Can anyone find research which supports the notion that second hand smoke is harmful to peopel outside?
347831
omg soo easy do a google search of cigarette smoke and ull find out that cigarette smoke inahalation(or second hand smoke) is actually worse for u than if u were to be a smoker alone
1111807
what the h are you smoking......have a cousin more or less brain dead from this crap...and htere have been multiple studies showing the damage to oens lungs is far greater with Mj then tabacoo...but you keep it up...we need to thin out the gene pool anyway
191109
I think Del Mar already banned smoking, including sidewalks, beaches, and other outdoor public places.  Definitely other cities will follow suit, especially after the state of CA already classified 2nd hand smoke as a toxic substance.
753167
There are no risks associated with passive smoking that are scientifically verifiable. \n\nConsider the 2 largest studies ever: \n\nthe WHO announced with much fanfare that those who were subjected to passive smoking ran a 16 to 17% greater chance of contracting lung cancer. What they failed to mention is that the chances of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is only 0.01%, meaning the increased risk equates to only 0.0017%, which in statistical terms is zero. \n\nThe other large study was conducted with a sample of over 35,000 non-smoking spouses of smokers, by scientists from the Universities of Califonia and New York. They found that there was no statistical evidence ot suggest these non-smokers (in a study which ran from 1959 to 1998) suffered greater mortality rates than non-smokers generally from either coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or any level of exposure.\n\nI suspect this won't be the most popular answer, because so many people are health facists. That of course is the problem: lots of people with little tolerance and a big axe to grind, overlooking scientific study because they prefer instead to mis-interpret statistics and ban things they don't like themselves.\n\nMe? I'm a militant smoker.\n\nIn response to later answers, the idea that something should be banned because you don't like it is nonsense. I may not like your after shave or perfume, but I'm not recommending that people who wear either should be forced to sit outside. And I note that, rather than picking on the largest study, which showed no link between coronary heart disease or lung cancer rates and passive smoking, you've picked on the 0.0017% chance in the WHO report to justify your argument. Statistically speaking, 0.0017% is the equivalent of 0, and, given that the margin of error was several orders of magnitude greater than the ten thousandths of a percent being measured, one could as easily argue that it shows a positive effect. No serious statician would even include such a result, and especially not trumpeting the 16-17% increased risk, unless there was a political (or at least politically correct) motivation. \n\nWhile the death of Roy Castle was very sad in an abstract sort of way (lots of people die every day, and I don't know them either, so what do I care?) even the British Medical Association, that well known defender of smokers rights (!) only claim that about 800 people a year die of passive smoking - the most alarmist claim made. To put this into perspective, there were 1,650 deaths related to falls, 3,508 road traffic deaths and 3,946 deaths related to accidents in the home. Thus in order for your argument to be logically consistent and concerned with saving lives rather than banning things you simply don't like, you should first focus on banning cars, houses, and anything which allows people to raise themselves more than 6 inches off the floor. \n\nMore details on the study:\n\nIn May 2003, the British Medical Journal carried the results of research conducted by James Enstrom of the University of California, which monitored the non-smoking partners of 35,561 smoking spouses over a period of 30 years from 1959 to 1998. The study found that exposure to ETS was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time, or at any level of exposure.\n\nOther quoted figures:\nRoad Traffic deaths 2003 from government figures published August 2004\nAccidental deaths – ONS Statistics for accidental deaths - 1998\n\nAnd as predicted, the number of - ratings for my answer is high, proving that an age is called dark not because there is no light, but because people refuse to see it.
813310
NO. \n\n1. Secondhand smoke is DANGEROUS and the SMOKE does not know to stay out of the "non-smoking" section.\n\n2. An addictive narcotic is not added to fast food.\n\n3. Smoking does more damage than poor eating habits.\n\n4. The fast food makers did not LIE about what is in their products.
600055
I would rather have my mate fart in front of me then smoke a cigarette.  LOL  Second hand smoke can kill you in the long term, a fart is harmless unless it comes from my butt.  The government rents my ass out for counter terrorism measures.  LMAO
988554
No! Smoking around you while your pregnant will just harm your baby. Second hand smoke is no good for someone whos preg!!!\n\nIf you mean, will it prevent you from getting pregnant? Absolutely not! That's the craziest form of birth control I've heard of so far.
1126881
No, it is a theoretical thing. The only thing that is sure is your chance of getting ill increases. You can never prove it was the secondhand smoke, bad diet, drinking. Just that it did not help.
479727
Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so.\n\nSecond hand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in second hand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.\n\nWhen a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is inhaled / exhaled (mainstream smoke) by the smoker and the other half floats around in the air(sidestream smoke).\n\n No one should be forced to breathe in air tainted with cigarette smoke.
925151
No. Consumers are the ones that buy the product. Tobacco companies do not force anyone to smoke. If you want to say something about second hand smoke, I live in a state where smoking in public is banned. Anyways, it's the person smoking who is at fault.
804367
It's a great idea... it's already happened in Scotland, and I found it incredibly liberating to enter bars and restaurants there and not have to walk through clouds of smelly smoke for once. It's so nice to be able to go along and spend time with my smoker friends and actually enjoy my time with them - to feel like part of the group again. And I no longer have to keep going outside on my own for some fresh air in the freezing cold. It's actually a very nice feeling. \n\nSmoking is a right, yes I agree.. but I feel it's more of a right not to be forced to breathe in others second-hand smoke. It's just nasty full stop. If people want to enjoy a smoke, I'm very happy for them to do it in the privacy of their own homes. :-)
177194
There is all sorts of conflicting data on this one, but here are a few sites with some info on studies:\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm\nhttp://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_57309\nhttp://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_lung_cancer_26.asp\n\nI tend to lean toward the yes side, I just can't picture smoking being ok for the lungs, and the smoke does have carcinogens in it.
152716
No, absolutely not! It can increase the chance of low birth weight, SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc. I know it's hard to quit, I smoke myself-but I quit when I was pregnant, then after I had my daughter, we smoked outside. Second hand smoke is just as bad as first hand. Quit for your baby!!!!
713329
I live in the US but i found these two websites one might not be very relevant my email is pt_of_vu@yahoo.com or SeanGhosh@aol.com\n<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm> \n<http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html>\nincidentally I also have to research smoking
618180
The reason for the law (and it does not include every public area) is due to the fact that "second hand smoke" is believed to cause cancer.   I don't know where you live, but in Maryland you can still smoke in diners, clubs and bars in designated areas.  You can don't smoke in any government buildings, and most office buildings.   As for its origins in South Africa, I don't know about that.
63326
they're both bad second hand smoke is worse because most people who are inhaling the second hand smoke aren't ususally smokers, so it affects them more. I recently read a dear abby letter that addressed this question. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucda/20060126/lf_ucda/dangerposedbysecondhandsmokeiscalledintoquestion;_ylt=AvRvjRtt.OVVBMI5k8l73bnNbbUC;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
579063
Well one thing second hand smokes does for me is it gives me migraines for hours and even days. I really don't think I should have to suffer when I do nothing in return. But smoke isn't the only thing that gives me really bad headaches other strong odors do too like perfume.