From: usenet@baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message   
   , David   
   Friedman  writes   
   >In article ,   
   > "J. Clarke"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> > No, it isn't.  I'm sure that in some cases that plays a   
   >> > role, but it's basically a public health measure.   
   >>   
   >> That's a rationalization, not a reason.   
   >   
   >On the whole, I agree with you. We don't generally forbid people from   
   >doing things that are bad for themselves, yet in many states restaurants   
   >must be non-smoking, even though people aren't forced to go into them.   
   >   
   >But it could be a rationalization either for other-regarding   
   >motives--paternalism or puritanism--or for self-regarding motives.   
   >Speaking as a non-smoker, it really is pleasanter being in an   
   >environment where people haven't been smoking, so I benefit by such   
   >rules--and I suspect that at this point non-smokers are a substantial   
   >majority of the electorate in most states.   
   >   
   >I should add that I'm also dubious about the second-hand smoke claims,   
   >which are what you need for non-paternalistic public health arguments. I   
   >don't know the literature well enough to critique it, but given the   
   >enormous difference in input between smoking and being in a room where   
   >people smoke, and the obvious incentive to find studies that justify   
   >policies you want on other grounds, I'm suspicious.   
   >   
   There was concern in the UK for workers like bar staff who had to spend   
   long hours in a seriously smoky atmosphere.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)