I oppose anti-smoking regs, to be sure, but there’s something more interesting and complicated going on here. They aren’t just pure nanny-statism, enacted to protect smokers from themselves. These regs have been successful all over the place because anti-smoking forces have convinced everybody that smoking poses a hazard to non-smokers. The analogy here is to drunk driving. You may want to drink and drive, but you are not allowed to do so because you place others at risk. To believe that anti-smoking regs are offensive, you ultimately have to make the case that the science proving a link between second-hand smoke and other ailments is pretty dubious. Which it may be, but when you’re arguing with someone who is making the perfectly legitimate case that a smoker doesn’t have the right to increase her risk or her child’s risk of getting cancer, you lose.