"New York Raising Age to Buy Cigarettes to 21"

[Darias]

You can access the article here.


For lack of a better imagination, I'll let CNN go ahead and pose this thread's question for me:

"Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"


I trust your answers will be more substantial than the question; I know mine will.

[Nickman]

No matter what age is restricted, people will smoke. This seems to be another "war on drugs." If you deny it, people will get it and at a price.

It's pretty much an extension of the war on drugs. But it ultimately won't work.

Honestly, I think the best way to encourage people not to use drugs are all the business owners, apartment owners, restaurant owners, and bar owners that don't allow smoking on their premises. They do it in the interest of attracting the majority of non-smokers back to their establishments. It's a lot more effective than laws that don't work, I think.

Your logic is actually backwards in the 70's and 80's. Smokers made up more of the population back then. Times have changed now. More public education on smoking, and also internet, have caused people to see the danger of smoking.

[keithprosser3]

Your analogy is truly backwards because the market can only persuade. The market cannot force you to buy cigarettes, nor can it bully you into buying cigarettes. The state, however, can punish you for disobeying its decrees through extortion or capture. The state, while appearing to be a nanny, is the only gangster here.

I will admit my attitude to the 'right to smoke' changed a bit when I was diagnosed with emphysema! The right to smoke is one I could have done without.

I'm not going to get into a long debate the rights and wrongs of state power because I don't think there is anything we disagree about. But let me add a few remarks which you can answer if you like to but I won't reply to.

Social pressures and convention can be even more powerful then the law. There is no law against me going put wearing lashings of mascara and false eyelashes, but I don't think actually doing so will ever happen.

The social pressures to smoke were created - or at least encouraged - by the tobacco industry. People do make their own decisions, but everyone's decisions are influenced by external influences, often subliminally. Advertisers wouldn't spend millions on commercials if that was not the case.

Purely personal, uninfluenced decisions don't exist, and corporations are (arguably)bigger influencers then governments. Governments don't tell you to buy a new cell phone every month because it's out of fashion. Governments can lock up your body, but corporations and advertisers parasitise your mind.

It also strikes me that to an extent this change in law is more like an advert than an attack on personal freedom. It is a strong signal that smoking is not a good idea. I don't think the legislators want to lock smokers between 18-21 in jail. It's designed to influence rather than punish.

[DanieltheDragon]

No matter what age is restricted, people will smoke. This seems to be another "war on drugs." If you deny it, people will get it and at a price.

It's pretty much an extension of the war on drugs. But it ultimately won't work.

Honestly, I think the best way to encourage people not to use drugs are all the business owners, apartment owners, restaurant owners, and bar owners that don't allow smoking on their premises. They do it in the interest of attracting the majority of non-smokers back to their establishments. It's a lot more effective than laws that don't work, I think.

Your logic is actually backwards in the 70's and 80's. Smokers made up more of the population back then. Times have changed now. [b]More public education on smoking, and also internet, have caused people to see the danger of smoking[/b].

Exactly, arbitrary age limits don't reduce drug use but as you astutely pointed out education does.

[jerryxplu]

[Replying to post 1 by Darias]

why 21? if they want to raise it then might as well raise it to 25 when human brain will be done developing with ability to make logical decisions. In that case might as well raise legal drinking age to 25 as well. Think that cause more harm than smoking as second hand smoking went down (mostly due to banned by establishments) but drunk driving is still pretty high.

or we can further raise the bar by saying only people that are married or have children may drink and smoke. Since you know don't want to die and leave wife and kids behind.

so I say go big or go home. Raise it to 25 or else it's pretty pointless.

[higgy1911]

The more smoking becomes stigmatized by society the more rebellious it becomes. It's a more rebellious act now than ever before.

I love smoking and not wearing my seatbelt and other dangerous habits. I find a life where the only ultimate goal is to prolong survival as long as possible to be empty and meaningless. I find many mild vices invigorating and enriching and resent the efforts of the state to force a lifestyle on me for my own good when the state and I don't even agree on what "good" is.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Darias]

If a person can vote and sign up to die for their country at (whatever age) that should be the age they can rent a car, smoke, drink, etc.
Make it 18
Make it 21
Make it 6
Make it 86
Just make them the same good grief

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Darias]

If a person can vote and sign up to die for their country at (whatever age) that should be the age they can rent a car, smoke, drink, etc.
Make it 18
Make it 21
Make it 6
Make it 86
Just make them the same good grief

Are you saying that you do not believe in the democratic process? For many people these are different issues and they have different constituents.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

I'm saying if 18 is the age one can decide to protect or kill for their country that should be a good age to drink legally.
Pick an age, make it the same for all issues.
What political spin you want to put on it is up to you

[tugofwarstrum]

[Replying to post 1 by Darias]

No it's not going to help it's going to cause more crime and as everyone else has said it's nothing but another "war on drugs" cliche.