second hand smoke and other?

Question

second hand smoke does NOT cause lung cancer theres alot of affects from first hand smoke but the only thing you can get from second hand smoke is athsma or more often athsma outbreaks and ONLY if your young.

and to up the anty the commercials are saying second hand is worse than first hand which does not make any sense.

and these people are the REASON that smoking is now not allowed in resturants. why? because theyr'e to pissy to god forbid deal with something unpleasant for more than one second.
and global warming which is wrong is trying to get people to live with less privlages for NO reason.
a certain word BANNED in new york.

I am not a smoker. i am not for global lazieness and i despize the above word.
but why why is america taking away our freedom.

Either everything is okay or NOTHING is whats next, no candy cause of sugar ,no fast food because of health, the word where cause it is offencive to the FICTIONAL werewolf to be WAY WAY OUT THERE.
wearin certain clothes WHY!!!!!

Answer 1

The public's conviction that second-hand smoke kills is a position built out of pseudoscience and constant media attention to said junk science. It's often repeated that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. And this is a point that serves to push numerous attempts at bans on public smoking. But, in reality, there is not a single reputable study that shows any casual relation to lung cancer and second-hand smoke.

The most infamous study surrounding this controversy, which is often seen as supporting a real relation between lung cancer and second-hand smoke, is a 1993 report by the EPA. This report would claim that second-hand smoke causes 3,000 deaths a year. Countless media and news headlines in big-bold-black-letters would follow: “Passive Smoke Kills!”, “Your Children Are At Risk!”, “Second-Hand Smoke; Another Nail in Your Coffin!“ But, in 1995, The Congressional Research Service released a review of the EPA's report, which was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions. Then, in 1998, Judge William Osteen would make void the entire EPA report in a 92-page review blasting its procedures and conclusion.

The media, smoking ban supporters, and most of all, anti-tobacco activists have ignored such criticism and debunking. The EPA's report is still cited today as a valid scientific analysis. Why? Has the agenda of banning public smoking become so important that bad science, so long as it supports the agenda, should be praised? The fact of the matter is that the largest, most extensive, study on the effects of passive smoke found no statistical significance or casual relation between second-hand smoke and any number of diseases, including Lung Cancer. It might also be important to note that this is coming from a person who has never smoked a cigarette, nor desires to, in his life.