Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

[devonin]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

You know, on the other hand, as a Canadian, I think I might support the idea of making smoking illegal, for one reason: All Canadians pay tax to pay for the consequences of their pointless addiction. I don't know anyone who smokes and still wants to. When healthcare is paid for by everyone, the "right to destroy your body" isn't quite as powerful an argument.

That objection only really stands if, because of smokers needing health services more often than non-smokers, you as a non-smoker run the risk of losing access to health care.

If you pay X to the government to fund healthcare, and can always get what services you need, it shouldn't actually matter whether other people are using that system more often than you.

[Zageron]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

That objection only really stands if, because of smokers needing health services more often than non-smokers, you as a non-smoker run the risk of losing access to health care.

If you pay X to the government to fund healthcare, and can always get what services you need, it shouldn't actually matter whether other people are using that system more often than you.

Yeah but if smokers aren't dieing, and taking up room in the hospitals, we need to pay less to get more.

It's sad really, but in comparison to big cities, if you scale it down your tiny town of Squamish has a higher homeless/smoker/drug addict ratio then Vancouver BC. So you might see how much it pisses me off when we walk by our High School (Howe Sound) and all you smell is pot within a 360dec radius...

[devonin]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Well pot is an entirely seperate question and issue from cigarettes, because the former is illegal and the latter isn't.

The danger in legislating against people doing things that can harm themselves is that you move your way towards a slippery slope. Xtreme sports are dangerous, and voluntary. Do you make them illegal as well, because the people doing them are making the free choice to engage in activities that make them more likely to require health services.

We have age limits because the government thinks that until you hit that limit you aren't mature, educated and intelligent enough to decide whether you want to engage in that activity or not, but once you hit that age, you're free to decide. Once you start taking away free choices, you've taken away free choices. And that is dangerous ground to get onto.

Edit: Zageron, a question to consider: Which is the larger dollar value, the amount the government spends into healthcare for smokers, or the amount the government takes in in taxes on cigarettes? I think that the cigarettes=healthcare system is actually fairly self-contained. The government taxes the living hell out of cigarettes, potentially for that exact reason.

[Relambrien]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Wrong. Did you know that drinking/being an alcoholic can create a certain form of amnesia? Alcohol also ruins your liver if you drink too much for too long. Cigarettes don't really put you at risk of killing someone like drinking and then driving do. Neither one is more damaging than the other. Cigarettes create all sorts of health risks but so does alcoholism and they both have negative effects on people around you.

Your point relies on the definition of an "average" amount a drinker drinks per day being at a certain level. Now, since I don't have any idea how much the average person drinks each day, I can't really rebut what you've said. If I had to guess, however, I'd say the average drinker drinks maybe two or three beers a day (or the equivalent of), probably all within a relatively short period of time after work (or, since minors are involved in the discussion, after school). Not that this guess means anything.

If I'm not mistaken, the "average" smoker smokes up to a pack per day, probably less.

I'm trying to compare the effects of an "average" amount of liquor versus an "average" amount of tobacco, but in order to do that, I need to know just what the "average" is. I'm also assuming that the person drinking or smoking exhibits "normal" behavior while using tobacco or drinking; that is to say, the drinker does what most people do while intoxicated, and the smoker does what most people do while smoking. Meaning that, the majority of the time, the drinker probably doesn't drink and drive and the smoker only smokes in areas in which it is legal to.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

There should be psychological testing available to determine if someone is mature enough to smoke, do drugs, drink alcohol, be in porn, and have sex with other consenting adults at the very least. If someone is mature enough to make these decisions, it seems unlikely that they'd do at least half of them, anyway. What kind of a person who is mature (read: probably has at least a half-decent future) would willingly be in porn? Or what kind of person who is mature would have sex with someone overage who's a "threat" (stereotypical pedophile) to him or her? Or what kind of person who has the intelligence to make good decisions would smoke cigarettes, especially at a young age? Probably a few, especially for the first and last, but they bring it upon themselves, except they're deemed to have the maturity to be able to **** their lives up (hell, it may not), so it seems only fair. Every man to his own.

Don't think anyone who's 14 is mature enough to make good decisions concerning alcohol? Don't worry--they won't pass that test. And in addition, most parents probably wouldn't let their children take it, especially if they raised their child to have a bit of common sense. But it'd really help get rid of those arbitrary lines where one is considered a kid and the next when they turn 18 for at least a few people through a more objective method that can better determine when one is ready to make those decisions (or you can just wait until you're 18 when you still may not be ready).

You know, on the other hand, as a Canadian, I think I might support the idea of making smoking illegal, for one reason: All Canadians pay tax to pay for the consequences of their pointless addiction. I don't know anyone who smokes and still wants to. When healthcare is paid for by everyone, the "right to destroy your body" isn't quite as powerful an argument.

That likely won't reduce smoking demand to anything diminutive (40% of what it was I'd guess because smoking is such a big thing that the law may not be taken seriously for a long time) esp. amongst youngsters. It'll only hurt those who continue to smoke because the supply of cigarettes would drop a lot more than the demand (we can observe that in all prohibitions) thus raising prices, and when you weight them equally, there are more people in poverty who smoke than people above the poverty line who smoke (approx. 33% vs. 20%), which is one of my many non-libertarian objections to the SCHIP expansion (taxing the poor to pay for middle class health care--sounds fair!).

And what about substitute goods? What would people start binging on next? Would cookies go up in demand? Candy? Alcohol? Illegal drugs? Does "nothing" honestly seem that likely?

There's more to making cigarettes illegal than just reducing health effects.

If anything, you should want to make using phosphate fertilizer (also rich in radium-226) in tobacco plants illegal. While I ultimately object to it, it doesn't seem like too bad of an idea for everyone--especially non-smokers because nearly all of the health risks of second-hand smoke come from alpha radiation from the contents in phosphate fertilizer that stick to tobacco leaves. The only problem is that ammonium phosphate, a fertilizer which could become a substitute that has many of the benefits of calcium phosphate except without the adverse carcinogenic effects, is more expensive. Additionally I'm not sure about what phosphate fertilizer does for cigarettes other than that. A lack of it may make them taste absolutely horrible for all I know, although foreign cigarettes use much less of it and are less carcinogenic as a result.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Bull****. Eighteen year olds are on the tail end of puberty, whereas most fourteen year olds have just started it. The destruction that smoking wreaks on an adult's body is multiplied several times over on a growing body.



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Assuming fourteen year olds know ANYTHING is fallacious at best.

Now, lowering the drinking age to eighteen is fine with me, because the artificial maturity ascribed to eighteen year olds isn't completely unfounded, but to unleash something so destructive to young kids is just idiotic if you want them to be at all healthy.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Dangit! I was totally forming my response exactly like yours.

Although, i do want to add that not only would lowering the age to 14 extremely damage the growing adolescent body, it would take off many restrictions and make kids start having the idea that they can do whatever.

Sure, ill give you that some kids will think the thrill is gone (assuming that its only maybe 2% OF ALL TEENAGERS!). There are many kids who wait until they are the proper age to start smoking for many reasons, parents being a big one of them. As i said, once you give young kids the idea that they can choose to smoke purely on the assumption that they know it "makes them cough lots" only gives them justification to make other huge personal choices with little knowledge or the lack thereof.
Even the whole thing of, "well i can smoke at 18 so why cant i drink at 18" plays to my whole theory. The next step to that (putting your scenario into play) is, "well at 14 i can smoke so i should be able to make more decisions at that age". Now of course it is an extreme, but you still get people out there who say that we should let 14 year olds drive, have sex, and many other things similar.

Also on the alcohol subject, i think it was (ORIGINALLY) primarily structured like this to keep the newly recruited military personel from getting drunk and becoming useless come combat time. Completely assuming this was back when we had the draft and when a very good percentage of teens joined the army, it was very logical to place the age at 21 to keep the "grab life by the balls" kids from becoming alcoholics within the first 2 years of service just because it seemed fun at the time. However now, when it is apparant that not such a high percentage joins the army right at 18 it might be good to think about lowering the age.

Face it, a majority of the reason why people start drinking and smoking is because it seems physically appealing to try new experiences. Even when you are the proper age its a rush to do something like that because it IS a new experience and you are very much excited to see how it turns out. So lowering the age more and more only give more justification to letting emotion driven kids make decisions that will affect the rest of their life in a negative way.

[Rubin0]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Until parents in the United States start teaching their "children" how to act like "adults" I think the drinking age is fine. This country is full of teenage drifters that have no sense of responsibility at all. Most kids I know just end up drinking in their basements or in some other local place that does not require them to drive home afterwards. The drinking age does not stop me from drinking, but it puts limitations (to a degree) on my drinking habits and most other underagers. I've seen too many people die over the past couple of years because they couldn't be responsible. That number would just go up if 18 year olds felt as if they could pass a breathalizer test instead of just automatically failing due to our no tolerance laws.

As far as smoking goes, I think 18 is reasonable. Kids shouldn't be smoking. I started at 16, but that doesn't make it right.

[sk8mastr]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

It is pointless to make a thread debating because regardless the law will not change. Although it is very entertaining to read what some post on different subjects and their views on how the law should be different. 1.Become president. 2.Change laws. 3.Enjoy, because by the time they chance you will most likely be old enough to drink or smoke so it really does not matter ;P

[Squeek]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

The age limit, to me, is a timeline for parents. It's not just a "maturity" line.

"You're responsible for making sure your child doesn't drink or smoke until this age." That's what it says to me. "They can legally do them at these ages, but it's still your call from then on and we no longer have a say."

It's just like the video game rating age. M for Mature means 17+ only. Well, do you see 12-year olds on M-rated games? Of course. Bad parenting or really 'mature' child. Most of the time, it's the former rather than the latter.

My parents weren't even that strict with smoking / drinking. I'm just not stupid enough to pay money to kill myself. I've been 21 for months now and I still haven't had any alcoholic beverages.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

It is pointless to make a thread debating because regardless the law will not change.

So we should never debate anything ever, since none of us is a Congressman? That's a stupid argument.

because by the time they chance you will most likely be old enough to drink or smoke so it really does not matter ;P

Most of us in here ARE old enough to smoke, many to drink.

Does that mean we can't care about other people?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ShastaTwist]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Most of us in here ARE old enough to smoke, many to drink.

Does that mean we can't care about other people?

--Guido

I'm not. >:]

[EnR]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Haha, here in Canada drinking age is 18 XD

[three17s]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Being 18, you can vote, such as most of you should have gone out today and done. Allowing the people who can vote this "special privilege", the government can pollute the American population more.

[MrRubix]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

I am not fully educated on the subject but I think a lot of it has to do with statistical evidence behind external damages (as to why the age is not being lowered at the moment for drinking). I think it was during the 1970's when a lot of US states had an 18-year age requirement, and a lot of death/traffic accident rates started climbing, inevitably leading to the 21-age limit.

However, in general, people generally regard 18 as "the start of adulthood," where you can marry, serve in the military, vote, etc, so why not drink? Many claim that by pushing the drinking limit to 21, you are giving alcohol a mystique that makes it a more alluring forbidden fruit. It's like when prohibition was attempted in the US and didn't really curb the mass consumption going on under the radar -- same thing applies here, really.

Plenty of other countries with lower limits don't have nearly as many alcohol-related issues because of the way their respective societies treat alcohol. Being drunk is seen as very pathetic/weak. People learn to drink responsibly and there isn't nearly so much allure to alcohol like it has in the US.

The limit, in my opinion, should just be put down to 18 in the US. In the long run, I think it would be better to foster a smarter and more responsible societal view of alcohol instead of just brute-forcing a limit that doesn't seem to do much other than providing incentive for people to bypass it.


sk8mastr: Out of all the most ridiculous things I've read on this site, your previous statement takes the cake. Congratulations on saying the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

[korny]

Re: Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

Haha i can only imagine what would happen if the drinking age was lowered to 18.