Sometimes the addicted are right. I'm not saying that is the case here, but the anti-smoking lobby plays fast and loose with it's agenda. In my town here, the parish passed a no smoking ordinance in the past year that governs public conveyances with very few exceptions. Part of the anti's (well funded) media blitz leading up to the vote was a radio spot that emphasized the fact that last year (2004) "753 Louisians died from the second-hand effects of smoking." I was thinking, that's a pretty damn specific number; because of my work, I'm pretty familiar with the provisions of HIPAA, and I figured if they had such a specific number, maybe they could produce a list of names...To make a long story short, I started pushing and found out that the fatalities from the, "second hand effects of smoking," included people who died in fires where a cigarette was determined or suspected to be the cause...
I'm a smoker. I know it's unhealthy, and I would never advocate or encourage anyone to start. Having said that, I'm not mentally deficient or predisposed to lying, particularly to "spread," my habit.
I have seen great damage done by smoking within my own family but do not support the campaigns to completely eliminate it. You seem to be among the minority of smokers which does not try to deny its destructiveness. Look at the comments here many of which are of the "well my mom smoked and I am ok" type as though that was a refutation of the points the doctor made.
Of course, he did not say "Every smoking mom will have children with defects" but merely pointed to the increase chance of such defects. If defects are normally 20 out of a thousand and with smokers 30 out of a thousand the vast majority of births to smokers will NOT have defects even though these numbers show a 50% increase in birth defects.