Posted on 11/29/2015 3:22:48 AM PST by SMGFan
Massachusetts is considering raising its smoking age to 21, citing public health concerns as well as the desire to keep tobacco products out of the hands of teenagers, CBS News is reporting.
Boston is already considering raising the smoking age to 21 inside the city limits, but another plan, backed by academics and public health advocates, would make the smoking age uniform throughout the Bay State. Several Massachusetts communities have already raised their smoking age to 21, including the Boston suburb of Needham, which was the first municipality in Massachusetts to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
I'd love to go back to the idyllic times of the 1950s when children could be children, protected from all kinds of evil. I'd like violence to be make-believe. I'd like it if children learn to cope with grief and making decisions. In that perfect world, cigarettes and maybe sneaking a beer in HS were all it took to be bad. We didn't encounter much that stopped us from becoming mature adults with our minds intact.
But, look around you for heaven's sake! Kids are drugged up because they aren't expected to develop self control or responsible decision making. The legal stuff is often worse than the illegal poisons they ingest. They don't learn to distinguish fantasy from reality, as the media, technology, and over-manipulated lives have blurred that distinction.
Yeah cigarettes are evil. But let's worry about the stuff that's even worse. I find it insane that kids can't buy a pack of cigarettes inside a store but can go in the parking lot and get heroin or to a doctor and get some mind-altering poison.
They see how much jack the drug nazis are taking, and they want it!
The economic impact of smoking is debatable, too. Smokers pay taxes on their cigarettes, and they tend to collect less in pension and Social Security retirement benefits and require Medicare for a longer time than nonsmokers. (=>"Fewer Smokers Means Higher Taxpayer Costs, Study Finds")
As with other vices like gambling and alcohol that are highly taxed, cigarette taxes are a regressive tax. (Not that there is anything wrong with that!)
Then the question is; should there be a law for those who risk their lives and join combat units in the military , because under this law they can risk their lives, lose their lives, but can’t smoke or drink, or should an exception be made like concealed carry in my state.
“Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, men!”
“But, Sarge, I’m from Massachusetts”
Yeah, right.
Just treat it as alcohol; ignoring it is condoning it, and doing so because worse things are out there isn’t justifiable. Those other things you mention are already illegal; focusing on them instead of tobacco is like taking the bait and fighting over partial-birth abortion instead of abortion itself.
I don’t think people under 21 should be drafted or serve in combat in any case; plenty of soldier/authors have pointed out that young men are best for this because they are naïve enough to do it (killing on command). I have no problem with moving all of the goalposts (voting, military service, etc.) to 21; 18 isn’t what is was fifty years ago.
If you’re old enough to get an abortion without parental consent...
Your chart is a great argument AGAINST smoking; how many of those smokers are paying for their own care when they sicken from it?
They could raise it to 100.
Smoking is stupid.
So an 18 year old is adult enough for everything you can imagine (including being killed overseas in the army), they just cant drink or smoke?
They will be held accountable.
MATTHEW 18:6
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
If you are too young to drink and smoke, then you’re too young to vote or be drafted.
” and we all get the bill.”
That can justify an all-encompassing government intrusion into every part of your life, National speed limits, motorcycle helmet laws, banning foods(or levying taxes on them), taxing soda or banning sizes of soda and it justified Obama care(after all we all pay for the uninsured).
Never smoked, it’s a disgusting habit but if you are considered an adult the government should let you make your own choices.
Do you have a problem with seatbelt laws? I don’t.
Physiologically speaking, children’s brains are “flexible” and adaptive to both healthy, unhealthy and addictive chemicals, the younger they are, the more flexible. This declines as they get older until their brain is fully mature, anywhere from 19-25 years old.
In practical terms this means children should not be given unhealthy or addictive chemicals before their brains are mature. This includes nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, ADHD drugs, tranquilizers, depressants and stimulants, and antidepressants. And this list can be enlarged to include many other substances.
Even giving these chemicals to children for medically necessary reasons should be done guardedly, and then only if their clinical benefits strongly outweigh their drawbacks. Which pretty well knocks out the ADHD drugs except for a tiny number of children.
Importantly, it has been discovered that when children consume addictive substances, it not only makes it easier for them to become dependent in the future, but dependent on *other* addictive drugs and behaviors as well. *And* it makes it harder for them to quit these drugs as well.
That is, if you can become an adult without consuming addictive substances, it is much harder to get addicted, and much easier to quit.
We all get the bill for fat asses. How about a law requiring everyone to perform group calisthenics and go for a two mile run every morning? I’m paying the bill for all the fat slobs who eat crap and never exercise. By your logic, there is no limit to government intrusion into people’s lives so long as the camel’s nose of medical costs is going to be used the way the commerce clause has been used in the past century to control and destroy every aspect of the free market in this country.
No, I just think some things (like delaying smoking/drinking, or having speed limits & seatbelt laws) are for a greater common good. I live in an area where without laws, traffic accidents would see children scattered along the highway in pieces after each accident.
The fact that nicotine levels were manipulated to cause addiction seems lost on you.
You seem all too ready to condemn your brother for accepting what The Father has given. Put your Faith in Him, not what you have been told and shown by man.
He said it. He meant it. It is up to you to believe it.
Be filled with The Fathers Love!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.