How does feeding smoke into others' lungs take years of your life?

Seriously though, you're mixing up two different arguments. The issue here is public smoking, not just smoking in general. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that nobody should be allowed to smoke, period. Sure, some of you think smoking is stupid, and it probably is, but that's up to smokers to decide.

And then there's two arguments against public smoking. There's the "second hand smoke takes years off innocent peoples' lives," which I have a very hard time accepting. It's not like every time you inhale second hand smoke you lose three months, you either inhale so much of it you get some sort of lung problem that kills you, which seems very unlikely, or you don't. You don't die at 60 of a heart attack and say, oh well, he inhaled a lot of second hand smoke that's why he died 20 years early.

The second argument seems to be, "smoke is annoying, it smells bad." In restaurants, okay, fair enough, I can accept that. I still think that if the restaurant has outdoor seating it should be okay. For bars or poolhalls on the other hand, fuck you. That's just part of going to a bar. The vast majority of people who go to bars go there to smoke and get shitfaced and just because you only go there to get drunk and not to smoke doesn't mean you somehow have the authority to impose your will upon others.

That's all I have to say about this matter, feel free to continue making the same arguments over and over.

Or your ageing process is accelerated by the effects of the bountiful free radicals contained in second-hand smoke, you wrinkle prematurely and you experience worsening health earlier in life due to the generally enhanced effect of time on your body. Since when did smoking only cause problems in the lungs? Overeating doesn't just cause mouth problems.

Alright, I'll admit you seem to know what you're talking about better than I do.

But I still demand conclusive evidence that being exposed to the smoke levels in a restaurant two or three times a month would have any sort of noticeable effect. As for bars, I say you accept whatever risk second hand smoke may pose when you go in there. Chances are you're lowering your life expectancy much more by drinking and driving home than you are by smoking, let alone inhaling second hand smoke, anyway.

I obviously meant its harmfull to the person taking in the second hand smoke.

I know. That's why I began my next statement with "seriously though."

That implies I wasn't being serious before.

Who do you want to accumulate this evidence and who exactly would pay them to gather it? As far as I know there have been a number of studies which have shown a decent correlation between smoke inhalation and cancer, early death and all that. These always get pushed aside by tobacco-industry funded research which shows there to be no correlation. I think there'll be a lot less research done into the effects of first and second hand smoke in the future because it's hardly a lucrative business for the unbiased researcher... plus they know their work is going to be swept under the carpet.

Being exposed to any fumes that are toxic and contain carconegic and ionising components is going to have some kind of effect. You're right in the use of the word 'noticeable', because I think it's true that the majority of non-smokers who die of smoke-enhanced diseases probably don't die purely as a result of passive smoke inhilation.

In most cases it's a cumulative effect, carcinogens in car fumes and fried food doing giving similar free-radical ageing effects and other lifestyle choices all working for or against the health of the person.

At the same time, although typically there would have to be several mutations in the proto-oncogenes or tumor-suppressor genes for carcigonesis* to get started, in theory just one mutation, cause by just one brief contact with a carcinogen could be enough to set off cancer. Potentially, the next time you breathe in smoke that very breath could be the one which gives you a cancer.

The truth is probably somewhere between the standard smoker's denial and the standard non-smoker-health-freak's paranoia... i.e. second-hand smoke can lead to your death but its rare esp. compared to the number of people exposed. I personally think that although first-hand smoke is a big killer (and ager), second-hand smoke is still a health and aesthetic threat but it ranks pretty low on my list of things to avoid.

*Cancer-cell generation.
You're also massively increasing your chances of being arrested for drunk-driving!

I'm a heavy smoker so I smoke whenever, wherever I can. Of course, I'm not gonna blow smoke in babies faces or anything. At work last night a coworker brought her baby to work and I was sure to stand in the back room and smoke while she was there. I was considerate.

I smoke and I am not the slightest bit concerned about anyone next to me inhaling it, if I want to spend $9.00 a pack for some cigarettes I will enjoy one whenever the f*ck I feel like it.

Yes, I'm an ass hole like that

^See, I quite like that attitude. Smoking clearly damages your health and annoys other people and can damage their health too. In my mind, that doesn't mean that people who want to smoke should stop or that they even have to be considerate of non-smokers... it just means they shouldn't be in denial about the damage they are doing to themselves and the irritation they are causing others.