Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by n1 on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the magical-numbers dept.

Late Wednesday, Brown signed the bill raising the age for tobacco use, including vaping, to 21, the Associated Press reports. He also vetoed a bill that would have asked voters to divert tobacco taxes to pay for the health expenses of those with tobacco-related ailments, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Source: NPR


Original Submission

Related Stories

Tobacco Roundup 55 comments

U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes

NBC News and the Providence Journal report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a rule which will classify cigars, chewing tobacco and nicotine-containing fluid for electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Under the rule, sale of those items to people under 18 years of age is to be prohibited. The electronic parts of electronic cigarettes are not covered by the rule. According to NBC News, the rule "will be open for public comment before it becomes final." The FDA regulates cigarettes and loose tobacco for smoking.

[Continues...]

Oregon Becomes the Fifth State to Raise the Tobacco Age Limit to 21 37 comments

Oregon has joined California, Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey in raising the minimum age limit for purchasing tobacco and related products to 21:

Oregon is raising the minimum age for buying tobacco and e-cigarettes in the state to 21, bringing its regulations into line with sales of marijuana products.

The new law, signed by Governor Kate Brown on Wednesday and taking effect on Jan. 1, bans under-21s from buying tobacco products and vaping devices, and makes vendors liable for fines for under-age sales.

The current age limit in the state is 18.

Previously: California's Legal Smoking Age Set to Rise to 21


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:07PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:07PM (#342262) Journal

    Why is vaping, or "ecigarettes" to the haters, being bundled into smoking when there is no combustion going on? The science isn't there yet for this new technology, yet this idiotic new law will treat vaping the same as smoking without any evidence that it is more harmful than coffee. We don't know if it is safer in the long term, but we do know in the short term it is safer that traditional tobacco.

    If we had a free country, people would be able to choose freely at any adult age if they choose to use tobacco or nicotine products. Once again the we-know-better-than-you crowd, full of middle and upper class degrees is again telling the plebeians what vices they may or may not enjoy. With all their education they can't get the visual of "smoking" out of their collective heads, showing once again that education can still leave you with blindsides.

    Just like the ever-increasing nuttiness about buzzed driving, abortion, guns, transgenderism, and a whole slew of other things, the right answer isn't "there ought to be a stronger law" but to tell these mortal crusaders and I-know-what's-good-for-you health Nazis to go pound sand. Freedom, if it means anything at all, is to be able to do what one pleases provided it does not harm others.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by Tork on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:15PM

      by Tork (3914) on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:15PM (#342268)

      Why is vaping, or "ecigarettes" to the haters, being bundled into smoking when there is no combustion going on? The science isn't there yet for this new technology...

      You answered your own question.

      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "19 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday May 06 2016, @05:33PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday May 06 2016, @05:33PM (#342633) Homepage Journal

        Indeed. The health effects of lead and asbestos and PCBs and a host of other really nasty things were unknown for decades or even longer. And it doesn't help that tobacco folks withheld evidence of the link between smoking and cancer for a very long time.

        --
        Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:27PM (#342279)

      I take it you are a smoker/vaper and feel targeted, but I may be wrong... and that's not important.
      Some things just do not have a good side. (traditional) Smoking is one of these. In a way it's like VX or lead in paint/gasoline - or driving while impaired for that matter (if you are impaired then your judgment suffers, if your judgment doesn't suffer, you aren't impaired - when you are 'buzzed', by definition you are impaired).

      I think there is enough evidence to show that smoking really is incredibly bad for you, evidence collected over a very long time even. With all that evidence, I don't see why anyone should be allowed to poison themselves and have third parties (tobacco peddlers and insurance companies - and governments) profit from it. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever for smoking.

      I don't think this is a matter of "Once again the we-know-better-than-you crowd, full of middle and upper class degrees is again telling the plebeians what vices they may or may not enjoy". With the available evidence, I think this is more a matter of "we DO know better than you and you're a dumb-ass for even wanting to smoke just like you'd be a dumb-ass for wanting to eat lead paint slivers or jump head-first off a bridge" - but no-one likes to be called a dumb-ass so there's that, I guess.

      On the matter of vaping/ecigarettes, the jury is indeed still out. You say that "we do know in the short term it is safer that traditional tobacco" but that doesn't mean it is safe as such. It's still less safe than not vaping. Lastly, there is also the research on the long-term effect of vaping which -based on the data that is beginning to trickle out from studies- isn't looking great for vaping either...

      But hey, enjoy your nasal cannula later in life, I'm sure you'll love it as much as you seem to love your ability to poison yourself...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:34PM (#342606)

        With all that evidence, I don't see why anyone should be allowed to poison themselves and have third parties (tobacco peddlers and insurance companies - and governments) profit from it. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever for smoking.

        Other than self-sovereignty. People should be free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Their own bodies, that means you do not get to poison me as well by smoking or vaping near me, but you're free to do whatever you want by yourself.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 06 2016, @06:41PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday May 06 2016, @06:41PM (#342655)

          > you're free to do whatever you want by yourself.

          When that stuff you keep putting up your lungs results in a quarter-million dollars hospital cancer bill, my insurance rates go up.
          And that's when people actually respect others by not vaping/smoking in their faces.

          As for most other money-vs-health issues, California and Europe are always a step ahead in protecting people (because healthy people pay more taxes).

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:29PM

      by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:29PM (#342280)

      Oh fucking please.

      1) IT STILL HAS FUCKING NICOTINE. Meaning, that if you think you can smoke that around me differently than a cigarette, the ensuing scuffle, cops, and court cases will educate you otherwise. I do not accept nicotine being smoked around me, or the insane bullshit excuses of, "Its vaping man, its' not the same thing man, its just vaping...blah blah blah". If it has nicotine in it, and you want to blow that smoke around me, prepare for battle. You still need to go find a place that will not bother anyone, at least 100 feet from a public entrance, and of course, you can't do it in restaurants or public spaces.

      2) IT STILL FUCKING STINKS. Currently, I'm not allowed to burn incense anywhere I damn well please. Likewise, I can't just place an oil essence burner anywhere I want. Moreover, we still give shit to people that stink so bad in public that nobody else can find peace.

      3) IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO, OR MORAL CRUSADING. It's super fucking simple. Keep that shit away from me, and there is no justifiable civil rights being violated because we won't let you subject us to that in public spaces. There are plenty of examples of this that we group together in common sense and good manners.

      vaping is *exactly* the same as smoking, from the perspective of people that have to put up with that bullshit. Just because you altered the technology a little bit on how you smoke, doesn't mean you mitigated anything about the smell or transfer of carcinogens/chemicals.

      If you wish to kill yourself in such ways, you're perfectly free to do so as long as you don't interfere with me in public. You have no moral or ethical justifications whatsoever that allow you to force me to put up with it. I don't give two shits about your protestations either. Vapers can take their shit and shove it up their ass. It certainly couldn't hurt the smell.

       

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by djh2400 on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:23PM

        by djh2400 (725) on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:23PM (#342295)
        I recall this article from back in February on ArsTechnica, where a study looked at the number of genes of the immune system suppressed as a result of smoking vs. vaping: E-cigs shut down hundreds of immune system genes—regular cigs don’t [arstechnica.com].

        Here is the relevant segment from the 2nd paragraph which I intend to point out:

        After comparing genetic information swabbed from the noses of smokers, vapers, and non-users of both, researchers found that smoking suppresses the activity of 53 genes involved in the immune system. Vaping also suppressed those 53 immune genes—along with 305 others.

        As I understand, there are still plenty of unknowns related to vaping, but these results are not particularly reassuring to those who would otherwise, as you say, have to put up with them. I doubt first-hand vapers would absorb all of the chemicals causing this effect. Therefore, by extension, it's reasonable to assume that second-hand "vape" would negatively affect others, though most likely to a smaller extent.

      • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:32PM

        by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:32PM (#342298)

        To be fair, it's generally much more pleasant to smell as I'm walking by the 30 feet outside the "designating smoking area" (that no one actually stands in) at work as opposed to regular cigarette smoke.

        I don't disagree with the rest of it, though. No one wants to smell your stinky ashtray ass after you get back in from sucking down ANYTHING pungent every 15 minutes, and say that myself being a smoker. If you can't manage your addiction for at least eight hours before needing to sustain it, you should probably work on that.

        --
        Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @12:38AM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @12:38AM (#342325)

          The smell may be slightly better, but the chemical and biological dangers are the same. In fact, they're far worse. The complete morons that vapers are, allows them to ignore the fact that the flavored nicotine bottle they're loading from indicates levels much higher than a single cig. So that innocuous smell is accompanied by more nicotine than a chain smoker may get in a day. I'm not interested in being in a de facto room with dozens of chain smokers. I had this argument many times with a cousin that refused to stop doing it, even in the house. Constant yelling at him to get him to stop.

          I just can't stand them acting as if it's different, and somehow more acceptable. Own it, accept it, and deal with the limitations of your vice. Myself, I smoke weed. A lot. Out in public too. In front of cops. Don't care, as I have a medical need not met by the United States' wonderful and comprehensive health care for its citizens.

          That being said, I find places that are remote where other people aren't going to be. I like to make sure there is a lot of wind (dissipation), and that it won't stink up an area for others. If I'm walking down a neighborhood I check for open windows, children playing, how hot is it, etc. I sincerely don't want to put anyone out, or impose upon them in anyway, because I wish to enjoy marijuana. Additionally, second hand highs are a real thing. I got somebody high one time just from a puff that went past their face, and they weren't really prepared to be high, or able to deal with it very well. So I'm careful for good reason.

          I would only ask that the nicotine/vape smokers be as considerate of others around them. Strangely, I'm reminded of Jim Varney (Earnest P. Worrel) who was an avid chain smoker. Yet, he was extremely careful to make sure a child never saw him do it, or the smoke ever got around anyone not wanting it.

          This vaping bullshit is being used an excuse to just basically be an inconsiderate asshole to others. By all appearances, it's not smoking, so it's perfectly fine is the popular refrain. The bitching that they're "oppressed" just set me off, as if it's a Constitutional right to expose others to dangerous or unknown chemicals with no regard for the safety or well being of others.

          Sorry, but fuck vapers. Fuck them in the donkey asshole :) (line from a movie)

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @08:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @08:40AM (#342470)

            >Myself, I smoke weed

            Jesus Christ, and you're bitching about the smell of cigarettes. What the fuck? Get off your high horse, man. Do you have any idea how much weed stinks, and how you affect other people with your weed smoke? You're just as bad as the nicotine junkies, you just burn different stuff.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @07:09PM

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @07:09PM (#342665)

              Jesus Christ, and you're bitching about the smell of cigarettes. What the fuck? Get off your high horse, man. Do you have any idea how much weed stinks, and how you affect other people with your weed smoke? You're just as bad as the nicotine junkies, you just burn different stuff.

              Irrelevant. When I smoke weed I'm very far away from everyone else. It's even windy most of the time. If necessary, I take a shower after smoking, but that rarely is unless I've "hot boxed" it in a room or car. Again, that room or car is my property, so I'm removing myself from everyone else. Anytime there is somebody else to be affected, the most that they're upset about is the lack of passing the joint/bong.

              You act as if I would smoke weed in a movie theater, a plane, or a restaurant. Never in a million years, especially since weed can be consumed. However, some vapers are insistent that they can do just that.

              I'm not on a high horse, as I'm extremely careful about my use, and extremely aware and considerate of those around me when I do so. I don't allow the smoke to affect other people, so you're statement is irrelevant and baseless.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Friday May 06 2016, @06:06PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday May 06 2016, @06:06PM (#342644) Homepage Journal

            The smell may be slightly better, but the chemical and biological dangers are the same.

            Incorrect. The only thing the same is nicotine, which isn't what causes the cancer, COPD, or heart disease associated with smoking. Safe? Doubtful, but I'd bet money they're nowhere near as dangerous as cigarettes. And there is a slight smell, but nothing like cigarette smoke. I can smell a cigarette a block away outside, e-cig only in an enclosed room. And the smoke is much more obnoxious.

            It is different. "Acceptable" is a personal preference. If you use the things and ar around someone who doesn't like them, use patches or lozenges.

            --
            Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:55AM (#342354)

        As long as the rules are the same when you over-do-it with cologne, have Mexican food night, or don't have the exhaust from your car going directly to the cabin.

        IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO, OR MORAL CRUSADING.

        Nope, it's just you being sanctimonious prick in the name of muh health.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @02:33AM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @02:33AM (#342368)

          Nope, it's just you being sanctimonious prick in the name of muh health.

          Nope, you stupid fuck. It's about me protecting muh health, not yur health. You have the right to royally fuck over your health, but you don't have the right to involve me in it. Likewise, we all retain the right to make your health care more expensive for you.... because it will be. Nothing strange there. You smoke, you get diseases expensive to treat and become a huge drain on society for no other reason than you wanted to suck down toxins deliberately. Before you start, yes that applies to obese people paying extra for health care too, and I've already been paying that price. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You suffer the consequences of your choices, not us.

          No matter what you say, or what you do, or whatever bullshit arguments you construct.... you simply cannot ever create any justification that allows you smoke around me. Period. End of Story. Likewise, you can construct no arguments that show vaping is different from cigarettes. In every meaningful way, they're the same. Deal with it.

          If you want to do so, do it in your home. Or preferably miles away from everyone else. Just don't expect any support or sympathy from me when you complain you're being oppressed simply because you can't force us to stick around your stinky disgusting ass, and you're precluded from many activities the same way cigarette smokers are.

          As long as the rules are the same when you over-do-it with cologne, have Mexican food night, or don't have the exhaust from your car going directly to the cabin.

          Oh, but they are. Common sense rules in society tell you to not over-do-it with cologne, and I've seen plenty of people called out on it. Mexican food night? Are you bringing up flatulence? There's whole sections of calculus regarding farts and their rules of conduct. As for food smells, well, that's food. Your attachment to smells is highly disingenuous, as you strongly imply those are the only considerations. That completely ignores the toxic chemicals and the precautionary principle.

          Car exhaust going directly into your cabin just violates all kinds of health codes I'm sure, including the laws and regulations governing suicide. I see your point, the chemicals coming from vaping and smoking aren't all the different. Just a matter of concentrations and exposure. In that light, I'm sure it would be unwise or dangerous to light up 1000 cigs in your house. If you need us to tell you these things, we won't have to worry about you much longer. Darwinism will take care of it.

          Try again.

          The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.

          The burden is on you, dude. Pony up the science showing it's completely harmless, and in fact, just smells that need to be dealt with. EVEN THEN, you will face the uphill argument that you can bring devices in public spaces (especially restaurants, planes, and movie theaters) that introduce unwanted and unexpected smells.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:34AM (#342392)

            Likewise, we all retain the right to make your health care more expensive for you.... because it will be. Nothing strange there. You smoke, you get diseases expensive to treat and become a huge drain on society for no other reason than you wanted to suck down toxins deliberately. Before you start, yes that applies to obese people paying extra for health care too, and I've already been paying that price. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You suffer the consequences of your choices, not us.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

            Moneyshot: It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

            So actually smokers and the obese are subsidizing your healthcare.

            Ready to pay more to make up the difference?

            But I do like how you wrap yourself in the majority to justify being a sanctimonious prick.

            Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]

            Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception

            Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

            Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.

            Nope, the burden of proof is on you to justify why smoking is a special case amongst all other possible health risks encountered in the public sphere.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @07:59AM

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @07:59AM (#342463)

              So actually smokers and the obese are subsidizing your healthcare.

              Ready to pay more to make up the difference?

              It's actually an argument about who is, and who is not, the majority. In any case, you've assumed wrong about me. I've been in the obese category for most of my life, and paid the differences in medical insurance (when I had it) and certainly suffer the financial burdens associated with it.

              So been there done that, and I disagree with the study you posted. You've basically stated that obese people are cheaper because they die sooner. What kind of sick fuck are you? Healthy long living people are the problem? By that logic every cig you suck down is doing a public service, which is ludicrous on its face.

              But I do like how you wrap yourself in the majority to justify being a sanctimonious prick.

              You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. Your the inconsiderate asshole who smokes, and therefore deliberately exposes others to toxins and chemicals. Which apparently is fine, as long as you get your enjoyment right? I disagree on me being sanctimonious, but it is inarguable that you're the inconsiderate asshole.

              Moving the goalposts

              The only goal post I could have moved is with the precautionary principle, which just means you're a fucking moron. That principle is not intrinsically moving any goal post anywhere, and I dismissed no evidence whatsoever. Would you like to provide some evidence before I can dismiss it and ask for more?

              Special pleading

              Pray tell, what exception did I overlook for what rule? It sounds like you're saying that all the evidence against smoking we have now, is the evidence of my special pleading by creating an exception to some rule. Again, what's the exception to what rule that I overlooked? I genuinely want to know, as I would be surprised at any evidence you can provide as to the harmlessness of nicotine. Good luck getting that evidence, buddy. No, vaping is not an exception to the generally accepted principle that nicotine is bad, and no I don't need to justify it. It's a fact, that vaping releases nicotine and a litany of other chemical compounds.

              Cherry picking

              Strange, I thought I was very comprehensive and thorough as to why you're the inconsiderate asshole. If I'm guilty, it was unintentional. What evidence did I overlook? Moreover, I requested additional evidence meaning it can't be cherry picking. Even so, what have I overlooked as the positive benefits of vaping, both for the user and bystanders? What did I fail to consider in the gestalt about vaping, nicotine consumption, and public enjoyment thereof?

              Overwhelming exception

              Yeah, I guess when all is said and done it really is reduced to the unimpressive facts of you just being an inconsiderate asshole that believes you have the right to subject others to toxic chemicals and unwanted noxious smells in public. I didn't generalize shit. Vaping is perfectly equivalent with smoking, in so far as that the chemicals involved are still present, or in worse quantities.

              Nope, the burden of proof is on you to justify why smoking is a special case amongst all other possible health risks encountered in the public sphere.

              Yeah, no it isn't. You obviously don't understand the precautionary principle, and worship at the alter that is the Kehoe Paradigm. The burden is light indeed, as the work has already been performed for the past five fucking decades that we've understood that smoking is harmful to your health.

              Google it if you want the proof. More than enough provided.

              If you want to argue that restrictions on smoking in public are not properly justified, well..... lol! Okay man, I guess we've never justified the restrictions huh? Back to the drawing board (sarcasm).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:14PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:14PM (#342567)

              Fallacy fallacy

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:53AM (#342487)

        2) IT STILL FUCKING STINKS. Currently, I'm not allowed to burn incense anywhere I damn well please.

        Then they should ban people from stinking because they don't bathe enough or they use too much perfume or they produce too many smelly farts or they have very bad breath.

        I don't smoke or vape and I'd say the above stuff actually bothers me more than most vape "flavours" (what term do they use?) I've encountered.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @07:13PM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @07:13PM (#342671)

          People's odor is secondary to the introduction of unknown/unproven chemicals (precautionary principle) and the known dangers of nicotine.

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 06 2016, @12:11PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @12:11PM (#342519)

        I think you posted before having your morning coffee.

        1) IT STILL HAS FUCKING NICOTINE. Meaning, that if you think you can smoke that around me differently than a cigarette, the ensuing scuffle, cops, and court cases will educate you otherwise.

        NOT ALWAYS! Some people vape non nicotine based fluids. Also... Sit down down, tough guy.

        2) IT STILL FUCKING STINKS. Currently, I'm not allowed to burn incense anywhere I damn well please. Likewise, I can't just place an oil essence burner anywhere I want. Moreover, we still give shit to people that stink so bad in public that nobody else can find peace.

        Stinks? What vaping have you smelled? The few guys at work who vape have fluids which smell like a candy factory or bakery. Nothing unpleasant about that. I'm beginning to think you have either no idea what vaping is, or you just want to rail on something for no reason other than "It's different so I don't like it." Drink your coffee tough guy.

        I agree, I don't want to be right next to some person exhaling big clouds of water vapor out of their bodies. Kinda gross. But, it far, far more pleasant than actual cigarette smoke which really does stink, sticks to everything and is almost guaranteed to cause health issues. The people I know who vape are all former cigarette smokers. My only issue is the vaping is probably worse as they can play with the nicotine dosages and heavy pulls will introduce far more nicotine than a cigarette can. So instead of becoming less dependant, they are becoming more dependant.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 06 2016, @07:29PM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @07:29PM (#342685)

          NOT ALWAYS! Some people vape non nicotine based fluids. Also... Sit down down, tough guy.

          Most of the time it is with nicotine, and I can't tell when it isn't. Am I supposed to ask every fucking asshole doing it in a theater or restaurant for their bottle to read the ingredients? Will there be posted signs now in certain places indicating what vaping fluids are acceptable?

          No, I will not sit down. If you do it in a theater, restaurant, or plane, you've made a captured audience out of me. I don't like that. It's not right that their movie ticket is more important than my movie ticket. So, yes, I will go nuts and involve the cops if required as they only way they will continue vaping is out of their asshole where I shove their device.

          Stinks? What vaping have you smelled? The few guys at work who vape have fluids which smell like a candy factory or bakery. Nothing unpleasant about that. I'm beginning to think you have either no idea what vaping is, or you just want to rail on something for no reason other than "It's different so I don't like it." Drink your coffee tough guy.

          I've unfortunately been subject to it plenty of times from inconsiderate people in public (especially the theater, or restaurants), and yes I find the smell highly unpleasant. It may smell sweet superficially, but the knowledge of the nicotine and chemicals provides the complete absence of joy and peace. I don't want it around me, and there are no justifications that they get to do so.

          The people I know who vape are all former cigarette smokers. My only issue is the vaping is probably worse as they can play with the nicotine dosages and heavy pulls will introduce far more nicotine than a cigarette can. So instead of becoming less dependant, they are becoming more dependant.

          There you go. We can talk about degrees, but we're still talking about nicotine. Actually, we may not even be talking about that either, but marijuana again. I've tried a couple of vape pens with marijuana, and you wouldn't know until your stoned. I don't want to be stoned unless I'm prepared to be, and I've made arrangements for things to be handled (who's on call).

          Even if we come down to just smells, how on earth is that acceptable in a theater? I can ask to remove somebody if they smell too bad, but it's a different level when you turn yourself into a smell factory.

          That's my real problem. I will never find it acceptable that it can be done next to people in most public spaces. A park or something is one thing, but all of my problems are in enclosed spaces. If the vapers just stopped in the enclosed spaces everything would probably be better between me and them. Until they do, I'm going to nuclear every single time, and kick ass if required.

          Vaping at any level in enclosed public spaces isn't acceptable. If it becomes so, then I will create my own portable incense burners and we can engage in a war of smells. One with no winners.

          The few guys at work who vape have fluids which smell like a candy factory or bakery.

          Yes, and that usage occurs in designated places that don't affect me. I'm not subject to it at my office from anyone else, and there are even laws preventing it.

    • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:33PM

      by richtopia (3160) on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:33PM (#342283) Homepage Journal

      I thought the active ingredient for vaping was the same as cigarettes.

      With no smoke, it is probably a better alternative. However any substance that is physically addicting really should be managed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:40PM (#342287)

        You could put a variety of stuff into a vape. Plain water or cannabis come to mind.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:50PM

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:50PM (#342302)

          Either way, get that shit out of my face. If you want to vape, vape at home.

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday May 06 2016, @06:09PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday May 06 2016, @06:09PM (#342646) Homepage Journal

        However any substance that is physically addicting really should be managed.

        Coffee, for instance?

        --
        Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:43PM (#342288)

      Why is vaping, or "ecigarettes" to the haters, being bundled into smoking when there is no combustion going on?

      Both are delivery devices for nicotine (and who knows what else in unregulated products). The method of delivery - in this case smoke or vapor - is immaterial.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 06 2016, @02:41AM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday May 06 2016, @02:41AM (#342372)

      Are we concerned about tar damage, or nicotine addiction?

      Is it reasonable (not fair, but something that a majority of voters would think) to consider "vapers" to be more likely pot smokers?

      Gotta think like a politician if you want to understand the laws they propose.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 06 2016, @02:58AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Friday May 06 2016, @02:58AM (#342383) Homepage

      This has shit-all to do with smoking, vaping, or the welfare of minors, and everything to do with the mindset that you can demonstrate what excellent legislators you are by ratcheting down on victimless crime, which makes local DAs happy and lets you put "tough on crime" on your resume come the next election. The ever-increasing array of trivial offenses also fuels the system of fines and court fees and the cost of classes imposed by the court, which in total, last time I bothered figuring it out, came to something like $250 per *minute* flowing into state and crony coffers. And that's before we even get to the for-profit prison industry and its lobbyists.

      And I say that having lived and voted in CA for 28 years.

      But hey, y'all down there voted for these people... enjoy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:43PM (#342613)

        ratcheting down on victimless crime

        There's nothing victimless about getting asthma even though you don't smoke because everyone around you smokes and blows it right into your face.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Friday May 06 2016, @05:06PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday May 06 2016, @05:06PM (#342622)

      Just like the ever-increasing nuttiness about buzzed driving, abortion, guns, transgenderism, and a whole slew of other things, the right answer isn't "there ought to be a stronger law" but to tell these mortal crusaders and I-know-what's-good-for-you health Nazis to go pound sand. Freedom, if it means anything at all, is to be able to do what one pleases provided it does not harm others.

      I don't agree with the age limits, if you are able to be drafted into the military, whether you are or not, you should be old enough to buy cigarettes or alcohol or participate in any other adult activity. That said, smokers have brought this upon themselves with their own poor behavior. Smoking in the presence of others certainly causes annoyance and physical irritation at best, and genuine harm in chronic situations. Not only that, there is the tendency of smokers to consider the whole world their ash tray. Any designated smoking area will be, unless cleaned up frequently, littered with cigarette butts even if ashtrays are provided. I remember a much ballyhooed sidewalk project in a city where I lived, the day they opened the new sidewalks I visited and was disgusted by the number of cigarette butts already littering the ground. Then of course you have the tossing of lit cigarettes from cars because they don't want to dirty their pristine ashtrays...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:07PM (#342263)

    Good. Smoking kills, if you want to smoke, get started when you're 21 and really *want* to kill yourself in a slow and agonizing way.
    It's a bit like circumcisions: if you really want to have a bit of your penis cut off, do it when you're 18 or older instead of when you aren't even old enough to see anything sharply that is more than 5 yards away. Let's see how much you like it then...

    I'd go even further: make smoking illegal. There is no good reason why anyone would want to or should smoke. If you want to go and off yourself, there are other ways to do it.
    That being said: when you do make this illegal, make sure you provide adequate programs and support to those that (need to) quit with replacement- and other therapies.

    • (Score: 2) by rigrig on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM

      by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM (#342271) Homepage

      There is no good reason why anyone would want to or should smoke.

      Or drink alcohol, or eat unhealthy, or fail to do their daily exercises, or risk spending more time outside their safety-padded rooms than absolutely necessary...

      --
      No one remembers the singer.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM

      by TheReaperD (5556) on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM (#342272)

      Yes, because the war on drugs has been so successful at stopping drug use and improving people's lives. *eye roll*

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:31PM (#342282)

        The OP did mention a distinct difference with the War on Drugs, namely to *help* folks from the drug instead of incarcerate them.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 06 2016, @03:03AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Friday May 06 2016, @03:03AM (#342385) Homepage

          The problem really is... a lot of people don't WANT to depart from their drug habit. Now what?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Friday May 06 2016, @03:32AM

            by anubi (2828) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @03:32AM (#342391)

            Let 'em do what others may despise - IN PRIVATE - legally.

            If I have to take a shit, I sure as hell don't treat others to the experience of watching me get relief.

            Same with nose picking, ass scratching, and a good nut scratching.

            If several want a shared experience, I find nothing wrong with it, as long as they do whatever they want to do, in private.

            Bottom line - I feel no one has the right to force their experience onto someone else.

            Nor does anyone have the right to force others to deny someone else their experience.

            That is what privacy is for and why it should be well protected.

            Fellow soylenters: Care to offer any examples of why anything should be denied to someone as long as one groups pleasure is not coming at someone else's expense ( including the tragedy of the commons )?

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 06 2016, @04:09AM

              by Reziac (2489) on Friday May 06 2016, @04:09AM (#342402) Homepage

              I agree; let people do unto themselves, in their own space, however they please so long as they don't involve/affect others' persons or property.

              I think where I was going is that it's disingenuous to think that a mere policy change from punishment to aid does much against drug use. Neither punishment nor aid works til the user =wants= to do stop using.

              • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday May 06 2016, @06:17AM

                by anubi (2828) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @06:17AM (#342448)

                I think you are right on.

                I believe everybody has their little quirks that others find offensive. A good nut scratching really feels good to me, but I won't do this around others.

                Like you say, punishment nor aid will have much effect on this either.

                --
                "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:09PM

    by KilroySmith (2113) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:09PM (#342265)

    I can get tried as an adult for a crime I commit when I'm 15, because I'm considered capable of making whatever decisions I made to get in trouble.

    And I'm capable of making the decision to turn over my life (including the right to sacrifice it) to the armed forces when I'm 18.

    But I'm not considered capable of making a decision about whether or not to smoke or drink until I'm 21.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:16PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:16PM (#342269) Journal

      One of the factors cited in promoting this law is that 21 year olds generally do not hang out with high school students, so they will have less access to illegally-resold tobacco. Apparently friends and siblings aren't concepts our intrepid masters grok.

      • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:41PM

        by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:41PM (#342299)

        I know some of my drunkest moments were between the ages of 16-20. Don't think I would have ever bought either for my siblings though. Granted I was miles away in school at the time, but they would have had to do it the hard way like I did even if I was still at home.

        --
        Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:17PM (#342273)

      It makes sense when you flip it around and look at it from society's viewpoint (which includes you when we're talking about a third party youngster) instead of your own.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Friday May 06 2016, @12:23AM

      by quintessence (6227) on Friday May 06 2016, @12:23AM (#342317)

      Yup. This is just begging for a rehash of the arguments made during the 60s- old enough to get drafted, but not old enough to drink a beer. Old enough to have sex, but not old enough to smoke afterwards.

      Smoking rates have been steadily declining through education, so I have to wonder exactly what the law brings to the table that couldn't be done through a less restrictive means.

      Part of freedom is that people are free to make stupid choices. It is easier to buy weed than cigarettes now. WTF is accomplished?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Friday May 06 2016, @04:15AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Friday May 06 2016, @04:15AM (#342408) Homepage

        It is, as I rant above, just legislative virtue signaling, with a side of court-related income for the state.

    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday May 06 2016, @01:02AM

      by jdavidb (5690) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @01:02AM (#342337) Homepage Journal
      The weird thing is in the last 2 months I saw an article about California considering a bill to lower the drinking age to 18!
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday May 06 2016, @01:04AM

      by jdavidb (5690) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @01:04AM (#342339) Homepage Journal
      I agree with your reasoning, but I'm positive their reasoning is that they have a system where others pay for your medical expenses, and they can save themselves a bundle of money if you never smoke until 21 (because then you are extremely likely to never smoke at all). Walter Williams would say "That's a problem of socialism, not freedom." You can't have this freedom and socialism, together.
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @10:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @10:11AM (#342490)
        Uh. You make more money if you make it legal, tax it and clamp down enough on smuggling.

        Why?
        Because:
        a) Drug money dude... They're addicted, you can crank the taxes up fairly high and most will still pay (esp when you tell them it's bad for them so they have to pay).
        b) people pay for the privilege of dying younger.
        While smoking lowers life expectancy the typical most productive years aren't affected that much. You tend to die sooner but only after the rest of society doesn't need you around as much ;). In contrast to living longer sucking up extra healthcare and other social service costs while contributing a lot less (like zero to income tax), and maybe still dying of something expensive.

        My stance is people should not be allowed to smoke till they are legally considered adults. If they are legal adults then they should be able to smoke, drink alcohol, join the army, vote, be fucked without it being considered rape etc. If they aren't legally adults then no. All this different age (16, 18, 21) stuff seems to make things worse rather than better.
    • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday May 06 2016, @05:29AM

      by Spook brat (775) on Friday May 06 2016, @05:29AM (#342435)

      I'm capable of making the decision to turn over my life (including the right to sacrifice it) to the armed forces when I'm 18.
      But I'm not considered capable of making a decision about whether or not to smoke or drink until I'm 21.

      That's why on-base drinking age is 18. The Army gets it, at least. Now let's please explain it to the states who refuse concealed carry license reciprocity to states like Indiana, North Dakota, and Texas because they'll issue ccw licenses to 18 year-olds serving in the military or law enforcement...

      --
      Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 06 2016, @09:27AM

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 06 2016, @09:27AM (#342482) Journal

      "You're old enough to kill / But not for smoking"...

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:21PM (#342275)

    Is there any grounds to overturn this law due to age discrimination?

    How can there be a law that only prevents certain adults from using tobacco without it violating "equal protection under the law"?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:33PM (#342284)

      AC, meet precedent: Alcohol

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:36AM (#342324)

        Alcohol is slightly different due to the 21st Amendment, namely section 2: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

        However, age in this case would only be subject to rational basis review. And I think you would be hard pressed to find a court that would proclaim that this smoking law isn't "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, especially given the precedent of public health statutes that have withstood strict scrutiny.

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:44PM

    by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:44PM (#342289)

    I wonder... at the rate we are going into crazy town, lets look ahead a few years.

    It will be illegal to buy a pack of smokes until 21, probably 26 by then since that seems to be the new age of independence.

    But ten year olds will be able to buy weed and have their junk cut off if they feel like that is what their 'true self' is.

    Anybody else have the feeling our rulers are insane in the brain? Or that we are being massively trolled just to see how far they can go with this "you can't criticize your betters" because you would be racists/sexists/some other 'intolerence' and there is nothing worse than that!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:14AM (#342315)

      > Anybody else have the feeling our rulers are insane in the brain?

      Nope, just you. I have the feeling that you are 'insane in the brain.'

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday May 06 2016, @12:19AM

      by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @12:19AM (#342316) Homepage

      There's a big difference between tobacco and marijuana: tobacco is chemically addictive and is known to kill people, whereas marijuana is only somewhat psychologically addictive and has as best as anybody can tell killed nobody. The primary reason tobacco is legal is that tobacco was a drug of choice for white people back in the 1930's, whereas marijuana was the drug of choice for Mexican immigrants and black people who the authorities wanted to have an excuse to lock up even if they hadn't done anything wrong.

      Our drug laws are much more the product of racism than they are of science.

      --
      If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday May 06 2016, @12:40AM

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday May 06 2016, @12:40AM (#342329)

        Uh huh, stoners make weed a worship item, go to the right sort of places and you see that damned leaf more than you see crucifixes. It is the number one driver of the Libertarian Party; it is their sacrament, their defining issue in exactly the same way dead babies and wealth redistribution define Democrats.. Stoners are convinced smoking a lil magic herb can cure pretty much any disease known to man. Sure, they can quit any time they want.

        And as for dangerous, comparing an illegal product to tobacco is arguing in bad faith. Do you really think that when Big Tobacco rolls into production and weed is selling at the exact same wholesale price as tobacco, i.e. when you can walk into the corner Kwiki Mart and buy a pack of either for about the same price, and folks are burning through a couple of packs a day, that we won't see similar health problems? Really? Meanwhile nicotine is a nasty drug but it tends to be a stimulant, people smoke to get a boost much like others prefer caffeine. Weed, how shall I put this nicely, is not a stimulant.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Friday May 06 2016, @01:38AM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Friday May 06 2016, @01:38AM (#342350)

          urine idjit...
          of all my dope-smoking friends, only ONE youngster has ANY MJ leaf crap around...
          you damn well notice the 1 out of a hundred with MJ leaf posters, knit cap, etc (PARTICULARLY the youngsters); but don't realize the other 20-30 'normal' people out of a hundred you see are smokers, too, they just don't go public about it for perfectly reasonable reasons of a corrupt and controlling society...
          (and better taste in clothing)
          as a MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, IF you are actually FOR freedom, and the ability of people to make their OWN FUCKING DECISIONS, then there *should be* no laws prohibiting me/anyone from ingesting whatever they see fit to ingest for whatever reasons...
          here's the thing: being free means being free to make mistakes; not just that you are free to cure cancer; but you are free to contract cancer...
          otherwise, you ain't free...

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday May 06 2016, @04:15AM

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday May 06 2016, @04:15AM (#342407)

            You make a most basic error in logic and perception. You presume a free society is an option. It certainly isn't what we have now and it isn't anything that is close enough to the Overton Window to see with the Hubble Telescope. Many policy choices that would make sense in a free country are insanity in ours.

            And if one were attempting to move our current welfare socialism to a free country, legalizing drugs is an... ahem, interesting first step. You should first be attempting to create a people worthy of the blessings of liberty again instead of helping them debauch themselves further with a drug known to make the users uncaring and pliable. A strong, self reliant, responsible people probably could handle the occasional indulgence in pot much like they handled alcohol and it would make sense to allow them to handle it, also allowing them to deal with the consequences.

            But reread the article we are debating. We are banning tobacco because we have a nanny state who worries about the medical costs it must bear if it permits its subjects to smoke. If you have a plan to smash that, there are a lot of us who would like to hear it.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 06 2016, @02:32AM

          by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @02:32AM (#342367) Homepage

          For the record, I'm not a stoner. I know some, and many are perfectly normal kinds of folks who just like to smoke up when they get home from work. Demonstrating that some stoners are idiots does not prove that pot is more harmful than tobacco, especially since none of the studies done on that issue point in that direction.

          And as for dangerous, comparing an illegal product to tobacco is arguing in bad faith.

          How does the legality of pot have any bearing on how dangerous it is? I mean, I get that the local dope dealer isn't getting an FDA approval stamp on it, but that doesn't tell you anything about whether cannabis causes significant harm to human bodies. Pot was made illegal for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with science.

          --
          If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday May 06 2016, @04:06AM

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday May 06 2016, @04:06AM (#342401)

            How does the legality of pot have any bearing on how dangerous it is?

            You don't think the price influences use? When the stuff is as cheap as tobacco and, apparently, even more legal is it not reasonable to suppose people will consume it in much greater quantity than now when it sells for way over a hundred dollars an ounce and carries a threat of imprisonment in most places for mere possession?

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 06 2016, @03:03PM

              by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 06 2016, @03:03PM (#342575) Homepage

              is it not reasonable to suppose people will consume it in much greater quantity than now when it sells for way over a hundred dollars an ounce and carries a threat of imprisonment in most places for mere possession?

              Even conceding that point (which is a stretch, because pot is very very easy for people to come by): As far as anybody can tell, nobody (not even the stoners) will be seriously harmed if there are people sitting around smoking dope and eating Cheetos. Certainly less people than will be harmed by having people standing around smoking cigarettes, via lung cancer and heart disease. Why are you so keen on making activities that don't hurt anybody illegal?

              --
              If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:33AM (#342321)

      Wow are you off your meds today?

  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday May 06 2016, @12:00AM

    by hendrikboom (1125) on Friday May 06 2016, @12:00AM (#342304) Homepage

    So all the 18-year-olds that got addicted when it was legal now are cut off and forced to go in the black market?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @03:52AM (#342396)

    I am really enjoying what my kids are seeing in school. You touch one cigarette and you are ruining your lungs for life, and now are breaking the law. But feel free to smoke a joint whenever you feel like because its medicinal!

    I don't want my kids smoking either, and because I explained to them the benefits and the risks and they don't do either and I am happy with that. But man what the hell.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Subsentient on Friday May 06 2016, @04:19AM

    I think both tobacco and alcohol should be legal at 18, either that or raise the age of adulthood to 21. This current standard of 'oh yay you're an adult, except you're not' is two-faced and a possible slippery slope to telling seniors they can't legally have salty foods or have sex for health reasons. Human life is short. If you live to 60, 18 years of your life, maturation, is already a depressingly long time to be alive without full human rights, almost a third of your life, to be exact. And at 21, it's over a third. You can't do much about that really, people under 18 (and some over it) often lack judgement needed to make wise decisions, but let's not extend that any further, yes?

    Some will reply "well should you be allowed to jump off a cliff because it's your choice?!" and I'd reply, yes. That's what true freedom is about, self determination.

    Personal context:
    I might be biased because I am a smoker. Frankly, I *hope* it kills me at 60. I don't want to live to be old enough to end up wearing depends and not remembering my own name, that and the existential horror I deal with every day. But to each their own. Smoking is a faustian bargain where you get a little stress relief every day with no mind-altering effects except addiction, but it'll probably kill you young. For a miserable son of a bitch like me, that's a good deal.

    --
    Instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, focus on the unquestionably terrible big picture. -The Onion
    • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday May 06 2016, @04:51AM

      by Common Joe (33) <common.joe.0101NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 06 2016, @04:51AM (#342425) Journal

      I might be biased because I am a smoker.

      No. You're not biased. This is common sense and exercising your rights as an adult. (Which is another point -- politicians and lawyers clearly can't define "adult" since one can be tried as an adult for crimes younger than 18, can be drafted at 18, and now drinking isn't allowed till 21.) I say this as a person who hates to see people kill themselves smoking, as a person who has asthma, and who absolutely hates the smell of smoke.

      I'm fully with you that an adult should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm me or get in the way of allowing me to make my choices. In my opinion, if you want to smoke, go for it. If you want to drink or have salty foods or have sex or do drugs, go for it because it doesn't harm me.

      Now, with that said, sometimes drinking (when combined with driving) or smoking (at a place where I work) or loud music (that keeps me awake when I need to sleep) can severely affect me. We need to agree on where to draw lines (in a societal way) so we both have our freedoms. In my personal life, I've found I can work or goof off with smokers. Most smokers I know are pretty cool around me and understand my issues. We can usually find a good line where both of us are happy.

      And what cheeses me off about this regulation is that everyone needs a vice to let off steam. I may not like smoking as a vice, but I have my own quirks and vices that others don't like. These holier-than-thou attitudes shown by these politicians only lead to worse issues down the road. But then, maybe that is the point. Make everything illegal so that people can be locked up for a superficial reason -- and quite frankly, smoking is a superficial reason. This law is just stupid.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @05:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @05:52AM (#342444)

      You say that you hope you die when you're 60, because you don't want to have use depends? Is that because it would be unpleasant to live like that? Keep smoking and you may get a hole cut in your throat and lose your ability to speak. Or you may lose some your teeth --- that also happens to smokers more frequently than nonsmokers. Or you might wind up with COPD and need to drag around a tank of oxygen around with you. I'm 64, and I've seen all these happen. I've also lost friends and family members to this dumb habit.
      Don't be a chump. Whatever you may think you get out of cigarettes, it's not worth it. Stop now. You'll thank me when you're 60.

      • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Friday May 06 2016, @06:12AM

        I'd rather be a mute with an oxygen tank than senile and incontinent, locked in an insipid facility with abusive nurses by my ungrateful children, or in my case, likely no children to even miss me and visit me. Still seems like a fair deal to me.

        --
        Instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, focus on the unquestionably terrible big picture. -The Onion
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @10:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @10:47AM (#342498)

          your problem is you have no idea what pain is. lung cancer is a horrible way to die.

          • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Friday May 06 2016, @08:50PM

            As someone who once spent months screaming for someone to kill me with tears streaming down my face, that's offensive.
            I'm not even kidding.

            --
            Instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, focus on the unquestionably terrible big picture. -The Onion
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 06 2016, @01:43PM

    by DannyB (5839) on Friday May 06 2016, @01:43PM (#342554)

    If you want to curb smoking even further, than raise the legal age to purchase to, say, 25.

    If you want to eliminate smoking altogether, raise the legal age to smoke, to say, 99. (the input field only accepts two digits, but other legislation is pending to increase the field length)

    That would put a total and complete end to smoking.

    We could also save a huge amount of money spent on The War On (some) Drugs by simply raising the legal age to purchase those drugs.

    Bravo lawmakers!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:52PM (#342617)

      The reason for raising the age is that nobody starts smoking that late in life, everyone who smokes started as a young teen. If you've made it into your 20s without picking up a smoking habit, you never will.