[justiceseeker93]

I don't think that "anecdotal evidence and neuroses" should drive laws, and I think that many of the recent laws totally banning smoking in certain places are indeed based on nothing more than that.

Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily trust anything coming out of the UN. They're not exactly known for objectivity as an organization.

You must realize that is very difficult to design reasonable scientific studies on the effects of second hand smoke. How can anyone quantify the amount of second hand smoke that he or she has been exposed to over a lifetime? Since any harmful effects on non-smokers would be intuitively correlated with the quantity of exposure, just about any of these studies would have a built-in flaw impossible to overcome.

[cgbg]

is very difficult to design reasonable scientific studies on the effects of second hand smoke. How can anyone quantify the amount of second hand smoke that he or she has been exposed to over a lifetime? Since any harmful effects on non-smokers would be intuitively correlated with the quantity of exposure, just about any of these studies would have a built-in flaw impossible to overcome.

Claims of human-caused global warming have a similar problem. They are based on "models" and not actual experiments.

Any "scientists" who make claims about second-hand smoke or human caused global warming are witch doctors, pure and simple.

The tribe listens to them at their peril.