New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

[Non-Cas Fan]

Hmm... topix seems to be having the hiccups again.

Killer Plants wrote:

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..<excerpted>

Hey, I'm back. There's 27 pages since my last post here, and at 20 posts per page, that's 540 posts. I doubt I really want to dive into the sophistry and pallid logic of them all, but I did see that you,'killer plants', had made a reasonable response (finally) to what I had been trying to get at for days.
And you have what appears, on the surface, to be a good point. However, the issue is not what the effects of tobacco smoke is on kids who are normally NOT exposed. The issue is with the kids who ARE normally exposed. That is inclusive of those kids in divided custody, where one parent smokes and the other does not.

That would satisfy your requirement for "uncontaminated" kids, by sampling from the ones who are in the majority custody of the non-smoking parent.

These are children who, in the normal course of their lives are still regularly impacted by tobacco smoke with de facto parental consent. So, I will revise my original premise, and adapt it to include your suggestion.

See, if you distance yourself from your emotional bias it becomes possible to examine these things in a sensible way.

[fluteman greg]

Killer Plants wrote:

Well fluteman many people site Youtube as a reference. Go to either McCain or Obama. They both use Youtube which has video on issues they wish to address.
I am very sorry you take an Elite attitude about it. I have posted actual videos of Tobacco CEOs lying. Youtube is just where the the videos are. The videos are great.
Howeve you are back again to defending your right to smoke around children. I cant understand why you would want people to smoke around children in a car. Its sad you sadistic person.
Besides you need to read the TOPIC its about ADS
that are out about this topic. Ads and Information videos on the subject are what I post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You equate me questioning your "You Tube" references as me supporting smoking with children in cars. ROFLMAO@U!!!! The two have NOTHING to do with each other. You must be a druggie like HH. Otherwise, I don't know what your problem is.

Yes, "you tube" is fine for mainly entertainment, but you use them to defend your cause as scientific references or studies. You do realize just about anything can be posted onto You Tube. It's virtually uncontrolled. Why not use some of your spare time and reference credible sources? You Tube IS NOT a credible source no matter how much you may want to believe it is. Neither is Wikipedia.

[Non-Cas Fan]

Aloxety wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

I didn't see where this study listed "positive" effects, but it does demonstrate that there is no increase of lung cancer incidence later in life in children exposed to tobacco smoke.

Certainly a relief for me.

However, I'd like to point out (and maybe it's been pointed out already) that there has been a study that shows an effect on adult arterial walls (if I recall correctly) after 30 minutes of heavy exposure.

The issue, then, is less about lung cancer than it is about other health effects.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Killer Plants]

Well I dont see any post from non smokers or people that care about childrens health on here from what could be something you could avoid by just not smoking in the car.

However you chosse toe smoke in there car with kid in it.

Here is the list of those that support children being in car with smokers.

Fluteman Grey....He doesnt do it but supports the rights of people that do. If that is not what he is doing then I think I mised the point.

Non Cas Fan... From what I can tell wants to blame the problems on everything else. I cant figure out if he or she actually smokes in a car with children.

Bdjunker.... Openly admits to smoking in cars with children and dares people do to anything about it.

As far as science goes the death toll is nearly up to a BILLON people now worldwide have died from cancer worldwide related to Tobacco smoke.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...

Go there and read but I am sure the CDC is also not a good source. Youll claim what does that have to do with SHS. Your fools SHS is Tobacco smoke.

ONE BILLION PEOPLE you monsters ONE BIllION.

I really have nothing left to say to fools that would hurt children. We need a law to protect children from people like the names I have mentioned.

[Non-Cas Fan]

Harley-Honey wrote:

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.

Seems like 'just candid' tried to dissuade people from opening links that I had provided, too, at one time.

While I don't doubt that you have decent intentions of protecting a compadre from potential hazard, I think that your judgment of the link based on your PC's security setting was a bit extreme.

It's most likely because that link directly opens a pdf document. But the site is valid, and the study is real.

I hope you, as well as 'killer plants', took the time to read it.

[u cannot own me]

COULD the much-maligned tobacco plant be used to help cancer patients? A California biotech company says it can, and it has set up shop in tobacco country to prove it.

Large Scale Biology of Vacaville, California, has built a commercial "biopharmaceutical production facility" in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is one of a handful of companies harnessing plants to produce useful human proteins.

Genetic engineers already use many different ploys to manufacture human proteins, such as insulin and growth hormones. Often, they isolate a human gene that carries the code for making a protein and splice it into yeast or bacteria, which multiply in fermentation vats.

Other methods include putting genes into cancer cells, which grow endlessly in lab cultures, or into farm animals, which make the proteins in their milk.

Now, companies are doing the same thing by the acre. They hope molecular farming, as some call it, will be cheaper and more efficient.

"We borrow the plant's cellular machinery," said Barry Bratcher, Large Scale Biology's biomanufacturing director. "The plant is just a host for us."

Tobacco is a big bulky plant that produces lots of greenery, and it is one scientists have already had plenty of practice genetically manipulating in the lab. http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/08/06/features...

[fluteman greg]

Killer Plants wrote:

Fluteman Grey....He doesnt do it but supports the rights of people that do. If that is not what he is doing then I think I mised the point.

I think I have to be done with you unless you can show me one time I've supported anyone smoking in the car with children in it. Do you have a learning disability? I've told you this now about 3 or 4 times, yet you still spew the same crap. I have only stated an opinion about SHS. YOU are the one that extrapolates that into supporting people smoking with kids in the car.

I have a question for you. Why do you support people smoking with kids in the car? Hmmmm.... don't like that? See how it feels.

[Aloxety]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't see where this study listed "positive" effects, but it does demonstrate that there is no increase of lung cancer incidence later in life in children exposed to tobacco smoke.

No, technically there is a statistically significant decrease in lung cancer later than life. It excludes the null, which is more than can be said for a lot of the statistics claiming to show harmful effects.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

However, I'd like to point out (and maybe it's been pointed out already) that there has been a study that shows an effect on adult arterial walls (if I recall correctly) after 30 minutes of heavy exposure.

The issue, then, is less about lung cancer than it is about other health effects.

Do you see what I'm saying?

You mean the decrease in flow-mediated vasodilation? Similar to this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757

I understand your point, but on the other hand, I fail to see how an "advocate of child safety" would feel comfortable giving a cheesburger to his kid after reading that AJC article. It's the exact same effect.

[Aloxety]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

It's most likely because that link directly opens a pdf document. But the site is valid, and the study is real.

I hope you, as well as 'killer plants', took the time to read it.

Keep going - you're almost to the good part.

[just me]

Hmmm..Greg, I think, it's more like 10-12 times now. LOL

[You are Laughable]

Killer Plants wrote:

Well I dont see any post from non smokers or people that care about childrens health on here from what could be something you could avoid by just not smoking in the car.
However you chosse toe smoke in there car with kid in it.
Here is the list of those that support children being in car with smokers.
Fluteman Grey....He doesnt do it but supports the rights of people that do. If that is not what he is doing then I think I mised the point.
Non Cas Fan... From what I can tell wants to blame the problems on everything else. I cant figure out if he or she actually smokes in a car with children.
Bdjunker.... Openly admits to smoking in cars with children and dares people do to anything about it.
As far as science goes the death toll is nearly up to a BILLON people now worldwide have died from cancer worldwide related to Tobacco smoke.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...
Go there and read but I am sure the CDC is also not a good source. Youll claim what does that have to do with SHS. Your fools SHS is Tobacco smoke.
ONE BILLION PEOPLE you monsters ONE BIllION.
I really have nothing left to say to fools that would hurt children. We need a law to protect children from people like the names I have mentioned.

Let me see if I have this right: You think that EVERYONE should follow YOUR simple, narrow-minded gullible mentality????? No thank you,,,I am VERY capable of determining what makes sense and what does not..and the CLAIM that SHS causes lung cancer in those who do not smoke is preposterous. There are NO conclusive FACTS...just biased and tweaked studies; muddied by the infiltration of the anti-smoking agenda...you are welcome to believe them, but stop trying to shove your B.S. down other peoples' throats.
That you are a member of the "majority" of mental midgets is nothing to be proud of, believe me. In fact, it is very scary to think that there are more of your kind in our society today.,,,VERY spooky indeed. It's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"....and you have already been snatched. It is too late for you, but not for me ;-)

[YO MAMMA]

Well hasnt anyone heard of the smokeless cigarettes like Crown7??? You can smoke them where ever. There non-offensive and dont emit smoke. Has anyone tried one??? I have one and smoke everywhere with the damn thing. Just a thought!

[Sheri]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't see where this study listed "positive" effects, but it does demonstrate that there is no increase of lung cancer incidence later in life in children exposed to tobacco smoke.
Certainly a relief for me.
However, I'd like to point out (and maybe it's been pointed out already) that there has been a study that shows an effect on adult arterial walls (if I recall correctly) after 30 minutes of heavy exposure.
The issue, then, is less about lung cancer than it is about other health effects.
Do you see what I'm saying?

You do know what Siegel says about the 30 minute exposure? http://tinyurl.com/6d92xc

[Non-Cas Fan]

Killer Plants wrote:

Well I dont see any post from non smokers or people that care about childrens health on here from what could be something you could avoid by just not smoking in the car.
However you chosse toe smoke in there car with kid in it.
Here is the list of those that support children being in car with smokers.
Fluteman Grey....He doesnt do it but supports the rights of people that do. If that is not what he is doing then I think I mised the point.
Non Cas Fan... From what I can tell wants to blame the problems on everything else. I cant figure out if he or she actually smokes in a car with children.
Bdjunker.... Openly admits to smoking in cars with children and dares people do to anything about it.
As far as science goes the death toll is nearly up to a BILLON people now worldwide have died from cancer worldwide related to Tobacco smoke.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...
Go there and read but I am sure the CDC is also not a good source. Youll claim what does that have to do with SHS. Your fools SHS is Tobacco smoke.
ONE BILLION PEOPLE you monsters ONE BIllION.
I really have nothing left to say to fools that would hurt children. We need a law to protect children from people like the names I have mentioned.

You must forget easily.
I am a non-smoker. That means that I do not smoke.

More than being a non-smoker, I am a 'never smoker'. This means that I have not even had the lapse of judgment that your buddy Harley-Honey had (and still has, just with a different weed.)

I do no know your smoker status, nor do I think it makes that big of a deal.

But I have no idea why you think I blame the problem on everything else.

Allow me to state my stance on smoking in cars with children, so that way you have this post as a touchstone when referencing my position:

***I do not think the exposure in cars to be of a harmful level, especially when the vehicle ventilation is adequate, as per the peer-reviewed studies referenced WAY earlier in this thread. I do not think that there needs to be a law dictating whether smoking should be done in cars, and I think it is ludicrous to prohibit smoking in convertibles with the tops down. I think that an education program (or advertisements) that instructs smokers to open the windows while they are smoking is all that is required. I also realize that the prevalence of smoking in cars with children is statistically minor, to the point where having a law about it (or a >3 month internet discussion about it) is an exercise in futility all around.***

I don't think that the link you posted there from the CDC is the one you wanted. There's nothing there about a BILLION people worldwide dying from tobacco. That page deals with the statistics for the USA alone. Care to try again?

[Non-Cas Fan]

Aloxety wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep going - you're almost to the good part.

I hit the posts from 'freedom', and had to stop, I couldn't take it anymore.

[just candid]

u cannot own me wrote:

COULD the much-maligned tobacco plant be used to help cancer patients? A California biotech company says it can, and it has set up shop in tobacco country to prove it.
Large Scale Biology of Vacaville, California, has built a commercial "biopharmaceutical production facility" in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is one of a handful of companies harnessing plants to produce useful human proteins.
Genetic engineers already use many different ploys to manufacture human proteins, such as insulin and growth hormones. Often, they isolate a human gene that carries the code for making a protein and splice it into yeast or bacteria, which multiply in fermentation vats.
Other methods include putting genes into cancer cells, which grow endlessly in lab cultures, or into farm animals, which make the proteins in their milk.
Now, companies are doing the same thing by the acre. They hope molecular farming, as some call it, will be cheaper and more efficient.
"We borrow the plant's cellular machinery," said Barry Bratcher, Large Scale Biology's biomanufacturing director. "The plant is just a host for us."
Tobacco is a big bulky plant that produces lots of greenery, and it is one scientists have already had plenty of practice genetically manipulating in the lab. http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/08/06/features...

I made a brief reference about that on the 'just candid' thread several hours ago. I hope it works out, saves some lives and that Big Pharm can make a hell of a lot of money off it. I love it, every time you turn around Big Pharm is making piles of cash off tobacco and smokers, LOL !!!

[u cannot own me]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text>I made a Big Pharm can make a hell of a lot of money off it. I love it, every time you turn around Big Pharm is making piles of cash off tobacco and smokers, LOL !!!

Why am I not surprised that you see it as a cash cow fo rbig pharma. I see it as a big + because tobacco might be the answer for cancer instead of the cause. It sure would make liars out of people like you

[u cannot own me]

BTW Candid, then you can whine and complain about sh cancer cure wouldn't that be a hoot

[just candid]

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>Why am I not surprised that you see it as a cash cow fo rbig pharma. I see it as a big + because tobacco might be the answer for cancer instead of the cause. It sure would make liars out of people like you

If they can use tobacco to cure one case of cancer I'm for it, if they can use it to cure or prevent cancer on a large scale, no one will be happier. It may even save some cigarette smokers, but sad to say you smokers will still be killed off with things like COPD ect.

[Killer Plants]

http://www.euro.who.int/mediacentre/PR/2008/2...

Non Cas Fan there is the link to the 1 billion taht have died. I am sure you will thumb your nose up at it. Since you have said many times you want proof positive data. Note not saying you want kids in car for a study.
I think I clearly stated I was a smoker decades ago.

As to the positive effects from the Tobacco Plant. I dont doubt it a minute. Its a weird plant. I probably holds the cure for several of mans illnesses beside cancer.
Inhalation of smoke is not good on the lungs no matter what the smoke is though. To make the matter worse.

Why do Tobacco Companies add toxins to Cigarettes?
Answer me that please

Lowell Kleinman, M.D., and Deborah Messina-Kleinman, M.P.H.
drkoop.com Health Columnists

Cigarette flavors have gone through many changes since cigarettes were first made. Initially, cigarettes were unfiltered, allowing the full "flavor" of the tar to come through. As the public became concerned about the health effects of smoking, filters were added. While this helped alleviate the public's fears, the result was a cigarette that tasted too bitter.

Filters Don't Work
Filters do not remove enough tar to make cigarettes less dangerous. They are just a marketing ploy to trick you into thinking you are smoking a safer cigarette.

The solution to the bitter-tasting cigarette was easy -- have some chemists add taste-improving chemicals to the tobacco. Unfortunately, some of these chemicals also cause cancer.

But not all of the chemicals in your cigarettes are there for taste enhancement. For example, a chemical very similar to rocket fuel helps keep the tip of the cigarette burning at an extremely hot temperature.

This allows the nicotine in tobacco to turn into a vapor so your lungs can absorb it more easily.
Toilet Bowl Cleaner?

Most people prefer to use ammonia for things such as cleaning windows and toilet bowls. You may be surprised to learn that the tobacco industry has found some additional uses for this household product.

By adding ammonia to your cigarettes, nicotine in its vapor form can be absorbed through your lungs more quickly. This, in turn, means your brain can get a higher dose of nicotine with each puff.

The complete list of chemicals added to your cigarettes is too long to list here. Here are some examples that will surprise you:

Fungicides and pesticides -- Cause many types of cancers and birth defects.
Cadmium -- Linked to lung and prostate cancer.
Benzene -- Linked to leukemia.
Formaldehyde -- Linked to lung cancer.
Nickel -- Causes increased susceptibility to lung infections.

If you are angry that so many things have been added to the cigarettes you enjoy so much, you should be. Many of these chemicals were added to make you better able to tolerate toxic amounts of cigarette smoke.

They were added without regard to your health and with the intent to keep you addicted. As the tobacco industry saying goes, "An addicted customer is a customer for life, no matter how short that life is."

http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.h...
1.
So yes Tobacco the plant and what is in it could cure people I agree. Not if you smoke it.

2. Greg the fluteman does not smoke in the car with kids. I am still not buying it because he for some reason believes that Second hand smoke will not harm the child in the car. Now if I got that wrong correct me.

3. Non Cas Fan is a non smoker that pretty much feels that there is not enough evidence to support even the possiblity that it might harm a child even after this person reads what is in a cigarette.

4. I cant address all of the people here because some and I say some of you pro smokers are bullies. You use this forum to post how wonderful cigarettes are. I dont care if you smoke. Smoke away just not in a car with kids.