United States US Raising Smoking Age to 21

[Darth Robbhi]

Assuming of course that said 18 year olds won't just ask someone older to get it for them or just get it illegally and then carry on from there.

Given that online retailers and smoke shops are the major sources, and the teen market is a major driver for product development, it will be a lot harder to get vapes than it was.

How the market shifts is a different question.

Of course, if you really want to get nasty, license and regulate vapes as smoking cessation devices.

 

[Tyzuris]

I swear these sort of laws make the US legal system look kinda absurd to my eyes. Able to join up the military and get shot at 18 or sign a loan agreement for college. But no beer or smokes till you're 21.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

There are actual medical reasons you know? 21 is the point where most people have finished developing the parts of the brain most vulnerable to developmental issues caused by alcohol and other such drugs.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Maybe they should have extended enlistment age to 21 as well.

 

[Fleiur]

I think 21 is a little too old to be enlisted in the military.

 

[Captain X]

Assuming of course that said 18 year olds won't just ask someone older to get it for them or just get it illegally and then carry on from there.

Which is exactly how high schoolers get a hold of beer, incidentally. Plus, 14 year olds can have 21 year old (or older) siblings who are willing to get them stuff, too.

 

[Sailor.X]

I have a fix for all of this moving the age of things to 21. Move the age in which someone can join the Military, Police Forces and Colleges to 21. That will cause the ones pushing all of this to panic.

 

[ShieldWife]

Idiotic and immoral. If you can join the military, vote, be tried as an adult, sell yourself into insane debt, then you should be able to smoke or drink

Actually, this bill was filled with all ridiculous things. Trump should have vetoed it.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think 21 is a little too old to be enlisted in the military.

So at 18 you are too young to get a drink or have a smoke, but you are old enough to get blown up in a pointless war, half a world away.

 

[Sailor.X]

So at 18 you are too young to get a drink or have a smoke, but you are old enough to get blown up in a pointless war, half a world away.

Back in my day the Senior Enlisted and Officers use to just ignore the quote unquote you must be 21 to drink. Everything was kept in house. And as long as you didn't drink and drive or cause any other sort of trouble. They didn't give two shits if you drank alcohol. But those were the Old Nam Guys who were in charge back then. And most if not all of my peers are retired. So I don't know how it is right now.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

So at 18 you are too young to get a drink or have a smoke, but you are old enough to get blown up in a pointless war, half a world away.

Completely consistent, without a doubt.

Sarcasm aside, this is plainly government overreach, telling grown adults that they cannot put something into their own bodies until a certain arbitrary age that is not the age of majority, and is not itself illicit.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

...again, I'd like to point out the actual medical science involving the forming of the brain and the long term impacts from enough alcohol to get drunk that for most people stops being a concern around 21. Similar things are seen with THC and basically every neurological drug.

I'd also like to point out that when the military industrial complex and indecisive command staff aren't keeping the army in dumb wars the military provides a useful leg up in a manner that avoids the usual pitfalls of government assistance. If we could get out of Afghanistan and get ourselves energy independent all the way the military could go back to serving that useful function.

 

[Sailor.X]

...again, I'd like to point out the actual medical science involving the forming of the brain and the long term impacts from enough alcohol to get drunk that for most people stops being a concern around 21. Similar things are seen with THC and basically every neurological drug.

I'd also like to point out that when the military industrial complex and indecisive command staff aren't keeping the army in dumb wars the military provides a useful leg up in a manner that avoids the usual pitfalls of government assistance. If we could get out of Afghanistan and get ourselves energy independent all the way the military could go back to serving that useful function.

Umm

US Crude Oil Production Surpasses Net Imports

www.energy.gov

The US is already energy independent. And has been so for a few years now.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Completely consistent, without a doubt.

Sarcasm aside, this is plainly government overreach, telling grown adults that they cannot put something into their own bodies until a certain arbitrary age that is not the age of majority, and is not itself illicit.

Except that we have to pay for the health effects. Literally.

Cancer, heart disease, CLRD/COPD, etc. All very expensive, long lasting health conditions that take decades to kill you. Given the mean age of onset of severe symptoms is in the 60s and 70s, that means Medicare is picking up most of the tab. Given how heavily correlated smoking is with low income, most likely Medicaid is paying for a hefty chunk of the bills as well.

If you expect the government and taxpayers to foot the bill for your medical care, the government and taxpayers get a major say in what you do that makes you unhealthy.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Except that we have to pay for the health effects. Literally.

Cancer, heart disease, CLRD/COPD, etc. All very expensive, long lasting health conditions that take decades to kill you. Given the mean age of onset of severe symptoms is in the 60s and 70s, that means Medicare is picking up most of the tab. Given how heavily correlated smoking is with low income, most likely Medicaid is paying for a hefty chunk of the bills as well.

If you expect the government and taxpayers to foot the bill for your medical care, the government and taxpayers get a major say in what you do that makes you unhealthy.

Actually the evidence shows the opposite. Since they die sooner, they actually cost less in the long term. So try again.

Further, I have to add, since I forgot that they already pay extra taxes on these products in the first place, so really it has already been accounted for anyways.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Actually the evidence shows the opposite. Since they die sooner, they actually cost less in the long term. So try again.

Further, I have to add, since I forgot that they already pay extra taxes on these products in the first place, so really it has already been accounted for anyways.

Health care costs are not linearly related with age. The bulk of cost, at least in the US, are within the last six months of life, whenever you die.

Dying younger might save money if tobacco worked like the classic massive coronary at 50, where there were no symptoms to trigger medical care, it hits, and all EMS has to do is haul away the body.

The problem is that tobacco related deaths and other health exacerbations are generally a lobg, drawn out, and medically very expensive. COPD means decades of steadily increasing medical care needs, with lots of physician visits, specialists, oxygen, surgery and eventually debilitating hospitalization pre-death, all in a desperate bid to eak out a few more months of agony. Lung cancer has a shorter but more intense period of medical care and expenditure, as they desperately fight often metastatic cancer.

2015 estimates for direct medical care for smoking related medical needs is around 170 billion per year. Tobacco taxes brought in 25 billion. Estimates show a 10% relative reduction in the smoking prevalence will save something like 6 billion dollars in health care costs in the following year, though that focuses on mostly the reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory disease risks.

 

[Fleiur]

So at 18 you are too young to get a drink or have a smoke, but you are old enough to get blown up in a pointless war, half a world away.

Of course. I think all that should wait until 21. Read my post.

 

[Fleiur]

Back in my day the Senior Enlisted and Officers use to just ignore the quote unquote you must be 21 to drink. Everything was kept in house. And as long as you didn't drink and drive or cause any other sort of trouble. They didn't give two shits if you drank alcohol. But those were the Old Nam Guys who were in charge back then. And most if not all of my peers are retired. So I don't know how it is right now.

If someone got caught though. What is the alibi?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Health care costs are not linearly related with age. The bulk of cost, at least in the US, are within the last six months of life, whenever you die.

Dying younger might save money if tobacco worked like the classic massive coronary at 50, where there were no symptoms to trigger medical care, it hits, and all EMS has to do is haul away the body.

The problem is that tobacco related deaths and other health exacerbations are generally a lobg, drawn out, and medically very expensive. COPD means decades of steadily increasing medical care needs, with lots of physician visits, specialists, oxygen, surgery and eventually debilitating hospitalization pre-death, all in a desperate bid to eak out a few more months of agony. Lung cancer has a shorter but more intense period of medical care and expenditure, as they desperately fight often metastatic cancer.

2015 estimates for direct medical care for smoking related medical needs is around 170 billion per year. Tobacco taxes brought in 25 billion. Estimates show a 10% relative reduction in the smoking prevalence will save something like 6 billion dollars in health care costs in the following year, though that focuses on mostly the reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory disease risks.

And by that logic, then we should ban everything fun. Since doesn't sugary food, salty food and all the rest of everything unhealthy create costs as well? Then why don't we ban everything and force people to subsist on nutrient paste, if you are so intent on controlling people's lives to "decrease costs", which is an obvious fig leaf.

And yet, there is still academic evidence that contradicts your argument. And there are other costs, such as the moral cost of infringing on the rights of others. Which I do not think are at all justified just to supposedly save money. I do not believe in forcing my will on other people for entirely dubious "savings", or even real savings. You are saying that money is more valuable than respecting the rights of others.

 

[Sailor.X]

If someone got caught though. What is the alibi?

That for one was so rare that it almost never happened. But in the one in a million times it did. No body knows nothing.