Harry Potter is now Harry Puffer

“He was sparking up constantly”

The warning Smokers Die Younger doesnt seem to ring a bell with superstar Daniel Radcliffe who has been nicknamed Harry Puffer by his co-stars for puffing about 20 cigarettes a day. via AndhraNews

[amy]

its not true

[History Buff]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the economy dived with smoking bans and tax hikes as they spread? The mortgage crunch (loan problem) is actually at 30% of the mortgage problems (per a news report here).

If I may make a suggestion to those that are for the ban, I suggest you look at the state financials for states that do now have the bans.

The state financials usually run at six months behind and are on line. You are in for a shock with loss if you know how to read them. FURTHER, check with various government agencies for businesses that have gone bankrupt or closed after a ban was put into place.... I assume you will believe the state governments own figures for those states.

The bans KILL business, put people on food stamps, causes lost homes and a lot more as the decline in sales filters down to other businesses (example: band members, supply houses, distributors) and takes away from state revenues other than for just sales tax.

Those that want bans for their own 'likes' or 'dislikes' need to research where bans come from - that is WHO pays for them! Do you think they just happen magically out of no where and for free? Doesn't it seem odd that they are all the same with the legal language?

Bans are bought thru grants by big business with an agenda and they are not spending that amount of money to go broke! The industry that BUYS smoking bans also sells all the no-smoke products.... You will ALSO find that all the negative research concerning smoking for the last 30+ years has been paid for by the same foundation that 'buys' smoking bans. And, politicians LOVE bonus checks too!

Further: This country was built on Freedom. Each ban for anything is a step to kill it. For those that like to control others, may I suggest they move back to their ancestral homeland/s.

It has already been announced by the 'same' foundation that the 'Official Alcohol Ban' will begin now that many smoking venues are closed. What will be after that? Read thru what is known and you'll also be very worried about your medical records.

Think when you ready press reports. What study? Who funded it? What type of study? A meta-study? Propaganda is a weapon.

What & who is behind the bans, along with WHY.
Follow the page links.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com
http://www.forces.org

Free Choice, Free Enterprise and signs is a wonderful invention.
It is one thing still PARTLY left that was built in the USA.

[AnnaLynn]

History Buff wrote:

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the economy dived with smoking bans and tax hikes as they spread?

Actually, the economy dived with the rise in oil prices ($112/barrel, last I checked).

When oil prices go up, the cost of everything goes up. When your paycheck buys about 2/3 what it did, you cut back. One of the things you cut is entertainment spending.

[NCF]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the economy dived with the rise in oil prices ($112/barrel, last I checked).
When oil prices go up, the cost of everything goes up. When your paycheck buys about 2/3 what it did, you cut back. One of the things you cut is entertainment spending.

What does any of this have to do with Radcliffe's smoking?

Maybe you should find a thread where the discussion of oil prices is relevant.

[Sheri]

Note to Earth. Harry Potter is a FICTIONAL character, a wizard. Daniel Radcliffe is a real person who ceases being Harry Potter when he walks off stage. Perhaps parents of these children could explain to their children that neither Harry Potter nor Daniel Radcliffe are meant to be role models. That role is best reserved for fathers and mothers and real people in the children's lives. Don't rely on either a wizard or a person playing a wizard to perform that job for you.

[AnnaLynn]

NCF wrote:

<quoted text>What does any of this have to do with Radcliffe's smoking?
Maybe you should find a thread where the discussion of oil prices is relevant.

Tell History Buff.

[NCF]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell History Buff.

That post stands well enough as telling you both.
The phrase "any of this" works that way.

[AnnaLynn]

NCF wrote:

<quoted text>
That post stands well enough as telling you both.
The phrase "any of this" works that way.

But your whine was aimed only at me.

My post was directed solely to HB, who WAS derailing the thread into his little paranoid fantasy.

[NCF]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
But your whine was aimed only at me.
My post was directed solely to HB, who WAS derailing the thread into his little paranoid fantasy.

Just because I replied to yours, doesn't mean I was singling you out. Yours was the last one of that derailment. Would it make sense to post twice? Once for her, and once for you? Or one post that captures both?

For what it's worth, I think your point is more valid than hers, but neither is relevant to Radcliffe's newly-revealed smoking habit.

[AnnaLynn]

NCF wrote:

...one post that captures both?

See, now you're thinking.

[Kelly]

He's prolly Harry Pothead.....lol

[AnnaLynn]

It is a shame. Starting this young (how old is he, actually?) will make it very hard for him to stop later.

[Sheri]

AnnaLynn wrote:

It is a shame. Starting this young (how old is he, actually?) will make it very hard for him to stop later.

He is 18, and I believe that constitutes adult status. Should you wish to change the legal age to purchase tobacco to 21, then make sure you also make 21 the age for going to war, being held responsible for legal and financial obligations, etc.

[AnnaLynn]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
He is 18, and I believe that constitutes adult status. Should you wish to change the legal age to purchase tobacco to 21, then make sure you also make 21 the age for going to war, being held responsible for legal and financial obligations, etc.

Sheri, PLEASE read. What I said was that starting so young will make it hard for him to quit. Would you like to address that point?

[Sheri]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Sheri, PLEASE read. What I said was that starting so young will make it hard for him to quit. Would you like to address that point?

I am reading. The guy is 18 and an adult. Period. Many young adults participate in a variety of dangerous lifestyles, including smoking, drugging, careless sex, etc. Most of them go on to become perfectly rational and productive older adults and forgo the folly of their youth. I bet you indulged in something risky when you were a young adult. Most of us do. Those who did not sometimes go on to a middle aged crisis where they look foolish and act silly trying to recover those lost opportunities to be a wild child at the appropriate time. 18 is, I believe, a perfectly legitimate time for letting loose. If you want to go further with poor HP, I have read that he also indulges in an illicit affair, starting before his 18th birthday, with a much older woman.

[AnnaLynn]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I am reading. The guy is 18 and an adult. Period. Many young adults participate in a variety of dangerous lifestyles, including smoking, drugging, careless sex, etc. Most of them go on to become perfectly rational and productive older adults and forgo the folly of their youth. I bet you indulged in something risky when you were a young adult. Most of us do. Those who did not sometimes go on to a middle aged crisis where they look foolish and act silly trying to recover those lost opportunities to be a wild child at the appropriate time. 18 is, I believe, a perfectly legitimate time for letting loose. If you want to go further with poor HP, I have read that he also indulges in an illicit affair, starting before his 18th birthday, with a much older woman.

You still havent' addressed the point.

Do you not think starting young will make it harder to quit later?

It's perfectly acceptable to say "Yes it will--but only IF he decides to quit." You are perfectly welcome to defend his right to smoke until he dies, for that matter, but if you quote my post, you should actually ADDRESS my post.

[Sheri]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
You still havent' addressed the point.
Do you not think starting young will make it harder to quit later?
It's perfectly acceptable to say "Yes it will--but only IF he decides to quit." You are perfectly welcome to defend his right to smoke until he dies, for that matter, but if you quote my post, you should actually ADDRESS my post.

No, I do not think that starting as an adult at age 18 will make it either easier or harder to quit smoking should he choose to stop. Perhaps, at 18, I liked to chug some beer. It was not hard to stop doing that a couple of years later, although it was REALLY a lot of fun at the time. Lots of people smoke in college and never smoke again after they graduate. Lots of other people smoke until they get married or have children. Not everyone who smokes at 18 will still be smoking at 40. In fact, most will not.

[its about time]

NCF wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because I replied to yours, doesn't mean I was singling you out. Yours was the last one of that derailment. Would it make sense to post twice? Once for her, and once for you? Or one post that captures both?
For what it's worth, I think your point is more valid than hers, but neither is relevant to Radcliffe's newly-revealed smoking habit.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but do the folks you hang out with endure your condescension or do you spend most of your time alone??

[AnnaLynn]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I do not think that starting as an adult at age 18 will make it either easier or harder to quit smoking should he choose to stop. Perhaps, at 18, I liked to chug some beer. It was not hard to stop doing that a couple of years later, although it was REALLY a lot of fun at the time. Lots of people smoke in college and never smoke again after they graduate. Lots of other people smoke until they get married or have children. Not everyone who smokes at 18 will still be smoking at 40. In fact, most will not.

See, was that so hard?

[Sheri]

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
See, was that so hard?

Your attempt to patronize me is wasted.