California Raises Legal Age to Buy Tobacco From 18 to 21

[UK2K]

You are still considered old enough to make the conscious decision to die for your country, but you cannot smoke a cigarette.


California Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday approved raising the legal age to buy tobacco for smoking, dipping, chewing and vaping from 18 to 21.

The new law, which will take effect June 9, makes California the second state to raise the legal smoking age to 21. It will not apply to military personnel.

Brown did not say why he signed the measure along with four others restricting tobacco use in various ways, and his staff declined to comment.

"The action speaks for itself," Brown spokeswoman Deborah Hoffman said.

Supporters of the law said it aims to deter adolescents from the harmful, sometimes fatal effects of nicotine addiction. The Institute of Medicine reports that 90 percent of daily smokers began using tobacco before turning 19.

[JohnnySic]

Its like that in Boston too. Its silly.

[~primetime~]

Good

Won't stop kids from smoking obviously, I smoked for 15 years, started at age 15. BUT, maybe it will discourage -some- of them. It certainly makes things more difficult when you can't legally purchase yourself, especially something that needs to be purchased regularly... Every other day, or even every single day.

No one should want teens smoking... No one should want anyone smoking really. Even if you're a smoker.

[NumberSix]

What's the legal age for being gay?

[UK2K]

Good

Won't stop kids from smoking obviously, I smoked for 15 years, started at age 15. BUT, maybe it will discourage -some- of them. It certainly makes things more difficult when you can't legally purchase yourself, especially something that needs to be purchased regularly... Every other day, or even every single day.

No one should want teens smoking... No one should want anyone smoking really. Even if you're a smoker.

I don't want teens getting pregnant either but I'm not going to tell them they can't ****.

I don't want teens dying in car crashes but I won't keep their them from getting a license.

IMO, it's not a matter of what we want them to do, its a matter of big brother coming in and telling them 'we know what's best for you'. No different than the soda ban in NY.

[bigkingsfan]

What's next, porn age to 21? Please not that.

[~primetime~]

I don't want teens getting pregnant either but I'm not going to tell them they can't ****.

I don't want teens dying in car crashes but I won't keep their them from getting a license.

IMO, it's not a matter of what we want them to do, its a matter of big brother coming in and telling them 'we know what's best for you'. No different than the soda ban in NY.
I would love it if we could keep teens from fcking and driving.

IMO it's a matter of what makes society as a whole better

[UK2K]

I would love it if we could keep teens from fcking and driving.

IMO it's a matter of what makes society as a whole better

Really?

So ban driving until the age of 21? That will make the roads much safer.

It would also grind our country to a halt, because almost none of those kids would be able to get to work, or school, or anything, without a car. Parents would need 30 vacation days a year.

It would make society better if we summarily executed everyone who's committed a felony, but I don't think that's a good idea. It'd make society better if we took everyone on welfare and put them on a boat and shipped them to China.

I prefer free choice. Want to smoke? Go for it. Want to commit suicide? Go ahead. Want to own a gun? Fine. Want to slurp down 64 ounces of mountain dew you fat piece of shit? More power to ya. As long as what you are choosing to do doesn't affect others, by all means.

[BasedTom]

Really?

So ban driving until the age of 21? That will make the roads much safer.

It would also grind our country to a halt, because almost none of those kids would be able to get to work, or school, or anything, without a car. Parents would need 30 vacation days a year.

It would make society better if we summarily executed everyone who's committed a felony, but I don't think that's a good idea. It'd make society better if we took everyone on welfare and put them on a boat and shipped them to China.

I prefer free choice. Want to smoke? Go for it. Want to commit suicide? Go ahead. Want to own a gun? Fine. Want to slurp down 64 ounces of mountain dew you fat piece of shit? More power to ya. As long as what you are choosing to do doesn't affect others, by all means.
Well with a universal healtcare, promoting a healthy lifestyle is A and O

[JohnnySic]

Dont think it makes much difference. Back in high school, the kids (age 14-18) who wanted to smoke had no problem getting cigarettes. You think an 18-21 year old cant?

[~primetime~]

Really?

So ban driving until the age of 21? That will make the roads much safer.

It would also grind our country to a halt, because almost none of those kids would be able to get to work, or school, or anything, without a car. Parents would need 30 vacation days a year.

It would make society better if we summarily executed everyone who's committed a felony, but I don't think that's a good idea. It'd make society better if we took everyone on welfare and put them on a boat and shipped them to China.

I prefer free choice. Want to smoke? Go for it. Want to commit suicide? Go ahead. Want to own a gun? Fine. Want to slurp down 64 ounces of mountain dew you fat piece of shit? More power to ya. As long as what you are choosing to do doesn't affect others, by all means.
we probably disagree on what makes society better...but driving and executions are a poor comparison to smoking which benefits absolutely no one, not even on a medicinal level...and it absolutely effects others.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

[~primetime~]

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/images/p0612-YRBS.jpg

^^^this trend is good...for EVERYONE


http://3pk43x313ggr4cy0lh3tctjh.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CH8_Top-10-consumers.jpg


China :facepalm

what a disgusting shit hole

[UK2K]

we probably disagree on what makes society better...but driving and executions are a poor comparison to smoking which benefits absolutely no one, not even on a medicinal level...and it absolutely effects others.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
So it's not about what makes society better then?

Smoking benefits a lot of people. The healthcare industry, the tobacco industry, the tobacco farmers. Lots of people make a living off of it.

Would you ban alcohol as well?

[~primetime~]

So it's not about what makes society better then?

Smoking benefits a lot of people. The healthcare industry, the tobacco industry, the tobacco farmers. Lots of people make a living off of it.

Would you ban alcohol as well?
You're arguing that society is better WITH cigarette smoking? You think the health care industry is better off with tobacco smoke? You don't think they would be better off if they could focus resources on something else?

Do you think that disease/cancer in general is a good thing for society because the healthcare industry profits and there are jobs based around it?

[UK2K]

You're arguing that society is better WITH cigarette smoking? You think the health care industry is better off with tobacco smoke? You don't think they would be better off if they could focus resources on something else?

Do you think that disease/cancer in general is a good thing for society because the healthcare industry profits and there are jobs based around it?
No, not at all. I'm arguing that smoking does benefit society. You said nobody benefits from it, I'm simply saying 'yes they do'.

I'm just trying to figure out where your cut off point is. There's a lot of things that can be done to improve society (slaughtering inmates on death row), but we don't do it.

That's why I asked your opinion on alcohol.

[Dresta]

Good

Won't stop kids from smoking obviously, I smoked for 15 years, started at age 15. BUT, maybe it will discourage -some- of them. It certainly makes things more difficult when you can't legally purchase yourself, especially something that needs to be purchased regularly... Every other day, or even every single day.

No one should want teens smoking... No one should want anyone smoking really. Even if you're a smoker.
And yet you should want them driving? (with vehicular accidents being by far the biggest killer of the young). America is a place that tends to even encourage its youth to get onto the roads at a very early age, and has also very lax tests and requirements to acquire a licence.


I've never really understood this strictly American idiocy: either you give someone the rights and responsibilities of an adult, or you don't; as far as i'm concerned, anything further is plain age discrimination; the state can prosecute you as a responsible adult, yet you can't even buy cigarettes or booze? Plain hypocrisy...

At 18 primetime, your daughter can legally get penetrated by 4 guys on camera, and your son can go off to war; but GOD FORBID they buy a cigarette :hammerhead: .

I honestly don't have a problem with legal restrictions up to the age of 21, but what is the sense in allowing people to vote, go to war, sell their bodies, etc. and then arbitrarily choosing a couple of things which they are forbidden to do; you should either have the privileges and responsibilities of being an adult, or you shouldn't; I don't see why there should be an in between.

[~primetime~]

Like I said I'd move the driving age up too...me and you have had this debate before Dresta. I get your stance on tobacco...I disagree.


Driving...Pot...Alcohol....Military...Heroin...Coc aine...Guns...Executions...etc...etc

^^^ they are all different things and can and should be treated differently. furthermore just because we are failing at ONE of them, doesn't justify failing at ALL of them. Two wrongs =/= a right.

If we are handing out cocaine to babies, that doesn't mean we should also hand out heroin to babies.

[~primetime~]

Can't have a discussion about pot without some fck head pointing at alcohol...THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEASTS

same with tobacco...and driving...and guns...all these things are their own separate debates...why must some insist on lumping everything together.

[Dresta]

You're arguing that society is better WITH cigarette smoking? You think the health care industry is better off with tobacco smoke? You don't think they would be better off if they could focus resources on something else?

Do you think that disease/cancer in general is a good thing for society because the healthcare industry profits and there are jobs based around it?
Derp, old age is far worse for society than diseases/cancer, which are, after all, pretty normal things, that mankind has dealt with for millennia. Those who live the longest are the biggest burdens to the State: this is a fact. The longer people live, the more cancer there will be: this is another fact.

Oh yeah, what a burden to the health care industry :rolleyes: -- even though said industry is busy needlessly narcotiscising the entire American population, and diagnosing them with imaginary diseases that need to be treated with drugs whose functions they don't even understand; diseases like lung cancer are actually ludicrously underfunded because of the smoking stigma (even though ~20% of sufferers never smoked). The "health care" industry evidently already has more than enough time and resources on its hands, because it would not be doing the above if it didn't. What is the DSM but an imaginary construction of non-objective illnesses created by a lot of people with an excess of time on their hands? How much time is spent on boner and happy pills? Indeed, we probably would be a good deal better off with funding going to the treatment of smoking related illnesses (which are not limited to smokers anyway) than to the mental health quacks.

[~primetime~]

Right, society would be better off without healthy people living long lives :facepalm

[Dresta]

Can't have a discussion about pot without some fck head pointing at alcohol...THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEASTS

same with tobacco...and driving...and guns...all these things are their own separate debates...why must some insist on lumping everything together.
I'm not even saying it shouldn't be 21: just that I don't like the double standard. We have an age when the State regards you as an adult in almost every respect, and yet it can still implement restrictions on what you can and cannot do compared with the rest of the adult population? It's hypocritical and does result in silly contradictions like it being ok to sell your body, or go off and die in a war (and likely smoke while there), but not buy a cigarette or a beer.

[~primetime~]

I'm not even saying it shouldn't be 21: just that I don't like the double standard. We have an age when the State regards you as an adult in almost every respect, and yet it can still implement restrictions on what you can and cannot do compared with the rest of the adult population? It's hypocritical and does result in silly contradictions like it being ok to sell your body, or go off and die in a war (and likely smoke while there), but not buy a cigarette or a beer.
Some might disagree that it is hypocritical...by going to war you are doing a service to society, by smoking you are not.

all these things you are listing have different benefits, and different death tolls, and different outcomes, and different effects on others. Sex can produce a baby, smoking can't....all these issues are different.

[Dresta]

That's right, society would be better off without healthy people :facepalm
Old people aren't healthy: they are slowly dying, and usually, the slower you die, the greater a burden you are, and the more you cost the State.

And I say this as someone who prefers older generations to my own, and generally thinks they aren't listened to enough; doesn't stop me from recognising the reality that someone who collects 30 years of social security costs far more than someone who collects 0 years of it (not to mention that past 70 or so nearly everyone accrues significant medical costs).

And yeah, society would be far better off without the unsustainable social security payments that my generation is going to have to deal with, and for whose retirement there will be no money left to give.

[imdaman99]

At 18 primetime, your daughter can legally get penetrated by 4 guys on camera
:biggums: How many holes does this girl have?

[UK2K]

Like I said I'd move the driving age up too...me and you have had this debate before Dresta. I get your stance on tobacco...I disagree.


Driving...Pot...Alcohol....Military...Heroin...Coc aine...Guns...Executions...etc...etc

^^^ they are all different things and can and should be treated differently. furthermore just because we are failing at ONE of them, doesn't justify failing at ALL of them. Two wrongs =/= a right.

If we are handing out cocaine to babies, that doesn't mean we should also hand out heroin to babies.

Different in a way, but we are talking about the age of 'when can you make decisions on your own about your own life'.

Dresta said it, you can be tried as an adult for a crime, but you can't shop for tobacco as an adult.

If you are considered an adult, you are an adult. Unless, you aren't.

[~primetime~]

Different in a way, but we are talking about the age of 'when can you make decisions on your own about your own life'.

Dresta said it, you can be tried as an adult for a crime, but you can't shop for tobacco as an adult.
Tobacco smoke effects others around it.

[UK2K]

2,474 of the 6,852 deaths during the war on terror were deaths of an 18-22 year old.

Those 2,000 couldn't even buy a can of dip in CA if they were civilians.

[~primetime~]

Old people aren't healthy: they are slowly dying, and usually, the slower you die, the greater a burden you are, and the more you cost the State.

And I say this as someone who prefers older generations to my own, and generally thinks they aren't listened to enough; doesn't stop me from recognising the reality that someone who collects 30 years of social security costs far more than someone who collects 0 years of it (not to mention that past 70 or so nearly everyone accrues significant medical costs).

And yeah, society would be far better off without the unsustainable social security payments that my generation is going to have to deal with, and for whose retirement there will be no money left to give.
Sometimes what is best for society is NOT what puts the most money in our pockets.

[UK2K]

Tobacco smoke effects others around it.

Depends where you smoke.

My smoking affects exactly 0 people (unless you include my girlfriend who is free to go inside).

Alcohol affects far more 'others' than tobacco does. Shit head 16 year old kids behind the wheel of a car do too.

[~primetime~]

Depends where you smoke.

My smoking affects exactly 0 people (unless you include my girlfriend who is free to go inside).

Alcohol affects far more 'others' than tobacco does. Shit head 16 year old kids behind the wheel of a car do too.
alcohol is a different thread IMO...so is driving

[UK2K]

alcohol is a different thread IMO...so is driving

The reason I keep bringing these up is because they ARE related to the topic. The question being 'when are you an adult'? The law says 18. So why are you in favor of a law telling a grown adult what they can and can't do?

Which is why I keep bringing up alcohol. You are an adult, kinda, but you're not.

Which is also why I questioned your 'good for society' point... I would like to know your cut off point. There are lots of things good for society we don't do. It'd be super beneficial if we stopped offering junk food in grocery stores. Fat people buying fatty foods for their little kids is borderline abuse if you think about it.

So why smoking, but nothing else? At what point does it go 'for the good of society' to '**** it, who cares'?

[Dresta]

Sometimes what is best for society is NOT what puts the most money in our pockets.
Well I agree with you there. But we're not talking about spare change here: we're talking about bankruptcy and the passing down of a humungous burden so that those who are currently old can enjoy privileges that those who are soon to be old will not have and will not be able to enjoy (and will have spent their whole lives paying for). Because of this catastrophic miscalculation, anything that will lessen this burden is likely a good thing if we're talking about society as a whole.

Being elderly is going to be a hell of a lot tougher on people in the future than it is now, especially if they're all living to 90, and the family continues to deteriorate (will be: "keep working or go and die somewhere"). Already most people treat their elderly relatives like annoying hindrances, to be shafted off onto others, and that's only going to get worse, the more of them there are.

We're a very selfish society when it comes to the old, and this is generally true in western nations; in more "backward" countries, people generally care for their own parents, make time for their elderly relatives, far more so than I see in the UK or the US.