. . . in the name of making people absorb the cost of their own risks.

Yes, I agree totaly. Let people absorb the costs of the own risks.

Get government the hell out of the healthcare business.

“Thousands of New Yorkers die each year of tobacco-related causes”

How many New Yorkers will die in the future? All of them. Who gives these little Napoleons the right to try to decide who dies and from what?

Jan. 14, 2008 — The death rate in New York City reached an all-time low in 2006, the Health Department reported today, as the number of deaths fell to 55,391 — down from 57,068 in 2005 and 60,218 in 2001. Mortality declined in eight leading categories, including diabetes, HIV, chronic lung disease and kidney failure. The only leading killer that increased significantly was substance use (up 8%). Heart disease and cancer remained the city’s biggest killers, claiming 21,844 lives and 13,116 lives, respectively. The figures come from the latest Annual Summary of Vital Statistics, the definitive registry of births and deaths in New York City.

50,852 New Yorkers died in 2010 of various causes. See chart here.

New Yorkers: are you really this immature?

CW on March 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Immature? I don’t think you know what that word means. New Yorkers are downright stupid. And in making that statement I include my own brother. Bloomberg could rape a child on local access television and my brother would vote for him so long as he supported my brother’s “issues” which are essentially a social welfare state where people are jailed for having sugar instead of pot, sodas are as small as the dwarf-mayor, and trans-fats trumps transportation issues. My brother and I are not close.

and it’s paranoid idiots like you who can’t open your eyes and see that none of those countries in the western world that have these same restrictions are dictatorships.

See black helicopters much? (What out, they’re coming to get you.)

keep the change on March 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Yeah they are dictatorships. Ask Mark Steyn about how free Canada is, numbnuts.

A charge of nanny statism only comes into play if the government bans you from having those things.

Umm…no. Telling business owners they have to hide their product “for the children” is without a doubt nanny statism. And every one of those “free” countries you listed are big government nanny states.

If we are going to use the term nanny state, let’s use it correctly.

keep the change

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Very little man running big city.

Sherman1864 on March 18, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Couldn’t it be argued that short people are a detriment to society? I mean, they can’t reach stuff on the top shelf. They get underfoot on the subway. They make lousy bodyguards. Their use on March 17th and around Christmas is limited.

Isn’t it time to ban short people like Bloomberg?

Dear New Yorkers, I’m afraid your little king has gone quite mad.

Wallythedog on March 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Wait until Bloomberg finds out they’ve been painting the roses red.

On second thought….that might not be so bad.

I’d rather hammer my scrotum wafer thin with a steak tenderizer and then staple it to the workbench.

CurtZHP on March 18, 2013 at 3:39 PM

.
Have fun explaining that one to the wife.

We have this law here in BC, Canada. It actually has proven to be an effective deterrent, with smoking rates declining from appx. 12% before the law was enacted to about 9.5%, where it is now

starsfaninvan on March 18, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I’m not buying that statistic by itself. Between massive taxation, more emphasis on wellness, and other factors; smoking rates are in general decline. Are you honestly suggesting a 2.5% decrease in smokers was due entirely to hiding the smokes?

and it’s paranoid idiots like you who can’t open your eyes and see that none of those countries in the western world that have these same restrictions are dictatorships.

See black helicopters much? (What out, they’re coming to get you.)

keep the change on March 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM

And none of them are Constitutional Republics that believe people are smart enough to govern themselves responsibly. But then again, there’s that liberal rash that spreads irresponsibility…

Wow. Shocking. I mean, this is crazy. Hiding cigarettes from view. You mean, like in those fascist, oppressive countries like, oh, say . . . Canada? And those other horrible places to live such as . . . Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Thailand, Finland, Australia and New Zealand. I guess Bloomberg must call the shots in all those places as well.

About time you get your guns out and save the Republic! Because if the founding fathers intended anything, it was to be free to openly view cigarette packages at convenience stores.

keep the change on March 18, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Are cigarettes legal or not? I understand that you liberals aren’t smart enough or willful enough to control your animal impulses, but that’s no reason to regulate the rest of us. (And no, I’m not a smoker.)