> Should we allow smoking in most public places?

I'm actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice.

The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice.

This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better.

Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.

> Should we allow smoking in most public places?

I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.

It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.

> I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.

For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you.

> I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.

They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces.

Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.

>Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect?

Could you elaborate? What did they do?

The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.

The negative effects of smoking and drinking are fairly local. In this case, the question would be:

Is it worth taking chances with multidrug resistance bacteria for this miniscule psychological benefit?