Do National Smoking Bans Actually Work?

Russia just enacted one. Here's how they've fared in other developed countries

  • Share
  • Read Later
Maxim Shemetov / REUTERS

A woman smokes a cigarette in a café in Moscow, on May 31, 2013

The world’s third largest tobacco market has officially banned smoking.

As of June 1, Russians are no longer allowed to light up on public transportation, at airports and train stations, and inside schools and hospitals, among other public spots. Cigarette ads will also vanish from streets, and smoking won’t be featured in Russian-made movies and cartoons (sorry, Gena the pipe-smoking crocodile).

The ban is the country’s most comprehensive effort yet to encourage daily smokers — more than half of men and about one-sixth of women, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development — to kick the habit and prevent about 200,000 deaths each year.

But will it actually work? Here’s how similar efforts have played out in other developed nations.

Ireland became the first nation to institute a countrywide workplace-smoking ban in 2004. The new regulation built onto the 1988 sanctions against cigarette smoking in many public buildings and on public transportation (save for smoking-permitted carriages).

In 2005, researchers recorded a 17% drop in respiratory issues and found that 80% of those surveyed didn’t just say the ban encouraged them to quit; 88% said it kept them smoke-free. Prosmoking lobbyists still take issue with the initiatives fueled by Health Minister James Reilly, who recently revealed that his father and brother died from smoking-related illnesses and who is cracking down on package marketing, but his policies appear effective. New research on the effect of the 2004 legislation found that double-digit drops in heart disease and strokes and that cleaner air had prevented 3,700 deaths.

Its first efforts came in May 2006, when officials announced that the Beijing Olympics would be smoke-free — specifically hospitals used for the games and public transportation. In May 2011, the government pushed to puff out cigarette smoking at all indoor public venues.

More than two years later, the consensus is that it didn’t really work. But it was a tall order to begin with: More than one-third of the world’s smokers are Chinese — in 2012, the average citizen smoked 30% more than in 1990 — and 1 million of them die each year from related diseases. Previous efforts derailed due to patchy enforcement, as the government body in charge of carrying out national antismoking laws was also running the world’s largest cigarette maker. Jay Chittooran, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested in March that China could boost tobacco abstinence for students, resolve the aforementioned conflict of interest and raise prices. So far, aside from forbidding vending machines from selling cigarettes and prominently displaying no-smoking signs, the habit remains firmly entrenched in China and evidence of it is ubiquitous.

Lawmakers introduced an extensive smoking ban in January 2005 that prohibited the act in all indoor public places. The measure wasn’t welcomed by bar owners, who claimed that smoking is ingrained in their culture and who faced a $2,600 fine for failing to make sure their customers didn’t smoke. Despite it being legal to cordon off certain smoke-if-you-want areas, they decried the expense for automatic doors and ventilation systems.

Nationwide health improved though, as researchers in Rome later found that cigarette sales slowed by 5.5%, smoking frequency among men dropped more than 4% and the number of heart attacks significantly decreased. Italians can still partake outdoors, but in August 2011, one mayor near Venice took it one step further by experimenting with a beach ban, even if he couldn’t punish offenders.

Legislation to ban smoking was passed in 2003, but the guidelines weren’t solidified until Oct. 2, 2008, the birthday of nonsmoker Mohandas Gandhi. At the time, India was home to 120 million smokers — 900,000 of which were dying each year from tobacco-related illnesses — and earlier efforts to curb the habit had proved ineffective. Enforcement and antismoking advocacy were crucial, yet lawbreakers faced a mere $4.50 fine.

Researchers say the new regulation that outlawed workplace smoking has led to more smoke-free homes and that most people supported warnings during Bollywood smoking scenes. But nearly five years later, violations are rampant. The Times of India recently suggested that more pointed awareness campaigns and stricter monitoring would lead to more positive results.

Like the majority of the world, the U.S. does not have a nationwide smoking ban. Rather, it’s up to local and state authorities. To date, 48% of the population is banned from smoking indoors at public venues, like offices, restaurants and bars; outliers like casinos in New Orleans have been slower to give in.

Advocacy campaigns and antismoking legislation have dramatically reduced hospitalizations for tobacco-related diseases, researchers say, but some activists are pushing for outdoors bans as well. George Washington University pledged to not only go smoke-free this fall, but also is planning to ban smoking within 25 ft. of all university-owned public spaces. In late May, Starbucks announced a similar measure for thousands of its cafés.


Smoking bans do work. The problem with saying the smoking ban in China doesn't work is this. First you're only talking about two years. But secondly you did not take into consideration one major factor in China, India and other emerging markets: That is whole the tobacco companies have flooded those markets with more and more product. Money holds a lot of power in those emerging markets and as long as there is money to made with selling tobacco products people will smoke more and more. So the most effective method in those emerging markets is to levy huge taxes on tobacco products. 


Stopping smoking in the public only reduces external triggers reaching a smoker. Smoking is a complex habit and has lots of internal triggers too, rising from nicotine addiction and habit. Smokers need a comprehensive Stop Smoking Program that covers all the bases and helps them to quit smoking.

MarkeyJ 1 Like

Greece, which has a similar smoking rate as Russia, attempted to impose a ban and gave up when no one heeded it. I doubt Russia's ban will be very successful. With a smoking rate around 50% of the male population and women not far behind, I imagine the country will need to do a lot more education before attempting to impose a ban.

captainmorgan81 1 Like

It's pretty obvious that about 20-25% of people still smoke even thought it's banned and they know how bad it is. Electronic cigarettes are another option to avoid tobacco, nicotine and odor, so see E Cig Werks for more. 


This is about as dumb and illegal as telling grownups they have to wear a seatbelt in their VEHICLES..OH MY GOD


You should wear seatbelt in your car. It's stupid not to.


Just in the USA ALONE,Alcohol use costs $ 275 Billion a Year...Smoking don't even come,yet it is taxed 100 times higher than all ALCOHOL,And Beer for instance only pays .42 cents a gallon Tax.A Carton of cigarettes is $75.00,A Case of beer is what $ 15-18.00 ? hmmmmmmmmm talk aboout an a.s backwards society...YOUR LIVING IN IT PEOPLE.


How about an ALCOHOL BAN,After all its is in FACT the Biggest cause of death,disease,destruction,accidents,murders,rapes,suicides,injuries IN THE WORLD,Yet it is served everywhere,sold,advertised,and the worst part is it is SERVED WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT,,,Wake up you fools.............................


Will you listen to your female friend, your sister, or your lovely daughter, just for a reason to quit a bad habit of smoking? Something just like they would say, "Coffee, tea, or me?" On the other hand, if the fire were only started by smoking, would you rather trust the nicotine research on the Scientific American magazine, or would you trust the suggestion from a gubernatorial Attorney General certain years ago, say, beckoned by the college student outside local university campus? 


One measure of a smoking ban success is the mortality statistics. Taxation of abusers seems to work. A rigidly enforced low cost penalty for tax evasion makes the taxation more effective...but what are the best goals? Surely you don't want to encourage the overpopulation of our Earth, so why not let the suicidal abusers succeed with their desire for the short-fast-track?

DeweySayenoff 1 Like

John seems to have fallen victim of fallacious thinking.  Like most people with an agenda, he's gone out of his way to find websites that are sponsored by tobacco companies which "support" his positions.

It's easy enough to find out who owns what and where, who sponsors "studies" and how at odds this views are with several thousand studies performed by parties that are sponsored by more objective organizations (such as the federal government) confirming the deleterious effects of smoking both second hand and first hand.

The willfully ignorant refuse to believe the facts, and will only believe "facts" that agree with them.  Sad, but true.

But the real bottom line here is that they STINK!  Literally.  They have a gag-inducing odor that makes you want to hold your breath forever around them.   If nothing else, making cigarettes illegal would certainly go a long way to making the world smell a lot better.


@DeweySayenoff Not to mention making life more pleasant for those of us sensitive to particulates like smoke, perfume, etc.  There's nothing more miserable as trying to join friends in a bar for a birthday get-together, and having to leave an hour in, because you're coughing so hard you can't breathe.  :(


I think that smoking people are not necessarily evil, but evil people usually smoke.  Hence discrimination toward smoking and criticizing people who smoke is necessary in the society.


What they did 60 years ago was take OLD AGE DISEASE and rename it smoking related! Its been a grand run for the prohibitionists but its been all LIES and JUNK SCIENCE since day 1!

7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.


@JohnDavidson In other words, cigarette smoke has so many different things in it that can kill a person, it's hard to say which one - exactly - it is.  I read the full report.  Taking what you took out of context then throwing a predetermined "in other words" behind it proves nothing.

A person shot, stabbed, burned and dropped in acid is dead.  Which killed him?  It may be impossible to say precisely which possible cause of death did the actual deed - or if it was a combination of them. The "tests" don't exist that can peel back which potential "cause" actually did him in.  There are over 600 chemicals in tobacco - and not all combinations of them have been tested.  But knowing exactly what in cigarette smoke kills people and knowing that people are dying due to cigarette smoking are two very different things.

That's all the study says.  It never said that people who smoke don't develop cancer at a rate three times higher than average, with all other factors averaged out.  The same for second hand smoke.  And they usually die from it.  Going back to my original example, what you just said is equivalent to looking at a person who died during the course of being shot, stabbed, burned and dropped in acid and concluding they're perfectly healthy because the cause of death can't be exactly determined.

Your conclusion is, as usual for someone who relies on their preconceptions instead of the evidence to direct them, wrong and is not supported by the "evidence" you provided.


Heart miracles are impossible
It's good to see Dr. Carl V. Philips back and blogging over at Ep-ology. In his last two posts he has been discussing the North Carolina heart miracle 'study', which is as bad a piece of advocacy-driven junk science as you will ever see.

In particular, he makes a point which I have tried to made before, which is absolutely fundamental to all the heart miracle studies. The results they report—of heart attacks falling by 17%, 21%, 40% or whatever—are simply impossible.

The North Carolina smoking ban/heart attack hoax

JohnDavidson 1 Like

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

JenniferBonin 1 Like

@JohnDavidson I think you're forgetting one detail:  many of us non-smokers COULDN'T spend even an hour in a smoke-filled bar, much less 119,000 years.  That's because for the huge percentage of people who are sensitive to smoke (and other particulates in the air like perfumes), merely being in the room with a smoking person is unpleasant.  Staying in the room with a smoking person makes us start coughing uncontrollably.  I literally CAN'T remain in a smoke-filled bar for more than about a half an hour.  It's not only that I'm concerned about my long-term health (though I'm skeptical about your facts), but more importantly that it's pretty miserable to be coughing your lungs out in the short-term.  (Not to mention that it's unpleasant to reek of smoke for hours afterwards and need a shower and a change of clothes once you leave.)

If you want to stink and endanger your health, go right ahead.  You're a grown-up.  But so am I, and I'd like the ability to enjoy restaurants and bars myself.  I fail to see why your addiction -- which you apparently can't even pause for a few trivial hours -- should cost me the ability to enjoy common social activities.


Jennifer, you wrote, "I'd like the ability to enjoy restaurants and bars myself.  I fail to see why your addiction -- which you apparently can't even pause for a few trivial hours -- should cost me the ability to enjoy common social activities."

Jennifer, where do you live that you cannot find a bar or restaurant that either has decent ventilation or that has banned smoking?  



 Jenifer it isnt the first time those same cities banned smoking and then repealed them!

 Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.


@cantiloper Thankfully, in the last few years, most large cities HAVE banned smoking in enclosed public places.  Despite that, when I was living in Austin, TX, just a couple years back, the city had a smoking ban.  But the outskirts of the city (where a lot of pool halls, etc, were) did not.  Similarly, a lot of smaller towns don't have bans.

As for "decent ventilation", I have literally NEVER been in a (pre-ban) bar which had that.  Ever.


@JohnDavidson“General guidelines say that donors that have smoked should be excluded, but there are certain circumstances in which they can be used,” Taghavi said. “That can be when the donors are otherwise very healthy and there’s no evidence of the really bad effects of smoking, like emphysema.”

 Once again you have undermined your own arguments by posting something that you obviously didn't read.  Some people don't get cancer from smoking.  But then, some people don't need immunizations, but most do.  Some people don't get the common cold, but most do.  It's on a case by case basis.  You implied that all lungs from long-term smokers could be used when this is clearly not the case.

You obviously have no background in medicine - of any kind.  You don't understand biology, physiology, anatomy or chemistry.  Nor do you comprehend the scientific process. Instead you embark on an utterly irrelevant math problem rife with false equivalencies and other logical errors to arrive at a conclusion that is less than meaningless and proof of nothing.

Seriously, watching back to back episodes of CSI isn't going to get you anywhere in this argument.


Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels. 


Less than 8% of life long smokers if ever get LC not 100% like you would lead people to believe! National statistics are 3 non smokers per 10,000 and just 7 smokers per 10,000 get LC. Its genetic not smoking,you either get it or you dont! Even Cdc is starting to state smoking might trigger a cancer but its not the source of cancer causation its in your own genetic code.


@JohnDavidson look a car produces car exhaust but it isn't the driver of that car that is safely in his air conditioned compartmentalized space that inhales that car's exhaust, it is the people who are outside who inhale those exhaust fumes. So you are missing the point with all your stats justifying the lack of danger to smokers. Second hand smoke is the killer not the smoker themselves. 


@JohnDavidson of course because smokers themselves are not inhaling their own smoke. They are exhaling the carcinogens that other people have to inhale.  


Besides the mass majority of LC cases fall in the 78 to 82 year old bracket!



 39% of lung donations from smokers

More than one in three lung transplants in the last three years have been from donors who smoked, Health Minister Earl Howe has disclosed.
In a written reply, Lord Howe said that between April 2009 and 2012, 39% of lung transplants were from donors “with a past history of smoking”.

He said all lungs were carefully evaluated to ensure a donated organ does not go to waste if “clinically viable” and there is someone who could benefit.

Due to a shortage of organs, the patient’s probability of survival is greater if lungs from smokers are accepted than if they were declined.

Lord Howe said specialist nurses in organ donation evaluate the donor’s smoking history and pass this to the transplant team to make a clinical decision on whether to accept the organ.

He said the Government was constantly seeking to raise awareness of organ donation and encourage people to add their names to the NHS organ donor register.

Read more:


They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien


@JohnDavidson In your little rant, one wonders one, and only one, thing: Who benefits?

I mean, let's look at this from a rational point of view - assuming you're capable of reason.

First off, you suggest that there is an anti-smoking "conspiracy' to rid the world of tobacco and that tobacco smoking is no more unhealthy than breathing (as you seem to suggest).  So, let's assume, for the moment, that there is a conspiracy and that tobacco smoking has no harmful effects.  One, therefore, has to ask, Why bother banning smoking?  What does anyone have to gain by doing that?

Financial?  How do they gain money from stopping the sale of tobacco?  Who gets the benefit from it?  Ideological?  That's a lot of effort for a mere ideological point of view.  So people stop smoking and what happens?  They get healthier, they live longer, the air doesn't stink and the ground isn't littered with the discarded, germ-infested refuse of smokers.  Ideologically, that's great, but to what end?  

People aren't generally altruistic.  They don't really CARE if someone is doing THEMSELVES in.  So while the surface view of an ideological motivation seems to support it, it fails on the human behavior point of view.  They don't really get anything out of it UNLESS there was some kind of actual benefit to them, and if it's all just BS, that people's health doesn't improve, that they don't live longer, there are no benefits at all to banning an activity that's not harmful in the first place. Cleaning up butts and cleaner air are fine, but they seem hardly worth the effort put forth by governments, NGO's and the medical communities of virtually every industrialized nation on earth to bring about.

So, let us, for the moment, assume there is no conspiracy.  Let's assume that cigarettes are harmful, cause cancer in smokers and non-smokers alike, as well as pollute the ground and air.  This means the altruism involved would WORK.  It WOULD be worth it to reduce health care costs, insurance rates, fires, deaths and all of the other deleterious effects of smoking.  There is a DEFINITE cost-benefit to that in heath care costs ALONE.

So why would someone call something that isn't a conspiracy, a conspiracy?  To discredit them, of course.  But why discredit them?  WHO BENEFITS?

The only reasonable answer is the tobacco industry, because if tobacco sales are curtailed or banned, they suffer financially.  So it would make fiscal sense for the tobacco industry to discredit all the efforts to ban smoking.  The tobacco industry benefits by fighting those who seek to ban them.

Therefore, since we have reasonably concluded that unless cigarettes are actually harmful to people in general to the point that it's a major cost benefit to ban smokers, there is no valid reason to fight against smoking, and since many more industries negatively affected by the deleterious effects of smoking are combining together to ban smoking everywhere while only the tobacco industry has ever fought against these bans, your position here is one of a tobacco industry shill, or possibly an executive of the same.

Your arguments are, therefore, both biased and unreasoned because you receive some kind of fiscal reward for decrying efforts to curb and/or ban smoking.  You advocate for death.  Those who want to ban smoking advocate for life.  You are hardly a "free man".  You're merely an ad, and a poorly presented one at that.



 Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):



 According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA



 There are 4,000-7000 theorized chemicals in tobacco smoke (there are 2,000 in coffee) of which only 65 are vaguely carcinogenic. None exist in any quantity to cause harm. I can only assume some of the people commenting here are displaying symptoms of physcho-somaticism, it's all the mind or fancy a fat payout from the courts.

In 1991 an experiment was done on side stream smoke (SSS). SSS is undiluted by inhalation via a smoker's lungs where 95% of the chemicals are ingested. The setting was a room 20 feet by 24 feet by 9 feet, sealed and unventilated and the "sniffer" was 6 inches away from the lit cigarette. It produced the following results whereby you would have to be surrounded by the following number of smokers to reach a dangerous level.

Benzene 13,300 smokers.
Polonium 750,000.
Nickel 40,000.
Acetone 178,000
Benzo(a)pyrence 220,000.

So you are telling me smoke travelling 10-20 feet diluted by other air is a health hazard? You remind me of alchemists of the middle ages. Benzene constitutes 3% of a gallon of gas, and is often unburned in a car engine, the by product is benzo(a)pyrene. Your car will kill far more people before a smoker.