New York City Council raises age to buy cigarettes to 21

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also tobacco is utterly finksing disgusting trash. Sickening worthless garbage. Why should i give an inks if that repellent filth is further restricted?

[Deus Naturae]

"Pro-choice" Democrats who support these types of things remind of "pro-life" Republicans who support the death penalty. I mean, if you're really concerned about the public health risk, then you could make an argument for banning smoking in public places. But prohibiting individuals from doing what they please to their own bodies is just wrong, plain and simple.

[Deus Naturae]

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

I'd say that poorly considered contracts and alcohol have the potential to damage one's life more than tobacco.

[Deus Naturae]

Also tobacco is utterly finksing disgusting trash. Sickening worthless garbage. Why should i give an inks if that repellent filth is further restricted?

Maybe because people have a fundamental right to self-ownership?

[cinyc]

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

Which makes zero sense.   If you're so against tobacco, why not ban it for everyone?  You are either an adult who is capable of making all decisions or you aren't.  If we're going to continue to treat 18-year-olds as children, they shouldn't be able to vote.  Or, better yet, we should stop treating them like children and let them buy alcohol and  cigarettes - otherwise legal products for adults.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It should be raised another century or so.

[Ebowed]

So an 18 year old can cast a vote for New York's representation in the electoral college, die in a war, drive a car, purchase pornography, and be baptized, but not buy cigarettes?  What kind of topsy turvy world is Michael Bloomberg living in?

[tik 🪀✨]

Also tobacco is utterly finksing disgusting trash. Sickening worthless garbage. Why should i give an inks if that repellent filth is further restricted?

Your very helpful descriptions of tobacco smoking:

1. Utterly f**king disgusting trash
2. Sickening worthless garbage
3. Repellant filth

do not (and should not) influence broader policy. YOU specifically should care about what happens to groups of people YOU are not a part of because the ramifications of these restrictions could form a precedent where things YOU enjoy but everyone else thinks are 1, 2, or 3 effect YOUR life. Then again, YOU have a unique perspective that overrules everyone else, because YOU are such a little miracle.

I hate libertarianism. Nevertheless, I do agree that people should be allowed to engage in activities that do not negatively impact others specifically*. I personally find just about zero redeeming qualities about strip clubs and gambling. They are useless, ridiculous activities for imbeciles. That doesn't mean I think you should be 21 to gamble or visit a strip club. All that that means is that I won't gamble or go to a strip club. Maybe your predilection to such vices causes you to go bankrupt or to leave your partner. Is this something detrimental but preventable for a society or individual? Yes - but that doesn't mean it's the correct action to restrict an adult's participation based on something as asinine and useless as the number of times the earth has revolved around the sun since they burrowed out of their mothers' proverbial.

* I know, I know: Second-hand cancer death apocalypse air. I don't care very much about smoking bans aimed at reducing second-hand smoke. I do care about the government deciding that action A is only permissible to adult group B, though. If you are going to have this hierarchy of age-related permissible activities, at least be consistent. What's the age where someone is accountable for his own actions - 18 or 21?

[Iosif]

Ban cigarettes! Legalise marijuana!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Withdrawing rights from a certain class of legal adults is disgusting. Either ban tobacco use or don't.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If tobacco was illegal and marijuana was legal there'd be no black market for tobacco like there is with marijuana now. No one would have desire to smoke cigarettes if they were illegal, it's not a "fun" drug.

[© tweed]

So an 18 year old can cast a vote for New York's representation in the electoral college, die in a war, drive a car, purchase pornography, and be baptized, but not buy cigarettes?  What kind of topsy turvy world is Michael Bloomberg living in?

to be fair I'm sure Bloomberg in his heart of hearts would support raising the age for voting and porn as well.  and probably support bringing back the property ownership requirements for voting.

[Boris]

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.

It's a drug, but it's a sh**tty one with literally zero long-term benefits (alcohol is also a sh**tty drug because it's virtually impossible to maintain the initial high without getting fatigued or progressively drunker and drunker or both, but I digress..). How is it even intriguing? All it does is create a relaxing effect, but the craving for such an effect is non-existent if you never start smoking. There's no sustained euphoria, no bonding or empathy (unless striking up a conversation with someone you just bummed a cigarette from is considered 'bonding') no cool visual effects or enhanced appreciation for the arts or music, and no unique perspectives offered. Obviously banning tobacco is stupid, but opposing nicotine use within a culture of responsible drug use is not hypocritical or ignorant at all.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Pro-choice" Democrats who support these types of things remind of "pro-life" Republicans who support the death penalty. I mean, if you're really concerned about the public health risk, then you could make an argument for banning smoking in public places. But prohibiting individuals from doing what they please to their own bodies is just wrong, plain and simple.

Hurrr hurrr hurrr... LIEBRALS SO HYPOCRITES!1111!

Ftr, I would be against this as I tend to think that the age of voting, the age to join the army and the age of being allowed to consume health destroyed chemicals for the lulz should be the same.

[Lief 🗽]

Ideally we would ban cigarettes and other tobacco products completely. Unfortunately, there are already millions of adults that are addicted to tobacco and so banning it now would be a bad idea. Instead, we put in place policies that heavily discourage young people from smoking in the first place, so that in the future fewer and fewer people will smoke (as Link showed, 99% of adult smokers start smoking when they're young; if we discourage them from doing so then, it's unlikely that they'll start when they're older). It's really not that complicated.

And no one cares about the "right to smoke cigarettes." Just typing it out makes me feel ridiculous. Maybe when the libertarians recognize a "right to healthcare" or a "right to drink clean water and breathe clean air" I'll recognize their pathetic "right to smoke cigarettes."

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.

It's a drug, but it's a sh**tty one with literally zero long-term benefits (alcohol is also a sh**tty drug because it's virtually impossible to maintain the initial high without getting fatigued or progressively drunker and drunker or both, but I digress..). How is it even intriguing? All it does is create a relaxing effect, but the craving for such an effect is non-existent if you never start smoking. There's no sustained euphoria, no bonding or empathy (unless striking up a conversation with someone you just bummed a cigarette from is considered 'bonding') no cool visual effects or enhanced appreciation for the arts or music, and no unique perspectives offered. Obviously banning tobacco is stupid, but opposing nicotine use within a culture of responsible drug use is not hypocritical or ignorant at all.

Plus, and most importantly, responsible use of marijuana and alcohol (and even irresponsible use of marijuana and alcohol usually) do not result in a host of horrible health problems, up to and including dying of cancer. Supporting the former two but opposing the latter makes perfect sense.

[opebo]

And no one cares about the "right to smoke cigarettes." Just typing it out makes me feel ridiculous.

Really?  You might as well say we haven't a right to masturbate or eat meat.. etc.  If we haven't a 'right' to these very private (even secretive) activities...

[© tweed]

Plus, and most importantly, responsible use of marijuana and alcohol (and even irresponsible use of marijuana and alcohol usually) do not result in a host of horrible health problems, up to and including dying of cancer. Supporting the former two but opposing the latter makes perfect sense.

marijuana and tobacco can't produce on-the-spot death via overdose, alcohol can.  it's very possible to live a fulfilling/productive life (whatever that means) while using tobacco daily, somewhat less so for marijuana, and much less so with alcohol.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually it's quite easy to do the latter if you aren't an alcoholic. But there's the rub.

[© tweed]

yes, but point being the day-by-day consequences of being a heavy user of alcohol dwarf that of both marijuana and tobacco.  consequences for tobacco use pile up very slowly over decades.  heavy consumption of marjuana makes you a braindead drone.  heavy consumption of alcohol makes you a sociopath.

in low doses anything is of zero consequence for society at-large and thus not worth discussing in this context.

[traininthedistance]

yes, but point being the day-by-day consequences of being a heavy user of alcohol dwarf that of both marijuana and tobacco.  consequences for tobacco use pile up very slowly over decades.  heavy consumption of marjuana makes you a braindead drone.  heavy consumption of alcohol makes you a sociopath.

in low doses anything is of zero consequence for society at-large and thus not worth discussing in this context.

But the physiology of addiction vis-a-vis those three substances is such that it is easy to use alcohol and marijuana in low doses over long timeframes, whereas tobacco forces high-dose, catastrophic use in a much higher percentage of those people who try it.

[© tweed]

the statistic that you're hinting at goes something like 'percentage of people who use the substance at least once who go on to become addicted'.  according to this article from 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/health/personal-health-addiction-a-brain-ailment-not-a-moral-lapse.html


According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, 32 percent of people who try tobacco become dependent, as do 23 percent of those who try heroin, 17 percent who try cocaine, 15 percent who try alcohol and 9 percent who try marijuana.


I do remember seeing numbers closer to 25% for alcohol and 20% for weed from other sources.  so it is true that a higher percentage of tobacco users become tobacco dependent, but not by a staggering amount.

of course this rate for caffeine would probably be over 50% in the USA.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If tobacco was illegal and marijuana was legal there'd be no black market for tobacco like there is with marijuana now. No one would have desire to smoke cigarettes if they were illegal, it's not a "fun" drug.

There's already a black market for tobacco. That's what the T in ATF stands for.  The only reason it's not bigger is that is the taxes and a Cuban embargo aren't as big a deal as an outright ban.  People don't have to hear fluorescent ponies when they take a drug for people to enjoy it or become dependent on it.

[© tweed]

the tobacco black market has more to do with trafficking cigarettes from lower-tax jurisdictions into higher-tax jurisdictions.  tobacco is extremely difficult to actually cultivate illicitly, it is a very capital-intensive process, as opposed to marijuana which anyone can grow in their closet or backyard.  (Chomsky argues that this is the reason that tobacco is legal and marijuana illegal -- it would be hard to accumulate capital in the cultivation of marijuana because it's so easy to do, while we have to lean on monopolies to make our cigarettes because of the huge overhead).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

the tobacco black market has more to do with trafficking cigarettes from lower-tax jurisdictions into higher-tax jurisdictions.  tobacco is extremely difficult to actually cultivate illicitly, it is a very capital-intensive process, as opposed to marijuana which anyone can grow in their closet or backyard.  (Chomsky argues that this is the actual reason that tobacco is legal and marijuana illegal -- it would be hard to accumulate capital in the cultivation of marijuana because it's so easy to do, while we have to lean on monopolies to make our cigarettes because of the huge overhead).

That's rubbish.

[Blue3]

Extremely stupid move.