The worst kind of politicized pseudo-science.

I can see why nobody has replied to this. What can one say to such an air tight argument?

Ok, here you go-- there has never been a reputable, scientifically compelling study that has demonstrated a link between second hand smoke and health damage. There have been several studies that have shown no such thing and yet have been touted as confirming a link between lung cancer and second hand smoke. Again and again, we see these studies released purporting to show a link, and yet they are always-- always-- later revealed to have flawed methodology or falsified data. The fact is, people want to believe that second hand smoke is bad for you, so they do, regardless of the fact that there isn't an iota of compelling evidence to say so. It's like "autism is caused by vaccines"-- people are so zealous in their belief that they ignore the fact that there is no evidence.

well i'm not a doctor or a researcher but i can tell you that when i worked in a bar i developed a serious lung problem, causing me to have violent coughing fits throughout the day and night. when i eventually quit, within weeks the coughing had slowed dramatically and within a few months went away completely. no other facet of my life had changed in that time except my exposure to smoke.

what do you have to say to that, freddie?

Nono, the two examples you give come from pretty much the same group. The same people who say second hand smoke isn't hurting their children are the ones who also say that their kids aren't vaccinated because of the autism scare. Both are inadvisable courses of action that pose at least some health risk to people other than themselves, and in both cases the individuals in the wrong try to justify it by claiming that years and years of studies are all crap. I'm sure their high school diplomas helped them a lot in figuring that out.

When the vast majority of the studies say something is harmful, and people recognizing the harm would cost a corporation to lose money... well, suddenly there will always be a few oddball studies that try to displace the more numerous studies.

For instance, it is well-known and well accepted within the scientific community (especially among geologists) that the world is at least several billion years old. The vast majority of studies on the Earth's age come to this conclusion, however there are a few that do not. Do those few invalidate the majority? Of course not. Look at the source of the studies. People in favor of the young Earth idea are largely religious zealots trying to reinterpret data so that it will match chronologically with what is in the bible. They make arguments that at face sound reasonable to the layman (for instance, the Grand Canyon, they say, was carved all at once in a global flood) but upon close logical examination do not hold up (by studying the process of sedimentation, it becomes obvious that the Grand Canyon could not have been created in the proposed fashion).

Long story short, a few studies will say cigarettes don't cause cancer and second hand smoke doesn't have adverse affects on your children. The vast majority of studies state the opposite because those researchers aren't being given incentives by tobacco companies.

This is all non-sequitur. You're not hearing me. It's not that a few studies say that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. It's that there is not a single reputable study that shows that it does. Not one. You have no proof of what you're saying.

what do you have to say to that, freddie?

I have to say that anecdotal evidence is worthless and not scientifically compelling.

i can see both points. personally i'm anti smoking prohibition, because I agree things have been brought vastly out of proportion by flawed studies. The argument that people are breathing in unfiltered smoke and is thus more harmful is ridiculous. Second-hand inhalation is incidental and often accidental i.e. if youre in a room with one smoker, youre really not going to inhale that much smoke, unless your shotgunning the person which would just be sad. That being said I can see how working in a bar with a ton of people smoking wouldn't be good for your health necessarily, because you are immersed in it. That being said, a bar is one of the few places you would be immersed in it, so I think legislation has vastly over-stepped its bounds. However, whenever you suggest that, there is always a person who knows someone who died of cigarettes to use an emotional/political argument the other way around.

I think a lot of the support for prohibition comes from an adverse reaction to peer pressure. Everyone, smokers know it causes cancer. They don't care. They don't smoke because it's advertised a certain way. In fact its barely advertised anymore. So people are going down their own potentially harmful route, but they are choosing to do so. Maybe you don't get it, but start complaining when we have socialized medicine and you're paying for it

If you add up all the taxes that smokers have paid for over the last 20 years, I'd be shocked if even a tenth of it actually went to our health care infrastructure or cancer research. Maybe Saletan knows the real figure.

good point sickday, definitely true. what exactly is that cigarette tax money going to? not S-CHIP apparently...

Environmental polutants such as radon gas and air borne natural asbestos over the incident of cigarette (tobacco) smoking.

I have not found a single study that shows conclusivly that a particular dead person died of second hand smoke. Plentey though that they cannot even conclusivly say that smoking was the sole cause of death.

Anyone is welcome to post a valid, peer reviewed, published link though. I am always up for a surpise.

In the meantime this is a "legislate the vice" issue. If you don't like it don't do it and those that choose to do so do so in a way that respects other's choices to not to.

I have heard this repeated all the time by smokers. I was wondering why no one has bothered to provide an audit. the same with States' taxes on top of the federal ones for smoking products.