New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

[Non-Cas Fan]

Harley-Honey wrote:

<quoted text>
OOps fond. Would not want to confuse you as adlibbing is not your strong point NCF.

If your poor spelling was a hindrance to my reading of your posts, we'd still be on page 3.

But that would make you a page three girl.

[Harley-Honey]

Another thing "here tiz", our doctors should be refusing treatment on those that are overweight. They cannot consciously help someone who does not help themselves. And people who smoke they should be denied treatment until they quit, after all it is defeating the purpose of treatment.

[Non-Cas Fan]

BTW, for those of you who cannot spot the straw man, let me show it to you.

Harley-Honey wrote:

<excerpted>This one person Non Cas Fan thinks there should be a long term study using real children in real time.<excerpted>

Never, anywhere, did I state that there needs to be a "long term study" using real children in real time.

Once that phrase "long term study" is injected into that, it becomes a straw man argument, a misrepresentation of my position.

I hope this helps you folks to understand what I mean by claiming that they're making a straw man out of my statement.

[Non-Cas Fan]

Harley-Honey wrote:

You are this 'straw man'(that is such a simpleton term), and like the straw man you need to get a brain. Pick one up when you are on vacation. And remember when they said they are handing out brains they are not saying trains, so don't wait for the next one.

That reminds me that I'll most likely be playing the train game "Ticket to Ride" with the in-laws. Thanks.

This concludes my postings for the day, and likely until July 21. I will try to catch up to you then.

[Killer Plants]

To Avoid your straw man defense I post your last reply.

Below is Non Cas Fan Reply
----------
To clarify my statement, you also need to reference your post, as noted above.
You were trying to claim "case closed" by using a study of adults in a bar who were more heavily exposed than what would be had in the Rees study, so it is NOT "case closed".
The only way to achieve a "case closed" on the effects of children exposed in a vehicle is to get some children that are already exposed in this manner and measure the effects on them. They are not exposed for greater than 5 minutes in a windows-open scenario, according to the Rees study. That is VERY short-term, for one thing.
Besides, I think it would be a stronger message to the smoking parents for them to see, with their own eyes, the measured effects that their smoking may have on their very own children. Why would you think that children of nonsmokers would need to be involved?
But that message to those parents is contingent on verifying whether there even *is* any measurable harm. Based on the studies I've read, a windows-down setting, especially with the vent on (not set to recirculate) is sufficient to reduce exposures.
If it turns out that there is only "harm" when the windows are closed, that needs to be the message. If there is "harm" under ALL window settings, then that needs to be the message, and it would be "case closed".
But you don't get to "case closed" by studying a situation that doesn't exist; you need to study the actual situation to get to that "case closed" point.
----------

Notice its posted completely.

You added alot in your answer to the last paragraph of the other post which I am sure we dont need to keep posting.
----------

You now clarify you want to use smokers kids.

You did not say anything about that in the other post.
----------

You never did address the Real Time part of that last paragraph.

What does real time mean?

----------

Why do you want a window open senerio. You insist that most people drive with their windows ddwn

Do you have proof of this?

----------

You asked me in an earlier post if I had noticed smokers. Yes Non Cas Fan I have. They drive with their windows up. Of course its logical being summer and the Air Conditioning runs better with the windows up.

Please explain to me why people would drive with their windows down on a hot day?

Please explain to me why people would drive with their window down on a rainy day?

Please explain to me why people wold drive with their window down on a cold winter day?
----------

I have seen smokers open their windows to throw cigarette butts out. It might be illegal. Its not the topic. They just roll the window back up after they toss it out.
----------

Your study would need kids that are not already exposed. You have been asked many times now.

Will you donate your children for this study?
----------

If they are harmed by this Tobacco smoke then you could measure how your study has harmed them with the windows up or down.
----------

Here is the problem with your study those children already exposed are exposed already.
----------

So what as you see you cant get any data that will work unless you do your study the way you worded it the first time. But at what cost to the children.
----------

[just candid]

I believe most areas require young children and all younger tots to be straped into a car seat for safty reasons. Most such little snots I've seen are straped in the rear seat in what appeares to be some type of stright jacket device. Any smoker enjoying their nicotine with windows open would endanger the little snots with ash and live embers. They could of course do as I've seen many smokers do, just crack their drivers window enought to chuck the butt out the window when they were done smoking it.

[Killer Plants]

Your right just candid. we have been debating this issue for sometime now. I never thought about how dangerous the ashes were to children from flying off the cigarette.

I dont see many smokers with those windows down unless they are tossing the butt.

[Harley-Honey]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
No, visiting the in-laws for a week.

I feel sorry for them. And who was asking?????? LOL! I don't care if you are going for some life saving operation.

[Harley-Honey]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
If your poor spelling was a hindrance to my reading of your posts, we'd still be on page 3.
But that would make you a page three girl.

Nothing wrong with my spelling, it is perfect, just like me. I have won many spelling b's, and teachers use to get me to help mark papers. So go blow that goat you like so much. You have a problem with reading and comprehension.The fact that you keep harping on it is a reflection of you. The fact that you cannot even comprehend these studies is proof of that.

[Aloxety]

Harley-Honey wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with my spelling, it is perfect, just like me. I have won many spelling b's, and teachers use to get me to help mark papers.

The blind leading the blind. http://www.topix.net/health/smoking/2008/04/n...

Harley-Honey wrote:

The fact that you cannot even comprehend these studies is proof of that.

The fact that you obviously refuse to even read these studies is proof of more than that.

[Harley-Honey]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

BTW, for those of you who cannot spot the straw man, let me show it to you.
<quoted text>
Never, anywhere, did I state that there needs to be a "long term study" using real children in real time.
Once that phrase "long term study" is injected into that, it becomes a straw man argument, a misrepresentation of my position.
I hope this helps you folks to understand what I mean by claiming that they're making a straw man out of my statement.

Lowlife liar. You did too.

[Harley-Honey]

Aloxety wrote:

<quoted text>
The blind leading the blind. http://www.topix.net/health/smoking/2008/04/n...
<quoted text>
The fact that you obviously refuse to even read these studies is proof of more than that.

I don't need to read studies to point out the obvious. You must be really stupid and of sheep mentality if you lead your life by what others say. Pitiful. How old are you?

[Killer Plants]

You know I was thinking about Non Cas Fan and his idea to test smokers kids for second hand exposure.

I am pretty sure that is what he was saying. Not a straw man since Iam not drawing a conclusion.

Ok if those kids are already exposed wouldnt they be unexceptable as canidates since how could you test them if they are already contaminated.

I dont think he can get any results from these children since they have already been exposed in other places other then that car.

Common sense..

Yernogood your ability to understand that Tobacco is bad for other people you are around when your smoking is pretty well known by now.

Your like that last Japanese soldier on that remote Island somewhere in the ocean still wanting to fight the fight long after the war is over. Its so sad.

Hey your so clever why dont you find a study that says SHS is good for you?

Come on you can do it. Its a challenge. ha ha your so funny.

Now go find that study? Ill read it.

[Harley-Honey]

Killer Plants get over the off topic. Anything to do with smoking is on topic. Whether it be about the kids or not. And going off topic is the norm. It is not illegal.
And this topic is dead. So more fun to make fun of the lame posters who can't seem to get it through their thick dumb heads. So waste of time really, they have been given studies from the beginning, they choose to ignore this, so that is their right to be ignorant and have their heads up their fat asses.

[Killer Plants]

My point if I have one on this is.

I really do think a challenge to Yernogood to find a study showing possitive effects of
Second Hand Smoke is kinda fun.

I think they can't. Its not possible. But let them try. Its a challenge. They love to knock all those studies I have posted. But they have nothing to back up their own insane claims that it does no damage at all.

I have this picture in my mind of this guy siting at his computer and talking to his cigarette asking it to help him find a study that will prove that its good for him to smoke and its good for other people to be around him when he does.

[Harley-Honey]

Sure it is fun Killer. But Yernogood is a sneaky slime ball, He has sunk pretty low, even to the point of making up a name, claiming to be his kid,(daughter).(and if so, a very vulgar one at that, not that I care, but to raise that)
Creampuff was the name, and you should have seen him patting his back through this other name. Very pathetic, and a good display of what desperation can bring some of us to. You might have to got back 50 pages or so. But it is bound to give you a hoot, it did me. As if anyone would not know this boobs signature posts. LOL!
The guy has no class, and no integrity, certainly not when it comes to kids, and even his. Same goes for NCF.
So even if he did find a study on the good, take it from where it comes from...the bad.

[Aloxety]

Killer Plants wrote:

I really do think a challenge to Yernogood to find a study showing possitive effects of
Second Hand Smoke is kinda fun.

I think they can't. Its not possible. But let them try. Its a challenge. They love to knock all those studies I have posted. But they have nothing to back up their own insane claims that it does no damage at all.

Done. it's about the effects of SHS on children, no less. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90...

The question now is, will you bother to read it?

[Aloxety]

Harley-Honey wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't need to read studies to point out the obvious. You must be really stupid and of sheep mentality if you lead your life by what others say. Pitiful. How old are you?

Old enough to know that my "life experiences" involving a few people is vastly outweighed by the "life experiences" of people who study something for a living.

By the way, you managed to contradict yourself in the span of two posts! That's a new record for you, congratulations!

Harley-Honey wrote:

I don't need to read studies to point out the obvious. You must be really stupid and of sheep mentality if you lead your life by what others say.

.

Harley-Honey wrote:

So waste of time really, they have been given studies from the beginning, they choose to ignore this, so that is their right to be ignorant and have their heads up their fat asses.

Studies that Harley-Honey agrees with = you're ignorant not to believe them. Studies that Harley-Honey disagrees with = "You must be really stupid and of sheep mentality if you lead your life by what others say".

[Aloxety]

Killer Plants wrote:

Ok if those kids are already exposed wouldnt they be unexceptable as canidates since how could you test them if they are already contaminated.

I dont think he can get any results from these children since they have already been exposed in other places other then that car.

Common sense..

Then why do you consider this study to be valid? http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2008/04/n...

*Every single study* ever done on long-term effects on SHS have involved estimation of the amount of SHS exposure previously accumulated.

For what it's worth, I think that the Yeghiazarians paper is a really strong study, aside from the small sample size.

[Harley-Honey]

Careful opening some of those links KillerPlants. My security system sent up a warning, and advised me not to open this site. So to me that says a lot about the validity of this study.