Nanny state - agree/disagree


The rule as implemented goes way beyond that and at the time of introduction suggestions such as separate smoking rooms or increased ventilation were categorically ruled out.

As Christopher Hitchens wrote in the Guardian of the UK smoking ban:

 
The rule as implemented goes way beyond that and at the time of introduction suggestions such as separate smoking rooms or increased ventilation were categorically ruled out.

These measures could only mitigate the risk from passive smoking, they could not eliminate it.

Hitchens is far too intelligent to have slipped in a phrase like "and allergic to smoke" accidentally. Its implication is that only some people are affected by passive smoking - highly debatable at best!

There are some occupations which are by nature dangerous, say fishing, diving or lumberjacking. Passive smoke in the workplace is, on the other hand, an entirely avoidable risk. As a smoker myself, I think the workplace ban on smoking - including bars and restaurants - is reasonable.
 

Well, lest you think it's just about protecting people from the dangers of passive smoking, here's a look at what to expect over the next few years.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172230