[shrike]

No it not

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the available evidence regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[66] Some studies find that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25% increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, with better measures of secondhand smoke exposure suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[67] Parental smoking can affect children and babies, and is associated with low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.[68] In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded: These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[69]

The only controversy is caused by tobacco companies.

In 1986, the United States Surgeon General issued a report concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of disease. In the same year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Research Council also released reports concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer.[104] Over the subsequent 20 years, the accumulation of scientific evidence has led to a scientific consensus that passive smoking is indeed harmful to non-smokers.[105] A U.S. District Court found, in a racketeering case against the tobacco industry, that the industry had internally acknowledged the harmfulness of passive smoking even earlier.[84], pp. 1523–1525 Nonetheless, the tobacco industry has played a central role in generating and sustaining controversy over the effects of passive smoking.[106][107][108]

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia