California raises smoking age to 21

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"Freedom" is a nebulous concept anyway. I'm not a 19th century Liberal, why I should hold the theory of 'negative liberties' with anything less than withering contempt?

maybe because you wouldn't like to be arrested?  or be prevented from your daily activities because someone in government feels like restricting you?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Good. Hopefully this means more 18-20 year olds will illegally do cool and fun drugs like tobacco and marijuana instead, and not this useless, utterly disgusting FILTH that they only do because it's legal. Break the law with fun stuff, not this garbage that does NOTHING positive.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Seriously this couldn't break down any simpler:

Good:


Good:


Utterly finksing disgusting worthless garbage:

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

The biggest question is what does Jerry Brown's opinion on this.

[Sbane]

Good. Hopefully this means more 18-20 year olds will illegally do cool and fun drugs like tobacco and marijuana instead, and not this useless, utterly disgusting FILTH that they only do because it's legal. Break the law with fun stuff, not this garbage that does NOTHING positive.

If anything this will make smoking cigarettes cooler because it will be illegal. Absolutely idiotic.

[YaBoyNY]

Horrible news from a horrible state. Enjoy the drought, asshats.

Go  yourself. This is a misguided policy, but not one that should incur suffering on the state.

Wrong. It's a man-made drought because of our Democrat policies. Voters are reaping what they've sewn in both regards. 

The evil big government liberals and Democrats are controlling the weather now too!

And they're directing that power at a Democratic state because they're mean, evil, big government liberals!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Horrible news from a horrible state. Enjoy the drought, asshats.

Go  yourself. This is a misguided policy, but not one that should incur suffering on the state.

Wrong. It's a man-made drought because of our Democrat policies. Voters are reaping what they've sewn in both regards. 

i agree. the democrats are far too soft on corporations like nestlé, which is continuing to bottle and sell californian water despite the drought. not sure why you seem to think the republicans would be at all better though?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not a person who views individual freedom as a quaint little outdated concept, so I think this is stupid. This is another example of why I find myself increasingly at odds with modern American "liberals." It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it comes from California.

also this forum is obsessed with drinking/smoking ages.

This is such a strawman that reminds me of how people acted like Afleitch and others were "obsessed" with circumcision as a political issue. Very few people are "obsessed" with the drinking/smoking age laws, it's just that they get practically no pushback in modern American political discourse and the rationale behind them being where they are has always been BS. Particularly since now there are likely hundreds of thousands of 18-20 year olds that have been smoking for a long time now that could soon get a heretofore legal and largely accepted activity outright criminalized. Obviously doesn't affect me, but I feel bad for them. This whole thing is stupid and misguided, and I would've expected it from Republicans first.

I can't imagine how anyone looked at the drinking age being 21 and thought "that's been a smashing success that totally exists for sensible reasons and doesn't at all waste our time; let's apply it to something else now too!" Meanwhile the rest of the world with a sensible drinking age laughs at us even more.

[free my dawg]

Disgusting. Hopefully when Newsom becomes governor we can actually have a somewhat sane drug policy.

[free my dawg]

The creeping infantilization of American adults continues.

Exactly. Sh*t like this is why I left the Democratic Party.

[DrScholl]

And just an FYI, there were Republicans that voted in favor of this bill, so it's not like this was really a party line vote.

[King]

Over 21 so don't care.

[muon2]

Wonderful news! The freedom of tobacco companies to kill people is not a freedom that is at all worth protecting.

If a Republican legislature and governor supported this, you'd accuse them of getting into people's personal lives.

Do you have any ideology or conviction outside of thinking Republicans are evil and icky??  It's getting old.

You are proposing a hypothetical that isn't possible. Republicans would never restrict cash flush special interests from ruining American lives for profit.

Unless that interest is the trial lawyers.

[Lief 🗽]

Wonderful news! The freedom of tobacco companies to kill people is not a freedom that is at all worth protecting.

If a Republican legislature and governor supported this, you'd accuse them of getting into people's personal lives.

Lol no. Please don't talk about things you have no idea about.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Age of majority is 18. Period. Full stop.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Seriously why would anyone smoke tobacco anyway? It's finksing disgusting and does NOTHING cool.

Why not smoke this instead?

[Beet]

Yeah, the logic of banning something just because it's unhealthy is pretty much the definition of the nanny state.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, the logic of banning something just because it's unhealthy is pretty much the definition of the nanny state.

Time to abolish the FDA then I guess. Wouldn't want to get in the way of people's freedoms!

[Beet]

Yeah, the logic of banning something just because it's unhealthy is pretty much the definition of the nanny state.

Time to abolish the FDA then I guess. Wouldn't want to get in the way of people's freedoms!

There's a wide gap between 'We should never ban anything on the basis of health' and 'If X can be shown to be unhealthy, it is subject to a ban'.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, the logic of banning something just because it's unhealthy is pretty much the definition of the nanny state.

Time to abolish the FDA then I guess. Wouldn't want to get in the way of people's freedoms!

Do you have any constructive opinions at all or are all of your posts just strawman trolling?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not a person who views individual freedom as a quaint little outdated concept, so I think this is stupid. This is another example of why I find myself increasingly at odds with modern American "liberals." It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it comes from California.

also this forum is obsessed with drinking/smoking ages.

This is such a strawman that reminds me of how people acted like Afleitch and others were "obsessed" with circumcision as a political issue. Very few people are "obsessed" with the drinking/smoking age laws, it's just that they get practically no pushback in modern American political discourse and the rationale behind them being where they are has always been BS. Particularly since now there are likely hundreds of thousands of 18-20 year olds that have been smoking for a long time now that could soon get a heretofore legal and largely accepted activity outright criminalized. Obviously doesn't affect me, but I feel bad for them. This whole thing is stupid and misguided, and I would've expected it from Republicans first.

I can't imagine how anyone looked at the drinking age being 21 and thought "that's been a smashing success that totally exists for sensible reasons and doesn't at all waste our time; let's apply it to something else now too!" Meanwhile the rest of the world with a sensible drinking age laughs at us even more.

Although he expressed his opinions in a fairly stupid way, BRTD had a salient point on the difference between tobacco and "fun" drugs. Tobacco does not change one's behaviour in any manner. It does not increase sociability or anything. It's basically the equivalent of Farmville - something that is done just for the sake of it. It was foisted, largely on the working classes by the tobacco industry, and we still live with the unpleasant lingering effects today. I certainly would rather tobacco regulation would hit the root cause (preventing the habit being taken up) than the ever increasing tobacco taxes that so many budgets rely on nowadays.

Perhaps I was harsh to describe the 'Liberty' argument as old fashioned, but it does seem a fairly myopic way of looking at governmental legislation.

[The Dowager Mod]

Wonderful news! The freedom of tobacco companies to kill people is not a freedom that is at all worth protecting.

If a Republican legislature and governor supported this, you'd accuse them of getting into people's personal lives.

Do you have any ideology or conviction outside of thinking Republicans are evil and icky??  It's getting old.

Republicans wouldn't raise the smoking age. They'd just enact regulations to shut down 90% of the tobacco shops, make you wait 3 days to buy cigarettes and then have to drive two hours one way to buy them, but only after getting parental consent and filing an affidavit with the court.

Don't forget the mandatory ultrasound.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm as anti-smoking as it gets, bit this is dumb.

No minimum age should exists above 18.

[DrScholl]

I think it would have been more effective to pass a law that bans people from suing tobacco companies for getting lung cancer, even though said people knew that smoking was unhealthy.

In addition to that, a law that bars smokers from qualifying for state funded health benefits would have been a good choice as well.

[TDAS04]

I've never used tobacco, never plan to, but raising the smoking age to 21 is stupid.