Should the legal age for nicotine products like tobacco be raised to 21?

I've found myself using nicotine these past few months (with an e-cig), and seeing states and cities raising the legal smoking age to 21 really make some wonder if it's for the best.

So far, three states raised the smoking age to 21. Chicago raised the age to purchase nicotine products to 21, but usage is still legal for 18+ year olds. Some people want to just see cigarettes and other products banned altogether.

What are your thoughts?

 

Absolutely not. If you can fight and die for your country at 18, you can use tobacco products.

 

So I live in California, and this has already happened here. Which is SO SILLY because you can apply for a medical marijuana license and buy an e-cig when you're 18. And the criteria for that is basically: have a headache.

However, I can of understand the ban with nicotine products, mainly because they are so addictive. I think the US has made a lot of progress with cutting down the amount of people that smoke, which makes for a healthier environment (source). I don't want to have lung cancer, but I'm sure that many of my less-educated peers aren't aware of the risks or don't care (as teenagers tend to be). Then again, many countries leave this up to the buyer, because at the end of the day you're paying taxes lmao. So morally I think the age limit is good but economically it probably isn't the best choice.

 

Its cuz We don't care. Trust me


Idk. I dont think the laws actually stop anyone. I live in nyc where its 21 (18 everywhere else in the state except 2 other counties). Bought a Juul and have been buying ejuice online from a completely legitimate retailer that is supposed to respect nyc laws but in actuality doesnt. So I can realistically buy ejuice cheap while bypassing the nic age. That said I also used to buy boges all the time at im aged 20. I don't care personally cuz it seems like people can just get around the laws.

 

Keep it 18 but no matter what it's changed to the younger lot will still get their hands on them so it does not matter too much.

 

If you are an adult under the law, your responsible for your own actions.

 

Alcohol at 18 too?? please please pleaseplease

 

While I agree with the premise there is a difference in condition which gives me pause.

Arguably the negative affects to others from my smoking are much more negligent than the negative affects to others from drunk driving. Studies show that raising the drinking age has helped curb the trends of drunk driving casualties we had seen a few decades ago.

 

While true, counter argument to this is in europe where more strict driving regulations and harder driver tests combined with earlier drinking ages, decreases the chance of drunk driving accidents as it leads to people being more understanding of alcohol and its dangers. Please note that my point is technically theory and some evidence supports it while others contract it.

Evidence supporting Dein: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dcare/pdfs/Jernigan.pdf
Evidence supporting my point: European Laws Place Emphasis On the Driving, Not the Drinking (washingtonpost.com) and Underage Drinking: European Parents May Know Best

 

The only thing I think should be banned is smoking in public. Other than that, let people be.

 

1. Alcohol is set to 21, and I believe it is partially because the average human brain isn't fully developed until then. The question is then whether nicotine's effects are more harmful to an 18 year old then a 21 year old. Once this is decided, then we can better compare the two similar circumstances, which might make this debate easier on everyone.

2. Old enough to die for a country isn't exactly the best reasoning for everything. The phrase comes from during the Vietnam war where the voting age was 21. 18 year olds would be drafted for a war they didn't want to fight and saw the problem with having no say over whether they should be drafted (using the democratic process and representatives). You could slap that phrase in front of almost any action with an age restriction. For example, alcohol was decided to not fit under this category, even if it's similar to nicotine in many ways.

3. Changing the ages of a restriction will definitely affect many, but not the entire group. There's just no way to have all follow the rules correctly. At the same time, this doesn't make changing age restrictions useless or negligible, as many will notice the restriction and either choose to follow it, have to jump through more hoops to reach their end goal, or will find it not worth the effort to move around the restrictions and wait.

4. Just because your legally an adult, it doesn't mean the government can't make laws concerning you. For example, the government restricts all people from murder even though they're responsible for their own actions. Being responsible doesn't mean the individual must make all the choices without help or guidance.

 

No, it mostly resulted from the sheer amount of deaths that were occurring.

I would argue it's the best reasoning - If you can fight and die for your country then you should be able to enjoy all the freedoms that country gives.

The issue is who are "you" (the general public) to decide what I can or cannot do with my life? I totally get alcohol because people were murdering eachother via drunken driving, this affects people other than oneself. Smoking has a negligible affect on others and if you look at the taxes it produces it's a net gain for the entire population. If you prohibit smoking from 18 to 21 how do you replace those taxes? We'll all end up paying more to be able to tell an adult what they can or cannot do when it's literally none of our businesses.

I would support lowering the alcohol age with a couple of changes. We would obviously need a more comprehensive driving training, which is unlikely to happen. We also need to heavily penalize instances of drunk driving and if caught one should permanently lose their driving privileges and if the offender's drunk driving causes injury to another person should face years in prison and life in prison for causing loss of life.

 

Idk about other cities/states that have implemented the new laws, but every single store I've been in actually offers the same products to people who are 18+ with a military ID/CAC card/etc

 

Yeah but that isn't a solution either because we create two classes of citizens. If someone is 18 and they are of age to enlist/be drafted/vote and be considered a legal adult then they are an adult and should be able to use anything they want so long as it doesn't negatively affect others in any meaningful way.

 

Second hand smoke around kids is a serious thing though.

You can't murder because murder hurts someone other than you.

 

1. Smoking does cause many deaths. The 3rd leading cause of death in the US is due to "chronic lower respiratory diseases". (With heart disease being first and cancer being 2nd). Source: FastStats The highest killer of chronic lower respiratory diseases bronchitis, which according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchitis is most often caused by smoking. According to the Center of Disease Control, second hand smoke has killed about "2,500,000 nonsmokers." Source: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm The CDC also stated that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health." Smoking has a giant effect currently, even when compared to alcohol related deaths.

2. I'd like to drop the issue of "old enough to fight" for now while I take some time to think on the matter.

3. Yeah, we shouldn't separate drugs by military and non military. It creates a double standard where those who fight are allowed an advanced privilege in a matter about safety and maturity.

 

I completely agree on limiting peoples ability to smoke in public places. I have no solid stance on parents smoking around there kids, because I tend libertarian, but I think in this instance maybe a bit more government is good to save children.

 

How would you even go about regulating that? How would you know if a parent was smoking in their house near their kids short of busting down doors?

 

Don't some medicines have nicotine in them?

 

your right. It does harm kids though. Like measurably and dramatically.