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,

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...