Every state has a large city, and you can tune in to the news every day and hear about the shootings, yet only a very cities have banned hand guns. I guess the occassional wisp of cigarette smoke in the air is a far more clear and present danger. Or is it that it's fashionable and acceptable to ban smokers, but not okay to push for gun bans because there are respectable gun owners? Even though by standards of "what's good for us", hand guns should be banned immediately.
"Respectable gun owners." Of course we all know there are no respectable smokers, smokers are akin to rats scurrying around with black plague, not fit to live in the company of the RESPECTABLE people who don't smoke, and in the need of complete extermination by the RESPECTABLE people.
Sure, smokers DON'T contribute to society, love anybody, have any morals, and want to kill everybody, are the lowest human form of life on earth, but they are still human lowlifes and live in the USA, we should at least have equal rights to illegal Mexicans, who are revered and bowed down to and accomidated and receive every free service the country can give out without them paying one penny of taxes. We have even hired spanish speaking interpreters in all welfare and health dept offices to help them out. Ever notice all the signs in stores are in English and Spanish, they don't even have to learn the language!
What in the hell is wrong with these people????????
THE PSYCHO NUT CASES HAVE TAKEN OVER THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE THE MAJORITY FOLLOWING THEM. IT IS INSANE, but politically correct, lest we be accused of not being policitcally correct. Heaven forbid!
But what can you expect from a society that arrests a 6 year old for sexual harrasment because he kissed a classmate?
I'm not sure there is any help for this country, it seems we are all doomed.

I think you making an argument based on something that never exists.

All of the death certificates I have seen name the disease or condition that caused the death, but not the cause of the disease or condition. A death certificate might state as the cause of death, "Food poisoning" or something in more technical terms, but not "Food poisoning by way of a e-coli from a bad hamburger at Bertha's Burger Emporium."

To argue that the lack of mention of SHS on death certificates is proof that SHS is not a cause is disingenuous. Again, I'm not arguing that SHS causes death. I am pointing out the defect in your rationale.

I think you making an argument based on something that never exists.

All of the death certificates I have seen name the disease or condition that caused the death, but not the cause of the disease or condition. A death certificate might state as the cause of death, "Food poisoning" or something in more technical terms, but not "Food poisoning by way of a e-coli from a bad hamburger at Bertha's Burger Emporium." If an AIDS patient dies, the death certificate might state as a cause, "Pneumonia as a complication related to AIDS", but it would not also add "which was acquired as a result of contaminated hypodermic needles." So, a death certificate might say that the cause of death was lung cancer, probably in more technical terms, but would not say, "Lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke."

To argue that the lack of mention of SHS on death certificates is proof that SHS is not a cause is disingenuous. Again, I'm not arguing that SHS causes death. I am pointing out the defect in your rationale.

In PA there is an item on the death cert. that asks the question was this death related to tobacco, not exact words.