Defending the intrusive with the obvious

From the Department of Duh comes this study:

A Scottish study looking at the changes in bar workers’ health before and after a smoking ban finds that the reduction in second-hand smoke improved the workers’ lung function, reduced the amount of nicotine in their systems, and reduced their inflammation levels. According to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, both asthmatic and non-asthmatic workers benefited from the smoke-free working environment, and improvements in health measured occurred in as little as one month’s time.

Who is surprised by this? Less exposure to smoke reduces nicotine and improves lung function. Shocking. And useless. All this does is suggest that, if people value healthier lung function over activities where second-hand smoke exists, they won’t expose themselves to second-hand smoke environments. But we knew that. And by “we,” I mean people who have a fair understanding of property rights and free will. The public policy implication should be zippy.