What is second-hand smoke for $300, Jim?
E:
I say this as someone who suffered a SHS-induced asthma attack that nearly killed me when I was 6 years old. That incident got my father to quit smoking cold-turkey. Smoking can directly harm others and second-hand smoke can travel and affect those around the smoker.
Unless the point is that SHS is "indirect" harm. In which case I argue that releasing mustard gas is "indirect" harm.
1 out of 10 smoking-related deaths are non-smokers [0]. We can demonstrate it causes harm to other people and it fails to follow the criteria of "it shouldn't cause direct harm to others".
[0] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...
The burning end of the cigarette? That smoke trail is SHS, as is the smoke that the smoker exhales. The exhaled smoke isn't as harmful as the burning cigarette.
People are exposed to larger amounts of SHS in enclosed places that traps the SHS inside. You don't have to smoke to create SHS, you merely have to light a cigarette.
How much and how concentrated SHS needs to be to be considered harmful is another story. Are designated smoking areas enough? How much distance does there need to be to let the smoke dissipate into smaller amounts and be less harmful?
I don't know the answers to the above questions - and I'm not going to trust any study funded by a tobacco company.
Cigarette makers shouldn't be allowed to lie about their product or mislead the public, but I believe they should still be allowed to sell it. Freedom means having the ability to do something that other people disapprove of or even to do things that are self-destructive, so long as they don't directly harm others. I hate cigarettes but I would not support a legal prohibition against them.