laz, you're thinking in absolutist terms. There is no such thing as a "safe" activity, just ones with more or less risk. Attempts to remove all risk of injury from life are A) doomed to ludicrous failure and B) likely to seriously infringe on other important priorities. For example, driving results in milions of deaths annually, but the benefits (like earning a living) are clear. We balance the risk and benefit, and make an intelligent choice.
The role of government is balancing competing important priorites. The challenge is not how to avoid the obviously bad, IT'S HOW TO CHOOSE AMONG THE MANY "GOOD" PRIORITIES.
It is good that nonsmokers be allowed to not be around smoke. It is good that smokers have freedom to travel. It is good that people be allowed to get good jobs. Balancing this isn't as obvious and easy as you seem to think. For example, the Tribal Authority decides whether to make the casino smoking or nonsmoking, and they beleive the good of their people is best served by maximizing attendance and profits.
And your comment about "slaves of the capitalist system" is both uninformed and a bit racist --
A) would you prefer the alternative system, like the freedom loving workers of North Korea?;
B) why does it seem that only stereotypically oppressed minorities are trapped against their will? Stereotypically achieving minorities come with the same financial limitations, but seem able to overcome their challenges; and
C) why do the Indians need you to tell their leadership what's best for them? Are they not wise enough to make choices without the guidance of their betters, like you?
