New York City Council raises age to buy cigarettes to 21

[Franzl]

It's reasonable in the sense that I don't think the minimum age for tobacco should be lower than for alcohol.

But it's unreasonable to have either over the age of majority.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's reasonable in the sense that I don't think the minimum age for tobacco should be lower than for alcohol.

But it's unreasonable to have either over the age of majority.

You started drinking long before the age of majority, young friend. 

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The drinking age and the tobacco product purchasing age should be the same, but it should be 18. Good try, NYC.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

As far as I'm concerned, when you're 18, you're on your own. The age of majority is 18. You legally can't set it any higher.

I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 18.

[Link]

America---where people are assumed to be too stupid to know that cigarettes are harmful...

Fixed.

Wait, why is it "America"......isn't our smoking rate far below the rest of the planet?  (too lazy to google it)

Don't know.  I was just quoting and doing a little fixing.  But we do have the trifecta in America substance abuse, terrible diet, and lack of exercise.  All contribute in a big way to our healthcare crisis.  I personally don't care if someone wants to go off onto an island and smoke till they die an early miserable death.  But please pay back the tax payer for the school we wasted on you and stay as far away from our insurances pools and hospitals as possible.  I am tired of footing the bill so libertarians can be "free."

[Oakvale]

This is a step in the wrong direction. We should be lowering the drinking age, not raising the minimum age for other things.

^^^ Yes. HP New York.

[Franzl]

It's reasonable in the sense that I don't think the minimum age for tobacco should be lower than for alcohol.

But it's unreasonable to have either over the age of majority.

You started drinking long before the age of majority, young friend. 

Note that I said it shouldn't be above the age of majority. That doesn't exclude the possibility of it being lower...

[Maxwell]

This is another stupid and pointless law. If at 18 you can pick candidates for political office and die in WAR, then you should be able buy cigarettes or drink alcohol. I mean, I get Bloomberg and the New York City Council have such a low opinion of people, but this is ridiculous.

[Lief 🗽]

This is another stupid and pointless law. If at 18 you can pick candidates for political office and die in WAR, then you should be able buy cigarettes or drink alcohol. I mean, I get Bloomberg and the New York City Council have such a low opinion of people, but this is ridiculous.

No, the ones with "low opinions of people" are those who want to sell them poisonous cancer sticks that pollute the air with poisonous cancer smoke, just so they can feel good about how "free" they are.

[traininthedistance]

This is another stupid and pointless law. If at 18 you can pick candidates for political office and die in WAR, then you should be able buy cigarettes or drink alcohol. I mean, I get Bloomberg and the New York City Council have such a low opinion of people, but this is ridiculous.

No, the ones with "low opinions of people" are those who want to sell them poisonous cancer sticks that pollute the air with poisonous cancer smoke, just so they can feel good about how "free" they are.

While I agree with you on this issue, I do find it pretty hilarious to see your words contrasted with your sig, given that it prominently features a lit cigarette in the hands of someone I'm quite confident you approve of.

Just sayin.

[Maxwell]

This is another stupid and pointless law. If at 18 you can pick candidates for political office and die in WAR, then you should be able buy cigarettes or drink alcohol. I mean, I get Bloomberg and the New York City Council have such a low opinion of people, but this is ridiculous.

No, the ones with "low opinions of people" are those who want to sell them poisonous cancer sticks that pollute the air with poisonous cancer smoke, just so they can feel good about how "free" they are.

Isn't smoking already banned just about everywhere in New York City? These roundabout that Bloomberg is doing is just dumb. At the age of 18, it's a persons decision whether or not they want to inhale and exhale poisonous cancer smoke in their own home. Hell, I'd respect the New York City Council more if they tried to ban Smoking outright (which I totally disagree with, but that's beside the point).

[Link]

This is another stupid and pointless law. If at 18 you can pick candidates for political office and die in WAR, then you should be able buy cigarettes or drink alcohol. I mean, I get Bloomberg and the New York City Council have such a low opinion of people, but this is ridiculous.

No, the ones with "low opinions of people" are those who want to sell them poisonous cancer sticks that pollute the air with poisonous cancer smoke, just so they can feel good about how "free" they are.

Isn't smoking already banned just about everywhere in New York City? These roundabout that Bloomberg is doing is just dumb. At the age of 18, it's a persons decision whether or not they want to inhale and exhale poisonous cancer smoke in their own home. Hell, I'd respect the New York City Council more if they tried to ban Smoking outright (which I totally disagree with, but that's beside the point).

Two things.

1) Many of us don't care if people want to move to an island and give themselves cancer and heart disease and die a slow miserable death.  Where I start to have a problem is when we as a society have to start footing their medical bills and dealing with their second hand smoke.  Either you are a libertarian or you're not.

2) The simple fact of the matter is if people don't start smoking by a certain age it is highly unlikely they will start later in life.  That's why people want to raise the age limit.  It's, you know, science.  An absolute ban would affect tens of thousands of addicted people.  That's not a good idea.  Again that's science with a dash of common sense.

Raising the legal age when people can start smoking definitely curbs long term addiction rates without being draconian to most already addicted people.  One of the reasons this forum has the issues it does is because a lot of the posters are teenagers.  By the time you reach or late twenties or beyond you get a clue.  People in their 30s don't spontaneous decide one day to give themselves cancer because it makes them look "cool."

[TNF]

Ugh

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=703&mid

[Maxwell]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=703&mid

Doesn't that study reject your point? A lot of smokers are doing it below the age limit anyways, chances are, they will find a way. And its not 21 to smoke (you can still smoke at 18), just buying.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=703&mid

Doesn't that study reject your point? A lot of smokers are doing it below the age limit anyways, chances are, they will find a way. And its not 21 to smoke (you can still smoke at 18), just buying.

No it quite clearly says doing anything in your power to discourage adolescents and young adults from smoking saves lives.  Prohibiting sales to people under 21 is not a panacea it is just one component in an overall strategy.

An outright ban on everyone who smokes is draconian because people are addicted.  But what the data presented is if you can just discourage people from smoking when they are younger and more susceptible to addiction you can rather painlessly save lives.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Link, are you assuming that no one under the age of 21 is addicted?

[© tweed]

Ultimately, I think these types of laws are meant for a press release.  There will be very spotty enforcement of this law.  Just for comparison, I see my local stores routinely sell loosie cigarettes which is also illegal in New York City.  Nobody is going to make sure the local bodega checks a 18 year old persons' ID.  To the extent they do, it's just going to be singling out some poor bodega owner.

there are programs that exist that send minors into storefront to attempt to purchase tobacco without ID (or with an ID that shows the patron is underage).  at least one gas station that sold cigarettes to me as a 17 year old got busted and had to pay enough of a fine that made him stop.  I'm not sure to what extent this happens in NYC.

[bedstuy]

Ultimately, I think these types of laws are meant for a press release.  There will be very spotty enforcement of this law.  Just for comparison, I see my local stores routinely sell loosie cigarettes which is also illegal in New York City.  Nobody is going to make sure the local bodega checks a 18 year old persons' ID.  To the extent they do, it's just going to be singling out some poor bodega owner.

there are programs that exist that send minors into storefront to attempt to purchase tobacco without ID (or with an ID that shows the patron is underage).  at least one gas station that sold cigarettes to me as a 17 year old got busted and had to pay enough of a fine that made him stop.  I'm not sure to what extent this happens in NYC.

My neighborhood doesn't have any white teens so nobody cares. 

[Link]

Link, are you assuming that no one under the age of 21 is addicted?

I'm and educated man.  I don't live in a world of absolutes.

[H. Ross Peron]

I'm ambivalent toward raising the purchase age, but overall I think the city's focus on reducing smoking rates is fantastic. People who whine about the nanny state are missing the point that these policies are prolonging and improving thousands of lives and reducing healthcare costs by millions of dollars. (Not to mention that in a dense urban setting, secondhand smoke is a bigger quality of life issue because city-dwellers spend more of their time in crowded public spaces.)

[ElectionsGuy]

Well that's awful, more regulations from the Nanny.

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm not a fan of this genre of regulation.. but with the rising availability and popularity of vaporizers as a healthier, less noxious smelling alternative, actual tobacco smoking limitations don't bother me.

But for the millionth time, plenty of people don't start smoking because it's cool (although it certainly is). It gives you a buzz. It is a drug. And a very intriguing one at that. If you are for marijuana legalisation and against nicotine, you are kind of an idiot.

[cinyc]

More nanny state nonsense from our so-called "progressive" superiors.

Maybe it's time to raise the voting age to 21, too.  After all, if you're not mature enough to decide whether to drink or smoke, you're not mature enough to make the ultimate decision about who should represent you in the nanny state.  And why should 18-year-olds be able to enter into contracts?  Take that right away, too.  After all, 18-year-olds are no longer adults in infantile nanny state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Strawman. I support an 18 age for voting, contracts and buying alcohol (and marijuana too). Just not tobacco.