Where are all the angry antis?

BleuJei wrote:

(((HUGS)))

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

>>goose<<

I dare you to smell your finger.

ur so teh gehy wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I dare you to smell your finger.

I dare you to pull my finger.

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

I dare you to pull my finger.

Now that I know where it's been? No thanks.

ur so teh gehy wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that I know where it's been? No thanks.

Why it's been flippin' y'all off all along...LMAO@U.

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Yup telling the truth??? From your home town.
A Kentucky Restaurant Association poll found that 70% of the members responding to the survey were opposed to a government imposed smoking ban. 24% favored a ban, while 6% favored a state or national ban. Link to story.
Louisville A Bluegrass Poll conducted for The Courier-Journal indicated that 54% of local residents are opposed to a mandatory smoking ban for local restaurants and taverns. Only 36% believed local government should have the authority to decide whether businesses should allow smoking.
http://www.fightthesmokingban.com/surveys.htm

I just talked from someone from the Louisville area and the ban isn't going to good. There is smoking, sandy lies.
She said on one of the threads that the tax revenue had increased, bull, state tax reports are always 6 months behind, So, she said they have the ban for 7 months, they won't have the report on that period of time until about December...she is a real frigging nut case and a liar

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>
I just talked from someone from the Louisville area and the ban isn't going to good. There is smoking, sandy lies.
She said on one of the threads that the tax revenue had increased, bull, state tax reports are always 6 months behind, So, she said they have the ban for 7 months, they won't have the report on that period of time until about December...she is a real frigging nut case and a liar

Big shock? Typical anti!

I'm not bitching about gas prices! In fact I hope they go way up. As long as nonsmokers pay the same I have no problem with it. LMAO

sandy63 wrote:

One more thing before i go and enjoy my day.The bans are all about health not about hatred.Now get a life and bitch about something important like maybe GAS PRICES,LOL.Smokers and their damn whining.

ur so teh gehy wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I dare you to smell your finger.

THAT was uncalled for.........

BleuJei wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT was uncalled for.........

Sure was, but consider the source.

Hope y'all had a good holiday sweetie.

Hugs

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
Since MEN in Taiwan smoke at a very high rate (55-60%), and Taiwan does not have the smoking bans protecting people like we do, much of the lung cancer could be attributed to exposure to SHS. It should also be noted that only 2-3% of women in Taiwan smoke, yet that 2-3% accounts for about 10% of the lung cancers.

Smoking rates in Taiwan from:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/ful...

Smoking ban information in Taiwan from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_bans_by_...

How are you drawing the conclusion that SHS must be responsible for the massive increase in lung cancer among non-smoking Taiwanese women?

If ~25-fold more Taiwanese men smoke vs women, but the male/female lung cancer risk is 2:1, then the RR for lung cancer among Taiwanese women is 12.5x higher than would normally be expected. Virtually every study of lung cancer risk in people with a lifetime of exposure to SHS shows a RR of ~1.25. The Taiwan numbers are ten times that. Dismissing those numbers as "could be attributed to exposure to SHS" just reveals an agenda, rather than an attempt to find out what's different there.

Also, your russian roulette example was flawed. Sure, using a 5-round chamber vs a 6-round chamber leads to a 20% increase in RR, but that's with a 100% chance of getting the result. There are approximately 240,000,000 non-smokers in the US, and 20,000 of them will die of lung cancer each year (1-in-120,000 risk). The RR of 1.21 means that a non-smoker's chance of dying due to lung cancer after a lifetime of ETS exposure increases to 1.21-in-120,000. I'm sure you'll agree that this is not the same as using a 5-chamber vs 6-chamber pistol.

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

<quoted text>Why it's been flippin' y'all off all along...LMAO@U.

After it's been goosing BleuJei, of course.