Neither does second hand tobacco smoke.
Again, cite that landmark study that ever proved that.
Trillions of dollars into a carpet bomb of MTV commercials and data studies.
Still no solid science that can make tobacco more of a cancer causer than refined sugar.
Only cherry picked data reviews that claim tenuous correlation.
So does B.O.
Show me the causation.
I can’t prove a negative.
I can go and learn exactly peer reviewed causation between mesothelioma and asbestos.
“Second hand smoke causes cancer” has no biological evidence. It has mountains of data reviews and a behemoth of propaganda aired daily.
“there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke”
Produce the landmark peer reviewed biological study that proved this.
You can’t. Because it’s War on Drugs, it’s propaganda, and it is an absolute ocean of spurious correlation manuscripts and absolutely no proof.
You got lung cancer from sucking up burnt dinosaur goo during rush hour, not because a dude had a smoke in your general viscinity.
Sounds a lot like claims about second hand tobacco smoke.
Lots of data reviews cherry picking source data to plot a correlation with a large enough population, but no demonstration of causation.
Ya. That. And not prohibition. Aka money people trying to outlaw it and the people saying “you can’t control me”.
Fyre festival/Woodstock 99 type documentary scheduled for 2027.
Every source from the propaganda machine, the US Government. None peer reviewed scholarly research.