Mr Milne's view was mirrored by some comments on our story. One said: "New Zealand is supposed to be a democracy but it is becoming a dictatorship."
Another asked what would be next in "a PC world gone mad".
Another said it was a case of double standards. Others asked what about alcohol.
In the case of alcohol, it is true that its carcinogenic dangers seem underplayed in the public health message compared to smoking. Sure, television adverts asked us to "internalise a really complicated situation" over drink-driving. There was the message to "ease up on the drink" from the memorable "Fall-Down-Kat," who made every woman make a mental note not to be that girl.
But the link between alcohol and cancer is much less publicised. There is minimal scaremongering in marketing of alcohol compared to marketing on cigarette labels. Consider that appealing bottle of pinot noir with the fancy name and design compared to the box of smokes decorated in black lungs and skulls.
The inference is that there is a public acceptance of responsible drinking, whereas no one accepts there can be responsible smoking.
As one poster on our website put it, smoking is a legalised method of killing yourself.
You could say the same about alcohol. Alcohol is classified by the World Health Organisation as a Group 1 carcinogen. In Britain, the public health service is reviewing its recommended drinking levels, because of the increasingly proven link between alcohol and cancer.
So both smoking and alcohol could be as bad as each other.
But the argument smokers make about choice and civil liberties does not wash when smoking not only harms the smoker but can harm those nearby, not just by the disgusting smell, but through the health effects of secondary or passive smoking.
It is true that a person's drinking could also harm others - if one was pregnant, or violent or driving. But if you are the average Joe enjoying a few beers in the sun outside a restaurant, the only harm you do to others is possibly inflicting them with your boring repetitive stories.
Smokers really do harm other people. For non-smokers it is horrible to be sitting on an outside table and get a whiff of a cigarette. Often the smells travel inside the restaurant. Even sitting next to smokers outside can make one's clothes stink of smoke.
Smell aside, breathing in someone else's smoke can kill you. According to research published on Smokefree New Zealand, second-hand smoke is poisonous and kills hundreds of New Zealanders per year. Some of the health effects for adults exposed to second-hand smoke are stroke, lung cancer, heart disease, and complications in pregnancy. Research shows children who are exposed to second-hand smoke have more hospital admissions compared with children who are not exposed, and second-hand smoke causes a range of negative health effects in children, including asthma and infections.
So for those smokers who roll out the human rights argument, it doesn't wash, given smokers are infringing on the human rights of others.
Labour leader Andrew Little said this week banning smoking outside bars, cafes and restaurants would be a step too far, saying that if people are able to lawfully buy tobacco products, they must be able to lawfully use them somewhere.
Somewhere? Where? Given the medical evidence, surely the ban outside restaurants does not go far enough and I would like to see smoking banned in all public places. Particularly outside workplaces, where groups of smokers may huddle in the rain like pariahs, yet their smells still waft through offices or on their clothes, causing non-smoking workers to be involuntarily put at risk.
So if smokers must light up, that place should be in their own homes only. Even then, non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home die younger compared with those who are not exposed according to Smokefree New Zealand. Research quoted on the Ministry of Health website says that children who have a parent who smokes are seven times more likely to become smokers themselves.
I hate smoking but this is not a hate on smokers. I sympathise with the grip of an addiction which makes them seemingly blind to the harm they are doing to themselves and others. Addiction to nicotine is the same as any other drug and blinds the addict in the same way. Only an addict would literally burn up their money on a pack of smokes worth more than $20. Only an addict would argue that continuing an addiction that could be killing them and others is part of their human rights.
Andrew Little said smoking was for some people "a part of life's little pleasures".
There is no pleasure in breathing in another person's smoke. There is no pleasure in smelling someone's Lynx body spray, body odour or farting.
But Lynx and farts are not going to kill you.
Councillor Steve Morris said in our report this week that he doesn't want to be a "killjoy".
Smokers kill all joy.
The government has a responsibility for the wellbeing of both smokers and non smokers alike. The World Health Organization recommends that the only form of adequate protection from second-hand smoke is to eliminate it completely with 100% smoke-free environments.
Smokers should be thankful for more obstacles put in the way of killing themselves - and others.
There is no joy, pleasure or freedom, if you are dead.
