"New York Raising Age to Buy Cigarettes to 21"

[Darias]

You can access the article here.


For lack of a better imagination, I'll let CNN go ahead and pose this thread's question for me:

"Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"


I trust your answers will be more substantial than the question; I know mine will.

[Darias]

As if the war on drugs wasn't a successful enough model...

[center][/center]



So, let's start with the facts to see if any sense can be made of this soon-to-be law.

Are politicians correct when they feign concern for the life changing decisions youth make (in the interest of their careers)?

Well there's certainly a case for that. The reasoning center of the brain isn't fully fleshed out until around the age of 25:

The last area of the brain to reach maturity is the prefrontal cortex, where the so-called executive brain resides—where we make social judgments, weigh alternatives, plan for the future, and hold our behavior in check.

"The executive brain doesn't hit adult levels until the age of 25," says Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health, one of the lead scientists on the neuroimaging studies. "At puberty, you have adult passions, sex drive, energy, and emotion, but the reining in doesn't happen until much later." It is no wonder, perhaps, that teenagers seem to lack good judgment or the ability to restrain impulses. "We can vote at 18," says Giedd, "and drive a car. But you can't rent a car until you're 25. In terms of brain anatomy, the only ones who have it right are the car-rental people."

So in light of the data, shouldn't all the laws be adjusted? I can understand that back in ancient times, you'd be considered an elder if you could make it to 30. However, lifespans have more than doubled since then. Could society function better if certain privileges or products were withheld from people under 25, if not by laws then by social pressures? I don't know.

However when you consider all the other things late teens are permitted to do, it seems that the law is more about revenue from special interests and fines than for the best interests of young people. In other words, it's about control. In that sense, it's literally indistinguishable from a moral majority imposing their will on the rest of society by prohibiting sex positions or mosque construction.

With parental permission, a 17 year old can join the armed forces. All 17 year olds are legally required to register for the draft. But I suppose I should be thankful that conscription isn't still a norm, as it is for so many other countries around the world -- especially given America's role in so many fronts around the world. In some places, 18 year olds can become police officers, you know, those people the state puts in charge of making critical life or death judgement calls. You can be tried as an adult at 16. You can be put to death. In the UK you're free to have your first beer at 16.

How can it be that a 17 year old is mentally capable enough to rationally volunteer his life to potentially be lost in a sandy grave halfway around the world, but he's not old enough to watch an R rated film alone on Halloween? What proponents of this law would like to have you believe is that an 18 year old is not mature enough to "light up a fag" in a trench, but he's old enough to be on the battlefield -- you can forget experiencing the sensation of being buzzed before losing life and limb for state interests.

This is not strange when you realize that politics is no place for rational principles or sane laws. Hell, this new law even prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes (safe to user and bystander alike) to 18 year olds. But that's not far enough because Bloomberg and friends want to ban them too. New Yorkers who like to smoke are really getting the short end of the stick here. Not only are they forced to quit, lest they break the law and buy their cigs on the black market, now they can't even ween themselves out of the habit or switch to one that's non-harmful. Forget about getting a stiff drink to deal with this, they can't even buy a large sugary soda.

And so much for the shop keepers who need business to feed their families. I don't know whose bright idea it was to make tobacco companies set a price floor for cigarettes so that poor families have to blow all their cash on cigarettes, and then be forced to use food stamps to get what they need to eat. But you see, these are the unseen consequences of moral crusades. They have minimal impacts on usage and everyone suffers in the pocket because of it... well except for the state.



Either the state is treating functionally rational, mature human beings like children... or it's using child soldiers to advance its interests around the world. Either way, future generations will see ours as barbaric because of it.



[center][/center]



-

[Nickman]

You can access the article here.


For lack of a better imagination, I'll let CNN go ahead and pose this thread's question for me:

"Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"


I trust your answers will be more substantial than the question; I know mine will.

I am kinda torn on this one. On one hand it hinders people from getting cigarettes (to an extent) and since cigarettes are bad, that would be a good thing. On the other hand people older than 18 should be able to make the decision to smoke or not. Ill listen to others to see if they can flip my decision to one side.

[keithprosser3]

It's a good thing. As a life-long smoker I am suffering the consequences of smoking.

re Mary Poppins, although the 'Nanny state' gets criticised, perhaps we also need to criticise 'Gangsta Market'. The state may be saying 'Don't smoke, its bad for you', but the market is telling you 'Smoke - it's cool'.

The tobacco companies don't make cigarettes so you can make a protest against state power or to empower the individual - they do it to make money out of schmucks. The market doesn't have the power of the state apparatus of law on its side, but it does have such things as peer pressure, fashion, social convention instead.

Smoking is not rebellion - it's what 'they' want you to do. Complaining against 'Nanny State' is just what 'Gangsta Market' and 'Big tobacco' want you to do.

The practical - and I think intended - consequence of the law it will be harder for kids of 14-16 to buy cigarettes; it won't really affect 18-21 yr olds that much, or if it does even better. I don't buy into myth of capitalist freedom enough to think that is not a good thing.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by keithprosser3]

I think 19 is a better limit just outside the reach of high-schoolers some of which are 18. I think education is far superior to arbitrary age limits though.

[Darias]

I am kinda torn on this one. On one hand it hinders people from getting cigarettes (to an extent) and since cigarettes are bad, that would be a good thing. On the other hand people older than 18 should be able to make the decision to smoke or not. Ill listen to others to see if they can flip my decision to one side.

Being against this law does not mean you're promoting youth abuse of tobacco products anymore than being against DOMA means you really want to get gay married. Any given Christian might think both are sinful "bad things" but that doesn't mean they have to support laws that prohibit those things.

There are many things 18 year olds can do that are hazardous to their health. Getting themselves shipped overseas to fight the Taliban, driving a motor vehicle, etc.

If the purpose of the law is to protect young people from themselves, then why the arbitrary fixation on cigarettes, to the point where non harmful products are prohibited as well? Why are much more dangerous choices allowed and encouraged by the state?

[Nickman]

I am kinda torn on this one. On one hand it hinders people from getting cigarettes (to an extent) and since cigarettes are bad, that would be a good thing. On the other hand people older than 18 should be able to make the decision to smoke or not. Ill listen to others to see if they can flip my decision to one side.

Being against this law does not mean you're promoting youth abuse of tobacco products anymore than being against DOMA means you really want to get gay married. Any given Christian might think both are sinful "bad things" but that doesn't mean they have to support laws that prohibit those things.

There are many things 18 year olds can do that are hazardous to their health. Getting themselves shipped overseas to fight the Taliban, driving a motor vehicle, etc.

If the purpose of the law is to protect young people from themselves, then why the arbitrary fixation on cigarettes, to the point where non harmful products are prohibited as well? Why are much more dangerous choices allowed and encouraged by the state?

No matter what age is restricted, people will smoke. This seems to be another "war on drugs." If you deny it, people will get it and at a price.

[Darias]

1)

It's a good thing. As a life-long smoker I am suffering the consequences of smoking.

I don't believe you will find anyone here who is in favor of smoking. I don't think opposing this new law indicates one's support for the habit.



2)

re Mary Poppins, although the 'Nanny state' gets criticised, perhaps we also need to criticise 'Gangsta Market'. The state may be saying 'Don't smoke, its bad for you', but the market is telling you 'Smoke - it's cool'.

Your analogy is truly backwards because the market can only persuade. The market cannot force you to buy cigarettes, nor can it bully you into buying cigarettes. The state, however, can punish you for disobeying its decrees through extortion or capture. The state, while appearing to be a nanny, is the only gangster here.



3)

The tobacco companies don't make cigarettes so you can make a protest against state power or to empower the individual

Smoking cigarettes is really a pastime of past generations as far as I am concerned. People who thought it was cool to smoke also liked watching I Love Lucy. You will be very hard pressed to find anyone who thinks smoking is cool. Besides, the only smoking that people are into these days are hooka and pot. I hear tell that pot is in with the anti-establishment crowd, but I wouldn't know because I'm not a fan of any of this stuff myself.



4)

- they do it to make money out of schmucks.

And you don't think the politicians are cashing in because of this vote? Oh come now, don't tell me you don't know that the state has a profit motive too. Please, please don't tell me you didn't know that.



5)

The market doesn't have the power of the state apparatus of law on its side, but it does have such things as peer pressure, fashion, social convention instead.

It appears that peer pressure, fashion, and social convention aren't really allies of the tobacco industry at the moment. But you see, even if they were, cultural habits and the insistence of friends can all be resisted without consequence to your life or bank account.

Resist the laws of the state at your peril.



6)

Smoking is not rebellion - it's what 'they' want you to do.

Smoking wasn't a rebellious thing to do before, but now that it's illegal and forbidden, I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences encouraging young people to smoke illegally in protest -- no, no, how silly of me to think that.



7)

Complaining against 'Nanny State' is just what 'Gangsta Market' and 'Big tobacco' want you to do.

Do you actually believe the state has your best interests at heart? How can you even begin to think that the people in office are angels but the people in the tobacco industries are predators? They're both in it to profit from your choices, but only one group has the self ordained authority to regulate your life and punish you for living it.



8)

The practical - and I think intended - consequence of the law it will be harder for kids of 14-16 to buy cigarettes

It was already illegal for anyone to sell tobacco products to anyone under 18, not that that stopped them from getting access, anymore than gun-free zone signs stop crimes and massacres. The greater war on drugs has not reduced drug use whatsoever, and the same will be true for this new law.



9)

it won't really affect 18-21 yr olds that much, or if it does even better.

Well this new law specifically targets people under 21. It really won't stop them from being able to smoke, since they'll be able to buy them in another city or buy them on the black market with Bitcoin or cash (This could be dangerous if done on the street, but might be safer online). Therefore the intended purpose of this law makes the law pointless. However it will hurt small businesses and of course the law is just a tax on the employees of tobacco industries who will do anything to help their shareholders -- including layoffs and pay reductions. It's also possible that the smokers' parents will be ticketed if caught smoking, or they themselves could be fined.

My point is that smoking was on its way out and had been declining before this law was put into place. If that trend continues, the law certainly won't have anything to do with it.



10)

I don't buy into myth of capitalist freedom enough to think that is not a good thing.

Well, the freedom to smoke at 18 wasn't a myth in New York until the statists came along at changed it. Are we now to be expected to just forget that freedom ever existed... that it was just a myth all along?

You see this is truly Orwellian:

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."



-

[Darias]

No matter what age is restricted, people will smoke. This seems to be another "war on drugs." If you deny it, people will get it and at a price.

It's pretty much an extension of the war on drugs. But it ultimately won't work.

Honestly, I think the best way to encourage people not to use drugs are all the business owners, apartment owners, restaurant owners, and bar owners that don't allow smoking on their premises. They do it in the interest of attracting the majority of non-smokers back to their establishments. It's a lot more effective than laws that don't work, I think.

[Nickman]

I don't believe you will find anyone here who is in favor of smoking. I don't think opposing this new law indicates one's support for the habit.

Unless they are smokers.

Your analogy is truly backwards because the market can only persuade. The market cannot force you to buy cigarettes, nor can it bully you into buying cigarettes. The state, however, can punish you for disobeying its decrees through extortion or capture. The state, while appearing to be a nanny, is the only gangster here.

This is actually federal. They intend to ban all New York ID card holders from buying in any other state unless they are 21.



I smoke e-cigarettes and know of many who still buy a 7 dollar pack everyday. They also don't watch"I Love Lucy," in fact many don't know who Lucy and Desi are.