New Tobacco Law a Psychology Experiment

While I agree the legal age to buy something that can kill you should be 21, I believe there is a totally different reason that the age limit was increased.

It seems to me that any company that has a hugely successful product line with a large profit , gets pretty much blackmailed.

Juul has lately come under attack from damn near every news agency in my local area. I honestly think someone wanted some huge "donations" or "contributions" and didn't get them.

After whoever owns it said "I'm not giving you money, P.F.O."

Instant retribution for not supporting progressive nimrods, and their fine ideas.

Two years ago, there was a huge push to support all these glassblowing shops and vape shops, and all of a sudden it's full stop- reverse course....

I really think it's just shady people humping a cash cow, only to get spiteful when the cow walks away.

Like I said, just my take on this.

I was around when there was a draft for 18ers and adulthood for the 21ers.
The argument was if you can be conscripted to die in a war - then you deserve the right to vote, drink.smoke, etc.
Still, once in the military the rules were a bit different: the uniform made you an adult - at least on a military base.
Practically, local law enforcement just ignored the problem - after all it was criminal to SERVE minors so enforcement was at that level when it came to underage military guys (for the most part).

Much of the energy around the anti-war movement went to getting the voting age lowered - because of the draft.
By 1975, the draft was history. A decade or two later, some states increased drinking age back to 21.
Drinking and Driving 'hysteria' and studies about the human brain not discernably proficient until 25 or so were causal.

Pendulum swings. My point is the argument about military service is no longer applicable since conscription ended.
BTW, did we pass legislation to up the smocking age - or just issue an EO?

ganjoa

Tobacco kills. Children are overly impressionable and proven to be an easy target for getting hooked on nicotone. What's the issue with raising the age? Better yet, just ban the filthy poison outright.

This isn't a social experiment, it's progress.

a reply to: 2ndTenor

a reply to: hombero

How come "progress" always means consenting adults get to do less?

It seems like fiefdoms had progressed quite a bit based on that logic

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hombero

How come "progress" always means consenting adults get to do less?

It seems like fiefdoms had progressed quite a bit based on that logic

Because progress to some equals out to a nanny state.

People can't make their own choices and the government knows what's best for you.

Ie, sheep.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hombero

How come "progress" always means consenting adults get to do less?

It seems like fiefdoms had progressed quite a bit based on that logic

Because progress to some equals out to a nanny state.

People can't make their own choices and the government knows what's best for you.

Ie, sheep.

Evidently. But what gets me -- and you can probably back me up or poke holes in it, considering we're practically neighbors at this point if you're still in my town here -- where the hell have all these vape-swilling teens been? I've yet to see a teenager with trailing vape clouds like people claim as being the reason for the age hike. I've yet to see a teenager so much as SMELL like anything other than Axe body spray, too, so my former vaper ass can't even smell the evidence on them.

Have you spotted the mythical vaping teen 'round these parts? Where TF are they hiding?


Edit: And my point here is, I think it's a fudged numbers boogieman to rile the sheep up. Kinda like the DARE numbers in the 90's were to make the potheads look like a theft-happy junkie epidemic.

orbbniginally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hombero

How come "progress" always means consenting adults get to do less?

It seems like fiefdoms had progressed quite a bit based on that logic

Because progress to some equals out to a nanny state.

People can't make their own choices and the government knows what's best for you.

Ie, sheep.

Evidently. But what gets me -- and you can probably back me up or poke holes in it, considering we're practically neighbors at this point if you're still in my town here -- where the hell have all these vape-swilling teens been? I've yet to see a teenager with trailing vape clouds like people claim as being the reason for the age hike. I've yet to see a teenager so much as SMELL like anything other than Axe body spray, too, so my former vaper ass can't even smell the evidence on them.

Have you spotted the mythical vaping teen 'round these parts? Where TF are they hiding?

Edit: And my point here is, I think it's a fudged numbers boogieman to rile the sheep up. Kinda like the DARE numbers in the 90's were to make the potheads look like a theft-happy junkie epidemic.

Now I certainly am not the authority on the matter as I avoid crowded places like the plague, but the few times I went downtown or to the malls, they were in there. By no means were there that many.

Personally I mostly see them when riding. Clouds shooting out the windows.

I've moved up north this past year btw.

H.R.2411 and S.1258, both passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 20, 2019. It affects purchase, not use, and only applies to retailers. In other words, you have to have someone over 21 to buy the smokes for you. Yeah, that's not a loophole, now, is it?

IMO an illegal law, since it does not grandfather those who were already of legal age to purchase. But, my opinion and $1.00 might get you a cup of coffee, depending on the location.

Does it bother me that more people cannot buy tobacco? Nope... doesn't affect me. I'm about to start growing my own tobacco anyway. Screw the fools that think adding carpet glue to a cigarette is a good idea, and screw the fools who think they have some God-given authority to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home without affecting anyone else. And for those who want to tell me I'm going to die if I don't stop smoking, plug it. I've heard it all before, mainly from doctors, and I have already outlived the vast majority of those doctors who told me that.

That said, I definitely agree with GeauxHomeYoureDrunk: age of majority is age of majority. Every age-based restriction should be based on that. If an 18-year old can be drafted to go to war and kill other humans, if an 18 year old can vote and thus affect the future direction of our country, an 18 year old can drink, smoke, have consensual sex, carry a gun, and all the rest of the things that go with age of majority. Anything else is tyrannical and an abuse of power.

TheRedneck

If a person has to be twenty-one years of age before they can be trusted with making a decision of whether to smoke tobacco or not, to drink alcohol or not....
What in the hell are we doing letting them drive an automobile at sixteen years of age?
Holy crap, you let them vote to elect our leaders???

Something needs to be sorted out here.

What constitutes a bigger threat to my life and health... a kid smoking a cigarette behind the 7-11, or a leadfoot seventeen year old speeding down the road in a car that weighs thousands of pounds using a brain that thinks eating Tide Pods might be a good idea?

It's speculation

2nd line

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: blueman12

Cite your sources for this specious comment please

It's just the nanny state. Several years ago they passed legislation requiring all cigarettes to be non flammable because people didn't have sense not to smoke in bed, but it has caused angst and frustration to the average smoker.
And don't forget the mountains of taxes they have passed trying to make people quit smoking.
I think Bloomberg may have his sticky prints on this.
It's bleeding heart liberals that think they can live your life better than you can.

But they want to let 16 year olds vote.

This makes some new sense to me now, as I have Pondered it. The Fed Government needed to shift around who they could tax quickly. This was BI-Partisan, and they never agree on a matter. Misdirection, purely...
.And a great thing to Data Mine...

quote]originally posted by: CharlesT
It's just the nanny state. Several years ago they passed legislation requiring all cigarettes to be non flammable because people didn't have sense not to smoke in bed, but it has caused angst and frustration to the average smoker.
And don't forget the mountains of taxes they have passed trying to make people quit smoking.
I think Bloomberg may have his sticky prints on this.
It's bleeding heart liberals that think they can live your life better than you can.

But they want to let 16 year olds vote.

a reply to: 2ndTenor

I don't see why it's a social experiment. I don't think it will create the great deal of tension you think it will. In the UK they raised the smoking age from 16 to 18 with not much objection at all and no tension.

Smoking is a huge killer in my country so really most people saw the benefits of raising the age limit.

As for it being a conspiracy that it has suddenly been implemented without any warning. Well how closely do you follow the process of forming legislation? In the UK we wouldn't know what was about to be legislated on unless we watched the parliament channel or read transcripts. Sometimes the media will report on it prior but only if they have an agenda and there doesn't seem to be one here.

I'm quite surprised at the amount of people commenting who are against their government doing this. Sometimes things are done simply to improve health outcomes for people. To save money in the long run. It's not always a sinister conspiracy.

I was impressed that US was banning vapes. THEY are worthy of a conspiracy BTW and yes they are HUGELY popular with young people and despite no long term evidence that they are safe they were issued to every state prisoner who smokes after the smoking bans were implented in the prisons...

originally posted by: butcherguy
If a person has to be twenty-one years of age before they can be trusted with making a decision of whether to smoke tobacco or not, to drink alcohol or not....
What in the hell are we doing letting them drive an automobile at sixteen years of age?
Holy crap, you let them vote to elect our leaders???

Something needs to be sorted out here.

What constitutes a bigger threat to my life and health... a kid smoking a cigarette behind the 7-11, or a leadfoot seventeen year old speeding down the road in a car that weighs thousands of pounds using a brain that thinks eating Tide Pods might be a good idea?

Its funny how judge the importance of things in relation of how it will affect YOUR life and not what is best for people in general.

Ive been told having a car in the US is almost a necessity due to the distances required to travel so I'm guessing it would really hinder anyone aged 16-21 who wasn't allowed to drive in the sense they may struggle to get a job thats not very close to their home. Not allowing them to smoke or drink at 16 just prevents young minds being easier swayed and corrupted. It doesn't hinder them in any way.
16 is a bit young to vote but thats only because the MSM can't be trusted and therefore it takes time to figure out the crazy world yourself. Voting age is 18 in uk along with smoking and drinking and I think thats a suitable age.

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: 2ndTenor

I don't see anything wrong with the legal age being 21.

I do.

Are you an adult at 18?
Can you buy a gun at 18?
Can you be sent abroad to possibly die at 18?

Either up the age for ALL of it, or stop restricting 18 year old's.

BTW - I'm for everything being upped to age 21, adulthood included, I was 18 once, and dumb as a rock.

Seeing as how nicotine has proven to be a relatively harmless drug, and also how the bad effects from smoking go away fairly quickly once a person stops, it makes more sense to put an upper limit on it rather than a lower limit. Basically no one should be allowed to smoke / vape nicotine if they're over the age of 40. I mean, if we're going to justify restrictions with science.

I'd think people under 21 should bear most of the nation's children, from the age of 16.

Surely this is what evolution, most world religions and culture before the 20th century intended.

Therefore tobacco and other drugs should be banned for this generation.

However after the age of 45 this ban should be relaxed, and after 50 people should be actively encouraged to smoke with targeted adverts, and tax reductions on tobacco.

This system will ensure that older people don't live too long and become a burden on the welfare state, wheres the child-bearing generation remains healthy and virile.
It also means that younger people will have something to actually look forward to!
Wow, I wanna get to 45 and have my first cigarette!

Or am I going too "Jeremy Bentham" here?

a reply to: halfoldman

A bit of twisted social engineering in this idea.

And if people vote to accept it, i'd have a hard time arguing against it. But the thing is, in the US there is supposed to be a focus on individual rights. As an individual, I have no debt to repay society. And society has no right to restrict my freedom so long as my actions have not impeded another freedom (i.e., crime).

Any deviation from that is a deviation from the spirit of our constitution and our founders.

originally posted by: Athetos
Remember kids you can kill for your country but beers and smokes are a no no.
a reply to: Night Star

Back in my day you could be drafted but not vote. All in all, I'd say things have improved on that front.

a reply to: daftpink

Its funny how judge the importance of things in relation of how it will affect YOUR life and not what is best for people in general.

Not too odd, really.
I am not a socialist.