Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can be drafted to fight in a war when you're 18.
You can vote when you're 18.
But now you can't buy cigarettes unless you're 21.
I'm glad we have Democrats to tell us what to do.
(and I don't care what you think about smoking, it's the age factor that's the issue here)
Funny how the left always tells us the religious right is the one who wants to take away our freedom to choose, yet we have........
Democrats are much more in people's bedrooms than most like to think.
Although, in Idaho one can go to war at 18, but pay a $500.00 fine and 50 hrs community service at the age of 17.5 if caught smoking........one way for the state to collect money!
You can be drafted to fight in a war when you're 18.
You can vote when you're 18.
But now you can't buy cigarettes unless you're 21.
I'm glad we have Democrats to tell us what to do.
(and I don't care what you think about smoking, it's the age factor that's the issue here)
Well, guess what, dude, not all Republicans are in the pockets of Big Tobacco. The county legislature in my county just voted to ban sales of cigarettes to anyone under 21 also ... and a majority of the legislature is Republicans. The Republican County Executive signed it, and it goes into effect in October.
As with raising the drinking age, people with common sense realize that making it harder for young people to make stupid decisions is better for everyone in the long run. And don't try to shovel any manure about "better" being up for debate. Smoking is a health hazard for the smoker, for his/her children, and for those who are around him/her as well as costly to society in terms of paying for all the costs from smokers' years of poor health.
Well, guess what, dude, not all Republicans are in the pockets of Big Tobacco. The county legislature in my county just voted to ban sales of cigarettes to anyone under 21 also ... and a majority of the legislature is Republicans. The Republican County Executive signed it, and it goes into effect in October.
As with raising the drinking age, people with common sense realize that making it harder for young people to make stupid decisions is better for everyone in the long run. And don't try to shovel any manure about "better" being up for debate. Smoking is a health hazard for the smoker, for his/her children, and for those who are around him/her as well as costly to society in terms of paying for all the costs from smokers' years of poor health.
Do you really think just raising the age will fix the problem? Kids are sneaky, if there is no consequence how will any of it change?
How hard is it when many parents give it to their children or leave the cabinet unlocked while leaving the kids in charge of the house for the weekend. Seems to me adults are the ones who make drugs and alcohol easy access, yet many think more laws will cure everything.
When Columbus arrived in America in 1492, until then, the idea of putting smoke into one's lungs seemed idiotic, as he witnessed the Indians passing around peace pipes. Curious, he took a quantity of tobacco back to Spain for examination/testing. Originally, tobacco was only going to be used for medicinal purposes, but the pleasure principle took hold, and, by the end of the 17th century, not a country in the world hadn't been introduced to tobacco.
France was first to tax it, and he financed his Napoleonic Wars with the tax revenue, and he encouraged every one in France to smoke, smoke, smoke, as more smokers, more tax revenue to finance his wars.
The U.S., and individual states, have used tobacco tax revenue for a variety of purposes for centuries.
All's fine and well until the taxes become too high, then the black market kicks in, and the black marketeers are having champagne toasts over this one, south of the Border.
In England, tobacco taxes climbed too high, the black market kicked in, and they had to lower the taxes to kill the black market.
Interesting...
Of course there is always the black market to step in, but what we can't really know too well is whether the higher taxes reduces the total level of purchases (in this case of tobacco) even with the sale through the black market. IOWs, do the higher taxes have the intended effect of curtailing use overall even as some trade continues through the black market? I have to believe it does, since the open market is far easier than buying through the black market, and there are all those folks who are not so comfortable breaking the law.
There is the black market for movie DVDs for example, but how many people are inclined to buy those types of goods? I don't know...
In any case, with higher consumer awareness of the health risks, higher taxes, less vending machines, and the best curtailment of black market sales as the ATF is charged to provide, tobacco sales have dropped in the U.S. considerably. Outside the U.S. is another matter...
I was smoking and drinking legally in Europe when I was 16. I learned to do both in moderation.
Here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" we treat 21 year-olds like babies and are constantly telling each other what to do.
Democrats rule in California.
They are the ones who raised the legal smoking age.
Life is full of risk, and a lot of fun things are risky.
As for the cost of cancer, people who die young don't get Social Security, so it's probably a wash.
Worrying about costs is also a slippery slope.
If you were really serious about that, you'd ban fat people from immigrating to this country.
You'd ban rich foods.
You'd ban any unnecessary driving.
You'd ban drinking alcohol.
Oh wait, we tried that. Didn't work out, did it?
I'd be fine with that.
They knew smoking was addictive and not good for you back then.
Where do you think the term "coffin nails" came from?
They were a hardy breed and would laugh at all the neurotic health obsessions that we have today.
So do you want drinking alcohol to be banned? Do you want no one to be allowed to drive just for fun or fly small airplanes just for fun? Do you want to ban football, surfing, skiing, and other sports where people get injured and even killed? Do you want to ban fatty foods, sugar, salt, butter, cooking oil, etc.?
Lots of double-standards going on here....
Exactly.
Read my original post and the title of this thread.
If you want to change the subject to marijuana, start your own thread.
I've always considered it a problem.
If you're old enough to die for this country, you're old enough to be served alcohol.
Yes, the nanny state liberals in California are even trying to ban e-cigarettes whose "smoke" consists of water vapor.
They not only want to stop people from smoking, they want to stop the very IDEA of smoking (unless it's marijuana, of course).
It's all to set an example for the children -- who they are fine with getting abortions without parental consent and dealing with adult men in dresses going into little girls' restrooms.
As Michael Savage said, liberalism is a mental disorder.
The logic from the get-go has me dizzy in no time, but to rack up all these notions and conclusions as you do into one comment is just too much for me. Must sure have you plenty busy though. Others in these threads no doubt have more of the required time and patience...
The statement I bolded in your comment is definitely among my favorites!
You can't buy pot or you go to prison, generally for 5-8 years. I'd agree that those darn Democrats are babying us, but that doesn't seem to work here. Now, maybe you think people should be able to buy pot, but you don't seem to bring it up. Probably because you can't make it about the party you dislike the most. Or maybe you think pot smokers going to jail is what's right and simply don't see the obvious contradiction in values. Regardless, I'm having a hard time taking anything you're saying too seriously.
Also, a 19 year old solider can't buy beer anywhere in the US either. Neither side seems to consider that a problem.
There is the law and there is enforcement and there is the fact of these matters that don't always seem too well taken into account if you ask me...
I grew up in California and over a good many years doing so, access to booze, smokes and pot at just about any age has really never been much an issue, and everyone in California knows this (don't tell anyone though).
In large part, the laws simply keep these activities from going public on the streets where parents with their kids might be walking along without really wanting the waft of pot hitting them in the face, let alone cigarette smoke. It is also a way to keep hooligans from being hooligans, because unfortunately there are always those who will abuse, and they tend to be a real problem for everyone, leading to the obvious fact that most of us pay the price of the "bad apples" that will inevitably muck things up for the rest of us.
Whether these basic truths are the mark of liberalism, big bad government, puritanism or just how things tend to go, I really don't know, but to characterize California and/or the laws here in the way that some hard right-wingers in these threads tend to do strikes me as a bit much from a practical standpoint.
You can be drafted to fight in a war when you're 18.
You can vote when you're 18.
But now you can't buy cigarettes unless you're 21.
I'm glad we have Democrats to tell us what to do.
(and I don't care what you think about smoking, it's the age factor that's the issue here)
Please, conscription ended before I was born and I'm 40+.
Apply your same arguments to alcohol and I'll listen. Otherwise it's whining about a double standard.
I've been a nicotine addict for over 20 years and I don't buy your argument at all. If the smoking age had been 21 when I started smoking, I might never have started.
Please, conscription ended before I was born and I'm 40+.
Apply your same arguments to alcohol and I'll listen. Otherwise it's whining about a double standard.
I've been a nicotine addict for over 20 years and I don't buy your argument at all. If the smoking age had been 21 when I started smoking, I might never have started.
True that, me too. Well, I started when I was 16. I still curse the day I started. Quitting smoking is one of, if not the most difficult things to do.
I wouldn't mind seeing blanket ban on tobacco products, I say that as smoker. Issue prescriptions to existing smokers and stiff penalties for those caught selling on the black market. If you become addicted you get a prescription, that should slowly remove and help prevent the black market from taking over.
My advice to young people is if you want to smoke something avoid cigarettes as you would avoid heroin, smoke pot if you are going to smoke something.
Native Reservations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
