3 ms·

Why stop there? Why not 35, or 50? Or an outright ban? We say that 18 year olds can die in a war, and be sentenced to death for a crime. But they can’t vape or

Why stop there? Why not 35, or 50? Or an outright ban? We say that 18 year olds can die in a war, and be sentenced to death for a crime. But they can’t vape or buy a beer? 21 is the new 18, enjoy making more children out of adults.

alexfromapex 7y ago
Why stop with cigarettes? They can just tell us how to live in every facet of our daily lives.
- abootstrapper 7y ago
  I mean, there’s plenty of reasons to stop at cigarettes. The slope really isn’t as slippery as you’re making it out to be.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- hprotagonist 7y ago
  I bet you have Real Strong Opinions about seatbelts, too.
  - alexfromapex 7y ago
    Yeah let’s raise the driving age to 21
    - hprotagonist 7y ago
      oh christ, can we?
      - alexfromapex 7y ago
        No because it’s anti-productive and anti-freedom which is exactly my point
hprotagonist 7y ago
>Or an outright ban? Consider for a moment how indescribably weird it is for the FDA to have jurisdiction here and not ban tobacco. The FDA evaluates on the basis of safety and efficacy: how the hell they’re squaring this circle is kind of beyond me.
Someone1234 7y ago
I feel like people that make this argument are really playing with fire. It is meant to be hyperbole to show us that this middle-ground position is irrational, but all it is really doing is reminding us that this middle-ground is a middle-ground and that the ideal is a near complete ban of the addictive cancer sticks. A lot of people have argued for a "age limit" that essentially increases as one generation ages until it is effectively unlawful for future generations (e.g. age 21 in 2020, 22 in 2021, 31 in 2030, 41 in 2040, etc). So why 21? Why indeed. Tobacco is no less addictive or deadly at 21, I guess the hope is people will be smarter by then and realize the life-long potential impact of STARTING (which the science does support[0]). [0] http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2015/TobaccoMinimumAgeReport.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2015/TobaccoMin...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

alexfromapex 7y ago

Why stop with cigarettes? They can just tell us how to live in every facet of our daily lives.

abootstrapper 7y ago
I mean, there’s plenty of reasons to stop at cigarettes. The slope really isn’t as slippery as you’re making it out to be.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hprotagonist 7y ago
I bet you have Real Strong Opinions about seatbelts, too.
- alexfromapex 7y ago
  Yeah let’s raise the driving age to 21
  - hprotagonist 7y ago
    oh christ, can we?
    - alexfromapex 7y ago
      No because it’s anti-productive and anti-freedom which is exactly my point

hprotagonist 7y ago

>Or an outright ban? Consider for a moment how indescribably weird it is for the FDA to have jurisdiction here and not ban tobacco. The FDA evaluates on the basis of safety and efficacy: how the hell they’re squaring this circle is kind of beyond me.

Someone1234 7y ago

I feel like people that make this argument are really playing with fire. It is meant to be hyperbole to show us that this middle-ground position is irrational, but all it is really doing is reminding us that this middle-ground is a middle-ground and that the ideal is a near complete ban of the addictive cancer sticks. A lot of people have argued for a "age limit" that essentially increases as one generation ages until it is effectively unlawful for future generations (e.g. age 21 in 2020, 22 in 2021, 31 in 2030, 41 in 2040, etc). So why 21? Why indeed. Tobacco is no less addictive or deadly at 21, I guess the hope is people will be smarter by then and realize the life-long potential impact of STARTING (which the science does support[0]). [0] http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2015/TobaccoMinimumAgeReport.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2015/TobaccoMin...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]