Watch Your Butt at The Brooklyner and 180 Montague

By on January 17, 2014 7:51 pm in Brooklyn Heights, Real Estate, War On Fun

The Daily News reports that the Brooklyner, the Lawrence St. high-rise that looks like a cigarette, will be smoke-free as of March. Smoking will also soon be prohibited at Archstone Brooklyn Heights at 180 Montague, which like the Brooklyner is owned by Equity Residential.

All new residents in the [Brooklyner], where one-bedrooms start at $2,955-a-month, will be required to sign smoke-free addendums attached to their lease. All current residents will also have to abide by the policy. The smoke-free acknowledgement will be included in lease renewals. Residents who light up inside will be in violation.

What do you think? Is this a wise move to protect tenants’ safety? Or is it a violation of rights? (Or meaningless in the face of all the exhaust New Yorkers breathe in daily?)

Photo: Joy Keh/Daily News

Share this Story:

, , ,

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Rick

    You questioned why anyone would call you an idiot. I don’t defend name-calling. But I’m sure you are used to it in your role as a smoking rights defender. I’m sure you realize that people get upset and angry when you makes statements that support products and behavior that kills people. It makes people question your morality.

    Cigarettes are remarkably dangerous, and not just for the smoker, but also for those around them. There are 69 different chemicals in cigarettes which cause cancer in human beings. The list of these cancers keeps getting longer, as we learn how destructive tobacco is. That is why laws are passed to protect the health of those who don’t even smoke, but are nonetheless getting sick and dying.

    And yes, despite your claims, second-hand smoke has been definitively shown to be a killer. And now the new Surgeon General’s report shows even more bad news in that second-hand smoke is now known to also cause increased strokes in non-smokers who breathe other people’s cigarette smoke.

    Over the years, there are have been 30 Surgeon General’s reports, each with more damning information about tobacco than the last. Here’s a link to the newest:

    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/index.html#consumer

    Listening to your arguments sounds depressingly familiar. In defending smoking, you dispute the overwhelming majority of scientists and body of peer-reviewed research. Just as do evolution deniers and climate change deniers.

  • Jazz

    So you’re saying that as a police officer you ignored those who broke the law because you didn’t agree with it? And now the public pays your pension while you fight for your right to inflict cancer on others? Ugh. NRN

  • Smoke-Free Housing Advocate

    False again. The NY Secretary of State website lists your
    business as a “domestic business corporation,” which by its terms if a for profit business. If you had incorporated as a non-profit, it would list your business as a “domestic not-for-profit corporation”. It doesn’t. Go ahead &
    search away for all your favorite charities: http://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus_entity_search.html.
    It’s fun and even the kids can play, at least those kids who aren’t being
    poisoned by cigarette smoke.

    Further, you have no online filings on your website for IRS Form 990, nor does Guidestar.org, the main non-profit database list you as a non-profit or have your IRS 990 forms. You can describe yourself in court filings, under penalty of perjury, as you wish, but the governmental records, NY Secretary of State filings and IRS letter as to non-profit status is the only admissible proof. To paraphrase, show’em if you got’em.

    Oh, you can’t show them? Maybe because you’re an advocacy
    organization and engage in lobbying, which is impermissible as a IRS 501(c)(3)
    organization and would revoke your tax free status: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Lobbying
    and http://www.lawyersalliance.org/pdfs/news_legal/Nonprofits_and_Lobbying_FAQ_final_for_web.pdf.
    And to prove Goodwin’s law, I’m not calling you names, just a liar and denier. And, ladies and gentlemen, that’s what you call a slow burn.

    I’d say I’m here all week and don’t forget to tip your waitstaff, but you’re toast and not worth my time.

  • AudreySilk

    Each individual police officer is given the latitude to exercise discretion in matters of violations. Or are you saying you never heard the phrase “I’ll let you off with a warning”?

    As for the “inflicting cancer” that remains to be bogus, especially so in the case of what this article is about. But when a person is not allowed to operate a business where he wants to allow smoking and if you don’t like it are free to not enter (a smokers only establishment) the argument “inflict cancer” is hollow.

  • AudreySilk

    Oh good grief, as accepted by even a judge — uncontested by the defendants — “C.L.A.S.H. is a not-for-profit corporation.”

    http://nycclash.com/NYC_CLASH_v_NYS_PARKS.pdf

    Split hairs as much as you want it still boils down to no more than a wild accusation that C.L.A.S.H. MAKES a profit and/or I draw a salary or benefit monetarily in any other way and that that is why I do what I do. Your whole line of investigation was to “prove” that, no? That I only do what I do because of pay? Well, where’s my pay? Have you been able to prove that with mere definitions? All I see is my own bank account short tons of money fighting the likes of you (who still hasn’t reveales who YOU are) who use taxpayer money.

    But again, typical. When you can’t win on the merits of the argument — even IF for your argument’s sake I was paid — which was about harm from a cigarette being smoked in a different apt. then anti-smokers resort to personal attack.

    Why won’t you talk about the science?

  • AudreySilk

    In defending PRIMARY smoking I defend the right to be left alone to make that choice. As you even describe, no one hasn’t been beaten over the head with the message that smoking is risky. It’s legal. Now leave people alone.

    The lies about secondhand smoke — manufactured as a tool to pressure primary smokers to quit — continue to be debunked as recently as last month:

    “A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women… found no link between [lung cancer] and secondhand smoke.”

    “[A]mong women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. ”

    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

    Then if you pay the $35 for the full article as I did (out of my own pocket) you’ll find, “‘We’ve gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you don’t want to die,’ said [Dr. Gerard] Silvestri. ‘The reality is, we probably won’t.'”

    Another scientist, Dr, Jyoti Patel, interviewed in this article goes on to say, “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior to not live in a society where smoking is the norm.”

    Hmmm, sounds exactly like what I said above — secondhand smoke fearmongering in order to get to the people who choose to smoke. Imagine that.

    That’s just the latest. There’s more. And now you want to say that someone smoking in one apartment is “killing” you in another apartment as it “snakes down drains and through outlets”??

    You can also throw the title Surgeon General at me all you want. A white coat doesn’t mean purity. But why don’t you go ask former SG Carmona, the one who delivered the “no safe level” sound bite in HIS 2006 report, why, when he writes to the NYC Council objecting to the ban on electronic cigarettes that they dismiss his opinion as insignificant and ban them?? But but but… he was a SG! He MUST know what he’s talking about! No?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    There is something called logic that you obviously do not possess. To admit primary smoking is deadly yet claim breathing secondhand smoke is perfectly safe, is illogical.

    When i smoked, I never questioned the logic of anti smoking laws or felt my “rights” were being infringed upon. I understood the dangers and while at the time I (stupidly) felt the risk was acceptable for myself, I never felt I had the “right” to perpetrate that risk on upon others.
    Eventually, the inconvenience, cost social stigma and risk prompted me to quit smoking.

    Now when I look back, I realize just how addicting tobacco is and how it warped my perception into thinking it was “right for me”. I also believe, if cigarettes were comparatively as expensive as they are now and all the current laws and stigma were attached to them, I would have never started smoking in the first place.

    So, for you to attempt to undermine actions that are accepted by the majority as a great benefit to society and will save countless lives, is not only illogical but immoral.

  • AudreySilk

    I agree there is a strong link between primary smoking and ill health. It’s risky. The data supports it. But to call it deadly in absolute terms is exaggerated. If not then every single person who smokes would get sick. Many don’t. But the acceptance of that risk is no one’s business but that one person’s. No more was it anyone’s business to tell me not to take a job with deadly risks.

    However, it’s you who looks foolish for trying to call the field of Toxicology “illogical.” The dose makes the poison. Sit in the sun for hours on end and you risk skin cancer. But pass by a window with the sun shining through and you do not. Take one aspirin and you’re fine. Take a bottle and you risk overdose. Drink a glass of water and you’re fine. Drink too much at one time and you drown in it. So spare me what is nothing but emotion, not logic, talking.

    What I hear from you is not what I’d see as pride but as someone who was the perfect lab rat for the anti-smoker experiment. They did all that to you and you say it “prompted” you. No, they coerced you. And then you wish you had been coerced (rather than advised and then left to your own free will) earlier in order to keep you from something. That sounds more like a weak-willed individual who needs government to tell them what’s best. Sorry, that’s not the life I signed up for and I shouldn’t be caught up in the net they cast out for people who happily want it.

    I am an individual, not part of a collective (“accepted by the majority as a great benefit to society”). Manufactured fear over cigarette smoke exposure in order to coerce me into behaving as demanded by others is what’s immoral.

    Want to end cigarettes? Go to Congress and demand the illegalization of the industry. That’s the democratic way. Anything short of that is the indecent imposition of one’s will over another’s and I suffer no shame in that principle.

    I’ll continue in a new post with a statement by the late doctor and author Michael Crichton. Again, it’s only one of many who have written about this in such a way. Pay special attention to when he talks about “consensus.”

  • AudreySilk

    A lecture by Michael Crichton
    Caltech Michelin Lecture
    January 17, 2003

    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second-hand smoke.

    In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

    This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

    In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science … there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second-hand smoke brings … a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.

    Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second-hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

    [B]ad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don’t want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you’ll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we’ve given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We’ve told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

    ———–

    Reminder that you said “actions accepted by the majority” which Crichton incredulously says in response, “it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.”

    Write to Crichton’s estate and call them the same as you have me. While you’re at it, write to the NY Times and call them the same when even the editor drew the line at bans in parks and beaches: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat4.html?_r=0

    Accept bad science because it fills your personal wishes and you doom ALL of science. What credibility on any subject can it ever have.

  • Andrew Porter

    As far as I’m concerned, the final word on all this. Thank you.

  • Rick

    Crichton was an entertaining writer of fiction, but his use of fictions to make arguments is well-documented, most famously in his unfortunate role as a climate change denier. Hardly a credible source for you to quote.

    And the fact is, you can always find a few scientists who will make the most wacky claims. Some of them even have good credentials. But the overwhelming majority DO know that tobacco is incredibly dangerous.

    Your use of “consensus” as a damning argument ignores the reason why there is a consensus in the first place: the preponderance of scientific data.

    Your deriding scientists who advocate against tobacco use as “activists” is as silly as deriding Dr. Salk as an activist because he worked against Polio. Oh wait, the crazies are trying to discredit him, too!

    Life is too short for me to spend more time debating the danger of tobacco for the smoker and non-smoker, just as I won’t debate evolution. So I won’t be posting again on this thread.

  • AudreySilk

    Crichton was an M.D., not just a writer. To dismiss whatever scientific opinion you don’t agree with as “wacky claims” because they don’t fit your views with no evaluation to show how they are “wacky” is meaningless. You’d probably be the first calling for the head of Galileo.

    And please stop conflating primary smoking with the subject of exposure by others to someone else’s smoke. Once you do that you are guilty of digressing. The activists were on fine footing when they were just warning and advising people about smoking. But they turned into the ugly kind — the paternalist type — when they decided to force people to behave in the manner they prescribe through force of law and taxation. It has no relation to Dr. Salk discovering a vaccine for a disease that no one invites. Once again I witness a ludicrous analogy.

    There are several anti-smoker researchers who were at the forefront of providing the “evidence” for banning indoor smoking for decades. But even they say the secondhand smoke studies of late are full of poop. What do they get for speaking out against the dogma? Blacklisted. Some after 25 years of being a darling of the anti-smoker movement. Yet you, like the crusaders who ex-communicated them, don’t want to hear anything that goes against what can only be called a religion now. Because well, they must have suddenly turned “wacky,” right?

    Let’s get something straight. This has all been about an article reporting about banning an otherwise legal activity in someone’s own home — own home for cripes sakes! — over what amounts to the Salem witch hunts at best and discrimination against a chosen lifestyle at worst — because SOMEONE ELSE decides they don’t want you to do that. Screw that and all who think what someone else does is any of their business. That is why I’ll keep talking. It’s disgusting and what’s utterly immoral.

  • Smoke-Free Housing Advocate

    ”Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”-False in
    one thing, false in everything. You remind me of this because if you’ve
    testified falsely, or submitted a false affidavit, about your organization’s
    non-profit status, perhaps you’ve testified false elsewhere. If you’re
    incorporated as a non-profit, simply post your corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation. It’s a public document available from the NY Secretary of State,
    but you’ll save me the time and energy to prove the point if you publicly post it. A judge having accepted your false representation on a non-material point is not determinative of whether, in fact, you lied to the judge. There’s only
    one way to prove if you’re a non-profit or not: post your incorporation papers, or stop claiming you’re a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of NY. If you had’em, you would’ve posted it by now because, ahem, that’s the science of lying.

  • AudreySilk

    That you have turned a question of scientific validity into a business inquisition is beyond the pale. And then to think that I’d go along with your sharp turn from the discussion and feel I have to prove anything to you in some voluntary manner or that I have to provide you upon request with business records? YOU — an alias yet? All because you have stated without any evidence whatsoever, but have insisted is fact, that I benefit from my advocacy and is the only reason I do it: “it’s her job to oppose what you say. If she agreed with you, she’d lose her job.” That was your assertion. Period Talk about nerve Mr. Anonymous.

    But I tell you what, let’s remain on your line of reasoning, counselor. If profit (e.g. salary) is the sole measure by which someone’s sincerity is judged then the advocates who work for places like Coalition for a Smoke-Free City must only say what they say because if they didn’t they’d lose their jobs. I’ll quote you, thank you, when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Ah, shoot, sorry, I have too much integrity to resort to ad hom digressions rather than debate the facts of the discussion. Lucky for you.

  • Smoke-Free Housing Advocate

    If you’re incorporated as a non-profit, simply post your corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation. And I provided the evidence: the link to the NY Secretary of State government record that shows you’re a for-profit business and NOT a non-profit corporation.

    You can argue with yourself around and around in circles, but it’s a simple question.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Your analogies are as deeply flawed as the rest of your arguments. Tobacco smoke is toxic (as you admit) so by logic, one can deduce that anyone breathing it can become sick.
    The primary smoker will of course be at greater risk because they are inhaling greater concentrations of smoke. When exhaled, it is still the same smoke, to be inhaled by the “secondhand smoker” perhaps in lower concentrations but still toxic. The toxicity in tobacco smoke is cumulative, the more one is exposed to it the greater the risk of illness. That Is logical.

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

    I was not, as you said “coerced” into quitting smoking. I did it on my own free will, for my health and the health of others around me, because I care.

    All you seem to care about is you constantly more inconvenient and expensive addiction. The addiction that makes you care not about yourself or others. You don’t seem to realize, the drug is manipulating your mind into believing the nonsense you postulate. It is you who is “weak willed” too weak to quit the addiction to that drug. You are nothing more than a junkie.
    But I empathize, as I was once an addict, so I leave you with this: Please Quit Smoking, for youself and your loved ones.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Yeah what becomes of the doctors, engineers and lawyers that graduate lowest in their class or fail in their career? They write books supporting some waco theory and sell them to the fools that believe it, making millions $$$.

  • AudreySilk

    What is your name? And what is your scientific evidence that can withstand scrutiny for banning smoking in homes in regard to its alleged migration into other people’s homes?

    Typical tactic of the anti-smoker mentality. When you can’t fight on the merits you attack the messenger. For argument’s sake I make 10 gazillion dollars. That settled, debate the science.

  • AudreySilk

    You wrote: “Eventually, the inconvenience, cost social stigma and risk prompted me to quit smoking.”

    That is undeniable OUTSIDE influence. Or are you telling me you made it inconvenient for yourself? Or that you raised the taxes on cigs yourself? Or set about to cast yourself as socially stigmatized? No, that environment was crafted by prohibitionists to force others to change their behavior. That you went along with it (caved) is not “free will” by the longest stretch of the imagination. I have no beef with anyone who, by their own true free will stops smoking. But saying the set-up imposed by others was the cause of the effect is not free will, no more than saying you gave up your wallet to an armed robber because giving up your wallet was ultimately your choice.

    What is your refuge of choice to non-smokers who hold the same view as me? What would you tell the NY Times editor who said park/beach bans go too far? Or Google any “I don’t smoke but…” and then ask those non-smokers why they hate prohibitionists more than smoking or think the SHS science is crap? You can’t resort to the “addiict” argument. Well, only if you mean we are addicted to freedom.

    Again, your “logical” science is not logical. Even the CDC (as much as I hate to quote them but apparently they’re “God” to you on this) says that it takes 30 to 40 years of steady primary smoking to maybe result in ill health. That’s direct inhalation into the lungs millions of times over. And you want to compare that to molecules alleged to be entering an apartment from another. Well buddy, for your cumulative effect you’d have to stay right by the vent for hundreds of years to even come close.

    Here, ask Dr. Simon Chapman, a prominent anti-smoker researcher so rabid he wants to make smokers get licenses, what HIS excuse is for the following (hey, maybe try the “addict” thing on him):

    “To me, ‘going too far’ in [secondhand smoke] policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships’ decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens, and streets.

    “[W]hile tobacco smoke has its own range of recognisable smells, there are few differences between the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke and smoke generated by the incomplete combustion of any biomass, whether it be eucalyptus leaves, campfire logs, gasoline, or meat on a barbeque. Secondhand smoke is not so uniquely noxious that it justifies extraordinary controls of such stringency that zero tolerance outdoors is the only acceptable policy.”

    http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-symposium-law-review.pdf

    How many kids have YOU harmed today as they stand around your BBQ waiting for their hot dog!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    I menat, deranged junky.

  • AudreySilk

    Dr. Phillipe Even, renowned pulmonologist professor and President of the Research Institute Necker in France (French equivalent to the U.S.’s most prestigious medical institutions) in an interview after his retirement. This is translated from the French at http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on-a-cree-une-peur-qui-ne-repose-sur-rien-31-05-2010-943934.php

    Q: What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

    PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

    It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …

    I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

    Q: Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!

    Q: The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

    Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

    Q: Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

    Q: Why not speak up earlier?

    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held by my duty to confidentiality (1). If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

    Le Parisien

    (1) Translator’s notes: The exact expression Pr. Even used in French is ”devoir de réserve” to which I could not find an exact English equivalent but it refers to a public servant’s obligation to professional secrecy and discretion. .

  • AudreySilk

    You forgot “Oh yeah? Well I’m rubber and you’re glue…” as a response to hard material.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    “How many kids have YOU harmed today as they stand around your BBQ waiting for their hot dog!”

    None.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    “hard material” LOL

    The point of second hand tobacco smoke while sitting in a park or at the beach isn’t about them getting sick, it’s about them being annoyed. Why should anyone have to be annoyed by you indulging in your addiction?

  • ellymay878

    Anyone who still thinks smoking , primary or secondary, is not bad for you is not in touch with reality or is benefitting from ignorance.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    Hey I wonder what happened to AudreySilk, she suddenly dropped of commenting on this thread… Humm perhaps she got the results of her chest X-ray….

←  Older Comments
 →