Although probably true, the subject is second hand smoke.
And on the related topic, if genetically I am not predisposed to lung cancer what entitles you (or anyone else) to meddle in my private affairs?
Actually, even if I were predisposed the same question is appropriate; Are you ready to outlaw all high risk recreation and life choices because you are neurotic or have a need to control others?
Is your need to moralize so great as to be unable to remain on topic?
On the other hand, lifestyle choices of all kinds could save many more lives. The question is is that the government's concern in a "free" society?
Heart disease, as I understand is a greater killer than smoking.
AIDS kills more than smoking (or we're throwing billions down a rathole).
Does that justify the acceptance of a nanny government?
Although probably true, the subject is second hand smoke.
Avoidance of second hand smoke is an example of a behavior change to get healthier which does not work. This was the point.
And on the related topic, if genetically I am not predisposed to lung cancer what entitles you (or anyone else) to meddle in my private affairs?
Don't jump to conclusions about either genes and cancer, or about my opinions. I'm also in favor of personal freedom. Or do you consider someone else having a contrary opinion to yours to be "meddling" in your private affairs? This sounds like the people who say you can't oppose affirmative action on a college campus since it might hurt black students' feelings. I, a total stranger whom you will never meet, advise you not to smoke. How does that meddle with your freedom to smoke?
Actually, even if I were predisposed the same question is appropriate; Are you ready to outlaw all high risk recreation and life choices because you are neurotic or have a need to control others?
My wife and I teach our children that they should not smoke but should not be rude to those who do. If you feel that I am violating my own teachings by being rude to you here, I am sorry, but by posting on a subject one opens oneself up to hear contrary opinions on related topics. Unlike being an illegal drug user, being a smoker is fully consistent with being a responsible, law-abiding, contributing, decent member of society. My post was not intended to insult smokers, but it is impossible to fairly discuss second hand smoking without acknowledging that, unlike real smoking, second hand smoking is close to harmless. On the other hand, lifestyle choices of all kinds could save many more lives.
Evidence? My answer to this claim is: Maybe, but far fewer than is supposed.