> The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy Okay, but the data on smoking is not sketchy

> The data on close-quarters constant second-hand smoke (working in bars, having a partner that smokes) is sketchy Okay, but the data on smoking is not sketchy at all, so it’s not a stretch to suggest that constant exposure to second hand smoke in a poorly ventilated environment is comparable to smoking. Unfortunately there’s no way to set up a classical controlled experiment to test that hypothesis ethically, so we have to make do with other experimental setups and data analysis. We do have studies that assess the affects of air pollution in cities, so surely we can come up with some way of extrapolating, no? > It's also a convenient piece of do-nothing legislation for local politicians to campaign on Sure - cigarette smoke does not smell good to non-smokers so it’s an easy win these days since most people don’t smoke. I’m just trying to come up with a way of legislating these things based on our best abilities to make conclusions based on data rather than feelings, but I feel as though the onslaught of information brought about by the internet is making it harder to disseminate the wheat while more disseminate the chaff. Not to mention all the ways one can make feelings look like data.