News, Hawaii Bill Would Raise Legal Smoking Age by ... Well, a Lot (sales, insurance)

[Mikala43]

It won't pass, and if it did, I don't think it would hold up in courts.

You can't mail them legally, so I think we would see an increase in the illegal market, plus the revenue drop.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

I don't think it would hold up in courts.

On what grounds?

There is clear precedent States can regulate tobacco and alcohol - for instance, it wasn't until 1966 Mississippi ended prohibition.

Currently, you have to be 21 to smoke - why not 25? 30? etc.....

There is no Federal right to smoke.

Regardless, it won't pass.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

On what grounds?

There is clear precedent States can regulate tobacco and alcohol - for instance, it wasn't until 1966 Mississippi ended prohibition.

Currently, you have to be 21 to smoke - why not 25? 30? etc.....

There is no Federal right to smoke.

Regardless, it won't pass.

There is no Federal law AGAINST being able to smoke. Once you get past the age of majority (18 and 21) you are infringing on personal rights.

You have rights to begin with, laws remove rights, not the other way around.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

There is no Federal law AGAINST being able to smoke. Once you get past the age of majority (18 and 21) you are infringing on personal rights.

You have rights to begin with, laws remove rights, not the other way around.

Then why are there many dry counties in the US (more than 200)? No Federal law against drinking.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by Open-D

strawman notwithstanding.

"Tentacles entangling you" isn't gloom and doom? LOL.

Black market marijuana hasn't ruined the state, a plant that's a lot easier to grow locally than tobacco.

I think it's worth a try, but change the age to 85.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Then why are there many dry counties in the US (more than 200)? No Federal law against drinking.

I think there is a difference to "dry areas" of any sort when you can go a few miles and get what you want.

Big difference between that and having your whole population a captive audience on an island.

[whtviper1]

Here is some light reading for you that 1) Smoking is not a constitutional right 2) It is not a protected liberty or privacy right 3) Does not qualify under the Equal Protection Law 4) Laws cannot grant an irrevocable right to smoke

https://publichealthlawcenter.org/si...ution-2008.pdf

[Grassyknoll]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

I think there is a difference to "dry areas" of any sort when you can go a few miles and get what you want.

Big difference between that and having your whole population a captive audience on an island.

Many dry areas in the US are not a few miles away from areas where it is accessible.
In Alaska, there are a number of dry communities that are either completely cut off or a 500 miles plane ride away from the nearest available alcohol. That is why bootlegging is such a scourge in many parts of bush Alaska.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Here is some light reading for you that 1) Smoking is not a constitutional right 2) It is not a protected liberty or privacy right 3) Does not qualify under the Equal Protection Law 4) Laws cannot grant an irrevocable right to smoke

https://publichealthlawcenter.org/si...ution-2008.pdf

Please. I never claimed it was a constitutional right. Just said it won't pass. You are not looking at it from a political viewpoint.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Please. I never claimed it was a constitutional right. Just said it won't pass. You are not looking at it from a political viewpoint.

I don't think it'll pass either - I was refuting your point that it would be overturned by courts if passed. There is no reason any state cannot ban smoking (or alcohol)