If any of that hogwash you said was even close to true,theyd never live even in their own homes.
Every so called chemical in tobacco smoke is also in the natural air everyone breathes everyday. In fact on average your daily smoking chemical dose from the natural air equals about 14-15 packs a day..........You cannot escape the chemicals or the doses they are to small to even matter.
Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC’s that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!
NIH report on carcinogens
If you want to learn about which chemicals cause cancer, or just want to feel more paranoid about getting cancer, check out the 2012 NIH report on carcinogens.
One of the more exciting findings is that human beings themselves are possible carcinogens, by virtue of their natural emissions of isoprene:
Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 µmol/kg
of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per
day (Taalman 1996), and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath
(accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons)
Don’t breathe on me!
Natural occurrences[edit]
Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million tonnes, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.
"Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.
Cancer Studies in Humans
Studies support an association of environmental (passive or secondhand) tobacco smoke with cancer of the lung and, in some cases, the nasal sinus (CEPA 1997). Evidence for an increased cancer risk from environmental tobacco smoke stems from studies examining nonsmoking spouses living with individuals who smoke cigarettes, exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke in occupational settings, and exposure to parents’ smoking during childhood (IARC 1986, EPA 1992, CEPA 1997). Many epidemiological studies, including large population-based case-control studies, have demonstrated increased risks for developing lung cancer following prolonged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies found an overall increase in risk of 20% for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke from a spouse who smokes. Increased risk of lung cancer appears to be most strongly related to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke from spousal smoking or exposure in an occupational setting."
That strongly contradicts your main argument that second hand smoke does not raise the risk of cancer. As for the mechanisms by which environmental tobacco smoke induces that higher risk, is there really any point in quibbling here whether it is one single component of tobacco smoke or, as I suggest, an effect of the combination of chemicals present?