On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.

On 9/9/2011 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

What do you think of a very high government official who openly admits
he is helplessly and hopelessy addicted to cigarretes? The guy has two
impressionable kids too. I hope he isn't killing them with second hand
smoke. Probably as bad, they will likely become addicts. You know the
old adage,"Monkey see Monkey do."

On 9/9/2011 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.

Him with his crystal ball and you pulling crap out of your wonder bra.
Youse guys are a barrel of laughs.

On 9/10/2011 2:15 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.


I didn't know there were any tobacco companies in the retail business.
Where is the Altria store

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.
Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.


I didn't know there were any tobacco companies in the retail business.
Where is the Altria store

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

I'm sure you don't believe in lots of things. That doesn't mean you
have the actual facts to back up your nonsense assertions.

Smoke them if you got them.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.


Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:51:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.


The settlement was with the attorneys general of the states involved
and specified that this was going to be the end of it.

I am sure there might be some individual who might try to take on
Altria after this but they would get ground up and spit out. The idea
that anyone on the planet has not seen the warning on the side of a
cigarette pack is ludicrous.

Which has nothing to do with fantasy that lawsuits should be known
about in advance.

I suppose you consider 12 year olds cognizant of the dangers of cigar
smoke also. Typical "libertarian" nonsense.