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This discussion has been archived.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: 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).