This is not a forum for general discussion about the risks of second-hand smoke. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the risks of second-hand smoke at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
Tone, poor citing...this whole page has serious problems with POV
This article, the whole thing, is intensely skewed. One of many examples is stating that Cato institute being accused of consorting with the tobacco industry...and the citations either lead to bad sources or other wiki articles. This is not healthy citing of sources, and this whole article has cancer if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Needs discussion re: marijuana smoke and "vaping"
With the growing number of jurisdictions allowing for legal recreational use of marijuana, people will want to know about "second hand smoke" with regards to pot smoke. There are concerns over so-called "contact highs" and there's the well-known case of an Olympic snowboarder who successfully defended himself after he tripped a drug test by claiming it was from exposure to passive pot smoke. This article primarily deals with tobacco, but I think the time has come to expand it to include pot as well - there must be studies on both sides of the issue (harmful vs. not harmful) that can be cited. In addition, if you do a google search on the topic you'll find a related issue that gets talked about a lot is odour; even moreso than the odor of second-hand tobacco smoke there is often-emotional complaints about the odor of pot smoke (speaking anecdotally I was exposed to second hand pot smoke about a year ago and while I didn't get any "contact high" from it or anything, the odor made me physically ill to the point where my retching reflex was triggered and I'm one who isn't affected by tobacco smoke or even exhaust fumes). I think the article should also be updated to include discussion of "vaping" as well - using e-cigarettes and vaporizers - which is a relatively new method of delivery for both tobacco and pot smokers. Supporters say that there is no second hand smoke involved, simply water vapor being expelled, but has anyone done any studies to confirm that this is the case? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to follow on the preceding, an incident has occurred on CNN which again raises the question of the impact of passive marijuana smoke on non-smokers: . 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been asked on my talk to explain why I added a non-MEDRS tag to the "effects" section of this page. The reason is primarily because of the use of references 19 and 20, which are both clearly primary studies, not secondary reviews and as such do not appear to be MEDRS compliant (I'm not so sure about the use of reference 17, either). To be clear, though, it seems to me as though everything else is not a MEDRS violation. However, if I am misunderstanding the policy, as @RDBrown: so politely suggested recently, do not hesitate to point this out and elaborate on what I am missing. Jinkinsontalk to me 04:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Have trimmed the two references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary to include contrary evidence on the harmfulness of second hand smoke like the Stanford or Women's Health Initiative studies to provide a complete reference to this subject. The absence of such calls into question the motives of the author(s).15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leisterf (talk • contribs)
Nearly all of the key sources (i.e., ones asserting "scientific consensus") do not directly link to articles providing any evidence. In one particular case, the link is dead. I agree with a couple of the other posters that this article is seriously flawed; the fact that very strong assertions are made and the references are intentionally or unintentionally obtuse makes this article very unhelpful for someone looking for clear answers.