As thoroughly awful as everyone knows cigarettes to be— still the No. 1 cause of premature death in this country— public officials walk a blurry line when they try to reduce the terrible toll caused by smoking. 

High tobacco taxes, critics say, unfairly punishes smokers, who are disproportionately low income. Banning advertising of a legal product raises free-speech issues and can tobacco companies really be forced to put large graphic warnings on their own products to discourage customers from buying them? Do any of these ideas yield the results promised? Does this type of oversight really change people’s behaviors?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was successful in getting trans-fats removed from restaurant menus and last year proposed doing away with large soda purchases to protect citizens from excessive sugar intake, thus causing an alarming obesity rate in the city. However noble the goals of controlling the bad habits of others, these laws are grossly overreaching and should be defeated at every turn.

Now, the New York City Council, backed by Mayor Bloomberg, is considering another tactic: making it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to buy cigarettes. Currently, anyone 18 or over can buy a pack. The new proposal would, at least theoretically, make cigarettes difficult to obtain by those who are most vulnerable to peer pressure and tobacco marketing. Prevention makes sense because smoking is so addictive that more than 85 percent of those who try to quit relapse.

Yet, the good intentions are outweighed by the proposal's problems. For one thing, it's practically doomed to have minimal effect. A 20-minute bus ride will transport any Bronx resident to neighboring Yonkers, where 18-year-olds would still be allowed to buy as many cartons as they wanted. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, nearly 90 percent of smokers take up the habit before the age of 18, apparently unfazed by the existing rules barring stores from selling to them.

Beyond the practical considerations, government leaders should think twice about taking away the right of adults to buy a legal, but dangerous products like cigarettes, which, includes 18-year-olds who are adults who are allowed to sign legally binding contracts, to vote, to go to war and to seek and obtain a doctor's prescription for Oxycotin. True, the legal drinking age is 21 in every state but that is justified by the fact that an 18-year-old's dumb decision to drink may harm others. A decision to smoke harms only the smoker.

More than 1,200 people die from smoking-related diseases each day in this country. By all means, there should be more education about the dangers of smoking, more bans on where people may smoke, more advertising to counter the tobacco industry's marketing. At the end of the day this proposal is less about smoking and more about individual freedoms. Adults should retain the right to make most decisions that affect only themselves— even very bad decisions!

The administration of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has made a good decision in eliminating thousands of speeding tickets issued from the city’s faulty electronic cameras.

It almost seemed impossible to believe— literally thousands of complaints from city residents about unjustified ticketing— everyone disputes their speeding habits, but many of those who received tickets for speeding on city streets and even running red lights may have been telling the truth. The tickets appear to have been issued in error and completely unjustified. 

However, the larger question was how would the city be able to wade through thousands of tickets to make the tough call about which tickets were legitimate and which should be mitigated. The process has already cost Baltimore millions of dollars and has put the credibility of the ticketing vendor in serious doubt.

A clean slate with a company with a proven track record is what’s needed in this situation and city transportation officials have taken a commendable and fair first step.

In the wake of two bomb blasts in Boston near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday that killed three, including an eight-year-old boy, and injured more than 175, our thoughts turn to our fellow Americans, stunned and frightened, and to what we can do for them.

Many of us can’t help thinking back to September 11, 2001, and the terrorist attacks that changed everything for us, forever. Many of the same feelings of confusion, anger, sorrow and fear arose again. Many folks from our area were in that marathon. Terror hit home, again.

Immediately following the Boston attack, we wondered who was responsible. Some immediately accused, or suggested their favorite political or cultural scapegoats. It’s only natural to have such a visceral reaction, but it’s not a reaction that should be acted on. By late Tuesday afternoon, no information was available about the perpetrators or their motives. A rush to judgment would not do us credit.

Many also immediately asked, “How can I help?” Heroes were on the scene, running toward the blasts, rather than running from them. Raw video footage has shown us men in police uniforms and military uniforms, and civilians, including marathon runners, all focused on clearing debris and reaching the injured. Some Bostonians opened their homes and gave food to the marathon runners whose departure from Boston was delayed. So many donations of blood were made that the Red Cross had more than enough. Already people around the country, including here in Baltimore, are committing themselves publicly to running the Boston Marathon next year in a show of support.

We can’t ignore the weight of the crime. President Obama spoke for all of us when he vowed that those responsible for the attack will “feel the full weight of justice” for this act of terror.

When tragedy strikes somewhere in our country or someone or a group comes against our values and against the principles we hold dear— we cease to be left or right, Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives or liberals, and we stand tall together as one undivided nation— as Americans.

The United States Senate had the opportunity this week to make a common sense decision about gun control. While there is always the opportunity to overreach, mandatory background checks are reasonable and will help to keep guns out of the hands of some criminals. However, to expect our elected officials to act out of reason as opposed to politics may have been too much to expect.

Kudos to the four Republican Senators Collins (Maine), Kirk (Illinois), McCain (Arizona) and Toomey (Pennsylvania) for voting for the now defeated background check amendment despite the promises of retribution by the right wing of their party. Likewise, with their eye toward re-election in conservative-leaning states, four Democrats voted against the measure— Begich (Alaska), Pryor (Arkansas), Baucus (Montana) and Heitkamp (North Dakota), ironically, President Obama lost by huge margins in his 2012 re-election in all four states.

Certainly people are expected to vote their conscience and their core values, but the debate around access to assault weapons, 100-round bullet magazines and background screenings has been particularly disingenuous with the NRA and Tea Party clearly out of line with the mainstream of American voters.

The president reacted with expected anger over the senate vote but needs to moderate his tone and take the opportunity to lead the American people in a movement to achieve rationale consensus about guns if he is to be ultimately successful.