Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not one for popping pills. I hate taking stuff unless absolutely necessary, as I am very sensitive to medications. Which is odd, because I don't have any allergies or anything like that. I had shingles once, and the medication that they gave me to treat it made me feel so blah, and lethargic, and it wasn't even a pain reliever. My little brother tried Chantix. He said it was working for him, however; he had horrible nightmares, and woke up swinging a couple times. Needless to say he stopped, and now is smoking again. Bottom line is, I'm high strung enough. I don't need something that is going to screw with my head!
I only took it for two weeks because my buddy gave me what he had left. I quit for a mo. but never got another prescription and took up the cigs again. I don't recall ever having any nightmares but then seems the only time I recall dreaming at all is when I nap, go figure. My ex-gf quit on Chantix.
Patches, Nicorette...none of that crap worked for me.
Of course you are trying to inject logic and reason into the argument here .. which I'm afraid will fall on deaf ears ... at least in regard to some of the little dictator nazi wannabes and their obvious revulsion to personal liberty (no need to name them, they know who they are). Ban this, tax that, praying that the "dirty" smoker dies in a fire ... what filthy, disgusting anti-American SCUM. That's what needs to be banned ... or better yet, TAXED. Yes, the financial crisis and national debt could be wiped out overnight if America taxed stupidity and ignorance.
But back to your point ... which will undoubtably be considered a "conspiracy theory" by the little mindless drones .... the FACTS ARE ... at least with regard to lung cancer ... the greater percentage of people who contract lung cancer are non-smokers. And I would reiterate for the reading comprehension challenged ... I did not say greater numbers ... I said percentages ... meaning if you separate the two groups ... smokers on one side, and non-smokers on the other ... there will be a larger percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer, compared to the group of smokers. So, IF ANY ANECDOTAL CONCLUSION could be reached based on that fact .. it would have to be that smoking actually protected some individuals from lung cancer, rather than it being a cause of cancer.
To be fair, there are more non-smokers than smokers, so the fact that slightly more non-smokers die of lung cancer still means that smokers are far more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker. Also, a little fact that most people don't know is that there are several types of lung cancer (such as small cell lung cancer) that have almost no ties to smoking whatsoever. So, it is no surprise that
But when it comes to large cell lung cancer, smokers are far more likely to die from it than non-smokers. Much, much more likely. Depending on who you get your statistics from about six to thirty times more likely.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of health problems that they have tried to pin on tobacco with flimsy evidence or that were indirectly correlated with tobacco. But lung cancer is not one of them.
I understand how hard that is for many people to grasp ... even smokers ... because we live in a world filled with logical fallacies that are promoted by the media .. and the old adage that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth" is absolutely true and observable. The list of such fallacies would take a lot of space.
Certainly. Take the claims that smoking bans have caused 20%+ drops in heart attacks. Those studies violate a number epidemiological principles, basic ones like not even establishing a baseline, but they are spouted by people who know better to people who don't and now it has become a major talking point.
This reminds me of a radio talk show interview I listened to some years ago with a Doctor who was a lung surgeon by specialty ... and what he said shocked me, as I'm sure it would do so with most. He said that as a lung surgeon, he could remove a person's lungs and dissect them, and never be able to visually tell whether they were non-smokers or whether they'd been heavy smokers for 40 years! This is remarkable ... extraordinary claim considering how we've all seen pictures of those "black diseased lungs". In any case, he went on to say that the only way he would be able to identify a smoker would be through detailed chemical analysis of a sample of the lung tissue. This was in response to the propaganda that has bombarded the public with pictures of black "diseased" lungs, predominantly engaged in by the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society which they associate to cancer caused by smoking. The reality is, those pictures of "black lungs" are just dead organs which decay and turn black ... as all dead organs do. In other words ... pure propaganda, absent an ounce of truth.
That is somewhat true. People in large cities tend to have some soot in their lung to begin with, but smokers do usually have much more. So although they can't say for certain (after all, some people might live in more polluted areas, some lungs are more resistant to particle build up, and so on), they can usually make a pretty good assumption. But the best way to tell? Look at the fingers. If they are orange on the dominant hand, they are a smoker.
But the black lung thing is pretty true though. They like to compare the lungs of a healthy non-smoker who died at an early age and compare them to a heavily smoker who died of lung cancer in his 70s. It is like if there was an abstinence poster comparing the penis of a 20 year old virgin to that of a 40 year old porn star with the clap and herpes.
Why is this important? Well, because anytime there is an organized effort to deceive and lie to the public, that, by itself should be cause enough for concern, and cause a thinking person to question the motives. Why are they lying and fabricating and engaging these false, fear mongering tactics?
Excellent point. I should also point out that they also have an eerie Orwellian habit of erasing and denying inconvenient facts. For example they have supported the airbrushing of cigarettes and cigars from historic photographs. You see, a large part of this campaign of denormalization is that smokers have to be portrayed whenever possible as derelicts, uneducated, criminals, hopeless addicts, and generally dysfunctional. Things like seeing FDR or Winston Churchill or the operators of the NASA Command and Control Center smoking, sorta blows a massive f--king hole in this line of rhetoric. What do you know? Some intelligent, educated, and successful people smoke and having to acknowledge in the least blows holes in their absolutest rhetoric.
Taking it a step further, I have always been the type of person that tries to employ logic whenever possible .. and the entire anti-smoking campaign has always perplexed me from that purely logical standpoint.
Despite their claims, the anti-smoking movement is more than one group and they all have different motives although the same goal. It originally started with doctors, public health officials, and lawyers who felt that it was the government's duty to prevent any health risk: voluntary and involuntary. These are the same people who are also anti-obesity, anti-alcohol, and so on. If you look at the major players of those movements, you will notice the same names keep popping up.
You have the politicians and government officials who mostly do not care about any health risks, but rather use the anti-smoking movement and justifications for raising taxes or implementing another smoking ban under the guise of "protecting the children" or sticking it to the tobacco companies. They really don't care, but it can provide them with votes and it raises money they can spend on their little pipe dreams.
You have the modern day puritans who just hate smoking and smokers. People like KevK who think no further than their own little bubble (usually while accusing others of being self-centered). Some of these people are health nuts, some are indifferent to health, some are morbidly obese (*cough* Rob Reiner Michael Moore *cough*), and some are alcoholics. The main thing is they all hate smoking and smokers.
You have competing major corporations who know that the tobacco companies are ranked slightly above child molesters in the public mind and are using the anti-smoking movement as a way to go after their customers. The pharmaceutical companies know that smokers are a potential multi-billion dollar market. Nicotine replacement and smoking cession drugs are already extremely profitable and a lot of governments subsidize those drugs and they are less regulated in many ways. In many places you can sell them to kids, they are relatively easy to get, they allow different flavors, you can market it as a way to stop smoking, and any negative side effects (like night terrors and psychotic episodes) are brushed aside with the justification that a few murder-suicides are a small price to pay to reduce smoking rates. Never mind that statistically speaking, cold turkey and self-reduction have higher success rates than the patches, pills, and gum.
First, I think all but the most naive would at least consider, if not agree altogether that the "Government" has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are at best, ambivalent with regard to the health of the American people, and more frequently absent of ANY concern whatsoever. And, they've shown a propensity to ignore the best interests of the people especially when those might directly conflict with government interests. Now, couple that with the enormous amount of tax revenue the government receives from tobacco sales .. logic would suggest that the government would not be inclined to discourage the use of tobacco, given the financial benefits it receives from that use, let alone engage in fraudulent propaganda to do so. So the question remains .. why?
Because of competing interests. The average politician probably doesn't give a f--k, but it is a good way to raise money and to appeal to parents about "preventing harm to our children". Barrack Obama is a smoker and a relatively unrepentant one, but he was more than willing to sign the tax hike on tobacco because he could afford it, it appeals to populist demands that the tobacco companies be punished, and because it raised revenue. So it is tie-win-win for him.
The people in the Department of Health and Human Services would love to see tobacco even more regulated (by themselves, of course) and many of them have a personal desire to see it virtually outlawed. Keep in mind that most Surgeons General from the past 50 years have held this view, although the two most notable are Camorra and Koop.
Even some in the DEA would like to see it outlawed. More than a few retired high-ranking DEA officials have stated that they and many in the DEA would love to see tobacco and alcohol outlawed. It would give them more funding and freer hand than they could ever dream of.
The only conclusion that a reasonable person could reach is that there is some very important benefit to government in stopping tobacco use which exceeds the financial benefits of the taxes they receive. And it must be a very significant one considering there are few things the government loves more than taxes. What this benefit might be would be pure speculation, though you can rest assured there must be one, and it is highly unlikely that the government has simply decided that caring about your health is more important than their tax revenue. If you believe that, I've got some oceanfront property in the desert I'll sell you.
But as always ... those that are mindless "followers" are easily led by their noses to whatever destination the leaders have chosen, while the rest of the independent thinkers question what is the REAL agenda?
All the facets of the anti-smoking movement use each other. The health departments and organ foundations use research commissioned by the drug companies to justify raises in cigarette taxes by politicians who appeal to the zealots.
Not behaving like a slave. I am against government intervention in our lives. The whole thing with banning salt in restaurants is ridiculous, as well as forcing them to changing the oils that they cook with. Provide us with the nutritional facts, and let us decide. However; if there is any realistic chance of legalizing pot, then how do you expect it to happen without the government getting a piece of the pie? I agree that it is ridiculous to tax something that grows out of the ground, even tobacco. But, what else would you suggest?
Hey, I understand the point ... but ... one thing I've always believed in is to not compromise on things that deserve no compromise. One of those things is obviously government interference in our normal daily lives, and what we personally choose to do that doesn't effect anyone else's rights to choose.
The problem begins when you "accept" the unacceptable ... even if it's a minor intrusion, because once you accept the intrusion, that sets the stage for more intrusion. it's one foot in the door ... followed by the other foot. It's the old "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" scenario.
Surely a slap in the face is not as serious as a full scale beating .. but does that make the slap more acceptable?
And, you tell me what the difference is between a pot plant and a tomato plant or a aloe vera plant or a lavender plant? There really is no difference ... they're still a naturally occurring plants, and government has no right to tell us which we can grow and which we can't.
Let's look at it another way ... prohibition was instituted and the result was organized crime, murder, and prison over what was a natural part of the human experience for hundreds if not thousands of years ... the Egyptians made beer .... the Romans made wine! It was a total failure as well as an affront to personal liberty. There is no difference between the prohibition of alcohol and what is being done with pot ... the only difference is that it's much easier to grow pot than it is to make whisky, so they don't want to allow people to have that freedom, and it would be much more difficult to tax pot ... while the government actually controls the illegal drug market and profits greatly on the business.
They're CROOKS .... and they are STEALING US BLIND. We're taxed to death already ... and we need to reverse that, not add to it with another substance for them to tax.
Saying no may or may not change that ... but saying yes is certainly not going to help.
It's like saying ... ok, you can slap me in the face ... just not too hard, OK?
Hey, I understand the point ... but ... one thing I've always believed in is to not compromise on things that deserve no compromise. One of those things is obviously government interference in our normal daily lives, and what we personally choose to do that doesn't effect anyone else's rights to choose.
The problem begins when you "accept" the unacceptable ... even if it's a minor intrusion, because once you accept the intrusion, that sets the stage for more intrusion. it's one foot in the door ... followed by the other foot. It's the old "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" scenario.
Surely a slap in the face is not as serious as a full scale beating .. but does that make the slap more acceptable?
And, you tell me what the difference is between a pot plant and a tomato plant or a aloe vera plant or a lavender plant? There really is no difference ... they're still a naturally occurring plants, and government has no right to tell us which we can grow and which we can't.
Let's look at it another way ... prohibition was instituted and the result was organized crime, murder, and prison over what was a natural part of the human experience for hundreds if not thousands of years ... the Egyptians made beer .... the Romans made wine! It was a total failure as well as an affront to personal liberty. There is no difference between the prohibition of alcohol and what is being done with pot ... the only difference is that it's much easier to grow pot than it is to make whisky, so they don't want to allow people to have that freedom, and it would be much more difficult to tax pot ... while the government actually controls the illegal drug market and profits greatly on the business.
They're CROOKS .... and they are STEALING US BLIND. We're taxed to death already ... and we need to reverse that, not add to it with another substance for them to tax.
Saying no may or may not change that ... but saying yes is certainly not going to help.
It's like saying ... ok, you can slap me in the face ... just not too hard, OK?
Great points. Trust me I agree with you. We're taxed for everything! Here in Cleveland they taxed the smokers and drinkers with a sin tax to fund the building of all of the new stadiums and arenas. Where the Browns and Indians play are both outdoor venues. Smokers built them, YET WE CANNOT SMOKE IN THEM! It used to be designated areas, but now you have to leave the stadium all together if I'm not mistaken. Is that not ridiculous?? Now mind you I live in the Cleveland area, and even though a lot of our industry has left, we still have some. Do you mean to tell me that my second hand smoke, in an outside arena is more dangerous than the run of the mill air pollution from automobiles, or factories? Really???
You are absolutely correct regarding prohibition. It bred nothing but crime, and murder, and did nothing to stop people from acquiring alcohol. The reason that pot was made illegal was because certain people in the elite (especially the paper industry) stood a lot to lose by keeping it legal. There was also the stereotype that minorities were the primary users, and they also wanted to keep the Mexicans out (yeah that worked). So because of the authoritarian types with their idea of shoving their beliefs down our throat, a God given natural plant with so many benefits was made illegal! Have you ever watched "Reefer Madness?" Talk about the biggest bunch of corny propaganda BS that you will ever see!
To be fair, there are more non-smokers than smokers, so the fact that slightly more non-smokers die of lung cancer still means that smokers are far more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker. Also, a little fact that most people don't know is that there are several types of lung cancer (such as small cell lung cancer) that have almost no ties to smoking whatsoever. So, it is no surprise that
But when it comes to large cell lung cancer, smokers are far more likely to die from it than non-smokers. Much, much more likely. Depending on who you get your statistics from about six to thirty times more likely.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of health problems that they have tried to pin on tobacco with flimsy evidence or that were indirectly correlated with tobacco. But lung cancer is not one of them.
Frank, without trying to be insulting ... I made it a point to EXPLAIN in detail (for the reading comprehension challenged) that which you apparently didn't get ... maybe you just overlooked it ...
The percentages HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NUMBERS ... OK?????
Of course there are more non-smokers, so there is likely to be more cancers in non-smokers ... THAT IS NOT THE POINT ... the point is, the PERCENTAGES are ALSO HIGHER .... i.e. more lung cancers per 10,000 nonsmokers than an EQUAL NUMBER (10,000) smokers.
Now you can quote what ever mainstream source you care to ... and whatever details they produce .. as the link between lung cancer and smoking is an ACCEPTED TRUTH, rather than a legitimately proven truth. In fact, the actual statistics show that nonsmokers are more likely to contract lung cancer ... BY PERCENTAGE and not NUMBERS as I previously stated ...
The speculation is .. and it's only educated speculation coming from those in science who choose not to toe the mainstream line, but choose to look at the evidence independently, hypothesizes that one factor may be that smoking creates a mucus barrier in the lungs which may block the adhesion of a cancer causing contaminate which result in the formation of lung cancer ... i.e. radioactive isotopes which have become far more common environmentally due to nuclear power, nuclear testing, depleted uranium, etc. that is contaminating the atmosphere.
Just one radioactive particle lodged in the lung tissue will almost certainly cause the development of cancer ... whereas, if that particle is trapped in mucus, and expelled, will not.
The real problem is statistics in general though ... where almost any point can be supported by statistical manipulation which is more common in mainstream medicine than ANYWHERE ELSE.
But the raw figures ... as has been found in statistics compiled around the world shows a rise in lung cancers while there has been a steady decrease in the number of people who smoke, suggesting that this indisputable link between smoking and lung cancer has some fundamental problems.
God forbid we employ common sense here by stating the obvious ... if smoking causes lung cancer ... a decrease in the number of smokers should also see a corresponding decrease in smoking caused lung cancer ? Or is this just too simple minded of me?
Maybe this is just another one of those little mysteries like how global warming causes global warming and cooling too? I mean everyone KNOWS that if anything bad happens, it's the result of global warming ... ? Maybe lung cancer is caused by global warming?
And please don't take my sometimes brash, and sometimes sarcastic tone as a direct insult. If I chose to be insulting, it is very obvious, like (are you crazy?).
The real point is that we are bamboozled with BS from all corners ... the smoking thing is just ONE of MANY examples of fraudulent science attempting to make a case for whatever they choose to make a case for. I suspect you are right in that there are a number of reasons why so many are on the anti-smoking bandwagon ... but aside those different agendas, there is a REASON for why government would choose to discourage activities that they make a lot of money on ... the two least likely reasons is that 1) they care about our health or 2) They decided that they didn't need or want the tax revenue. Those two you can rule out completely.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-30-2010 at 11:00 AM..
Great points. Trust me I agree with you. We're taxed for everything! Here in Cleveland they taxed the smokers and drinkers with a sin tax to fund the building of all of the new stadiums and arenas. Where the Browns and Indians play are both outdoor venues. Smokers built them, YET WE CANNOT SMOKE IN THEM! It used to be designated areas, but now you have to leave the stadium all together if I'm not mistaken. Is that not ridiculous?? Now mind you I live in the Cleveland area, and even though a lot of our industry has left, we still have some. Do you mean to tell me that my second hand smoke, in an outside arena is more dangerous than the run of the mill air pollution from automobiles, or factories? Really???
You are absolutely correct regarding prohibition. It bred nothing but crime, and murder, and did nothing to stop people from acquiring alcohol. The reason that pot was made illegal was because certain people in the elite (especially the paper industry) stood a lot to lose by keeping it legal. There was also the stereotype that minorities were the primary users, and they also wanted to keep the Mexicans out (yeah that worked). So because of the authoritarian types with their idea of shoving their beliefs down our throat, a God given natural plant with so many benefits was made illegal! Have you ever watched "Reefer Madness?" Talk about the biggest bunch of corny propaganda BS that you will ever see!
Yes indeed. For whatever reason (maybe just my natural rebellious nature) I began questioning everything at an early age ... probably going back to the hogwash I was being taught in Catholic Saturday School (another story altogether ... Jonah and the Whale ...) but as a matter of course, and especially as I got older, I studied history ... independently .. not the "selected" history taught in school these days.
Luckily for me ... the Vietnam draft ended a 1 1/2 years before I was eligible, but those days sparked my interest, and my refusal to blindly trust government. And I've found over the years just more reasons to feel that way and not a single reason to question that philosophy.
So I'm not one of the "Johnny Come Lately's" who just woke up to the idea that government lies. I've been studying this for DECADES. And unfortunately, the more I study it, the worse it gets.
If you really want to know what the truth is, 9 times out of 10, it is EXACTLY the opposite of what you are told by the mainstream media ... at least insofar as important issues are concerned. That formula has been thoroughly tested by ME ... not someone else telling me what to think. I operate under the premise "Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see", and you won't go far wrong.
Most people are of the mindset that we modern humans are too smart to believe in false ideas ... like a flat earth ... or sacrificing babies to appease the sun god ... or drilling holes in people's heads to let the evil spirits out. But not so fast ... I could list a great number of things that the collective modern humans believe that are equally fantastical, and will be viewed in the future as virtually the same thing.
The false beliefs may have changed .. but stupid just doesn't recognize stupid ... because .... they're stupid.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,854 posts, read 10,416,518 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by TropicalAussie
We have less rights to get shot by random gunpersons
We have less rights to poor access to health care
We have less rights to breathing second-hand smoke in public venues.
I could go on...
And no doubt you will (and have...).
Honestly, this is not intended with any malice, but frankly, Australia often seems to me what it would look like if the U.S. took what we affectionately refer to as the "hillbilly" population here, and made a separate country out of it, along with all the typical values that go with that "culture". And it's probably no coincidence that both cultures have common roots with alot of the same folks who also first settled Australia, described in "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes.
Because both "cultures" seem to share much the same "affection" for booze, fundamentalism, clannishness, "tats", fighting & being "tough" (even the women), along with a clear disdain for things like "book learnin'", "elites", "gays", "furiners", and "different". Plus there's such a fierce sense of independence, that it resists the whole notion of being "defined" by any "rules" (including even the basic ones to safeguard their freedoms, such as a formal Bill of Rights), or even just a cohesive sense of "national identity". Yet ironically, they'll also obediently follow the "rules", whatever they may be, especially if administered by the proper "chain of command".
In addition to the above ... let's look at one popular myth, that in spite of the available evidence, the myth continues to be promoted, across the board ... doctors and media alike .. continue to push this myth.
What myth? Well, as a test for how "conditioned" you are ... what is the first thing that comes to mind when you prepare to go out on the beach this summer? Don't forget the flipflops? Make sure to pack a lunch? Stock up on cold drinks? Well, if you fall into the 90% category, you'll immediately think .. don't forget the sunscreen ... the higher the SPF (more chemicals) the better. Am I right? Sure I am ... because EVERYONE KNOWS that you need to protect yourself from skin cancer. But what if it was the sunscreen that has been causing the increases in skin cancer and other cancers too? Sound ridiculous? That's probably because you've been brainwashed ... from the weatherman giving the sunny day report followed by "don't forget your sunscreen" to doctors and other media types who promote this stuff as if they actually manufacture the crap.
Guess what ... the increases in skin cancer has a direct correlation to the increased use of chemical sunscreens dating back 30+ years.
In 1998, researchers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York found sunscreen not only ineffective in stopping skin tumors but, to actually increase the risk of melanoma, the deadliest form. In a comprehensive review of ten studies, five showed those who used sunscreen had an increased risk of developing melanoma. Since the 1970's, sunscreen use has become increasingly common, yet the occurrences of melanoma continue to rise more sharply than any other type of skin cancer. Does sunscreen cause cancer or is it the chemicals in the product that promote cancer?
Here's the scoop, if you want to know the truth. The chemicals in sunscreen are the same chemicals microbiologists use to grow cancer cells in the laboratory. The chemicals absorb the UV radiation and penetrate the cells where they damage those cells, promoting cancer cell production.
In the human environment, the sunscreens do the same thing, penetrating much deeper than the sun's rays alone would reach, and beyond the point at which the skin's natural mechanisms protect itself. The second factor is that the blocking of the UV spectrum also prohibits the body's ability to produce vitamin D, a known cancer preventative.
This absorbing of UV radiation by the chemicals, and the penetration into several layers of skin, hold that radiation for hours and hours even after you come in from the sun .. continuing to radiate healthy cells, and increasing the likelihood of damage. The chemicals are also absorbed into the bloodstream ... chemicals that are known carcinogens.
Why on earth do they continue to bombard us with this "Don't forget your sunscreen" nonsense? Because sunscreen is big business, and so is cancer. And the other reason is that the general public are as ignorant as a box of freaking rocks ... and are easily convinced to poison themselves by those who profit from providing that poison, and treating the poisoning afterward.
Better you start thinking cold drinks and sandwiches the next trip you plan to the beach ... and leave the sunscreen on the store shelf.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-30-2010 at 12:23 PM..
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,685,001 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marksman84
SGL,
I respect your post, but it's not just the leftnuts that back smoking bans. Some of us right-leaning independents aren't fond of tobacco either.
You seem like a very intelligent person - why would you continue to do something to yourself that will result in a nasty, prolonged, horrid premature death? Dude, there is NOTHING beneficial about smoking/chewing tobacco. All you are doing is making a bunch of cretins in North Carolina wealthy, and giving the current group of morons in Washington "blood money" tax revenue. Wouldn't you rather live a long life and give the left hell for generations to come?
Plus - remember who else is a smoker, do you really want to be in this company:
I agree and he should have more sense. I thought he was not smoking in public. This is the first pic I have seen of him with a cig in his mouth. Very unpresidential if you ask me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not when tax-payers have to pay for their medical care when they get lung caner or COPD or CHD because of their smoking.
). So because of the authoritarian types with their idea of shoving their beliefs down our throat, a God given natural plant with so many benefits was made illegal! Have you ever watched "Reefer Madness?" Talk about the biggest bunch of corny propaganda BS that you will ever see!
