Tobbacco Sales In Nj/ny Age:21
abtm
Join Date: 2003-04-08 Member: 15337Members
Join Date: 2003-04-08 Member: 15337Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Fair/Un-Fair?</div> Recently state legislation from both NewYork and NewJersey have put fourth anti-smoking campaigns that would effect a law to make the legal age of purchasing tobbacco and tobbacco related products to the age of 21. Is this fair? Or is this just a way for state like Nj/Ny (Already suffering from pre-Sept 11th) to lose money on the taxation of cigarettes and other products/paraphanllia?
Comments
You might use the same argument for alcohol. If anything, that was an interesting call for the the states, as it will both cost the states an enormous amount of revenue, as well as greatly increase criminal activity (which naturally happens whenever you make products illegal). I bet it was mob-backed legislation <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
If so, that's quite mad* , we thought it was weird that until recently we couldn't get booze on a Sunday..
* mad, in the sense that it seems odd being able to get married, join the army, buy a car and vote, but still be unable to have a beer after your hard day of getting married, joining the army, buying a car and voting..
/shrugs
but on the other hand I dont support restrictions imposed by the government about personal life choices.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funnily enough, in the UK you can buy ciggies at 16, although realistically, you will be able to as a mature looking 14 year old.
We have some waaaaaaaay big taxes on tobacco.
Coincidence?
The way I see it, it's not so much a question about the individual's right to smoke, it's a question of how much the government is allowed to make decisions for individuals about their own health.
Think I'm wrong in my opinion? That's fine too -- go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'll listen.
A good friend of mine simply could NOT be around smokers for health reasons, serious asthma.
We simply didn't smoke in the same room as her, ever, problem sorted. It's addictive, but it's not so addictive you can't wait an hour or go into the back garden.
I'm not sure you are getting my point though, when I say tobacco is heavily taxed in the UK, I mean it. I don't have comparitive prices to hand, but I'd bet that it's more heavily taxed over here than almost any other European country..
Yet our smoking laws are very relaxed...?
I guess what I'm driving at, is that our government is not interested in the health of it's citizens. If it was, it would do something about polllution from factories* and exhaust fumes. It wants / needs the cash.
Smokers get ill.
This is expensive, and a drain on the NHS, but those same taxes <i>pay</i> for a large chunk of the NHS.
* recent studies that I don't have a link to, have suggested the unusually high rates of cancer in the central belt of Scotland are directly linked to the concentration of chemical / oil refineries in the area, specifically around the Grangemouth area.
An ugly place, but if you see it at night, it looks sorta like "Bladerunner"...
Edit: assuming the conversion site I used is up to date.
Part of me wants to say, "If you want to kill yourself, then go ahead"
The other part says, that substantial research has proven that smoking is <i>indeed</i> bad for your health, and that the government may/may not be trying to increase the age for smoking because they feel that they will be more mature, and make a more responsible decision regarding the potential hazards of smoking.
I agree, but then what makes them deside the proper age for making "mature" desicions. If you look at the abortion laws, a fetus is supposedly a "human" or a "child" so why does this "human" or "child" need to wait 21 years to make desicions that affect its own health. I'm all for them setting age limits, but then they should also not consider children sentient beings until they are old enough to understand their own fallibility, making abortion a right, not a crime.
I agree, but then what makes them deside the proper age for making "mature" desicions. If you look at the abortion laws, a fetus is supposedly a "human" or a "child" so why does this "human" or "child" need to wait 21 years to make desicions that affect its own health. I'm all for them setting age limits, but then they should also not consider children sentient beings until they are old enough to understand their own fallibility, making abortion a right, not a crime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh great, now you've steered this discussion off topic AND awoken my id.
<b>Damn right!</b> Parents should be able to kill their children at any time before 10 or so - they aren't old enough to understand their own fallibility, so they're expendable! Ditto for retarded kids. After 10, the kids are legally protected from their parents killing them, and gain the right to get addicted to cigarettes early on so they can get on with the business of killing themselves.
All of our overpopulation problems would vanish overnight. <b>Brilliant, sir!</b>
Yeah, we should give that guy a medal.