Smoking Ban

[Soulforged]

Either you are completely in La-La land or you are trying to make a point that is purely semantic and has little value to the discussion as a whole.

In the medical field it is undisputed that inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis greatly increases a person's risk of developing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and a whole slate of other debilitating/deadly diseases/conditions.

To try to argue otherwise is laughable.

No. I don't see any point in this post other than stating an opinion without anything to hold it. Either way I'm arguing that it doesn't cause cancer. Beyond the legal issue of ordering what one can do with his private property that's becoming annoying.

EDIT: This apparent verbal struggle that you might see here has a lot of importance to determine the merit of the ban.

Good enough for you? They make cigarettes if you didn't know.

Not at all. First of all as you said "They make cigarettes if you didn't know", second it clearly misuses the word causes when they wanted to say "smoking increases the risks of..." and third I presented a link too where it was pretty clear that lung cancer was not caused by smoking. But if that's not enough:
First, one that supports your claims not coming from a tabaco company. And by the way you might find this fact interesting:1.1. Over one thousand million people worldwide smoke tobacco. The percentage of smokers has decreased in developed countries, but is increasing in developing countries and among women.I wonder why the companies still say it causes it? This site however spells it right "it possibly increases the risks of having some type of cancer", different from "causes", however it exagerates the possible risks. So what's next? Well showing how much risk there's. Let's see:from the previous link (the one in my other post). From the article then:

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!

So what's the risk of been hitted by a car? Yes an old analogy, but it works to demostrate how unreasonable one can be sometimes. That means that we've to forbid cars in public streets too?

And a wise advice at the end:

Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.

Now if any cancer was "caused by...", then the risk will be as high as to shoot a bullet through your chest and you dying, but that's not the case.

So your source is a pair of psychotic magicians vs Doctors, Scientists and cigarette manufacturers.

If this was poker you have a pair of 2's and they have all the Aces.

That's one of my sources but to be sure I gave it a try on the oh holy internet and thus I posted my link. But aparently no one pays attention anymore. As for your two "psychotic magicians" well those "psychotic" (????) magicians" also consult experts in every field in everyone of their programs.