On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 11:28:40 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Apr 2, 7:24*pm, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-04-02 19:12:53 +0100, harry said:





On Apr 2, 11:21 am, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-04-02 11:08:24 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
said:

In message , Martin
writes
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:18:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Apr 1, 11:00 pm, Sultana Wahab Sultana.Wahab.
wrote:
Apologies if the above question sounds stupid. A nice response
appreciated.
Thanks for reading

--
Sultana Wahab

No. Tobacco is a naturally derived substsnce.

plus chemical additives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._in_cigarettes

And the argument that something is non-harmful because it's naturally
derived is fallacious..

The ash would in fact
be benificial.

In what way would flicked cigarette ash be beneficial?

One could argue that the residual nicotine (if any) is harmful to
greenfly.

Do roses get tobacco mosaic virus? ;-)
--
Sachawww.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think anything would survive the burning.

What burning from cigarette ash? Or from hands? *Is there something I'm
missing?
--
Sachawww.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any diseases present would be incinerated. Virii ? are highly
susceptible to heat.

("Viruses": the Latin original seems to have been uncountable, so
we're free to use our native form for the plural. Back when these
organisms were discovered, they probably also reflected that "viri"
would also mean "men")

Ash should be harmless; but butts should go in the bin, as I
understand they're what might conceivably carry the virus, especially
to tomatoes, peppers, and aubergines. The paper to which Stewart
referred, about the rose family, adds another layer of concern.

--
Mike.