>As for "where does it end?", there's any number of examples
>where the government decides on acceptable and unacceptable
>levels of pollutants. As long as they use similar
>methodologies across the board (the 25000+ annual deaths
>attributed to secondhand smoke certainly qualifies), there
>isn't any case for "demonizing".

The only area I think is "iffy" is when governments use a "public use" argument to ban smoking in private establishments. For instance, all bars. What's the issue with a bar that permits smoking? If non-smokers don't want to inhale second-hand smoke then don't patronize that bar. If there's a market for "smokeless" bars then some enterprising businessman will open one. If not, too bad.

Unfortunately, markets aren't always flexible enough to achieve this sort of result. You get situations where most non-smokers are "okay" with inhaling second-hand smoke on an occasional basis, but smokers are vehemently against any establishment becoming smoke-free. So bar owners maximize their profit by allowing smoking. The number of non-smokers whose business they lose by allowing smoking is smaller than the number of smokers whose business they lose by disallowing it.