Oregon Raises the Smoking Age (fastcompany.com) 410
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.
Terminology compounds the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "bad habit," it's a drug addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it or is it not bad? Because drug addiction is definitely a habit.
Age of Consent (Score:3, Insightful)
States that require someone be 21 years of age to consent to engaging in risky smoking behavior will also ban those under 21 from enlisting in the military, right?
Young people do lots of risky things. Let's be consistent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
States that require someone be 21 years of age to consent to engaging in risky smoking behavior will also ban those under 21 from enlisting in the military, right?
Young people do lots of risky things. Let's be consistent.
Our wold is full of risk regardless of age, so look at the chances of harm before assuming.
One of the most deadly activities you likely do every day is step into a car. With a generation addicted to their smartphones (behind the wheel), this risk increases even more. What do we raise the driving age to?
Smoking kills over 400,000 Americans every year, far more than any wartime activity. FUCK raising the age, tobacco should be illegal. One would think we would want to actually take steps to prevent our #1
Re:Age of Consent (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
No, because the willingness of young people to do stupid crap and be easily led is useful to a country as military drones.
More logically, it should suggest that the voting age should be raised to 21 however. I'm sure we'll have the Clintons support on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
State rep. quote is complete rubbish (Score:2)
"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.
Absolute rubbish. Plenty of people, myself included, have managed to stop smoking after the age of 25. Is being an idiot now a pre-requisite for election to high office in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
And you are among the exception. Actually I would argue that you were never permenately addicted to begin with. While yes you did develop a short term chemical dependacy you never developed or at least changed the nerve dependacy that makes change harder to impossible to quit.
Some people just can't quit a chemical dependacy,. Alcohol, coffee, nicotine.
Me I knew what I would be like with an alcohol drpendancy and so never let it develop while young, so now older I can have just one drink.. I only drank u
Re: (Score:3)
40 years a smoker (and I enjoyed it), quit cold turkey 4 years ago - that's not a "short-term chemical dependency". I did some self-reflection, and decided it was time to stop.
Some can do it, others need help. If you *want* to give up, you will.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are among the exception. Actually I would argue that you were never permenately addicted to begin with. While yes you did develop a short term chemical dependacy you never developed or at least changed the nerve dependacy that makes change harder to impossible to quit.
My dad and two of my uncles quit all after smoking 20+ years. In fact that older people quit is quite easily shown with statistics [ssb.no], it's in Norwegian but daily smokers by age group, since the statistics goes over more than 10 years you can easily compare:
16-24 in 2003: 25% -> 25-34 in 2013: 12%*
25-34 in 2003: 26% -> 35-44 in 2013: 15%
35-44 in 2003: 31% -> 45-54 in 2013: 19%
45-54 in 2003: 32% -> 55-64 in 2013: 20%
55-64 in 2003: 25% -> 65-74 in 2013: 14%
* Should have been 15-24 to fit the patte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few die from smoking related issues before age 40. The 35-44 year-old group went from 31% of that age population smoking, to 19%. There certainly was not a die off of 12% of that age group, or even anything close to it, smoking-related or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's bring some real data in on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The short; the average age of someone quitting smoking for the 2011-2012 period (the most recent period in the study) was 39.5 years old. In other words, the parent you're replying to is correct, a 25 year old threshold does not make sense.
Nicholas Alkemade says ... (Score:3)
Unfortunately it also turns out that if you're going to learn statistics you must do it before you're 23.
Re: (Score:2)
Well thank god I didn't pick up that used Introduction to Statistics book at Goodwill last week. Would have been a waste of $3.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to be 21 to smoke a cigarette, but at 18 you can go into the army and kill people
Re: (Score:2)
So, give the people cigarettes at 18 so they can die of lung cancer instead of having to shoot them? Works for me.
That's enough snark for now. Seriously though, to me a person is an adult capable of making decisions or not. Set and age at which a person can make their own choices and stick with it.
Marry at 18? Sure.
Vote at 18? OK.
Buy a house, sign a contract, get a job at 18? Absolutely.
Join the military at 18? Works for me.
Set a different age for things like buying alcohol, tobacco, or a handgun? Th
Lol (Score:2)
Yeah this would be about as effective as limiting alcohol in the same way. And it's not like the over-18 restriction is particularly effective anyway, most smokers that I know started way before that, probably by 16 already, so this would change pretty much nothing. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm not necessarily advocating for this law but the big idea here is to get cigarettes out of the reach of school age kids. Everyone I know who smoked in high school got seniors to buy them smokes and they were therefore much easier to get than the 21 and over alcohol.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly did get our hands on alcohol when we were underage but getting enough to maintain a habbit would have been much harder to do.
Yearly raises (Score:2)
The age limit should be raised by 1 year, each year, effectively phasing out the industry.
Addictive Personality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If we addressed the root problem,
the root problem is people dying from inhaling too much cigarette smoke
Let's try the 5 why's technique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys):
- Why are cigarette smokers dying? From inhaling too much cigarette smoke
- Why do they decide to smoke to begin with?
That's how root cause analysis works. Get jiggy with it and you might actually solve some real problems.
When will public smoking be banned? (Score:2)
I don't think we should ban tobacco. I think we should ban smoking anything where someone else has to breathe it. While we're at it, let's ban chemicals that anyone else can smell [hyperlogos.org]. Why is it acceptable to make chemical attacks on people you walk past on the street? No one else should be able to smell you unless they are right up in your business.
How many "new" smokers are there? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
They are now into hookahs, e-cigarettes, and there are a bunch of new ones that go directly into cannabis.
Lot more here for some reason (Score:2)
Seen more and more early 20's smoking, especially girls. Weird as I've seen smoking decline quite a bit in the last 15 years.
What a stupid idea. (Score:3)
I started smoking at the age of 12 (and quit at 32), and I never, ever, not even once, had a problem getting cigarettes when I was underage, and I hardly think it's any more difficult for underage people to do the same nowadays.
I'd say put all age restrictions on things - literally everything that is currently legal but with an age restriction - at the same age as the normal age of military service.
If you really want to discourage smoking, ban it from anywhere but a private residence and tax the hell out of it. Make the fine for smoking anywhere but in a private residence double per offense, starting at $50, and if the person smoking is underage, make the parent or legal guardian responsible for the fine. Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes. Make the fines for selling age restricted products to an underaged person draconian - first offense $5000, second offense you lose your license to sell ANYTHING age restricted, period. Tobacco isn't a necessity, it isn't an essential - tax it as the (stupid, harmful) luxury it is.
Mind you, I don't agree with the notion of doing the above, and I'm not on an anti-smoking crusade, but if the powers that be were actually serious about the public health elements of smoking they'd do more than this weak-tea pandering bullshit. They don't actually want to do anything to really break the back of big tobacco because of $$$, so they just do idiotic things like raise the age for legal purchase which plays well to some people, but is basically ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes.
I'm not a fan of that idea. I remember my dad talking about how after he quit he noticed how other people were dealing with their habit. Specifically he noted a lady at a filling station that bought a pack of cigarettes and then started counting pennies to buy enough gas to get home. You see, getting her nic-fix was more important to her than making sure she had enough gas to get home. You can raise the tax but then you have a lot of people still buying them because this is an addiction, not a luxury.
I
Raising age (Score:2)
If you want to curb smoking, just raise the age to 91 instead of 21.
It's fire season (Score:2)
And, although it is illegal to throw burning materials out of a car window, many roadside grass fires will be started by cigarettes. Not that I've ever seen anyone get cited for this. I've seen people flick ashes out onto a following state patrol car.
I suppose the biggest problem is the intent part of the law. The ashes just get blown out of the car through the open window. So, make it an offense to smoke in a vehicle with any windows open. I guarantee that, in addition to reducing the fire problem, this i
Legal? (Score:2)
Where in he legal system does it allow full citizens who are considered fully independent adults to be discriminated against because of their age?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what the technicals are behind it all but age limits are enshrined right in the US Constitution. We put them on holding office.
Re: (Score:3)
Founders recognized that people needed some years under their belts to get maturity before they should be running the country.
Is this to save lives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Is this to save lives? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.
Re: Is this to save lives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.
Both acts are costly to society, though in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should rephrase - the majority of the population doesn't see any benefit to society from smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Basic training is 10-16 weeks 24x7. How many classes on the pros and cons of smoking does a person need to sit through before they're allowed try their first one?
I've never smoked, don't agree with the ban, and have never been in the military, but I'd expect the military training makes you responsible enough to stay in it.
Re: Is this to save lives? (Score:2, Informative)
As a former Army Officer I can tell you this is horse shit. The US military has a very carefully crafted indoctrination program that convinces these *children* they're serving their country and doing the right thing, when they're really being manipulated to fight rich men's wars. It is sick and one of the main reasons I left. There was no good that came from the US involvement in the middle east, other than lots of dead innocents and a whole generation of kids fucked up for life. This nationalist crap has g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the 18-year-old will receive training. The smoker doesn't or they would never smoke in the first place.
Re: Is this to save lives? (Score:2)
I like how the only doctors you've been to are a dentist and a "chiropractor" (note: they're quacks) and somehow know there's nothing wrong with you. That cancer is going to be a fun surprise when it metastasizes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not voluntary, it only looks voluntary. We've largely stopped funding higher education and an increasing share of the jobs that pay a decent wage require a college degree of some sort. Sure, there are ones that don't, but there's a much higher supply of people who need those jobs than positions to fill.
Calling it an all volunteer military when it's some people's only meaningful hope of bettering themselves in society is a rather large stretch.Even back in Vietnam most of the people in the military at t
Re: (Score:2)
How long has it been since the government forced people to smoke?
People can join the military at 18, but not smoke or drink until 21, and not rent a car until 25, and not run for President until 35. I only agree with one of these restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaah, there's your problem. You expected logic to play a part in this decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your state's driving age is 21? That is one fucked up place.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to (gasp!) drive a car?
Driving a car allows people to increase their productivity. Smoking only has costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon also made a law this week making all abortions completely free and mandatory with all insurance coverage. So to recap, you need to be 21 to slowly take your own life, but not to take another's (in the military, or that of an unborn child) - plus my tax $ have to pay for it. I knew OR was looney tunes but holy shit.
I can see Portland suing the state for appropriation of its slogan, 'Keep Portland Weird'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We could just let unborn children smoke.
Re:Are you over 21? (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re: Are you over 21? (Score:3)
As to abortion, you have no fucking idea, how bad it is when your baby might have to be aborted, and you're scrambling around to find money for the amniocentisis tests. What was my wife supposed to do if we couldn't afford the abortion? Carry it to term and let it die after birth? Fuck you, you selfish asshole.
So we have to pay for everyone's elective abortions because your wife needed a medically-necessary abortion?
Decent health insurance would have covered a doctor-prescribed abortion for medical reasons, even long before obama even ran for office, let alone implemented Obamacare.
Re:Nanny state socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Unfortunately, Common F. Sense never seems to prevail over Corruption N. Greed.
EVEN more reasonable (Score:2)
Was this not mentioned because you are friends with Mia Vice Izafine and Bee Cuz Ilikait?
Re: (Score:3)
So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use, a product that is responsible for over 85% of all date rapes and is the 4th largest cause of death in the U.S?
Ah, yes - I see you belong to the group that believes that a woman who had had a drink is incapable of giving consent, while a man who has had a drink is therefore a rapist if they engage in sexual activity, perhaps simple sexual assault if they hold hands or cuddle.
It also means that if my wife has had a few and gets frisky, I am likewise guilty if I engage with her. And she'll be a tad pissed if I don't.
So perhaps we need to install breathalyzers in all homes, and that the amorous couples be require
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weed, Dont forget weed!
Re: (Score:2)
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Banning stuff doesn't make them go away. People tend to smoke because they want to regardless of whether it is illegal. Marijuana smoking rates went from about 10% to 12% in Colorado after it became legal so it isn't like there was a huge population of people who wanted to smoke but didn't only because it was illegal.
Methods such as increasing the legal age and increasing taxes do reduce the number of new smokers, although unfortunately higher taxes have little effect on heavy/long-term smokers. But since i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Pot" has not killed anyone, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
And didn't Oregon legalize POT smoking? I'm sure that kills people too.
Apparently you have never smoked weed. It id not like the 1930's movie "Refer Madness" You dont turn insane after one hit. Honestly it has some good mental health effects. The main reason I smoke weed is because I like it, taste, smell, feeling.. the whole thing. But it also relieves stress and occasional panic attacks my job tends to give me. Now, without weed. I'm sure I would have more homicidal feelings than I do currently(peoples stupidity makes me want to kill them). I live in Las Vegas, where recentl
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Unfortunately, Common F. Sense never seems to prevail over Corruption N. Greed.
With that logic, we should make booze illegal again.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk.
People smoke because of addiction. I have never met even a reasonably intelligent person who is a smoker who didn't ultimately want to quit. They just didn't have the inner drive to quit yet. Nearly no one is making a benefit / risk analysis when choosing to smoke, they are being driven by addiction.
smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide?
There is no way you are getting that information from someone with any training in fighting mental health issues. Quitting smoking is well known to help combat mental health issues. Smoking is a very poor method
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. No one ever smoked their first cigarette because they were addicted. People smoke because they choose to try the experience. They may then become trapped by addiction, but that's not why they started smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. No one ever smoked their first cigarette because they were addicted. People smoke because they choose to try the experience. They may then become trapped by addiction, but that's not why they started smoking.
Learn to read [youtube.com]. Even you quoted it - "People smoke because of addition." This does not state that they started because they were addicted, but that they continue because the're addicted.
The 5 stages of dying for a smoke (Score:3)
1 "I can quit any time" - denial
2 "I will quit when I'm ready" -negotiation
3 "I enjoy it too much to quit" - rationalization
4 "It's the only thing I have left to enjoy." - capitulation
5 "I don't want to die!" - reality
Followed by the ultimate personal smoking experience - cremation. Do you really want to be "smoking hot"?
Re: (Score:3)
It often does. We made fireplaces and wood stoves illegal to reduce particulates (and added $5,000 fines for non-compliance). Worked like a charm.
We made driving without a seatbelt illegal, and added $92 fines. Very high rates of compliance.
We made it illegal to smoke in restaurants, work, enclosed public spaces, and certain outdoor spaces include outdoor restaurant terrasses and patios. with fines starting at $250 - $750 for the individual for a first offense. Nobody smokes in restaurants any more. Maxim
Re: (Score:3)
Lets just skip to the end, then, and force people to live out their lives in concrete boxes where every aspect is hypercontrolled for maximum efficiency and minimum impact on The People. One of the primary reasons people resist socialism is that it always results in some form of authoritarianism. Once something is publicly funded, that something can now be considered 'under threat' by the state, with any 'threatening' action it doesn't like conveniently deemed 'threatening' and 'curtailed,' usually with lif
Re: (Score:3)
What dystopian hell? Where people aren't subjected to second-hand smoke? Where tobacco companies, who have a long history of targeting kids, are loathed for doing so, and are not allowed to do that sort of shit any more?
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?
Violate my rights, I sure as hell have the right to put a bit of fear into you. Or make you pay for it. You clowns with your stupid libertarian arguments seem to think that rights only count when they're your rights being trampled on, and you should be free to do whatever the hell you want
Re: (Score:2)
lol worked so well with weed, that a hand full of states said "fuck it get high if you want to"
Re: (Score:2)
This is the approach Tasmania (a state of Australia) has taken. It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born in 2000 or later.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people start smoking well before 18. Another stupid law that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The proportion who start between 18 and 21 is probably insubstantial.
But the number of 17 year olds with 21 year old friends is much less than the number of 17 year olds with 18 year old friends. The goal is simply to make it less available.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I've never seen anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes smoking one!
Your post should be at +5 insightful. The amazing thing is that most people seem to have forgotten what it is like to be a teenager. When they hit that rebellious stage, they...rebel.
I started smoking at 14 years old, and why? because it was an act of rebellion. It was something grownups did. I wasn't allowed to buy or smoke. And musta been something pretty cool if adults kept it to themselves. So what did I do? Started smoking. Howbow dah?
Even without the laws, it wasn't hard then, and it isn't hard
Re: Whew! (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you comparing murder with smoking ? How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior- starting with alcohol and food, moving to cars, extreme sports and anything that may somehow harm your precious little life. After all, the state should know better what's better for your body. That's all I can say about your comparisons...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom, how about we set some reasonable compromises?
FUCK YOU!
There is no "reasonable compromise" on freedom. Just like there are no "reasonable restrictions on speech" or "reasonable gun control laws". It's always a power grab and it always gets more restrictive over time. Or are you okay with "free speech zones", you fucking fascist?
If you want to illegally infringe on people's freedoms and rights, then play by the fucking rules and change the constitution so you can do it legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom,
Sorry. Stopped reading right there. Can you rephrase your comment without thinking I'm going to give up my personal freedom just on your whim?
If you're determined to be unreasonable, then you can come up with any kind of excuses you want for shitty behavior.
I mean, since you are obviously opposed to giving up your personal freedom just on the other guy's whim.
Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in the real world of adults who don't poop their pants when discussing reasonable compromises on personal freedom,
Sorry. Stopped reading right there. Can you rephrase your comment without thinking I'm going to give up my personal freedom just on your whim?
If you're determined to be unreasonable, then you can come up with any kind of excuses you want for shitty behavior.
I didn't know that wanting to keep my personal freedom was shitty behavior.
I mean, since you are obviously opposed to giving up your personal freedom just on the other guy's whim.
Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
Never claimed to be virtuous. Claimed to have personal freedom that means a lot more to me than someone who is claiming that it isn't worth shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that wanting to keep my personal freedom was shitty behavior.
It depends on which personal freedom you're talking about. If you mean the personal freedom to pollute your airways, I believe in that. If you mean the personal freedom to pollute my airways, that shit has got to end.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point would be valid if I was coming into your home and smoking against your wishes. In any open public area, there are more pollutants than cigarette smoke in the air. Do you seek to prohibit all those as well? As for restaurants, you can choose to go to one that voluntarily chose to be smoke-free, rather than use the government to make them all smoke-free. Just like there are lousy vegan restaurants, there were lousy smoke-free restaurants without it being law.
By the way, I don't smoke. Cigarette smo
Re: (Score:2)
Right. To you it is simply a matter of money.
Re: Whew! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you say something, it doesn't make it true.
Actual data on the subject says otherwise. And even common sense points out why this is true. When you make it more difficult for people to get something, it shouldn't be surprising that overall usage goes down a certain amount as for some people, the inconvenience of acquiring that thing outweighs their desire to acquire it.
Nobody thinks it will stop smoking entirely. But it will reduce the amount of people who start smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course I'd rather see a total ban on smoking as it doesn't have any good purpose at all."
You could say the same for alcohol, coffee, or any number of other things. Personally, I really enjoy a smoke every now and then if the tobacco is good. Of course I'm happy none of my friends smoke anymore because of health issues but I do miss being able to bum a smoke every other month or so to enjoy, wake me up, or just to get a nice little nicotine buzz. Tobacco and alcohol pair especially well
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be so quick to dismiss this idea. This law will mean 18 year old high school seniors can't just go buy cigarettes at the Quik-E-Mart across the street from school, which means there will be fewer 14 year old freshmen bumming their first smokes from seniors, and it may actually have an real impact on teen smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. That caught my eye too. With the pedants around here, I'm surprised I didn't see it in the comments above.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a different view on that line of thinking.
People accuse the NRA of the mantra of "more guns!!". Well, what I see from the government is the mantra of "more government!!" Can we perhaps get a solution from the government that does not involve more government? Maybe have the government say once in a while, "That's not a problem we can solve, all of you are going to have to figure that one out on your own."
Nope, we have the government see a problem, therefore they must act to solve the problem. Ofte