Now show the chart that proves 2nd hand smoke isn't inconsiderate, disgusting, doesn't make eyes burn, doesn't make you cough, even gag, doesn't make your (non-smoker) clothes stink....
You cannot prove that.
Once something has insignificant or nil effect, reducing the level of exposure further doesn't help at all. Then it becomes a waste of money to do so.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. We all do not feel the way you do.
To me, there is nothing better then a sweet smelling man with the smell of after shave and a hint of tobacco smoke.
I find it very sexy.
"Interesting chart but 0 is still way better and even healthier than 20."
"Now show the chart that proves 2nd hand smoke isn't inconsiderate, disgusting, doesn't make eyes burn, doesn't make you cough, even gag, doesn't make your (non-smoker) clothes stink...."
This very argument exemplifies the reason that tobacco control exaggerates and lies about secondhand smoke.....they know lawmakers would never pass laws and ordinances based on the argument "..we want a smoking ban so my clothes don't stink...."
However, now that we have air quality testing which contradicts their health hazard argument....all that's left for them is the nuisance argument......Good luck with that
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html
"Interesting chart but 0 is still way better and even healthier than 20."
Do you hold the same view of all carcinogens or other regulated substances? For a specific example, do you hold the same view of arsenic or sianide?