There is no hard evidence on SHS, merely epidemiological studies, financed by anti-smoker organizations, that show tiny RRs that are barely statistically significant, RRs that would be ignored it the subject was anything other than smoking.

Here, Smartenize Yoursef on the subject: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

Perhaps youd like to debate this hard evidence about shs/ets as its all fabricated from beginning to end.

second hand smoke is 94% water vapor and air!

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization_.html

This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

Smoking is assault.

Consider this, if you were enjoying a meal in a nice restaurant and I were sitting next to you and sprayed a clear liquid over my food and some drifted onto your table and food, you’d probably want to know what it was. If I replied, “Oh it’s just distilled water with a little arsenic in it, but it hasn’t been proven that those concentrations are really dangerous and it does enhance my enjoyment of my meal.” How long would it take you to call the management, demand a new meal and request that I be removed?

Yet people smoke in food service establishments and proven carcinogens are distributed by the air handling system onto everyone’s food.

Ventilation systems that make the “Air cleaner than the outside are lie. They only remove the odor and visible particles. The carcinogens are still there. In fact, just today, I was seated in a “non smoking” area with the smoking area only inches away with no physical barrier between us.

Now that hard evidence is in about second-hand smoke, it’s time to face the facts about smoking. Smoking around others is assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such legally and ethically. Given the evidence we now have about second hand smoke, this would seem to constitute assault with a deadly weapon. In the above instance, should I have defended myself by every legal means?

In the case of children, it is even worse. When someone smokes around children, isn’t it child abuse? Because it does not kill them immediately is hardly an excuse. If you were to hit them with a club often enough, I think most people would agree that you are causing long-term damage.

The children are helpless because they are usually unaware of the damage being done to their developing bodies and cannot make the adult stop smoking or often even get away from the danger.

At some point, we have to decide that “smoker’s rights” stop where our lungs begin. For myself, I will never patronize that establishment again nor any other that permits smoking on site. Perhaps when enough people do this, more food service places will understand that it is bad business and bad health to allow smoking at all.

In California, where smoking is not permitted in any food establishment, restaurants report an increase in business. This is because non-smokers will nor patronize them. Smokers will come anyway because they still drink and eat.

Perhaps our experience will be the same?

So, then, what’s so horrible about having the the business owners, their employees, and their customers make that decision as opposed to the government? If their cost benefit increases by prohibiting smoking they will surely do it, and anyone objecting could take their business someplace more accomodating. A business prohibiting smoking is not what most of us object to. Forcing other businesses to do the same is what we find deplorable and unconstitutional.