It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

RE: "Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage." This was not asserted. The assertion was that "the amount of second hand smoke encountered on public properties and public easements such as sidewalks, parking lots for government buildings, and city parks, etc. isn't substantial enough to jeopardize public health."RE: "The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument."My apologies for overlooking the relevant text when I first perused the sources. I have found it now. Foe's argument in support of this proposal is largely based on his assertion that "there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to". Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion is based on evidence that "came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report", foe's assertion is based on a paraphrased version of a finding of the Surgeon General from a Cancer.org article titled "Secondhand Smoke". For reasons discussed below, the paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found within the Cancer.org article is bad evidence and should be disregarded.The Cancer.org article stated that the Surgeon General found as follows: "There is no safe level of exposure to SHS" [1 - (SHS presumably means secondhand smoke) - emphasis added]This was not a finding of the Surgeon General. In fact, the Surgeon General never concluded in any report that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The relevant finding of the Surgeon General was from the "Major Conclusions" section of the 2006 Surgeon General's Report: "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke." Here are the Surgeon General's words - "... there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." [2 - Page 11 - emphasis added]Given that this statement was one of the "Major Conclusions" of the Surgeon General's report, it's reasonable to assume that the words were chosen very carefully. The Surgeon General did not use the word "safe." The term used by the Surgeon General was "risk-free". "Risk-free" and "safe" do not have the same meaning and are not inter-changeable. "Risk-free" means absolutely zero risk. "Safe" is a qualitative term that does not mean absolutely zero risk - There are many safe activities which are not risk-free activities. (e.g. Absent unusually hazardous road conditions, it is safe to drive a mile or so to the local post office even though there is the risk of a car accident). To replace the term "risk-free" with the word "safe", as Cancer.org apparently did, is to insert a judgment in to the Surgeon General's report that the Surgeon General did not make. Replacing the term "risk-free" with the word "safe" significantly alters the meaning of the Surgeon General's conclusion. For this reason, the inaccurately paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found in the Cancer.org article "Secondhand Smoke" is bad evidence and should be disregarded.Given that the Cancer.org article was the only evidence foe presented in support of his or her assertion that "there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to", foe has not demonstrated that the level of exposure to secondhand smoke occurring outside on public property jeopardizes public health in any significant manner.I agree with the Surgeon General's conclusion that "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" [2 - page 11 - emphasis added]. However, I still assert that there is a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. (To help illustrate: Because of the risk of falling down, there is no risk-free walk from the bedroom to the kitchen. Yet, it is safe to walk from the bedroom to the kitchen.) Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion goes "against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report", this assertion is not inconsistent with the Surgeon General's conclusion. It is, however, inconsistent with Cancer.org's paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion.I am sure that no reasonable person would dispute that inhaling and exhaling a single molecule of each chemical found in second hand smoke is a safe level of exposure. Scale up this infinitesimal level of exposure to, for example, one milliliter of second hand smoke. Scale the example up further to one liter, to thousands of liters, to millions, and the level of exposure becomes unsafe at some point. At what point that is, I do not know. However, the available evidence indicates that the point at which the level of exposure becomes unsafe is significantly beyond the level of exposure typically encountered outside on public property in the United States. (See debate round 1, ¶ 4)This is especially true given the differences between indoors and outdoors. Consider that there are typically air currents which carry the smoke away from the smoker. The smoke will mix with the air and become diluted. Smoke typically rises up in to the sky since it is hot. Contrast this with indoor smoking where the smoke cannot escape beyond the ceiling and lingers in rooms for hours and even days. Consider also that people outside are typically traveling from one point to another, and do not inhale secondhand smoke for extended periods of time. Indoors, people will breathe the same air over and over for extended periods of time. Given these differences, it doesn't take much imagination to understand that outdoor smoking causes a much lower level of exposure to secondhand smoke compared to indoor smoking. It is difficult to understand why it is reasonably necessary to prohibit smoking outdoors when, according to the Surgeon General, "[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke." [2 - page 11]It isn't clear what assertion foe's reference to the Science Daily article is supposed to support or how it would support any of foe's assertions. The study doesn't appear to be related to the degree of risk from exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. Rather, the study was about how the sodium pumps of cell cultures respond to the presence of cigarette smoke. The significance of reduced sodium pump function is unclear. ("more research is needed to understand the consequences of sodium pump inhibition by cigarette smoke" [3 - final paragraph from article]Additionally, foe's appeal to the fear of the unknown is not convincing. ("The level to which this can be harmful is unknown... "; "... it can be dangerous to one's health."; "it could be harmful in the long run."; "We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold."; "... could easily become more of a health risk." - italics added) Sound public policy must be grounded in established facts, not fear.Furthermore, foe presents a woefully inadequate solution the problem that banning smoking on all public property in the United States would restrict smoking in remote locations such as the middle of the Nevada desert. Foe's solution is "[i]f there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced". This is not a reasonable solution. A more reasonable position would be to reject the proposal as unreasonably restrictive.Sources -1 - Secondhand Smoke - http://www.cancer.org...2 - The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke - http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...3 - New evidence of harmfulness of second-hand smoke: Cancer causing agent present in gaseous phase of cigarette smoke - http://www.sciencedaily.com...