Of course, the counter-argument to that is "you can exercise your rights to freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights to be free from you causing them harm." To which my further follow-up would be that the problem is not that there is a problem with being free from someone else causing you harm -- it is the definition of "harm." How detrimental does something have to be to get on the "BANZOR" list? Not being able to smoke within 100 feet of an open-air section of pavement is a bit redonkulous, don't you think?

I'll give you an example: Saccharin. After 14 years of flaming bullshit by over-cautious, agenda-ized retards calling saccharin a carcinogen, the FDA finally said, "Oops! We were wrong. We take it back. No more ban." Took another 23 years for the laws created from the uproar to be repealed.

I'll give you another example: DDT. It was banned in 1972 after Silent Spring was published and the Great Unwashed picked up the hue and cry and panicked. Prevailing estimates run somewhere between 7 and 60 million deaths attributed to a lack of use of DDT to kill malarial parasites (notably: mosquitos) in Africa (especially sub-tropical areas) alone, despite no substantial empirical evidence to support the supposed broad-reaching detrimental effects to entire sub-phyla of vertebrates.

So, you tell me. Is the science "settled" on all the various nasty things goverments have banned or are planning to ban?