Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Raises the Smoking Age (fastcompany.com)
From a report: Some 95 percent of lifetime smokers pick up the habit before their 21st birthday, so Oregon lawmakers yesterday passed a law making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase cigarettes in the hopes of nipping the bad habit in the bud. "By the age of 25, this addiction is cemented in the brain and it becomes very difficult -- almost impossible -- to quit," State Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, told KGW. Oregon is not the first state to do this, and it probably won't be the last. No one under 21 can (lawfully) buy cigarettes in Hawaii, California, Washington, D.C., and Guam to date. It also passed in New Jersey, but noted beachcomber Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill -- although it could still become law there. According to the American Cancer Society, at least 250 localities across the country have passed similar local ordinances.
Will it also be illegal to send those under 21 off to die in wars?
"His name was James Damore."
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
Learn to love Alaska
It's not a "bad habit," it's a drug addiction.
Garry Knight
States that require someone be 21 years of age to consent to engaging in risky smoking behavior will also ban those under 21 from enlisting in the military, right?
Young people do lots of risky things. Let's be consistent.
You need to be 21 to smoke a cigarette, but at 18 you can go into the army and kill people
Are you comparing murder with smoking ? How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior- starting with alcohol and food, moving to cars, extreme sports and anything that may somehow harm your precious little life. After all, the state should know better what's better for your body. That's all I can say about your comparisons...
This doesn't solve the root cause problem. The root cause problem is some people have addictive personality. Addictive personality in my estimation arises from an inability to cope with the anxieties of life and reality. Therefore the person turns to self medication. If it's not cigarettes, it'll be something else. If we addressed the root problem, the demand for these self medication "fixes" would reduce naturally.
We'll make great pets
When you say something, it doesn't make it true.
Actual data on the subject says otherwise. And even common sense points out why this is true. When you make it more difficult for people to get something, it shouldn't be surprising that overall usage goes down a certain amount as for some people, the inconvenience of acquiring that thing outweighs their desire to acquire it.
Nobody thinks it will stop smoking entirely. But it will reduce the amount of people who start smoking.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Don't be so quick to dismiss this idea. This law will mean 18 year old high school seniors can't just go buy cigarettes at the Quik-E-Mart across the street from school, which means there will be fewer 14 year old freshmen bumming their first smokes from seniors, and it may actually have an real impact on teen smoking.
"Pot" has not killed anyone, ever.
So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use...
Alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly and also has substantial uses in culinary arts. (cabernet sauce, beer-batter fried seafood, bourbon marinade, vodka sauce, moonshine BBQ sauce, Jack Daniels beans, garlic butter white wine sauce, kahlua chocolate mousse... etc.)
It would be like banning crowbars because they can be used to break into homes.
Or guns because they can kill people despite hundreds of millions only being used for target practice.
Or explosives for the same reason despite the vast, vast majority going towards industrial uses.
Or agent orange as an effective weed-killer which, when used in a controlled way, can be safe.
We measure things based on their effects. Guns, explosives, and various chemicals are too dangerous to outweigh their benefits. Alcohol is in the same category.