vpFREE2 Forums

Button Slappers

#1

From: Elaine Rose <atlanticcityrose@yahoo.com>
   I agree that button slappers can be annoying and that some women (and a few men) load up with enough cologne to make me sick. BUT - those do not cause second-hand lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and other ailments.

I might agree with you that second-hand smoke might be annoying to some people and that it can cause problems to someone with serious breathing problems, it has NOT been proven that it causes cancer. Yes I know about the government studies that were done, but I also know about the Federal Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk science. In another words, what they did was have the conclusion and then made the science fit it. This is why there are so few second-hand smoke court cases and not one penny yet has been handed out for it yet. Of course, the anti-smoking fanatics don't talk about this. There are more real scientific studies going on now but the jury is still out.

I will also say that there are some very rude, self-centered, smokers out there, but on the other side, there are some very rude, holier than thou, anti-smokers out there too (you don't have to look further than the vp boards to find some of them).

   I hope you're gay (or have an extremely tolerant wife), because cigars are the best chick repellant I ever saw. :slight_smile:

No, I'm not gay and I do not have a problem with the women in my life and cigar smoking. But then again, I don't blow smoke in their face and they don't bitch about my 3 or 4 cigars a day. I also am not looking for any "chicks", although they are great to watch. My oldest kid turns 40 this year, so I'm not out there trolling for something new. If I were, I would go the the Luxor's Ra Night Club more often, and alone.

Bob Craig
Playing VP in Nevada for over 22 years.

···

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

#2

Yes I know about the government studies that were done, but I also know

about the Federal Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk
science.<<

Not to defend smoking, which we all acknowledge is harmful, but in
California they tell us (at public expense through additional tobacco taxes)
that second hand smoke kills 50,000 people here each year. But that
statistic includes all causes of death that could in any way be attributed
to smoking, regardless of whetheror not, in fact, a specific cause of death
was due to smoking or second hand smoke. It might have been, possibly,
maybe, so it makes the list. In other words, if a person were to die of any
cardio-pulmonary disease, that death would make the stat sheet, regardless
of whether or not the person was a smoker or was exposed occasionally to
second hand smoke. Misleading, at best.

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that the state population rises by
50,000 per day. Assuming that 50,000 people die from second hand smoke, how
many more die for other reasons? 100,000? More? Also, consider that the
percentage of people who smoke now is down to just over 20% from well over
50% twenty-five years ago. So this has been going on for a long, long time,
and presumably, even more people were dieing from second hand smoke years
ago than are now! Seems to me that if the stats are correct, we should be
just about out of people by now.

It may be that the people putting together those stats are confused, and
that those 50,000 people a day are really just leaving Californina to move
to Vegas.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Craig" <vp_expert@hotmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Button Slappers

>From: Elaine Rose <atlanticcityrose@yahoo.com>
> I agree that button slappers can be annoying and that some women (and

a

>few men) load up with enough cologne to make me sick. BUT - those do not
>cause second-hand lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and other ailments.

I might agree with you that second-hand smoke might be annoying to some
people and that it can cause problems to someone with serious breathing
problems, it has NOT been proven that it causes cancer. Yes I know about
the government studies that were done, but I also know about the Federal
Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk science. In another
words, what they did was have the conclusion and then made the science fit
it. This is why there are so few second-hand smoke court cases and not

one

penny yet has been handed out for it yet. Of course, the anti-smoking
fanatics don't talk about this. There are more real scientific studies
going on now but the jury is still out.

I will also say that there are some very rude, self-centered, smokers out
there, but on the other side, there are some very rude, holier than thou,
anti-smokers out there too (you don't have to look further than the vp
boards to find some of them).

> I hope you're gay (or have an extremely tolerant wife), because

cigars

>are the best chick repellant I ever saw. :slight_smile:

No, I'm not gay and I do not have a problem with the women in my life and
cigar smoking. But then again, I don't blow smoke in their face and they
don't bitch about my 3 or 4 cigars a day. I also am not looking for any
"chicks", although they are great to watch. My oldest kid turns 40 this
year, so I'm not out there trolling for something new. If I were, I would
go the the Luxor's Ra Night Club more often, and alone.

Bob Craig
Playing VP in Nevada for over 22 years.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

Whadaya say we drop this thread. Given the self-restraint I find I'm
having to exericse, someone's bound to slip into a real emotionally
charged rant that's gonna spoil the day around here.

- Harry

#4

<<<
I might agree with you that second-hand smoke might be annoying to some
people and that it can cause problems to someone with serious breathing
problems, it has NOT been proven that it causes cancer.
Yes I know about the government studies that were done, but I also know
about the Federal
Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk science.

  That hardly means the science is junk. Most judges don't know
good science from their assholes. You think "maybe" this judge has a
financial incentive to make a ruling in favor of big tobacco?

  More importantly, the burden of proof here should not be on proving
2nd hand smoke causes cancer. The burden of proof should be to demonstrate
that it does NOT cause cancer. Simply put, if it seems likely that 2nd hand
smoke causes cancer, then it should be banned in all workplaces (at a
minimum).
The error should be on the side of safety.

  Finally, let's just use our brains for a second. We already know that
smoking causes cancer for the primary somker. Now, just what kind of magic
do'
you think happens to make that smoke no longer cause cancer when it is
inhaled
by someone else. It is the same f***ing poison either way.

<<<
I will also say that there are some very rude, self-centered, smokers out
there, but on the other side, there are some very rude, holier than thou,
anti-smokers out there too (you don't have to look further than the vp
boards to find some of them).

  It is not holier than thou. I could care less if you smoke, just
keep it away from others. That really is not asking so much.

   I hope you're gay

I figrue gay guys dislike the stench too.

  QZ

#5

Whadaya say we drop this thread. Given the self-restraint I find I'm
having to exericse, someone's bound to slip into a real emotionally
charged rant that's gonna spoil the day around here.

Okay. Good idea.

#6

> Whadaya say we drop this thread. Given the self-restraint I find

I'm

> having to exericse, someone's bound to slip into a real

emotionally

> charged rant that's gonna spoil the day around here.
>

Okay. Good idea

---Amen & for non-smokers there are smoke free casnos but for non-
button slappers,cheap cologne/perfume,farters etc. I guess it's
grin/grimace or walk away
JJ

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@e...> wrote:

#7

Thanks for changing the Subject line to reflect the
changed content of the thread.

It would be nice if members would exercise restraint
when discussing controversial subjects. Occasional
remarks on smoking, politics etc. shouldn't be a problem,
and opposing viewpoints can register their opposition, but
rehashing of every detail isn't very productive IMHO.In
these instances, brevity is a virtue, and then move on to
other subjects.

And, demeaning comments and foul language are inappropriate
on vpFREE.

Tom Sims
vpFREE Administrator

can be countered with

···

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

#8

It may be that the real problem is 2.5 cars per family and all the pollution from exhaust which can be seen hanging in the air. sometimes all the focus on smoking is a diversionary tactic, because the government is not going to cut down citizens rights to drive cars as there,s too much money involved. Anyone who lives in a city and sits in the canyons during rush hour and breaths all that pollution, then complains about second hand smoke is not thinking clearly. I do one by choice and the other by necessity, and I,ll take second hand smoke anytime. Just my 2 cents. Kat

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Lawrence Boxer
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Button Slappers

  >>Yes I know about the government studies that were done, but I also know
  about the Federal Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk
  science.<<

  Not to defend smoking, which we all acknowledge is harmful, but in
  California they tell us (at public expense through additional tobacco taxes)
  that second hand smoke kills 50,000 people here each year. But that
  statistic includes all causes of death that could in any way be attributed
  to smoking, regardless of whetheror not, in fact, a specific cause of death
  was due to smoking or second hand smoke. It might have been, possibly,
  maybe, so it makes the list. In other words, if a person were to die of any
  cardio-pulmonary disease, that death would make the stat sheet, regardless
  of whether or not the person was a smoker or was exposed occasionally to
  second hand smoke. Misleading, at best.

  I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that the state population rises by
  50,000 per day. Assuming that 50,000 people die from second hand smoke, how
  many more die for other reasons? 100,000? More? Also, consider that the
  percentage of people who smoke now is down to just over 20% from well over
  50% twenty-five years ago. So this has been going on for a long, long time,
  and presumably, even more people were dieing from second hand smoke years
  ago than are now! Seems to me that if the stats are correct, we should be
  just about out of people by now.

  It may be that the people putting together those stats are confused, and
  that those 50,000 people a day are really just leaving Californina to move
  to Vegas.

  lb

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Bob Craig" <vp_expert@hotmail.com>
  To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Button Slappers

  > >From: Elaine Rose <atlanticcityrose@yahoo.com>
  > > I agree that button slappers can be annoying and that some women (and
  a
  > >few men) load up with enough cologne to make me sick. BUT - those do not
  > >cause second-hand lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and other ailments.
  >
  > I might agree with you that second-hand smoke might be annoying to some
  > people and that it can cause problems to someone with serious breathing
  > problems, it has NOT been proven that it causes cancer. Yes I know about
  > the government studies that were done, but I also know about the Federal
  > Judge that threw it all out of court as being junk science. In another
  > words, what they did was have the conclusion and then made the science fit
  > it. This is why there are so few second-hand smoke court cases and not
  one
  > penny yet has been handed out for it yet. Of course, the anti-smoking
  > fanatics don't talk about this. There are more real scientific studies
  > going on now but the jury is still out.
  >
  > I will also say that there are some very rude, self-centered, smokers out
  > there, but on the other side, there are some very rude, holier than thou,
  > anti-smokers out there too (you don't have to look further than the vp
  > boards to find some of them).
  >
  > > I hope you're gay (or have an extremely tolerant wife), because
  cigars
  > >are the best chick repellant I ever saw. :slight_smile:
  >
  > No, I'm not gay and I do not have a problem with the women in my life and
  > cigar smoking. But then again, I don't blow smoke in their face and they
  > don't bitch about my 3 or 4 cigars a day. I also am not looking for any
  > "chicks", although they are great to watch. My oldest kid turns 40 this
  > year, so I'm not out there trolling for something new. If I were, I would
  > go the the Luxor's Ra Night Club more often, and alone.
  >
  > Bob Craig
  > Playing VP in Nevada for over 22 years.
  >
  >
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
  > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
  >
  >
  > vpFREE Home Page:
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE
  >
  > vpFREE Links:
  > http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html
  >
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
                
  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#9

There's the real issue. Not trying to divert the topic, but there are MANY studies showing the smog PPM as far exceeding the damage, and contributing to much more lung problems.

As to defending the issue of non smokers [for reference I do smoke] there is no question as to the annoying smell in hair, clothes etc. There is no defense from the fact that it does aggravate sinus problems. My own wife is horribly sensitive. Since I quit smoking in the house, over 5 years ago, all her sinus problems vanished. All of these reasons are more than enough justification for non smokers to be annoyed at smokers, more specifically rude smokers.

Arguing the health issues is a no-win situation as can be seen by the various threads on this topic. And, I do think this discussion has a place in this forum because it is something VP players must deal with every day they play in one form or another.

After all, this is a "forum" of discussion of anything that relates to VP. We talk about restaurant ratings, show ratings and so on. If we got into a topic of "adult movies" or something that far removed from VP, then yes it shouldn't be done here.

As long as the subject indicates the basic topic, why not!! I hate the "use the delete button" responses. We are all adult enough to know how to delete a message. I say more emphasis should be on proper labeling of the subject line.

ADR
[stepping down from soapbox]

p.s

I agree with Tom that there is also a need for less inflammatory remarks from an ethnic standpoint, even if they are meant with sarcasm.

···

At 02:59 PM 1/11/03, you wrote:

Anyone who lives in a city and sits in the canyons during rush hour and breaths all that pollution, then complains about second hand smoke is not thinking clearly.

#10

No, that's a common misconception. Cigarette smoke is different from nearly every other kind, in that it disables the lungs ability to clean themselves. That's why smoker's lungs are black, and the athletic performance of smokers is diminished. (Professional athletes know this. Lots of them will use anything from cocaine to steroids without a second thought, but when's the last time you saw one "light up" after the game?)

john

katcag wrote:

···

It may be that the real problem is 2.5 cars per family and all the pollution from exhaust which can be seen hanging in the air. sometimes all the focus on smoking is a diversionary tactic, because the government is not going to cut down citizens rights to drive cars as there,s too much money involved. Anyone who lives in a city and sits in the canyons during rush hour and breaths all that pollution, then complains about second hand smoke is not thinking clearly. I do one by choice and the other by necessity, and I,ll take second hand smoke anytime.

#11

Well said, on all counts ADR (whoever you are <g>).

···

There's the real issue. Not trying to divert the topic, but there are MANY
studies showing the smog PPM as far exceeding the damage, and contributing
to much more lung problems.........

#12

There's the real issue. Not trying to divert the topic, but there are MANY
studies showing the smog PPM as far exceeding the damage, and contributing
to much more lung problems.........

  I see this as not being relavent. Sure, exhaust fumes might
be a bigger danger than cigarette smoke, but so what. The implication
that we must solve a more dangerous form of air pollution before we
address this one is simply invalid. They are separate issues and
should be treated as such.

  QZ

#13

Of course, there isn't a completely causal
relationship. If that were the case, EVERY smoker
would get cancer and EVERY drunk driver would get
killed in a crash.
   I do personally know of several people who got lung
cancer, even though they never smoked a day in their
lives. They either lived with smoking parents or
spouse, or worked in a smoke-filled place like a bar.
On the other hand, my grandfather smoked all his life
and lived to be 85. It's just a game of Russian
roulette, with worse odds than the roulette wheels in
Vegas.
   The way you describe the California "study" sounds
like junk science. But there is a lot of well-done
stuff out there too.
   Studies DO show that repeated exposure to
second-hand smoke is harmful to health. NOT that
everyone who gets a whiff of it will get sick, but
it's the odds. Most people on this board should be
familiar with what that means. Children of smoking
parents have statistically significant more
respiratory problems that children of non-smoking
parents, as do non-smoking spouses of smokers.
   I drove drunk a couple of times in my younger and
stupider days, and didn't get in a wreck and didn't
get busted. I doubt anyone here would tell me it's a
good idea to drive under the influence. Same with
smoking. You may beat the odds, some people don't.
   Let's all go beat the odds at VP instead.

Elaine

···

--- Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>Yes I know about the government studies that were
done, but I also know
about the Federal Judge that threw it all out of
court as being junk
science.<<

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com