Tell your kids that!
Trust me, I have. I've counseled them to treasure liberty and keep constant vigil toward those who would diminish it. I've given special care to exposing tyrannts like you who propose to exchange their liberty for the alleged benefits of an avant-garde straight jacket.
Tyrannts don't ascend to power by promising tyranny. They promise a better way. Liberty can take us only so far, then the really smart folk have to step in and make the tough decisions for the rest of us. Smart folks, tyrannts if you will, but good tryannts, tyrannts who only want what's best for us. Smart folks like you, cin.
Talk about getting physically ill, know what absolutely turns my stomach? Burkas. Putting tents on adults in public. But guess what. The Taliban actually believe that's the way to a better life. Sad. Sadder still is that you share the same reverence for liberty as they.
Some facts. Science does not hold that second smoke is dangerous. Nothing but an assertion holds that second smoke makes you ill. Science does hold that second hand smoke provides some level of immunization against lung cancer. Tyrannts love good little doobys like you.
You obviously did not read the WHO/IARC study that showed childhood exposure might possibly have a protective effect against lung cancer.
But of course you didn't - your mind is made up and no one should attempt to confuse you with facts.
While I will attempt to not confuse you, I will try to infuse you with some facts. Fact is that the largest ever done study on the effects of second hand smoke exposure on non-smokers was done by the Cancer Research branch (IARC) of the World health Organization (WHO).
Lots of statistics were derived from this study regarding SHS - but the most important derived from it is that there is relatively littlle statistical risk of getting lung cancer from being around smokers.
In fact the only statistically significant number they came up with was that children exposed to SHS have a less likely chance of contractracting lung cancer than those that didn't.
Your next lesson will be on the meaning of statistical significance and relative risk. But I will give you a hint - according to the US government there is a relative risk of 1.65 (65%) chance of getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk - that is not considered statistically significant. According to the same US government there is a relative risk of 1.19 (19%) of getting lung cancer from exposure to second hand smoke - that they consider statistically significant.
You tell me what is wrong with that picture.
But you're an anti - so I expect nothing less than typical doublespeak from you. - Please prove me wrong.
I'll even give you a bit of help - in statistical analysis in epidemiology ( where all of the above is from) an RR of less than 2.00 (100%) is considered to be insignificant. Many in the medical reasearch fields consider anything below 3.0 to be insignificant.