“Public health”? Since when is “health” a collective concept?
Individuals have health. Like other methods of trying to determine an “average”, such a measure is highly subjective, and relates only to trying to impose an agenda.
There are highly sensitive people, and others who can adapt to some extremely problematic situations. By failure to expose individuals to what may be a problem for them, unilaterally banning a certain element or set of circumstances, only results in the individual being left unable to cope with the situation when it arises, outside the “safe” boundaries established by the “wise and learned” among us.
Boundaries are broken through every day, intentionally or otherwise. One of the primary reasons for establishing the boundaries in the first place is because an inordinate amount of danger may exist on the other side. But sometimes, it turns out, the danger is entirely imaginary, or by developing adequate precautions, the danger may be averted or at least minimized. But if the boundary is never crossed, who is to know what is possible to deal with, and what is not?
“We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” Maybe not, but you also have to respect the consequences, and the Universe is a cruel and unforgiving place.
There is a balance, somewhere, between too little order, and too much. And that is where “critical thinking” comes in.
Same reason I HATE actuarial tables. Generalization made up to get you to pay for a collective determination of “everybody’s” condition. I still smoke (evil me) but in “general” I’m probably a lot healthier than a whole lot of people out there. Resulting in higher health care costs and increased life insurance premiums. Oh well.