drewpants: It is known that some studies suggest it is harmful, others suggest that it is far less harmful than is often claimed - so the result is that is disputed and not proven, which is a pretty poor reason to impose bans.
0Grapher: Of course it is harmful. I don't really care if it's less harmful or more harmful than some people claim but it is definitely harmful.
Besides it even can result in a non-smoker becoming addicted to nicotine.
If you have a habit that is bound to bother other people one would expect you to still be considerate of these people.
If you're addicted to nicotine that's not my problem- I expect of any smoker to be considerate of other people.
'Of course it is harmful' - like of course the world was flat until people actually bothered to check it out.
I'm not a smoker because it bothers my girl friend, so I take your point, but banning things based on 'I don't like it' and heavily disputed science really bugs me.
0Grapher: Of course it is harmful. I don't really care if it's less harmful or more harmful than some people claim but it is definitely harmful.
Besides it even can result in a non-smoker becoming addicted to nicotine.
If you have a habit that is bound to bother other people one would expect you to still be considerate of these people.
If you're addicted to nicotine that's not my problem- I expect of any smoker to be considerate of other people.
tinyE: I think treating someone like a leper because they smoke is a little much, but you're right, it's
very harmful, and claiming it's not is something a tobacco lobbyist would do. Just in case someone isn't aware and slightly OT, the tobacco lobby in the U.S. still refuses to officially come out and admit that nicotine is addictive. I smoked when I had cancer! XD Oh yeah, it's not addictive. :P
You are aware that most of the anti-smoking charities and groups like the World Health Organization have lobbyists, which all get paid to fight for whatever they are being paid to fight for right? That's why this debate is so impossible to answer - both sides are a vested interest, which is cold hard cash and not the truth.
My argument is simply that it shouldn't be okay to ban something and curb civil liberties based on something that is so contended and unestablished.
I wonder what non-smokers who live with non-smokers who get cancer will want to ban...cars...plastic...carbon...cancer...the use of the letter C...