Cigarettes trigger lung cancer. Frankly I'm surprised you needed somebody to "raise your awareness" about that. But now you know!

I am honestly still missing exactly what the poster finds offensive.

Is it a fear of second hand smoke related illness? Do they find the irony upsetting? Something else

Yes, cigarettes cause lung cancer. Does that mean smokers should be disqualified for volunteering at a lung cancer charity? They probably have more of a vested interest in the charity than the general population.

I am honestly still missing why you are so offended by somebody not wanting people to smoke at a lung cancer charity event, that you would call them names like "triggered"? You're not being honest when you claim you can't figure out what the poster finds offensive. They find the lung cancer caused by second hand cigarette smoke upsetting, not the irony of the situation. And you "honestly" couldn't figure that out?

None of your straw men make any sense. Nobody is asking for smokers to be disqualified, just for them to control themselves for a few moments and not smoke at a lung cancer charity event.

You calling somebody else "triggered" is ironic too: Why are you feigning moral outrage about somebody else being "triggered", which in their case is totally justified and absolutely harmless, more than you're honestly outraged at somebody else not just ironically but hypocritically smoking a cigarette at a lung cancer charity event, which is physically dangerous to them and other people, reeks to high hell, and is totally ignorant, clueless, disrespectful, and rude, flaunting the whole point of the event? They're practically blowing smoke in other people's faces. Yet that doesn't offend you, while other people being offended by it does.

Get some perspective and stop pretending to be so triggered and outraged yourself. Being "triggered" at somebody smoking in a totally inappropriate situation like that is not worse or even close to a smoker making a mockery of a lung cancer charity event by flagrantly giving themselves and other people lung cancer at the event. And you getting so triggered yourself that you disparagingly call somebody else triggered isn't a very convincing argument. It's the textbook definition of projection.

And "honestly": pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity pretending to be concerned, is called "sealioning".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Sometimes text is not the best medium for communication. I intdended to ask a concise and honest question and I am sorry if you took offense.

>What exactly is the issue with volunteers smoking? Is it that they might physically or emotionally trigger someone?

Triggered isn't exclusively a slur, but a real phenomenon, though often misused.

Smoke triggering a physical reaction in a post-op cancer survivor may be a legitimate concern, as would be triggering a emotional response in people who lost a loved one.

It was not and is not clear from Ken's post that this was his rationale, and rather some relation between smoking and cause "awareness". I have lost family members to lung cancer, and have other family members who still smoke. I have seen people smoke as they die of lung cancer. I do not think it is for lack of "awareness".

Also, it seems like you have a very different mental image of what was described, and a very different reaction to it. Seeing someone self harm at such and event would make me sad, not angry. They are literally the class of people the event is trying to support.