You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions.

I can’t get over how hilarious you saying this is.

Like, quite literally, you’re a textbook case of trying to copy 1950’s tobacco company rhetoric.

So probably you’re doing it on accident, because you’ve actually bought into it, which is hilarious.

So here’s something to enlighten you on the subject

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

Abstract

Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.

The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking.

A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks.

ANY SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION of the modern relationship of medicine and science to industry must consider what has become the epiphenomenal case of the tobacco industry as it confronted new medical knowledge about the risk of cigarette smoking in the mid-20th century. This, of course, is not to argue that the approach and strategy undertaken by big tobacco are necessarily typical of conventional industry–science relationships. But the steps the industry took as it fashioned a new relationship with the scientific enterprise have become a powerful and influential model for the exertion of commercial interests within science and medicine since that time…

Well, “rwad it yourself”, no point in me pastingthe whole thing.

“Worst insults”? :D

Thanks for letting me know you’re offended, those are apt descriptors, not attempts at insults. I could show you some actual insults, but that’d be rude and against the rules.

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That’s it.

You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you, since that’s exactly the thing the tobacco companies have been trying to repeat for almost a century. “Noo, the evidence isn’t in yet!” Yes, it is.

yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors

Ah yes, asking people “were you bothered by smoke” definitely proves that they weren’t exposed to any smoke at all. It’s not like people’s subjective experiences are worse than objective science.

All smoke-exposure is harmful. When you prove there is a level of smoke exposure that’s safe, then you have an argument. Before that, you don’t. You simply do not. You’re exactly like a Flat Earther, who refuses to believe the evidence in favour of some contrived bullshit that doesn’t even support the facts they think it does.

“Look at the actual data.”

It’s honestly hilarious how you keep stomping your foot, crying “no no no no no muh data”, but you don’t even have any, and then you pretend like some data on reported experiences about the levels of smoke they were exposed to proves that smoke exposure isn’t harmful?

My stomach is hurting I’m laughing so much :DDD