Has the threat from passive smoking been exaggerated?

Answer 1

Exaggerated or not ,it's not very nice being around smokers, especially when they are your own family and cant or wont see how unpleasant it is for the rest of us.

Answer 2

Yes.
Chance of contracting lung cancer w/o passive smoke=1 in 100,000.
With passive smoke that figure rises to 1 in 80,000.
Anti passive smoke campaigners will truthfully tell you that passive smoke raises the chance of contracting lung cancer by 20%. What they don't tell you is that you're still twice as likely to be struck by lightening.
Another topic not disscussed is that the campaign against second hand smoke was based of on a single gov't study, which had the CONLUSION determined beforehand, & all data contrary to that conclusion was suppressed (and still the best they could come up with was 1 in 80,000).
There have been very few follow up studies, none of which was able to pass muster of any serious scientific review as the methodology of said studies was so flawed.

Answer 3

Last time I looked there had been three surveys, the largest sampled surveys came out as "not proven" while the smallest one (not big enough to be considered scientific) said that passive smoking was dangerous.

Doctors are adding to this misinformation by putting the cause of death as cancer whenever there is any link to smoking - saves them doing their job properly.

Non-smokers should stick to the fact that they don't want to smell like an ashtray - which is a proven fact.

Answer 4

No definitely not. Inhaling other people's smoke is as bad, if not worse, than smoking yourself. As others have said, you only have to remember Roy Castle. Only smokers argue that the threat is exaggerated. I, for one, am so glad to be able to go into pubs and restaurants and not have to breath in other people's smoke. I've heard lots of smokers complain about their 'right' to smoke but they've had that 'right' for too long, now it's the non-smokers turn to have 'rights'. It's also great not to go home with clothes smelling of nicotine!!!!!

Answer 5

Yes. It's hard to be taken seriously when you oppose the smoking bans, that have resulted from this pile of lies, because the anti smoking nazis scream and bawl their heads off at you.

However, the statistical evidence pointing towards the dangers of so called 'passive smoking' is fatally flawed, and sometimes falsified. And the same flawed statistics are cycled again and again.

See the attached URL. And if there are any anti-smoking nazis reading this, then try calming down, taking a deep breath, stop screaming, and read. You might learn something.

Answer 6

I really don't know, however I do think that smokers have been denied their rights. There should be pubs and clubs and even some restaurants where smokers can sit and enjoy their pint or meal. Non smokers have an equal right to choose where they want to eat or drink. I don't think this government know the meaning of compromise

Answer 7

i am an ex smoker, i have to say that i do not believe the threat of passive smoking is exagerated. I have seen many people in my capacity as a healthcare professional die from lung cancer due to being in a smoky atmosphere.

Answer 8

No, it's not exaggerated. We get exposed to the smoke in two ways- Firstly, sidestream smoke coming out from the lighted ciggarette that wafts through the air and mainstream smoke that is exhaled by the smoker. Passive smoking is being associated with the cause of many cancers, such as the lung, breast, cervix and bladder. Passive smoking also has adverse smoking on children who have asthma. It is the cause of the middle ear condition and to babies borned underweight.

Answer 9

Of course it has. Do you know anyone personally who has died from secondhand smoke? No, and neither does anyone else. But if the numbers claimed on the anti-smoking billboards were true, you couldn't avoid knowing people who did; they'd be everywhere.

The figures cited by government and anti-smoking zealots go back to a discredited EPA study that arrived at them by assuming every death from a condition that had any association with smoking (heart disease, colon cancer, you name it) was actually caused by secondhand smoke, if the victim had any environmental association with a smoker. So, if you ate a fatty diet your whole life, never exercised, and died of a heart attack at 60, and you lived with a smoker for six months at some point during your life, the study counted you as a victim of secondhand smoke. This study was actually condemned by a Federal court as nonsense data-cooking to support a preordained conclusion, yet its numbers are still cited (and exaggerated) by anti-smokers every day.

Do the math next time you see one of those ads or billboards. Multiply the numbers for how many people supposedly die every day or every hour, and figure out how many that is a year. Then ask yourself if it sounds likely.

RandomMan: do you KNOW the smoky atmosphere gave her lung cancer? Or are you just assuming the truth of what you're setting out to prove - a circular argument? Please, tell us her family medical history. You must know it, since you believe you are qualified to decide the cause of her illness.

Answer 10

Yes it has...and not only am I NOT a smoker, I have actually been an educator on the topic. I'm not saying it has NO risks, but the risks are no where near as horrible as the activists try to portray it to be.