The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: should just tell him that his exhaling CO2 is more toxic!

(See in situ)

should just tell him that his exhaling CO2 is more toxic!


A double-whammy for those of us who know about the Carbon Tax/Credit/Anthroprogenic-'global warming'-con, and piss off a fellow R3VOL 'gently' by accusing him of being a Rockefeller's UN Agenda 21 supporting L-R-stuck 'faux conservationist,' fake-'sustainable' greenie treehuggin'-liberal! All with that single one-liner.

like: 'dude, your second hand exhale is much more toxic, in confined spaces, especially after you chowed down your onion-rich favorite burrito!'


na. tell him, you kid, 'cause you love.o)

to be serious. I mean, if the anti-smokers were truly serious about principled consistency and actual science, they'd have to admit the fact that there has NEVER been any real peer-reviewed scientific study done on health effects of 2nd hand smoking on humans, in a monitored enclosed location, throughout a long duration, by first establishing a baseline health of the two or more + 'control' participants involved.

anecdotally comparing lifestyle of smoker vs, others, even over time, is not really a scientific proof. too many variables, from genetics, health history, climate, geographic/environmental factors, diet/exercise, stress level of their profession, etc.

though, don't get me wrong, one would have to be a buffoon to not know that the chemicals they put into cigarettes are a gazillion times more toxic than mere tobacco burn.

if you were to compare someone who smokes a pack of Marlboro Reds daily with someone who smokes cigar in exact to similar same amount of tobacco, I can guarantee, setting aside any particular genetic predisposition to lung or tongue cancer, the Marl-Red smoker's health will deteriorate far quicker: I've known a few. And I WAS the second hand-non-smoker!


Plus cigars are not 'addictive' per-se.

but more apropos of your own discussion with your buddy, what proof is there, that what particular volume of second hand smoke is harmful, outdoors? Not to say that there may not be one, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a single exhaustive study involving human subjects over a long duration to suggest that 2nd hand smoke out it the open is any more or less harmful than a car or street legal (in some states) 2-stroke dirtbikes/quads.

It's all relative. So to empirically assert that outdoor 2nd handsmoking is harmful, in a broadstroke sense, is an utterly facetious and empty non-scientific assertion/opinion.

Should ask your friend if he knows what exact volume of brand X of cigarettes will release y amount of specific toxins into the atmosphere: what parts/million. then ask if he knows how toxic a typical fuel injected inline 4 with catalytic converted exhaust fumes are at idle. and what effect cross wind have on the level of toxicity, if you were to seriously attempting to measure its toxicity at a given open air space, etc.

until he can establish those minor overlooked inconsistencies and debate premise contradictions, I'd say break open a pack of Marlboros, Dunhills, Zino Davidoffs, or hell Cohibas or its baby cigarillos.o)

come on! who doesn't like the deep scent of a robusto?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul