Well, I have a neighbor, M. who's in her upper 80's and smokes 3 packs a day. She now orders cartons from an Indian Reservation.// It all depends on ones constitution and though I am sorry for your losses I don't buy the argument. Few consider the damage of street and rx drugs since the 60's that have radically altered the body's natural defense or the decades of junk food and additives. Plus much of our food is imported and not supervised. Nor are many medical procedures for their long range impact.//I've gone to early funerals also- they had nothing to do with smoking. I have since decided to stop going to funerals- they are depressing.
On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > My wife just watched her 63-year old mother waste away and die of lung > cancer after smoking most of her adult life. I then went to the > funeral of a 47-year old smoking coworker who died of lung cancer. > Don't tell me that smoking is not harmful. > > On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The tobacco companies were so profitable it is no wonder the > > government and insurance companies went after them. It might happen to > > liquor, as well// I am from a very healthy generation and all the > > parents smoked and so did we. The rise in autism and breast cancer can > > be traced to children abandoned to childcare by working mothers and > > the "pill".//You fail to address lung cancer in non-smokers- from > > various industries, sealed air in offices and homes, other exposures- > > or 90 year olds who continue to smoke. > > > On Mar 12, 12:23 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > from my local paper > > > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at restaurants > > > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to think of it > > > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the restaurant > > > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace health and > > > safety. > > > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco companies are > > > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed injurious > > > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove government > > > to set the health and safety requirements for people who do not smoke > > > but find themselves employed by these venues. > > > > The person working in such venues should not have to choose between > > > keeping their job or their health. I, for one, would not want my tax > > > dollars paying for the health care of a person who wished only to work > > > for a living, but ends up contracting a smoking-related illness. A ban > > > on smoking in public venues is not an intrusion on private enterprise > > > as much as it’s minimal government interference in a personal habit > > > that affects the health and pocketbooks of innocent citizens. > > > > Robert Munro, Angleton- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
