Alright! Took me a fair while, but I've read all 8 and a half pages (as I type this, 8 and a half pages) of fun filled text, and while doing this, I've noticed a few things.
1. The wide margin of views given are, "Smoking sucks, and so do you".
2. Only one person of the fore mentioned margin tried to give any evidence that second-hand smoke caused cancer (I insist you lot read further on, as I'm going to really ruin your days which will absolutely make mine brighter).
3. Much of this thread consists of backhanded compliments or acknowledgements on the parts of individuals who mention they smoke, and don't even come close to fitting the stereotype of a "bad smoker."
Now, for those of you who keep shouting, "Second-hand smoke causes cancer!", please take a moment to read the link (I'll post a quote from it relevant to this, though the whole article is relevant and an interesting read which cites the court case in question, and the judges notes on the matter).
http://forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_printer.php?id=619
Now then, to quote from it:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
When congress requires specific procedures, agencies may not ignore them or fashion substitutes.
It is circular for the EPA to now argue the epidemiology studies support the agency?s a priori theory.
The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter (a book on second hand smoke by EPA), without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter.
EPA should live within its own categorization framework for carcinogens and risk, or clearly explain why they chose not to do so.
If the EPA?s a priori hypothesis fails, EPA has no justification for manipulating the Agency?s standard scientific methodology to get the result it desires.
(Quoting the 4 Th Circuit) If agency action is to withstand judicial review, the agency?s actual reasoning must prove reasonable, not the post hoc rationalization devised during litigations (sic).
EPA?s study selection is disturbing. . . . EPA ?cherry picked? its data.
The EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies . . . and conflicts with EPA?s Risk Assessment guidelines.
EPA adopted statistical testing methods rejected by epidemiologists,
Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not show a statistically significant association between ETS (second hand smoke) and lung Cancer. (more on what that means herein under)
____________________________________________________________________________________
The short version, the EPA data not only was improperly compiled, but chosen with the sole purpose of getting the desired conclusion, and even then failed to show to a statistically significant degree (and for those of you who haven't had basic statistics the general standard unless mentioned otherwise in a basic equation is .05 or 5%) of evidence. Now then, I mentioned earlier in my post that one person out of the large number of you anti-smoking folks that one individual happened to cite something, I think it was from the cancer society or something, I honestly can't remember at this point, but I do remember this, the data it was basing it's evidence and conclusions on was the very EPA study that was dismissed for cherry picking data, and failing to prove statistically that there was an issue. This is, in fact, the same data used to this day (to my knowledge unless I've missed a study somewhere in there), used by the EPA to this day, American Heart Association, and various cancer groups, so before you trot out those little gems, unless they cite a different study as evidence, they're useless too. Funnily, as one person pointed out in another post (I think it was on page 9, but I forget, as the numbers and pages just sort of run into each other), you're way more likely to get cancer from the burning of diesel, and I'd like to add to that, from coal plants as well, both of which are socially accepted despite glaring health risks to the public at large (drive by a coal plant just once).
Now that we finally have that out of the way, we can move onto the whole glaring rights issue. Since the EPA study which is cited, time and time again is more or less (to quote Penn Jillete) "bullshit", dictating "rules" to smokers for the pleasure or comfort of non-smoker is simply bullshit as well, with the few exceptions of cramped quarters, poor ventilation, or health issues such as asthma (assuming you're not going to be a complete prick about it, and demand the person not smoke around you, as most smokers in my experience will not light up if kindly asked in a respectable manner you'd give any other person).
To the people upset someone is smoking at a bus station? Deal with it, you're outside, don't like it, you've got legs (or wheels at the very least if that's the case), use them or forfeit your right to complain.
To those who are flustered someone has the audacity to smoke in a park, go sit and (insert colorful imagery or metaphors here) spin.
Can't stand people smoking outside of a building? Sucks to be you, try being told to go outside to drink your soda (an item of equally ill effect on your health overall if you live a sedimentary lifestyle like most people) while freezing outside, or raining. Unless the building explicitly has rules stating that people should not smoke there (as mandated by the building owners, or business owners and not the government being a nanny to the people), in which case, the smokers are being the jerks. This applies to other areas of course, with the same caveats.
Finally, to those who seem to have a distaste of the scent, or whatever else, welcome to life, "You can't always get what you want." and you already have what you need, the freedom to breathe the air you do, and if you don't like what is there, to leave and do it elsewhere. To call for government mandates (none of you here have, that I recall, but for the sake of the few that may have, or think it should be), to limit the rights of law abiding citizens for the sake of your own selfish sake is the pinnacle of asshattery (which saying such hopefully doesn't ruffle the feathers of any onlooking admins/moderators). It's a slippery slope, and one that isn't terribly hard to see.
Oh, and for the record, I am an asthmatic (nebulizers, inhalers and all), non-smoker, who has had to take steroids for a fair portion of my youth since I had underdeveloped lungs, and if I can, and could stand it at that time, then a huge majority of you all who claim you simply can't are either too frail to be outside frankly, and should get back to your bubbles or learn that the world isn't there to bend over and kiss your vertical smile. There are exceptions of course, those who truly are allergic to the smoke, and those who happen to have a trigger that is smoke (both of which I've observed), simply be polite, and ask the man/woman to not smoke for that very reason. I'll bet you that 99 times out of 100 you'll get the desired result, and likely a smile for your consideration and theirs.
Edit 1: The court case in question is mentioned within the article, so feel free to copy-paste and google it, and read it over for yourself, it's a bit dry, but these things happen.
Edit 2: Added a line before and after the quoted material, forgot to do that to help clarify where it began and ended.
