While I can appreciate the usefulness of smoking bans, especially as it relates to non-smokers (or even smokers for that matter).  I'm not convinced that the science is establishing a sound cause and effect linkage.

There is little doubt that smoking is not a healthy activity, but similarly we should be aware of all forms of air pollution.  A recent study suggested that even a relatively brief exposure to second hand smoke could precipitate a heart attack¹.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen how such a study or determination was made, so it is impossible to assess their methodology.  

Consider the following quote:

It seems simple enough to answer the question whether something poses a risk or not.  The answers can only be "yes", "no", or "we don't know".  A "yes" response would then be qualified by the probability or likelihood of risk entailed, as well as the context in which it exists.  A "no" should be definitive and not have any exceptions, while a "we don't know" is ambiguous enough to suggest that there is no definite answer, as yet.

A recent article on the risks of cell phones illustrates one of the reasons why the public tends to be distrustful of many of these findings.  It is clear that games are being played and agendas being driven.

There is a common misconception when assessing computers in suggesting that parallel processing increases speed.  This simply isn't true.   

Parallel processing is intended to increase throughput by addressing queuing delays that may be experienced by "ready" units of work that are waiting for access to the processor.  Each processor is essentially a hardware server for instructions to be processed.  In modern computers there are actually multiple points of parallelism and overlap processing, but the primary point is to avoid delays.

A recent LiveScience article 'Computers Faster Only for 75 More Years' has indicated that new research conducted by two physicists have placed a speed limit on what's attainable regardless of the size of the components.  

Moore's Law¹ has often been touted as representing an infinite curve of progress, but this explanation clearly indicates that nothing proceeds indefinitely.  In addition, depending on technological developments in computer design and architecture, that limit may actually occur within 20 years according to Scott Aaronson, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT.

In the last article we considered the formation of choices as providing a set of predetermined responses to various situations.  It is this phase of data gathering and assessment that sets the groundwork for our moral responsibility.

Specifically it is erroneous to consider that choices are evaluated and determined solely at the point of action, but rather, default states may well be set within the brain based on our training and indoctrination.  It is these default states that represent the possibility of choices that we can base a decision on.