Has there ever been any documented proof that secondhand smoke actually harmed or was responsible for someone else's health declining? All I see are government numbers and frivolous court cases.
oh look, it's this thread again
it's not like we had this exact same topic being posted over and over again for the last fucking month now
what unique, intelligent and original content
we should give OP a prize or something for being the mindblowingly creative faggot shill that he is
sage goes in all fields
It isn't really my fault that no one has been able to present solid evidence that another person was harmed by passive smoking.
Point is, I haven't seen any studies that link secondhand smoke to lung cancer, or other serious, chronic illnesses for that matter. If anything there are actually non tobacco funded (so you can't scream conflict of interest) studies showing no link between smoking and perfectly healthy people developing any chronic health problems. There were also studies showing no negative effects associated with passive smoking in relation to cardio problems or heart problems.
But since challenging the scientific consensus is not welcome here, I'll just go "shill" somewhere else.
I thought grass roots propaganda companies no longer worked for the tobacco companies? Scientific papers are easy to get a hold of. Use "google scholar" and you'll be swimming in mounds of data. Patient confidentiality is what keeps names and case numbers out of the public eye. Search for yourself, I'm not doing your homework for you.
In terms of epidemiology, it's difficult to disentangle the effects of something like second hand smoke from other factors. Generally, studies in the past focused on bar workers, who were a group of people who were constantly being subjected to second hand smoke. The increased mortality rate from respiratory diseases suggested some causation due to second hand smoke, especially when taken into consideration were studies on the PM concentrations of smoking bars.
Fact is, it's the particulate matter than really messes up the lungs and not the chemical composition of the smoke itself. Smokeless forms of tobacco would prevent harm to others, such as snuff and chewing tobacco.
I meant the distinction between tobacco and cannabis.
A lot of things are unhealthy but people do them. Some people like smoking. Wow it's fucking nothing. Adults can make their own choices. I can't wrap my head around the fact that people trash smoking so hard.
>inb4 butthurt smoker
don't smoke and don't give a shit if people choose to smoke.
No, it's not nothing. Let me put it this way - if you want to kill yourself by hanging, pills or jumping from a bridge, that's your choice. It's a bad choice for you, but for everyone else it's whatever. But if you kill yourself by laying on the tracks that's not your own thing anymore, cause a train will be delayed because of your selfishness. So if you smoke in your own place slowly killing yourself and your furniture that's fine. But stinking up a rented apartment, or unsuspecting people on a bus stop, or throwing butts everywhere - that's just means you're a shit person and you should explore other options of self harm, preferably ones I mentioned at the beginning of my post.
>posting the same mundane bullshit thread topic for the 100th time in a month expecting an outcome different to the previous 99 threads
>challenging the scientific consensus
I came across a study that showed that bartenders weren't at risk due to passive smoke because the concentration levels of smoke indoors wasn't nearly large enough to cause a health issue.
I've already posted why I think it's bullshit that people have come up with as many reasons as they can to stamp out smoking in public. The EPA and WHO have clear desires to hide any information on secondhand smoke that inconveniences them. Many studies that try to prove a health link with secondhand smoke fail to successfully prove that serious health problems arise in nonsmokers who aren't genetically predisposed to something or have a preexisting condition. You have two sides asserting that secondhand smoke is harmless or harmful and the former can at least be supported by many people who are near large amounts of passive smoke who suffer no effects in their lifetime.
I've seen those, I've read the EPA reports and the WHO reports, I just think that the epidemiology doesn't actually prove that someone who isn't already suffering from a condition like asthma is capable of being affected negatively by passive smoking. The studies trying to correlate harm usually either make outlandish claims (such as the bullshit claiming that mydocardial infractions decreased by 40% in the Helena study) or use nonsensical reasoning (some of the studies trying to assert that passive smoking is bad actually use the "benzopyrene and carbon monoxide and other chemicals are bad!" crap. I've seen more legitimate studies denouncing any link between serious health problems and passive smoking.
But whatever, I'm not making anymore threads here when this one dies.
>Point is, I haven't seen any studies that link secondhand smoke to lung cancer, or other serious, chronic illnesses for that matter.
Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries
published in The Lancet in 2010. it's a huge epidemiological meta-analysis that sources from a shitload of data.
Even I don't really buy that the former is accurate information due to the guy's history as a conspiracy theorist, but the latter link points out that there may be other problems causing people to get sick that aren't connected to smoking. I get that it's a blog, but it cites studies.
I can't find all of the links that the blog quoted, unfortunately.