smoking age 19

[Lord Anubis]

Title:
Lawmakers in Onondaga County raise smoking age.
Source: Buffalo Law Journal; 12/25/2006, Vol. 78 Issue 103, p4-4, 1/6p
Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: TOBACCO -- Law & legislation
SMOKING -- Law & legislation
CIGARETTES
Geographic Terms: ONONDAGA County (N.Y.)
NEW York (State)
Abstract: The article reports that legislators in Onondaga County, New York have passed a law to raise the legal age to buy tobacco to 19. The...

[Klark]

That seems a bit much to me, however, in Nebraska, no one is considered a legal adult until the age of 19, which was a real shock when I moved here. I was over 19 and all, but still that was shocking.

I also discovered that Nebraska made more than $65 million in taxes from cigarettes.

I believe those lawmakers are shooting themselves in the foot and that raising the age by 1 year is nothing more than a show saying "We're bored."

What was their reasoning?

[Lord Anubis]

The idea behind it is to get cigs out of the high school's.

[Klark]

Then perhaps their legislation should be pointed more at making sure students are graduated by age 18, speaking as a person who graduated high school at 17.

[GhostBat]

Age shouldn't be an issue. I've always been a supporter of outright banning cigarettes.

I like not having to hold my breath every time I pass by someone who's smoking, but that's just me.

[Chriz]

It's interesting, because there's recent activity in Congress to get the national drinking age of 21 abolished (and let states decide, like they could up until the mid-80s).

I'm in favor of it. I don't like the extended childhood concept. Once you're 18, you should be an adult in every legal sense.

[Klark]

I agree with Chriz on that, which is why Nebraska's 19-and-your-an-adult law was such a shocker. Old enough to vote, old enough to drink and smoke, I say.

[Lore]

Trying to keep cigarettes out of high school would take a lot more work than just raising smoking laws. In my experience many teenagers regards laws on smoking, drinking, sex and such as non-existent. They do it anyway.

In fact simply raising the law to 19 is a cop-out move they can use to say we're working on the problem and then they move onto other things.

[Lord Anubis]

I agree with Chriz. Being that I live in a college town( S.U.)..I see alot of binge drinking in houses where parties are going on. Not that it would stop if they lower the age but if it is legal it takes alot of the fun out of it too

[Binkx]

Raising taxes, extending childhood age. If these law makers really think any of this will prevent teens and kids from smoking (or the general public for the matter) they have been in a posh office for too long.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

There needs to be stricter penalties for the breaking of the laws, and there needs to be more patrolling of the campuses, and the areas around.

Thus, I also advocate giving the proper authorities (police I.E) more funds to hire more people for those kinds of "runs".

[blueeyes]

Given that smoking is banned in pretty much every public building or business in Nebraska, it seems like that if keeping cigarettes out of schools was the goal, they've already got a law to work with. Or, for that matter, the ability to make whatever school rules they want.

Not that this stops people.
Then perhaps their legislation should be pointed more at making sure students are graduated by age 18, speaking as a person who graduated high school at 17.

That's likely not possible. Human development is highly varied, but the American educational system presume a minimum of twelve years of schooling and begins with matters typically best taught in the six or seven year old range according to most models of neural development. There are more than a fair share of individuals who can learn the matters faster than that, but students need not be held back a year to have 18-year-olds at least part if not the better part of their senior year.

I'd very much like an overhaul of the disaster that is the educational system, but changing the age school starts or the expected number of classes seem like significant overkill.

[Klark]

Given that smoking is banned in pretty much every public building or business in Nebraska, it seems like that if keeping cigarettes out of schools was the goal, they've already got a law to work with. Or, for that matter, the ability to make whatever school rules they want.

We still have a week. The ban is effective June 1. :D

[Ves]

I used to work supporting the IT at a cigarette factory that happened to have a large R&D department. I have signed non-disclosure agreements about what I saw in that place, so I'm afraid I have to be really careful what I say here and I'm afraid I can't offer any citation either (though if anyone feels like finding some for me please feel free).
There is apparently some evidence that as people get older, they become less susceptible to tobacco addiction - very few people start smoking habitually after age 20. The thinking behind this new law is possibly to bring people closer to that target and thus cut the amount of people that start in the first place.
But as has already been mentioned, how often do kids actually stop doing something because it's illegal.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Trying to keep cigarettes out of high school would take a lot more work than just raising smoking laws. In my experience many teenagers regards laws on smoking, drinking, sex and such as non-existent. They do it anyway.

In fact simply raising the law to 19 is a cop-out move they can use to say we're working on the problem and then they move onto other things.
No, we don't dn't regard them as non existant. Actually, more teenagers that I know of are aware of the current age of consent (16) in PA than adults. It's just that many teenagers love to break laws, to show controlling adults that we're free, that we make our own choices, that we are heeding your every words. If you tell a teenager that something is wrong without a damn good reason why (and god/hell aint a good excuse anymore), then that just makes them want to do it to a) see why, and to b) to show they're incharge of themselves.
I agree with Chriz. Being that I live in a college town( S.U.)..I see alot of binge drinking in houses where parties are going on. Not that it would stop if they lower the age but if it is legal it takes alot of the fun out of it too
Correct. It's why alcohol is now a recreatioal drink. If they wouldn't have banned it in the first place, then people wouldn't wanted to have drink it so much. Especially with America's ideology of personal freedom, when the government tries to tell us what to do, it usually back fires on them.

I've personally whitnessed on a daily basis teens getting cigs off of older people or just inpersonating someone 18 years old, because many of the places that say they card, don't. So just raising the age is just going to make the problem worse, not better.

[Lore]

No, we don't dn't regard them as non existant. Actually, more teenagers that I know of are aware of the current age of consent (16) in PA than adults. It's just that many teenagers love to break laws, to show controlling adults that we're free, that we make our own choices, that we are heeding your every words. If you tell a teenager that something is wrong without a damn good reason why (and god/hell aint a good excuse anymore), then that just makes them want to do it to a) see why, and to b) to show they're incharge of themselves.

Because it'll shorten their lifespan, seriously increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, yellow their skin and teeth, damage their vocal cord etc, etc. I don't think anyone needs to tell teenagers that. I would hope they already know by that age.

But what a wonderful way to show you're a responsible and mature person eh? Go out break the law and ruin your health at the same time at the age of 16?

[BlackRosePhantom]

Because it'll shorten their lifespan, seriously increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, yellow their skin and teeth, damage their vocal cord etc, etc. I don't think anyone needs to tell teenagers that. I would hope they already know by that age.

But what a wonderful way to show you're a responsible and mature person eh? Go out break the law and ruin your health at the same time at the age of 16?
Teenagers, at least many that I know of, don't really care for long term effects, which is something I feel that they've taken from there parents, since we as a society are really just starting to see the benefits of long term planning. They literally say, "I'm a teenager, what do I care what happens to me when I'm 30? I don't want to live that long anyway." To thee kids, being 3 is just the same as being 60 or 90, just a few steps away from death were the better part of your life is long gone.

And its not about showing that you're mature and responsible, merely that you are in charge of our own life and that no one else is, and you have the power to fuck it up if you want to because it's your life o fuck up if you wish.

I am definitely not saying that all teenagers are like this, but just about every teenage smoker I've talked to about this gives me similar answers.

[Lore]

And its not about showing that you're mature and responsible, merely that you are in charge of our own life and that no one else is, and you have the power to fuck it up if you want to because it's your life o fuck up if you wish.

Except for one problem. Until you're legally recognized as an adult by the country, or state, you live in then legally you belong to your parents.
And they pay when you fuck up your life, they pay for the medical bills incurred when you fuck up your life, they pay for getting you out of a jail cell when you fuck up your life.

[Tempest]

Teenagers, at least many that I know of, don't really care for long term effects, which is something I feel that they've taken from there parents, since we as a society are really just starting to see the benefits of long term planning.

We're just starting to see the benefits of long term planning? I don't think so. Long term planning does not have to be planning for what you're going to do when you're 80. I know you're going to hate to hear this, but teenagers in general just aren't good with long-term planning, and it doesn't have to do with the parents or society. Different parts of the brain mature at different times, not all at once, and it so happens that the part of the brain that deals with impulse control and decision making matures last. You can read more about teenage brains here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec04/brain_10-13.html).

Also, it's not just teenagers who try to say "hey, you're not in control of me, I can do what I want!" Tell anyone not to do something and, in general, they'll want to do it more.

[Chriz]

There is apparently some evidence that as people get older, they become less susceptible to tobacco addiction - very few people start smoking habitually after age 20. The thinking behind this new law is possibly to bring people closer to that target and thus cut the amount of people that start in the first place.

I'd be for moving everything to 21 (drinking, voting, military, etc) too, if that's better for us. I said I didn't like the extended childhood before, but what I meant was I didn't like that ambiguous time between 16 (when you can sign a contract, but only for getting a driver's license) and 21 (when society decides you can drink) where you're not really an adult, but you kinda are. I don't think it's good for us in the long term.

I know you're going to hate to hear this, but teenagers in general just aren't good with long-term planning, and it doesn't have to do with the parents or society. Different parts of the brain mature at different times, not all at once, and it so happens that the part of the brain that deals with impulse control and decision making matures last.

Further, "long term" means different things when you're younger. When I was a kid, a month was an eternity. Nowadays, a month passes by and I barely notice it.

Part of the reason for that is my memory span is longer, so a given amount of time has less resolution to it. Apply that in reverse and you can see long-term planning doesn't come naturally to younger people.

Likewise, impulse control is greater in older people because they've already experienced the folly of giving into their urges and have become jaded to the sensation.

[LV426]

I'd be all for moving drinking, smoking, and military to 21.


As for driving at 16, well they have changed that here in WA to 18.

[Chriz]

I'd be all for moving drinking, smoking, and military to 21.

Voting, too.

[Lord Anubis]

Yes they all should match. If your old enough to die for ones country, you shoudl be able to vote, smoke and drink. And 21 seems to be a really good age for all in my opinion.

[Tempest]

Just out of curiosity, why 21? Why not a nice even number like 20 or 22? It seems so random. Especially since the brain (the frontal lobe in particular) is thought to continue developing until age 25-30.

18 is when most people graduate from high school and when some people enter the workforce and move out on their own. Unless you think high school should continue until age 21 (dear god no), all adult rights should be attained at age 18.

Also, Chriz, a friend of mine told me a pretty sensible explanation for why time passes quicker the older you are. When you're 16, 1 year is 1/16th of your life. When you're 30, it's only 1/30th of your life. Relatively speaking, a year would go by faster for a 30-year-old because it's not that long compared to how long they've lived. Here's hoping that makes sense.

[Chriz]

Also, Chriz, a friend of mine told me a pretty sensible explanation for why time passes quicker the older you are. When you're 16, 1 year is 1/16th of your life. When you're 30, it's only 1/30th of your life. Relatively speaking, a year would go by faster for a 30-year-old because it's not that long compared to how long they've lived. Here's hoping that makes sense.

Yes, that makes sense. I thought that's what I was saying, but maybe I wasn't being clear.

We don't do too well with thinking in absolute concepts. We're squishy relativists. So "a long time" means different things to you depending on your frame of reference.

All the more reason to get precise with our language, so we can be more sure we're communicating clearly.

[Zombie]

According to SCHIP, you are a child untill you are 31 years old.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[LUCIDmoon]

I think the age restrictions are mostly ridiculous. I agree with Tempest, that all adult rights should be attained at 18.
But there's one thing I don't understand: spary paint! You're not allowed to buy spray paint until you're 18! Does that make any sense at all? Is it because of huffing, or tagging? It's not like an 18 year old woud be any less likely to do those things than a 17 year old would...\
Whatever. Just wanted to voice my opinion; add my two cents ;D

[Rainheart]

But there's one thing I don't understand: spary paint! You're not allowed to buy spray paint until you're 18! Does that make any sense at all? Is it because of huffing, or tagging? It's not like an 18 year old woud be any less likely to do those things than a 17 year old would...\
Whatever. Just wanted to voice my opinion; add my two cents ;D

They're afraid you'll spray your widdle old eye out.

I agree with GhostBat on the fact it should be banned outright. The only problem is the economy makes too much money on ignorance and addiction. So that scratches that wishful thought.

In the end, it comes down to the need for people to understand exactly what they're doing to themselves, and others.

[Ulfstan]

*Shrug* My view on this is rather simple. Educate children properlyabout alcohol, tobacco, and sex beforethey reach the legal age or are on the cusp of it, maybe even expose them to it a little (excluding sex, of course) so they know what's going on, and let them get a real understanding of the topic before peer pressure takes over.

For example, my girlfriend was allowed to have sips of beer and wine from a young age, something like six or seven. As a result, alcohol wasn't some mysterious thing that she had to break the rules to get, and getting blasted out of her head wasn't exciting, it seemed stupid.

Look at the drinking ages in Germany. 16 for beer, 18 for hard liquor. Granted, they have a long history of appreciating alcohol in all it's forms, but they don't have nearly as big a problem with alcohol abuse and I think the age has something to do with it.

Lower the drinking age to 18, the smoking age to 16, and the states can decide when someone can have sex. That's none of my business. ;)

It just seems to me like someone should be able to have a beer before they go off and die for their country.

Age shouldn't be an issue. I've always been a supporter of outright banning cigarettes.

That'd be quite a blow to an already weak economy, methinks.

[Vendetta]

*Shrug* My view on this is rather simple. Educate children properlyabout alcohol, tobacco, and sex beforethey reach the legal age or are on the cusp of it, maybe even expose them to it a little (excluding sex, of course) so they know what's going on, and let them get a real understanding of the topic before peer pressure takes over.
Explain the exclusion of sex? Or explain your reasoning for exposing them to any of it.

That'd be quite a blow to an already weak economy, methinks.
With all the money smokers would save on not buying fags and the lower tax burden to all of us for supporting diseased smokers, I'd actually say it'd be a net gain for the economy. At least in the long term. And I'm not personally in favour of banning smoking, I'm just saying.

[Ulfstan]

Explain the exclusion of sex? Or explain your reasoning for exposing them to any of it.


With all the money smokers would save on not buying fags and the lower tax burden to all of us for supporting diseased smokers, I'd actually say it'd be a net gain for the economy. At least in the long term. And I'm not personally in favour of banning smoking, I'm just saying.

Excluding sex because having sex with your children just isn't right. :P

I already explained my reasoning for limited exposure over time. Re-read my post.

Also, taxes on tobacco are ridiculously high, but that's not really what I'm talking about here. Tobacco is a colossal industry world-wide, and to just make it all go away all at once, especially in our current condition, is a bad idea. IMO, let people spend their money on whatever they want. If they want cancer, let 'em buy cancer!

[MetaKittie]

What is evem the point?
This is a waste of time.
Plus, you make it less available, its more tempting.
Teens will STILL find a way to get a hold of it.
I don't even have it figured out how they do it, and I'm one of them (but smoking is disgusting, I don't).

[Vendetta]

Excluding sex because having sex with your children just isn't right. :P

I already explained my reasoning for limited exposure over time. Re-read my post.
I was trying to point out that exposure is not and should not be the issue. You shouldn't expose someone to alcohol or tobacco if they don't want to be exposed. You just make it available and not some big mystery, and that will solve the problem nicely.

Also, taxes on tobacco are ridiculously high, but that's not really what I'm talking about here. Tobacco is a colossal industry world-wide, and to just make it all go away all at once, especially in our current condition, is a bad idea.
First, there's no magical anything that could make an entire industry disappear. But that aside, tobacco is not the huge industry it used to be. In 2008 Altria (the parent company of Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the US) reported just over $19 billion revenue, whereas GM reported over 7 times that figure at $148 billion (and that's in poor economic conditions.) Kraft Foods, which USED to be held by Altria/Philip Morris made over $40 billion in 2008. The smoking industry has been going down for the past decade or so.

[Ulfstan]

I was trying to point out that exposure is not and should not be the issue. You shouldn't expose someone to alcohol or tobacco if they don't want to be exposed. You just make it available and not some big mystery, and that will solve the problem nicely.

Obviously I didn't mean to imply the people who don't want to smoke or drink should me made to try it at a young age.

{QUOTE]First, there's no magical anything that could make an entire industry disappear.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about banning tobacco. That might actually do a pretty good job of it.

{QUOTE}But that aside, tobacco is not the huge industry it used to be. In 2008 Altria (the parent company of Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the US) reported just over $19 billion revenue, whereas GM reported over 7 times that figure at $148 billion (and that's in poor economic conditions.) Kraft Foods, which USED to be held by Altria/Philip Morris made over $40 billion in 2008. The smoking industry has been going down for the past decade or so.[/QUOTE]

You're comparing completely different industries, so I'm going to ignore most of your post. The point is, tobacco is a huge money maker and we're really better off with people buying their cigars, pipe tobacco and cigarettes.

[Vendetta]

You're comparing completely different industries, so I'm going to ignore most of your post.
Ahh yes, the old "I don't agree with what you say so I'm just going to ignore it" tactic. Well done. It's not the POINT that they are different industries. The point is that the LARGEST tobacco company in the US is small potatoes compared to other companies. What would be the point of comparing one tobacco company to another? I'm trying to point out that these companies are NOT the juggernauts they once were. And let's be honest here, if we weren't in a recession, most people would've been fine with the poorly managed car companies failing, and those are MUCH larger companies than Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds.

The point is, tobacco is a huge money maker and we're really better off with people buying their cigars, pipe tobacco and cigarettes.
It may be a money maker, but sales have been decreasing in the US for the past decade, and show no signs of stopping. Also I don't see how people spending money on cigarettes would be any different than people spending money on any other luxury item.

All you have to do is look at the revenue sheets of these companies and the reports from the USDA that show tobacco production in the US has dropped 60% from 1997 to 2007. Also the fact that as of 2007, tobacco crops in the U.S. make up just over ONE TENTH of a percent of all agriculture crops. You do the math. Oh wait, you don't have to, because I did it for you.

[Ulfstan]

Ahh yes, the old "I don't agree with what you say so I'm just going to ignore it" tactic. Well done. It's not the POINT that they are different industries. The point is that the LARGEST tobacco company in the US is small potatoes compared to other companies. What would be the point of comparing one tobacco company to another? I'm trying to point out that these companies are NOT the juggernauts they once were. And let's be honest here, if we weren't in a recession, most people would've been fine with the poorly managed car companies failing, and those are MUCH larger companies than Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds.

[B]
It may be a money maker, but sales have been decreasing in the US for the past decade, and show no signs of stopping. Also I don't see how people spending money on cigarettes would be any different than people spending money on any other luxury item.

All you have to do is look at the revenue sheets of these companies and the reports from the USDA that show tobacco production in the US has dropped 60% from 1997 to 2007. Also the fact that as of 2007, tobacco crops in the U.S. make up just over ONE TENTH of a percent of all agriculture crops. You do the math. Oh wait, you don't have to, because I did it for you.

Caps lock is cruise control for cool. :P

My opinion has been given, but Gods forbid I think differently. Have fun with the rest of the thread, child.

[Vendetta]

My opinion has been given, but Gods forbid I think differently. Have fun with the rest of the thread, child.
Dude, it's not an opinion, it's a FACT. Here I am quoting you facts, and there you are over there with your fingers in your ears.

Also "child", ahahahaha! That one made my day, cheers.