Automobile accidents result in 40,000+ deaths annually. Why aren't cars and trucks and SUVs illegal?

And here's an example of a study demonstrating adverse effects after just 20 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/secondhand-smoke-exposure-breathing-20-minutes_n_2002804.html

Here's one of the ways in which even small exposures to tobacco smoke produce adverse changes in the body:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

"How much exposure to tobacco smoke can the lungs endure before damage ensues? The answer appears to be none, based on gene activity measured by researchers at Cornell University. “No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways,” says coauthor Ronald Crystal, head of pulmonary and critical care medicine at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

Crystal and coworkers at Cornell analyzed gene activity in small airway epithelial cells collected from 121 healthy volunteers. The type of cells tested are where early damage first occurs that leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchogenic cancer, according to Crystal.

...

People often wonder what level of exposure to SHS is harmful—is it a problem, for instance, to hang out with smoking friends once or twice a week? Crystal’s study “employs sophisticated molecular genetic techniques to address this very important public health question of whether a threshold exists,” says Norman Edelman, a professor of preventive medicine at Stony Brook University Medical Center and chief medical officer at the American Lung Association. The finding that no level of tobacco smoke exposure appeared safe “is important for informing both individual behavior and public health policy,” Edelman says.

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure why I am continuing to respond to this but the frantic lack of reason just irks me. I may have to go get in my safely emitting car and buy myself a lethal pack of cigarettes to calm down. Ok, your statements are so hyperbolic, I am not sure how to make sense of them. How do you define "safe" as you have used it here? Safe is a relative term. I think it is accurate to say that a bullet to the head is not safe even in a small amount. A puff of cigarette within 100 miles of you, or even within 10 feet of you is not equivalent to a bullet to the head. You are citing nothing so I have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on but any medical professional can tell you that the lung cancer cases they see are people who have smoked multiple packs per day for years, not someone who once walked by someone smoking a cigarette.

Do a Google search for "safe level of exposure" to tobacco smoke and you will find a wealth of information that should answer your questions about what defines "unsafe" with respect to tobacco smoke exposure.

A puff of cigarette smoke 100 miles away won't hurt me, but countless daily exposures likely will. Walking behind a smokers on the sidewalk, sitting next to one at an outdoor cafe, walking through a cloud of smoke from the smokers standing outside of a bar, etc....this happening every day, several times a day, for a lifetime is the reason why lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in smokers and non-smokers alike.

Of course getting shot in the head is very different from a lifetime of cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke. Even though tobacco smoke won't kill you instantly like a bullet probably would, it's still very harmful. It is the only legal substance that will kill at least half of its users, and scores of innocent non-users. Can you think of other legal substance about which you could say the same?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself."

This is only true if the guy is smoking in a sealed vault. If he lives in an apt building, or has his windows open, or has family members who live with him, etc. then he is harming others in addition to homself. And since it is impossible to smoke without negatively impacting others, it should not be lefal to do so.

Yes, but once you are beyond the general vicinity of the person smoking, you are getting ridiculous. We all breath the same air, which is full of pollutants, including those emitted by the factories that make your clothes, the car you drive, and the power plants that provide electricity to your home. You are crazy if you think that, but for the individuals smoking cigarettes on your planet, you would be breathing clean air. Furthermore, if you are looking to breathe strictly 100% oxygen, you need a bubble of some kind. Criminalizing cigarettes is not going to make a lick of difference.

The difference between tobacco smoke and the other things you mentioned (car emissions, power plants, etc.) is that those emissions either (a) do not contain the potent carcinogens and toxins that are found in tobacco smoke, or (b) are regulated and controlled in such a way that they stay below the threshold for human safety (this is why you have to have your car inspected every year -- to ensure that it is not producing emissions at a level greater than that which is considered safe.

The thing that sets tobacco smoke apart is that there is no "threshold" -- any amount, even fleeting, miniscule exposures, is considered unsafe by the regulatory bodies of this country (and the world, actually). There are only a handful of substances that meet this criterion (i.e., exposure is unsafe in any amount, even tiny amounts). Another example is asbestos.

I am not sure why I am continuing to respond to this but the frantic lack of reason just irks me. I may have to go get in my safely emitting car and buy myself a lethal pack of cigarettes to calm down. Ok, your statements are so hyperbolic, I am not sure how to make sense of them. How do you define "safe" as you have used it here? Safe is a relative term. I think it is accurate to say that a bullet to the head is not safe even in a small amount. A puff of cigarette within 100 miles of you, or even within 10 feet of you is not equivalent to a bullet to the head. You are citing nothing so I have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on but any medical professional can tell you that the lung cancer cases they see are people who have smoked multiple packs per day for years, not someone who once walked by someone smoking a cigarette.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself."

This is only true if the guy is smoking in a sealed vault. If he lives in an apt building, or has his windows open, or has family members who live with him, etc. then he is harming others in addition to homself. And since it is impossible to smoke without negatively impacting others, it should not be lefal to do so.

Yes, but once you are beyond the general vicinity of the person smoking, you are getting ridiculous. We all breath the same air, which is full of pollutants, including those emitted by the factories that make your clothes, the car you drive, and the power plants that provide electricity to your home. You are crazy if you think that, but for the individuals smoking cigarettes on your planet, you would be breathing clean air. Furthermore, if you are looking to breathe strictly 100% oxygen, you need a bubble of some kind. Criminalizing cigarettes is not going to make a lick of difference.

The difference between tobacco smoke and the other things you mentioned (car emissions, power plants, etc.) is that those emissions either (a) do not contain the potent carcinogens and toxins that are found in tobacco smoke, or (b) are regulated and controlled in such a way that they stay below the threshold for human safety (this is why you have to have your car inspected every year -- to ensure that it is not producing emissions at a level greater than that which is considered safe.

The thing that sets tobacco smoke apart is that there is no "threshold" -- any amount, even fleeting, miniscule exposures, is considered unsafe by the regulatory bodies of this country (and the world, actually). There are only a handful of substances that meet this criterion (i.e., exposure is unsafe in any amount, even tiny amounts). Another example is asbestos.

Anonymous wrote:"Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself."

This is only true if the guy is smoking in a sealed vault. If he lives in an apt building, or has his windows open, or has family members who live with him, etc. then he is harming others in addition to homself. And since it is impossible to smoke without negatively impacting others, it should not be lefal to do so.

Yes, but once you are beyond the general vicinity of the person smoking, you are getting ridiculous. We all breath the same air, which is full of pollutants, including those emitted by the factories that make your clothes, the car you drive, and the power plants that provide electricity to your home. You are crazy if you think that, but for the individuals smoking cigarettes on your planet, you would be breathing clean air. Furthermore, if you are looking to breathe strictly 100% oxygen, you need a bubble of some kind. Criminalizing cigarettes is not going to make a lick of difference.

Anonymous wrote:^^ and please tell me you never ride in cars or busses, use a grill outside of any sort, have no fireplace and have never painted or had anything painted/sealed/stained/sealed in your life.

If there were decades of research to indicate that these activities/things had zero benefits/positive effects, that they always (not sometimes -- always) had a negative impact on me as well as those around me, and that those negative effects almost always included respiratory disease, cancer, and premature death, then no -- i would not engage in those activities.

Do you see the difference now between tobacco smoke and the examples you listed?

^^ and please tell me you never ride in cars or busses, use a grill outside of any sort, have no fireplace and have never painted or had anything painted/sealed/stained/sealed in your life.

^^no, and i don't like that people do this. i don't think it should be allowed.

Anonymous wrote:"Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself."

This is only true if the guy is smoking in a sealed vault. If he lives in an apt building, or has his windows open, or has family members who live with him, etc. then he is harming others in addition to homself. And since it is impossible to smoke without negatively impacting others, it should not be lefal to do so.

Do you hire a service to spray mosquito repellent all over your yard as though it were Febreze

A super strong tobacco lobby. PERIOD

"Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself."

This is only true if the guy is smoking in a sealed vault. If he lives in an apt building, or has his windows open, or has family members who live with him, etc. then he is harming others in addition to homself. And since it is impossible to smoke without negatively impacting others, it should not be lefal to do so.

Anonymous wrote:^^PP directly above misses the point. The problem with tobacco is that it directly adversely affects innocent bystanders. There should be no "freedom" to engage in an activity that always hurts those around you. If smoking only damaged the smoker and not those around him, I would be 100% in support of letting those people puff to their hearts' content. But unfortunately, it isn't possible to smoke without negatively impacting people nearby.

No, I did not miss that point. Second-hand smoke is heavily regulated at this point. The subject of this thread is why tobacco is legal. Someone sitting by himself at home smoking a cigarette is harming no one but himself. OP suggested this should not be legal.

^^PP directly above misses the point. The problem with tobacco is that it directly adversely affects innocent bystanders. There should be no "freedom" to engage in an activity that always hurts those around you. If smoking only damaged the smoker and not those around him, I would be 100% in support of letting those people puff to their hearts' content. But unfortunately, it isn't possible to smoke without negatively impacting people nearby.