No, you haven't done you're homework. A google search doesn't quite cut it. I haven't read the cited document [1], but I am pretty confident that I remember this document being widely defunct as containing little solid evidence. The clue is in the language that your link uses. Look at question four and then back at question three:

4: Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)

3: Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?

Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer.

This is not _evidence_ that second hand smoking is dangerous to an individuals health. It is evidence that second hand smoke has the _potential_ to be dangerous to ones health as it contains chemicals that we know to be dangerous. It is the leap from that to legislating the behavior of the public, without a thought to stop at private smoking rooms, freedom of expression and the ability to choose not to associate with smokers.

Second hand smoke _probably_ is dangerous to health, but there is no hard evidence, just a line of reasoning that we all kind of agree with. I see that as a slippery slope. It won't be long before a line of reasoning tells us that fatty foods are dangerous to our health, so we are all to be put on rations, for the good of the nation! Then old age and mental stability are going to be a problem, bam, further medication to control our behavior. Our kids are out of control and roaming the streets!! Thank god the government is there to force feed the hoodie wearing little SOBs all kinds of prescription uppers and downers so we know they can have a normal life.

I don't want to troll the conversation into one only about the smoking ban - I was using it as an example of how government have already begun legislating behavior with arguable evidence [2]. Check out some of the laws concerning "extreme porn" for an even worse example of thought police.

[1] The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

[2] http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.html

it's an anti-smoking ban site, but they seemed pretty well rounded. Still, as I said, I don't want to hijack the thread.