It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The private home is one of the last places where Canadians can indiscriminately light up a cigarette without risking breaking the law. And a growing number of people would like that to change. Specifically, people who live in apartments, condominiums and other multiunit dwellings where one person’s cigarette smoke can easily invade another person’s home.
Is it time for non-smokers to stand up and help defend the rights of a hated minority?
In the decades since the report, municipalities around the world have passed a series of sensible laws restricting where people could not smoke; bars, restaurants, offices and on airplanes. It was about this time that well-intentioned people got carried away and began to proclaim the myth that second-hand or passive smoke caused cancer. It didn't make sense. How could a few wisps of smoke not inhaled deeply cause lung cancer? On the program As It Happens, I put these and other questions to a researcher for the Environmental Protection Agency. After some heated back and forth, he admitted:"Sure it's crappy science, but look at the outcome--a smoke-free America."
The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.”
Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.
At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: EternalSolace
So when you burn candles and I can smell it (sorry but if smoke is escaping my apartment into yours than the smoke from candles is the same)?
Tired of Control Freaks
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
So now when exposure is down to nothing more than a molecular level, when it clearly can't be about health - are the control motives of anti-smokers now clear?