[Smokin' Joe]

Ok, cigarettes interfere with healing wounds recieved in combat. I'm just a wee bit gray around the muzzle to join up. My point is that I haven't broken any bones to need to have them heal. I'm no couch potato, and have always lived an active life. I have had plenty of dings and scrapes, and plenty of bruises, but no broken bones.

Now whether that is attributable to good nutrition when I was a kid, the fact that I did a lot of manual labor during my developmental years, or genetics, or maybe just God looking out for me, I do not pretend to know, but any time someone points at only one cause for something, they'd better have some really good controls on their study or I'll think it is just so much agenda driven bunk--especially something as politicized as "second hand smoke".

Nothing like grant money to "study ways in which nicotine from cigarette smoke may interact with stem cells to slow the healing of bone injuries."

Are they studying alcohol consumption? Maybe painkillers? I doubt it.

One thing cigarettes do, though, is constrict the peripheral blood vessels, and by so doing, can help reduce shock. Why do people want a smoke when they do get injured or get bad news? To lessen the physical effects of shock.

[Calpernia]

>>>>Nothing like grant money to "study ways in which nicotine from cigarette smoke may interact with stem cells to slow the healing of bone injuries."

bump de bump de bump

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Gabz]

Nothing like grant money to "study ways in which nicotine from cigarette smoke may interact with stem cells to slow the healing of bone injuries."

Exactly my point, as there are other sources of nicotine routinely injested, why is it ONLY nicotine from smoking that does any harm? How do they differentiate the source of the nicotine?

[Old Professer]

The third world wants recognition; Europeans want respect; Americans want forgiveness; smokers want refuge; neo-puritans want blood revenge.