smoke weren't causing such disruption, then perhaps he/she could get it together to be able to move somewhere else--but if the smoke weren't causing such disruption, maybe he/she would be happy where he/she is. Too, but for the chronic debility caused by the smoke, he/she might actually be able to find a way off the housing program.
It isn't as cut and dried as you want it to be.
This seems pretty "cut and dried"...eh?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bloodless...

Bloodless coup as Indian vegetarians flex muscle

Once Jain and Marwari families move into a neighbourhood, they tend to take control of the housing society and exclude meat-eating tenants.

"I don't want the smell of meat from a neighbour's kitchen to come through my window," said Gita Parmar, a Jain housewife in Malabar Hills. "I live in a vegetarian housing complex because I want to be with like-minded people."

Shopkeeper Bhavesh Shah, a Jain, who lives in a vegetarian block in Breach Candy, said: "Our housing society asks new tenants to sign a declaration. If they're found cooking meat, they're thrown out."
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#411 Jun 1, 2012
pops wrote:
Not intending to be mean BUT only direct & clear & plain....IF you can't live there ...you need to move at the end of your lease. I do NOT accept that you can NOT move. That's whining B.S.
I am sympathetic that you are being violated so to speak get an air filter, a mask a fan, a new home or something but the problem is YOURS. YOU solve it without limiting someone elses legal rights...whimp. Do you have a crying towel? Use it.
Pops, Not intending to be mean BUT only direct & clear & plain....IF you can't live with a smoking ban ...you need to move somewhere that doesn't have one. I do NOT accept that you can NOT move. That's whining B.S.
I am sympathetic that you pretend that are being violated even when you aren't. Get a new home or something but the problem is YOURS. YOU solve it without limiting someone elses legal rights...whimp. Do you have a crying towel? Use it.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#412 Jun 1, 2012
Freedom wrote:
Sure, why who could have missed the massive demonstrations in NYC demanding the removal of large size soda's...eh?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/big-soda-ban-...
You are a Nanny State "useful idiot".
My God, are you finally able to grasp something? That there is a difference between "the Government" and "the People"? Did something finally get through to that selfish little pea brain of yours?

Now back to your whining and your cut-and-paste amateur 'arguments' that have been defeated a dozen times already. Blah, Blah, meat smoke (even though grills are required to be vented), blah, blah, car exhaust (even though you can't run a car in a bar), blah, blah..
You still lose.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#413 Jun 1, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
I am sympathetic that you pretend that are being violated even when you aren't. Get a new home or something but the problem is YOURS. YOU solve it without limiting someone elses legal rights...whimp. Do you have a crying towel? Use it.
By golly, you just destroyed your own kinds strawman! LOL

If you actually believed in the right to freedom of association, you would not seek the right to use "force" while demanding every place and every one cater to your kinds selfish desires.

A truly tolerant person respects the fact that not everyone will see life their way, and if they don't like the owners rules...by golly they simply use their right to associate with whom they please.

What is it about this most basic of rights that confuses you leftists?

Oh...that's right...leftists hate the right to freedom of association as they must force all to bend to their selfish will....even on land they have no right to be on in the first place.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#414 Jun 1, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>My God, are you finally able to grasp something? That there is a difference between "the Government" and "the People"? Did something finally get through to that selfish little pea brain of yours?
Do you ever grow tired of making a fool of yourself? I just proved that Big Brother has no interest in what the people actually want you left wing fool.

Then again I'm sure you will claim that the folks in NY are demanding Big Brother limit the amount of soda they can purchase...

*rolls eyes*

The reality of the matter is you leftists simply use the power of the treasury to buy votes, and those who are on the take are willing to vote for your kind because if they do not...their "free stuff" would be in jeopardy.

Without your kinds ability to "buy votes" with "free stuff", your kind could not win a position as the local dog catcher.
Frisbee wrote:
Now back to your whining and your cut-and-paste amateur 'arguments' that have been defeated a dozen times already. Blah, Blah, meat smoke (even though grills are required to be vented), blah, blah, car exhaust (even though you can't run a car in a bar), blah, blah..
You still lose.
Defeated? LMAO. You could not use logic to fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

Your shear hypocrisy and double standards are simply too easy to expose.

You and your ilk simply wish to apply one standard to something you hate, while you apply a completely different standard to something you enjoy or find useful.

Allow me to prove this fact once again....

Now...just what other forms of smoke are regulated with the preposterous standard of their being "no safe level"?

How about a list of the top ten?

If you can't provide the casual reader with such a list,(and you obviously can't) it will simply prove once again that your entire postition is nothing but a complete joke.

Now...what does it feel like to get your butt kicked (pun intended) by a "stupid" smoker? LOL
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#415 Jun 1, 2012
Freedom wrote:
What is it about this most basic of rights that confuses you leftists?
The Freedom of Movement and right to not be poisoned..... Yeah, that's really confusing.
Freedom wrote:
Allow me to prove this fact once again....
Now...just what other forms of smoke are regulated with the preposterous standard of their being "no safe level"?
How about a list of the top ten?
Yawn. You've never proven anything besides the fact that you're delusional. We've been through this already. Pretending you didn't lose and repeating the same tired bullshit over and over again doesn't change the fact that you lost. Get over it.

Blah, blah, "No safe Level", Blah, blah, "the grill makes smoke", waaah whaaah, "big Brother!", Boo hoo, "useful idiots",......... You're a broken record of failure.

Go ahead and let us know when you get a ban overturned, chump. Till then, you're whining is mere comedy.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#416 Jun 1, 2012
Freedom wrote:
Now...just what other forms of smoke are regulated with the preposterous standard of their being "no safe level"?
How about a list of the top ten?
What's the safe level of smoke from burning a tire in a bar, again? You've been spinning like a top for years, but STILL no answer. Or the safe level of smoke from burning car batteries in a bar? Go ahead and tell us what the safe level is. If you can't then there must be no safe level.
That's why you lose. You're wrong.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#417 Jun 1, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
The Freedom of Movement and right to not be poisoned..... Yeah, that's really confusing.
Nobody is telling you where you can and can't go you buffoon, you simply didn't like your choices so you like all of the left wing control freaks who came before you have done...you seek the right to "force" all to bend to your will all in the name of the collective.

Oh, and using your ridiculous definition of "poisoning" you and your ilk are killing the poor cooks who are "forced" to grill your burger.

MURDERER! LOL

See how silly you look when the tables are turned on you?

*huge grin*

Property rights and individual liberty are simply not part of your kinds evil plans.

You seem to think your kind is somehow something new, but in reality history books are littered with your kind.

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."
(National Socialists head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)
Frisbee wrote:
Yawn. You've never proven anything besides the fact that you're delusional. We've been through this already.


Only in your dreams, and yes we've been through this. and each and every time you expose yourself for the left wing control freak failure that you are.
Frisbee wrote:
Pretending you didn't lose and repeating the same tired bullshit over and over again doesn't change the fact that you lost. Get over it.
Look you nut, your kinds left wing policies have brought pretty much the entire planet to it's knees. You and your ilk have stompled on the constitution as you place our children into perpetual debt.

Your kinds days are numbered...so enjoy this insanity while you still can.
Frisbee wrote:
Blah, blah, "No safe Level", Blah, blah, "the grill makes smoke", waaah whaaah, "big Brother!", Boo hoo, "useful idiots",......... You're a broken record of failure.
Take a good look around you lefty, and take note of the fact that the corrupted system you praise in going up in flames.

The only failure here is the worn out principles you base your twisted belief system on.
Frisbee wrote:
Go ahead and let us know when you get a ban overturned, chump. Till then, you're whining is mere comedy.
Oh, this too shall pass you useful idiot, and at the same time we will do away with your kinds beloved Fascistic TSA, and all of the other unconstitutional insanity your kind heaped upon a once free nation.

Tell us..can you name even so much as one smoking ban that has stood the test of time?

Perhaps you will tell us...just what happened to old Adolph's beloved smoking ban after the fall of Germany in 1945?

Hhhhhmmmmm.

History knows your kind.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#418 Jun 1, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the safe level of smoke from burning a tire in a bar, again? You've been spinning like a top for years, but STILL no answer. Or the safe level of smoke from burning car batteries in a bar? Go ahead and tell us what the safe level is. If you can't then there must be no safe level.
That's why you lose. You're wrong.
Just to once again make a complete fool of you...here is where your stupidity was once again destroyed...or did you forget about this exchange?

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TC2...

God...you really are a dishonest idiot.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#419 Jun 1, 2012
Exactly where do they serve drinks to the public inside of a lead smelter? Oh that's right, they don't Are we talking about a smoking ban inside of a lead smelter? Oh, that's right, it's a ban inside of bars. Feel free to post that safe level of battery and burning tire smoke it is OK to expose the public to in a bar.

Keep spinning, little man....
No name you call me and no amount of moronic drivel you spew will change a thing. YOU LOSE.

Keep us posted when the bans are overturned. Until then, blame every problem in the world on "my kind". You're perfectly free to make as much of a fool of yourself as you wish. Me? I'll be down at the smoke free pub.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#421 Jun 1, 2012
Freedom wrote:
Perhaps you will tell us...just what happened to old Adolph's beloved smoking ban after the fall of Germany in 1945?
Hhhhhmmmmm.
History knows your kind.
Smoke some more cigarettes. Someone needs to tell Linda that the Ohio Ban got upheld and that y'all lost AGAIN.

Doctors know your kind. They call them "stupid".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should the U.S. Do More to Address the Ebola Ou... 9 min Jogoma 136
Hospital board approves software upgrade 11 min literate 1
Depression and dementia in older adults increas... 15 min HumanSpirit 3
Dedicated Transgender Hotline Aims To Stem Epid... 30 min Dave 1
Spike in women dying of liver disease in St Helens 1 hr dirtclaud 1
Another study finds vaccines don't cause autism 1 hr Sangelia 15
Texting may cause neck and spine injury 3 hr Dr Sum Ting Wong DC 14
Flu vaccine less effective against mutant strain 3 hr MERCK MAIMS KILLS 1
Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 19 hr Mikaylalouise 5,990
Houses should be checked for radon gas, can cau... Mon Gloria Linnertz 1
Esophagus Spasm - How my mom STOPS her Esophage... (May '12) Sun Gratefullness 141
Flu season off to a slow start ... for now Sun VACCINES MAIM KILL 1

Health People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE