uh, you do realize there is no reliable evidence...
that second hand smoking exists right? dont you find it odd that the independently run research concludes there is no health risk? that its only the fervent anti tobacco's studies that conclude that is dangerous?
how do you explain this?
lets be honest,
people hide behind this guise of wanting smoking banned because of evidence and logic. yet, this all falls away once you show them the actual evidence that secondhand smoke is not real. if they were really logical, they would see the evidence and change there opinion about wanting to ban smoking. but of course, that never happens...