quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Let’s face it, kids/ young adults are still going to smoke. Raising the age to 21 aint stopping it. I’d have a hard time telling some 18, 19, 20 year old in the military, “thanks for your service, here’s a ticket because you sparked up a Marlboro.”

Is the law about smoking, or buying tobacco? If the latter, then smoking would not be against that law.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

The law bans the sale of smoking products to persons under 21, thus targets the purveyors of the products. I really don't know how much the new law will do, but I don't blame congress for trying to do something to diminish use of this harmful product by our young people.

So, do it for the children, eh?

Please don't miss the point that it is an inherently dangerous and poisonous substance.

Yeah well, what vice, big or small, isn't?

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
What about weed?

Weed can go in its own thread. Let’s stick to the OP, please.

It's still against federal law. Are they just passing more laws that they aren't going to enforce?

If you can vote, have to sign up for selective service, can buy a home, get married, you should also be able to buy a beer or a gun and smokes

(Former smoker who started at 16 and finally quit at 29)

I have about a million things to worry about, and this isn't one of them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SIG228,

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
What about weed?

Weed can go in its own thread. Let’s stick to the OP, please.

It's still against federal law. Are they just passing more laws that they aren't going to enforce?

I see this law being enforced by cashiers where tobacco products are sold. Big name stores like Walmart won’t want to get into the game of ignoring federal law.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:
About a million things to worry about, and this isn't one of them.

True, but we can only take on the world one post at a time.

How about I just don't care. So many other things the government should be dealing with. Kids find ways to smoke anyway. Is this law going to stop legal adults from finding ways to smoke?

For fuck shits, they are adults if they want to smoke so be it.

FWIW I have never smoked. I just don't see raising the age as something the gov should be spending time on.

Philosophically opposed to this.

Practically I think it's great.

I felt the same way when they banned smoking in bars. Not the governments job. But it's turned out great.

quote:

If it stops one smoker

Dude. WTAF? Replace "one smoker" with "one robbery" or "one murder" or whatever anti-gun jargon you want to use, and think about the things you're actually writing. You're using the actual words of the GDC's when they call for confiscation, control, whatever. C'mon man, you know better than that.

This is some basic liberty 101, entry level stuff here. Freedom means free - even if it's free to make the wrong choices. In all things.

For the record, it's not the number I have a problem with. I'm okay with the age (21), but let's make it that for all of it. Drinking, smoking, selective service, voting, et al. It's not about what age is "adult", it's about making it adult for all of it - not just whatever our crusade of the day is.

As to withholding the Medicare/Medicaid thing, or raising insurance rates, I'm fine with that too. But again, let's do it for all of the risk behavior. Smoking, drinking, recreational drugs, street racing, promiscuity, being morbidly obese. All of those are higher risk habits too, no?

It's amusing how these threads bring out the totalitarians in us. Everyone is all for slaughtering the sacred cow.....as long as it isn't their cow.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

If it stops one smoker

Dude. WTAF? Replace "one smoker" with "one robbery" or "one murder" or whatever anti-gun jargon you want to use, and think about the things you're actually writing. You're using the actual words of the GDC's when they call for confiscation, control, whatever.

Of course smoking is guaranteed under which part of the constitution...?

Oh yeah... it ain't.

Nothing sacred about smoking. It sucks. BTDT. It's a drain on society.

I believe people should be able to do it, but I believe I shouldn't have to pay for life giving care when they come down with lung cancer or whatever else they'll burden society with. Of course that's a pipe dream, I know...

I hate smoking.

I also hate the feds taking more power and control and destroying what it means to be an adult.

But I hate smoking.

So I dunno.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO
I believe people should be able to do it, but I believe I shouldn't have to pay for life giving care when they come down with lung cancer or whatever else they'll burden society with. Of course that's a pipe dream, I know...

I’ve seen this sentiment several times in this thread. I’m quoting Rhinowso for convenience, but I’m addressing all who have stated a similar view.

The idea that smokers cost the government, and by extension you as a taxpayer, due to additional medical care is simply false. In fact, smoking actually SAVES the government quite a bit in total. While it is true that a smoker may incur medical costs directly associated with smoking, what you are failing to consider is that everybody who doesn’t die from an accident will likely incur extensive medical costs regardless. Whether it is from lung cancer in your fifties, or congestive heart failure in your eighties, the costs will be incurred one way or another. The savings to the government are realized when a smoker dies before spending 25 years drawing a Social Security check and receiving decades of medical care, followed by high medical costs in their final years.

In other words, smoking kills you quickly before you can cash all those government checks, but usually after you’ve had a chance to pay a lifetime of taxes.

As a rule, I’m opposed to dictating people’s behavior because of the cost to a social program. If we’ve collectively decided to have a social program, we shouldn’t use that program’s cost to justify social controls. To do so would allow nearly anything to be scrutinized due to the cost to some government program. I prefer freedom. If there’s a problem caused by someone’s freedom, then eliminate the social program altogether, but keep the freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Of course smoking is guaranteed under which part of the constitution...?

Oh yeah... it ain't.

That would be the 9th amendment.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Thought experiment - make it 25 for everything currently requiring age restriction.
That's when the human brain is fully formed. Benefits vs. consequences?

No, I am not talking about retirement benefits or other senior related age qualifications, obviously.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The idea that smokers cost the government, and by extension you as a taxpayer, due to additional medical care is simply false. In fact, smoking actually SAVES the government quite a bit in total. While it is true that a smoker may incur medical costs directly associated with smoking, what you are failing to consider is that everybody who doesn’t die from an accident will likely incur extensive medical costs regardless. Whether it is from lung cancer in your fifties, or congestive heart failure in your eighties, the costs will be incurred one way or another. The savings to the government are realized when a smoker dies before spending 25 years drawing a Social Security check and receiving decades of medical care, followed by high medical costs in their final years.

In other words, smoking kills you quickly before you can cash all those government checks, but usually after you’ve had a chance to pay a lifetime of taxes.

As a rule, I’m opposed to dictating people’s behavior because of the cost to a social program. If we’ve collectively decided to have a social program, we shouldn’t use that program’s cost to justify social controls. To do so would allow nearly anything to be scrutinized due to the cost to some government program. I prefer freedom. If there’s a problem caused by someone’s freedom, then eliminate the social program altogether, but keep the freedom.

Data?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The idea that smokers cost the government, and by extension you as a taxpayer, due to additional medical care is simply false. In fact, smoking actually SAVES the government quite a bit in total. While it is true that a smoker may incur medical costs directly associated with smoking, what you are failing to consider is that everybody who doesn’t die from an accident will likely incur extensive medical costs regardless. Whether it is from lung cancer in your fifties, or congestive heart failure in your eighties, the costs will be incurred one way or another. The savings to the government are realized when a smoker dies before spending 25 years drawing a Social Security check and receiving decades of medical care, followed by high medical costs in their final years.

In other words, smoking kills you quickly before you can cash all those government checks, but usually after you’ve had a chance to pay a lifetime of taxes.

As a rule, I’m opposed to dictating people’s behavior because of the cost to a social program. If we’ve collectively decided to have a social program, we shouldn’t use that program’s cost to justify social controls. To do so would allow nearly anything to be scrutinized due to the cost to some government program. I prefer freedom. If there’s a problem caused by someone’s freedom, then eliminate the social program altogether, but keep the freedom.

Data?

+1 Bold claims. Time to back them up.

I have long felt that the age of adulthood should not be "two-tiered." Kind of like daylight saving time, make it one or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Nothing sacred about smoking. It sucks.

Exactly. I suggest a minimum age of 91 for purchasing, possessing, and/or using tobacco products.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The idea that smokers cost the government, and by extension you as a taxpayer, due to additional medical care is simply false. In fact, smoking actually SAVES the government quite a bit in total. While it is true that a smoker may incur medical costs directly associated with smoking, what you are failing to consider is that everybody who doesn’t die from an accident will likely incur extensive medical costs regardless. Whether it is from lung cancer in your fifties, or congestive heart failure in your eighties, the costs will be incurred one way or another. The savings to the government are realized when a smoker dies before spending 25 years drawing a Social Security check and receiving decades of medical care, followed by high medical costs in their final years.

In other words, smoking kills you quickly before you can cash all those government checks, but usually after you’ve had a chance to pay a lifetime of taxes.

As a rule, I’m opposed to dictating people’s behavior because of the cost to a social program. If we’ve collectively decided to have a social program, we shouldn’t use that program’s cost to justify social controls. To do so would allow nearly anything to be scrutinized due to the cost to some government program. I prefer freedom. If there’s a problem caused by someone’s freedom, then eliminate the social program altogether, but keep the freedom.

Data?

+1 Bold claims. Time to back them up.

Clearly there’s way more data the other way. It is politically incorrect to even suggest there are economic benefits of smoking. The U.S. government refuses to place an economic value on early death, but it nevertheless is still there. I suppose the government doesn’t want us reminded that social security is a program we’re obligated to fund, but the benefit is dubious. This is why we should have a private, personal asset system for retirement. But that’s a topic for a different thread.

Here’s a reference to that Vanderbilt study of a few years back.

https://m.medicalxpress.com/ne...s-society-money.html

quote:

...
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
...

Thumbs down.