That sort of thing should be more a part of aviation training. I do recall a particularly gruesome film of a hand-prop starting job that went badly awry that was shown quite often back when more pilots actually *knew* how to hand-prop their aircraft. Of course the message ther wasn't "don't fly" but "don't do this hazardous thing the wrong way". I'm sure a lot of folks took home the message that "handpropping is *so* dangerous I don't ever want to try it".

Of course, general aviation has much more positive value for society than nicotine addiction does. The benefits of general aviation operations include aerial advertising, aerial surveying and map making, environmental surveys, agricultural application; business and personal transportation, emergency evacuations and rescue, fire spotting and fighting, law enforcement, medical transportation or emergency flights; news reporting, photography and video, traffic monitoring, on-demand air taxi, package delivery; personal transportation; pipeline and power line patrol. (And we certainly don't hear pilots wringing their hands in public about how difficult their plight is needing to give up flying but being unable to.)

Further: in 2000, NTSB reported 341 accidents that involved fatalities, for a total of 591 deaths, in thirty *million* hours of aircraft operation conducted by something like half a million non-airline pilots. . (For comparison, in 1999 NHTSA reported 37,140 fatal highway crashes, with a total of 41,717 deaths, with some 187,000,000 licenced drivers.) CDC says there are 47,000,000 adult smokers in the US, with 430,000 deaths a year attributable to smoking...one death in five.

And there you have it - you're less likely to die in a plane than a car.

I wonder what the figure comes out to when the airline flights are calculated in? Much better, I assume. I'd be curious to see the statistics though.

You win this round.

http:// www.ntsb.gov has piles of numbers, including Part 135 and Part 121 operations.

http://www.aopa.org is the general aviation group.

hehe. I can just imagine Tony riding off, battered, screaming

"You win this round! But I'll be back, god damn you! I'LL BEEEEEE BAAAACKKKKKKK!"

:)

Once smoking was banned from bars and restaurants, then business in both increased, on average, about 10%.

I am forced out of many PA restaurants and almost every PA bar because of drug addiction encouraged in those venues. It makes me physically ill - especially a headache that aspirin cannot stop.

Public smoking is essential to the addiction industry. Would you place a bottle of gin under the nose of a recovering alcoholic? Of course not. Then why would you do same to a recovering cigarette addict? The cigarette addiction industry has long since understood this. They estimate a recovering cigarette addict will 'fall off the wagon' in about seven years. It is very important to have recovering cigarette addicts smell the outgassing of other addicts in doorways, in bars and restaurants, and anywhere else possible. Drug addicts can be encouraged to restart their addiction if constantly exposed to the drug. Not every addict. But then getting many addicts to restart their addiction after an average of seven years means more customers.

The industry was successful in addicting 14 year olds. If you can expose 7 years olds to nicotene, then they too will more likely become permanently addicted customers. Their own research demonstrated the eariler an addict is addicted before age 21, then the more permanent he will be a customer.

The state of MN discovered a program to market nicotene laced candy. Get that nicotene into the body at an eariler age to make him a more likely customer. Put drugs under the nose of an alcoholic, crack addict, or cigarette addict enough times, and he too will start using again. Therefore public drug useage, especially in bars, is important to the cigarette addiction industry.

VIctoria (my state) recently passed laws banning smokingin all resteraunts, and it is soon ot be expanded to bars, far as i'm concerned, its all good.

i think this is *the* only thread that has stayed ontopic for 5 pages!
cept for that 14page entertainment one, but thats not so much a discussion.

Jag -

are you a smoker or non-smoker? Just curious. I don't mind if it's banned in bars or restaurants either, but I'm a non-smoker. :)

The Canadian government is in court now, with big tobacco, over the graphic warnings pictured in this thread.

Internal cigarette-firm documents prove marketing to 15-19 age group, court told.

As they say, "hook 'em while they're young."

I don't remember where I read it, but there was a study about smoking habits and whatnot. Basically, it concluded that if you're not smoking by the time you're 18, you probably won't. I think this is mostly true, though college and whatnot can definitely have an effect. I personally would expand it to say "if you're not smoking by 21, you almost definitely won't start", but then again, that's not based on a study, but just on my observations of the behaviors of those surrounding me. But they cited pretty good evidence to back up their statements. Definitely interesting - the cigarette companies know this, and they're marketing at younger folks, even though they say they're not. There's something out there that's getting kids to smoke... we just gotta find out what it is and eliminate it.

oh i guess i should mention that its terrible i can't enjoy myself when i'm out at a bar because of SMOKERS!

and god don't even let me start about the raves... why must kids smoke! why!!! why when it is 30 billion degrees inside a venue and sweat is collecting on the ceiling and raining on people - why must people add billowing clouds of cigarette smoke to the toxic mixture? as i left that whole scene i had to ask whether it was me getting old or just pissed off with smokers and it'd have to be the latter with a bit of sensible fuckoffery to the idiots that create those terrible conditions in the first place [bad venues!] rant. blah blah! cha cha cha. eat a canteloupe, stick a fork in your ear!

cigarettes - now with 10% more death

just being senseless ;)

Do you like drugs?

If not bars...
 

I'd like to ask whether or not people think that there should be public places that smokers can go and smoke without either breaking the law or standing outside (that's illegal in CA now too, isn't it?)?

As a follow up, those who said "no" to the above questions: Should people be allowed to smoke at all? (In their own homes...) Obviously if the majority (non-smokers) completely had their way, smoking would be illegal. But should it?

peace,

mh

I think that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others.

If you want to smoke, that's fine. If we're at my house, please go outside (and that's the rule my dad would enforce, and since he pays the mortgage...). If we're in my car, please wait until we get there <b>or</b> I'll pull over and you can smoke outside (I really don't want cigarette smell in my car at all). If you're in your house, fine. If I'm in your car and you smoke, fine - it's my choice to be there, so if you want to smoke, I'll put up with it. People should be allowed to smoke outside, whereever they are - it's up to individual businesses to make rules like "not within 50 yards of entrances" or whatever. I think that telling people what they can and cannot do it silly. I'm a non smoker, and I wish you didn't smoke too (save yourself some money and smell better while you're at it!), but if you do, <b>that's your choice and no one should be able to take it away from you</b>. If you're not hurting anyone else, go for it.

I think that should answer your questions. :)

No. I don't smoke, anymore. I did smoke, for about a year.
The result of a: social smoking at parties (very much passé) b: stress, but I stopped about 3 months ago now, haven't touched one since. Although I have smoked some apple - yes apple. Its a mix of apple, molasses and little bit of pure tobacco smoked in one of those huge middle eastern water pipes, incredibly smooth, very nice tasting, but that doesn't belong to me so its a once in a blue moon thing.

I gave up by cutting down slowly how much I smoked (from 4-5 a day to one every day/2days. Encouragement from my girlfriend "you've smoked, I’m not kissing you", and a nasty feeling every time I looked at the horrible yellow patches on my fingers. Surprisingly enough mum never found out I did smoke, that was difficult to pull off, but I managed to get my tongue pierced for about 3 months before she twigged too.


Being a young bloke that ahs smoked I guess I’ve got a pretty good idea why - culture. For all the knowledge, most kids still think it’s cool to smoke, from my experience it tends to progress from social smoking at parties and the like to a permanent habit. They are not hard to get hold of, about 50% of places will sell to underage, and some charge a "tax" on it though. I still have a reasonable number of friends I know will smoke for their entire lives or close to, pack a day at 16 years old...

Personally I think if they made better use o the impotence ads, it'd probably have an effect, heart disease, lung cancer etc are a long way off, not being able to get it up would certainly stop allot of people, and the jokes would help too.

Re: If not bars...
 

NO ONE should be denied the right to smoke in their home or on their property. Although, I see a dangerous possible scenario here...

Let's say you smoke in your home. And you have kids. Could Social Services pull those kids out of your home, citing that you are putting them in danger?

Anyway...back to point.

Yes, people should be allowed to smoke outside, along the lines of what dham said. At the VA Hospital in St. Louis, they had a little alcove set aside where people could smoke. When I was on jury duty in St. Louis, they had a separate inside ventilated room where you could light up as you wished.

As far as places INSIDE...UNLESS a majority of that company's employees smoke, I don't think they should have to go out of their way to accomodate smokers.

Restaurants and bars: There is a Bennigan's in Columbia, MD that has a sealed-off bar--you have to enter the bar using a separate entrance. (i.e. You go in the restaurant, but if you want to go to the bar, you go through another door that is inside the restaurant.) I thought that was very cool. I say leave the bars for smokers. My personal opinion of course...but in the end, it should be up to the owner of said bar. He should try to determine whether it is worth it to stop the smoking or not...not the state or county or city or whatever.

However, what if public smoking "bars" were set up? Like a tavern of sorts...where people could chew the fat and smoke 'til their heart's content.

I don't know what the numbers are at this point. What is it? Like 20% of Americans smoke? That's over 50 million people, not to mention those that were too ashamed to answer. That's too much of a section of people to ignore. In my 26 years on this earth, the coolest people I've met have mainly been smokers. *shrugs*

There is certainly something to be wary of in this, as you said "UNLESS a majority", seeing as in my current employment we have to (by law) provide a disabled toilet having to provide a smoking room could get expensive, especially considering that non of the nine employees are disabled (at least not in the way that requires their own toilet) nor smoke....

All things considered I suppose we could merrily have the disabled lav be the smoking room too, but then we are talking about silly laws for silly reasons...

Datalas

You'll appreciate that "disabled toilet" when you wind up in a wheelchair, I promise.

I dare say that I would, however since we currently have no need for it (we don't get many visitors either) it is occupying floor space that we need not pay for, and therefore draining resources needlessly (we really could do with the space, it is big enough for an office).

Since I suspect that if I, or anyone else needed the disabled lav they could use the one in the office next door (which is actually closer to the ofices than ours is...) you do wonder why it is one per company, and not neccersarily one per office suit, we have seven rooms, (three offices, a lab, a kitchen and two toilets...) and there is another lab set-up with similar facilites about three feet away from our front door.

I don't mean to sound nasty, but it does seem silly, specifically that we have to have a "disabled access toilet" in addition to the one we have anyhow. We had to have one fitted at my previous place of emplyment, which again occupied space.

Perhaps a better rule would be to have a disabled toilet that the rest of us were allowed to use, apparently (or according to the regulations) there is something in the design of one that stops abled bodied people using it, never saw what, other than the fact it's larger....

Co-incidentely we don't have to have seperate ladies and gents facilities.....

Datalas

I think one "disabled toilet" in a common area should be sufficient. Go figure that law dictates otherwise. Here, we have one per floor, in a common area, with the rest of the toilets. Floor layouts that make sense!

Dangerous possible scenario for the children ... or dangerous possible scenario for the smoker who has children. Which is your point?

Divorcing spouses are successfully arguing smoking as an issue in child custody cases, where the courts must decide in the best interests of the children.

There is no constitutional right to smoke.

There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?

defecate? shit ... what's your point?

Anyway, to spare you the pain of thinking about it ...

my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.

and your corresponding point that there is no constitutional right to defecate might be that the government could also abridge your right to emit shit? Actually, no, in your case that might be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

And dham, don't tell me to calm down. I'm jus' being feces us. :)

My point is that there are a lot of things we do that are not specifically detailed in the Constitution. This does not make them any less of a right. Remember - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is "the condition of being free from restriction or control" - or at least that's the definition we want for this example, and it's my contention that this definition is what was intended by the "founding fathers". So while they laid out a few essential freedoms that could not be encroached upon, they also made it clear that people should have the right to do and act as they please <b>so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others</b>.

A good example of infringing upon the rights of others would be if I got tired of your stupid rhetoric and beat you to death. This would be infringing on your right to life. Remember - "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". A good example of doing something that infringes on no rights is <b>defecating</b>. Hence the prior mention. However, this is not Constitutionally protected. Would you vehemently dispute the right to defecate? Or would you, now that you are backed into a corner of needing to "shoot down" every "non right" that we exercise so that you can defend your original position, talk about how it wasn't actually "entrenched in the constitution" and therefore isn't a right? If John Ashcroft placed a ban on defecation, would you follow it? Or would you quietly (or not so quietly) dissent, using <b>your</b> bathroom and <b>your</b> body as you pleased?

Now. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay close attention.

Sometimes, when people smoke, they don't hurt anyone else. A good example of this would be when my buddy <b>sycamore</b> was driving back to Philadelphia last Friday night. I guarantee you that he smoked some cigarettes. Guess what? No one was hurt, except himself. So, he's infringing on no one elses' rights.

But, he did hurt himself. Not a whole lot in just that one night, but definitely some. However, is this really any different than slapping yourself on the hand? Or maybe pinching the skin on your arm? The damage may be deeper, but the idea is the same - hurting oneself without hurting anyone else. We could also call this <b>using ones' body as they pleased</b>. Kinda like going to the bathroom. No one's rights are infringed by either act. So, in that <b>fundamental aspect</b>, they are similar.

I know it might have been hard to make this connection, so I have spared you the pain of <i>thinking</i> about it. I hope this helps.

So, now we get to your other point: "so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation". My question to you is: What is in the interest of all the people?

If it's not smoking, then is it removing the right to smoke? If that's the case, then what other "undefined" personal freedoms can be taken away? The right to masturbate? Would you stand for that? The right to have sex without the intention of impregnation? Would you stand for a law, then, that criminalized coitus <b>unless</b> it was for procreative purposes? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?

When you start removing personal freedoms, even those that are undefined, you open the door to losing them all. So while it may not be specifically defined in the Constitution, and while I may not smoke, <b>smoking is a right</b> that I will forever vote to uphold, because <b>no one should be able to tell you what is right for you</b>.

"right" to smoke...
 

Nic Name,

At what point do you draw the line in the government's power to protect me from myself? Can you not see the Big Brother argument here? Time was that the government stayed out of people's private lives, and to be honest, I don't think things are so much better now that we're all "protected".

I used to be a radical liberal. I'd say I still have those leanings, but with a healthy dose of libertarianism thrown in. The perspective helps. Try it sometime.

But to address your point...

<b>my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.</b>

This is why we don't have a pure and direct democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If what was best for the nation was always what was best for the majority, here are just a few things you'd see:

Slavery (African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the population. The cheap labor source would surely benefit the majority wouldn't it?)

Eugenics (Mentally and physically handicapped persons contribute less to the overall well being of the nation. Make sure they don't reproduce and drag the average down.)

Enforced Christianity (We are predominantly a Christian country. Why not repeal that pesky First Amendment (as the majority could do if they wanted to) and demand all heathens convert?

Yes, these are exaggerations. But there is a point where a human being should be left to make their own choices. You and I clearly choose a different point. Smoking probably does harm to children who grow up in a smoking house. But so does parental neglect, a FAR more serious and widespread problem in this country.

I grew up in a house with a smoker. Yet I was an star athelete and got into a prestigious college. I picked up smoking there. Neither of my brothers smokes. Both are healthy and decent human beings. Do you really think that being taken from our loving home and forced to live in a series of foster homes with strangers would have been beneficial to our well-being?

The fact is... you have to have a license to drive a car, but you don't need one to have a child. Parenting well is incredibly difficult and most parents are frankly not fit for the job. But they do it anyway, the best that they can. And some of them smoke.

But arguing that the solution to any social problem is for the government to intervene on behalf of those who are being harmed is to invite us to live an Orwellian existance without free will. I, for one, will tolerate a little inconvenience or pain to make sure that never happens.

peace,

tom

Let me be clear, that I fully support your right to express your opinions and to disagree with me if you think differently. It doesn't bother me that we don't always agree.

I have said before, and I'll say it again, I have no problem whatever with those who choose to exercise their right to self-destruct by cigarette smoking. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't care. They can suck on the exhaust pipe of their car if they wish, and it wouldn't bother me. Although, there is probably a law against that.

And I'm not trying to change the minds of those who hold firm the views that it is their right to smoke.

I was just expressing concern for the higher rights of the children, and I suspect we might actually agree on that.

And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.

I was just hoping to raise some points of concern that smokers might value more that their so-called right to smoke. There may be personal costs associated with that choice that are just not worth it. For some people, even smokers, their children matter more ... so they buck up and quit their self-indulgent behavior. Sadly, other smokers are not at all concerned about the costs to their loved ones, never mind society, of their destructive habit. That concerns me. It might or might not concern you, and I'd still be interested to hear about your rationale for your opinions.

Those are the points that I hoped would be discussed, rather than a thoughtless response such as "There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?" And if nothing else, my barbed repartee did in fact motivate dham and hamlet to think about it for more than a minute and get their passionate thoughts out in their ensuing posts.

Gotta like that! :)

No. It made a perfectly valid point, which was reinforced in my later post. The fact that you could not infer the meaning of it only indicates that it didn't make sense <b>to you</b>. It was far from thoughtless, even if it was only one line in length.

I apologize for not making my point make sense to you.

Well, not to be difficult, Nic, but I didn't see a lot of substantive argument in your last post. I made my points, in a fairly dispassionate manner, and you largely ignored them. But to continue/conclude my argument against your stance...

<b>And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.</b>

And I am arguing that this is absolutely wrong. There are SO many things that people do as parents that could be construed by the state as detrimental to the well being of a child. Yes, smoking is one of them. But so is arguing in front of them... How about drinking in front of them? That's legal for us, but illegal for them. I'm sure they'll be more likely to drink before 21 if they see that mom or dad do it.... How about divorce itself? That bad for children. Should we ban divorce for the good of the children?

I guess I have just two more tangental points before I drop this argument:

1. Just because the state (by legislation or by judicial verdict) says something is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. Government does not have a monopoly on wisdom, nor does it never make mistakes. (see: Prohibition and the current failed War on Drugs) Those who make the laws are people too... They have an agenda and a bias... They make mistakes.

2. "Won't someone think of the children!?" has got to be the most overused and annoying argument ever. We're raising generation after generation of people essentially unequiped for dealing with the realities of adult life. We don't trust most kids to lead their own lives until their early twenties now. And even then they are inadequately prepared. Quit "protecting" them so much. You're not doing them any favors.

One final note: If you think that the people involved in the divorces you cite are being altruists, you really should wake up. I guarentee you that (like all other decisions we humans make) they're selfish individuals using the "smoking" card to manipulate someone into giving them their way. If they were so damn worried about the health of the child, why did they marry a smoker in the first place? Smoking should be a very minor factor, and certainly not a deciding one, in determining something as important as child custody.

peace,

mh

P.S. Whoever's .sig reads: "If salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon." has a good friggin' point.

Obviously, there is a lot of interest in this topic in the Cellar, considering the number of page views and the number of replies in this thread.

Nice choice for IotD, UT.

It's hard to beat rhetorical argument for entertainment.

But here's an interesting fact sheet in the form of a timeline history of tobacco. An amazing amount of research has gone into this timeline, which is presented in Parts I-IV.

Find more information at: www.tobacco.org

These are not my sites or opinions. Please don't rant at me if you disagree with anything on these links. :)

Health Canada marks "weedless Wednesday" today in Canada with the launch of a new website to help smokers quit smoking.

This website even offers advice to help to those who don't want to quit:

"How to deal with people who nag you to quit.

Some people want you to quit smoking. Some may tell you directly. Other people try hints such as hiding your cigarettes or ashtrays. Still others may not say or do anything; rather, you just feel like they are judging you.

Of course, you could get angry and tell them to mind their own business, but most of the time this doesn't work. It only encourages them to nag you more because they think you don't understand the health effects of smoking.

The next time someone starts nagging or judging you about your smoking, try these tips:

Remain calm. Remember, you have the right to make your own choices but they have the right to be concerned about you.

Take time to really listen to their concerns and ask them to extend you the same courtesy. Thank them for their concern for your well-being.

Politely explain that quitting is something that you will have to do in your own time and in your own way. When you do decide to quit, you will appreciate their support.

Explain how their nagging makes you feel. They will likely be able to appreciate that putting extra pressure on someone may not always help.

Indicate that you will respect their right to smoke free air if they respect your right to make choices for yourself."

That's excellent. It recognizes the dignity of the smoker, notes their freedom of will, points out that anti-smokers are doing what they do out of concern (well sometimes). Puts the whole thing in perspective and treats smokers as rational human beings.

yah, i rather forgot the schoolyard perspective. some kids are oblivious but others see that the cooler kids are out expressing some slothy rebellion every break... the "pit" [of smokers] develops into its own little social scene that is in fact self-reinforcing. i suppose smoking is one of the easiest forms of rebellion a teen can do. it expresses discontent for those that would chose and control their future perhaps...

as for "weedless wednesday"... well... why is it "weedless" i gotta wonder. stupid canucks.

nice info on the web site but no one got that... ya just get the pap. at least they were thoughtful and realistic though so give 'em some credit! poorly executed idea though, nonetheless...

Speaking of impotence ads....
 

Re: Speaking of impotence ads....
 

Very nice, but even us nonsmokers know the ads aren't true. Oh, sure, smoking may contribute to impotence in some percentage of cases, but impotence isn't a common symptom of smoking. Ads which lie or mislead about the dangers of a product are, IMO, counterproductive -- they destroy the credibility of the authority making the claim.

And you know that how?

The UK government is understood to be in favour of the impotence warning after research by the British Medical Association showed most men are unaware of the link between smoking and erection problems.

The BMA says up to 120,000 British men in their thirties and forties are impotent because they smoke.

I'd like to see the Onion do some of these warnings just for kicks.

"Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking will cause your cock to fall off." Hahaha. :whofarted

Because of all the fucking smokers.

IMO, they, like the AMA, will say anything if they think it will get people to follow their directions.

Re: Re: Speaking of impotence ads....
 

I don't think anyone can speak with confidence about the true incidence of impotence....and "even us nonsmokers know the ads aren't true" is an unsupported assertion; I'm an ex-smoker and nonsmoker and I don't know any such thing.

I *do* know that the cliche is "afterwards they smoked cigarettes"...not "before". :-)

Most of my friends smoke. None of my friends are impotent.

That's what I know. :whofarted

dham,

and you know that how?

[Edit] "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Because most of my friends have female friends, and I'm friends with most of my friends' female friends, and they'd tell me if my friends' penises didn't work right.

I thought you might have first hand experience. :)

Anyway, I thought you mentioned that you were 20 years old and so, I would imagine that most of your buddies aren't yet in their 30s and 40s like the 120,000 impotent blokes in the BMA study.

So I guess they're OK. Not to worry.

i don't smoke. that makes jenno, me. and. i don't know who your other friends are besides andrea and chris. but they smoke.

well, matt, but he doesn't smoke, right?

and...um...well, there. that's 3/5 of people who don't smoke. :3eye:

Shut up.

ecstasy can also cause impotence... which is why the kids these days take viagra at the same time, perhaps in the hopes that they'll spontaneously spawn mutant clones from their weenus while breeding with trollish looking face mongers.

Most 20-yo males have testosterone to spare....certainly enough to overcome some nicotine exposure, if you'll pardon the pun.

But if your female friends are reporting on their lover's bedroom performance to you, well, it must be an interesting crowd. :-) Seriously, that's why I think the epidemiology of erectile dysfunction is underreported--people don't like to talk about it.

I'm probably the only female friend you have who has *been* a 20-yo male. Well...one of few, anyhow. :-)

to confirm:

most of dave's friends are open to talking about sex. dave and i talk about sex, and we are brother and sister. no big deal, you know, it's just sex.

:D

View the entire set of beautiful high resolution images online. Or try to collect the complete series on original packaging before you die.

Bad analogy department ...
 

Quitting smoking as difficult as killing best friend and we all know how hard that is. :rolleyes:

http://www.notobacco.org/photos/thumb/photo05.jpg

If you have the bandwidth and
want a larger image for wallpaper.

I actually have this poster, hanging on my wall in my old house. My sister swiped it from school for me. I just had to have it :)

http://www.lungusa.org/learn/art/dirty_lung2_hr.jpg

Smoking is responsible for the majority (80% - 90%) of COPD
(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) cases, including emphysema.

Emphysematic lung image from the American Lung Association.

Tobacco has killed half a million Ontario residents since 1950 — more than alcohol, drugs, car crashes and AIDS combined — and claims another every half hour, says a jarring new report. Which begs the question ... if smoking on airliners caused one to crash every week, on average, how long would it take to make smoking on airliners illegal? :eek:

Reality really sucks