>>1131Surprised this hasn't been addressed ITT. You lainons do know that second hand smoke is a complete myth right?
Or at least, it's not been established in any legitimate scientific study. This isn't me saying whatever contradicts me doesn't count, the EPA study that the myth mainly stems from and justified most of the US public policy towards anti-smoking legislation was rejected by a Congressial Review and outright indicted by a federal judge for its fraudelence:
>The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information… [The EPA] deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasons; and left significant questions without answers… Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings, were subordinate to EPA’s [goal of] demonstrating [that] ETS was a Group A carcinogen… In this case, the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme…and to influence public opinion… While doing so, [the EPA] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s researched evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. (Osteen, 1998)All other significant studies have found little to no evidence to believe there's an increased risk in lung cancer for people working in a high smoking environment or with frequent smokers (i.e. World Health Organization's Boffetta, et al. 1998; US Dept of Energy's Jenkins, et al, 1999).
Info quickly pulled from an article off google:
http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/You can research it yourself. It's just one of those things people keep saying because it fits their political worldview but has no actual basis in scientific reality, like 'IQ tests are culturally biased and flawed measures of future success' or '1 out of every 3 college women are raped every year'.
Also like 'vaccines cause autism', it usually stems from one corrupt, fraudulent study that is quickly debunked but still picked up and continuously shared by sensationalist fear mongering media who conveniently ignore its rejection by the scientific community, and then regurgitated by self righteous idiots who want to feel they're on the side of 'knowledge' and commercialized by activist and nonprofit megaorganizations. But it takes 10 seconds on google to realize, oh, looks like the propaganda machine was lying to me again.
Also, smoker's lung is a blatant lie too, if you still believe that. It's usually just pig lungs blackened with dye 'for dramatic effect'. No doctor will tell you you can tell a smoker from a non-smoker by looking at their lungs with the naked eye.
Reference:
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/An article listing examples of the justifications used for entirely fabricated negative health effects of smoking (here on cigarette packages):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/21/hurt-no-ifs-ands-or-butts-fda-warning-photos-faked/Stop feeling so guilty about your habit. There's much worse things you can be doing to your body and you're hardly hurting anyone around you for it. I never blow out smoke near kids and follow 15ft from entryway laws in yuppie neighborhoods but that's the only concession I make. Besides obviously being derezzed from interiors fuarrrking everywhere. It's almost unfathomable to think that we used to be a nation of smokers, and now people pretend a cigarette in a cafe larger than most homes would practically murder half the patrons because muh asthma. Go for a jog.
