Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:09PM

    by KilroySmith (2113) 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday May 06 2016, @01:02AM

    by jdavidb (5690) 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) 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) Journal

    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"...