It's like nicotine paralyzes the legs. If these people want to kill themselves so badly, more power to them. Heck, use a gun because it'd be faster and, in the long term, cheaper than cigs.

In my view we need to stress the WHO to lunched anti-smoking campaign every year in every country, for this we success to reduce the use of tobacco.

I'm about a week into my latest quit attempt...you know what's motivating me? Taking away the last argument of all of the pathetic people who believe that government's true role should be a nanny to protect us from hurting ourselves. Once I get up to about a month I'm going to start wearing "Free The Smokers" T-Shirts.

I hate cars, and I wish people wouldn't drive them. The exhaust makes my clothes smell, and the gas the cars need to run has sent my country into BS wars. I'd guess (yep, guess. until someone posts a link to a published study on second hand smoke we're all guessing) the pollution put out by combustion engines is harming my health. Where do I sign up for the automobile ban?

This country was founded on the idea of not trusting power...what's happened to us?

big tobacco IS the gubmint duh

Know what stinks more than cigarette smoke? Pro-govermental-social-engineering propaganda.

g:


No more so than a government currently suing them, i'd argue. In any case, Phillip Morris didn't advertise the study; it doesn't exactly promote smoking, now, does it?

Cheng:

Actually, from the point of view of social programs we would be better off just shooting retired people. But just try to suggest this at a council meeting. You'll be labeled a 'crackpot' and kicked out. Sheesh.

still waiting for an actual secondhand smoke study to be published, though. not that this has ever stopped public health folk...etc etc and so on.

By that logic, we can just got and shoot everyone, as this will reduce future health care costs.

The problem with smoking and public health care costs has less to do with the overall amount, and more to do with health care costs inflicted on us by relatively voluntary actions (i.e., the full cost of smoking is not borne by the smoker).

Yes, and tobacco companies can always be trusted to sponsor and publish unbiased studies.

To be fair, smokers don't cost the country more in health care. The fact that they may die early of lung cancer is outweighed by the cost of taking care of them for an extra decade or two had they chosen to quit and die slowly of general debilitation.

Phillip Morris did a study about this back in the first lawsuit in the mid-nineties, but didn't publicise it too much for obvious reasons.

I welcome this kind of policy if only because of the worst kind of smokers out there: the rude, inconsiderate ones who won't take even one step away from building entrances because the law doesn't require it. It's like nicotine paralyzes the legs. If these people want to kill themselves so badly, more power to them. Heck, use a gun because it'd be faster and, in the long term, cheaper than cigs. At today's prices, a pack a week habit would cost more than a handgun in less than a year. But if they try to take me with them, I say to hell with their "rights."

Yeah Doc, I think you kind of cut yourself off at the knees here. :)

Sure the article is anti smoking but the photo tells another story. That chick looks like she's come to climax smoking that cigarette.

Some people may complain about what they see as a government trying to control people's behavior, but I think the smoking ban has made NYC an even better place to live. It's also a question of public health. Because we all pay for smoking-related diseases through the burden it places on our health care system. Don't worry -- people will continue to find a way to smoke if they want to. In the meantime, I'm glad that the city has these policies.