The Healthiest Hookah Smoke?

[cypherkk]

Your two claims are absurd.

1. People who smoke and do everything else the same die earlier than people who don't smoke, by a long shot. The we-all-die-eventually thing is an absurd argument. Smokers die of cancer earlier.

2. Smokers are not either 3-packs-a-day or once-a-week. There are people in between, and they die early too (just not as early as their heavy-smoking counterparts).

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly about Soex, though.

I disagree with you on your two claims. People who smoke show no earlier signs of dieing any early than anyone else... Much like saying people who eat fat will die before everyone. Almost everytime the news interviews someone above the age 100, ain't none of them vegitarieans. They eat meat, suchas bacon and stuff cooked in lard.

On a personal note I have a grampa who is near 90 and while he's a faidin', he's drank and smoked since his early teens. Most non-smokers/drinkers don't live that long. Any assertion stating this is the direct cause of X, is simply absurd. And, no he isn't dieing of cancer or surprisingly, heart disease or liver disease, I believe it to be something in with his head. Nicoteen (despite how liberal "pacs" distort information), does not kill anyone anymore than anything else, except maybe doctors.

I recall doctor mal-practice suits resulting from death to be one of the highest death rates: even higher than smoking, drinking and driving, or guns. I say we BAN doctors!

Oh, so chances are, smoking anything is going to be equally bad for you (its the smoking part).

Then again, smoking cyanide probably isn't a great idea, I do however have no problem with smoking salmonilla. Edited February 23, 2007 by cypherkk

[mgcsinc]

Scheetz, I was responding to two things: (1.) "who cares. Nothing in this world is healthy for you. Everything is injected with some kind of steroid/chemical product that causes cancer in the long run. Everyone lives till they are 80. Just some have it a bit rougher those last few years." and (2.) "The only people who are royal screwed by tobacco are the 3 pack a day people, the dip multiple times a day people etc." I understood exactly what you meant, and I stand by my arguments.

(1.) shows me that you don't understand the research that has been done into this. People who smoke and do everything else the same are more likely to die earlier. This has been shown. They don't just have rougher final years - they actually die earlier. I never said that all smokers will die of cancer, I was simply saying that it is not only the heavy-smoking group that dies earlier, on average (my response to (2.)). Obviously, there are smokers who live longer than non-smokers. Your insistence on bringing your single-case family members into this shows that you don't understand the basic statistics involved in making claims about who dies earlier. Please, go read about normal distributions and try to understand why you having a smoking grandfather who's lived a long life means nothing in regard to the average earlier death of smokers.

cypherkk, arguing with you is hopeless, but I'm going to go quickly through your claims:

"People who smoke show no earlier signs of dieing any early than anyone else... Much like saying people who eat fat will die before everyone. Almost everytime the news interviews someone above the age 100, ain't none of them vegitarieans. They eat meat, suchas bacon and stuff cooked in lard." - Here, you have made an analogy, and then used evidence that the case in the analogy is incorrect to try to prove that the original case is incorrect. This is fallacious reasoning at its worst. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy . If you would like to provide some actual evidence that contradicts 50 years of good science (including research that we now know was actually done within the cigarette companies themselves) to support your blanket first sentence, I would gladly listen.

"On a personal note I have a grampa who is near 90 and while he's a faidin', he's drank and smoked since his early teens. Most non-smokers/drinkers don't live that long... Nicoteen (despite how liberal "pacs" distort information), does not kill anyone anymore than anything else, except maybe doctors." - Three things: (1.) You've just reasoned using the following logic: If A is a member of X and is not a member of Y, then there does not exist an individual who is a member of X and a member of Y. This is fallacious; a single example cannot disprove an existential quantifier (which is eqivalent to proving a universal quantifier). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example . (2.) There are two reasons this appears to be a "liberal" issue: The simple geographic distribution of political philosophies in the US, and issues of regulation. The former is coincidental and therefore not really substantial. As for the latter, I have not mentioned regulation in this thread, and I do not believe that regulation is inextricably tied to the issue of telling the public that a product is more likely to kill them than any other common preventable risk factor. If you are claiming that wanting to know the truth is liberal and insisting on ignorance based on fallacious logic is conservative, then you are insulting the intelligence of some very smart conservatives. (3.) For the love of all that is holy, nicoteen is not spelled that way. I have tried subtly, then not so subtly to point this out to you, and now I'm explicitly telling you. I don't like bringing up spelling issues because I think they're silly, but how can I take someone who claims to be aware of scientific research seriously when they can't spell the very subject of that research correctly.

"I recall doctor mal-practice suits resulting from death to be one of the highest death rates: even higher than smoking, drinking and driving, or guns. I say we BAN doctors!" - I never said that smoking kills more than surgery, drinking and driving, or guns. But these things are inherently deadly. I don't go having unnecessary surgery, drinking and driving, or tempting people to shoot me, because I know those things can kill me. Smoking is fundamentally different, and people should know if it's more likely to kill them than, say, drinking a glass of lemonade is.

"Oh, so chances are, smoking anything is going to be equally bad for you (its the smoking part)." I don't understand you. You spend all this effort trying to claim that smoking is not that bad, and then you seem to step back, allow the idea that smoking is bad, but claim that smoking anything is equally bad. And on this last point, I'm actually not that much in disagreement. Edited February 23, 2007 by mgcsinc

[ioannisds]

Please mommy, make it stop! Smoking is not as good for you as not smoking. That is all.

[Johnny_D]

Please mommy, make it stop! Smoking is not as good for you as not smoking. That is all.

I'm with ioannisds.

All this other intellectual penis waving is fine, but the bottom line is stated above.

It's that simple.

Q : Worried about it?
A : Don't do it.

JD - Simple.

[mgcsinc]

I'm sorry for what appears to be "intellectual penis waving". When someone is using folk arguments that don't make any sense in order to mislead people about the truth, it's hard for me not to get technical in trying to dissuade people from accepting their arguments. But for all the penis waving on my part, I apologize. And for your simple assertion, "Smoking is not as good for you as not smoking. That is all", I thank you.

[cymptom]

I didn't really take the time to read all the posts in this thread, mainly because I don't want to get involved in any specific arguments, but there is one issue that I feel really strongly about: I'm strongly opposed to the oversimplifying view in which "smoking" is "smoking" and if you've decided to smoke you might as well abandon all health concerns. A common response to threads like this always ends up being "if you're worried about risking your health, just don't smoke," but this avoids the actual question and doesn't get us anywhere.

(Most) people who have decided to smoke have already in fact decided to risk their health -- they are beyond that point. But from there, there is still the desire to go about smoking in the healthiest way possible and I think that desire is a valid one. Part of this involves promoting research to raise the awareness of the actual health risks involved and identify which variables are responsibe for the risks -- a recent study showed that smoke from small hookahs has 4x the amount of carbon monoxide, which I think is currently being evaluated for potential neurological effects on the brain, than the smoke from large pipes. It's not my point here to assert the validity of this study, but rather that these are the kinds of things we should know and care about if we've decided to smoke hookah.

The biggest step will be finding a way around inhaling the junk that is produced in the burning charcoal. I don't know about you guys, but I'd like to smoke hookah more often and the main reason I don't is because of the charcoal I know I'm breathing in. The attitude which casts off any hope of reducing the health risks of hookah smoking will slow the process by which these risks are pinpointed and overcome.

[mgcsinc]

cymptom, I couldn't agree more. The hookah length effect on carbon monoxide was one variable I had forgotten about, which is funny given that I think I was the one who originally posted that research here.

Your point that "(Most) people who have decided to smoke have already in fact decided to risk their health" is key. I think trying to find healthier ways to smoke is a great idea, and I am totally in support of it. But in the process we shouldn't forget one thing: smoking, no matter how it's done, is going to be worse than not smoking. Edited February 23, 2007 by mgcsinc

[azcoyote]

Like it or not there is no safe way to use tobacco. Even tobacco that is not smoked - chew or dip - will produce oral, throat and stomach cancer and other negative effects. Factors that seem to make it worse are frequency, duration and location. Oral tobacco is generally taken in the same place - between the cheek and gums and that's where most of the cellular changes take place, at the site of absorption.

It seems that the burning and inhalation of tobacco products is the worst method, health-wise. "Tar" is produced when any plant matter is burned, even charcoal. Tar consists of hundreds of organic compounds many are known to be potent carcinogens. When shisha packages say contains 0% tar, it is an accurate statement, in that no tar is present in the package. Tar is not produced when shisha is "smoked" in the usual manner. In that respect shisha probably is safer than cigars, pipes and cigarettes. However, it is not really healthy anyway you slice it.


What can be done to minimize risks while still indulging in this vice? Here's my opinion, nothing more.

1. Make sure coals are fully lighted with some ash on all surfaces before drawing on hookah. This will minimize combustion byproducts and tar from the coals. These substances are really dangerous to inhale. The good news is once coals are up to temperature, these tars burn off and almost pure carbon remains. BTW, you will have a better session this way, and no hookah hangover.

2. Drink plenty of water, tea or whatever while smoking. This helps the body process and eliminate toxins and flushes the membranes inside the mouth and throat and dilutes the poisons to a degree. It is also increases enjoyment.

3. When you feel you have had enough, stop. Just cause the coals are half done, if you are satisfied, stop. A 15 minute session can be really good sometimes. Don't have to waste the coals, just put them under a shot glass and they go out.
When coal are relit, you don't have to wait for them to ash over completely since they have already burned clean once.

4. Exercise! Regular cardio workouts reinvigorate the system and speed cellular repair. Statistically speaking, the greatest predictor of health is exercise. It also leta you know if you are overdoing it with your hookah. If you feel shortness of breath, you may wish to cut back on your consumption.


5. Give yourself at least a couple consecutive days every week when you smoke nothing. Give your lungs some time to clear out.

Hope this is helpful

[tingjunkie]

My question is, would tea in the base be healthier than plain water? I know it wouldn't do a better job of filtering out anything toxic from the shisha, but would you be inhaling the stuff in tea that is said to be healthy for you?

Not meant to be a thread hijack, at least its relevant

I seriously doubt it. Just drink the tea.

[cymptom]

cymptom, I couldn't agree more. The hookah length effect on carbon monoxide was one variable I had forgotten about, which is funny given that I think I was the one who originally posted that research here.

If you still have the link to that article, could you post it again? I've been looking for it for a while and can't find it.

we shouldn't forget one thing: smoking, no matter how it's done, is going to be worse than not smoking.

While that's of course true, it's not as extreme with hookah as it might be with other forms of smoking. When you think about it, the only products we mean to put in our lungs when we smoke hookah are glycerin, flavoring and (for some) nicotine and/or caffeine. If the contraption could be tweaked to ensure that these were in fact the only components that we were putting into our body, it seems to me that "smoking" hookah would hardly be dangerous at all. In light of that, the above quote is of course still true, but I'd say it's about as poignant as saying that eating a donut is worse than not eating a donut

[mgcsinc]

cymptom, I couldn't agree more. The hookah length effect on carbon monoxide was one variable I had forgotten about, which is funny given that I think I was the one who originally posted that research here.

If you still have the link to that article, could you post it again? I've been looking for it for a while and can't find it.

The abstract for the article is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...&dopt=Books . If you want the article itself and you are not at a research university where you can easily access it, PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

[Allia22]

Please mommy, make it stop! Smoking is not as good for you as not smoking. That is all.

I'm with ioannisds.

All this other intellectual penis waving is fine, but the bottom line is stated above.

It's that simple.

Q : Worried about it?
A : Don't do it.

JD - Simple.

That is the best term I've ever heard for it I've ever heard! Damn menfolk!

[cymptom]

Everything a guy does is "penis waving"... relatively speaking, it's not so bad when he does it intellectually, is it?

[Allia22]

No, it's better than guys doing stupid stunts... But you have to admit it gets irritating when it turns into a long drawn-out debate when the answers are simple. At that point I just want to yell "All right, we get your point, leave it at that!"

[Scheetz]

I am not saying your wrong in your ideas, nor am I giving statistics as to why I am right. You are forgetting a huge issue with statistics though. They don't release the health files or nearly enough information to the public about each person in the study. So while they say smoking gives cancer 80% of the time or whatever the percent is, what we don't know is what these people did the rest of their lives. They could have been eating healthy, or they could have ate McD's everyday for lunch. Everything you do each day directly effects the end outcome. You also have to realize that smoking companies are funding this research. They also don't tell you how much they smoked. I want to see a study done by a university relating 1 pack a day smokers to 2 pack a day smokers to 1 pack a week smokers. Until that hits my hands and I can read the background info on each subject. Then everything the smoking companies release will go in one ear and out the other. Remember, they make it sound worse than it is to appease the country.

My use of my "family" directly relates to my blood line. I don't care what you think about it, I am proving a point. Smoking doesn't always kill you and it doesn't always give you cancer. My family line directly proves this. The worst they got was emphysema. And what has that stopped, nothing. Nothing has been bothered in their everyday lives.

[entrailsgalore]

Your two claims are absurd.

1. People who smoke and do everything else the same die earlier than people who don't smoke, by a long shot. The we-all-die-eventually thing is an absurd argument. Smokers die of cancer earlier.

2. Smokers are not either 3-packs-a-day or once-a-week. There are people in between, and they die early too (just not as early as their heavy-smoking counterparts).

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly about Soex, though.

I disagree with you on your two claims. People who smoke show no earlier signs of dieing any early than anyone else... Much like saying people who eat fat will die before everyone. Almost everytime the news interviews someone above the age 100, ain't none of them vegitarieans. They eat meat, suchas bacon and stuff cooked in lard.

On a personal note I have a grampa who is near 90 and while he's a faidin', he's drank and smoked since his early teens. Most non-smokers/drinkers don't live that long. Any assertion stating this is the direct cause of X, is simply absurd. And, no he isn't dieing of cancer or surprisingly, heart disease or liver disease, I believe it to be something in with his head. Nicoteen (despite how liberal "pacs" distort information), does not kill anyone anymore than anything else, except maybe doctors.

I recall doctor mal-practice suits resulting from death to be one of the highest death rates: even higher than smoking, drinking and driving, or guns. I say we BAN doctors!

Oh, so chances are, smoking anything is going to be equally bad for you (its the smoking part).

Then again, smoking cyanide probably isn't a great idea, I do however have no problem with smoking salmonilla.

I am going to have to agree with cypherkk.


It has been established that smoking increases your risk for lung cancer. 87% of lung cancer patients smoke cigarettes. But that doesn't mean 87% of smokers will get lung cancer. Just because you are a smoker doesn't mean you WILL get lung cancer and you will die PERIOD. I know lots of people who have been smoking for years and are still alive WITHOUT cancer...my dad for instance, hes like 46, been smoking since he was 10, he is not dead and he still smokes. As far as I know, he does not have lung cancer yet. What does that prove? it proves that when you are 46 your health degrades, also smoking can increase this process...and it laso proves that smokers aren't guaranteed death by lung cancer. Smoking simply can increase your chances of getting it.

So to imply that all smokers, young or old, will die from lung cancer is to me...how did spock put it.....illogical? I have the same chance of getting shot, getting in a car accident, having a flesh eating virus manifest in my room and consume me, as I do of contracting lung cancer in 30 years. The only difference is I can control weather I stop smoking and greatly decrease my chances of getting it, as apposed to controlling what happens to me when I got to work and get hit from a semi truck and die. So we know that smoking cigarettes can cause cancer, that smoking increases your chances BUT does not completely guarantee you will get cancer.

But what about smoking causes cancer? It is the 4,000+ chemicals in cigarettes that cause or severely increase your chances of getting cancer. But what does hookah tobacco have that can cause cancer? as far as I know it contains tobacco ( mostly washed) some type of flavoring usually fruit, glycerin, molasses or honey...and water. So the question is what is in Hookah Tobacco that causes cancer? I haven't done enough research to answer that question. But I know that any type of smoking is bad and can damage your lungs regardless of what chemicals it does or does not have.

So we can agree that smoking anything, is not healthy at all. It does not increase your health for the most part ( unless you need to smoke for medical purposes) and it can greatly decrease your health, over time.

But in the same note, just because you smoke doesn't mean you will get cancer. It just increases your chances of getting it, in some cases by almost 100%, and it others probably only about 10-20%.

Smoking is not illegal, so smoke if you please. Do it in moderation, just like with anything else. But if you feel you must stop smoking,t hen stop. Because your body will eventually mend itself, it will replace all bad or mutated cells with fresh new ones.

But quiting smoking still doesn't decrease your chances of getting other diseases like an STD, so I can't help you there.

BTW: Nicotine is known as a "Stimulant Drug", a drug none the less. Edited February 23, 2007 by entrailsgalore

[mgcsinc]

Scheetz, I'll respond to specific quotes of yours:

"You are forgetting a huge issue with statistics though. They don't release the health files or nearly enough information to the public about each person in the study. So while they say smoking gives cancer 80% of the time or whatever the percent is, what we don't know is what these people did the rest of their lives. They could have been eating healthy, or they could have ate McD's everyday for lunch. Everything you do each day directly effects the end outcome." - To give you some background on myself, I am an undergraduate and over the summers I do research at Georgetown University in a Neuroscience lab, where I use new-ish statistical methods to analyze data about the brain bases of cognition. Please do not lecture me about statistics or experimental design. What you are talking about is the existence of possible experimental confounds, but you are ignoring the most important element of the definition of an experimental confound - it has to very with the independent variable. If smokers and non-smokers are more likely to eat McD's, then that detail of their life does not need to be controlled for. This is because we expect McD's consumption to vary normally across the population, so long as sample size is large enough, and our statistical tests account for this. That's the beauty of statistical tests. I am consistently shocked by the naivety here regarding the way experiments are designed and run. Scientific experiments typically involve hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding from the federal government along with the investment of a year or more of time by an investigator and one or more graduate students. Epidemiological studies in particular often make use of very advanced statistical measurements to control for an enormous number of variables to guarantee that the effects that are found are real. Why people here seem to think these things are haphazardly put together, I have no idea.

"You also have to realize that smoking companies are funding this research... Remember, they make it sound worse than it is to appease the country." - I'm not going to go through the effort of putting together a list of sources to show you just how uneducated your view on this issue is, but I hope you can trust me: nothing could be farther from the truth. A vast amount of research on this subject was done before the tobacco companies admitted the ill health effects of tobacco. Both before and after that happened (and to this day), the overwhelming majority of the money for research on tobacco (and research on pretty much everything else under the sun) has come from the federal government. In a few cases, money has come from state funds created by the Master Settlement Agreement and other tobacco settlements, but this is to the tobacco companies' dismay rather than delight. Your idea, that the tobacco companies would somehow benefit from making tobacco look more dangerous than it really is, is pure fantasy.

"They also don't tell you how much they smoked." - You've clearly never read any study about this subject.

"I want to see a study done by a university relating 1 pack a day smokers to 2 pack a day smokers to 1 pack a week smokers. Until that hits my hands and I can read the background info on each subject." - It hasn't hit your hands because you haven't looked for it. I suggest you use wikipedia as a starting place and actually try reading a real study or two.

"My use of my 'family' directly relates to my blood line. I don't care what you think about it, I am proving a point. Smoking doesn't always kill you and it doesn't always give you cancer. My family line directly proves this." - I have never said that smoking kills every single smoker, or that it gives every single smoker cancer. For me to make that claim, I would have to claim that everyone who smokes is somehow protected from every other cause of death that can kill before smoking does, which I am obviously not claiming. I reiterate, for the millionth time, that my point is that smokers die earlier than non-smokers, even if they are relatively light smokers. That is to say that Bob will (statistically, i.e. on average) die earlier if he was a smoker than if he wasn't, even if he did everything else the same in life. Even still, your logic is flawed. You cannot look at a living person and say "hah! he doesn't have cancer, therefore he will never have cancer" If you can't understand why this doesn't make sense, I don't know what to tell you.

"The worst they got was emphysema. And what has that stopped, nothing. Nothing has been bothered in their everyday lives." - I suggest you read the wikipedia article on emphazema: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphazema . For many people with this disease, it has a debilitating effect every day of their lives. It forces them to take a whole slew of medications and, in many cases, be constantly taking supplemental oxygen from a tank. How you are able to trivialize such a grave disease, I do not know.

Look, I don't mean to insult you or put you down here, but your posts have been full of misconceptions about research in this area. Earlier this year, you posted a press release from Georgetown University (completely unrelated to my research there) that you referred to as a Medical Study On Hookahs, and you went on to reject elements of the press release without knowing anything about the actual research that was done. Your willingness to reject the life's work of an enormous number of researchers without (apparently) ever making an attempt to look at the details of their research is very insulting to them and the institutions (governmental and academic) that have invested in their work.

[mgcsinc]

I'll clarify a statement of mine: "Smokers die of cancer earlier."

This was specifically in response to Scheetz: "Everything is injected with some kind of steroid/chemical product that causes cancer in the long run."

My point was not that everyone who smokes dies of cancer. My point was that Scheetz's claim that we are all "injected" with carcinogens that will kill us around the same time whether or not we smoke is false.

[Scheetz]

Alright, first off I used to be Pre Pharm. I know the bullshit that goes into studies and how everything is performed. My aunt is also working for a medical company in MD doing studies on their drugs (company slips my mind) and has gone over numerous times how studies are done and what each person does. We can sit here all year and argue this stupid ass discussion but it will go nowhere. Smoking is far more complicated of a study then most things out there. Numerous factors that effect what happens to your body, how it happens and when. Hence, why I read any smoking study with a grain of salt. Just because A took place to a person doesn't mean A will happen to me. Maybe B will happen to me but not to the first person. Each persons body is built just a bit different and handle things differently. But of course you do things at Georgetown, I shouldn't have to tell you this. Cancer is caused by many things, hell your living conditions/job alone can be a cause. Cancer pops up everywhere and for no reason. Breast/ovarian/prostate all random, all a percent change for you to have it. Obviously guys cant have some of them and girls cant have the others. But just like lung cancer you have a percent chance to get it. All smoking does is help aid it and move it along.

My post of the "research paper" as you want to call it about hookahs was never posted to prove truths. I never stated in my post if everything they did was funded by $500,000 and world known scientists did it. I simply relayed some information that was given to me.

And wikipedia, come on man. You should know better than that. Anyone can edit what is posted and half the crap isn't even right. I already know what emphysema is, I don't need a definition. And as a medical student you should already know that just because you have said disease doesn't mean you get all 100% of what it claims to give you. Just like taking drugs, not everyone gets the shits or restless leg syndrome after taking a pain pill. Just because someone has emphysema doesn't mean its end game. Same with cancer, and hell even STD's now a days. Let us not forget how different hemispheres come out with different conclusions.

I seriously hope you aren't sitting in your chair thinking I solely believe that because my parents never got cancer from smoking that I never will. My point in family ties is statistics are just numbers from a group of people. Apparently, my parents beat those numbers, will I be lucky who knows. In about 10 years smoking will be moved to the back of the line because fattism will be the whole rage about how they need to fix it. Maybe smoking will be healthy in 20 years, you never know. Eggs and milk seem to fluctuate as does chocolate. And then we have second hand smoke. That bounces back and forth, is it worse than smoking or not as bad. I haven't read the latest but I don't really care, its not healthy either way. Every time someone proves something another scientist has to go double check the theory and see if it can be proven as law/fact. In terms of food and everything else we consume it just bounces back and forth.

Quoting myself "everything gives you cancer now a days." (sarcasm) maybe I will add this so there is no wrong impression here.

And don't worry there buddy, your not insulting me in any way. I already know smoking is unhealthy. Hence, why I don't smoke cigs/cigars or the like. Only thing I actually do smoke is my hookah a couple days a week. But I already know its not healthy, the other 3/4s of this country is to stupid to figure that one out. If said scientists didn't come along and say look at my degree I know what I am talking about and it is bad for you more people would smoke because the common sense that is needed to figure it out was lost over 100 years ago.

And as a side note, sure SOME smokers die earlier than non smokers. But I am pretty sure I read in a MEDICAL STUDY not a research paper that stress is related with this. That stress leads to smoking, and living a stressful life has already been proven to be unhealthy and shorten your life. Like I said, every smoking study is flawed. There will never be a perfect study where the variables are clearly known and accounted for. Hell, not even just for smoking, every study relating to the human body will be flawed. There are always outside variables that can't possibly be accounted for.

Anyway this is stupid, this argument will go nowhere. Tell ya what, next time I see you Ill pack you a bowl.

[mgcsinc]

Scheetz,

For the record, I only ever suggested wikipedia articles that were well-referenced, mostly with the idea that people would look to the actual references rather than the article itself. I am fully aware of the shortfalls of wikipedia, especially for an issue like this

"Anyway this is stupid, this argument will go nowhere. Tell ya what, next time I see you Ill pack you a bowl."

Agreed. Same offer from me, if your in my territory