Not really, considering I was only showing how bad of an analogy it was to liken second-hand-smoke to 'second-hand-obesity'.

Clearly, if you are to use the "fact" that second hand smoke gives you cancer to support your argument, than yes, you do.

I've not once in this entire thread made such a claim.

This is where you make such claims.

Where in that quote did I say that second-hand-smoke causes cancer?

In italic you suggest that (in logical argument) the comparison being originally made was false due to food not having any adverse effects on the person sitting next to them. (supporting claims that second hand smoke causes cancer)

In bold to make such a claim you need to be supportive of the same theory.

the only part which can absolve you from this all in this entire dispute would be the word "whether" in which case if you used in the literal sense then i retract all previous comments.

You're limiting the concern and affects of second-hand-smoke to only cancer, which isn't what the concern is solely about. Beyond concerns revolving around cancer there are concerns about second-hand-smokes influence in regards to asthma, low birth-weights, heart disease, etc.

Ok, but for this you need to cite it.

I can state that inserting a pencil into your rectum is the cure for aids, who would have known?

i can promise that it isnt

I need not necessarily prove that it causes any or all of those things, since I never claimed that it does. I was merely refuting the idea that the food analogy was adequate.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke