The article describes a large prospective study that "confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke."
And, in writing about this I noting that the authors were back-pedalling rapidly on the reasons for smoking bans - 'denormalising' smoking rather than protecting health.
Today, in a development that further reveals the willingness of the Church of Public Health to act without evidence, New York City Council is deciding whether to apply the same controls to e-cigarettes as apply to regular cancer sticks:
In late November, a month after banning the sale of the devices to people under 21, the City Council surprised the sector by introducing a bill that would treat electronic cigarettes like their tobacco counterparts, prohibiting use in restaurants, bars, workplaces and even parks.
There is no evidence to support the main contention of the ban's proponents - vaping looks like smoking so will act to promote the latter. Nor is there evidence that there are any significant health risks that result from vaping let alone from 'passive vaping'. But this doesn't stop New York's nanny-in-chief:
At a recent public hearing of the bill, Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley challenged the notion that e-cigs are healthier than tobacco smokes...
Dr Farley knows this is a lie, just as the tobacco controllers have known since the day they proposed smoking bans that passive smoking is at worst a very minor risk factor in lung cancer. What is even worse is that, by effectively banning vaping, New York will remove the incentive for smokers to switch to less harmful e-cigs. And that means more deaths.
....
