Proof

This article fails to provide any definitive proof that second hand smoke kills other than vague allusions to "studies," while at the same time presenting the other side of the debate as only concerned with some vague notion of liberty. To be as fair as seems appropriate for a story touted as news, they ought to have included either citations for whatever studies they deemed proof, or admitted that while some studies suggest a correlation between second hand smoke and death, their scientific accuracy has been called into question since their publication. Here I am thinking of the several studies criticized in the book "Sorry Wrong Number."

Overall, the article was a poor attempt at fairness. I ask not that the author be objective, for such a thing is impossible. I simply ask that they do a better job of either citing their sources, as good journalists ought, or at the very least admit that what they assert as truth is in fact far from regarded as universal.