Replies

"Either you died from smoking or you didn't. There isn't any 'in between'!"

This, of course, is not true. There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked. Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death.

"My wife and I have smoked around our children since they were born and NEITHER ONE of them has developed Asthma or any other breathing problems.

And the same goes for my brother and sisters whose kid have had no ill effects from 'second hand smoke'."

This is just plain silly. The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not.

Here's what I don't understand about folks like you. Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway). We DO know that people who actually smoke the cigarettes are harmed in various ways, so WHY IN THE HECK would you take the chance by exposing your children to smoke in the house and car? Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there.

"There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked"

Prove it.

My grandfather died from Emphysema and he and my grandmother never smoked a day in their lives.

"Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death. "

You can't on one hand say 'cigarettes are not the cause of death" and on the other say "but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death" because without "proof",those two statements would be mutually exclusive.

"The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not."

That's right. It doesn't 'prove' a thing, good or bad.

"Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway)."

Then there is no proof and the rest of your post is nothing more that speculation and unfounded fear over what 'might' happen.

What if I get up tomorrow and get in a car crash and get killed? Should I just stay in bed and avoid it.

You have no argument or proof. Just opinion.

"Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there."

Your choice. Nothing more.

Here's what I don't understand about folks like you. Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway). We DO know that people who actually smoke the cigarettes are harmed in various ways, so WHY IN THE HECK would you take the chance by exposing your children to smoke in the house and car? Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there.

Once again, I will post this information:

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?" But where does this Taliban-like anti-smoking campaign come from? It can't really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study showing a causal relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science (even by other federal agencies) it was finally declared "null and void" by a federal judge. Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can't be healthy, but if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space _ say a bar or a separate part of a restaurant where people, including staff, only go of their own free will _ who can object?

DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter. This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.