Smoking Cigarettes

[DieHappy]

I don't know where you're getting your information, but chances are it's from some unofficial, biased source. It seems to me that most of the major health organizations agree that secondhand smoke is not healthy for you.

Welcome to epidemiology. Very little is known and nothing is final. If you like the results, shout them from the rooftop. If not, bury them and commision a new study. I have no single source, I have a file full of studies on dozens of subjects. My sources are the originals. The NIH, CDC, AMA, and lung cancer groups are certainly biased against smoking.
That was my point earlier. There are stronger causal links everywhere in society to cancer but legislating them away would either be impossible, economically catastophic, or political suicide. Baning smoking is none of them.
You joke about a conspiracy but when the entire medical profession wants you to stop smoking and they can't seem to convince you, they'll jump at the chance to "prove" you're hurting your neighbor and get it banned. Why else would they tell you couldn't trust a study linking abortion and breast cancer because it was the first one but use the first second hand smoke study to try to ban smoking?

 

[TheBear]

More die from second hand than the actual smokers.

Just curious. What studies made this finding?

 

[Clarphimous]

Alright, DieHappy. I want to know why you think that the medical industries want to label smoking as unhealthy / ban it. What's the benefit for them?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Just curious. What studies made this finding?

Here are some sources: Here and Here

Plus, I saw this commerical several times that was like a scientific informational commercial (can't think of name) that also explained that.

 

[TheBear]

Here are some sources: Here and Here

Plus, I saw this commerical several times that was like a scientific informational commercial (can't think of name) that also explained that.

Thanks for the links.

I read through them and saw the damage second-hand smoke does. I read the claim that more people die from second-hand smoke than die in car accidents. But I did not see anything stating that more people die from second-hand smoke than smokers.

 

[DieHappy]

First, the medical establishment wants people to stop smoking. There is no doubt that smoking is bad for you and kills people (though, they do try to bury the reports that indicate smoking prevents the onset of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's by 5 to 10 years). But, other than counsel you to stop there's not much to do to make you. Banning it is easier if they can show you are hurting your neighbor. Make no mistake, the nanny's in our society are already targeting fast food.
There is much dispute over the cost of smoking. I think most of the medical profession sees the cost of treating lung cancer and heart disease and thinks we'd save millions if we could get people to quit. That may be true, but it may be true that smoking saves money by killing you earlier.
Either way, I think it's the nanny mentality and not some sort of "what's in it for them" thinking that makes them want to ban it.

As for the links, the first is a government publication with no references.
The second link was well referenced. The problem with those references is that all but number 11 is meta analysis of other studies, namely the EPA one which has been thoroughly debunked by epidemiologists. Here's the statement that referenced number 11:
[font=verdana,arial,sans-serif]In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.11

Big deal. I'm not a smoker and if I were, wouldn't do it in front of my children but this does nothing for the debate about whether it's bad for you.
[/font]