what pains me is that tobacco is so heavily targeted... and as you stated, its LEGAL.

i'd venture to guess that the same sentiment is what inspired dk to start this off, and GH's initial comment, but now i'm attempting to be a mind reader, so...

Most municipalities in the US have enacted some combination of these bans. Personally, I love all of them, though I may quibble philosophically on a few.

Perhaps this has little or nothing to do with getting people to quit smoking and rather more to do with getting people elected or into a position where they can market themselves over "what they did to prevent the children from smoking" ?

Sort of like the rest of the drug "war"

Yes really. Much like using a cell phone while in your car is illegal in Australia soon smoking in your car will be illegal in Australia and I think it's a good thing. It removes another potential distraction from drivers and it stops parents from smoking in confined spaces with children present.

and it makes smokers walk or ride bikes, which is good for them!! YAY!

I think these are coming to an end soon.

So maybe we should also remove radios from cars as a potential distraction. I'd have no problem with making it illegal to smoke with children in your car, but I just don't like these broad swipes at behavior that's still legal.

Then don't move to Australia.

Um, ok.

I haven't come across a smoking ban I didn't like. Obviously they aren't popular with the smokers, obviously they feel a little big brother, but I think it's the right thing.

Even as a smoker I can see why they're passed and why people like them, but I still don't think they're always that right of a move based on principle alone.

If you want to ban specific instances of smoking because of a very real health risk it poses to people around you, I can see that. But the libertarian in me really has a problem with the government telling me what I can do to myself.

If you weren't passing on the cost to people around you from the decision to smoke, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Of course, this will turn into a very cyclical conversation that includes obesity and whatever else in 3, 2, ....

Pretty much.

Increasing cigarette taxes seems like a better than banning smoking for dealing with healthcare externalities.

Timely news article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/tobacco-ads-to-be-banned-on-net/story-fn3dxity-1226080000342

moar pictures of throat tumors, plz.

A district judge agrees with you.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-grap ... 48328.html

Judge blocks graphic images on cigarette packages
By NEDRA PICKLER - Associated Press | AP – 4 mins 1 sec ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday blocked a federal requirement that would have begun forcing tobacco companies next year to put graphic images including dead and diseased smokers on their cigarette packages.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that it's likely the cigarette makers will succeed in a lawsuit to block the requirement. He stopped the requirement until the lawsuit is resolved, which could take years.

Leon found the nine graphic images approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June go beyond conveying the facts about the health risks of smoking or go beyond that into advocacy — a critical distinction in a case over free speech.

The packaging would have included color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss; a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs; a diseased mouth afflicted with what appears to be cancerous lesions; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a woman weeping; a premature baby in an incubator; and a man wearing a T-shirt that features a "No Smoking" symbol and the words "I Quit"

"It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start smoking — an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information," Leon wrote in his 29-page opinion. He pointed out that at least some were altered photographs to evoke emotion.

The judge also pointed out the size of the labels suggests they are unconstitutional — the FDA requirement said the labels were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back and include a number for a stop-smoking hotline. The labels were to constitute 20 percent of cigarette advertising, and marketers were to rotate use of the images. Leon said the labels would amount to a "mini-billboard" for the agency's "obvious anti-smoking agenda."

The Justice Department argued that the images, coupled with written warnings, were designed to communicate the dangers to youngsters and adults. The FDA declined to comment on the judge's ruling.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, urged the Obama administration to appeal the ruling that he said "is wrong on the science and wrong on the law." He said a delay would only serve the financial interests of tobacco companies that spend billions to downplay the health risks of smoking and glamorize tobacco use.

"Studies around the world and evidence presented to the FDA have repeatedly shown that large, graphic warnings, like those adopted by the FDA, are most effective at informing consumers about the health risks of smoking, discouraging children and other nonsmokers from starting to smoke, and motivating smokers to quit," Myers said in a statement. "Because of that evidence, at least 43 other countries now require large, graphic cigarette warnings."

Congress instructed the FDA to require the labels, following the lead of the Canadian regulations that require similarly graphic images on cigarette packs. The cigarette makers say their products have had Surgeon General warnings for more than 45 years, but that they never filed a legal challenge against them until these images were approved.

Tobacco companies are increasingly relying on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. It's one of few advertising levers left to them after the government curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV, and the graphic labels could cost them millions in lost sales and increased packaging costs.

The cigarette makers that sued the FDA are R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. of Winston-Salem, N.C., Lorillard Tobacco Co. of Greensboro, N.C., Commonwealth Brands Inc. of Bowling Green, Ky., Liggett Group of Mebane, N.C., and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. of Santa Fe, N.M.

In your face space coyote!

They should just take pictures of people smoking in the bars of rural America and use those instead of the more graphic ones.

Hey kids, want to look cool like these ancient hippies and meth addicts? Smoke!

Cancelling Mad Men would probably do more damage than any of these warnings. Pretty sure even the surgeon general wants to smoke after watching that show.