I like this, though it shows a rather painful lack of understanding of basic science and the mechanics of drug testing and the meaning of toxic.<quoted text>
His response about second-hand smoke is interesting though.
As a truck driver, I'm required to take random drug screenings. One time in that process, I questioned the nurse about second-hand marijuana? She told me that even if I was in a room filled with marijuana, there would be no trace in my urine or blood. Smoke is not that toxic or powerful enough to be detected by a drug screen.
Okay, if pot can't be detected in urine, how is second-hand smoke killing people? I mean, I have never been to a funeral where the cause of death was second-hand smoke. And even if death were possible by second-hand smoke, that would mean that tobacco is so toxic that the user would die in a matter of seconds after the first puff.
Of course, liberals don't want to consider that. Instead, they find ridiculous biased articles to support their point without question. The liberal article says this or that, so it must be true. Forget common sense. It doesn't apply in the liberal world.
If you ever get the time and energy, a youtube channel of you explaining scientific concepts (Ask a trucker?) would be amazing!