The health risks of second-hand smoke are vastly overstated. The early alarming study that spurred much of our political response to smoking has been superseded by studies showing little or no increase in heart disease and lung cancer from exposures to second-hand smoke
Secondhand smoke isn't as bad as we thought
There is a small increase in negative health outcomes for people who cohabitate with heavy smokers for decades. There's no demonstrated effect on neighbours in a multi-unit building, let alone occasional exposure to second-hand smoke walking down the street or at a park. The dosage makes the poison, and the degree of exposure in those situations in miniscule.
No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
Quote:
However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance...
- Journal of the National Cancer Institute
|
Prohibitions and restrictions on smoking are an effective public health measure only insofar as they deter people from smoking or taking up smoking altogether. The notion that they protect non-smokers is not borne out by research.
So the only reason to ban smoking of vaping pot on multi-unit dwellings is to deter people from taking up smoking pot. Which seems a weird goal to pursue for a substance that we're legalizing and legitimizing. And if it's the smell that irritates people, then just persuade people to vape instead of smoke. Which seems to be the way pot consumption is going anyway.