Ummm, no. I specifically used the word "proven" not "indicated", "may cause", "increased risk" or any of the other terms actually used in medical studies on the subject (not political excrement). I have no interest in political rhetoric.

Look up the word "proven" in the dictionary.

I would challenge you to find a single credible published medical study that conclusively proves that second hand smoke is the primary cause of any disease. As a matter of fact, I would challenge you to find a single published medical study that conclusively proves that direct smoking is the primary cause of any disease.

Have fun, because there just happens to not be one of either. One should do their own research before blindly accepting "facts" that are easy to manufacture by statistical manipulation.

As a man once said, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Statistics are often used to lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics work.

I know that tobacco is a popular demon these days, but remember at one time actual demons were a known cause of mental illness. Oh, and it was known that the Earth was the center of the universe too.

There is a difference between the words "known" and "believed".

For all I know it may cause cancer, but then again it may not. The fact is that is has not actually been proven. I find it interesting that there are lots of people who die of lung cancer that have never smoked or been exposed to significant amounts of second hand tobacco smoke.

Check into the areas where public smoking has been banned for a number of years and compare that with the cardiac and cancer rates. Isn't it funny that those rates have not dropped in any of them and have even increased in some? Funny how we never hear about that isn't it?

Why is taking hats off for said to be for security? I take off my hat perhaps whenever I go inside a store, yet my hat often makes store checkout workers put up a fuss. Perhaps they worry I will put something inside my hat. They watch my watch cap so closely. I suppose they are worried about robbers capping off their cap instead of carting products in their cart to the checkout line.

My question said "thought to be" and didn't indicate anything about proven.

However using the stringent meaning of "proven" you would apply then perhaps we should still freely be using DDT, Asbestos in insulation, dumping mercury into oceans and adding lead to paint.

There's an old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" meaning if you see strong indications of a fire there is likely a fire. It is true that sometimes smoke (as used in that phrase rather than meaning tobacco) doesn't "prove" there is fire. However, there is enough of a correspondence of the one being seen to learning the other is present to make the phrase have meaning for most reasonable people. Similarly if enough studies show that cigarette smokers are significantly more likely to have lung cancer than non-smokers then in the absence of other common risk factors that can't be eliminated in double blind studies it is reasonable to assume that it is in fact the cigarette smoking that caused the issues.

As to the second hand smoke health argument I suspect it is not quite the issue the health nazis would have us believe. I grew up in a house full of smokers but am a non-smoker myself and dont' believe it contributed to anything (even stunting my growth - I'm 6'3") negative in my health. I will say however in the "no smoking" atmosphere I now realize how smell polluted smoking was. It is amazing to me how easy it is for me to tell when I've been around someone who does smoke now or to tell when someone has illicitly smoked in a non-smoking place.

My main problem with smokers however was never the smoke - it was the fact that they by and large felt it appropriate to toss their cigarette butts wherever they happened to be. It amazed me how many smokers' cars I'd been in that had clean ashtrays because they felt the window was the appropriate place to dump both ashes and butts.

Interesting about the "known" versus "believed". I had that very argument with my ultra-right-wing fundamentalist Christian sister. We can't discuss anything because she chooses to change the definitions of all words in an argument to fit what she means. I told her it impossible to discuss anything with someone who won't agree with you on the meaning of words.