🚀 go-pugleaf

> Oh really? 50 THOUSAND NON-smokers killed mostly by lung cancer
> from ETS? Please, let's see THAT data!

It's not a secret.  Nothing has kept you from it.

However, before I do your homework for you, you'll have to state
your claim.  You have shifted it.  Are you willing to stand by
your original claim, that there is not one single scientific
study supporting 50,000 deaths from secondhand smoke?

> but your billions in medical costs just aren't so.

Wish it were true.  If only the facts would change themselves
to fit what we want -- we'd solve all our problems with denial!

In fact, they're not "my" costs; they're mine and yours and
all of ours.  We all pay.  The myth that "smokers pay for
themselves" would be grisly enough if true; it happens that
it's been dispelled.  For a first approximation, just
total up one lung cancer death, or one emphysema death.
Very few such individuals pay their costs themselves.  Third
parties pick up the tab; which is to say, we all pay.  
(This of course is cold comfort to those actually doing
the dying.)  Then add in the lost productivity at work,
extra sick days, health care needed; it adds up fast.
For more information, see http://ash.org/ash/papers/h100.htm#INTRO.

> "The Taxes of Sin", JAMA:261:11:1604 (1989)

Also known as the RAND study.  It's been debunked elsewhere.
Funny that you should cite JAMA on economic analysis, though.

But even funnier: it was you, just two days ago, who
engaged in bashing of JAMA and the AMA.  You found them
political and untrustworthy.  Such were your views when
their analysis didn't suit you.  Now it seems they're an
authority to be listened to.  Really, you'll have to decide
where you stand here.

> Do you really think that people just ascend into Heaven when their
> time is up if they're not exposed to smoke?????

Ah yes, also known as they "hey, you gotta die of something"
argument.  Charming.  I assume that its proponents don't mind
if I kill them; they were going to die anyway.

In fact, most of us like to live longer, healthier lives,
and to breathe clean, safe air.

We'd like to live to see our grandchildren, maybe even get
to know them.  It's not unheard of.  But fewer of us exposed
to cigarette smoke, firsthand or secondhand, will get to do it.

Having our health ruined and lives shortened by exposure to known
toxics and carcinogens isn't justified in our minds by "hey,
everyone's gotta go sometime."

We'd like to lead active, enjoyable lives for as long as possible.
Having to give that up so the tobacco industry can make more
$billions isn't a very convincing argument for most of us.

-- Jon