Oregon raises smoking age to 21

I definitely do not think that the minimum age should be raised to 21 much less having it banned altogether. A war on tobacco would likely be as futile as the war on drugs and with 17.2% of Americans doing tobacco as opposed to 13% for marijuana, the criminalization of tobacco to the same level as other recreational drugs would most certainly increase the incarceration rate.

Ostensibly, things like older ages for alcohol have a lot to do with the safety of others, not just the individual doing it. Potential effects from drunk driving causing deaths of others, etc.

The same concern does not apply to using tobacco. Even with the concerns over second-hand smoke we have enough locations restrictions that that has already pretty been taken care of. Raising the age is not necessary.

Yet you can go risk your life fighting for your country at 18. Can't even go out and have a beer after.

EMNofSeattle said:

Oregon Senate approves raising legal tobacco age to 21

Just stupid, why should legal adults not be permitted to purchase a legal product? Why not just ban the retail sale of tobacco period if smoking is so bad?

Click to expand...

Reasonable people can disagree over policy and the decision of what the drinking, smoking age or sexual consent age should be is rightly placed in the state legislature. If citizens disagree with those decisions, they have the opportunity to voice that disagreement at the ballot box.

There are arguments pro and con for a 21 year smoking age. That's what it is in NY and nobody complains. There is also research that shows that at upper-teen ages, most people's brains lack executive decision making skills. Since tobacco is highly addictive, if folks get hooked before their reasoning skills would have them make alternative choices, that's an argument for raising the age.

Research has also shown that lower drinking ages result in a disproportionately high drunk driving and death rate. The number of Americans killed in auto accidents dramatically decreased when the drinking age was raised to 21 in most states in the early 1980s.

MTAtech said:

Reasonable people can disagree over policy and the decision of what the drinking, smoking age or sexual consent age should be is rightly placed in the state legislature. If citizens disagree with those decisions, they have the opportunity to voice that disagreement at the ballot box.

There are arguments pro and con for a 21 year smoking age. That's what it is in NY and nobody complains. There is also research that shows that at upper-teen ages, most people's brains lack executive decision making skills. Since tobacco is highly addictive, if folks get hooked before their reasoning skills would have them make alternative choices, that's an argument for raising the age.

Research has also shown that lower drinking ages result in a disproportionately high drunk driving and death rate. The number of Americans killed in auto accidents dramatically decreased when the drinking age was raised to 21 in most states in the early 1980s.

Click to expand...

Then they shouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts, either. That has potentially long-reaching effects, too.

radcen said:

Then they shouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts, either. That has potentially long-reaching effects, too.

Click to expand...

Take it to the state capitol.

These areas are decided by well-meaning humans. They decide different things. For instance, a state may decide to have a 17 yr age for sexual consent, 18 for cigs and 21 for alcohol.

MTAtech said:

Take it to the state capitol.

These areas are decided by well-meaning humans. They decide different things. For instance, a state may decide to have a 17 yr age for sexual consent, 18 for cigs and 21 for alcohol.

Click to expand...

You do know this is a debate/discussion site, right?

Or, do you not have a valid counterpoint?

radcen said:

You do know this is a debate/discussion site, right?

Or, do you not have a valid counterpoint?

Click to expand...

I just feel like I have a dog in this fight. What your legislature decided to do seems reasonable. If they chose to do otherwise, save letting 5 yr old smoke, that would be fine too.

MTAtech said:

I just feel like I have a dog in this fight. What your legislature decided to do seems reasonable. If they chose to do otherwise, save letting 5 yr old smoke, that would be fine too.

Click to expand...

By saying, "Take it to the state capitol.", you're suggesting that people shouldn't discuss it outside of that.

chuckiechan said:

The state won't ban it because it is a cash cow. I don't know the production cost of a pack of cigarettes, but its got to be low and they load it with 5-6 bucks of taxes.

Click to expand...

bingo....don't want to lose that tax revenue

reinoe said:

If that's what the people of Oregon want. I don't approve of it and I don't even smoke.

Click to expand...

I doubt it has anything to do with the people of Oregon.