Oh, the youngest and only non-smoker in the family, my uncle Matheus died at 72 of emphasema and lung cancer. Go figure.
On Mar 12, 1:41 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > And E's grandfather was a doctor and heavy smoker and lived till his > mid-90's. What about Churchill? Cigars and brandy plus a long life. I > think some harbor a Freudian death wish. > > On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > By the way, my wife's non-smoking 90-year old great-grandmother is > > still with us. > > > 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
