California's smoking age raised from 18 to 21

[Her]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-smoking-bills-20160504-story.html
more in article

Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a pack of bills that will raise the smoking age in California from 18 to 21, restrict the use of electronic cigarettes in public places and expand no-smoking areas at public schools.

However, Brown vetoed a bill that would have allowed counties to seek voter approval of local tobacco taxes to pay for healthcare expenses for those with tobacco-related illnesses.

"Although California has one of the lowest cigarette tax rates in the nation, I am reluctant to approve this measure in view of all the taxes being proposed for the 2016 ballot," Brown wrote in his veto message for a bill authored by Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica).

Brown did not comment on the other bills that he signed, but state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) said approval of his bill raising the smoking age will save lives.

"The governor's signature on Tobacco 21 is a signal that California presents a united front against Big Tobacco," Hernandez said in a statement. "Together, we stand to disrupt the chain of adolescent addiction."

The package of bills was touted as the "most expansive" effort to control tobacco use in the state in more than a decade. The bills were backed by a coalition of medical groups including the American Heart Assn, American Lung Assn., American Cancer Society and the California Medical Assn.

"It is long past due for California to update our approach to tobacco, and with the governor's signature on these life-saving bills, we have done just that," said Steven Larson, president of the CMA.

The tobacco industry has threatened to seek a referendum vote to overturn the bills increasing the smoking age and restricting e-cigarettes. That threat led lawmakers to employ procedural tricks to make it harder to qualify a referendum.

Seems incredibly foolish.

 

[Xertified]

Shoot man, the world is getting worse and worse everyday. AI should be created now.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

Legal drinking and smoking ages being a whole three years higher than what a country considers being an adult will always be strange for me. Perhaps they should bump the age at which people can join the armed forces. Yes, I know this is an incredibly generic post.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Might as well change California's age of consent to 21 then, because apparently 18 isn't considered as a responsible adult anymore.

 

[Esper]

The point of raising the age is to diminish the number of under-18 kids in high school getting cigarettes from those high schoolers who are 18. "Oh, but they'll just get them anyway." Well, okay, let's not have any speed limits either because people will still drive too fast.

 

[Kanzler]

I disapprove of tobacco use in general. It doesn't perform a social function in the way alcohol does, and is highly addictive. Also, cancer.

Good thing is that tobacco usage among youth is down and there's no tobacco "culture" as there is a culture around marijuana or drinking. I don't think there will be much backlash to this bill.

 

[Somewhere_]

I disapprove of tobacco use in general. It doesn't perform a social function in the way alcohol does, and is highly addictive. Also, cancer.

Good thing is that tobacco usage among youth is down and there's no tobacco "culture" as there is a culture around marijuana or drinking. I don't think there will be much backlash to this bill.

I agree. Its not like some "prohibition era" crap is going to occur. I dont think tobacco is popular enough, and while restricting the use of addictive drugs does usually increase the amount of users, I doubt there will be any significant hike in tobacco use. I still question the effectiveness of the law though.

 

[Spiff]

I disapprove of tobacco use in general. It doesn't perform a social function in the way alcohol does, and is highly addictive. Also, cancer.

I'll just say that I've met so many friends through smoking areas/groups back when I used to smoke, it was ridiculous. and hookah?? hookah lounges are pretty social I think??? I mean the law will probably be pretty effective, I don't know. but I had some of my funnest times when I smoked cause it was such a powerful social tool, it was great.

I did smoke in high school too, and damn having to find 21 year olds to buy smokes for me would have been tedious tbh, and as far as high school kids picking it up goes, I think this law could be a lot more effective than people think.

 

[Kanzler]

I'll just say that I've met so many friends through smoking areas/groups back when I used to smoke, it was ridiculous. and hookah?? hookah lounges are pretty social I think??? I mean the law will probably be pretty effective, I don't know. but I had some of my funnest times when I smoked cause it was such a powerful social tool, it was great.

I did smoke in high school too, and damn having to find 21 year olds to buy smokes for me would have been tedious tbh, and as far as high school kids picking it up goes, I think this law could be a lot more effective than people think.

"doesn't perform a social function" is a bit strong, what I mean is it's not mainstream like alcohol is mainstream. Obviously people can find friends through any kind of social activity.

 

[stzy]

I'm a 23 year old heavy smoker, I've been smoking since I was 14 (I know, spawn of Satan/kill me now). I live in Canada and here the legal age is 19. Just gonna throw this out there, if the legal age to buy cigarettes here was 21 I wouldn't be a smoker today, and that would be amazing. I think the law will have some beneficiary effects, maybe not as many as hoped for but it definitely can't do any harm. As the user above me said, a backlash is not at risk.

 

[Sir Codin]

At this point, why not just ban cigarettes? We obviously don't like them and people obviously don't want people smoking them, so cut the foreplay.

 

[Spherical Ice]

At this point, why not just ban cigarettes? We obviously don't like them and people obviously don't want people smoking them, so cut the foreplay.

Because that will further clog up the American prison system with minor drug offenders, criminalise those that actually are in need of rehabilitation and severely damage the economic benefits that taxation on cigarettes bring. Not to mention all the industries that actively benefit from people smoking that would definitely oppose an outright ban. Raising the age limit is a decent compromise that, to at least some extent, safeguards the vulnerable younger people from being able to access them while not unnecessarily persecuting the adults who, for whatever reason, have chosen to smoke / are addicted.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Coming from someone who doesn't smoke (only smoke weed) I don't promote the usage of smoking tobacco but I'm also not one to say what you can and cannot do which is why I believe drugs shouldn't be illegal, it only fills the prisons up with small time offenders rather than putting away real criminals, (which I believe the suppliers of deadly drugs should be locked up). If you want to die from smoking cancer sticks, be my guest, you knew the consequences. But It's also unreasonable to raise the legal smoking age. Age 18 is considered an adult and even if the target is to reduce high schoolers from getting a pack of smokes, it wont make a drastic change enough to consider it to work. High schoolers still get alcohol and the legal age has been 21 for years and years now. When marijuana was illegal in all the states high schoolers still got it, even now they still get it in illegal states. Hell... Even hard narcotics like heroin or crack/coke, every school has at least one dealer so even illegalizing cigarettes wouldn't work. I've also explained why I'm against illegalizing as well. Yeah, let's just raise the legal age of alcohol to 21 and see if it works... Oh wait, we've already done that. I think the people in power are incredibly ignorant or they lack common sense... Maybe both. But it really comes down to "control over the masses", they're just too full of themselves to think people will actually follow their petty rules.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm sure some people would still break the law, but I think there will be a deterrent effect. You wouldn't even have to enforce the law that strongly and you'd still have a reduction in youth smoking, which is the point of such a law.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'm sure some people would still break the law, but I think there will be a deterrent effect. You wouldn't even have to enforce the law that strongly and you'd still have a reduction in youth smoking, which is the point of such a law.

Explain how some kids start smoking these cancer sticks at 16, or start at ages as low as 13? Or tell me how successful the legal drinking age policy worked? Just because the government has a target of a feeble idea which this is, doesn't mean it will work. I'm almost 100% certain and willing to make a gamble that this policy will fail, just as the drinking age policy failed as 18 year old's still get alcohol, it's like taking candy from a baby. It will maybe reduce illegal usage by 15% and that's pushing it. It's literally impossible to stop underage smoking or drinking. People break the law for the thrill of breaking them and to challenge the governments authority by being rebellious. So slapping another policy by raising the age would probably increase the amount of illegal usage because whats the point of a rule and regulation if it's not broken? This would be like raising the speed limit a little when people would still drive way above the new speed limit. If you raised it to 80 people would still drive 90. People drive 55 in a 35 or 95 in a 65 or 70 already. So, what's the point?

 

[Kanzler]

Explain how some kids start smoking these cancer sticks at 16, or start at ages as low as 13? Or tell me how successful the legal drinking age policy worked? Just because the government has a target of a feeble idea which this is, doesn't mean it will work. I'm almost 100% certain and willing to make a gamble that this policy will fail, just as the drinking age policy failed as 18 year old's still get alcohol, it's like taking candy from a baby. It will maybe reduce illegal usage by 15% and that's pushing it. It's literally impossible to stop underage smoking or drinking. People break the law for the thrill of breaking them and to challenge the governments authority by being rebellious. So slapping another policy by raising the age would probably increase the amount of illegal usage because whats the point of a rule and regulation if it's not broken? This would be like raising the speed limit a little when people would still drive way above the new speed limit. If you raised it to 80 people would still drive 90. People drive 55 in a 35 or 95 in a 65 or 70 already. So, what's the point?

What's the point of making murder or theft or rape illegal if people are going to murder or steal or rape anyways? What's the point of checking for movie tickets at the theatre if people are going to sneak in anyways? What's the point of banning plagiarism or cheating on a test if people are going to plagiarize or cheat anyways?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

What's the point of making murder or theft or rape illegal if people are going to murder or steal or rape anyways? What's the point of checking for movie tickets at the theatre if people are going to sneak in anyways? What's the point of banning plagiarism or cheating on a test if people are going to plagiarize or cheat anyways?

Murder, theft, and rape are FELONY charges and usually result in major fines and jail/prison time, especially murder and rape so that's irrelevant, I have no idea why you even brought that up lol. Of course major criminal charges should be taken seriously. This isn't rocket science ya know..
Sneaking in isn't a criminal charge... So that's again irrelevant.. You'd just get kicked out soooo.... Try again.
Plagiarism is a criminal charge as well and usually results in a felony meaning jail/prison time or a law suit which is again irrelevant. So, try harder.
Cheating on a test, wow you really brought that up? That's a stupid argument really. Try again.

Those are all irrelevant to your argument because tobacco is already illegal for people under the age of 18. 18 is considered adulthood, not 21. Tobacco is already regulated, why regulate it even more? If you think it's going to work you really need to re-evaluate this and other policies. As I said.. Tell me how the alcohol regulation works, or the drug usage regulation works. Oh wait, it doesn't and even if it does it's so minuscule to even make a difference. It's actually such a failed tactic that it causes more problems than solving them. I mean.. It's common sense that it wont work. It may work for a very small percentage but wont work enough to actually regulate it. You realize how easy it is for even a 16 year old to get a bottle of liquor?? If you don't know, you seriously need to study on how reality works around you because you seem a little misguided.

 

[Kanzler]

Murder, theft, and rape are FELONY charges and usually result in major fines and jail/prison time, especially murder and rape so that's irrelevant, I have no idea why you even brought that up lol. Of course major criminal charges should be taken seriously. This isn't rocket science ya know..
Sneaking in isn't a criminal charge... So that's again irrelevant.. You'd just get kicked out soooo.... Try again.
Plagiarism is a criminal charge as well and usually results in a felony meaning jail/prison time or a law suit which is again irrelevant. So, try harder.
Cheating on a test, wow you really brought that up? That's a stupid argument really. Try again.

Those are all irrelevant to your argument because tobacco is already illegal for people under the age of 18. 18 is considered adulthood, not 21. Tobacco is already regulated, why regulate it even more? If you think it's going to work you really need to re-evaluate this and other policies. As I said.. Tell me how the alcohol regulation works, or the drug usage regulation works. Oh wait, it doesn't and even if it does it's so minuscule to even make a difference. I mean.. It's common sense that it wont work. It may work for a very small percentage but wont work enough to actually regulate it.

Well if your logic is if a prohibition doesn't succeed 100% it doesn't succeed at all, that's just really bad logic.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Well if your logic is if a prohibition doesn't succeed 100% it doesn't succeed at all, that's just really bad logic.

I never said that.. Now your putting words in my mouth. It wont be successful enough to regulate it the way they want to regulate it. It would just cause more problems than solving them. Are the prisons over populated with petty offenders as is? Just imagine how many more teenagers are going to be getting slapped with fines (even adults 18-20) or even thrown in jail because they got caught smoking a cigarette.. That's actually asinine if you ask me. How much better off you think the general population would be if the government didn't regulate such petty crimes like "alcohol under age 18 and illegal drug usage"? Not saying drugs shouldn't be regulated at all, but they need to drastically cut down on the regulations because they're simply idiotic. A responsible adult shouldn't have a problem but the government wants to tell them what they can and cannot do because they have the power to so.. It's hypocrisy if you think about it. Why should the government care about what someone chooses to do with their own body but then turn around and fuck us in the end? Which side of the team are they playing on? That's the million dollar question. Actually, I'll answer it for you... MONEY

 

[Kanzler]

I never said that.. Now your putting words in my mouth. It wont be successful enough to regulate it the way they want to regulate it. It would just cause more problems than solving them. Are the prisons over populated with petty offenders as is? Just imagine how many more teenagers are going to be getting slapped with fines (even adults 18-20) or even thrown in jail because they got caught smoking a cigarette.. That's actually asinine if you ask me. How much better off you think the general population would be if the government didn't regulate such petty crimes like "alcohol under age 18 and illegal drug usage"? Not saying drugs shouldn't be regulated at all, but they need to drastically cut down on the regulations because they're simply idiotic. A responsible adult shouldn't have a problem but the government wants to tell them what they can and cannot do because they have the power to so.. It's hypocrisy if you think about it. Why should the government care about what someone chooses to do with their own body but then turn around and **** us in the end? Which side of the team are they playing on? That's the million dollar question. Actually, I'll answer it for you... MONEY

I don't need to put words in your mouth when your logic speaks for itself.

I said in a previous post that they wouldn't even have to enforce it very much for it to achieve an effect. It'll have a deterrence effect out of its mere existence, and not only that, it's sending a message that this society thinks that tobacco use should only be in the hands of responsible adults. When you're 18 you still do things because they're cool and shit. Don't pretend like peer pressure isn't a big deal when you're 18.

Besides, it's not just a matter of responsible adults being responsible for themselves. Healthcare resources are limited to begin with, and I'd much prefer that they be spent on diseases outside of people's control instead of something preventable like smoking-induced lung cancer. Every dollar and hour spent on a self-inflicted and preventable condition is one that can't be spent on a condition that someone had no hand in causing.

It's not like people are going to be imprisoned for underage smoking, anyways, so there's no point crying about that.