Dear Mr. Durbin:
I'd like to comment on some quotes from yourself.
>>>"Exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults."
If this is true, I wonder why it's not so common for a nonsmoker to actually get lung cancer from simply inhaling secondhand smoke. I've heard of nonsmokers who actually don't live with smokers, and they never smoked in their lives. But yet, they still died from lung cancer. The best explanation for those nonsmoking deaths is not exposure to secondhand smoke, but the fact those nonsmokers came from families with deep histories of cancer-related deaths.
>>>"A public policy that would reduce nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke would have many benefits."
And what benefits are these? Not being exposed to secondhand smoke isn't going to solve obesity problems. And since smoking is still allowed outdoors, those nonsmokers are still coming into contact with secondhand smoke outside. And even at that, if inhaling secondhand smoke can cause problems for a nonsmoker ouside, what would inhaling vehicle fumes do to the nonsmoker?
I know what would happen if someone tried inhaling vehicle fumes (instead of SHS) in an enclosed room for several hours.
If you're really interested in protecting the public's health, we could look into banning fast food restaurants. That can help cut down on the number of obese people. Banning smoking in a place is NOT going to improve my health whatsoever.
As I asked already (but in a different way), is banning smoking going to help me eat healthier this year? And how is banning smoking in a tavern going to help the tavern's owner in the long run, when most of the people who visit taverns are smokers anyway?