> ‘Secondhand smoke’ is not actually a thing which has an effect. It’s a propaganda term which ought to be avoided. Old folks today — i.e., the ones who look so much younger than old folks a generation ago — spent their childhoods and adulthoods absolutely surrounded by cigarette smoke, and smoking bans came in far too late to have an effect this recently. Compare never-smoking Boomer children of heavy smokers today to never-smoking Boomer children of non-smokers: there’s no appreciable difference.
Color me skeptical for a few reasons:
1. From what I understand the negative effects of air pollution more generally are pretty well documented at this point. Cigarette smoke is just one more source of particulate matter in the air which has those ill effects. Just one that was perpetually present at (more or less) all times everywhere.
2. Complete smoking bans are relatively new (although in some places going on 30 years old at this point) but restrictions on where you could smoke happened more gradually. Also the amount of smoke being inhaled by non-smokers is a function of how many smokers there are as well of rules about where you can smoke. The percentage of adults who smoke peeked in the early 1960s and started declining more rapidly in the early 1970s.
Color me skeptical for a few reasons:
1. From what I understand the negative effects of air pollution more generally are pretty well documented at this point. Cigarette smoke is just one more source of particulate matter in the air which has those ill effects. Just one that was perpetually present at (more or less) all times everywhere.
2. Complete smoking bans are relatively new (although in some places going on 30 years old at this point) but restrictions on where you could smoke happened more gradually. Also the amount of smoke being inhaled by non-smokers is a function of how many smokers there are as well of rules about where you can smoke. The percentage of adults who smoke peeked in the early 1960s and started declining more rapidly in the early 1970s.