Smoking age of 21?

[darklordoftech]

California, Hawaii, and New Jersey have banned sales of cigarettes to people under 21, and Hawaii and California also punish possession by people under 21. How do you feel about this?

[Santander]

Nowadays, young people tend to only smoke if they drink anyway, so why not?

[dead0man]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

[Goldwater]

Both the drinking and smoking age should be 18 (normal)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

California, Hawaii, and New Jersey have banned sales of cigarettes to people under 21, and Hawaii and California also punish possession by people under 21. How do you feel about this?

...

[RFayette]

I see no issue with a smoking age of 21.  Tobacco kills, and even if the reduction in juvenile consumption of tobacco is small because of the change, it is still worthwhile for that marginal effect.

[Santander]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

You can vote at 18, but the age of majority in some states is actually higher than 18.

Leave it to the states, imo. I personally wouldn't care if we abolished the smoking age. Yeah, the health consequences are terrible, but at least tobacco smoking doesn't cause brain damage or intoxication in youth like alcohol or marijuana can.

[Mr. Smith]

Perfect.

[darklordoftech]

My take: "Do as I say, not as I do" laws don't work. If you tell someone, "You can smoke when you reach a certain age," they'll say, "Why does it matter what age I smoke at? It doesn't become any safer as you get older." Also, the idea that smoking becomes safe at a certain age is the wrong message.

[darklordoftech]

California, Hawaii, and New Jersey have banned sales of cigarettes to people under 21, and Hawaii and California also punish possession by people under 21. How do you feel about this?

...

Not sure about the degree to which they enforce it, but there's laws on the books for it.

[politicallefty]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

That's been my view for as long as I've held political views. I don't think there should be any legal age against smoking or drinking. That's largely an issue of parental discipline. I think the purchase age should be 18 for both smoking and drinking. I think the main legal issues arise when you choose to engage in those activities in places where it should not be permitted. There should be strict laws against smoking in public places and near those places.

[Lachi]

If it was up to me, I'd ban those death sticks. But it is a good thing that some states are finally coming to their senses, and this is a good first step.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

^^^^
Nothing stopped 16 year old me from picking up the habit to begin with anyway.

[Indy Texas]

if the law says you're an adult at 18, then you should be able to do anything any other adult can do

[RINO Tom]

Both the drinking and smoking age should be 18 (normal)

Pretty much this, though I've grown fond of 19 as the best age for these things to at least try to keep them out of high schools.  In general, this nanny state puritan bullshlt never works and just curtails freedoms from people who are largely minding their own business.  I'm kind of mad at myself for even engaging in actual debate over this stuff, haha ... if some old, grumpy politician is trying to make it even harder to enjoy soft vices in the US of A, the only appropriate response should be " off."

[darklordoftech]

Both the drinking and smoking age should be 18 (normal)

Pretty much this, though I've grown fond of 19 as the best age for these things to at least try to keep them out of high schools.  In general, this nanny state puritan bullshlt never works and just curtails freedoms from people who are largely minding their own business.  I'm kind of mad at myself for even engaging in actual debate over this stuff, haha ... if some old, grumpy politician is trying to make it even harder to enjoy soft vices in the US of A, the only appropriate response should be " off."

I've never understood why America has the most intrusive nanny state of all while preaching "rugged individualism". In many of the "socialist" European countries, teenagers are allowed to move out of their parents' home long before they're 18. In America, you get demonized as a "runaway" when you do that, and then as soon you turn 18 your parents kick you out. There was a study that showe that prisoners and active-duty marines have more rights than the the average 17-year-old.

[SoLongAtlas]

I'm all for it. Old enough to fight is a cop out and have personally seen many a Sailor and Marine chain smoke at 18/19/20 (some said they started like at 14 or so), even in port and not deployed. It's an unhealthy lifestyle and many people in my family, with the exception of my siblings and I and my uncle's side who do not smoke, are chain smokers with all the typical consequences (COPD, hacking cough, urge to smoke every 10 mins or so, cardiovascular issues, etc.)

[RINO Tom]

I'm all for it. Old enough to fight is a cop out and have personally seen many a Sailor and Marine chain smoke at 18/19/20 (some said they started like at 14 or so), even in port and not deployed. It's an unhealthy lifestyle and many people in my family, with the exception of my siblings and I and my uncle's side who do not smoke, are chain smokers with all the typical consequences (COPD, hacking cough, urge to smoke every 10 mins or so, cardiovascular issues, etc.)

Forgive my harshness, but ... so.  what?  You make a lot of logical points, but those points would be better served in intimate conversations with people you know and care about being told that smoking is not a good decision.  The same is true for the relatives and friends of those 18/19/20 year olds telling them the same.  I HATE smoking, and I had three grandparents who smoked.  The smell makes me want to vomit as soon as I get a whiff.  However, this unrealistic and idealistic "save people from themselves" attitude has never worked, and it never will.  If people want to smoke a cigarette, knowing full-well the consequences, tough.

[The Mikado]

I think that there shouldn't be any age restrictions higher than the age of majority. Either move that to 21 or leave cigarettes at 18.

[darklordoftech]

Also worth noting that, as with alcohol, the main advantage of raising the age is that it keeps the substance out of high schools. The 19-20 year olds aren't really the direct targets, not that it's any consolation to someone facing charges.

The age was already 19 in New Jersey. I feel like they're just looking for excuses. Why not raise it to 23 to keep it out of colleges? Why not raise it to 27 to keep it out of graduate schools?

[Goldwater]

I'm all for it. Old enough to fight is a cop out and have personally seen many a Sailor and Marine chain smoke at 18/19/20 (some said they started like at 14 or so), even in port and not deployed. It's an unhealthy lifestyle and many people in my family, with the exception of my siblings and I and my uncle's side who do not smoke, are chain smokers with all the typical consequences (COPD, hacking cough, urge to smoke every 10 mins or so, cardiovascular issues, etc.)

Forgive my harshness, but ... so.  what?  You make a lot of logical points, but those points would be better served in intimate conversations with people you know and care about being told that smoking is not a good decision.  The same is true for the relatives and friends of those 18/19/20 year olds telling them the same.  I HATE smoking, and I had three grandparents who smoked.  The smell makes me want to vomit as soon as I get a whiff.  However, this unrealistic and idealistic "save people from themselves" attitude has never worked, and it never will.  If people want to smoke a cigarette, knowing full-well the consequences, tough.

Honestly, the fact that they are already smoking anyway just kind of proves how dumb and useless these kind of laws are.

[NOVA Green]

Absolutely Not....

Smoking and drinking should be legal at the age of 18, and if anything driving should be illegal for anyone under the age of 18, with the possible exception of having an adult >21 in the vehicle.

[Gay Republican]

Absolutely Not....

Smoking and drinking should be legal at the age of 18, and if anything driving should be illegal for anyone under the age of 18, with the possible exception of having an adult >21 in the vehicle.

Couldn't have said it better than Ole Barry.

It is kind of amazing how disturbingly paternalistic both forces on the left and the right are on matters that should be left to an individual's best judgment.  Of course only those with the loudest mouths and the biggest pocketbooks get their opinions heard which is why privileged s who live in gated communities in Greenwich are more likely to have an influence on public policy than say a middle class barkeep or policeman in Attleboro.

Frankly as a gay man who loves to smoke and drink and 420 I find the exercise of moral judgments by both religious fruitcake conservatives and nanny state liberals to be quite frustrating.  I shouldn't have to live in a country where virtually every aspect of my personal life ends up subject to moral regulation because some rich prick who has friends in a freaking Roman Classical built building in DC doesn't like it.

Here's an idea folks: how about going after people who are doing things that are actually evil?  Like molesting kids, abusing wives, or killing a bunch of people inside a McDonald's for the Hell of it?

Rant over.

[darklordoftech]

Absolutely Not....

Smoking and drinking should be legal at the age of 18, and if anything driving should be illegal for anyone under the age of 18, with the possible exception of having an adult >21 in the vehicle.

Couldn't have said it better than Ole Barry.

It is kind of amazing how disturbingly paternalistic both forces on the left and the right are on matters that should be left to an individual's best judgment.  Of course only those with the loudest mouths and the biggest pocketbooks get their opinions heard which is why privileged s who live in gated communities in Greenwich are more likely to have an influence on public policy than say a middle class barkeep or policeman in Attleboro.

Frankly as a gay man who loves to smoke and drink and 420 I find the exercise of moral judgments by both religious fruitcake conservatives and nanny state liberals to be quite frustrating.  I shouldn't have to live in a country where virtually every aspect of my personal life ends up subject to moral regulation because some rich prick who has friends in a freaking Roman Classical built building in DC doesn't like it.

Here's an idea folks: how about going after people who are doing things that are actually evil?  Like molesting kids, abusing wives, or killing a bunch of people inside a McDonald's for the Hell of it?

Rant over.

Interestingly, I find that nanny state liberals are more puritanical than religious conservatives. Who founded and supported MADD? Nanny state liberals. Who freaks out about nudity in media? Nanny state liberals. While it's religious conservatives who think that sexually active teenagers should be denied contraception and abortions, it's nanny state liberals who want to put them on the sex offender registry.