There were over 16,000 confirmed deaths due to H1N1, and many more suspected H1N1 deaths and hospitalizations.

Illicit drugs are currently illegal and there are avid anti-drug campaigns also.

Senseless post, no valid points.

What we need here is a bit of libertarian philosophy which is “if we spent a bit more time minding our own business and a bit less time minding someone else’s business, we as a society would be far better off”.

By now everyone knows smoking is harmful so anyone who continues to smoke does so at their own peril but it is their business and no one else’s. Some will rail on about how those who smoke contribute to higher health costs, etc. But there are all kinds of legal unhealthy habits, overeating, high fat content food, excessive use of salt, alcohol abuse, not exercising, and more. The point is that people should not be subject to government intervention and should be responsible for themselves and accept the consequences of their actions.

Regarding government intervention in our lives, it was said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Wet Willy, true that, the libertarian philosophy is best and should be adopted more by this country. It takes a special person to smoke and all the negative ad campaigns in the world won't make that person throw away the last butt. There are enough laws out there that you don't have to be around cigarette smoke if it makes you uncomfortable, unlike 40 years ago when cigarette smoke was everywhere and there was no escape.

It has worked in the past, and they want to see it continue to work in the future, instead of leveling off. There are huge external costs to smoking, which smokers and tobacco companies do not absorb, so money spent on curtailing smoking can save the general public money in the long run, in the form of reduced medical costs for smokers, children of smokers, and other non-smokers exposed to smoke. Since at least 80% of smokers begin the habit before age 18, there is still a long way to go in stopping illegal smoking. Smoking before one is legally allowed sets a person up for a lifetime of heath woes and expenses - a decision that they would be much less likely to make if they were independent adults who were already managing their own budgets. Instead, they make these decisions as children, with no legal right to do so, and condemn themselves to a lifetime of addiction. We are not doing our job for as long as we are letting tobacco companies recruit children, and we would drastically reduce overall smoking rates if everyone remained non-smokers until age 19.

John-2095109...we don't want you to quit, we just want your foul smelling clothes and nasty second hand smoke as far away from us as possible.

Dan, unless you live with someone that smokes then you have to worry about that. For the most part in this country these days it's not an issue anymore.

what_the_81, not true. I take public transportation almost daily and I can't tell you how many times someone gets on a stop after me, sits down next to me and smells like a human cigarette which I have to endure for the next 1 hr+.

Granted, I don't have to inhale second smoke like I had to for years but the notion that smokers do their thing and non-smokers their theirs, not so.

Smoking isn't always personal choice. As this article explains, many people are exposed to tobacco smoke and byproducts through no choice of their own. I agree that chewing tobacco, nicotine gum and patches, etc. are all personal choices, but smoking is an intrusive habit. For as long as smokers infringe on a person's right to breathe clean air, non-smokers are going to campaign against it. Makes sense to me. Keep it to yourself and no one will care. Preferably, pay your own increased health insurance premiums too, and smoking is fair game. If you're on Medicaid and blow smoke at your kids, that makes it society's business too.

It would be great if it was a personal choice but your "personal" choice impacts those who choose to make better lifestyle decisions. Why should I have to breath in your smoke, smell you or have a nickel of my tax dollars go to help someone with health issues due to smoking.

Smoking is a little different than alcohol. Aside from drunk driving, a person's decision to drink doesn't affect others too much. Most of the complaints against smoking are about second-hand smoke. There isn't really a good comparison there. You can compare it to pollution, but the measurable health effects are much lower, so tobacco is still a priority. Besides, most people don't hang out by a hummer's tailpipe, and most hummers don't operate in confined indoor spaces. Smokers do.

Just wondering what confined indoor spaces you are finding smokers occupying lately ? -automotive exhaust is less toxic than second hand smoke, and of course all of the domestic violence ( against women and children) attributable to alcohol doesn't affect others too much. thanks for straightening all that out for us.

Indoor smoking occurs in homes, where children are forced into exposure for 18 years. It also occurs in some bars and restaurants, where an 18" panel is supposed to contain smoke in the "smoking section."

Crimes associated with alcohol are specifically illegal, and therefore people of all ages have legal recourse against domestic violence, etc. There are no laws to stop someone from blowing smoke into their baby's crib.

Especially those diabetic losers - always shooting themselves up with insulin and such.

Insulin helps a diabetic to maintain vital functions, not "cope with life."

You would have to compare the cost of a smoker's medical care over the years (often decades) prior to their death, before you can say that you are saving money from their early mortality. You must also factor in reduced productivity during periods of poor health. Smokers tend to be lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and therefore cost more in public assistance than the average non-smoker, who contributes substantially to Social Security and Medicare before utilizing it.

Are you kidding. There are so many stereotypes in your statement I can only assume you are jesting. The CDC statistics report a higher amount of smokers in the poor which is usually defined as making less than the national average of about 45 thousand a year. If one uses the bell curve (which population statistics are based on) we would see that 68% of working Americans make 45 grand or below, 14 % make a little less or a little more, and at the extreme...2% are very rich or very poor.

Of the so called working poor (who pay medicaid/medicare/ss etc) most do not qualify for any government benefit because they are earning wages. Just because someone is poor does not mean they have applied for benefits or receiving anything from anybody. There are many who are to full of pride to accept help, though they need it.

Most actuarial tables cite that smokers die (on average) 7 years before their non-smoking peers but they also cite that radiologists die 5 years sooner, blue collar transportation workers also 5 years too early, military service a few months to a lifetime of disability, the list goes on and on. Many of our voluntary choices are cited as carrying some kind of risk and all we can do is plan our financial future according to those risks taken.

For some reason I have a hard time believing that a post so full of stereotypes could have an objective stance in opining on underlying causality of the human condition in the current economic clime. But, I could be wrong about that....

I second that

Should the same rule apply to overweight people too?

we can only hope

Agreed. I did quit smoking, May 2009, after 31 years. It was the most difficult thing I've ever done, and I have three master's degrees, a PhD, technical certifications, and just lost 47 pounds and am still cutting calories, exercising hard. Also, I grew up in foster care. When the government decided to heavily tax cigarettes, the money should have been spent on (1) helping smokers quit and (2) related health care costs. Many smokers cannot quit without help. However, studies have shown over and over again that the amount of taxes that were already on cigarettes (years ago) were sufficient to pay the added health care costs. (Drinkers and the obese do not pay their way in society.) But let's not make light of smoking. 10% of smokers die of lung cancer and 15% die of COPD, and smoking contributes to or causes a number of other cancers as well. I'm not a drinker, and never have been, but I will say this about drinking: There is a safe level at which to drink. The same cannot be said about smoking. Drinking wine, at least, even has health benefits. Food can be difficult for people to regulate because we must eat. No one must smoke. And again there is a safe level at which to eat. Not all drinkers or eaters are addicts. Almost all, if not all, smokers are. Further, smokers are not helping their own cause. Smokers in my building smoke on the elevators and in the hallways. I have asthma. Some people in this building have COPD. The smoke seeps underneath my front door, and I have three air purifiers in a 500 square foot space.

nc55552, I don't care what you do with your life. If you want to spend a ridiculous amount of money to suck poison gas into your lungs, and maybe die an early agonizing death, that's your business. However, I don't want to subsidize your health care, I don't want to inhale your second-hand smoke, and I don't want to smell your breath or your hair or your clothes.

Lauren:

Smoking should be outlawed, but the problem is enforcement and then what would you do to someone who continues to smoke and has health related complications? Do you not cover them? Same thing with drug addicts, which by the way, cig smoking is a drug addiction, not simply a bad habit.

Try as we might to legislate all the bad habits out of humans, it doesn't work. I think pot should be legalized, especially in light of all the BILLIONS that have been wasted on enforcement that hasn't worked. Ultimately, as much as I'd like cigs outlawed, it would fail to deter people from lighting up. I think controlling where one can light up and taxing the hell out of it will be much more effective.

For all the nit-wits posting on here about diabetics; not everyone is a diabetic as a result of being overweight. Type one diabeties is a condition some are born with, while others with type two diabetes developed it because of genetics. Some of you really need to get educated. Being overweight also doesn't have to be a result of food addiction and other health problems can come into play.

I'm a former smoker who puffed away for 26 years and quit cold turkey after trying all the bells and buzzers. I'm also not overweight, so I won't be breaking out any needles or test strips. Ultimately, there must be a balance between deterring bad behavior and protecting others from the harmful aspects of smoking. Each side must share the unpleasantness; smokers will have to accept that their habit is not going to be welcomed in most places by most people. Non-smokers are going to have to accept that a portion of our population is going to continue to smoke and we may have to smell it on their clothing or walk through a cloud of smoke in the areas where they are allowed to smoke. That's just the way it is...