McConnell proposes raising the tobacco age to 21

[Izzyeviel]

I think the age to buy tobacco, buy a gun, play lotto and gamble, engage in sex work(pornography/nude stripping) should all be raised to 21.

You do realize the inevitable end result of that would be raising the voting age as well right?

Kids dont vote. No-one will notice

[RI]

We just did this here in WA, and it would be great if the nation did as well.

[cinyc]

I think the age to buy tobacco, buy a gun, play lotto and gamble, engage in sex work(pornography/nude stripping) should all be raised to 21.

You do realize the inevitable end result of that would be raising the voting age as well right?

 No, voting has nothing to do with any of those other things which are almost all exploitive.

Yes it does. If someone is deemed by the state as too immature to drink or buy tobacco or a gun or gamble, why should they be able to vote? They're too immature and incapable of making their own decisions.

You and McConnell are dead wrong - the age for all of these things should be 18, not 21. You're either an adult capable of making your own decisions or not. But if the government persists in treating 18-year-olds as children for vices, there's no reason they shouldn't be treated the same way for virtues.

[Tintrlvr]

Hopefully this is a first step towards a full tobacco ban!

F**k no.

Nobody thinks that tobacco is safe or healthy, and if people want to use it in spite of knowing all the negative effects, that's on them and the Government should allow them to do so.

Wrong. Tobacco is one of the key drivers of Medicare costs. Anybody who smokes is selfishly freeloading on the government dole.

The solution to this is cut Medicare or limit benefits

I guess the proposal is refusing healthcare/health insurance to people who smoke?

[Tintrlvr]

I think the age to buy tobacco, buy a gun, play lotto and gamble, engage in sex work(pornography/nude stripping) should all be raised to 21.

You do realize the inevitable end result of that would be raising the voting age as well right?

 No, voting has nothing to do with any of those other things which are almost all exploitive.

Yes it does. If someone is deemed by the state as too immature to drink or buy tobacco or a gun or gamble, why should they be able to vote? They're too immature and incapable of making their own decisions.

You and McConnell are dead wrong - the age for all of these things should be 18, not 21. You're either an adult capable of making your own decisions or not. But if the government persists in treating 18-year-olds as children for vices, there's no reason they shouldn't be treated the same way for virtues.

I don't see why virtues and vices necessarily have to come at the same age. The odd thing is the distinction between different vices, not that, e.g., voting and alcohol come at different ages.

[The Dowager Mod]

18 is old enough to go die for your country overseas, too immature to buy a pack of Marlboro menthols.

[Pyro]

If the federal government considers you of age for conscription, it should consider you of age to smoke.

[cinyc]

I don't see why virtues and vices necessarily have to come at the same age. The odd thing is the distinction between different vices, not that, e.g., voting and alcohol come at different ages.

You're either an adult or you're not. It's well past time to stop coddling those who can vote or be drafted and/or otherwise go to war by telling them they can't do certain things because we say so. Or we need to take away their right to vote, because they can't fathom that smoking is bad for you and thus they're incapable of making rational decisions. Your choice. I choose the former.

[user12345]

12 states have done it and over 450 cities have done so as well. It is a great policy if he does it right. Unfortunately there will probably be many clauses in it supporting the tobacco industry.

[Tintrlvr]

I don't see why virtues and vices necessarily have to come at the same age. The odd thing is the distinction between different vices, not that, e.g., voting and alcohol come at different ages.

You're either an adult or you're not. It's well past time to stop coddling those who can vote or be drafted and/or otherwise go to war by telling them they can't do certain things because we say so. Or we need to take away their right to vote, because they can't fathom that smoking is bad for you and thus they're incapable of making rational decisions. Your choice. I choose the former.

I guess I don't see it as coddling. I actually don't have strong feelings about the age of consent for alcohol - would be fine with making it 18. But all of this principled stance about serving in the military but not being served alcohol seems like pure rhetoric with no real principled argument behind it and nothing you have said changes that. It's not a matter of "making rational decisions". It's just a social policy: whether permitting one thing is good for society as a whole or not. Maybe conscription at 18 isn't good, either.

[Indy Texas]

Kentucky produces more tobacco than any other state besides North Carolina.

Why does Mitch McConnell want to declare a WAR ON TOBACCO that will KILL KENTUCKY JOBS?!

[darklordoftech]

Kentucky produces more tobacco than any other state besides North Carolina.

Why does Mitch McConnell want to declare a WAR ON TOBACCO that will KILL KENTUCKY JOBS?!

He might be saying, "Give my campaign money if you don't want me to do this."

[7,052,770]

Hopefully this is a first step towards a full tobacco ban!

F**k no.

Nobody thinks that tobacco is safe or healthy, and if people want to use it in spite of knowing all the negative effects, that's on them and the Government should allow them to do so.

Wrong. Tobacco is one of the key drivers of Medicare costs. Anybody who smokes is selfishly freeloading on the government dole.

Then why haven't any of the countries with single-payer healthcare done this already?

I don't know? I guess they consider it an acceptable cost.

[Politician]

Rare case of a stopped clock being right.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm honestly indifferent on this. But if it somehow hurts McConnell and the Senate Republicans, then it's definitely for the best. Let's not act like this idea compromises McConnell's chances of being re-elected though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the age to buy tobacco, buy a gun, play lotto and gamble, engage in sex work(pornography/nude stripping) should all be raised to 21.

You do realize the inevitable end result of that would be raising the voting age as well right?

No because that would require a constitutional amendment.

[TJ in Oregon]

I've generally wanted tobacco banned, but if we did that we'd be wrecking a bunch of baby boomers who are already addicted to it, and that would be a disaster. So my proposed solution would be to raise the tobacco age one year every year indefinitely.

[darklordoftech]

Might this result in more underage drinking because people under 21 would no longer have an alternative?

[Mr. Smith]

The turtle is slow. It took him 34 years in the Senate to come up with a good idea.

This.

[AndyHogan14]

Might this result in more underage drinking because people under 21 would no longer have an alternative?

Better drinking than smoking. As long as they don't get behind the wheel, then drunks don't bother me in any way and...just today, someone lit up a cigarette right in the middle of a large group of people that I was in (as well as a number of kids) and it was ridiculous. At the very least, tobacco consumption should be banned in public just like drinking is in most states.

[dead0man]

Hopefully this is a first step towards a full tobacco ban!

F**k no.

Nobody thinks that tobacco is safe or healthy, and if people want to use it in spite of knowing all the negative effects, that's on them and the Government should allow them to do so.

Wrong. Tobacco is one of the key drivers of Medicare costs. Anybody who smokes is selfishly freeloading on the government dole.

how do the millions (billions? trillions?) in taxes smokers have given to the govt and the fact that they tend to not need a lot of Medicare after they're dead at 64 factor into this math? 



edit-also, aren't fatties an even worse driver for Medicare costs?  or at least very comparable?

[RFayette]

Hopefully this passes.  This is a good idea whose time has come.

[RFayette]

I've generally wanted tobacco banned, but if we did that we'd be wrecking a bunch of baby boomers who are already addicted to it, and that would be a disaster. So my proposed solution would be to raise the tobacco age one year every year indefinitely.

This is a fantastic idea.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hopefully this is a first step towards a full tobacco ban!

F**k no.

Nobody thinks that tobacco is safe or healthy, and if people want to use it in spite of knowing all the negative effects, that's on them and the Government should allow them to do so.

Wrong. Tobacco is one of the key drivers of Medicare costs. Anybody who smokes is selfishly freeloading on the government dole.

how do the millions (billions? trillions?) in taxes smokers have given to the govt and the fact that they tend to not need a lot of Medicare after they're dead at 64 factor into this math? 



edit-also, aren't fatties an even worse driver for Medicare costs?  or at least very comparable?

The problem is that thanks to Big Tobacco lobbying, Medicare Part D provides very little coverage for tobacco cessation aids. Basically it only covers Chantix, which is a pretty extreme solution that many doctors are reluctant to provide (it's a drug that works by cutting off the brain's access to the receptors that call for nicotine when addictive, essentially temporary brain damage.)

Fiscally this makes zero sense. It's far cheaper to pay for someone's Nicorette than it is to pay for their lung cancer treatment. Hell my current employer offers tobacco cessation programs to all employees for absolutely free, because the amount it saves on health insurance premiums far outweighs the cost.

[dead0man]

So he has a problem with insurance and tobacco companies. (who doesn't?)  He shouldn't sh**t on the smokers for "freeloading" while they pay extreme taxes compared to other groups who take a comparable amount of funds without the extreme taxes.  Compared to the many other "freeloaders" in this country, I'll bet smokers pay a higher percentage of their "freeloading" in taxes than any of the rest of them.