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
Actually the proportion who start between 18 and 21 is very large. =18 mainly catches those who try to be a rebel, while almost all other smokers start in in the few years after that when the social pressures do a complete 180 and mop up everyone they missed on the first pass.
As for why not set the limit somewhere beyond 21: good luck dictating that people past the age of majority can't buy cigarettes. The lawmakers involved with this consist of those who (a) face strong resistance from those who insist that they government has no business telling adults they can't smoke and (b) those who ARE the ones insisting that government has no business telling adults they can't smoke.
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.
"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.
Absolute rubbish. Plenty of people, myself included, have managed to stop smoking after the age of 25. Is being an idiot now a pre-requisite for election to high office in the US?
Actually, adoption rates are almost certainly going to start as a typically gaussian (bell curve) distribution but petering out into a long tail as people get older - at least according to most of the statistics I've seen on the subject. In other words, you have a modest number of people who are likely to start smoking regularly before they can legally do so, most do so in the first few years after it becomes legal, then a gradual tail off to a point where adoption is highly unlikely. That's probably a long way before 65 though; I can't see very many people who make it into their 30s without taking up smoking are ever going to start - probably to the point that any that do would be more of statistical outlier than anything else. Still waiting to see some stats on how the adoption of vaping has skewed the stats of actual tobacco smokers though.
I guess the main rationale behind this is that "age 25" comment. Most countries consider a person an adult by the time they are in their 20s, but physically we do quite a bit of further positive development for a few years after that before going into decline as we age. By pushing out the legal age of adoption, they're basically playing around with the distribtion of the bell curve with the hope of achieving two main goals. Firstly, by shifting the bell curve to the right, they should reduce also its volume due to lower adoption rates as people get older, and secondly, by delaying when more people start smoking, they'll reduce the extent of the mental hardwiring and make it easier for them to quit should they try. There's possibly a couple of additional goals too; besides making it harder for under age smokers to pass themselves off as legally able to purchase cigarettes, reducing the number who start smoking before reaching legal age, a reduction in the total numbers of smokers could also reduce the extent of the peer pressure that gets many people into smoking in the first place.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You need to be 21 to smoke a cigarette, but at 18 you can go into the army and kill people
Yeah this would be about as effective as limiting alcohol in the same way. And it's not like the over-18 restriction is particularly effective anyway, most smokers that I know started way before that, probably by 16 already, so this would change pretty much nothing. Good job.
The age limit should be raised by 1 year, each year, effectively phasing out the industry.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Unfortunately it also turns out that if you're going to learn statistics you must do it before you're 23.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is a feel-good law that accomplishes nothing but wasting taxpayer dollars.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
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...
Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever sat around the night before their birthday saying "I can't wait until tommorow, so I can start smoking!". Teenagers will continue to smoke at the exact same rate as always.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Unfortunately, Common F. Sense never seems to prevail over Corruption N. Greed.
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
I don't think we should ban tobacco. I think we should ban smoking anything where someone else has to breathe it. While we're at it, let's ban chemicals that anyone else can smell. Why is it acceptable to make chemical attacks on people you walk past on the street? No one else should be able to smell you unless they are right up in your business.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The attitude towards smoking has changed so much in my lifetime. When I was in high school (80-85), the area around the door to the student parking lot was the semi-official smoking area. Students could openly smoke without any problems. The teacher lounges were a haze of smoke. The only real restrictions on smoking were restaurants had to offer a "non-smoking" section, bars could be all smoking. Private offices were often OK for smoking, even the downtown office building I worked in circa 1993 still had some accommodation for smoking (smoking lounge, departments could set their own smoking policy -- most banned it totally, but two allowed it, and a couple more allowed it after hours).
Now, it's totally different. No smoking in any restaurant or bar, most buildings ban smoking with a large distance of their doors, pretty much any public place has no smoking at all. Even the parks have banned "tobacco use" (which IMHO is kind of ridiculous, but OK, less litter and the picnic table zone is smoke free). Unless you want to smoke in your own home (most rentals are no-smoking) or in your own car, you're pretty much out luck for smoking.
So I'm kind of curious how many new smokers there are given how inconvenient it is to smoke, especially if you're under 21 or a teenager. Plus there are all the vaping options, which seem like they would be way more attractive (good flavors, little odor so you can get away with it in places you could never smoke). And let's not forget the cost, with all the new taxes, a pack of cigarettes is like $8.
I would think that the rate of adoption for cigarettes would be low enough at this point that new enforcement measures would mostly be for show or a waste of effort. I also wonder if some of the new laws aren't an effort by "stop smoking" organizations looking for fresh PR to keep funding going when it already seems like they could just close shop and declare victory.
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"
"Of course I'd rather see a total ban on smoking as it doesn't have any good purpose at all."
You could say the same for alcohol, coffee, or any number of other things. Personally, I really enjoy a smoke every now and then if the tobacco is good. Of course I'm happy none of my friends smoke anymore because of health issues but I do miss being able to bum a smoke every other month or so to enjoy, wake me up, or just to get a nice little nicotine buzz. Tobacco and alcohol pair especially well
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The reasonable law would be one that respects people's freedom to smoke what the fuck they want. Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk. Just as an example, smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide? Leave them the fuck alone.
Oregon also made a law this week making all abortions completely free and mandatory with all insurance coverage. So to recap, you need to be 21 to slowly take your own life, but not to take another's (in the military, or that of an unborn child) - plus my tax $ have to pay for it. I knew OR was looney tunes but holy shit.
I can see Portland suing the state for appropriation of its slogan, 'Keep Portland Weird'.
So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use, a product that is responsible for over 85% of all date rapes and is the 4th largest cause of death in the U.S?
Was this not mentioned because you are friends with Mia Vice Izafine and Bee Cuz Ilikait?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Thank you. That caught my eye too. With the pedants around here, I'm surprised I didn't see it in the comments above.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I started smoking at the age of 12 (and quit at 32), and I never, ever, not even once, had a problem getting cigarettes when I was underage, and I hardly think it's any more difficult for underage people to do the same nowadays.
I'd say put all age restrictions on things - literally everything that is currently legal but with an age restriction - at the same age as the normal age of military service.
If you really want to discourage smoking, ban it from anywhere but a private residence and tax the hell out of it. Make the fine for smoking anywhere but in a private residence double per offense, starting at $50, and if the person smoking is underage, make the parent or legal guardian responsible for the fine. Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes. Make the fines for selling age restricted products to an underaged person draconian - first offense $5000, second offense you lose your license to sell ANYTHING age restricted, period. Tobacco isn't a necessity, it isn't an essential - tax it as the (stupid, harmful) luxury it is.
Mind you, I don't agree with the notion of doing the above, and I'm not on an anti-smoking crusade, but if the powers that be were actually serious about the public health elements of smoking they'd do more than this weak-tea pandering bullshit. They don't actually want to do anything to really break the back of big tobacco because of $$$, so they just do idiotic things like raise the age for legal purchase which plays well to some people, but is basically ignored.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
euh, except there is always a healthy alternative to smoking for those problems. Besides the mental health patients there are literally no benefits to smoking. People only "enjoy" it because it makes them feel worse when they stop, and doesn't make them feel better when they start initially. I don't know any doctor that promotes smoking for mental health patients.
We could just let unborn children smoke.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom,
Sorry. Stopped reading right there. Can you rephrase your comment without thinking I'm going to give up my personal freedom just on your whim?
If you're determined to be unreasonable, then you can come up with any kind of excuses you want for shitty behavior.
I mean, since you are obviously opposed to giving up your personal freedom just on the other guy's whim.
Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk.
People smoke because of addiction. I have never met even a reasonably intelligent person who is a smoker who didn't ultimately want to quit. They just didn't have the inner drive to quit yet. Nearly no one is making a benefit / risk analysis when choosing to smoke, they are being driven by addiction.
smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide?
There is no way you are getting that information from someone with any training in fighting mental health issues. Quitting smoking is well known to help combat mental health issues. Smoking is a very poor method of self medication to reduce stress and anxiety. While smokers may believe otherwise, smoking increases stress and anxiety. Smoking provides a very temporary sense of relaxation and without smoking a few packs a day will create an overall increase in stress and anxiety throughout a smoker's day.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Banning stuff doesn't make them go away. People tend to smoke because they want to regardless of whether it is illegal. Marijuana smoking rates went from about 10% to 12% in Colorado after it became legal so it isn't like there was a huge population of people who wanted to smoke but didn't only because it was illegal.
Methods such as increasing the legal age and increasing taxes do reduce the number of new smokers, although unfortunately higher taxes have little effect on heavy/long-term smokers. But since it is so hard to get people who still smoke today to quit, stopping new smokers seems to be a practical goal.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I've been told countless times and we read in every "gun control" forum that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Using that same logic, how can we ever justify "cigarette control" as a way to limit damage or death. The Oregon lawmakers just don't get it. Outlaw certain cigarettes and then only criminals will have them. And the only way to stop a criminal smoker is to make sure we have more and more good citizen smokers on the streets. We're just opening a huge Pandoras Box with these new laws. I advocate for open smoking laws. We should be able to walk around openly smoking with lighters and books of matches slung over our shoulders.
This is the approach Tasmania (a state of Australia) has taken. It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born in 2000 or later.
If you want to curb smoking, just raise the age to 91 instead of 21.
Good thing I've never seen anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes smoking one!
Your post should be at +5 insightful. The amazing thing is that most people seem to have forgotten what it is like to be a teenager. When they hit that rebellious stage, they...rebel.
I started smoking at 14 years old, and why? because it was an act of rebellion. It was something grownups did. I wasn't allowed to buy or smoke. And musta been something pretty cool if adults kept it to themselves. So what did I do? Started smoking. Howbow dah?
Even without the laws, it wasn't hard then, and it isn't hard now.
I was up to three packs a day before I quit at 20. Smoking is a damn stupid thing.
But if I were to rebel and start today as a teen, I'd grow my own tobacco, and roll stogies.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom,
Sorry. Stopped reading right there. Can you rephrase your comment without thinking I'm going to give up my personal freedom just on your whim?
If you're determined to be unreasonable, then you can come up with any kind of excuses you want for shitty behavior.
I didn't know that wanting to keep my personal freedom was shitty behavior.
I mean, since you are obviously opposed to giving up your personal freedom just on the other guy's whim.
Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
Never claimed to be virtuous. Claimed to have personal freedom that means a lot more to me than someone who is claiming that it isn't worth shit.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I didn't know that wanting to keep my personal freedom was shitty behavior.
It depends on which personal freedom you're talking about. If you mean the personal freedom to pollute your airways, I believe in that. If you mean the personal freedom to pollute my airways, that shit has got to end.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your point would be valid if I was coming into your home and smoking against your wishes. In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well? As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free. Just like there are lousy vegan restaurants, there were lousy smoke-free restaurants without it being law.
By the way, I don't smoke. Cigarette smoke in particular bothers me, and worsens my breathing problem I developed in the military. I am not advocating smoking. What I am doing is resisting other people thinking they can take away my personal freedom (which is a broad concept, not a singular item) just because they don't think I should have it. It's not that I don't care what your or Slud's reason is. It is that you both start your arguments with assuming my reason is unfounded or ridiculous.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
1. If cigarettes are so bad make them illegal 2. 18 is the legal age of adulthood. 3. If you ban cigarettes a black market will open up. 4. Damn the statistics, get the government out of our lives. No surprise the poorest state is wasting time on this garbage. How many homeless in the west? Portland and SF are full of homeless people and the politicians waste everyone's time with soda taxes and cigarettes.
Bullshit. No one ever smoked their first cigarette because they were addicted. People smoke because they choose to try the experience. They may then become trapped by addiction, but that's not why they started smoking.
Vehicles kill alot of people per year too so let's make them illegal. And didn't Oregon legalize POT smoking? I'm sure that kills people too.
And, although it is illegal to throw burning materials out of a car window, many roadside grass fires will be started by cigarettes. Not that I've ever seen anyone get cited for this. I've seen people flick ashes out onto a following state patrol car.
I suppose the biggest problem is the intent part of the law. The ashes just get blown out of the car through the open window. So, make it an offense to smoke in a vehicle with any windows open. I guarantee that, in addition to reducing the fire problem, this inconvenience will go a long way toward reducing smoking.
Have gnu, will travel.
And here we're making the ultrasound and abortion pill free. Good up to the 7th week of pregnancy. It will save money in the immediate term, and lots of money in the long run.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1 "I can quit any time" - denial
2 "I will quit when I'm ready" -negotiation
3 "I enjoy it too much to quit" - rationalization
4 "It's the only thing I have left to enjoy." - capitulation
5 "I don't want to die!" - reality
Followed by the ultimate personal smoking experience - cremation. Do you really want to be "smoking hot"?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"Pot" has not killed anyone, ever.
Bullshit. No one ever smoked their first cigarette because they were addicted. People smoke because they choose to try the experience. They may then become trapped by addiction, but that's not why they started smoking.
Learn to read. Even you quoted it - "People smoke because of addition." This does not state that they started because they were addicted, but that they continue because the're addicted.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Seen more and more early 20's smoking, especially girls. Weird as I've seen smoking decline quite a bit in the last 15 years.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It often does. We made fireplaces and wood stoves illegal to reduce particulates (and added $5,000 fines for non-compliance). Worked like a charm.
We made driving without a seatbelt illegal, and added $92 fines. Very high rates of compliance.
We made it illegal to smoke in restaurants, work, enclosed public spaces, and certain outdoor spaces include outdoor restaurant terrasses and patios. with fines starting at $250 - $750 for the individual for a first offense. Nobody smokes in restaurants any more. Maximum fines can reach $250,000. Get caught selling tobacco products to a kid, pay $3000. Really cut down on sales of cigarettes to minors.
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Unfortunately, Common F. Sense never seems to prevail over Corruption N. Greed.
With that logic, we should make booze illegal again.
How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom, how about we set some reasonable compromises?
FUCK YOU!
There is no "reasonable compromise" on freedom. Just like there are no "reasonable restrictions on speech" or "reasonable gun control laws". It's always a power grab and it always gets more restrictive over time. Or are you okay with "free speech zones", you fucking fascist?
If you want to illegally infringe on people's freedoms and rights, then play by the fucking rules and change the constitution so you can do it legally.
lol worked so well with weed, that a hand full of states said "fuck it get high if you want to"
Where in he legal system does it allow full citizens who are considered fully independent adults to be discriminated against because of their age?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Higher order animals can't predict the future. We usually find out about severe birth defects after conception, not before.
If you and your wife want to carry a non-viable fetus to term, that is certainly your choice, and it is your risk as well. But don't force the rest of us to follow your religious views and risk our lives over something we do not believe in.
Most people start smoking well before 18. Another stupid law that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Right. To you it is simply a matter of money.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Different AC here. Inevitably when people think of drug users of any kind, they lump them into the "on welfare loser" bracket. High functioning drug users and addicts are invisible to the the public eye, yet make up most users. Why is this? Do people want it to be true (people cant be successful and have fun at the same time), or has the misconception been forced upon them through years of media portrayal?
Teens have always had access to tobacco no mater what restrictions were. Unless they plan for incarcerations or large fines, this is just tilting at windmills.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Your a freeloader, you use services other people's taxes pay for.
You really ought to pipe down; other peoples' taxes paid for your education and look what you fucking did with it...
And didn't Oregon legalize POT smoking? I'm sure that kills people too.
Apparently you have never smoked weed. It id not like the 1930's movie "Refer Madness" You dont turn insane after one hit. Honestly it has some good mental health effects. The main reason I smoke weed is because I like it, taste, smell, feeling.. the whole thing. But it also relieves stress and occasional panic attacks my job tends to give me. Now, without weed. I'm sure I would have more homicidal feelings than I do currently(peoples stupidity makes me want to kill them). I live in Las Vegas, where recently was made legal to buy and consume in the privacy of your home. I can tell you that I didn't just start smoking weed last month. Back to your comment. I believe that weed not only DOESN'T kill people... But probably has saved peoples lives a time or two after what would have turned into a crime of passion, into a "fuck it I'm too high to care".
*does math.. takes shoes off*
Uhh that would make the legal buying age 17 wouldn't it? Or did I not count my little piggies correctly?
Really how is that? I smoke weed, I am a rather productive member of society. What do you do? You probably think you're more important than others, and also better than them. So they should do as you say, right? People like you make me sick and violent.
To follow your logic, you said "when you say something it doesn't make it true", and since you said that, it might well not be true, right dumbfuck? (Yes, you are a total moron) Again, nobody ever waited for their birthday to start smoking. HAND and FOAD!!! :^)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So did you use the public school-system? If you did and is a smoker you are "stealing" money away from the rest of us since you will be working less than the average non-smoker and die earlier.
And people think I'm nuts.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
ROFLMFAO
Do you see the trend here $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ greed, filthy greed that made us looooooose are rights for profit, greed has ruined this country, not smoking, drinking, sex
Oh, what about the children !!
One of the only countries in the world that does drug tests to work (illegal in countries outside the US because it invades privacy and is against the law to do so), my time off weekends, vacation, I should be able to smoke a joint if I want to and not be punished. lol free country, my privacy rights my @ss
One of the only countries in the world that does credit checks to work/etc ...
Outside the US, 18 years old (except Canada, 19) and you are an adult and can do what you please, smoke, drink, sex, etc ..
I could go on, I won't, I am embarrassed at what has happened to this country and people like you that think this stuff is ok, perhaps you should live in russia or china= communism, oh wait, even in a communism state you don't have drug tests to work, you can smoke, drink, sex, hell they actually have more freedom and fun than the US, talk to Snowden or anyone else that has been there, I have, I had a great time.
Pay for education/health insurance ?? No-one in this GREAT, FREE country should pay for education/health insurance (greed)
We are a third world country when it comes to education/health insurance, and the most expensive, and it shows, just read this whole discussion, look at the people saying 18 is not old enough to smoke, drink, live, but, work to 70+ years old, then enjoy a few years of life after the government & states drained so much money and rights from you.
You can go to war and die at 18 but not drink or smoke ?
WTF is wrong with you people ??
Freedom, freedom, freedom (basic fscking principles of how life use to be in the US )
People wonder why other countries don't like us, mock us, laugh there @sses off at us (I own a home in the US & England, 3 of my 5 kids live & work in England).
You people must be blind or you were bought into this scheme.
The scheme being that 98% of the countries out there have more rights and freedom than the
LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE
I miss the 60's & 70's, our ancestors and founding fathers are rolling in their graves at what the fsck has happened to this country
Home of the free & brave BULLSH!T
I wonder how many people in my age group 61-70 agrees with any of this bulls!t that these young spoiled whippersnappers are trying to say is justified.
The USA is one fsck up place to live now and is getting worse.
It makes me sick to my stomach to see most of these responses and people trying to justify ......
end of rant
Very reasonable argument. I was thinking along those lines but couldn't figure out how to articulate it. The thing that gets me is its already illegal to smoke inside almost any building in the country, right down to bars. At least here in Nevada they include bars. I remember California trying to say you couldn't even smoke inside of your car while you were driving at one point(was young cant remember exactly when 2005-06?). If someone wants to do something they're going to do it regardless of if its legal or not. Look at how much of the country smokes weed, and does other drugs. They're illegal completely. No age limit involved. That hasn't changed the number of people doing them. This I feel is just a "Do what I say or I will punish you for not obeying" law. Does no good for anybody except the government. Next they will mandate encryption backdoors and other nonsense and we will once again be england, the exact thing our founders fought to prevent. And you(thank you), and my father, and my grandfather, looking back I wish I had pulled my head out of my ass when I was 18 and joined also.
What is the law regarding smoking? Great, folks under 21 can't buy cigarettes, what is the law regarding consumption?
Ken
Upping the age to buy is not really making it more difficult to get them. They are still on the shelf at EVERY gas station. Do you have teenagers? get one of them to go up to a homeless person and offer them the a few bucks and a few smoked to go buy them a pack of smokes. I bet no matter how old your kids are, they say OK!
Then after that go offer another one a few bucks and a few beers to go buy a 12 pack. See what the response to that is. IF they want to smoke, They will smoke. The only way to make it harder for kids and teens to get them is to completely rid them of the planet. Because hell in your theory there should be no heroin addicts or cocaine addicts or meth addicts. Do you see where your theory is flawed?
In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well?
The short answer is yes, where feasible. Do you want the long answer, or will that do?
As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free.
If you're going to make this argument and you want to be taken seriously by people with two neurons to rub together, then you're going to have to address the obvious counterargument, and in fact the argument under which smoking in bars was finally banned: occupational health.
I am not advocating smoking.
You are advocating for subjecting people who aren't even smokers to smoking, which is actually worse.
What I am doing is resisting other people thinking they can take away my personal freedom (which is a broad concept, not a singular item) just because they don't think I should have it.
That's a lot of bullshit. What's proposed is that your freedom (or whoever's, but you're arguing the case, so right now it's going to be you) to pollute your lungs in the pursuit of a low-grade high and/or feeding your addiction does not supersede the right of others to not breathe the combustion byproducts which are not sticking to your lungs, whether they don't for want to for health reasons or just because they think you're disgusting.
I think that if you can smoke tobacco without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that. In a system with national health, it's reasonable to simply tax tobacco products to pay for the health impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people smoke so long as nobody else has to breathe their smoke.
It is that you both start your arguments with assuming my reason is unfounded or ridiculous.
All of the reasoning that you have displayed so far has been unfounded and ridiculous, why would I assume that the secret workings of your mind are sensible and logical?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But if I were to rebel and start today as a teen, I'd grow my own tobacco, and roll stogies.
So you're saying if you were a teen today, you would be a hipster?!? That's WAY worse than smoking.. you really went to the extreme there!
lol but all joking aside you have a very good point, I replied to somebody above with a comment along the same lines as yours. not quite as funny as you made yours though.
As to abortion, you have no fucking idea, how bad it is when your baby might have to be aborted, and you're scrambling around to find money for the amniocentisis tests. What was my wife supposed to do if we couldn't afford the abortion? Carry it to term and let it die after birth? Fuck you, you selfish asshole.
So we have to pay for everyone's elective abortions because your wife needed a medically-necessary abortion?
Decent health insurance would have covered a doctor-prescribed abortion for medical reasons, even long before obama even ran for office, let alone implemented Obamacare.
Ken
nobody ever waited for their birthday to start smoking
Out of the millions and millions of people who have smoked, obviously, some people have. I know of several people personally. The same goes for drinking. Some kids felt comfortable doing something even if it was against the rules. Others felt uncomfortable breaking the rules, and thus didn't try smoking or drinking until they were of age.
"Old man yells at systemd"
But if I were to rebel and start today as a teen, I'd grow my own tobacco, and roll stogies.
So you're saying if you were a teen today, you would be a hipster?!? That's WAY worse than smoking.. you really went to the extreme there!
lol but all joking aside you have a very good point, I replied to somebody above with a comment along the same lines as yours. not quite as funny as you made yours though.
My father used to smoke these weird seed pods that grew on trees when he was a kid. Apparently a lot of kids did at the time. Maybe the war on drugs can go after those trees. Maybe that has something to do with my present mental state.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Do you have teenagers? get one of them to go up to a homeless person and offer them the a few bucks and a few smoked to go buy them a pack of smokes.
You just described having to do additional work to get cirgarettes. Some teenagers don't feel comfortable doing that (nevermind having to give the homeless guy extra money just to do it.) - just as some kids don't feel comfortable sneaking into restricted movies by themselves.
The way some people talk, it's like no teenage on earth follows rules and laws out of principle, and that's just plain demonstrably incorrect.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Actually, in the past few years it has been discovered that nicotine uniquely relieves the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
It is notable that cigarette smoke includes a MAO inhibitor. We used to use those for depression and still do in refractory cases.
Interestingly, it is the combination of nicotine and the MAOI that makes cigarettes so addictive. The nicotine alone really isn't that hard to taper down and then off (though it might take a while). The patch might actually work if it delivered enough nicotine to help cover the loss of the MAOI initially.
People like you make me sick and violent.
It sounds like the weed's not working.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is no "reasonable compromise" on freedom.
Of course there is. There is. You're living in it. Sorry if you don't find life reasonable, but I'll conclude that's more a matter of your disfunctionality over objective reality.
"Old man yells at systemd"
In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well?
The short answer is yes, where feasible. Do you want the long answer, or will that do?
No, that will do. Now we know you want everything your way, at your leisure, and to hell with anyone with a different opinion. Can't say I'm surprised at this point.
As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free.
If you're going to make this argument and you want to be taken seriously by people with two neurons to rub together, then you're going to have to address the obvious counterargument, and in fact the argument under which smoking in bars was finally banned: occupational health.
I worked at many restaurants earlier in life, as did many of my family. At the time, at least half the employees smoked cigarettes. Waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, managers, cleanup staff. Usually it was well over three-fourths. So they didn't mind the smoke. The non-smokers, such as myself, chose to work in that environment. I never asked you to ride in on your white stallion to save me.
I am not advocating smoking.
You are advocating for subjecting people who aren't even smokers to smoking, which is actually worse.
I think imposing my will on people is worse than having to face second hand smoke myself.
What I am doing is resisting other people thinking they can take away my personal freedom (which is a broad concept, not a singular item) just because they don't think I should have it.
That's a lot of bullshit. What's proposed is that your freedom (or whoever's, but you're arguing the case, so right now it's going to be you) to pollute your lungs in the pursuit of a low-grade high and/or feeding your addiction does not supersede the right of others to not breathe the combustion byproducts which are not sticking to your lungs, whether they don't for want to for health reasons or just because they think you're disgusting.
If you don't want to inhale pollution, there are things you can do on your own.
As for other people causing pollution you don't want to breathe, if you do anything in your daily life that causes or caused pollution, you are being a hypocrite. And you do things every day that cause or support those who cause pollution. Whether you drive a car, take a plane trip, buy food in a store, use a computer, or have something dry cleaned, there is pollution released that others will be exposed to. But the only thing you want to eliminate is activities you don't participate in, such as smoking. You are a hypocrite, and a selfish one at that.
I think that if you can smoke tobacco without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that.
I doubt that.
What if there was a national corporation that wanted to run a variety of businesses, and all the businesses allowed smoking on their premises? All potential employees knew there would be smoking at the work place, and all customers knew that as well.
Would you allow that corporation to run restaurants, transportation, entertainment, and leisure businesses if everyone involved accepted those conditions?
In a system with national health, it's reasonable to simply tax tobacco products to pay for the health impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people smoke so long as nobody else has to breathe their smoke.
We don't have national health in the US, thankfully, so your argument is a tangent. But are you consistent, and want every one who engages in unhealthy activities to be taxed more?
It
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Lets just skip to the end, then, and force people to live out their lives in concrete boxes where every aspect is hypercontrolled for maximum efficiency and minimum impact on The People. One of the primary reasons people resist socialism is that it always results in some form of authoritarianism. Once something is publicly funded, that something can now be considered 'under threat' by the state, with any 'threatening' action it doesn't like conveniently deemed 'threatening' and 'curtailed,' usually with life-altering penalties. A cascade of power grabs then commences.
As a lifelong non smoker who loathes any sort of smoke, I would never want to live in your smoke free dystopian hell. There'd be too many sacrifices of liberty in too many areas.
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?
Your a freeloader, you use services other people's taxes pay for.
My tax dollars were used to pave the street where you live, which I never even drive on because I have no interest in meeting you. It's not fair!
And in other news, Barney Fife was made an honorary Slashdot editor. Nip it in the bud, indeed!
I mean, it works. But some peoples level of stupidity is too much even for the best kush.
Some teenagers don't feel comfortable doing that (nevermind having to give the homeless guy extra money just to do it.)
The thing is.. those teenagers are most likely not the ones that are going to start smoking anyways. what difference does 18 to 21 make? explain how that "makes a difference" to the kids? its 3 years that's not a long time. they either are going to do it or they're not. now if it was a 10 year difference I could understand your argument. but its not and that few years will make no difference. look at high school partys. 90% of them have alcohol.. have to be 21 to buy that.
lol. That sounds interesting. I would like to know what kind of trees and if there is any health effects from it. I had never heard any thing like that with the exception of like.. Heroin I believe the bulb of a poppy is a seed pod right? and weed. Since the bud is where the seeds are produced.
I didn't know that wanting to keep my personal freedom was shitty behavior.
You sound like one of those guys who sets up a gun range in front of their neighbors' backyard fence and whines about personal freedoms if they complain.
Why treat an adult like a child? Either people are or are not adults at 18.
If they are an adult, they should have the same rights of any other adult.
As mentioned, they can die in a war, kill people with the government's blessing and have other adult responsibilities.
If they're not mature enough to judge whether or not they should be smoking (or drinking for that matter) than perhaps we should reinstate the age of majority at 21 and similarly, not allow anyone to enter the armed forces until that age.
It is hypocrisy to do otherwise.
Can't sell to people born in 2000 or later EVER. At the time of introduction 18 was the legal ago for buying tobacco products and people born in 2000 well under that age. The logic was it made the implementation easier for the person behind the counter
lol. That sounds interesting. I would like to know what kind of trees and if there is any health effects from it.
I looked it up, and the ree name is the Southern Catalpa, commonly know as the Indian Cigar tree. I even found a Youtube link for a guy who tried smoking them. My father said they were very harsh, and the Youtube guy agreed. Apparently there isn't any physical effect other than the harshness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He learned how to form a possessive, so he's ahead of you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The proportion who start between 18 and 21 is probably insubstantial.
But the number of 17 year olds with 21 year old friends is much less than the number of 17 year olds with 18 year old friends. The goal is simply to make it less available.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
And your joint is safer than unfiltered cigarettes exactly how? Smoke inhalation is smoke inhalation. Used to see most news reports on fires before oxygen masks where at least one firefighter was treated for smoke inhalation. Grass doesn't make the smoke magically good for your lungs. Tar is the primary lung-damaging component, and is a result of burning. Doesn't matter the source.
Fine. Give up your personal freedom on someone else's whim. If that makes you happy. I can't force you to have personal freedom if you don't want it.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The problem with these laws is that they are totally unfair to the 18-20 crowd that may have already been smoking for a time, have the additcion, and now suddenly can't legally buy smokes.
What should have been done is a gradual ageing out of all who are not 18 by a given date that has not yet occurred (in other words, those 17 now, won't ever get the chance to legally start smoking until 21).
The other problem is folks who move into the state from elsewhere that allowed 18-20, especially the military.
I dislike smoking, especially as I have a child with asthma and many smokers are inconsiderate, even when told this. I dislike the financial waste and health problems it causes folks. But, it doesn't seem right to rip away an ability from a legal adult who has been allowed to exercise that ability. For this reason, I think long-term this is a good idea. Banning all smoking on public education grounds makes a lot of sense as well, as many pick up smoking right out of high school while attending college.
discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom, how about we set some reasonable compromises?
When it comes to personal freedom and individual liberties, there isn't very many compromises that fall under the "reasonable" category. Murder, sure. Robbery/Theft sure. Violence, sure. These are "reasonable" because when performed, the person on the receiving end is loosing their freedoms/liberties.
After that short list though, the graph of "reasonable" compromises starts falling off DRASTICALLY.
OR....let's play the replacement game...
I think that if you can without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that. In a system with national , it's reasonable to simply tax to pay for the impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people so long as nobody else has to their .
Let's try the replacement game again here...
I think that if you can [loudly speak] without impacting other people, you should be allowed to do that. In a system with national [media], it's reasonable to simply tax [public speaking] to pay for the [mental] impact, however much that tax might be, and then go ahead and let people [speak] so long as nobody else has to [hear] their [words].
thats the dumbest shit ive ever heard.
Some people will do anything to get high I guess.. Bet the fact that there was no change in feeling made him think back on his life decisions O.o
Bet the fact that there was no change in feeling made him think back on his life decisions O.o
Well played!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think we should legalize 93rd trimester abortion also while were at it. would really make the planet a better place.
Why?
Seemed like a logical one to me. It was implemented in 2016. Rather than picking 1998 they went 2000 as the cut off. The idea being that smoking would become extinct.
I am not an American, nor do I want to be one. You keep cutting back on things that we, and much of the rest of the western world, consider as basic rights.
You obviously don't know Canada. We imposed the fireplace ban in my city and many others, not because of $$$, but to save $$$. Fireplaces are not net heat sources, so you're using your main heating system to heat air going up the chimney. Also, the extra pollution adds to health care costs and lost productivity.
Also, the vast majority of Canadians live in provinces where the age of majority is 18. The age for a teenager's medical records being private from the parent is 14. Parents cannot be informed of doctors visits, or even abortions, and can't see their kids records without the kids consent.
But yes, the rest of the world agrees that "the USA is one fsck up place to live now and is getting worse." But you only have yourselves to blame. After all, you got the successive governments you deserved over the last 40 years that led you to where you are now. And nothing will change, because you won't even do basic campaign finance reform. Your owners won't let you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What dystopian hell? Where people aren't subjected to second-hand smoke? Where tobacco companies, who have a long history of targeting kids, are loathed for doing so, and are not allowed to do that sort of shit any more?
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?
Violate my rights, I sure as hell have the right to put a bit of fear into you. Or make you pay for it. You clowns with your stupid libertarian arguments seem to think that rights only count when they're your rights being trampled on, and you should be free to do whatever the hell you want because "rules == socialism == communism". Go live in a social democracy for a while and you'll see there's a lot more freedom than people in the US enjoy.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I think it would put a huge dent in it for a number of reasons:
* There is no current infrastructure for growing, distributing and selling illegal tobacco (Yes, I'm ignoring the cigarettes which are smuggled to avoid taxes because I believe most of those are grown and produced legally)
* Growing your own tobacco would be a huge hassle for the average smoker unlike growing a little marijuana or making your own moonshine
* Unlike weed and booze just about all cigarette smokers are regular daily, sometimes even hourly or more users. Keeping yourself in illegal tobacco is going to be a pain and you'd probably end up buying loose low-quality tobacco that doesn't taste anything like your Marlboro or your Camel Lights* and you'll have to roll your own.
* The stench will give users away as it does now. Cops will quickly switch from saying they think they smell marijuana to I know I smell cigarettes.
As an former smoker I just don't think I'd want to go through all the hassle I've gone through to get illegal tobacco that I went through to get illegal marijuana. I expect it would be expensive and of poor quality and everyone who got near me would know it. And you thought marijuana could make you paranoid?
It might thrive in certain communities I suppose but if it were suddenly as illegal as marijuana used to be and it was enforced I see the number of users going down, especially new users.
With all that said, it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Too many people would object way too strongly to it. I would object to it. It's an infringement on freedom.
The best they can do is make it illegal to smoke anywhere which it seems they're working on.
* - I just remembered. They don't sell "lights" anymore. I had quit long enough that at some point they forced them to stop calling them "lights" which was confusing when I decided to buy a pack a few years back. I quit again for good after that pack.
I did not smoke "lights" because I thought they were safer. That would be stupid. They were milder. But the theory that smokers would think "lights" weren't as bad was the logic they used which I guess the tobacco companies are to blame for for running all those ads bragging about their low tar content. "Carlton is Lowest".
I don't know if anyone else remembers a sci-fi story that legalized abortion until the day the child turned 5. Parents who either just wanted to experience (possibly repeatedly) the early years of having a child, or who didn't like the way the kid was turning out, were able to say "nope, not viable" and everyone else would accept it same as a miscarriage.
There are people out there who would love that - octo-mom for one.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Other than a poorly-placed comma, you lost me...
But that's not going to work, or murder would be extinct. And a plethora of other things. All they did was pull a "Do as I say not as I do" move.
Im not all that opposed to it. But it needs to be extended a few years, cant really tell if they're going to be worthless or not until they're about 18 or 19 usually..
I say we just start killing smokers now and get it over with. Surely a nice clean firing squad would be better than spending all that tax payer money keeping some filthy degenerate smoker alive for a second longer than they deserve!
I see what you mean now... still, it's clear he only got bit correct by accident.
by accident
Or "on accident" as the illiterates like to say...
Is it safe to assume that you would also support making all forms of alcohol illegal too? Considering the CDC reports that: alcohol abuse is the third highest cause of death in the U.S. I just want to make sure that your suggestion is fair to all forms of dangerous substances, and not just singling out smoking because you don't smoke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
It looks like it has not been passed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
I have always been a proponent of enacting legislation that creeps its way to the places I would like it to get: Maybe every two years increase the smoking age by one year. Every five or ten years add another statutory holiday. Every five years reduce the standard working week by an hour.
Similarly we should peg the minimum wage to be some fraction of the legislators' salary, or set a company's minimum salary to some fraction of the maximum compensation recieved by the executives.
Ah, Canada is less than 10 miles from my house
Our malls, gas stations, grocery stores, clothing shops, etc .. are packed with Canadians
Ask any one of them why they come here and shop
It's too expensive to live in Canada
Really? Damn. I could have sworn that was passed.
I didn't do an exhaustive search but the bits I saw seemed to all be "this is an idea being floated" types of things, and the "official" tobacco restrictions lists for Tasmania did not mention it.
I was working from memory of news items I'd seen in the past. I didn't go and check the bill, I just remembered seeing it on the news.
Bit disappointed it's not gone through tbh.
Obviously not true that it's "too expensive to live in Canada", because most of us manage to do it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You and your wife enjoying a drink is not characterized as rape with the official stats. Sadly, your purely emotional response had no links or facts to make your argument, so it can't really be taken seriously.
But hey, you think rape is cool.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
You said I proved something. Yet you offered no proof. So, who exactly is the moron?
Hint (look in the mirror)
The only thing we can be sure of is that you got modded to 2 for this. So, either you are self modding on a different account, or morons run in packs and mod nonsensical things up. Sad.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
A quick check shows that accusing people you disagree with of self-modding is your "go-to". Also from today to another poster:
Btw Nazi, This is a very old thread that no one else is reading. It is so pathetic that you are self modding yourself up. But then again, Nazi are pretty insecure.
What a lamer crybaby.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
As I said elsewhere, you've been caught. You used the exact same tactic of accusing someone who disagrees with you of self-modding, on the same day. Not too smart, are you now? If you're going to try trolling, at least don't be quite so pathetically obvious.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.