There is no standard to prove something exists; standards and tests are used in court cases.

I know some laws were passed as a result of harm or death, but it is not necessary to wait for a tragedy before passing a law or statute. I don't think a company should wait for an employee to be injured before creating a set of safety rules or a risk management policy.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

Is there anywhere we can read about actual cases of actual non-smokers who supposedly died as a result of SHS? How about all the children who have supposedly keeled over as a result of their parents' smoking? It looks like you would have to be able to point to actual people and not just statistics in order to prove SHS is harmful, when you're dealing with the law.

One of the questions that have been asked many times of anti smokers is "where are the bodies?". Where are the death certificates that say they died Joe and Jane Schmoe died of SHS? To date none have been produced.

It was decided in 1975 by the antis that the only way they could control smokers was by telling them that SHS was killing thousands of people daily. After Sir Godber's SHS speech (a speech based on NO facts), the antis ran with it, and have been scamming the world ever since. The 2006 Surgeon General's report was one of a long list of anti scams. Those that praise the report, praise it only on the words in the report; not by the actual studies that the report was based on. There are very few people that have ever read the actual studies. Those studies do not substantiate what the SG reported.

You quote me as saying something I didn't! What's highlighted in red came from another poster. Just wanted to set the record straight!

So then the legislators don't apply any standard at all when they are deciding if something is hazardous enough to require a law? Do they just make up rules based on their own opinions then? Do they just go by what lobbyists say or what they hear about from their constituents?

There's got to be some standard for what is hazardous enough to ban. Some cities were actually talking about banning the use of iPods on city streets because there were too many "distracted walkers" who were oblivious to traffic. Who decides that something is important enough to justify legislation to ban it?

It just looks like they would have some "poster children" for SHS fatalities to bolster their argument.

I'm just curious, especially about the number of children who supposedly die of SHS. As traumatic as it is to lose a child, it looks like the parents would be going on talk shows and speaking out in public if their child was killed by SHS. I've just never heard of that in real life, so I'm curious about where that information comes from.

I was particularly interested in the attribution of sudden infant death syndrome to SHS. What was that cause/effect relationship based on? I thought the cause of SIDS was unknown. There for awhile people believed it was caused by laying infants on their stomachs, since they would be more likely to suffocate in that position. It seems a little too convenient to blame it on SHS after all this time.

One of the questions that have been asked many times of anti smokers is "where are the bodies?". Where are the death certificates that say they died Joe and Jane Schmoe died of SHS? To date none have been produced.

Something that occurs to me, and I'm sorry for being off-topic, but I must ask this.
If smoking is an addiction, then why aren't the babies born of smoking Mothers prone to withdrawal syndromes the same as cocaine or other drugs? Why are children of smoking parents suffering aversion from the smoke in closed cars with teary eyes instead of asking for a drag?

I seem to recall that cocaine babies are supposed to suffer a lifetime of attraction to the drug, not aversion. By comparison, the antis often complain because their parents smoked/smoke and they didn't like the SHS as children. Teary eyes again.