Chris

In which case I don't understand your objection. We agree that smoking and secondary smoke are both injurious to health. There is a body of opinion that says it is therefore common sense to reduce the exposure of the general population to such smoke by banning it in all public places (with certain exceptions in England). You apparently are objecting that there is no direct evidence that this solution will address the problem adequately enough to justify the upheaval it will cause. The contrary view is that the problem is so big, any improvement is worth having, and that the statistics do indeed demonstrate that is is a big problem.

Russ very succinctly put it earlier. There is no direct evidence that a very hard boot in the nuts would cause you, specifically, great pain (I'm assuming that no-one has ever afflicted you in such a way). Does that mean you're happy for the law of common assault not to apply to your goolies until such time as you're satisfied it should? Or does common sense tell you that if it hurts, it hurts, and it's logical to play safe and enjoy legal protection?