5 ms·

It is bizarre we have our vice age at 21 but the age of adulthood is 18. You are responsible enough to vote, serve in the military and be charged as an adult

by adrr 7y ago

It is bizarre we have our vice age at 21 but the age of adulthood is 18. You are responsible enough to vote, serve in the military and be charged as an adult in a court law but not responsible enough to drink or smoke.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
The age gating is a bit stupid, but in the case of cigarettes, I'd be perfectly happy if no one of any age was able to use them, with exceptions for people who are already addicted.
- alexfromapex 7y ago
  It’s very stupid. When you are an adult you deserve to be able to make your own decisions. This is a great example of Congress going against the wishes of a huge portion of the voting population and “telling them what’s good for them”. It’s tacit erosion of freedom under the guise of something helpful and makes me ashamed of our Congress.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Honestly the thing I hate about the rest of the world is the second hand smoke It hurts my eyes, I know its bad for my lungs, and its aggravating to see the attractive people doing it to blend it, to me its like they are stuck in the 2000s
  - hellisothers 7y ago
    Nobody is an island, your freedom to make poor life choices is my liability to support as your health deteriorates and my tax dollars have to pay for the externalities of tobacco consumption. It’s not being outlawed, it’s being delayed until you can make better life choices with the wisdom of age and experience.
    - xref 7y ago
      “_I_ have to pay for _you_” is a particularly empty argument when there are no restrictions on calorie consumption, motorcycle usage, sedentary lifestyle, dangerous hobbies, etc. Also it is a similarly entitled argument to telling police “I pay your salary!”
      - etrautmann 7y ago
        ...yes. We do pay the police and they should be in service of the public.
        xref 7y ago
        not sure what you’re arguing for with respect to yelling “I pay your salary!” at govt employees
      - ninthcat 7y ago
        What world do you live in? The government's primary function is to control the people. That's a descriptive statement. > calorie consumption Healthy food subsidies and soda/candy taxes. Restrictions on food stamps. > motorcycle usage Licensing, training, and helmet requirements, age minimum. > dangerous hobbies Licensing and training requirements, often with age minimums. It'd be great if the government could reduce sedentary lifestyles, but making people do stuff tends to be harder than making them not do certain things.
        xref 7y ago
        None of those things are banned, which was my point. OP was suggesting banning smoking entirely.
      - lm28469 7y ago
        Well you're not wrong, we should clearly thrive to enforce healthy life choices. What's the opposite of your argument? Beer is legal so coke should be because muh freedom?
  - oefrha 7y ago
    Except when you smoke cigarettes the people around you suffer from it too.
  - rambojazz 7y ago
    If your own decision is to smoke my lungs with your passive smoke, then you should at least get a fine.
  - libraryatnight 7y ago
    They should at least outlaw using it anywhere but the smoker's home. I can't breathe when I smell cigarette smoke. I'm all for freedom to make your own stupid decisions, but cigarette smoke impacts people around you.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    Yikes, I'd be glad not to pay for other people cigarette or alcohol induced cancers and other health issues. It's not the wild west anymore, your neighbor decisions impact your life directly.
Someone1234 7y ago
The ACA allows children to stay on their parent's family insurance all the way through 26, and on their parent's tax return through 24. So you want to talk about the hypocrisy of "18 for military, but 21 for drink/tobacco" let's also talk about why the age cut off for the ACA/IRS isn't 18 too, it is only self-consistent with that argument. If you're really a full adult at 18, let's consider what that would look like, even when that means cutting the cord in ways that provide benefits to young adults (e.g. like essentially blackmailing families into paying for their "children's" college via their parent's income being used to calculate assistance and loan qualification). It is unreasonable to consider this "multiple age of responsibility" topic from one vantage and not the other.
Gatsky 7y ago
This is a ban on sale, ie a ban on commercial entities profiting from selling or producing tobacco products to <21 year olds. Since when do we need to protect the right to buy cigarettes in a convenient fashion? Last time I checked there isn’t anything about access to branded tobacco products in the UN charter of human rights. Nicotine is stupidly addictive. Smoking causes a long list of health problems, and when they happen society bears the cost while the tobacco companies profit. What does this have to do with the age of voting? If you want to smoke at 18, you can grow your own tobacco plant and damn well smoke it.
- thatswrong0 7y ago
  The United States, from a legal perspective, considers anyone at or over the age of 18 to be an adult. There are only two areas that I can think of off the top of my head where this is not the case: the sale of alcohol, and now the sale of nicotine. Anyone who has been to college knows that the drinking age being 21 is pointless. It just means that an 18 year old who wants to drink will have someone buy it for them, or they'll go to a party and drink jungle juice, or they'll get a fake ID. Having a drinking age at all, IMO, sets up people to seriously hurt themselves when they turn 21 if their parents shelter them. Barring that last point (since ODing on nicotine like you can on alcohol is a lot tougher), the same will now be the case for smoking / vaping. From a safety perspective, I would rather have 18 year olds buying legitimate juul pods (although the safety of these should be regulated more heavily) than buying sketchy fake shit off the internet or second hand from a friend.
  - Gatsky 7y ago
    I don't buy this analogy with drinking. Alcohol is fundamentally different. It is critical to reduce the number of people who get addicted to nicotine, because it is very difficult to get them off it. Despite flaunting the age limit for drinking, I think it is still the case that there are fewer 18 year olds drinking alcohol with the drinking age at 21 than there would be if the drinking age was 18, and in many ways that is all that matters. Your argument would also justify reducing the drinking age to X, because there are some people younger than X that access alcohol illegally. Importantly, a higher drinking age also stops beverage makers from targeting products to younger demographics. I disagree with the harm minimisation/safety argument because the primary harm minimisation for tobacco products comes from preventing their use at all.

by adrr 7y ago

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

The age gating is a bit stupid, but in the case of cigarettes, I'd be perfectly happy if no one of any age was able to use them, with exceptions for people who are already addicted.

alexfromapex 7y ago
It’s very stupid. When you are an adult you deserve to be able to make your own decisions. This is a great example of Congress going against the wishes of a huge portion of the voting population and “telling them what’s good for them”. It’s tacit erosion of freedom under the guise of something helpful and makes me ashamed of our Congress.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Honestly the thing I hate about the rest of the world is the second hand smoke It hurts my eyes, I know its bad for my lungs, and its aggravating to see the attractive people doing it to blend it, to me its like they are stuck in the 2000s
- hellisothers 7y ago
  Nobody is an island, your freedom to make poor life choices is my liability to support as your health deteriorates and my tax dollars have to pay for the externalities of tobacco consumption. It’s not being outlawed, it’s being delayed until you can make better life choices with the wisdom of age and experience.
  - xref 7y ago
    “_I_ have to pay for _you_” is a particularly empty argument when there are no restrictions on calorie consumption, motorcycle usage, sedentary lifestyle, dangerous hobbies, etc. Also it is a similarly entitled argument to telling police “I pay your salary!”
    - etrautmann 7y ago
      ...yes. We do pay the police and they should be in service of the public.
      - xref 7y ago
        not sure what you’re arguing for with respect to yelling “I pay your salary!” at govt employees
    - ninthcat 7y ago
      What world do you live in? The government's primary function is to control the people. That's a descriptive statement. > calorie consumption Healthy food subsidies and soda/candy taxes. Restrictions on food stamps. > motorcycle usage Licensing, training, and helmet requirements, age minimum. > dangerous hobbies Licensing and training requirements, often with age minimums. It'd be great if the government could reduce sedentary lifestyles, but making people do stuff tends to be harder than making them not do certain things.
      - xref 7y ago
        None of those things are banned, which was my point. OP was suggesting banning smoking entirely.
    - lm28469 7y ago
      Well you're not wrong, we should clearly thrive to enforce healthy life choices. What's the opposite of your argument? Beer is legal so coke should be because muh freedom?
- oefrha 7y ago
  Except when you smoke cigarettes the people around you suffer from it too.
- rambojazz 7y ago
  If your own decision is to smoke my lungs with your passive smoke, then you should at least get a fine.
- libraryatnight 7y ago
  They should at least outlaw using it anywhere but the smoker's home. I can't breathe when I smell cigarette smoke. I'm all for freedom to make your own stupid decisions, but cigarette smoke impacts people around you.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Yikes, I'd be glad not to pay for other people cigarette or alcohol induced cancers and other health issues. It's not the wild west anymore, your neighbor decisions impact your life directly.

Someone1234 7y ago

The ACA allows children to stay on their parent's family insurance all the way through 26, and on their parent's tax return through 24. So you want to talk about the hypocrisy of "18 for military, but 21 for drink/tobacco" let's also talk about why the age cut off for the ACA/IRS isn't 18 too, it is only self-consistent with that argument. If you're really a full adult at 18, let's consider what that would look like, even when that means cutting the cord in ways that provide benefits to young adults (e.g. like essentially blackmailing families into paying for their "children's" college via their parent's income being used to calculate assistance and loan qualification). It is unreasonable to consider this "multiple age of responsibility" topic from one vantage and not the other.

Gatsky 7y ago

This is a ban on sale, ie a ban on commercial entities profiting from selling or producing tobacco products to <21 year olds. Since when do we need to protect the right to buy cigarettes in a convenient fashion? Last time I checked there isn’t anything about access to branded tobacco products in the UN charter of human rights. Nicotine is stupidly addictive. Smoking causes a long list of health problems, and when they happen society bears the cost while the tobacco companies profit. What does this have to do with the age of voting? If you want to smoke at 18, you can grow your own tobacco plant and damn well smoke it.

thatswrong0 7y ago
The United States, from a legal perspective, considers anyone at or over the age of 18 to be an adult. There are only two areas that I can think of off the top of my head where this is not the case: the sale of alcohol, and now the sale of nicotine. Anyone who has been to college knows that the drinking age being 21 is pointless. It just means that an 18 year old who wants to drink will have someone buy it for them, or they'll go to a party and drink jungle juice, or they'll get a fake ID. Having a drinking age at all, IMO, sets up people to seriously hurt themselves when they turn 21 if their parents shelter them. Barring that last point (since ODing on nicotine like you can on alcohol is a lot tougher), the same will now be the case for smoking / vaping. From a safety perspective, I would rather have 18 year olds buying legitimate juul pods (although the safety of these should be regulated more heavily) than buying sketchy fake shit off the internet or second hand from a friend.
- Gatsky 7y ago
  I don't buy this analogy with drinking. Alcohol is fundamentally different. It is critical to reduce the number of people who get addicted to nicotine, because it is very difficult to get them off it. Despite flaunting the age limit for drinking, I think it is still the case that there are fewer 18 year olds drinking alcohol with the drinking age at 21 than there would be if the drinking age was 18, and in many ways that is all that matters. Your argument would also justify reducing the drinking age to X, because there are some people younger than X that access alcohol illegally. Importantly, a higher drinking age also stops beverage makers from targeting products to younger demographics. I disagree with the harm minimisation/safety argument because the primary harm minimisation for tobacco products comes from preventing their use at all.