Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SilentPanda, Apr 22, 2013.
This is a good idea. The older the age of first exposure, the lower the likelihood of forming an addiction. If it passed it should be enforced ruthlessly, treating anybody providing minors with cigarettes as drug dealers.
They should ban large drinks too while they are at it.
IDK, you can go to war at 18, vote at 18, drink @21, smoke @18. Not sure what all the different age requirements are trying to suggest.
Agreed, an excellent idea.
Good grief, is there no end to the nanny state in NYC?
It's better than nothing, but why don't governments stop the sale of tobacco products outright? Is it the taxes or the power of the tobacco companies?
I don't smoke cigarettes and never have but seriously...
I don't understand the want/need to restrict every little thing. Smoking at 18 does not hurt anyone but themselves so let them be idiots if they want to. Yeah, yeah, second hand smoke and all...
Is 18 the legal age of adulthood or not. We need to stop picking and choosing. That said I would be for just banning cigarettes all together.
there is no reason there should be any age-restriction above the age of 18.
it's fine to decide that some things are 'adults' prerogatives' but when they are they all should kick in at the same time.
I don't like smoking but thats overboard. Its not going to stop 18+ from smoking, they'll just get it somewhere else.
Maybe they should raise the age at which you can go into the military...no wait, scratch that, then no one would join...
Tobacco is significantly more addictive than alcohol, so to me it makes sense that it should have at least the same minimum age.
I hate smoking, but I'm not sure what you really get out of staggering age requirements like this. I don't think it would be easily enforceable.
They are difficult to enforce on the individual level, which is why usually the emphasis is on stores. Stores caught selling alchohol or tobacco to the underaged can be fined.
I think it is fair to say that has failed for other drugs .
I can see it now. The War on Cigarettes. Thousands of chain smokers sent off to the pokey for selling Marlboros in a back ally.
Wb when they get cancer and need to go to hospital? It probably works differently in the U.S, but in countries where hospitals are government funded the cost of smoking would be passed onto the taxpayer.
In before the high capacity cigarette pack ban. "No one needs to smoke more than 7 cigarettes a day."
Would never work.
Huge industry behind it.
Prohibition doesn't work.
Didn't work with alcohol, doesn't work with the drugs we ban today.
I'm for legalizing all drugs. Addicts aren't criminals.
This won't stop people those 18 and younger (I just saw what looked like a 13yr smoking) from buying the cigarettes.
The stores here in PA are to ID everybody who buys cigarettes, if caught following the rule can get fine or license to sell pulled if it keeps happing. But I don't see the stores care, I still see people under 18 still buying cigarettes.
Seems reasonable the minimum age for buying cigarettes should be at least as high as for alcohol. Not sure it needs to be 21.
In the US the legal age to purchase alcohol is 21, so your comment contradicts itself.
There is an argument to be made though about the effects of second hand smoke on others. Most notably "Sidestream smoke has higher concentrations of cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) than mainstream smoke. And, it has smaller particles than mainstream smoke, which make their way into the lungs and the bodys cells more easily." (Source)
I don't smoke. Never have....never will. But I was behind a guy today at a red light and there was a pretty strong smell of cigarette smoke coming into my truck through the AC. So in those types of situations I have three options
1.) Turn off the AC (its been in the 80s here in GA lately....no thanks)
2.) Roll down the window (let in more smoke)
3.) Breathe it in
None of those are really good options and all part of something effecting me because of the decision of someone else.
...Because people never commit crimes to finance their drug addictions, do they?
It would probably make them cheaper since the only source is no longer a dealer who also has to break the law and is probably more paranoid about being caught ..