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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

It's worth noting it appears the penalties apply to vendors and adults who give tobacco to minors, but penalties for users were removed from the final bill, which seems reasonable to me.  Vendors should be the primary target, not users.  The key is to make it require more hoops for someone to purchase tobacco, so it is discouraged before people get addicted.  Prohibition of sales to minors is not a total panacea, but I think it helps. 

http://www.530attorneys.com/new-california-tobacco-law/

My problem with punishing the minors themselves are:

1. It's punishing the victim.

2 It might discourage minors from seeking out resources to quit.

[darklordoftech]

Just give people a choice, you can smoke but you can't get any health insurance.

Don't health insurance companies already charge smokers more?

[darklordoftech]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_598b23b9e4b0449ed50734fd

[darklordoftech]

Why not be compassionate towards teenage smokers and drinkers like we are towards opiod addicts?

[darklordoftech]

It is a state issue.  Let them decide.

That's not an answer. You're dodging the question. I don't think most people here would disagree and would in fact extend the same protection to the drinking age. What do you think should be done with the smoking age, in your own state and perhaps in others?

As the OP of this thread, I consider Green Line's answer acceptable.

[darklordoftech]

Most of the arguments that I've seen for a smoking age of 21 ("healthcare costs", that people can't be trusted to obey no-smoking signs, "lost productivity") could also be used as arguments against legalizing marijuana.