New Jersey raises tobacco age to 21

Gov. Chris Christie signed a law Friday making New Jersey the third state to raise its smoking age to 21.

He stated:

"By raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products to 21, we are giving young people more time to develop a maturity and better understanding of how dangerous smoking can be and that it is better to not start smoking in the first place."

Honestly I think that's kind of a bad idea. Firstly when you're 18 you are a legal adult in the U.S therefor should be able to do what ever you want to yourself IMO. At that age you can do everything from get married to join the military. But now a leaf that doesn't even result mind altering highs is just too much to be allowed to buy?

Plus smoking of tobacco is at a historic low for teens anyway; so why bring a spotlight to it and make it cool by making it forbidden.

And it just seems comical to me that people these days are so hard on tobacco smoking yet will lobby for pot to be legal. (not that I'm against that)

Anyway, your thoughts?

My stance remains the same as that for alcohol. If they determine you can be drafted to fight in a war they have no business telling you that you can't harm your own body.

lmfao they will go outside of new jersey to buy a package of smokes. this is the same for the city of Chicago. they will just go outside of the city

Exactly............

Isn't Christie and known smoker?

Good idea.

The chances of someone over 18 beginning to smoke is so small that raising it to 21 is a good call.

New Jersey, why you wasting time on this bullshit?

@balrogbane: I used to like Christie actually but given all of the scandals over the past few years (Clearing a beach for his family, bridgegate etc.) plus his bad policies its clear he is just a career politician trying to rewrite himself over the dissapointment that was 2016 for him.

Also who is Chris to be talking about others health?

Agreed.

How can you be responsible enough to serve, or even vote, but not choose to smoke or not?

I actually agree with you both on something for a change.

It's absurd that somebody in the army technically can't have a beer legally.

He's a known over-eater.

Sub 21 year olds can work, pay taxes, enlist, be drafted, incarcerated, etc.., but the line is drawn at smokes?

Would you agree that it's in the government and society's best interest to dissuade the populace from smoking?

I actually think cigarettes should be illegal.

So, i held on to this stance for the longest time. In fact ive even taken it further... its the libertarian in me. But at this point i think im done with it (at least with cigarettes). there are a million things you cannot buy as a consumer because of how deadly they are and cigarettes are probably the deadliest product on the market. So it should have some serious restrictions... and at this point i would even be okay with making them illegal or simply making them super, ultra, mega mega mega power ranger restricted and difficult to get. The whole tobacco thing is a pretty deep conversation actually.

There is also another issue here with alcohol though that double D highlighted...

I dont want military, air force, navy, etc. drinking at all, especially younger kids who are maybe a year or two out of high school. When a solider or officer is on leave, go at it. But while on the job, while other peoples lives are potentially affected, no.

This is more or less how I feel, too.

@perfect_blue: Dissuade, sure. Compel legal adults, no.

The reasoning for this stems directly from what we've seen regarding other drugs.

Have you ever seen how many millions of products one can purchase w/o restriction that make cigarettes look relatively minor?

No, can i have some examples that account for nearly half a million deaths a year? I cant think of a single product that even comes close, let alone "makes cigarettes look relatively minor".

Or even products that are as pointless? Most products no matter how dangerous they are, at least have a real and practical use other than killing you.

What do you think would be good ways to dissuade?

Im all for jacking the price up to unreasonable amounts like a 1000% tax increase and limiting who can sell them. Maybe a special licence required.

Smokes do not kill instantly. Once you acknowledge health issues tend to arise from prolonged use and exposure I'll be glad to list many harmful things I can buy w/o issue. If I decided to make the stupid choice of smoking, trying one would not kill me. On the other hand I can walk into Anystore U.S.A. and buy products that will do just that.

@kod: Primarily education. Taxes can be a disincentive to a degree, but at higher levels it mimics a ban in effect.

You have to get people to not want to smoke. Otherwise you're just pissing into the wind and winding up with worse effects.

That's an odd choice, unless they plan to more or less ban it later.

Yah, im not sure i ever suggested that i thought cigarettes kill instantly and im waiting for a list of over the counter products that kill around half a million people a year.

And again, another point to this is that they have no real world application. They are not of value to society at all. Sure, you can go buy a bottle of Aspirin, take them all and overdose and die. But thats not how they are meant to be used, that is not their only application. Where as with cigarettes, they have one real world application... to give you health problems and because of how our society views them, they are single highest death count product any consumer can buy... unless you're ready to start listing products instead of dancing around something you know you cant do.

Sure. But 18 is legally an adult. I disagree with the drinking age here as well. Thanks Republicans.

Which in this case would be a very positive thing yes? When you suggest it mimics a ban, im assuming youre referencing a black market. Which how many ex smokers (at that point) do you think would turn to a black market? Probably not even 20%. And even if it was 100%, (which it would never be), we are still looking at a dramatic decrease of numbers of cigarettes smoked by individuals, thus a decrease in health risks.

Why would ex smokers be your choice?

I was making the assumption that the black market would have to take time to grow, people would have to make connections, etc. Black markets are not something that magically appears and everyone has access to them.... they take time to build, you the consumer have to know the right people and have limited supplies themselves. Within that time plus however long they dont smoke due to (my suggestion, 40 dollar packs) cost, many people would simply stop smoking.

You are advocating for the banning of a substance that requires years of prolonged use and abuse before harm strikes the user when your average teenager or eighteen year old adult can walk out of Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, Autozone, etc.., with implements and ingredients capable of inflicting harm that you can't imagine whether we are talking basic products used to make drugs, explosives, flammable materials, blades, etc.., This isn't about the number of people who die because most regulated substances hold the title but this is how people have the ability to do so if they ever wanted yet the government doesn't do a thing preventing adults from doing so. Smoking is quite minor in terms of death(s) when you take into effect how many people smoke (36.5 mil in 2015) and how many years they smoked before health issue became apparent (if ever).

Honestly, who the hell are you to tell another person what to do with his/her body especially an adult or in this case, a young person recognized by the government as a legal adult?

@kod: It would not be a very positive thing, no.

Bans on addictive substances create all kinds of ancillary societal costs. We incur these daily on bans of other addictive substances.

1. I am. Although im not really suggesting banning, simply making it far more difficult to obtain. And of course, once again, part of the reasoning for this is its only use, ONLY use, is to decrease your health. Every item you want to list that could potentially hurt or kill you, is not designed to do this. Cigarettes have zero actual uses aside from physically killing people, they don't even get the user high. Its like putting a glass spike aligned with your face, in a car, and then arguing that you can get the cars without it! Freedom! Get the spike! Except that there is no point or purpose for it and consumers are kind of stupid. Sometimes you have to protect someone from themselves... which leads me to.......

2. News flash. The world is full of people telling you what you can and cannot do with your body, not to mention the subliminal and indirect ways you're directed and controlled... Welcome to reality, nice to have you here finally.

As a society we tend to try to remove the worst elements from the table. Tobacco, is one of those worst elements. We are constantly putting regulations behind specific items because of the potential harm they can do... hell, you have to be 18 and show ID to buy spray paint now. You know what really drove that? People huffing paint. The point is, if you're paying attention then you'd know we do this already with a billion other things and most of those things have some kind of consumer purpose other than murdering you and harming your children's health.

And no, smoking is not minor in terms of death. Even if we reduce it down to 1% (which is a false reduction. Maybe we should go with the number of smokers who will die from smoking related illnesses? You dont want to pit those numbers up)... just 1%, you're talking about 1 of every 100. Find me a single over the counter proudct on the market that has a yearly death toll of 1 for every 100. You cant... theyve all been banned and super regulated so the 1/100 cant happen.

Is it the "addictive" part that creates this or the "getting fucked up+addiction" part?

This is something weve never really researched, but seems to be a constant whenever we see drug bans. Mankind and drugs go hand in hand throughout history and most every society, so much so that half of us are genetically predisposed to being drug/alcohol addicts. Shall we also go over the list of banned substances that we don't see any social costs for? Or items? Just because something is banned (which im not actually suggesting, rather high consumer regulations) does not mean a violent black market will be created and even if the suggestion of a black market was there, a violent one is a different story. There is a black market for everything in America right now (legal and illegal items) and barely any of these black markets are violent.

I believe it will be in parts of Europe by 2040 or so.

Rehabs are a way out. I had a friend who desperately needed help, so his family sent him there when it was not too late. Thankfully, he got better since then. It's not difficult to find a rehab: https://addictionresource.com/addiction-and-rehab-hotlines/ I think that might be helpful to those in trouble and their family/friends.

except the state is not drafting you.

Necro thread