Why do so many people say that secondhand smoke is WORSE than being a smoker?

I'm certainly not suggesting that it's good for them or anything, but worse?
Unless a non-smoker were constantly in a room with many people smoking (as flight attendants used to be, or bartenders) wouldn't health risks be related to the amount of exposure, which is greater in smokers than in those who ocassionaly get near a smoker?

Gee, Jarhead, that IS worse! Because if you don't exhale, you die. Guess you've changed my thinking.

It is worse because you don't choose to inhale, it is forced upon you.

There is no added risk.

What you said is pretty much true, the only reason people say that is because a lot of the smoke from secondhand smoke hasn't been filtered, whereas a smoker has all that smoke filtered.

Well smoking directly affects one person, but secondhand smoke affects alot more people.

No. There are many smokers in a bar,and all those inhaled, and then exhaled toxins threw the smokers ciggarettes, which are all those toxins in the smoke, plus dioxide in which the non-smokers now inhale. Think of resin, all the build up from smoke. That is the non-smokers lungs. The nasty seconds.

Well being and ex-smoker second hand smoke you do not exhale the smoke you only inhale

smoke from the tip of the cigarette is worse than the smoke you get when you smoke through a filter. That is called second hand smoke, so it is in a sense worse, But it's not worse to be around smokers than to smoke yourself because if you smoke you get both types of smoke more often than a non-smoker who's around it sometimes.

update- actually I think from the tip is called passive smoke and the smoke exhaled by a smoker is second-hand, so second-hand being filtered twice is the safest (filtered by the filter on the cigarette and then by the persons who smokes lungs) and passive the worst.

It is because there are people in the world called "Health Nazis" who think they know what's best for everyone. This is there form of propaganda - scare tactics. They won't stop until they prohibit tobacco completely. (We saw how well it worked when they banned alcohol in the 20's). Once this is done they will start working on other projects - i.e. french fries, coffee, ice cream etc.

"They" talk a lot for not ever giving us the whole story. They say second-hand smoke is worse for non smokers because they don't have the advantage of the filter that smokers use. What they don't tell you is that smokers get the first hand smoke through the filters and a large percentage of it stays in their lungs so the part that the non smokers get is even less harmful. As for the smoke coming of the end of the cigarette, the smoker is sitting closer to the cigarette, once again, getting most of the harmful toxins. So their logic seems truthful and is but they don't properly continue their train of thought because it would not benefit their argument. Ever read George Orwell's 1984? Don't believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see...