Just recently, New York City passed legislation to change the age that it is legal to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21. This is a victory for health enthusiasts across the country. New York City has also tried to limit soft drink sizes in the past. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has definitely been a big activist in the health area, so there is no question as to whether or not he intends to sign this bill into law.
Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.
Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.
The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.
I would agree that if people want to buy cigarettes, then they will. Many friends I know have a fake ID to buy alcohol because they are not of age. If kids under the age limit want to buy something, there is not a whole lot stopping them. However in my opinion, increasing the age does put fear in many peoples eyes for smoking and discourages to start at such a young age.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I agree the legislation will be very ineffective. People who want to buy cigarettes/alcohol/marijuana/etc. will, regardless of legal status.
ReplyDeleteNot only will underaged people still going to be able to get tobacco, it is also continuing to teach that personal responsibility and decision making are important. By continuing to make so many decisions for us, the government is showing people that they dont need to be accountable for much anymore.
ReplyDeleteBeing healthy is of great importance to me. I always try and eat right and exercise(although I haven't done very much of either since college). I think this new law has its ups and downs. My only issue with it is that buying tobacco is the one thing I can do legally in this country, other than sign up for the military, that classifies me as a legal adult. I'm not saying I need to smoke in order to feel like an adult, but I feel rather insulted that they would enforce such a law.
ReplyDeleteIn the end I think the only thing that really matters is that it should overall discourage people from smoking, only if they are lazy and don't feel like driving 15 mins across the GW to buy a pack.
As Nick points out, the "it won't really stop people who really, really want to do it," is actually seen not as a downside but as a selling point to many who propose such laws. They wager that, yes, in some cases people will go through the hassle of evading such laws by driving to New Jersey or upstate New York. But they also reason that in many instances they will not go through such a hassle. Thus, they explicitly intend it not as an absolute prohibition--a gun to the head, in your metaphor--but rather just as a barrier. When are such barrier policies acceptable? If it could be shown that they had a substantial effect, would people be more ready to support them?
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, is it better or worse if the law banned smoking, and not just purchasing, tobacco before 21?