Exhaling smoke into a public place . . . when you consider it, how far removed is it from spitting, coughing or sneezing in that same public space?

I really don't know why you need a study to figure out that the cancer causing fumes spewing from some drug addicted moron's face isn't good for children.

I certainly don't want to breathe some nicotine addict's spew. Smokers should be put into concentration camps and gassed with their own fumes.

How does the exhaust from your car compare to the exhaust from a cigarette?

I'm sick of all the gassers clouding up my air. They should be forced to park outside of the cities and walk in.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

It doesn't really. Given the "cost-benefit" way of looking . . . there should be little objection to lowering emissions all the way to zero emissions.

The difference is between an irritant and a health risk. There is no guarantee that you will not be irritated by someone else's behavior. I agree that you should not have to endure a health risk due to someone else's behavior, however.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Have you ever had someone close to you die of lung cancer? I would call it much more than an "irritant", it is a violently poisonous combination of cancer-causing gas, and is of use only to those people who are stupid enough to trade decades of their lives for a mouthful of smoke, and they need to keep such an incredible level of stupidity strictly to their own selves, and the hell away from me and mine.

I'm ok with that.

If you still do not believe that the by-product of combustion is toxic to the human body, then there is no more discussion possible. You'll have to go your own way with the smokers. Most of them don't believe it either.

If you do not believe that the "right thing" would be to prevent the atmosphere from being contaminated by the by-products of combustion, whether it be from a cigarette or from a coal burning power plant, then, again, you're part of the problem and there is no further discussion possible.

The argument is always broadened to force people to do the "right thing". As I already explained to you, if people would do the right thing, the necessity for 90% of the laws of the land would be eliminated.

The problem with the country is that the average moron won't understand the "right thing". That's why we need so many laws.

Below a specific concentration in ppm it's an irritant.

Above that concentration it's a health risk.

The specific concentration is variable dependent on the person.

You're welcome to investigate the exact concentration for yourself and attempt to measure your environment to stay below the level of health risk.

I am still trying to get beyond the concept that being a nicotine drug addict s OK in the eyes of the law but being a THC addict is not. Once we iron out that little discrepancy we can then move on to the issue of whether or not nicotine addicts should be able to get their drug fix in public or not.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

x2. I already posted a link to the hundreds of scientific studies done on the topic, directly addressing the topic in the OP. Many times proven, case closed. Not much else to go from here unless you go into the forbidden zone of legislation as outlined by the OP.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

OR.... whether the THC crowd should be able to get theirs in public too.

The wave is working it's way around the stadium now....

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Why limit it to THC?

One could make an argument that any drug is perfectly OK for consumption by any person, provided they accept the consequences and DO NOT expect society to absorb those consequences.

As a society, we tolerate the consequences of alcohol and of tobacco. Other drugs are not tolerated (unless administered by a physician). No good reason unless you consider alcohol and tobacco to be relatively benign as compared to other drugs.

In some places (read: San Fran) being a THC user is almost more socially and legally acceptable than being a nicotine user.