Hawaii votes to ban cigarettes for those under 21

[Rockefeller GOP]

They should have raised it to 100.

Protect people from themselves!!  Yay!!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I understand wanting to stop kids from smoking, I get that. But the age of majority in this country is 18 for f**k's sake.

Yes. This.

Granted, we probably ought to raise the age of majority to at least 19, if not 21. After all, the rational used to ram thru the 26th amendment no longer applies since there is no draft. Not that I think it'll ever happen in my life.

... No? Considering that you can work and become part of "the system" at 16, if anything we should be moving the other way with the age of majority. Even if we don't go that path, it at least needs to stay at 18, since this is when most people graduate high school and go off to college and all that moving onto making your own choices. Oh yes, and the fact that pretty much literally every country in the world has it at 18.
[/quote]
The everyone else does it argument? Really?

The age of majority is supposed to reflect when most people are capable of being independent adults. That certainly does not include people still in high school, which is why I favor making it at least 19. For those younger than that who need independence sooner than the age of majority, that is what emancipation of minors is for.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'm not surprised.  Smoking is a huge problem here.

[Thunderbird is the word]

This kind of social control really infuriates me. The anti-smoking movement is the religious right of the Democratic Party. There's no rationale for keeping a perfectly legal product from adults who have been well educated in school.

[SWE]

I understand wanting to stop kids from smoking, I get that. But the age of majority in this country is 18 for f**k's sake.

Yes. This.

Granted, we probably ought to raise the age of majority to at least 19, if not 21. After all, the rational used to ram thru the 26th amendment no longer applies since there is no draft. Not that I think it'll ever happen in my life.

... No? Considering that you can work and become part of "the system" at 16, if anything we should be moving the other way with the age of majority. Even if we don't go that path, it at least needs to stay at 18, since this is when most people graduate high school and go off to college and all that moving onto making your own choices. Oh yes, and the fact that pretty much literally every country in the world has it at 18.

The everyone else does it argument? Really?

The age of majority is supposed to reflect when most people are capable of being independent adults. That certainly does not include people still in high school, which is why I favor making it at least 19. For those younger than that who need independence sooner than the age of majority, that is what emancipation of minors is for.
[/quote]
Why not? We consider high schoolers responsible enough to have jobs and drive, which seems to me like it requires a lot more responsibility than what's needed to sit at home and smoke a cigarette

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I understand wanting to stop kids from smoking, I get that. But the age of majority in this country is 18 for f**k's sake.

Yes. This.

Granted, we probably ought to raise the age of majority to at least 19, if not 21. After all, the rational used to ram thru the 26th amendment no longer applies since there is no draft. Not that I think it'll ever happen in my life.

... No? Considering that you can work and become part of "the system" at 16, if anything we should be moving the other way with the age of majority. Even if we don't go that path, it at least needs to stay at 18, since this is when most people graduate high school and go off to college and all that moving onto making your own choices. Oh yes, and the fact that pretty much literally every country in the world has it at 18.

The everyone else does it argument? Really?

The age of majority is supposed to reflect when most people are capable of being independent adults. That certainly does not include people still in high school, which is why I favor making it at least 19. For those younger than that who need independence sooner than the age of majority, that is what emancipation of minors is for.

Why not? We consider high schoolers responsible enough to have jobs and drive, which seems to me like it requires a lot more responsibility than what's needed to sit at home and smoke a cigarette
[/quote]
Arguably deciding to start smoking is a clear sign of immaturity and irresponsibility.

[SWE]

I understand wanting to stop kids from smoking, I get that. But the age of majority in this country is 18 for f**k's sake.

Yes. This.

Granted, we probably ought to raise the age of majority to at least 19, if not 21. After all, the rational used to ram thru the 26th amendment no longer applies since there is no draft. Not that I think it'll ever happen in my life.

... No? Considering that you can work and become part of "the system" at 16, if anything we should be moving the other way with the age of majority. Even if we don't go that path, it at least needs to stay at 18, since this is when most people graduate high school and go off to college and all that moving onto making your own choices. Oh yes, and the fact that pretty much literally every country in the world has it at 18.

The everyone else does it argument? Really?

The age of majority is supposed to reflect when most people are capable of being independent adults. That certainly does not include people still in high school, which is why I favor making it at least 19. For those younger than that who need independence sooner than the age of majority, that is what emancipation of minors is for.

Why not? We consider high schoolers responsible enough to have jobs and drive, which seems to me like it requires a lot more responsibility than what's needed to sit at home and smoke a cigarette

Arguably deciding to start smoking is a clear sign of immaturity and irresponsibility.
[/quote]
That doesn't address my point

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. This.

Granted, we probably ought to raise the age of majority to at least 19, if not 21. After all, the rational used to ram thru the 26th amendment no longer applies since there is no draft. Not that I think it'll ever happen in my life.

... No? Considering that you can work and become part of "the system" at 16, if anything we should be moving the other way with the age of majority. Even if we don't go that path, it at least needs to stay at 18, since this is when most people graduate high school and go off to college and all that moving onto making your own choices. Oh yes, and the fact that pretty much literally every country in the world has it at 18.

The everyone else does it argument? Really?

The age of majority is supposed to reflect when most people are capable of being independent adults. That certainly does not include people still in high school, which is why I favor making it at least 19. For those younger than that who need independence sooner than the age of majority, that is what emancipation of minors is for.

Why not? We consider high schoolers responsible enough to have jobs and drive, which seems to me like it requires a lot more responsibility than what's needed to sit at home and smoke a cigarette

Arguably deciding to start smoking is a clear sign of immaturity and irresponsibility.
[/quote]
That doesn't address my point
[/quote]
Yes it does.  Your point is that because people are mature enough to be entrusted with some responsibilities, it means they should be trusted with all responsibilities.  I disagreed, using the decision to start smoking as an example of why people that age should be fully entrusted.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This kind of social control really infuriates me. The anti-smoking movement is the religious right of the Democratic Party. There's no rationale for keeping a perfectly legal product from adults who have been well educated in school.

Second hand smoke.

[Famous Mortimer]

Anti-Smoking is lot like the religious right for Democrats.

The Republican rank and file actually agree with the Republicans on a lot of religious right issues.

Rank and file Democrats don't care about the issue of smoking, the leadership only takes the position they do because of trial lawyers.

[Joe Republic]

Anti-Smoking is lot like the religious right for Democrats.

The Republican rank and file actually agree with the Republicans on a lot of religious right issues.

Rank and file Democrats don't care about the issue of smoking, the leadership only takes the position they do because of trial lawyers.

... What?

[© tweed]

I'm not surprised.  Smoking is a huge problem here.

not particularly

[© tweed]

there seems to be a fallacy of individualism in this thread.  the fact that the poor smoke at a higher rate than the rest of the population cannot be reduced to the sum total of individual choices made by individual poor and working poor.  it's imbued in the culture someway/somehow.  

the tobacco Execs are not ignorant of this, and target them: blacks have long been targeted with menthols, particularly Kool and Newport.  I'd also argue that the Marlboro cult of cowboy-masculinity has more of an effect on the rural white poor than on the rest of us.

[AggregateDemand]

there seems to be a fallacy of individualism in this thread.  the fact that the poor smoke at a higher rate than the rest of the population cannot be reduced to the sum total of individual choices made by individual poor and working poor.  it's imbued in the culture someway/somehow.  

the tobacco Execs are not ignorant of this, and target them: blacks have long been targeted with menthols, particularly Kool and Newport.  I'd also argue that the Marlboro cult of cowboy-masculinity has more of an effect on the rural white poor than on the rest of us.

Clearly, turning the poor into criminals is an excellent solution to corporate abuse.

[© tweed]

there seems to be a fallacy of individualism in this thread.  the fact that the poor smoke at a higher rate than the rest of the population cannot be reduced to the sum total of individual choices made by individual poor and working poor.  it's imbued in the culture someway/somehow.   

the tobacco Execs are not ignorant of this, and target them: blacks have long been targeted with menthols, particularly Kool and Newport.  I'd also argue that the Marlboro cult of cowboy-masculinity has more of an effect on the rural white poor than on the rest of us.

Clearly, turning the poor into criminals is an excellent solution to corporate abuse.

it is, and has a long history.  it dates back to British vagrancy acts way back of the 1500s, maybe before.  Keynes proved that capitalism does not provide for full employment; one of the places where the unneeded people end up is in prison.

[AggregateDemand]

it is, and has a long history.  it dates back to British vagrancy acts way back of the 1500s, maybe before.  Keynes proved that capitalism does not provide for full employment; one of the places where the unneeded people end up is in prison.

Even FDR's CCC is less depressing and fatalistic than that

[© tweed]

it is, and has a long history.  it dates back to British vagrancy acts way back of the 1500s, maybe before.  Keynes proved that capitalism does not provide for full employment; one of the places where the unneeded people end up is in prison.

Even FDR's CCC is less depressing and fatalistic than that

there you go, here's how people come around.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'm not surprised.  Smoking is a huge problem here.

not particularly

Oahu is the 2nd most densely populated island in the country after Manhattan.  There's always some dumba$$ smoking right in your face and forcing you to inhale his/her poison.  It's a much bigger problem than statistics would make you think it is.

[justfollowingtheelections]

This kind of social control really infuriates me. The anti-smoking movement is the religious right of the Democratic Party. There's no rationale for keeping a perfectly legal product from adults who have been well educated in school.

Second hand smoke.

Exactly.

[Beet]

This kind of social control really infuriates me. The anti-smoking movement is the religious right of the Democratic Party. There's no rationale for keeping a perfectly legal product from adults who have been well educated in school.

Second hand smoke.

Exactly.

That doesn't explain bans like this one.

[Ebowed]

This kind of social control really infuriates me. The anti-smoking movement is the religious right of the Democratic Party. There's no rationale for keeping a perfectly legal product from adults who have been well educated in school.

Second hand smoke.

Exactly.

That doesn't explain bans like this one.

Well, here's the underlying assumption:  If it's illegal to buy cigarettes until you're 21, it can be harder to get them consistently and become addicted.  Since most people start smoking when they're young, if less young people have legal access to cigarettes, that (hopefully) results in less long-term smokers in the general public.  Obviously lots of people are going to be able to get around it.  It's a first step in changing the culture towards smoking.

It doesn't work for alcohol because tobacco is now near-universally condemned as unhealthy and potentially life-threatening whereas alcohol is not.

[Oakvale]

TNF and Matt are correct here. This is just the latest sad event in the long war on the working class waged by middle class nanny statists.