This may be true but I’ve never heard of a cat dying from Ebola so there may be two sides to this story.
Second, it will be a law.
Third, a government agency will be formed to enforce it.
Fourth and finally, a Federal SWAT team will lob flashbangs into your home and storm it with machine guns and MRAP armored vehicles, all for the dubious 'benefit' for the health of a cat.
My beloved MaiseyJane was a year old when I adopted her. A vet asked me if anyone smoked in the home, as her lungs were not strong. No one in my house smokes, and a year after MaiseyJane moved in with us, her lungs were fine.
Point is, it took more than a year for her lungs to be clear and strong after leaving her smoking home.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
They will get stomach cancer from licking the tar reside from their fur. Have seen it happen. Smokers are extremely selfish!
WRONG!
That junk science was discredited years ago. It's a tenet of faith to the nannies. But, it just happens to be a big lie.
I'd be open to the idea that it could hurt dogs & cats. But not people.
I smoked 35 years. Had 3 cats. One lived 19 years, one 17 years and one got hit by a car.
I thought I’d seen everything alarmist and chicken little-ish about smoking, alcohol, sugar and fat and everything else personal the nannies want to be up your ass about-it seem that I was mistaken...
What’s next?
Gluten-free catnip?
In fact there were plenty of experiments done by antismoking scientists over the last six decades of "scientific" antismoking seeking to prove the harm from inhalation of tobacco smoke, but you will never see them mentioned in the media or hear about them from your doctor.
The reason for the odd silence is that they all went the "wrong" way -- the smoking animals live 20% longer while staying livelier, sharper and thinner into the old age. This "paradox" persisted even under the most extreme and unnatural smoking conditions such as smoking sessions concentrated to few hours per day with smoke levels boosted to the very edge of asphyxiation. Still, the smoking animals outlived the non-smoking ones (e.g. at the end of couple recent experiments by the time all nonsmoking mice or rats died, half the smoking animals were still alive).
Interestingly, when some real lung carcinogens are given to animals, such as radon to dogs in one experiment, 7 times fewer smoking dogs got lung cancer than non-smoking dogs.
In early 1970s National Cancer Institute sought to scientifically show damage from smoking in work place (as part of Nixon's "war on cancer", laying groundwork for workplace smoking bans), so they contracted the largest animal study to date, on Syrian Golden Hamsters (great hope of sntismoking research at the time, since they were particularly sensitive to smoke).
Unfortunately for them, the 'great hope' backfired horribly, showing exactly the opposite from what they wished to show -- tobacco smoke was protective against variety of industrial toxins and carcinogens, and smoking animals in all groups outlived (by about 20%) the non-smoking animals (pdf, p. 40):
"With the exception of the two asbestos-exposed groups (Groups 5 and 6), the groups exposed to cigarette smoke lived significantly (p<0.05) longer than their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts. The hamsters exposed to asbestos plus cigarette smoke also outlived their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts; however the difference was not statistically significant. Asbestos decreased the lifespan of the asbestos-exposed groups and thereby masked, to a degree, the difference in the survival between the smoke-exposed animals and their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts which is so readily apparent in other groups (Figure 23)."
Here are survival curve & weight curve for smoking group and group group inhaling Hepa filterted air: when nearly all non-smoking hamsters died (at around 18 months), nearly 50% of smoking hamsters were still alive. The weight curve shows smoking animals having 10-25% lower weight for nearly entire lifespans.
For references and discussion see this post with links to highlights of a longer thread Smoking is good for you in health & life-extension forum Longecity.
Both my parents smoked like chimneys all through my childhood and the childhood of my 4 siblings. My mother likely smoked while she breastfed us. The car was always filled with smoke too. We grew up in smoggy southern california when it was at its worst in the 1960’s. We are all in our 60’s now and none of us have had any lung issues whatsoever. We had several pets and none of them had any lung issues either or died of cancer of any type.
The only truly scientific 20+ year study of second hand smoke was done through the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO.)
When completed, it did not confirm the expected results and was hidden so well, no one knows where it went.
"the dangers are well understood?"
That says it all.
No citation made.
No citation possible.
What?
You gave up on the "it's for the children" opinions?
This is the most important issue in your life, is it?
We have had many cats in this household with two smokers. Three of our cats lived to 20-23 years of age, others died for different causes at normal age but not a single one got lung cancer. Now I have a rescue cat sneezing from allergies, she spent 4 years at the shelter where certainly they were not smoking. I am trying to provide for her as clean an environment as possible and force myself to go and smoke outside. If there is any truth in this, I am not going to make her miserable.
Actually fish are the most sensitive to second hand smoke.
/s