Tiefling, I respect you
point of view, but all you cite is
anecdotal evidence. While
cigarette smoke is the leading cause of
lung cancer, there is more than one way to develop
the disease. I also agree that asking those around you first before smoking up would be polite, but the
smoker and property owner has rights too, as explained in point two.
Below are two paragraphs from the appendix of
For Your Own Good by
Jacob Sullum of
Reason Magazine.
Secondhand smoke poses a grave threat to bystanders.
The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as
conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking. The research
suggests that people who live with smokers for decades may face a slightly higher
risk of lung cancer. According to one estimate, a nonsmoking woman who lives with
a smoker faces an additional lung cancer risk of 6.5 in 10,000, which would raise
her lifetime risk from about 0.34 percent to about 0.41 percent. Studies of
secondhand smoke and heart disease, including the results from the Harvard Nurses
Study published in 1997, report more-dramatic increases in disease rates—so
dramatic, in fact, that they are biologically implausible, suggesting risks comparable
to those faced by smokers, despite the much lower doses involved. In any case,
there is no evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke has any impact on
your life expectancy.
If secondhand smoke really is dangerous, smoking ought to be banned everywhere, except in private residences.
Since almost all of the epidemiological evidence about the health effects of
secondhand smoke relates to long-term exposure in the home, the fact that this is the
one place exempted from current and proposed smoking bans suggests a residual
concern for property rights. Yet business owners have property rights, too. If the
government respected their right to establish rules about smoking on their own
property, potential employees and customers could take such policies into account
when deciding where to work or which businesses to patronize. Whether
secondhand smoke is a health hazard or merely a nuisance, such a voluntary system
is the most appropriate way to deal with the conflicting demands of smokers and
nonsmokers, since it allows for diversity and competition, rather than simply
imposing the will of the majority on everyone.