At 18, New Yorkers are old enough to fight in wars, to drive and to vote, but if the smoking restriction passed they would be prohibited from deciding whether to take the risk of smoking.
I recommend that they raise the age of fighting in wars to 25 or 28.
I find myself ambivalent about this. Cigarettes are ridiculously bad for people, and were there not a history of smoking, if someone were to introduce cigarettes now as a new product, they would quickly be made illegal once the health risks were understood. Just adding a local tax on cigarettes would probably decrease sales even more. But on the other hand, I don't think there necessarily needs to be any age limit on alcohol consumption.
This walks a fine line between telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies and forced health.
Unlike drinking large sodas (for example), smoking adversely impacts those around someone - not only their families and friends, but complete strangers who just happen to be hailing a cab at the same corner. Secondhand smoke poses a clear risk to passers-by, reducing the number of smokers would reduce the amount of smoke and thus the number of health complications that arise from it.
Very good point. I'm not condoning one side or the other. Personally, I fall into that category of those who are transitioning from occasional smoking to regular. But an extended lack of funds is leading to an end to my smoking. Regardless, in order for those who wish to smoke to continue, I think it'd be a good idea to create designated smoking areas all over the city as opposed to banning those 18-20. But, this does create a lot of effort many might not see a need for. Like I said, it's a fine line and I think I'm right in the middle.