Lan(r)12

Bascule, Most "burley tobacco" farmers cure on open air...it wouldne make sense to cure over a flame...Flue-cured tobacco is smoked, but it isnt flamed in any way... To cure tobacco, we hang it in an open air barn starting around late september and ending near late november/early december. The tobacco is then cured, but also needs to "come in case" and that is done with warm air, and moisture (45-60 degrees and raining, or fog). Holding it over an open flame would ruin the tobacco... Maybe I misunderstood you, but I just wanted you to know a little about the curing process And Bear's Key, Id gladly take you up on your offer All you will see is your own sweat lol Now, when we set it, we do add some insecticide, but its gone by July, so i cant see how it would remain their for a year. We dont usually use calcium phosphate...just some urea, maybe some nitrate...depends on the location and type of soil.

This is something I have a problem with as well. Ive worked and lived on a tobacco farm all my life, and worked in the warehouses where they process it (which I highly doubt anyone here can say they have as well) and NEVER have I seen them add any ingredient other than some preservatives like is added in food. It is ridiculous to think that they go around pouring ammonia and whatnot in cigarettes to make it deadly and addictive...why would you want to kill your clientele quicker? All those things like formaldehyde and cyanide are present in ANY organic plant you are STUPID enough to dry out, roll up and smoke. We dont go around adding rat poison. Such ignorance is founded by anti-smoking propaganda... Anyways...just wanted to rant about something that has absolutely nothing to do with a smoking ban Somewhat off-topic edit: BTW, I wasnted to ask the (bio)chemists here something. If I were to put nicotine in solution and have it permeate my skin, wouldnt it make me addicted to it--If its true when they say that 1mg is enough to get you addicted? Because Ive had what is called "nicotine poisoning" several times. This happens whenever you work in tobacco in the rain, and you absorb enough nicotine to make you violently ill...think of it as a super-flu...it is INCREDIBLY unpleasant. If nicotine was as addictive as they say it is, wouldnt my absorbing enough to make my really sick also get me addicted to it? Yet Im not? I know this is anectdotal, but I just wanted to know why I am immune to nicotine. Thanks

Yes,your idea is better BearKey, and more cost feasible, but there is no way the anti-smokers would go that far. wed have to give up more than that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I thought it was? i get off track so easily...now I have to find the poster who said that...sorry about the mix-up INow. But the point is valid is it not? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged "I'd keep it mainly at citizen's rights, with the problem of crop replacement as extra fluff." I agree, somehow I got off track. I really dont see how they can have a problem with cigarettes, but then still use electricity from coal plants, cars and every other thing that is spewing out gases. The non smoker has every right to not go into a store, whereas this ban would inhibit the smoker from going into stores. It seems as if because it doesnt affect them, they are ok with banning it. PS--I dont smoke lol.

Well we Christians think that he is a creature of omnipotent-time -manipulation of you will. "A day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day to our lord." This is basically saying that time holds no meaning for the Judeo-Christian God. Obviously this is illogical and can never be proven and goes against all temporal physics, but cmon, its just what we believe. Dont start throwing equations at us. He can create everything, he came from nothing and knows all, but you are hung up on the fact that we think time is indifferent to him, as it were? Thats one of the smaller irrational things aobut our God. Basically, we think that if you can control time, it holds no meaning for you.

Those are for businesses...I wasnt speaking of businesses. Im referrring the the primarily agricultural economy of Kentucky and Virginia and whatnot. Tens of thousands would become unemployed if tobacco was outlawed. It would be ridiculous to say that we could survive the outlawing of our cash crop. KY needed to shore up their budget...so what did they do? They increased the cigarette tax by a dollar. This shows that KY is entirely dependent upon this plant. Like I said before, it would cost a lot more than 100,000$ to change MOs on our farm. This is a subject most city folk are fairly ignorant in, so I understand that you didnt understand me If you as a taxpayer would be willing to fund the changing of our lving because YOU wanted it to change, you would hear no argument from us. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That IS a great idea...anti-smokers, what is wrong with this compromise?

A freakin Machete? And your police arent armed? Damn...not much can go against a machete...except a sawed off pistol grip shotgun...but then your police dont carry guns... You all should carry trench spikes which are like brass knuckles+a 6 inch stabbing balde attached to the knuckes.

Trust me Mr. Hermanntrude...the chocolate bar thing WORKS. I'm 20, yet I would get up and do integration on the board for the promise of a 3 Musketeers bar...or a Reesee's...mmmmmm... We learn via chocolate...remember that!

If you mean we came from aliens...then thats been done...its called panspermia. If you mean that we encounter aliens that are creations of ours that we havent created yet because they travle time, that might get a little confusing... Star Trek or something (i know, sacrilege not to know this lol) had a movie where they encountered a quasi-omniscient life form that called itself V-GER Turns out that is was the old "Voyager" and that it had gained sentience over the thousands of years it traveled...so that idea has kinda been done Sorry. But good luck with your writing

No, but unless you all are capable of taking what is basically an aluminum bat to the skull or leg, I dont really think Id have any trouble handling some skinny little snot-nose skater punks. you should see the big 'ol country boys that lumber around here...Id MUCH rather fight a skater punk with an attitude than those big man-bears. They could take me out with one punch and they LIKE to fight. Most hooligans dont want trouble that might result in a fractured skull.

Funny how you cant rebutt the financial side iNow, but thanks for your input

...Im just going to jump in here and not read the last 30 or so posts I carry an 18" telescopic baton for just such an occasion. It is perfectly legal to carry so long as you have taken the proper courses. I would've "risked" confrontation and told them to shut the **** up and go home. I stand at 6'2 so I usually dont have to ask twice. Add in the psychological deterrent of an expanded baton, and you can pretty much reinstate order by yourself... Stand up for those that are too small to do it on their own, like children or woman, or some men. Do the right thing, even if it means breakin someone's leg with 18 inches of solid steel to do it. And Moontanman, I can certainly understand where youre coming from. I live in Kentucky, in a rural area, and I highly doubt that the police would arrest you for kicking some punks ass, or drawing a pistol, provided you had a permit. Most people around here have guns in the car...we dont see this kind of behavior where I live.

Outlawing tobacco would devastate my state's (Kentucky) economy as well as those surrounding it. Right now, tobacco is the only cash crop that is applicable in our states. If the government outlaws tobacco, they should provide subsidies that would allow us to purchase new quipment to raise different crops and such. Most city people dont even think about these things when they scream for prohibition. It would cost WAYYYY over 100,000 dollars to currently change operations...if the taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill, we would gladly change to soybeans or something in that nature. And iNow, those arguments are perfectly valid. Just because you don't agree with them doesnt make them wrong. Every time you use your AC or heater, fumes from otehr cars are coming in as your car uses air form OUTSIDE. There are no filters of any sort. Yet that us ok with you? The Logic is: If you are ok with driving a deadly gas spewing machine, you should have no problem sitting in the vicinity of smoke.

I think it would promote sex to an extent. Kind of like if you told me I couldn't die and feel no pain, and shot me to prove it, I would look for the highest building and start jumping off of it repeatedly... Teens (we're ALL alike) are stupid and we need to be saved from ourselves. We think in short term when it comes to situations like this, and we act without rationale of any kind. That my take anyways.

I HATE it when I get called on to answer chem questions...I get all nervous and I KNOW I'll mess up...you are an evil person, you teacher. But that is a cool idea. But then again...I think silly string is cool...so...

Actually, according to an article published in the British Medical Journal, SHS isnt half as deadly as everyone thinks it is. The EPA study that said it was has been vacated by the US Courts, by a federal judge. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 Thats the article that found NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION between SHS and some illnesses everyone believes they cause. And no one is ever forced to go into a smoking allowed store. So why should the store be forced to change? If the smoking allowed thing becomes so detrimental to their profits, they WILL change their policy, thats the beauty of capitalism. This change will come naturally. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. This was demonstrated in the '20s. And cars DO emit infinitely more deadly fumes than a carton of cigarettes ever could, and they are also contributing to the killing of Global Dimming (i think)...which isnt good. If cars are allowed to foul up the air we breathe, the less deadly cigarettes should be able to as well, logically speaking. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Good Lord, my sentiments exactly. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Excellent GutZ, excellent *rubs hands* Yes, dance puppets, dance.

thanks for your input GutZ

The situation is quite complex. Im more focused on the aspect of a mandatory smoking ban in all businesses, even if the business owner and/or property owner is against said measures. If a property/business owner wants to allow smoking, isn't it their choice to do so? If they want to ban it, isn't it their choice to do so? Wouldn't a smoking ban be somewhat totalitarian legislation in that smoking is a legal act/product? I believe that the person who owns the estabilishment should decide whether or not they want to allow this on their premises. If the government chooses a ban for their buildings, so be it. I also think, for health purposes, that smoking shouldn't be allowed in medical facilities. What do you all think? Please explain your position, thanks.

I can say that, while I don't agree with most of his economic ideologies, I am quite happy that more federal aid is being made available to me. Education is ALWAYS a good investment. The US is woefully short on science and math majors of any kind. And I really dont expect to have trouble finding a good engineering job. You cant send stuff like that reliably overseas.

Agreed...I think it would be terribly difficult to curve an arrow. And no, I was thinking in pure kinematic motion. No magnetism or other sources of the sort.

But anyways, would it be possible to put a relatively significant curve on the bullet, as you would do with a curve-ball in baseball? Simply by spinning the gun? Provided it could be spun that fast?

...i knew that...

awww...what happened to your Rorschach avatar, YT2095? And how do they all fly in an arc?

this is some crazy stuff lol

thanks for your advice

At first I would say no, and that this is the same type of flawed logic that leads people to believe that when a ball is being swung in circular motion on a string, and that string is cut, that the ball will go in a an arc. But instead it flies off tangential to the point at which it was cut. But then someone pointed out to me that you can put english on a cue ball to make it spin. They then said that if you were to twist the gun so that the barrel was moving faster (in a curved motion) than the bullet inside the barrel (as most guns typically make their bullets spin as part of the design) the bullet would be essentally the same as a cue ball that was hit with an angular force or whatever, and that the bullet would curve. If it was physically possible to spin the gun that fast, would the bullet curve? Or his logic fallacious in some way? I believe it is, but I can't think of how to put Newtons law into words to explain his error. Heck, I may be wrong. What do you all think?