nytraveler

Although the city's efforts to reduce smoking have had a significant impact there are still a lot of people smoking, especially young people. To help prevent this the city is about to pass a law preventing sale of cigarettes to anyone under 21, versus the current 18. This will include both regular and electronic ones. If they will amp up enforcement I don't know. (Larger retailers are very strict but local stores often are not.)

Also, retailers will not be allowed to offer discounts or coupons in any form on cigarettes.

One can only hope it will prevent more young people from being hooked.

Lateagain

Strange country where one has the 'right to bear arms' but not a cigarette. never heard of a high school massacre with a pack of fags!

nytraveler

Well I agree - that we should get rid of all the guns as well. (People here won't argue almost all in NYC are for the strictest gun control we can get.)

But the cost of healthcare for people that smoke is astronomical and NYC is one of the few places with an extensive city hospital system that treats all comers. So the idea is to 1) reduce the number of smokers, exp young smokers and 2) put huge taxes on each pack of cig - I think they're about $12 a pack now - to pay for treating all of those patients with lung cancer and emphysemsa

Lateagain

Is there 'healthcare' in the USA! Sorry, couldn't resist that. Yes, smoking is a killer but only oneself. I expect the same costs for treating the results of smoking is on a par to treating the effects of obesity and alcoholism.

panecott

>>> Yes, smoking is a killer but only oneself. >>>

Huh? Are you saying that smokers only hurt themselves? Ever hear of second hand smoke?

Lateagain

Yes, ever hear of second hand car exhaust fumes! If the second hand smoke lobby want to believe it harms people, how come the people from the forties, fifties, sixties,, who didn't smoke, when nearly everyone smoked, aren't all in hospital. Don't get me wrong, smoking is hateful, I am a non smoker but I am not a fascist.

PaulRabe

> how come the people from the forties, fifties, sixties,,
> who didn't smoke, when nearly everyone smoked,
> aren't all in hospital

Because the causal relation between second-hand smoke and premature death is not 100%. Even FIRST-hand smoke has only (about) a 50% correlation with early death -- in other words, about half of all smokers do not die earlier than would be expected.

I hope you're not one of these idiots who claims, "If there isn't a 100% correlation between an activity and health problems, then there MUST be a 0% correlation." Reality doesn't work like that. And, unfortunately, we live in a world of reality, not ideology.

Second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease by 25-30%, and the risk of lung cancer by 20-30%
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet6.html
This leads to an estimated 50,000 deaths each year in the U.S.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessati...condhand-smoke

Let's cut this number by a factor of 100, such that only 500 deaths result from second-hand smoke each year. That means second hand smoke kills more Americans each decade than Al-Qaeda did in all their terror attacks combined. If saving lives is important, then ending second hand smoke would be more effective than ending Al-Qaeda.

panecott

What PaulRabe said.

nytraveler

yes, obesity and alcoholism are also dangerous - but the are only phyically affecting the patient.

And the city is trying to work on those issues too - with healthier foods provided for school lunches, soda machines removed from schools and the proposed (it will come back) ban on large size sugar drinks.