Yeah and lots of the good intentions really worked out too!
Like what? Generally in our lives we could make lots of small improvements that wouldn't be negative at all. Constant development and improvement of yourself is a noble goal.
Sure it is, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that it should be my choice, not the governments. Listen I live in the U.K. and healthy eating has always been vaguely on the agenda but it's only been a media issue (that the goverment has felt pressure to respond to) for the last couple of years.
Where as obesity has been on the agenda for how long? You keep saying people haven't proved this, which is just bull.
Well that's an interesting point considering I've offered links to two independent and impartial studies that support my view, and you have yet to link to anything, and only briefly mentioned the name of a non-smoker who died of lung cancer and blamed second hand smoke. If there are two bunches of conflicting evidence, how about erring on the side of caution for now until it's 100% proved/disproved to everyone's satisfaction.
How do you know which side is the side of caution? Anyway, I'm willing to take risks, for me the issue is it's just simply inconsiderate of so many people and I have very limited choice about where to socialise and stay non-smelly/non-irritated.
Well I'm going to reitterate Rex' point about mobile phones, because I think it's a valid one. I think people who have their phones ringing during conversation (never mind those who actually abort the conversation to answer the phone, or respond to the text message) are inconsiderate, and it annoys me a great deal, yet I'm not advocating passing of a law to ban mobil phones in public places.Also I find people who are intollerant of others behavior somewhat inconsiderate (anti-smokers and vegetarians in particular) and often downright rude, but I'm not advocating a law to outlaw them in public places either.
The smoke you inhale is called mainstream smoke, the smoke from the cigarette tip between puffs is called sidestream smoke.
I know this already. If you had read the CRS report I linked to earlier you would know that I know this too. You would also know that:"A few researchers have challenged the clasification of ETS as a known human carcinogen based on its relationship to MS. They point to the fact that MS contains chemicals at concentrations of up to one miliion times tbose found in ETS, and that more of the chemicals are in the particle (tar) phase df MS."
and that:
"Researchers do not know how the levels of these individual compounds relate to overall ETS exposure, or exposure to those ETS constituents that may be linked to lung cancer. Indeed they do not know which ETS constituents are responsible for lung cancer and other health effects attributed to ETS exposure."
and finally they mention that:
"In order to estimate ETS lung cancer risk using cigarette equivalents researchers assume that there is a linear relationship between exposure (number of cigarettes smoked a day} and cancer risk that extends from the relatively intense exposures typical of active smoking down to the much lower exposures associated with passive smoking. EPA uses this type of straight-line extrapolation from high exposures down to zero exposure in all its cancer-risk assessmeats but researchers do not know the actual shape of the exposure-risk relationship for passive smoking and lung cancer."
So in short, the 'scientists' and 'professionals' you think are qualified to run a country are making assumptions about things they know nothing about.