Colin Colenso said:
Sorry to hear that Scott,
My grandfather also died of lung cancer, which I'm sure his constant smoking contributed to.
Sorry to hear that as well.
Colin Colenso said:
There's no doubt smoking thousands of cigarettes is going to create some adverse health reactions. Some worse than others, and depending on the person's genetic traits, medical conditions and other lifestyle traits.
Good to hear you admit the dangers of smoking. The fact that even you admit that, is a clear sign of the public consensus of the adverse health effects resulting from smoking.
Obviously, you added an emphasis issue by claiming that it takes 20,000, once again indirectly implying (without directly stating) that any less than that would not have any dangerous effects. This was likely done so that you can continue the facade that your selfish desire to smoke without having to take a short walk to a designated area, trumps everyone else's public health concerns.
I'd even suggest that by the language you use in the previous paragraph and comments in the following paragraph, if you really look at it, deep down you know that smoking has very negative health effects. You'd even admit to it, if only it didn't contradict a personal habit that you so dearly want.
Colin Colenso said:
eg. One might smoke 20 a day but run 5 miles a day and show few if any negative lung effects.
Of course you know the two don't cancel each other out. Running might do more to strengthen the lungs and increase its capacity, while smoking 20 a day would be like putting a dark film on the lungs and causing damage to the lungs themself. The two don't directly cancel each other out. Associating the argument that for every cigarette you smoke, you could reverse its effects by running say 5 miles per cigarette would be a highly faulty argument that I have not seen any medical experts claim.
Colin Colenso said:
Many things contribute to the conditions of one's health. One thing alone is almost never fully repsonsible for any categorized ailment.
Smoking may cause a rise in blood pressure, or an increase in nicotine levels, but its direct link in terms of causality for cancers can not be described as such. One may say it contributes to, or is one of several possible causal factors, but not the cause.
What we need is accurate information about that, so we can accurately estimate our risks and make lifestyle or medical decisions accordingly.
btw: Entering a bar increases one's likelihood of death or injury from assault by drunken patrons. Should we then prohibit businesses from serving alcohol?
Colin
It's a bit ironic that you say you want to be allowed to continue jeopardizing the health of you and everyone else around you, until there can be evidence that more definitively convinces you. This has actually been the battle that has been going on between cigarette companies and citizen organizations for many years, even decades. The cigarette companies have fought and resisted this every painstaking step along the way. Very few smoking restrictions were instituted until finally these citizen organizations had collected mounds of insurmountable evidence that not only did the cigarette companies lose some major cases in courts, but the cigarette companies reversed their opinions and openly admit the dangers of cigarette smoking that they had been knowingly concealing for years (for there own financial gain). After all those hundres of millions, maybe even billions of dollars, spent to get to this point, you still say, in essence, "I don't believe cigarette smoking is harmful, so I'm gonna keep doing it where I want, no matter how anyone else feels". This kind of tone is very inconsistent with your statements of being considerate to others.
After all this time, effort and research, how about we take a slightly different flip on the comment that you just made;
Keep cigarette smoke away from others around you until the evidence proves that it does NOT have dangerous consequences to you and those around you. Prove that, and that would be a way to quiet down the anti-smoking rhetoric and citizen initiatives that you find so contrary.
NOTE: Proving that smoking is not dangerous would not be accomplished by simply linking to an article (usually sponsored by the cigarette industry with an obvious financial motive) which says cigarette smoking is not harmful and all the counter comments are a farce. I say that because clearly a link to any articles proclaiming the dangers of smoking was not enough to convince you to change your opinion and behavior regarding smoking in establishments open to the public.
I suggest that you'd be very hard pressed to prove the safety of smoking to public interest to anywhere near the degree of certainty that you require for you to be convinced of it's dangers. The reason that I suggest this, is because if you could prove it, then your efforts (and efforts of the pro-smoking) would be more effectively spent espousing those safety arguments, rather than taking the slippery slope argument that it's not dangerous enough to rise to the level to be addressed by the public in any way that would even slightly inconvenience you (via a short walk to a designated area).
This isn't even close to reality !
would regulate itself by all the idiots that do not understand that speeding is dangerous would just kill themselves off and make it safe for those that do know this is wrong and dangerous ! 
although if we use this example then they would endanger us that do know the difference ! hence Government steps in and sets and enforces speed and drunk driving rules for the better good of all! 
.