I'm a non-smoker.

@4meAndyou With all due respect,I'm not sure that's true.Although the dangers of actual smoking have been proven irrefutably,I suspect that those of secondhand smoke have been, at the least,highly exaggerated.

@DavidT8899 "The main way smoking hurts non-smokers is through secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke that comes from a cigarette and smoke breathed out by a smoker. When a non-smoker is around someone smoking, they breathe in secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke is dangerous to anyone who breathes it in. It can stay in the air for several hours after somebody smokes. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can hurt your body."

"Over time, secondhand smoke has been associated with serious health problems in non-smokers:

Lung cancer in people who have never smoked.
More likely that someone will get heart disease‚ have a heart attack‚ and die early.
Breathing problems like coughing‚ extra phlegm‚ wheezing‚ and shortness of breath.
Secondhand smoke is especially dangerous for children, babies, and women who are pregnant:

Mothers who breathe secondhand smoke while pregnant are more likely to have babies with low birth weight.
Babies who breathe secondhand smoke after birth have more lung infections than other babies.
Secondhand smoke causes kids who already have asthma to have more frequent and severe attacks.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections and are at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."

https://smokefree.gov/quit-smoking/why-you-should-quit/secondhand-smoke#

I was a chain smoker till I was 33, and my poor son grew up breathing that smog...and developed asthma.

@4meAndyou I totally agree that smoking is a terrible habit for your health,and I don't deny that secondhand smoke can have SOME negative effects on non-smokers;I do suspect that they've been inflated.Case in point:during the 1950/60s,smoking was very common and allowed in most public areas.As I understand it,it was so common that it seemed a little strange if a person DIDNT smoke.That being the case,why weren't the cancer rates of non-smokers of the era off-charts-high?Do you see my point?I just think that there's a little propaganda going on with that.

@DavidT8899 I don't have enough energy right now to continue the debate, but clearly there were SOME ill effects experienced by children and the elderly constantly exposed to secondhand smoke.

@4meAndyou No doubt there were-SOME.As I said before,I'm NOT advocating for smoking,and if adults who have kids do smoke,I agree that it would be best to do it outside and away from your kids on general principle.(FYI:I don't smoke myself,in case you were wondering)But I do think the habit has,to a certain point,been unfairly demonized and made synonymous with a weak or bad personal character.Belive it or not, there are things people do that are ALOT worse than smoking!

@4meAndyou I don't doubt that there is some damage from second hand smoke, but it's much harder to measure than the damage to smokers themselves, as there are so many other factors that need to be separated out.