This is too ridiculous to even comment on, so I’ll just let the image do the talking and provide a link:
http://www.starcitynews.com/cigarettes-a-secondary-cause-of-global-warming/1566
The entire evidence for the title of the linked news story above:
Smoking produces two green house gasses that are altering our atmosphere and are directly related to climate change; it is just one more challenge for the world to over come.
Tune in next week when birthday cake candles are blamed for global warming because they produce carbon dioxide and soot.
h/t to WUWT reader Tom T
FULL DISCLOSURE: Both of my parents died from smoking related illness, so if anybody wants to suggest that I support smoking because of this post, leave it unsaid. – Anthony
Have these people gone completely crazy?
So where was this picture taken?
REPLY: Stock photo CD that I have a license for, plus a NASA image -A
Didn’t algore once claim that cigarette smoking is a major cause of global warming?
Reminds me of an old post at World Climate Report:
Global Warming: Bad for Good and Good for Bad
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/08/09/global-warming-bad-for-good-and-good-for-bad/
This example of the danger of CO2 obsession lowering the intelligence level of the obsessed has been floating round awhile.
It is a pitiful example of how ignorant many AGW believers are.
And I just lost a beloved sister in law to lung cancer two weeks ago.
And no, I never hoed it or harvested it or cut it or dried it.
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.
Heh. I was listening to a local AM station and they were talking about how cow farting creates “one humungous” cloud of greenhouse gases. I wondered how the farts all got together to create a single massive cloud. But then they upped the ante by stating dandruff causes global warming and that we should help the environment by using dandruff shampoo. And, yes, all the dandruff gets together to make a huge cloud, too. Now, I’m figuring that we are all dead if the secondhand smoke creates ANOTHER giant cloud and meets up with the farts and the dandruff clouds creating the Perfect Storm. Life as we know it will end because of a massive secondhand dandruff fart storm. And then I realized I was being silly. Smugness will kill us all before secondhand dandruff fart storms.
“Smoking produces two green house [sic] gasses [sic] that are altering our atmosphere and are directly related to climate change; it is just one more challenge for the world to over come [sic].”
I’d say, given the outrageous stupidity of the article, the world needs no further challenges. We have nothing to fear but stupidity itself.
Just one more attempted justification for anti-tobacco legislation, oh wait we already tried something similar, via the 18th amendment. You know how it is about people (or nations) doomed to repeat unlearned history. Even though it’s insane, few will be against it, because who wants to appear pro-smoking
“Probably” tobacco causes cancer/emphysema but this is for the all inclusive product in which there are many things that don’t really belong there, such as cadmium, arsenic, weed killers, pesticides including benzene and others. Because tobacco was, until recently, exempt from FDA regulation and no government entity really cares about making safer tobacco, the sources of these compounds have never been thoroughly investigated (though in many cases rather obvious). It would be interesting to see cancer and emphysema rates among organic and non-organic tobacco users compared.
Well, if they use that idea as a way to convince people to stop smoking, I’ll look the other way.
Phil’s Dad says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.
Thanks for the heads up. Got to watch it.
Hate to burst the bubble, but this isn’t a real news article – it’s search engine spam engineered to get a high rating on Google and drive ad and click-through revenue. By linking to it, WUWT only boosts the rating higher, but it’s nothing more important than junk-mail.
It’s of interest only as a good example of the genre – as can be seen from the first paragraph:
“Smoking is the practice where a substance is burned and smoke is inhaled, tobacco the main offender is followed by, opium and cannabis.”
That alone will generate hits for combinations of [opium/cannabis/tobacco] and [smoked/inhaled] let alone all the various other keywords elsewhere on the page.
and how about carbonated soda drinks? They contain CO2!!!!
When are there going to be calls to ban carbonated soft drinks, because they release “greenhouse gasses?”
(Or have they already, but I just missed it?)
Six hundred things that cause global warming !!!!!
some examples ….
Britain’s bananas, British monsoon, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, butterflies move north, butterflies reeling, butterfly saved, carbon crimes, caribou decline, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, cod go south, coffee threatened, and etc, etc.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
give me a minute i need to finish this Cuban before i finish the reply
And I supose that growing the tabbacco is not a co2 sink…..
Barry, thanks for the link and the good laugh. How true it is, and I never put two and two together before. Will have to use that one….HOBO
Sorry, I have you all beat!
CO2 now causes ALIENS!!!,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20100914/bs_prweb/prweb4491804_1
Is someone keeping track? I’m going to start selling the stuff. It seems there is nothing it can’t do! Ahh, yes, the carbon debit market, it must be worth a FORTUNE!
Give these whackjobs an inch and they will take your liberty and freedom and control of your life from you. These people want it all and little by little they are getting it.
You may say the little things do not matter, that these little things will not add up to the eventual enslavement of all of us but that is exactly what will happen if we give these people the elbow room to do it.
This is how they operate with small incremental steps as they pick on issues of concern in order to exploit those concerns and use them to further the pursuit of their end game.
There are people attracted to government who truly believe that you are not fit to govern your own affairs and be master of your own life, you need authoritarian control and guidance and rules with a central state structure to create an ever stricter and ever more tightly controlled existence, you thought your life was your own? The people who have been carefully crafting the foundations of the new mother state do not think so. According to the principles of this new order you belong to the state that cares for you, you are part and parcel of the machine in the making and as a cog interacting with other cogs they own every aspect and detail of your life. The state is your mother and your father and your priest and your master, you live by the states grace and you die in the states care.
Sounds like Mandia could be the author…
Don’t forget to properly account for the aerosol effect from the smoke. Especially from those birthday candles that tend to sputter and smoke for a while after blowing them out. 🙂
This might offset the CO2 effect.
What are these people smoking?
People that say things like this make you think how dangerous life can be. You could be driving down the highway at 55 miles per hour and they could be in the other lane going 55 miles an hour in your direction.
What are they smoking?
Gore Lites!
Michael D Smith says:
You do realise you have mixed up the cause and effeect there, right? Michael Crichton quite clearly demonstrated that aliens cause global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
Do they realize how religious this is all sounding?
One has to believe that cigarette smoke affects a significant portion of the atmosphere, in order to affix blame on Global Warming.
Next up: The invention of fire as the original eco-sin.
Hi. I’m Irv Zimmerman from the American Cancer Society [wheeze]. I used to smoke about 20 packs of cigarettes a day [wheeze]. But since I lost one of my lungs [wheeze], I cut my smokin’ in half [wheeze, koff].. 😉
“Phil’s Dad says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.”
Yes, and apparently, the miners were arguing over who should be rescued first.
Is it faintly possible that the heat from the combustion of the tobacco, paper etc., and that from the match actually produces both the “warmth” in global warming, and CO2 as an inevitable product of burning carbon based compounds in oxygen.
CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.
Quit burning stuff, less heat. As for me, I like my food cooked. Haven’t figured out how to cook my food without heat, so I guess I’m doomed to contribute to “global warming”.
My care factor? Zero.
In addition to cigarettes producing CO2 it should be noticed that any oceans out there which are not properly covered with plastic covers will allow deadly H2O to enter the atmosphere.
What causes ALL human contributions to C02?
Existence.
Fix that, and you’ve solved the problem…
Hum, I wounder how much excess CO2 is produced when one rides a bicycle or jogs, I wounder? I think I will claim that is the first cause. It’s easy, I’ll just pull that out of my magic bag of facts. I get them when I trip out on my magic carped. (it’s powered by some real good stuff man)
If anyone would actually look at the stated intent of these whackos, elimination of human existance, or at least a great diminshment thereof, and an end to what is called civilization is their goal.
Whilst reading theese comments and wondering why breathing is not being blamed for global warming (expired air is arounf 4% CO2, I understand), the local news for Adelaide, South Australia is that we have BELOW average temps for our start of Spring
Smoking was thought safe behavior until doctors (men + women of science) began to notice a strong correlation with serious diseases and warned of the health risks (notably lung cancer).
Human CO2 emissions are just like tobacco smoking, seriously damaging the planet’s ‘health’ — so the familiar argument goes.
The analogy fails, because lung cancer was a very rare disease prior to the widespread uptake of smoking.
The correlation is compelling:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg
On the other hand, there is no strong correlation between human fossil fuel use and ‘global warming’:http://www.treehugger.com/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/mean:6/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1905/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend
And periods of warming can hardly be considered rare, let alone a planetary ‘disease’ — quite the contrary:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwmR-0iCI/AAAAAAAABKg/yj2FAhEzWho/s1600-h/Vostok-140Kd.jpg
I am sure that just the Carbon cost of Copenhagan was more than all the smokers in one year, in the BBC press coverage it was calculated to be the same a the annual CO2 emmisions of a small 3rd World country.
So why no paper on that !!!!!!!
I wonder when they will ban pork-n-beans. Afterall, it does get a bit windy around the house after a good meal. And let’s not forget the heat trapping gases I emit on a frequent basis (Nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen).
Perhaps Gore and crowd should go after Mel Brooks for his scene in Blazing Saddles.
“Mike Flynn says:
October 12, 2010 at 10:55 pm”
Haven’t figured out how to cook my food without heat, so I guess I’m doomed to contribute to “global warming”.”
Well, actually, you can. You can “cook” without heat, afterall, it’s just a chemical reaction. Get some fish and some lemon/line juice, squeeze the juice liberally over the fish. Leave for a while, 24hrs is best. Fish is done to perfection. You’re out of luck if you want rice with that however.
I am convinced the USA is responsible for global warming / climate change / global climate disruption.
All you have to realise is sales of coca-cola and other fizzy drinks containing the evil CO2 have increased exponentially in the last 100 years. Ergo, the USA’s manufacturers of fizzy drinks are responsible.
I have therefore submitted my application for funding to the authorities and I am expecting a big fat cheque any day now
I don’t have any data to back up my claims, but i am a climate scientists so you must trust me and ban all sales of fizzy drinks worldwide. Oh, btw I’ve just opening a new exchange where you can buy and sell credits to allow people to drink the evil fizzy drinks, if anybody is interested
/Mango
Wow,
Usually I agree with the posts here, I guess if you are pro AGW this had to happen sooner or later I’m surprised it has taken so long.
For me my observation is there seems to be hysterical arm flailing whenever anyone takes a pop at smoking and tobacco for whatever reason from the majority in this case on both sides of the debate.
It seems to me that this is the one sacred cow worshipped by all sides.
From an AGW point of view there is CO2 in distribution, lighter fuel, smoking itself and then there is the methane produced.
From the sceptic side it’s more evidence of pro AGW hysteria and they miss a trick pointing out pro AGW hypocrites who smoke i.e. Leonardo DeCaprio.
From my point of view I find it queer in the extreme that there is such support for such a vile blight, smoking kills more people than climate change (I know not difficult) it pollutes the air and causes cancer . Pro AGW have to take the view that smoking is a direct contributor to the greenhouse gases of the world, those pro AGW smokers that preach to me that I should cut my CO2 (no pressure) contribute more to the problem they preach than I as a non-smoker. Sceptics who smoke argue that smoking contributes nothing to climate change because greenhouse gases contribute such a small amount and while I agree with this stand point for reasons I’ve mentioned you miss a trick because for the pro AGW camp calling out the smokers is pointing out the hypocrites directly – worse than blueberries.
I once smoked, but I never exhaled.
That’s about as silly as the article.
Burning cigarettes produce CO2, but growing tobacco uptakes CO2. If you let crops rot in the fields, they produce CO2 about equal to what went into their growth.
There’s confusion between cyclic and irreversible processes again.
My name is Louis and I release two types of greenhouse gas…
Smoking … at least wood smoke from open fires could quite conceivably have an effect on global temperatures. There is certainly strong evidence (before the wikipeida mafia got hold of it) that global dimming due to air particulates was a major cause of cooling, and therefore with its reduction due to the clean air acts in the 1970s was a major cause of warming (… not a fact you’ll find in wikipedia!!)
Still, if I’m honest, there’s not much more evidence for “particulate-reduction induced warming” than for CO2 induced warming … unless you read the environmentalists writing on “Smoke” induced nuclear winters, when it seems inevitable that a little bit of “smoke” in the air means we’ll all die a long lingering death from the result of manmade induced global climate change.
Pops says: “Didn’t algore once claim that cigarette smoking is a major cause of global warming?”
I believe it was during his presentation at the United Nations. Never heard of him making the statement again.
The extra greenhouse gases from smoking are more than offset by the greenhouse savings due to premature death from smoking. So smoking must be a good thing if you’re an eco-nutter.
The picture was taken on the Moon. Obviously global warming has formed enough atmosphere there to enable ignition of a cigarette without wearing a space suit.
These people should be be confined in a home for the bewildered, at once!!
The skeptics on this thread are skeptical only regarding CO2. There seems to be no skepticism when it comes to smoking. The science is proved – proved by the statistical analysis of questionnaires.
Smoking may indeed be bad for one, or for some, but there is no evidence for that which would pass the scientific test. Smoking was very good indeed for the late Sir Richard Doll who through his 1950 theory got himself a professorship, a knighthood and a lifelong source of taxpayer money.
someone else queried the difference between Organic Tobacco and commercials effects.
Yes I also have wondered as once when I did grow some chem free it sure was Nothing at all! like what we buy, almost not worth lighting up, it was that different.
and isnt it passing strange?
Tobacco is the ONLY product that somehow manages to NOT have to include an ingredients list on the pack- world wide.
now why? is that so:-)
Wiglaf says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:05 pm
“[…] But then they upped the ante by stating dandruff causes global warming and that we should help the environment by using dandruff shampoo.”
It looks like dandruff forms a bigger part of aerosols than expected. The researchers are not sure whether dandruff results in a positive or negative forcing. So, i would delay any dandruff mitigation schemes if i were you until we know more; otherwise, you might be doing more harm than good to the climate.
“Do dandruff and climate change go together?
Study ties biological aerosols to clouds, weather”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/
Next you know they will blame Mel Brook’s film “Blazing Saddles”.
On a personal note, I quit smoking on March 15, 1979. I still consider it one of the greatest days of my life.
But wait. Isn’t burning tobacco an acceptable source of CO2? It’s part of the “natural” and “renewable” cycle of CO2, like humans breathing. I thought only CO2 coming from those evil fossil fuels was the “bad” CO2. I’m so confused. Someone please help me. Is all CO2 bad? Every bit of it? (Tell that to the plants like tobacco that live off of it)
Right after I sent my post, I realized that the “bad” CO2 was coming from burning the butane in the lighter. Sorry. I figured it out all by myself. Burning tobacco = good. Lighting the tobaccon with the ligher = bad. I’m really trying to starting thinking like a Warmist. It’s tough for me since I’m naturally a very logical person.
It is little wonder with ideas like this that the AGW crowd is loosing (or has lost) all credibility. Do they really think the general population is that stupid? Apparently they don’t realize that treating people like 2 yr olds isn’t a good strategy to winning them over to their point of view.
Wonder how much pollution is caused by cigs compared to all the mining for Prius batteries, all the mercury in CFLs, and all the net carbon required to produce windmills and solar panels? Not to mention tobacco production is a pretty good blue collar job in the tropical and sub tropical areas. Anyhow, just indicative of how utterly idiotic the AGWs have become.
Now excuse me while I enjoy a nice mellow American Spirit and give back to the Native Americans’ economy.
Wow, this is great. I can add this to my list of things I am doing to save the planet – but how do I work out what gasses I am not putting into the atmosphere having given up 20 fags a day for the last 6 years? Do you think I have reached “tonnes” of gasses yet, or am I still in milligrammes?
BFL says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I agree. I switched back to by old-time habit of rolling my own ‘last time’ I took up smoking because the tobacco therein has fewer chemicals and made me cough less. You do get awful yellow fingers, though.
I finally packed it in for the third time in 15 years when my 6-year-old daughter started imitating me with pencils and the like, and I hope this is the very last time I have to give the damn stuff up. The stupid thing is I never enjoyed it much overall.
The article was written by someone called Ken Bosket.
The tobacco, paper and wood for the ignition stick are all biomass and have a neutral impact on CO2 levels.
If, as claimed in the article, there was a net CO2 increase caused by smoking, the article would still be wrong as a warmer climate with a higher level of CO2 is good for plant production, including food.
Two strikes and you’re out Ken!!!
Dave Stephens says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:05 pm
What causes ALL human contributions to C02?
Existence.
Fix that, and you’ve solved the problem…
Wow. Profound. [/sarc]
amicus curiae says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:41 am
and alcoholic beverages, strangely
Tom in Florida says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:36 am
On a personal note, I quit smoking on March 15, 1979. I still consider it one of the greatest days of my life.
I quit smoking once. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life.
Prefer a good cigar. Transported from some warm island. Lit using the burning end of a hard oak branch while sitting near my open campfire wondering what activity can I possibly engage in that will not produce an iota of CO2/CH4 ever.
@ Cassandra King: It’s called social engineering, and as everyone could see for themselves @ Copenhagen, and with the proposed treaty that was leaked, it is what is at the root of the “Green” movement.
There was a Sci-Fi movie released a few years ago called “Serenity.” At its heart, it was about freedom vs. social engineering. In the movie, the social engineers found their utopia, and when everything went wrong, the sought to hide it and cover it up. Here is the quote from the script:
These are just a few of
the few images we’ve recorded.
And you can see…
it isn’t what we thought.
There’s been no war here…
and no terraforming event.
The environment is stable.
It’s the Pax.
The G- Paxilon Hydroclorate
that we added
to the air processors.
It was supposed to calm
the population,
weed out aggression.
Well, it works.
The people here
stopped fighting.
And then they stopped
everything else.
They stopped going to work…
they stopped breeding,
talking, eating.
There’s a million people
here, and they all just
let themselves die.
…
We meant it for the best…
to make people safer.
All that being said, tobacco is, IMHO, just awful stuff. If you are going to smoke that stuff, you should be responsible for all your health care costs. If you choose to smoke, it should cancel any health insurance coverage you have. The rest of us should not be forced to pay for your choice.
Full disclosure: I grew up near tobacco country. It was a typical summer job, and I worked in it one summer. That was more than enough to convince me to never take up smoking. If you have ever spent a day “topping” tobacco plants, you would know about the thick tar that is the sap of this plant. At the end of each row, you had to scoop up handfuls of sand to scrub the stuff off. All it ever made me think was, “you can’t reach inside your lungs to scrub them, so why would I ever want to smoke this stuff?”
No such thing. Chilean, yes, Chilian, no.
Smoking is much less hazardous than procrastinating on 10:10
This post reminds me of an old favorite song:
{apologies to N. Sinatra}
John
People interfering with other people’s lives is just par for the current materialistic society we live in. I think I liked paternalistic society slightly (but only very very slightly) better. How about neither?
I leave you with this paraphrase:
A womanCarbon is justa womancarbon but a good cigar is a smoke.John
Jeff Alberts says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:31 am
Phil’s Dad says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.
No such thing. Chilean, yes, Chilian, no.
Taht’s the turolbe wtih lfie, saemncits paly hlel wtih snyatx.
Go for simple: Without life, there is no death. Life causes death.
Food, water and air are toxic. Everybody who ever ingested any of these has eventually died. [Everybody who ate green beans during the Civil War died.]
You are Superman after you are born, dependent on nothing, until your first breath – it’s all downhill from there.
As it takes about 8 hours for lungs to recover from a cigarette, there could be something to smoking in real moderation. It’s the overlap that kills; er, well increases the Risk. My cousin Mae smoked like a chimney all her life and died at 88. It’s a risk, not a given.
From the weed-empire : The Indians knew how to make smoke-signals and to read footprints ! What is the most known smokesignal ? A zero ! A very good smoker can produce an 8 . It is obvious the indians had trouble with counting , so this explains their liquor consumption . Liquor-wise and smoke-foolish . In all indian sagas there was never a word about carbon footprints , after understanding mother nature this was not found and probably highly irrelevant . This was also a culture without paper money . Is not it logical that the paper trail goes ahead of the money ? What is more tempting to invent a paper trail leading to a lot of paper money or to follow a true trail leading to the facts of life ?
Both of my parents died from smoking related illness
Are there any diseases which aren’t smoking related? Heck, it’s even a risk factor for toenail fungus.
If the AGW scam has been so successful, it’s probably because it was modelled on the highly successful anti-smoking scam.
I would acknowledge if we have a psychiatrist (or many) here, to explain to me why is it so that left ideologists have such a strange collection of ideas and which they defend so fanatically?
W’re all secondary smoke victims now; let’s all club together to sue the tobacco companies. Just think how many windmills we’ll be able to buy. We’ll save the planet, yet.
John S says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:29 pm
When are there going to be calls to ban carbonated soft drinks, because they release “greenhouse gasses?”
(Or have they already, but I just missed it?)
John – Actually, in the processs of canning, the bottling company is sequestering CO2. By opening the carbonated soft drink can/bottle, you are violating the bottling company’s carbon sequestration scheme. There must be a felony associated with such nefarious behavior. I’ll try to arrange a suitable criminal defense team for you.
<];o)
@Tain says:
“All that being said, tobacco is, IMHO, just awful stuff. If you are going to smoke that stuff, you should be responsible for all your health care costs. If you choose to smoke, it should cancel any health insurance coverage you have. The rest of us should not be forced to pay for your choice.”
So if you drink excessively, drive while drinking at all, drive while using a cell phone, speed ever, don’t exercise adequately/don’t have a healthy diet, do your own electrical or roof repairs, ride a motorcycle/bicycle on city streets, ride on a 4-wheeler, have a loaded gun in the house, you should cancel your health insurance as you are boosting risk of insurance costs for the rest of us….Just how far do we want to take this….
Actually people who don’t have health insurance get treated anyway, then many can’t pay, which boosts the premiums for the rest of us. Another factor was the 1980’s deregulation of the insurance companies which encouraged many more companies for the same customer base with the attendant higher per person risk followed by discretionary selection/disallowing preconditions and cancellations for expensive treatments, which are primary reasons most can’t afford or obtain health insurance.
Can we just get a list of the things that do not cause global warming? According to what the alarmists keep telling us, that would be a much more manageable list.
Found this on a non-sarcastic page for students. Behold:
“Another major man-made cause of Global Warming is population.”
http://library.thinkquest.org/J003411/causes.htm
by
Oracle ThinkQuest Education Foundation.
I’ll be enjoying a big fat cigar after work, I think you should all join me.
So can the plural of gas be written as either “gasses” or “gases”? Spell checker indicates they are both correct.
Also, cigarettes DO cause global warming. There’s heat released and technically the gases do absorb some extra IR. I think almost anyone in their right mind would say that the amount of warming is completely insignificant though.
Actually…maybe they don’t cause warming. If I remember right, aerosol apportionment studies show that in some urban environments smoking can lead to a significant (1-2%) fraction of the total aerosol. Perhaps the increase in aerosol loading causes enough cooling to offset any warming? Oh, and we’ll need to add in the CO2 consumed by the tobacco and also the CO2 generated in manufacturing and shipping. Oh, and don’t forget the other volatile organics in all those processes too. 🙂
-Scott
“Chuck says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm
What are they smoking?
Gore Lites!”
🙂
Does this also apply to all that smoke from that other ‘greenstuff’. The greenies, hippies and enviromentalists like to puff on? Or just another dig at ‘evil’ tobacco?
The dope smoke is exempt from CO2 emissions and reducing carbon footprints I take it then?
You’ve hit the nail in the head. Smoking is dangerous for the smoker, but there is no proven danger in second-hand smoke. But you have to read the papers (which I did, and came out amazed with the results), not the newspapers. The second-hand smoke campaign was successful because nobody would dare question it, as (most) smokers feel guilty about it. Etc. etc. etc., there would be lots to say. For instance, nobody knows what a “smoking related illness” or a “smoking related death” are! There are no definitions for these, hence counts cannot be made (you can’t decide if it is or isn’t), just statistical guesses. The danger of second-hand smoke causing cancer is similar to that of Radon inhalation, a gas emitted by granite that accumulates in basements and floor level rooms. And, as I said, etc etc etc
From amicus curiae on October 13, 2010 at 3:41 am:
I’ve done something like that before:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/29/perhaps-the-stupidest-article-ive-ever-seen/#comment-419588
Here’s a snippet:
“Go organic” by getting rid of the phosphate fertilizers and, if the relation holds true, the cancer rate will drop.
Carbon Credits for sale! Give me € 100,000 in a brown paper bag and I won’t mow my lawn next summer. Pay me only € 50,000 and I’ll mow it, but with an electric mower instead of one with an awful petrol engine.
—
“Pops says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Didn’t algore once claim that cigarette smoking is a major cause of global warming?”
Well, is there anything that lunatic HASN’T claimed?
—
“JER0ME says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:17 am
BFL says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm
It would be interesting to see cancer and emphysema rates among organic and non-organic tobacco users compared.
I agree. I switched back to by old-time habit of rolling my own ‘last time’ I took up smoking because the tobacco therein has fewer chemicals and made me cough less. You do get awful yellow fingers, though.
I finally packed it in for the third time in 15 years when my 6-year-old daughter started imitating me with pencils and the like, and I hope this is the very last time I have to give the damn stuff up. The stupid thing is I never enjoyed it much overall.”
Well, they say quitting smoking is good for you; so why not do it over and over again?
—
“JER0ME says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:20 am
amicus curiae says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:41 am
Tobacco is the ONLY product that somehow manages to NOT have to include an ingredients list on the pack- world wide.
now why? is that so:-)
and alcoholic beverages, strangely”
Those goods are not sold as food and therefore not labelled as food, I think.
—
“idlex says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Both of my parents died from smoking related illness
Are there any diseases which aren’t smoking related? Heck, it’s even a risk factor for toenail fungus.”
Are there any diseases that are EXCLUSIVELY caused by smoking?