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.

Comments

Is this to save lives?

[Rockoon]

Will it also be illegal to send those under 21 off to die in wars?

Re: Is this to save lives?

[Time_Ngler]

But why can't the same 18 y.o. person who can sign their life away in the military not be deemed responsible enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette?

Re: Is this to save lives?

[SirSlud]

Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.

Re: Is this to save lives?

[drinkypoo]

Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.

Both acts are costly to society, though in different ways.

Re: Is this to save lives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide a reference for where you got that information...

Smoking does cause a number of illnesses that are not lethal, but still very costly and may present themselves while a person is still quite young. You also have to factor in that most smokers are from low-income areas, so public school is an assumption. This would then be an extra cost where a person is home sick a lot more than a non-smoker and may also die earlier than the retirement-age resulting in a lower ROI on the person.

A quick search pointed me to:
https://www.treasury.gov/press...
where it points to a total cost of $130 billions. (from 1998, adjusted value would be $195 billion.). $130 billions is excluding the increased cost of reduced mortality, see below quote.

With each cigarette smoked taking seven minutes from the average smoker’s life — and taking
into account the lives lost due to smoking-related fires and smoking during pregnancy — the
estimated cost of reduced mortality is approximately $120 billion per year. This cost is the
equivalent of $5 dollars for every pack sold, and represents the amount over and above the lost
productive output mentioned earlier.
While these costs are impressive, they are highly subjective. Exactly how one would apply this
methodology to the human costs of smoking is a complex and certainly controversial question.
As a result, we have chosen not to include the costs of reduced mortality in estimating the cost of
smoking in the U.S.

Re:Nanny state socialism

[AK Marc]

Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.

Terminology compounds the problem

[garryknight]

It's not a "bad habit," it's a drug addiction.

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to be 21 to smoke a cigarette, but at 18 you can go into the army and kill people

Addictive Personality

[zifn4b]

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.

How many "new" smokers are there?

[swb]

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.

Re:Age of Consent

[SirSlud]

One thing is risky because it's dangerous to serve in the military to defend the geopolitical interests of your country, while the other thing is dangerous because it's a drug that carries significant health risks.

I don't see why you think you're being smart by appealing to treat these things the same way.

Vehicles are also very dangerous, but using vehicles provides a massive net benefit to society that cigarettes do not. It doesn't take a genius to understand why in actual fact, legally and socially, we view and legislate these activities differently.

Re:Are you over 21?

[Type44Q]

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...