Did you mean "serious" health risks, or "any" health risks?
For the record, I would not stand in line, and smoke. As matter of fact, if I was forced to stand in line for a childrens movie, I'd welcome the opportunity to step out of line and retreat some where for a smoke.
If only all smokers were as courteous, then these anti-smoking laws would be a non-issue because they're wouldn't be any anti-smoking laws.
I have to disagree with you on this. Even if all smokers had the patience of Job and the lifespan of Methusala, anti-smokers would want to control the life of said smoker.
Antis do NOT like the smell of smoke and want the government to enforce their DISLIKE on ALL others within their sphere of life.
There are health risks involved with, practically, anything you do or do not in this life.
Some risks are greater than others and you choose the risks you take. At least until the antis and the govt step in to choose FOR you.
I was refering to the inconclusive and contradictive studies that have been made on the subject. As for long term health risks, there has not been any reliable study done to prove that second hand smoke poses serious, irreversible, and permanent health risks that are disproportinate with other avoidable or unavoidable, potential health hazards in our environment.
Living is a health risk.
Succinctly, there is no valid evidence that "secondary smoke" causes any illness as opposed to a control group not so exposed.
Not true. The anti-smoker laws are not being passed because the people are clamoring for them; they are being foisted upon an unsuspecting public by well-paid, highly professional single-issue groups with an axe to grind and lazy, arrogant self-righteous lawmakers. Aided and abetted by people like you.