Some smokers put off by cigarette war...

Some smokers put off by cigarette warning labels | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 101 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Jun 23, 2011, titled Some smokers put off by cigarette warning labels | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

Joanna Hicks of Columbus smokes while texting during her break from her job in Downtown.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

Wilson

Columbus, OH

#41 Jun 23, 2011
“Some smokers say they feel as if they are under attack.” writes Molly Gray. Says Erik Bell, "Drinkers aren't being attacked in the same way smokers are."

Many of the 78% of us who are non-smokers feel as if we are under attack every day. Drinkers don’t affect non-drinkers as insidiously and incessantly as smokers do non-smokers. Yes, there are drunks acting stupid and drunk drivers, and that’s awful enough. But they aren’t in your face all the time everywhere.

Smokers, on the other hand, gather around doors, RIGHT IN FRONT of the doors, that the other 78% of us have to walk through. They don’t seem to care about where their smoke goes or the utter imposition they create. When they’re done, they throw their butts on the ground, even if there is a receptacle five feet away. They litter roads and sidewalks everywhere with butts. It seems they are incapable of making a conscientious choice to just keep it to themselves, to be discreet and courteous and neat. And if confronted, they become belligerently defiant.

The result is that they draw a lot of negative attention to themselves. They are a problem that won’t solve itself. They can’t be polite and reasonable, so legislation is passed to force them to be considerate. Even then, they break the law and smoke where they aren’t supposed to.(How far are you supposed to be from a building entrance when you’re smoking?) If they could somehow just incorporate into their culture and mindset the tendency to give a crap how they might make someone else feel, maybe there wouldn’t be so much pressure on them.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#42 Jun 23, 2011
The FDA has simply been over run by a bunch of self righteous left wing do gooders who have ZERO accountability to the people as they are not elected.

There may be a fringe minority within the general population that is calling for salt bans, milk bans, pictures of diseases on packaging...ect...but there are very few actual legislators who would back such insanity as they know the people would toss them out on their ear for proposing these overbearing regulations.

The legislative branch has no business forming rogue agencies that can pass anything they please simply by decree. This is why agencies such as the FDA should be disbanded. This is why agencies such as the TSA need to be disbanded as well as how many voters would actually vote to allow Big Brother to fondle their children and spouses with ZERO probable cause?

These rogue agencies are a danger to all liberty as they have no fear of being tossed out of office via an election. They have simply become agents for a left wing agenda that has ZERO respect for the balance of powers and ZERO respect for the constitution.

The founders would roll over in their graves if they could see what the legislative branch has handed to a bunch of unelected bureaucrates.

How many of you reading this thread would elect someone who thinks they have the right to legislate how much salt you are allowed to purchase in the foods you chose?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

"Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification."
--------

Wake up folks. If these unelected control freaks are not put in their place...they will only become bolder.

Forget the "slippery slope"...as this is a cliff we are all being pushed over.

Here's a few quotes from old Adolph's Youth Manual...

"Food is not a private matter!"

"It is your duty to be healthy!"

"Your body belongs to the nation!"

Now here's what the founders had to say in contrast...

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Thomas Jefferson

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

Enough...is enough.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#43 Jun 23, 2011
Wilson wrote:
“Some smokers say they feel as if they are under attack.” writes Molly Gray. Says Erik Bell, "Drinkers aren't being attacked in the same way smokers are."
Many of the 78% of us who are non-smokers feel as if we are under attack every day. Drinkers don’t affect non-drinkers as insidiously and incessantly as smokers do non-smokers. Yes, there are drunks acting stupid and drunk drivers, and that’s awful enough. But they aren’t in your face all the time everywhere.
Smokers, on the other hand, gather around doors, RIGHT IN FRONT of the doors, that the other 78% of us have to walk through. They don’t seem to care about where their smoke goes or the utter imposition they create. When they’re done, they throw their butts on the ground, even if there is a receptacle five feet away. They litter roads and sidewalks everywhere with butts. It seems they are incapable of making a conscientious choice to just keep it to themselves, to be discreet and courteous and neat. And if confronted, they become belligerently defiant.
The result is that they draw a lot of negative attention to themselves. They are a problem that won’t solve itself. They can’t be polite and reasonable, so legislation is passed to force them to be considerate. Even then, they break the law and smoke where they aren’t supposed to.(How far are you supposed to be from a building entrance when you’re smoking?) If they could somehow just incorporate into their culture and mindset the tendency to give a crap how they might make someone else feel, maybe there wouldn’t be so much pressure on them.
The fanatical Vegans say the exact same things about the "meat addicts".

Does this sound familiar to you?

Just look at all the litter those meat heads cause with their discarded meat wrappers and those disgusing styrofoam comtainers that are infested with the stench of rotting flesh.

Why...one can not even go to a festival without the filthy stench of burning flesh wafting through the air in thick clouds.

Meat smoke is known to be carcinogenic. In fact the EPA lists it in the same class as tobacco smoke...so what on earth gives the meat addicts the right to poison the Vegans with their toxic plumes?

The meat heads have no desire for "smoke free air" as they single out the one form they can not stand...while they apply a different standard to the forms you enjoy or find useful.

They die of colon and other cancers in droves...and yet they simply refuse to give up with "addiction".

Hhhhhmmm.

There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
Wilson

Columbus, OH

#44 Jun 23, 2011
Talk about self-righteous. You call yourself "Freedom". How ironic. What about my freedom, and the freedom of the 78% of us who don't smoke? I didn't say don't smoke, or smoking should be outlawed, or anything about morality, and I don't care how it affects your health. I suggested that you be a little more considerate with it, and that your tendency to NOT be courteous is probably the biggest cause of all the negative attention you get. That's all. And you are case-in-point that when confronted, a smoker becomes defiant and belligerent. I forgot to mention irrational. Thank you for being such a good example.
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
The fanatical Vegans say the exact same things about the "meat addicts".
Does this sound familiar to you?
Just look at all the litter those meat heads cause with their discarded meat wrappers and those disgusing styrofoam comtainers that are infested with the stench of rotting flesh.
Why...one can not even go to a festival without the filthy stench of burning flesh wafting through the air in thick clouds.
Meat smoke is known to be carcinogenic. In fact the EPA lists it in the same class as tobacco smoke...so what on earth gives the meat addicts the right to poison the Vegans with their toxic plumes?
The meat heads have no desire for "smoke free air" as they single out the one form they can not stand...while they apply a different standard to the forms you enjoy or find useful.
They die of colon and other cancers in droves...and yet they simply refuse to give up with "addiction".
Hhhhhmmm.
There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
Antagonist

Newark, OH

#45 Jun 23, 2011
I hate the smoke and being around smokers, some of them are bad to be around even when not smoking.
With that being said, I hate the fact we are turning into a Nanny State even worse.

Smokers would enjoy a lot more support from the rest of us if they would practice a little common courtesy concerning their habit.

Since: Mar 11

Columbus, OH

#47 Jun 23, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
The fanatical Vegans say the exact same things about the "meat addicts".
Does this sound familiar to you?
Just look at all the litter those meat heads cause with their discarded meat wrappers and those disgusing styrofoam comtainers that are infested with the stench of rotting flesh.
Why...one can not even go to a festival without the filthy stench of burning flesh wafting through the air in thick clouds.
Meat smoke is known to be carcinogenic. In fact the EPA lists it in the same class as tobacco smoke...so what on earth gives the meat addicts the right to poison the Vegans with their toxic plumes?
The meat heads have no desire for "smoke free air" as they single out the one form they can not stand...while they apply a different standard to the forms you enjoy or find useful.
They die of colon and other cancers in droves...and yet they simply refuse to give up with "addiction".
Hhhhhmmm.
There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
1. The vast majority (like 78%) of people aren't vegans.
2. How many people grill right outside of your office building? Hospitals?

Since: Jun 11

United States

#48 Jun 23, 2011
No matter what you think about smoking, I think we should all be very worried about "Big Brother" forcing stuff down our throats and making companies spend thousands to print stupid warnings on their merchandise.

No Duh - smoking is harmful. For God's sake - WE KNOW - so is alcohol, and speeding, and fatty foods.......... Get off our back government.

Since: Jun 11

United States

#49 Jun 23, 2011
Antagonist wrote:
I hate the smoke and being around smokers, some of them are bad to be around even when not smoking.
With that being said, I hate the fact we are turning into a Nanny State even worse.
Smokers would enjoy a lot more support from the rest of us if they would practice a little common courtesy concerning their habit.
When are you even around smoke anymore? They have to be 100 feet from the damn door. You would need to go out of your way to even get near them.

Since: Jun 11

United States

#50 Jun 23, 2011
Wilson wrote:
“Some smokers say they feel as if they are under attack.” writes Molly Gray. Says Erik Bell, "Drinkers aren't being attacked in the same way smokers are."
Many of the 78% of us who are non-smokers feel as if we are under attack every day. Drinkers don’t affect non-drinkers as insidiously and incessantly as smokers do non-smokers. Yes, there are drunks acting stupid and drunk drivers, and that’s awful enough. But they aren’t in your face all the time everywhere.
Smokers, on the other hand, gather around doors, RIGHT IN FRONT of the doors, that the other 78% of us have to walk through. They don’t seem to care about where their smoke goes or the utter imposition they create. When they’re done, they throw their butts on the ground, even if there is a receptacle five feet away. They litter roads and sidewalks everywhere with butts. It seems they are incapable of making a conscientious choice to just keep it to themselves, to be discreet and courteous and neat. And if confronted, they become belligerently defiant.
The result is that they draw a lot of negative attention to themselves. They are a problem that won’t solve itself. They can’t be polite and reasonable, so legislation is passed to force them to be considerate. Even then, they break the law and smoke where they aren’t supposed to.(How far are you supposed to be from a building entrance when you’re smoking?) If they could somehow just incorporate into their culture and mindset the tendency to give a crap how they might make someone else feel, maybe there wouldn’t be so much pressure on them.
Then say "Excuse me" and get over yourself.
Whatever

Grove City, OH

#51 Jun 23, 2011
Heywood wrote:
As long as I don't have to breathe in second hand smoke, I think smokers ought to be able to indulge. But I think that, considering all of the science proving how bad it is for you, yellowing teeth, the stink on your clothes, hair and skin from it, and the absolutely disgusting breath that smokers have, people would be smarter than that. According to the numbers, at least 22% of the population simply doesn't seem get it. And, I guess, that's their right.
Then it is also their right to pay for all of their own healthcare costs. I'm all for the right to do what you want.... as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights to not have to pay for your indulgences.

That's the point that so many smokers fail to see. It doesn't just impact them. It impacts all of us.
GRUNT

Chillicothe, OH

#52 Jun 23, 2011
I forgot to add the risk fo Alkaloid Nicotine Poisoning! If tobacco (Snuff included) is compressed in water, cooked down into a liquid, it is HIGHLY Poisonous. Just afew drops of the condensed liquid on the skin can bring on Death in just a few minutes. THIS IS HOW DANGEROUS NICOTINE IS! THINK ON IT!!!!! Check the Dictionary. THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN!
DMW

Zanesville, OH

#53 Jun 23, 2011
""As of July 1, the only people in Ohio who will be able to get help via the quit line will be pregnant women," Kiser said, referring to the toll-free 800-QUIT-NOW number (1-800-784-8669).

"Unless the legislature does something different, when these packs roll out and people call that number, there will be no one to answer the call and offer them help."

Robert Jennings, a spokesman for the Ohio Health Department, said that funding is still being negotiated and that the state will help as many people as it can.

"To say it will only be pregnant women is premature," he said. "But if we do have limited funding, priority will be for pregnant women and uninsured people.""

Where is all that tobacco settlement money?

Since: Jun 11

United States

#54 Jun 23, 2011
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it is also their right to pay for all of their own healthcare costs. I'm all for the right to do what you want.... as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights to not have to pay for your indulgences.
That's the point that so many smokers fail to see. It doesn't just impact them. It impacts all of us.
Yeah - I smoke and last time I checked, you have not paid a single penny towards my deductible, so....explain yourself better please?

Also, I am skinny, I eat healthy, I have great blood pressure and cholesterol......you?
Whatever

Grove City, OH

#55 Jun 23, 2011
Batser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah - I smoke and last time I checked, you have not paid a single penny towards my deductible, so....explain yourself better please?
Also, I am skinny, I eat healthy, I have great blood pressure and cholesterol......you?
I am skinny, work out, eat healthy, and have great blood pressure too. So congratulations to the both of us. Just understand that you are not the norm for smokers. You should also understand that just because you don't pay a single penny toward your deductible now doesn't mean that it will be that way all of your life.

I wish you continued health. But I'm not going to hold my breath. And the millions of smokers today, tomorrow, and in years past who developed cancer and a multitude of other diseases while leaving the non-smokers holding the bag are proof positive that your logic is severely flawed...
Freedom

Niles, MI

#56 Jun 23, 2011
latte thunder wrote:
1. The vast majority (like 78%) of people aren't vegans.
And just what on earth does that have to do with anything that even resembles some form of reasonably applied logic?

You seem to forget that our nation is supposed to be a constitutional REPUBLIC where minorities are protected from the majority.

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”
James Madison

"It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
James Madison

You might try doing a search for "tyranny of the majority" as it sounds as if you are not familiar with the term.

Your kind claims this is about the right to "smoke free air", and yet your kind actually has ZERO interest in such a thing.

Take your kinds beloved "smoke free" restaurants for example.

Do the cooks who are "forced" to cook your steaks have the right to "smoke free air"?

If they do...then how on earth do you justify the fact that your kinds "addiction" sends them home reeking of burned flesh?

So much for the workers right to "smoke free air"...eh?
latte thunder wrote:
2. How many people grill right outside of your office building? Hospitals?
My workplace is next to a fast food joint and when the wind blows in the right direction the smell of burgers is pretty constant.

Besides that...I thought this was supposed to be about a "smoke free workplace"?

The truth of the matter is your kind wishes to apply one standard to the one form of smoke you don't like...and another standard to all others.

Tell us...based on your knowledge of science...just what other forms of smoke qualify for the "magical" standard of "no safe level"?

Would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to a "special" one that you can't stand of find useful?

There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
Whatever

Grove City, OH

#57 Jun 23, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what on earth does that have to do with anything that even resembles some form of reasonably applied logic?
You seem to forget that our nation is supposed to be a constitutional REPUBLIC where minorities are protected from the majority.
“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”
James Madison
"It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
James Madison
You might try doing a search for "tyranny of the majority" as it sounds as if you are not familiar with the term.
Your kind claims this is about the right to "smoke free air", and yet your kind actually has ZERO interest in such a thing.
Take your kinds beloved "smoke free" restaurants for example.
Do the cooks who are "forced" to cook your steaks have the right to "smoke free air"?
If they do...then how on earth do you justify the fact that your kinds "addiction" sends them home reeking of burned flesh?
So much for the workers right to "smoke free air"...eh?
<quoted text>
My workplace is next to a fast food joint and when the wind blows in the right direction the smell of burgers is pretty constant.
Besides that...I thought this was supposed to be about a "smoke free workplace"?
The truth of the matter is your kind wishes to apply one standard to the one form of smoke you don't like...and another standard to all others.
Tell us...based on your knowledge of science...just what other forms of smoke qualify for the "magical" standard of "no safe level"?
Would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to a "special" one that you can't stand of find useful?
There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
You've made a decent, yet flawed argument. Your problem is that you are arguing absolutes. We don't need everything to be an absolute in order to enact legislation to ban those things that we consider "dangerous enough". In other words, although that smoke from the barbeque may potentially pose SOME health risks, it does not pose nearly the same risks as does cigarrette smoke.

You can't argue "because A poses a very small threat, it is still a threat and therefore should also be illegal just like B". It doesn't work that way...
Freedom

Niles, MI

#59 Jun 23, 2011
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You've made a decent, yet flawed argument. Your problem is that you are arguing absolutes. We don't need everything to be an absolute in order to enact legislation to ban those things that we consider "dangerous enough". In other words, although that smoke from the barbeque may potentially pose SOME health risks, it does not pose nearly the same risks as does cigarrette smoke.
You can't argue "because A poses a very small threat, it is still a threat and therefore should also be illegal just like B". It doesn't work that way...
Well I got some bad news for you...as your logic ignores reality.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3976126

Cass and his co-workers quantified 29 different sources of tiny organic particles in Los Angeles' air. In the April ES&T, they reported that meat smoke appears to account for more than one-fifth of these particles, substantially exceeding any other single source--including fireplaces, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, dust raised during road paving, forest fires, organic chemical processing, metallurgical processing, jet aircraft and cigarettes.
----------

By golly...the meat addicts are not only poisoning themselves...why they are the number one source of cancer causing fine particulate matter that "killing" everyone!

Not only that...did you also know the meat addicts are also the number one cause of (eehh heeeemmm) "global warming"?

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/C...

Should we be taxed for eating animals?

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found in 2006 that livestock production generates 18 percent of greenhouse gases worldwide — more than the entire transportation sector of cars, trucks, planes, and ships combined.

The U.N.'s 2006 report concluded that the meat industry is "one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," and that eating meat contributes to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

The University of Chicago found that switching to a vegan diet is 50 percent more effective at fighting global warming than trading in a standard car for a hybrid.
----------

There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#60 Jun 23, 2011
GRUNT wrote:
I forgot to add the risk fo Alkaloid Nicotine Poisoning! If tobacco (Snuff included) is compressed in water, cooked down into a liquid, it is HIGHLY Poisonous. Just afew drops of the condensed liquid on the skin can bring on Death in just a few minutes. THIS IS HOW DANGEROUS NICOTINE IS! THINK ON IT!!!!! Check the Dictionary. THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN!
Did you know meat smoke contains DIAZINON?

Check it our for yourself!

http://www.eng.fiu.edu/cee/ce/Air%20Pollution...
Pete the repeat parrot

Brooksville, FL

#61 Jun 23, 2011
Puff those butts and gulp down the booze ...

Puff those butts and gulp down the booze ...

Puff those butts and gulp down the booze ...

Puff those butts and gulp down the booze .......

&fe ature=related
Wilson

Columbus, OH

#62 Jun 23, 2011
You are either a troll or a paranoid idiot. I'm assuming the latter because your attitude is so typical of diehard, I-have-a-right smokers. You freak out at any suggestion that there is anything wrong with what you do, and start firing blanks into the air. Your addiction has obviously turned you into an irrational, blathering fool. I said nothing about any "safe level" nor of anyone's legal right to smoke in any particular place. I didn't profess any support of any particular law, nor approval or disapproval of any particular lifestyle or any of that.

I suggested simply that smokers' thoughtlessness and inconsideration is the inspiration behind the laws and social pressures that they feel are unjustified. If nobody noticed you smoking, nobody would care, and there wouldn't be laws and threats to your rights. Unfortunately, there is something about smoking that makes people like you believe that it's okay to smoke anywhere anytime and use the world as your ashtray. When it comes to litter laws, you apparently believe you are the exception, that they don't apply to you. You are incapable of conducting your habit in such a way that others wouldn't notice. You can't help yourselves, and you don't have a clue. It's sort of pathetic, really. If you didn't react so detestably, I'd probably feel sorry for you.

And now, thanks to your perpetual indiscretion, I'm now going to have to look at these disgusting new labels when you litter the ground with your empty cigarette packs. Thanks for that. You're a real freedom advocate, tiger.
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Earth to self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards...since I back no law that forces you to do anything...your accusation rings quite hollow.
You on the other hand seek laws that force even the rightful owner of the land to bend to your will on land you hold no title to.
The stench of your self righteousness has clearly rotted your pea size brain.
<quoted text>
Yes I do...because unlike yourself I believe in the right to freedom of association. Those like myself are more than willing to go where there are others who are like minded...where those like yourself selfishly demand every place and every one cater to your demands.
<quoted text>
Since the right to freedom of association protects you from any phobias that you obviously have...why not simply use this most basic of rights rather than acting like a spoiled 2 year old who demands everyone cater to their desires?
<quoted text>
You speak of courtesy and then you back Fascistic laws that force even the rightful owner of the land to cater to you on land you hold no title to.
Your kind demands every place and every one bend to your will... and you have the nerve to talk about courtesy.
Your actions and desires are nothing but narcissistic by nature.
<quoted text>
Oh brother...
Tell us...if you encountered an owner of a welding shop smoking in their private office, would you become belligerant by demanding they change their LEGAL lifestyle of choice on their own land...all to suit you?
Would you threaten them with the force of the law (violence), or would you act like a grown up real American by simply going where there are others who are like minded?
Now tell us...would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to a certain one that you can't stand or find useful?
The amount of absolute hypocrisy your kind is capable of is beyond comprehension.

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Centerfold gentelmans club 2 min Bigdaddy 4
The Andersons are closing 8 min Big Johnson 8
White Nationalists losing faith in Trump 11 min d pants 16
The writings on the wall 14 min every troll here ... 9
Rock On Trump! Walmart Adding 10,000 Jobs as Tr... 14 min God Bless Trump 1
Fly our flags at half-mast, Ohio! 22 min Big Johnson 2
What Do You Think of Donald Trump Now? 32 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 205
Trump plans to Remove WH Press Corps, hide TRUTH 54 min jonjedi 82
News Ohioans to hold own version of Washington women... 4 hr Reality Speaks 85
Does anyone know why Yolanda Harris is leaving ... 4 hr Not fooling me 81

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages