Home User CP Browse Members Calendar Register Today!  
Get New posts Faq / Help? Community Menu
   

Go Back   Hookah Pro - Hookah Forum > Hookah Stuff > Hookah Discussion

Hookah Discussion General discussion related to hookah ...

Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Hookah Discussion

Reply Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 9th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Everyone here should, and I assume does, know that the anti-tobacco lobby is succeeding in suppressing all forms of tobacco consumption. I wonder if anyone is disturbed about this and actively opposes such reassures?

Another matter that I wonder if anyone is interested in considering the faulty pseudo-science upon which the anti-tobacco bases it’s crusades against what you and I choose to be our favorite pass time?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 9th, 2007, 06:29 PM
angemonkwj's Avatar
angemonkwj
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jensen Beach, Fl
Posts: 533
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

the fact that the "tests" that i've seen are with a machine that just puffs away, doesnt take a break, per say to engage in conversation, kinda aggrivates me. i am not a big fan of the government telling me what is good and not good for me. i know that inhaling any kind of smoke is harmfull and i choose to do it anyways. since when was it the governments job to tell me how to live my life. /endrant
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 9th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Sambooka's Avatar
Sambooka
Status: Offline
Sambooka Jr.


 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 13,856
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner
the faulty pseudo-science upon which the anti-tobacco bases it’s crusades against what you and I choose to be our favorite pass time?
Ohhhhh I totally agree! It pisses me off that they use a machine to determine their results for hookah smoking! The media and science is just there to put fear in ignorant people, by any means necessary. Just my 2 cents...
__________________

http://www.hookahpro.com - Hookah Pro Community - Hookah Forum
~Favorite Hookah~ Khalil Mamoon Amer .. (she leans, so I call her Eileen)
~Favorite Setup~ Egyptian Hookah, Vortex Bowl, Natural Coals (Exotica or Coconara)
~Current Flavor Favorites~ Ayam Zaman 1001 Nights, Hookah Freak Spiced Apple Cider, Starbuzz White Peach
Nakhla Double Apple, Nakhla Earl Grey, Nakhla Sweet Melon, Nakhla Cinnamon, Nakhla Cardamom, Nakhla Fakhfakhina Mixed Fruit, Nakhla El Basha Grape
Al Fakher Mint, Al Fakher Orange, Al Fakher Cinnamon
HookahPro.com .. powered by Elites!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 9th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Good to hear some interest on what I see as a super important topic. The use of “smoking machines” is huge flaw in method that many serious people have pointed out that machines don’t use tobacco the same way people do which results in exposure levels that are nearly impossible. Those exposure levels are then placed into models with openly biased assumptions and extrapolated over decades to give a desired result.

yet it’s only tip of the ice burg in what’s wrong with clinical studies. If anyone actually read the original Surgeon General’s report you’d be surprised at how shabbily scientific method is abused for political ends. The lack of rigorous control groups, lousy sample methods and a failure to consider socio-economic factors are just a few of the issues we need to look at.

I bet you have heard the non-sense about how a single narghile session is the equivalent of smoking a case of cigarettes. Such inane claims are based on studies so poorly thought out it amazes me that anyone gets paid to produce such dribble.

If anyone wants I could post some material about these matters that will blow your mind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 9th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Sambooka's Avatar
Sambooka
Status: Offline
Sambooka Jr.


 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 13,856
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Post away! You have the floor..
__________________

http://www.hookahpro.com - Hookah Pro Community - Hookah Forum
~Favorite Hookah~ Khalil Mamoon Amer .. (she leans, so I call her Eileen)
~Favorite Setup~ Egyptian Hookah, Vortex Bowl, Natural Coals (Exotica or Coconara)
~Current Flavor Favorites~ Ayam Zaman 1001 Nights, Hookah Freak Spiced Apple Cider, Starbuzz White Peach
Nakhla Double Apple, Nakhla Earl Grey, Nakhla Sweet Melon, Nakhla Cinnamon, Nakhla Cardamom, Nakhla Fakhfakhina Mixed Fruit, Nakhla El Basha Grape
Al Fakher Mint, Al Fakher Orange, Al Fakher Cinnamon
HookahPro.com .. powered by Elites!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 9th, 2007, 09:58 PM
Smiley
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 174
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

I agree with you guys. Als I do think that hey might be picking up Aluminum Oxicide in the Smoke. That would make some sense.
But in all reality. I have been enjoying Hookah for too many years to enev share about. I feel like i am still very happy and healthy.
Smiley
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 10th, 2007, 03:54 AM
nofrendo
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 456
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

South park: the butt out episode


Rob Reiner stuffing hamburgers into his mouth while saying "DON'T they KNOW?? SMOKING is bad for your HEALTH??"


Classic... Ahh I hate hypocrites
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 10th, 2007, 04:03 AM
Oggie505
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

I do not oppose it, the only thing I do not like is that 18 and over places should allow smoking, because you are an adult and can chose to go in or not. While a little kid should not be subject to 2nd hand smoke, but usually is if their parents take them to a resturant
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 10th, 2007, 04:08 AM
nofrendo
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 456
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

California especially... they are trying to ban smoking in rented living quarters... WTF?

I cannot complete this contradiction without making a reference to a controlled substance.

But there is a large contradiction.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 10th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Oggie 505 said: “I do not oppose it, the only thing I do not like is that 18 and over places should allow smoking, because you are an adult and can chose to go in or not. While a little kid should not be subject to 2nd hand smoke, but usually is if their parents take them to a resturant.”
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


Hello Oggie,

A couple of thing should me mentioned in relation to what you have brought up. First, the second hand smoke blather is based upon nothing more then a series literature reviews generated by researchers paid to create anti-tobacco studies via a method called meta-analysis rather then more reliable forms of epidemiological research. What makes the second hand/Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) studies an exercise pseudo-scientific is the blatant Detection Bias (attempting to make the data fit a pre-determined conclusion to put it bluntly) common to those studies in terms of funding, the disposition of the researchers how such studies are promoted. Yet even worse is that the correlation strengths taken from the constituent studies were radically weakened to make a weak appear to public as a drastic public health threat. I’ll post some stuff on the whole ETS hysteria latter today.

Beyond ETS I have noted that the people most prone to bitching about smoking in public are either would be commissar types that hate people doing things they find “social objectionable” or those that find tobacco aesthetically offensive but are too dishonest to say so. The latter sort of anti-smoker will often claim some allergy/bronchial trouble or other malady which demands a smoke free environment. I am not saying that some might have such a medical condition but that most often those claiming such an affliction simply don’t like tobacco smoke. In fact, I heard countless people admitting as much when talking to like minded people over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 10th, 2007, 06:01 PM
angemonkwj's Avatar
angemonkwj
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jensen Beach, Fl
Posts: 533
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofrendo
South park: the butt out episode


Rob Reiner stuffing hamburgers into his mouth while saying "DON'T they KNOW?? SMOKING is bad for your HEALTH??"


Classic... Ahh I hate hypocrites
one of the funniest episodes ever! and it was total hypocrisy in that episode
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 10th, 2007, 06:13 PM
nofrendo
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 456
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

LOOK, WE KNOW SMOKING IS BAD OK? SO IF WE HAVE TO LIE TO STOP IT, THEN THAT IS OK! I KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR PEOPLE MORE THAN THEY DO!

No it's not, you just don't like smoking so you use all your money and power to stop people from doing it. That's not ok, that's called fascism you fat tubby lard.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 10th, 2007, 06:17 PM
angemonkwj's Avatar
angemonkwj
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jensen Beach, Fl
Posts: 533
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

AAGGHHHH!! MY GOO!!! MY PRECIOUS GOO!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 10th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

As promised here's a decent ETS article. Many are far more critical so I posted this one as an example of a mainstream, moderate refutation of the whole second hand smoke pablum.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Wall Street Journal - European Edition (March 12, 1998)

For the past 15 years the anti-smoking lobby has pushed the view that cigarette smoking is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For having failed to persuade committed smokers to save themselves, finding proof that passive smoking harmed non-smoking wives, children or workmates meant smoking could be criminalized. Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all.

But don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. smoking, like fox hunting, is something that certain factions want to ban simply because they don't like it. It has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one. Today, National No smoking Day in Britain will be marked by demagoguery from the Department of Health, which has already set its agenda to ban smoking. The U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco or Health (SCOTH) report on passive smoking, due out Thursday, is headed by a known anti-tobacco crusader, Professor Nicholas Wald of the Royal London School of Medicine.

However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

This is what anyone with common sense might have expected. After all, the dose makes the poison. But in 1988, IARC decreed mainstream tobacco smoke as a carcinogen, fully expecting that the second-hand product would have a similar, lower effect which would be capable of measurement by linear extrapolation. In anticipation of confirmation of this belief many countries have been adopting anti-smoking policies in the name of public health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confidently stated that 3,000 Americans die annually from inhaling environmental tobacco smoke, and the state of California leads the pack with a total smoking ban in all public places enacted on Jan. 1, 1998. Although Iran did enact such a ban in 1996, this was overturned as unconstitutional. The Indian city of Delhi has a smoking ban and Britain is working toward one.

Before the IARC study, no other reliable study on ETS was available. For the effect of the modestly increased risk of ETS to be detected, the number of cases in the study must be very high in order to distinguish the effect from other background noise. Acting in the most unscientific manner, the U.S. EPA decided to pool results of 11 studies, 10 of which were individually non- significant, to arrive at a risk ratio of 1.19. As is always a problem with this kind of meta-analysis, the studies were all different from each other in various ways so that they were not measuring the same thing.

Last October, the British Medical Journal ran the results of a similarly flawed study by SCOTH's Mr. Wald claiming an increased risk of lung cancer from ETS of 26%. It was supported by an editorial and timed to coincide with noise from the anti-smoking lobby and a Department of Health press release, talking of "shocking" figures and alluding to innocent victims. The Wald report has been dismissed as a "statistical trick" by Robert Nilsson, a senior toxicologist at the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate and a professor of toxicology at Stockholm University. He says that there are so many unacknowledged biases in Mr. Wald's analysis that the alleged risk figure is meaningless. For example, Mr. Wald relies on data from the memories of spouses as to how much their dead partner used to smoke. Survey bias is often considerable, potentially far higher than the 26% estimate of increased risk, but this is not even mentioned by the authors. Mr. Nilsson also explains that Mr. Wald's meta-analysis has pooled data from non-comparable studies. His most stinging criticism is aimed at the BMJ editorial board, who he considers must be "innocent of epidemiology" to have allowed publication of the Wald paper in its existing form. Nevertheless the U.K. SCOTH inquiry into ETS due to report on Thursday, with Mr. Wald at the helm, will probably ignore the flaws of the Wald study and brand ETS a killer.

New Labour has done a U-turn on fox hunting. Will it do one on Thursday when SCOTH reports? Or will it ignore the best evidence and press on with public smoking bans? My guess is that two climbdowns in a month is one too many. It will remind us all this week that smoking is bad for you and eventually ban it in public.
__________________________________________________ ______________
THE DATA THAT WENT UP IN SMOKE
Risks From Passive Smoke Unfounded: WHO Study
by John Berlau
Copyright 1998 Investor's Business Daily
April 8, 1998

Californians can't smoke in bars. Why? Lawmakers in Sacramento think they're protecting the health of patrons who don't smoke.

But breathing secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer. At least there's no proof of it.

That's not the politically incorrect propaganda of the smokers' lobby. It's the conclusion of a major study by the World Health Organization, a smoking foe. And it has the data to back it up -data that California bar and nightclub owners would no doubt like to get their hands on.

If they knew more about the study, that is.

Far from California, across the Atlantic, the British press has amplified the results of the WHO study. But you'd be hard pressed to find the story in the American media.

Overseas interest might be greater because WHO tracked 2,000 people in six European countries. But some suspect anti-smoking bias is behind scarce coverage here.

After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's ''meta-analysis'' that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room.

WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in its recent biennial report that the risk of lung cancer did increase slightly among those exposed to secondhand smoke at work, at home from a smoking spouse, or both. But none of these increases was ''statistically significant.''

This means that ''there's a good chance that there's no association whatsoever'' between passive smoke and lung cancer, said Michael Gough, a senior associate and program manager at Congress' now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which advised committees on scientific policy.

Gough, now director of risk and science studies at the free-market Cato Institute, can hardly be accused of being a tool of the tobacco industry. He directed OTA's landmark '81 study, which found that direct smoking was behind 30% of U.S. cancer cases.

''It's very clear that smoking is bad,'' Gough said. But passive smoke is a different matter, he adds.

WHO's findings, first reported in early March, have received wide coverage in British papers such as the London-based Sunday Telegraph. The full study has yet to be published because it is ''still in the process of peer review,'' said Enrique Madrigal, U.S. regional adviser to WHO for alcohol, tobacco and substance abuse.

But on this side of the Atlantic, most of the press has yet to lift the fog.

''There's no question'' that the American media would have jumped on the study's results if they had gone the other way, said Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum, who wrote ''For Your Own Good,'' a critique of the anti-smoking movement.

Despite the scant coverage so far, observers say the study could weaken the case for smoking bans and passive-smoke suits.

The prospect may have prompted WHO, which has long crusaded against tobacco, to issue a press release headlined in all-capital letters: ''Passive Smoke Does Cause Lung Cancer; Do Not Let Them Fool You.''

The release conceded that the findings were not statistically significant, but said that results were ''very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere'' that show increased risk.

Skeptics agree that the results are in line with other studies. But they add that most other studies also show the risk of lung cancer is so small as to be scientifically meaningless.

When it pooled the results of several passive smoke studies a few years ago, the EPA had to double its margin of error in order to show a small, albeit statistically significant, risk.

''The bottom line on all the evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer is that it doesn't prove anything,'' Sullum said.

The link hasn't held up in court either.

Last month a Muncie, Ind., jury found that cigarette makers were not liable in the '91 lung cancer death of nonsmoker Mildred Wiley.

Lawyers for her husband, who brought the injury suit, claimed that Wiley contracted lung cancer through exposure to passive smoke at a veterans' hospital, where she worked as a nurse. She died at 56.

Upon hearing the verdict, ''I was just shocked,'' said Joseph Young, one of the plaintiff's lawyers. ''I thought that we were going to win. We've been working on this for six years.''

Young, who is considering an appeal, thought the case would be easier to win than direct smoking cases. How so? Wiley was a victim who did not assume the risk of other people's smoking, he explained.

But defense attorney William Ohlemeyer hammered away at the lack of scientific proof.

''On the news, the public doesn't hear the other side of the story or the entirety of the science,'' Ohlemeyer said. ''But in a courtroom, where you get the chance to tell both sides of the story, I was pretty confident a fair jury would find (that the scientific evidence was) very weak, very equivocal and just doesn't quite prove what people expected it to prove.''

Ohlemeyer latched onto the WHO study, getting an expert witness to walk jurors through the findings in the final days of the trial.

Michael Thomas, whose father smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and died of lung cancer at 49, was just the type of juror plaintiff's lawyers were aiming for when they argued that jurors should in effect send a message to tobacco companies.

But Thomas, a nonsmoker like the rest of the jurors, did not think the plaintiff's lawyers presented a convincing scientific case.

''The defense leaned a lot on the studies that had been done (that showed) that risks involved in terms of secondhand smoke were inconclusive,'' Thomas said in an interview. ''The plaintiffs didn't do enough to contradict that.''

In addition to lawsuits, the WHO study could play a role in state rows over smoking bans.

Some are up in arms because of a California smoking ban that has now extended to all bars as well as restaurants. Even lighting up in a cigar bar violates the law.

''You're starting to see an awful lot of civil disobedience,'' observed Kate Nelson, president of the California Licensed Beverage Association and owner of the Hollywood Palace, a 1,500-seat theater with six bars.

A bill recently passed the state Assembly to temporarily allow smoking in bars until a state regulatory agency comes up with a ventilation standard. It appears to be stalled in a Senate committee.

Nelson is hopeful that the WHO study will help her convince the public and lawmakers that the risks of passive smoke are overblown.

But she isn't holding her breath.

''People simply have it in their minds that cigarette smoke is the deadliest legal substance available,'' Nelson said.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 7th, 2010, 02:17 AM
mvillan1
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 107
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

hookah smoke ftw
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 7th, 2010, 10:27 AM
robertjrn
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 142
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

its always a tough argument, as i would never like to ban smoking , but by the same token if i ever had kids i would do my best to make sure they always stayed the hell away from it, shihsa is more of a past time, cigerettes are the devil, my i wish i could quit
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 7th, 2010, 10:39 AM
ariberns's Avatar
ariberns
Status: Offline
Hookah Master

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nyc
Posts: 5,971
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

wow this thread is 3 years old!

the powers that be have been after it for a long time.
Al fhaker had been shipping here tax free for a few years and it finally caught up to them, so the price went up 4 dollars a kilo, other than that, i dont notice any difference from 3 years ago
__________________
Hookah Pro Legitimate hookah without the bias.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 7th, 2010, 10:41 AM
AralVorkosigan's Avatar
AralVorkosigan
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Renton, Wa
Posts: 381
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

smoking has been an inherant part of society since man could first roll tabacco and inhale its crude combustion materials. many countries where created with tabacco being a nessisary part of its upbringing....the united states to name one...and the flat out ban it would be a huge hit to those companies that have been in business since the begining. why bail out the failing banks who know that they do really stupid shit with their money, and try and ban an honest business, in which people know is not a good idea to consume but do anyway because they enjoy the way it makes them feel. I smoke cigs at work because I cant set up the hookah at the airport, and i enjoy both my cancer stick and my icy cold hookah pipe. leave me be with my adult decission.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 7th, 2010, 10:51 AM
hookahhead20
Status: Offline
Hookah Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 30
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by angemonkwj View Post
the fact that the "tests" that i've seen are with a machine that just puffs away, doesnt take a break, per say to engage in conversation, kinda aggrivates me. i am not a big fan of the government telling me what is good and not good for me. i know that inhaling any kind of smoke is harmfull and i choose to do it anyways. since when was it the governments job to tell me how to live my life. /endrant
hell yea man i agree 100%
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old June 7th, 2010, 12:06 PM
sharpy_77
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bradford, Ontario
Posts: 174
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambooka View Post
Ohhhhh I totally agree! It pisses me off that they use a machine to determine their results for hookah smoking! The media and science is just there to put fear in ignorant people, by any means necessary. Just my 2 cents...
agreed, its total bull-shit!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old June 7th, 2010, 01:09 PM
technojunkie's Avatar
technojunkie
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 148
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

My uncle smoked cigarettes for years....2 days until he died. It is listed on his death certificate that it was caused by tobacco.

I don't disagree that it was caused by this.

I still enjoy hookah every once in a while but I won't be smoking cigarettes...the additives are in there...however minute.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old June 7th, 2010, 01:33 PM
Ble3dth3freak's Avatar
Ble3dth3freak
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fuckbury, NY
Posts: 565
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Damn good read Hajo. Just goes to show you the lengths people will go to have the masses marching to the beat of they're uptight, narrow-minded drums.
__________________
Rig: 32" Red & Black KM Carnival/Vortex Bowl/Razan Raja Washable Hose/Exotica Coals
Moassel: Nak Earl Grey/Nak Cardamom/Nak Orange
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old June 9th, 2010, 11:34 PM
Maverik1666's Avatar
Maverik1666
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 236
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
attempting to make the data fit a pre-determined conclusion to put it bluntly
What it comes down to. It isn't hard to make your own tests to support whatever theory you have or push an agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old June 14th, 2010, 07:07 PM
dgrouchy's Avatar
dgrouchy
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Conception Bay South, Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 107
Default Re: Anyone willing to stand up for shisha?

wow, i don't smoke but i do enjoy hookah, it would be sad to see anything happen to it
Reply With Quote
Reply Share
Share with your friends on facebook

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.

Skin Design By vBSkinworks



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2012, Hookah Pro Inc.