Texas Smoking Age Raised

[kid908]

So...19 in Austin...I'm sad now.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4732584.html

TL;DR?

Texas state legislators moved the legal age for purchasing tobacco to 19. My question is: Is this even enforced? My friend who is 18 has been buying it.

This is really old news but I was just brought to light to it and apparently no one is following it.

[Hotrod]

I fail to see how forcing less people to buy cigarettes is a bad thing.

[Inferno]

It kills stupid people faster.

Smoking isn't bad.
Smoking addicting corporate shit that is designed to steal your money is.

[thehoodedsmack]

It's the same here: you have to be 19 to buy alcohol or cigarettes. I've never seen a problem with it, though.

[Good_Apollo]

Join the military at 18, they say, die in a desert or in some forsaken town you can't pronounce in a war nobody can really say why we're fighting but god forbid you smoke or drink or enjoy the comforts the supposed adulthood should be bringing you. They're even thinking of banning all forms of smoking from the military as well, ironically.

[kid908]

It doesn't seem to be enforced. 18 the age all stores sell it apparently. It was passed 1 year ago and it's still not being enforce. I'm asking what's the point of raising it if you're not going to enforce it.

[flibitijibibo]

"Raising the age is not a substitute for spending the money needed to fund a proper prevention program," [Joel Spivak] said.As much as I hate anti-smoking campaigners, he's absolutely right. Changing the age by 1 year (seriously? One, fucking, year?) will only piss people off. This is especially true when you realize that these age limits (including 21 for alcohol) are purely arbitrary, and prevent a very tiny percentage of people from getting those materials anyway. I suppose the concept of an age limit has its significance in some psychological way, but this bill does pretty much nothing to contribute to it. Quit trying to use the law to keep people away from something and actually educate them about it.

Oh, and before we get into a "hurr smoking is bad" argument, when I say "educate," I don't mean "smear phony bullshit studies into kids' faces and try to scare them away from it with exaggerated threats." Give them the facts and let them decide, don't let your opinions get in the way of others' personal decisions. It will always accomplish nothing, except (usually) make you look like a dick.

Edit: I didn't even address the enforcement issue. It hasn't been enforced these last 2 years because nobody cares. Seriously, it's one year. One. Year. It's like getting in a fuss when your birthday party is the day after your actual birthday.

[Bodzilla]

SxpOUDkibzo

Every freaky add, is giving me trauma.

[Syuusuke]

People will still smoke, drink, and fuck at younger than "legal" ages.

[Good_Apollo]

SxpOUDkibzo

Every freaky add, is giving me trauma.
And every day, people still smoke because....they don't care. I mean I seriously have not met a smoker, young or old, that didn't understand the dangers before trying their first one. The people who will do it anyway do, and the people that don't, won't. I don't understand what Obama or other legislators don't get about it.

[Maniac]

Its all fucked.
What ever happened to hitting 13 and getting a becoming a man ceremony, a huge amount of lsd followed by a week in the woods, then you can do what ever the fuck you want.
You should be forced to produce a fresh patch of pubic hair as ID for beer and ciggs.

[Spartan094]

And every day, people still smoke because....they don't care. I mean I seriously have not met a smoker, young or old, that didn't understand the dangers before trying their first one. The people who will do it anyway do, and the people that don't, won't. I don't understand what Obama or other legislators don't get about it.
Just one step closer to killing yourself and giving obama a reason to control everything you do like a communist.

[CN3089]

Just ban cigarettes altogether, only idiots smoke them

[p0lar_bear]

And every day, people still smoke because....they don't care. I mean I seriously have not met a smoker, young or old, that didn't understand the dangers before trying their first one. The people who will do it anyway do, and the people that don't, won't. I don't understand what Obama or other legislators don't get about it.

Relevant quote:

It doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost, keep raisin' the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fuckin' cigarettes, okay?! They're a drug, we're addicted, okay?!


Just ban cigarettes altogether, only idiots smoke them

P much this.

[ICEE]

It isn't the governments job to tell us not to be stupid. If smokers wanna smoke, let them. Just stay outta my face with it.

[kid908]

It isn't the governments job to tell us not to be stupid. If smokers wanna smoke, let them. Just stay outta my face with it.
Its job is to keep its citizens safe.

We talk education but in the end, we do the stupidest shit to prevent harmful usage of products. They regulate alot of stuff on arbitrary stature and try to scare people out of it, why not give a balanced objective judgment?

My school had a drunk driving event where they brought in a speaker who was affect by such event. She talked about how her daughter died in a drunk driving accident with her daughter being the passenger to the drunk driver. Her daughter could have lived if she was left suffocated by the seatbelt. That's more reasonable. It ask kids to weight the consequences with the odds. Instead of just saying "You'll die from drunk driving," it was: take careful consideration of your decision, there are unforeseen effects.

[ICEE]

Safe? Safe from what? Safe from our own stupid decisions? no. Safe from the stupid decisions of others? sure.

[Good_Apollo]

Just ban cigarettes altogether, only idiots smoke themAs riveting as ban internet spaceships, only idiots play with them.

Freedoms are freedoms.

[CN3089]

As riveting as ban internet spaceships, only idiots play with them.

Freedoms are freedoms.

internet spaceships aren't one of the leading causes of preventable death though soooo

[Syuusuke]

Kyon, he just called you an idiot.

[ICEE]

internet spaceships aren't one of the leading causes of preventable death though soooo

How naive you are. Internet spaceships have been an increasing threat since the 70s. Check your god damn facts.

[CN3089]

How naive you are. Internet spaceships have been an increasing threat since the 70s. Check your god damn facts.

what the h*ck the internet didn't even exist then what are you 12

[flibitijibibo]

That's what they want you to think :tinfoil:

[ICEE]

the internet is 5000 years old havent you read the bible

[Bodzilla]

this thread better start getting better or relevant soon or she'll be locked.

you've been warned.

[Kornman00]

You want stupid? They don't outright ban tabacco because it's the only "legal" drug that big corps make huge bank on and thus feed a fuel of taxation. But that tax money means nothing when they use it to fund NARC agents to go after drugs like MJ which is just like tabacco but with less of an addiction rate. They can't outright ban tabacco because it'd be like sending half a country to rehab, cold turkey. Since large chunks of the American pop. don't know how to control themselves, this would end up much like that of any group of uncontrolled rehabbing druggies: rioting.

Want a quick conspiracy theory? Tabacco companies lobby the gov't so that they put the spot light on other drugs which they see as competition for being street legal. Keep the American populous focused on the other dangers using a smoke screen to hide the dangers already in their mouths.

"Only dumb people smoke". Yes, mostly uneducated people smoke. Typically because they start it when they're young and obviously don't actually know better. It's just like any stupid shit you do as a kid, you don't truely know it's wrong until there is a consequence on yourself. It's not until you hit your twenties that your frontal lobes fully develop and you start to think with a straight head, assuming of course you didn't fuck it up during your teen trials. However, this consequence takes itself in form of an addiction. Think of the weak positions some people are in during the teen years. School troubles, family woes, what have you. You're just now starting to experience life for what it is, or at least, starting to see the experience of life for what it is. It's the last kicker stages of development and if bad habits like this aren't themselves kicked before it ends, the chances of dropping it as they become an adult drop drastically.

Think about it. A teen grows up dealing with their teen issues using drugs, be it nicotine, booze, meth, what have you. They grow to associate these stimuli as problem solvers for these issues. Coupled with the underlying chemcial addiction you now have a mental addiction. These teens then go forth into adult hood, dealing with larger problems, usually without the support chains of family and friends so readily avaiable, and guess what? They're left with this other "friend" which has been with them all throughout their teen years.

These laws are meant to also try and help those not yet introduced into the craft. In hopes that when they finally do try them, if they do, that they'll be able to make the adult decission of whether this is them or not. If you're really that smart about your health, this kind of law shouldn't matter what so ever to you. Second hand smoke is a polution too.

Yes, cigs do help weed out the weaklings from the gene pool, granted. But I see it as inhuman to not allow anyone the chance to be educated for survival. You're not born a genius with the ability to rip a lion's heart out after all.

[paladin]

Just ban cigarettes altogether, only idiots smoke them

I guess Barack Obama is an idiot :/

Why don't we just ban everything thats addictive or bad for our health. Might as well ban fast food, sugar, caffeine, cell phones, xrays, all pharmaceuticals and driving. Lets all just sit in a padded room with an IV in our arms so that we are safe for ever.

I HATE smokers, but I respect them enough to allow them to choose to do what they do. It's disgusting how they are the ass end of everything.

Also, Korn, yes.

[p0lar_bear]

"Only dumb people smoke". Yes, mostly uneducated people smoke. Typically because they start it when they're young and obviously don't actually know better. It's just like any stupid shit you do as a kid, you don't truely know it's wrong until there is a consequence on yourself. It's not until you hit your twenties that your frontal lobes fully develop and you start to think with a straight head, assuming of course you didn't fuck it up during your teen trials. However, this consequence takes itself in form of an addiction. Think of the weak positions some people are in during the teen years. School troubles, family woes, what have you. You're just now starting to experience life for what it is, or at least, starting to see the experience of life for what it is. It's the last kicker stages of development and if bad habits like this aren't themselves kicked before it ends, the chances of dropping it as they become an adult drop drastically
...
Yes, cigs do help weed out the weaklings from the gene pool, granted. But I see it as inhuman to not allow anyone the chance to be educated for survival. You're not born a genius with the ability to rip a lion's heart out after all.

Drug abuse resistance education (besides the D.A.R.E. program) is offered in a multitude of flavors that gives kids the facts, albeit sugarcoated some, of what doing most drugs (cigarettes included) will do to your health. The problem is, most of the kids have a mentality that they're untouchable and none of that stuff can happen to them, usually due to being spoiled or some other case of parents not knowing what the fuck or being neglectful. All they see is that little white, smoky cylinder sticking out of the mouth of a badass and how it's a magical stick that calms them down (that tension is caused by exposure to nicotine anyway daerp) and somehow makes them look cool.

It sounds heartless and I feel weird saying this as it goes against some morals, but kids need more tragedy in their life. If everyone had a relative that dropped dead due to cancer or emphysema when they were eight or so, there'd probably be less smokers.

[paladin]

It sounds heartless, but kids need more tragedy in their life.

But every kids a winner in America! Its okay to fail!

another reason that there needs to be scoring in Tball

[Good_Apollo]

You want stupid? They don't outright ban tabacco because it's the only "legal" drug that big corps make huge bank on and thus feed a fuel of taxation. But that tax money means nothing when they use it to fund NARC agents to go after drugs like MJ which is just like tabacco but with less of an addiction rate. They can't outright ban tabacco because it'd be like sending half a country to rehab, cold turkey. Since large chunks of the American pop. don't know how to control themselves, this would end up much like that of any group of uncontrolled rehabbing druggies: rioting.

Want a quick conspiracy theory? Tabacco companies lobby the gov't so that they put the spot light on other drugs which they see as competition for being street legal. Keep the American populous focused on the other dangers using a smoke screen to hide the dangers already in their mouths.

"Only dumb people smoke". Yes, mostly uneducated people smoke. Typically because they start it when they're young and obviously don't actually know better. It's just like any stupid shit you do as a kid, you don't truely know it's wrong until there is a consequence on yourself. It's not until you hit your twenties that your frontal lobes fully develop and you start to think with a straight head, assuming of course you didn't fuck it up during your teen trials. However, this consequence takes itself in form of an addiction. Think of the weak positions some people are in during the teen years. School troubles, family woes, what have you. You're just now starting to experience life for what it is, or at least, starting to see the experience of life for what it is. It's the last kicker stages of development and if bad habits like this aren't themselves kicked before it ends, the chances of dropping it as they become an adult drop drastically.

Think about it. A teen grows up dealing with their teen issues using drugs, be it nicotine, booze, meth, what have you. They grow to associate these stimuli as problem solvers for these issues. Coupled with the underlying chemcial addiction you now have a mental addiction. These teens then go forth into adult hood, dealing with larger problems, usually without the support chains of family and friends so readily avaiable, and guess what? They're left with this other "friend" which has been with them all throughout their teen years.

These laws are meant to also try and help those not yet introduced into the craft. In hopes that when they finally do try them, if they do, that they'll be able to make the adult decission of whether this is them or not. If you're really that smart about your health, this kind of law shouldn't matter what so ever to you. Second hand smoke is a polution too.

Yes, cigs do help weed out the weaklings from the gene pool, granted. But I see it as inhuman to not allow anyone the chance to be educated for survival. You're not born a genius with the ability to rip a lion's heart out after all.The problem with this entire argument of people are young and stupid is that cigarettes are for adults. If 18 isn't an age where you can make these kinds of decisions then I guess you can't fight a war, drive, or drink.

[Kornman00]

Drug abuse resistance education (besides the D.A.R.E. program) is offered in a multitude of flavors that gives kids the facts, albeit sugarcoated some, of what doing most drugs (cigarettes included) will do to your health. The problem is, most of the kids have a mentality that they're untouchable and none of that stuff can happen to them, usually due to being spoiled or some other case of parents not knowing what the fuck or being neglectful.

That "mentality" is there because they haven't been forced to experience otherwise before hand (doesn't always have to be purely tragic). Can you really blame someone for not wanting to change a major part of their life style, especially one that has brought them hapiness? Parents may want the world for their kids but even they're not always trained in the ways of doing it "properly" while also preparing them for the world. Both parties are in a learning phase, especially if this is their first kid.

Sadly, it can be a cascading affect since the parents only have their own experiences to draw on, which they'll only pass on to their children. It may be easy to blame the parent but in the end, like many things brought up here, the only real blame is on mis/uneducation. Either from the lack of knowledge or from the ignorance of knowledge. This is something that other people can try and help manage instead of being so quick to say "whelp, they're fuck ups, not my problem".

We're in the age of information convergency. This information shouldn't just be limited to technolgical fields, but to people and biological ones as well. I hate to sound like a hippie tree huger, but the sooner we stop attacking and neglecting each other, the sooner we can evolve the state of the human race. The cascading affect can work both ways; it can all start with a butterfly.

[Kornman00]

The problem with this entire argument of people are young and stupid is that cigarettes are for adults. If 18 isn't an age where you can make these kinds of decisions then I guess you can't fight a war, drive, or drink.
Well yes, you can't drink at 18 in the states.

You're given the ability to drive at around 16. You also have the ability to get your license revoked.

You're given the ability to enlist at 18 (waivered at 17 by parents). However, it's not a right and if you prove to be immature enough to handle the duties as a soldier then you can just as easy be put out of the military.

18 is an age which people agree that on average, people start the mature. Doesn't mean they do nor does it mean they've fully learn how to present themselves as an adult. They're just now (on average) joining the world as one, without their parents.


I however, don't see why any person with a educated brain, especially that of an adult, would want to buy tabacco products. At least MJ gives you a sense of high and doesn't form an addiction like that of nicotine. How this "issue" of the age being raised is a problem, I don't see. Tough shit, you can't buy booze until you're 21 either. I'd be more up in arms over that instead of tabacco.

[Good_Apollo]

Well yes, you can't drink at 18 in the states.

You're given the ability to drive at around 16. You also have the ability to get your license revoked.

You're given the ability to enlist at 18 (waivered at 17 by parents). However, it's not a right and if you prove to be immature enough to handle the duties as a soldier then you can just as easy be put out of the military.

18 is an age which people agree that on average, people start the mature. Doesn't mean they do nor does it mean they've fully learn how to present themselves as an adult. They're just now (on average) joining the world as one, without their parents.


I however, don't see why any person with a educated brain, especially that of an adult, would want to buy tabacco products. At least MJ gives you a sense of high and doesn't form an addiction like that of nicotine.MJ has an assortment of other problems with it that aren't relevant to this thread(however, I don't believe it should be illegal). You're really going to tell me that every soldier in the military is mentally fit? You're really going to tell me that you believe that you should be allowed to join the military but you shouldn't be allowed to drink? You're really going to tell me that every driver at age 16 is responsible with their car and is mentally fit to drive one just because they passed the joke of a test at the DMV?

A lot of statistics point to No. So there needs to be a higher standard for all or at least brought in line with each other for now. Need I mention voting, the biggest power you can be bestowed as a civilian?

I'm tired of seeing "You're an adult now, here's heaps of responsibilities, but there's a few perks you can't enjoy for a few trite and meaningless years." It's a double-standard and if you think it's saving anyone it's not, it just creates more problems, more crimes. Do we even have to get into limiting freedoms? You guys usually go gaw-gaw over anything that might inhibit your freedoms.

[Kornman00]

MJ has an assortment of other problems with it that aren't relevant to this thread(however, I don't believe it should be illegal). You're really going to tell me that every soldier in the military is mentally fit? You're really going to tell me that you believe that you should be allowed to join the military but you shouldn't be allowed to drink? You're really going to tell me that every driver at age 16 is responsible with their car and is mentally fit to drive one just because they passed the joke of a test at the DMV?

A lot of statistics point to No. So there needs to be a higher standard for all or at least brought in line with each other for now. Need I mention voting, the biggest power you can be bestowed as a civilian?

I'm tired of seeing "You're an adult now, here's heaps of responsibilities, but there's a few perks you can't enjoy for a few trite and meaningless years." It's a double-standard and if you think it's saving anyone it's not, it just creates more problems, more crimes. Do we even have to get into limiting freedoms? You guys usually go gaw-gaw over anything that might inhibit your freedoms.
I thought I was clear on this but apparently not. I said all of those bullets were abilities which can be taken away. Doesn't mean they always are.

People fall through the cracks. The systems aren't perfect. But as long as they work for a majority of people, or give the appearence of, they'll continue to be used.

And for the record, no, I don't think that just because someone can join the ranks at the age of 18 means that they can wield a bottle of booze. There is a fucking thing we call Basic Training in the Army. You don't just get issued boots, or take some "joke of a test" then go off into a war zone.

[Good_Apollo]

I thought I was clear on this but apparently not. I said all of those bullets were abilities which can be taken away. Doesn't mean they always are.

People fall through the cracks. The systems aren't perfect. But as long as they work for a majority of people, or give the appearence of, they'll continue to be used.

And for the record, no, I don't think that just because someone can join the ranks at the age of 18 means that they can wield a bottle of booze. There is a fucking thing we call Basic Training in the Army. You don't just get issued boots, or take some "joke of a test" then go off into a war zone.
So you're admitting that people at the age of 18 employed in the military should not be allowed to drink but can be trained for war and possibly die in a horrible way? This is all interesting to me. Unless you're one of those neo-prohibitionists.

[Bodzilla]

It sounds heartless and I feel weird saying this as it goes against some morals, but kids need more tragedy in their life. If everyone had a relative that dropped dead due to cancer or emphysema when they were eight or so, there'd probably be less smokers.
Pop had cancer half a dozen times and it got to the stage where he had a colostomy bag and they'd cut so much out of him to remove the cancers there was nothing left.

Nan Died a slow painful emphysema.

After watching that drag on for about a decade i never bothered the thought of them.

Also kids dont smoke them cause they dont know about the dangers, it's because it makes them cool, gives them a chance to strike some bad ass pose's and rebell against the system man.
I've always thought more outside the box then that, or atleast tried to, so i've never liked it or want to try it.

It's the same reason people buy haley Davidson's.
They're shit, loud noisy things that cant turn, And turning is the reason you get a bike in the first place.
The Jappers trump them at every turn, yet harley still sells.

cause it's cool.

also good job guys getting the thread rolling back on track

[Kornman00]

So you're admitting that people at the age of 18 employed in the military should not be allowed to drink but can be trained for war and possibly die in a horrible way? This is all interesting to me. Unless you're one of those neo-prohibitionists.
What does consuming a depressant have ANYTHING to do with being trained for national security?

Last time I checked, you should be sober when firing a weapon. Kinda like when you're driving.

E: Bod, I don't see how going to war should waive what is put into law. If that's the case, then people should be able to toke or rob a bank before they get shipped off.

Pretty sure you can sit at home and have a drink with your mates. You just can't go out and buy it yourself, ie a store or bar/pub. They assume with the former that you're under the supervision of a full blown adult.

[Bodzilla]

it's not about using them together, it's just that the standard that you can go into battle and die for your country, yet you cant sit at the pub with your mates and have a beer is just... well insane.

But all of that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
smoking.

[Good_Apollo]

it's not about using them together, it's just that the standard that you can go into battle and die for your country, yet you cant sit at the pub with your mates and have a beer is just... well insane.

But all of that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
smoking.
It's relevant because it's a similar situation with the drinking age being 21 and tobacco laws getting ever stricter as well. They pretty much go hand in hand as rights that are being withheld from legal adults.

The dangers of tobacco are really irrelevant though. Alcohol has just as many issues biologically as it does affecting society and the last time it became illegal didn't go well with the public yet tobacco is demonized. It's a strange world we live in where some luxuries and responsibilities are available at adulthood but some are withheld for a trite 1-3 years and some aren't available at all (Like weed).

[Bodzilla]

Most of the time with these things it's never about fixing a problem whether it be long term, or a band aid fix that will patch something up.

Whats more important to politicians is that they are seen to to be doing something.
It connects with the majority of the public in a very subtle way that they are doing something in office and that they care about the populace.

50 years ago the mentality was different, it was that way with alot of other things, when accidents or tragedy's happend we looked on it and reflected that these things just happen and we as a society accepted it and continued on our way.
Now the mentality is that SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO SAVE THE CHILDREN! thanks to the saturation of shock and awe media spectacle riding buzzwords and phrases while neglecting other shit thats actually important.
only thing is they dont care if it works, if it's practable if it's reliable of if it's even worth implementing it. It's just that something has to be done.
so they do these things,

tiny meaningless shit that never accomplishes anything while at the same time they get new benefits.
These things cost more, fines are increased but never mind the figures or that facts that nothings changed because now they've got the support from mindless hooting retards in their pocket their position is safe.

It's the reason why we have to have fucking labels on everything.
Why everything is dummed down to the lowest common denominator.
why we are being held back.

Try and follow this with me if you can, i'm just really tired.

[Good_Apollo]

Yeah I follow you and I get WHY it's happening and being done. I'm just saying I don't agree with it and I don't accept it as an excuse and I plead that other people use reason that they care so much about freedoms and rights and blah blah blah that they can't possibly agree with measures like this, I don't believe them. I don't believe they run in a mode that believes anything and all things considered bad by other people should be illegal.

If that were the absolute case we'd all, like stated, live in white rooms (white could be offensive to some people) and be fed through tubes and be kept in a virtual world similar to the Matrix where nothing bad can really happen to you. If you want to say smoking isn't a freedom you shouldn't have because it impedes other people's lives around them then you should be against drinking and a myriad of other things that can be considered dangerous to yourself and society, things you yourself might enjoy.

No more double standards please...

[n00b1n8R]

internet spaceships aren't one of the leading causes of preventable death though soooo
You'll note that those deaths are generally in the dumber end of the population so it's not that bad a thing.

Still; ban smoking because I don't do it and hate the smell~

[Kornman00]

It's a double standard to keep booze and tabacco legal while myriads of others are outlawed. Had the country been developed with people dipping/chewing MJ while tapping into a herion IV at the local Herion Pub I'm sure we'd be facing another set of beasts. What gets me :raise:ing the most is how the gov't can let tabacco companies put the amounts of other shit into the cancer sticks. But hey, I guess nicotine isn't enough to fuel a money making addiction. I don't view booze to be as potent (by itself. when driving however...) but certain strengths still shouldn't be getting chugged by young impressionable minds. A couple of rotten apples spoil the bunch and young people, to include young "adults" ('sup frat parties) like to get carried away.

In the end, these kinds of things are ingained into the culture and take decades or more to die out or change in anyway. Just look at how schools used to be 40 years ago. Paddle anyone?

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Smoking is awesome! It enforces natural selection.

Also, new SP episode => MJ legalization :D

[sleepy1212]

Whats more important to politicians is that they are seen to to be doing something.

Only intelligent post in this thread.

Politics, taxes, federal control-freakism are literally the only reasons there are laws against tobacco, alcohol, drugs.

There is no moral component.

All you people up on your smughorse spewing moral-superiority because you don't smoke are retarded.

RETARDED!



Smoking is awesome! It enforces natural selection.

Korn said something like this earlier and I let it go because it's way off topic but now i just have to...

Smoking related death usually occurs later in life well past the age when people are making babies having no effect on the genes being passed along by smokers and therefore not selecting against smokers but rather, selecting against individuals that spend extra resources taking care of the elderly who failed to die from not smoking.

E: need to ninja the obvious fallacy in this joke...lol

[Kornman00]

All you people up on your smughorse spewing moral-superiority because you don't smoke are retarded.

RETARDED!

Korn said something like this earlier and I let it go because it's way off topic but now i just have to...

Smoking related death usually occurs later in life well past the age when people are making babies having no effect on the genes being passed along by smokers and therefore not selecting against smokers but rather, selecting against individuals that spend extra resources taking care of the elderly who failed to die from not smoking.
Retarded. Right. Because we're saying don't smoke. Right. We're just being oh-so-smug. Right.

Well, if you want to play the name calling game then you must be a fucking moron. A FUCKING MORON! The chemicals in cigarettes will fuck your DNA along with increasing the various cancers you can contract. Protip: DNA is what makes human life happen. Also, you know the thing they call aging? Yeah, you can blame that on DNA breaking down.

[sleepy1212]

1. Saying don't smoke is fine and good advice. Being a smug prick is not. By smug prick i mean everyone who thinks they should decide what the rest of us do.

2. The degradation takes too long to affect reproductivity in a significant way. by the time it takes place most people have already had their babies. There are bigger holes in that statement you could've gone after, it's only half true anyway and was a stab at the non-smokers. l2lol

[=sw=warlord]

1. Saying don't smoke is fine and good advice. Being a smug prick is not. By smug prick i mean everyone who thinks they should decide what the rest of us do.

2. The degradation takes too long to affect reproductivity in a significant way. by the time it takes place most people have already had their babies. There are bigger holes in that statement you could've gone after, it's only half true anyway and was a stab at the non-smokers. l2lol
You seem to forget all the Tar that is collected into the lungs through smoking.
Smoking has no "universal" effects because people who smoke, don't always smoke the same amount a day.
Focusing on one form of degradation only means you miss out on the other effects happening.
Cigarette smoke contains over 500 different chemicals and 43 of those are well known cacinogenic [triggers for cancer].
These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

Being cautous about your own health is not by any standard, being a "smug prick".
When someone smokes, they are not only affecting their own health, but those of others around them.
Think about this, tar in the lungs will reduce the effectiveness of your lungs ability to introduce oxygen to the blood stream and remove toxins, this happens to be a very important process while a woman is giving birth, how can you possibly say the effects of smoking are only limited to those in later life?
I personally do not see how giving usefull tips and advice is being a smug prick, the same could be said for those who use equally as damaging drugs, such as heroin or acid, there are laws to prohibit the use and ownership of these drugs, doe's that also mean people are also being smug pricks on these substances purely because they don't use them?

[Choking Victim]

So smoke additive free cigarettes kids.

Also, to the OP, if you don't smoke and they aren't enforcing the new law, why do you give a fuck?

[Dwood]

Also, I'm sure that many politicians would LOVE to increase the voting and citizenship age to 21

[sleepy1212]

didn't read your post but i'll back-pedal with the following....

Degradation was in reference to something specific, DNA and natural selection against smokers. If you had read mine and kornman's posts you would have seen what we were discussing.

Smoking is unhealthy.

It is better not to smoke.

Smug pricks (again...) are people who want to legislate against personal decisions like smoking.


1. Saying don't smoke is fine and good advice. Being a smug prick is not. By smug prick i mean everyone who thinks they should decide what the rest of us do.


I personally do not see how giving usefull tips and advice is being a smug prick

learn to read please.

To answer questions about illegal drugs:

Drug laws have always been about racism and profit. you can find that in any criminal justice textbook.

However, i'm not going to argue that illicit drugs are safe or that they should be used. I personally don't think they are good. I don't use them. I don't advocate using them. What i do advocate is choice. If you want to kill yourself slowly, quickly, instantly, then go ahead...It's your choice.

Get the government out of it. They don't care about your health anyway...they only care about money and power and passing ineffectual laws just so they have a bill to put their name on. government is full of smug pricks.

[paladin]

Drug laws have always been about racism and profit.

IDk about racism, maybe between classes.

[bravo22]

Banning cigarettes outright is only going to create "cigarette cartels" much like those drug cartels in South America who enslave children to make their wares and who answer any opposition with gunfire, resulting in unnecessary civilian deaths.

As long as stupid punks want to get high, these cartels will only receive more and more money and wreak all sorts of havoc on society.

But keeping it legal will put these cartels out of business, at the same time proper EDUCATION will help keep sane people away from the drugs/cigarettes/etc.

[ICEE]

cigs don't get you high. But your point is otherwise valid.

No matter what dream land prohibitionists want to live in, bans do not work. Weed isn't legal, but we've all either tried it, regularly partake of it, or smelled its glorious aroma in highschool bathrooms. If you ban cigs, they're only going to get "cooler" to the little middleschool kiddies who get addicted to them in the first place.

[=sw=warlord]

Smoking is unhealthy.
No shit sherlock.
Smug pricks (again...) are people who want to legislate against personal decisions like smoking.
There's already a law over here in England, where it is illegal to smoke in a enclosed working place, you can't even have a smoking room as that is considered a enclosed working area.
You can't even smoke in your own truck if your a truct driver as thats considered a enclosed working area.
Smug pricks arn't always the ones bringing these ideas forward.
Ever think there could actually be a public demand for this not just opinionated politicians dream legislation come reality?

learn to read please.
If I did now know how to read i wouldn't be replying to you.
To answer questions about illegal drugs:

Drug laws have always been about racism and profit. you can find that in any criminal justice textbook.
:mech3:
Methdrone has recently been banned here, nothing to do with racism nor profit.
There's been a fairly large campaign against it in recent weeks after a few students died from it.

However, i'm not going to argue that illicit drugs are safe or that they should be used. I personally don't think they are good. I don't use them. I don't advocate using them. What i do advocate is choice. If you want to kill yourself slowly, quickly, instantly, then go ahead...It's your choice.
And what about those around you?
having to inhale the second hand smoke from these cancer sticks?

Get the government out of it. They don't care about your health anyway...they only care about money and power and passing ineffectual laws just so they have a bill to put their name on. government is full of smug pricks.
If that was true, then what exactly would happen if everyone died from different drug abuses that could have been prevented and to be quite honest, should have been banned?
Like it or not, tax payers are the employers of the government, they pay their saleries, they vote the politicians parties into power.
More importantly they voice their opinions and concerns dealing with how the government governs the state their incharge of.

My response in bold.
I don't intend to carry on this discussion as i can already see this is going to get hotter than a pebble in lava.
But i find it pretty stupid to think the only reason a government would exist is to suggest options and not actually try and curb certain things.
I still believe education is the main issue here.

[sleepy1212]

IDk about racism, maybe between classes.

At the beginning of the last century prohibitionists used fear to gain support for anti drug laws.

They literally claimed cocaine make black men rape white women and that marijuana caused hispanics to go into riotous fits.

In addition to the prohibitionists there were people lobbying for these laws were from pharmaceutical companies producing pain relievers and anesthetics (against cocaine), and paper companies (against marijuana). Both were also cash crops in latin america, as they are today, and the laws served as economic warfare in a time when the US was actively taking over South America. In fact they still do and over the last 100 years or so US foreign policy towards S. America has been largely destructive.

[Bodzilla]

IDk about racism, maybe between classes.
The jazz underground of black musicians.

yeah Race has always been a massive factor.

[Kornman00]

This thread was locked by teh_lag yesterday IIRC. I guess he did it before Ghost did the db backup. I'll leave it to him if he wants to relock it

[Mass]

The logic of this law is pretty simple, nobody you would regularly know in high school can buy cigarettes if the age is nineteen. I could see this law effectively and easily causing a substantial inconvenience to almost thirty-seven high-school smokers.

[Good_Apollo]

The logic of this law is pretty simple, nobody you would regularly know in high school can buy cigarettes if the age is nineteen. I could see this law effectively and easily causing a substantial inconvenience to almost thirty-seven high-school smokers.Don't be naive, there's easy ways around these stupid types of age restrictions. If kids want it, they'll get it and the point is that you're an adult at 18, there shouldn't be anymore age restrictions aside from collecting SS and Senior Discounts...

[Anton]

1. Saying don't smoke is fine and good advice. Being a smug prick is not. By smug prick i mean everyone who thinks they should decide what the rest of us do.

2. The degradation takes too long to affect reproductivity in a significant way. by the time it takes place most people have already had their babies. There are bigger holes in that statement you could've gone after, it's only half true anyway and was a stab at the non-smokers. l2lol

You say that smoking has only a small impact on reproduction? Being a pharmacy (bio/chem) major I can guarantee to you that this is false. Smoking not only affects your lungs, but causes cardiovascular failure over time. If an adult immune system can't control the affects of smoking, how can a fetus without an immune system fend for itself? It doesn't. Smoking affects its developing CNS/PNS, its cardiovascular system, pulmonary system, respiratory system, and a majority of major bodily systems.. all while it's at its weakest point in 'life'. This should tell you immediately that if the child makes it through the pregnancy and is born into the world that it will have major hurdles to clear before early childhood. Examples can include SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrom, asthma, nasal obstruction..

It goes further. Mutations in the fetus' DNA complex can occur. This can lead to death, deformities, cancer, retardation, etc.

If you weren't talking about infant DNA degradation, but instead, Adult DNA: it's the same. It's so easy for DNA to mutate. Cellular division is occurring constantly. Chances for DNA mutation is natural, especially in areas such as the mouth where epithelial tissues are constantly being replaced (rapid cellular division). If you throw dangerous molecules into the mix, you can easily cause mutations in otherwise healthy cells.

As for non-smoking laws. I support them, however, only in public places. In your car (to an extent), your home, and anywhere else that is private you should be able to do almost anything you want. The law we're discussing here, the 1 year age differential, is honestly stupid. I do agree that if you can fight for your nation you should have the right to smoke... even if it does kill you.

[sleepy1212]

^oh god... u and warlord....we were talking specifically about DNA....

in case you had any doubt:


There are bigger holes in that statement you could've gone after

btw,

Ecology/Environmental Science major (psst, i agree with you)

ontopic: the law is pretty dumb, there's only one slightly lucid argument for it: some kids are 18 in high school and will buy their friends cigarettes. not so much if they have to wait another year. it just increases the inconvenience but doesn't stop them. at all.

in a related story a hospital nearby in Bethlehem, PA decided that it would no longer hire smokers. I find that discriminatory but hospitals are places of business and being such they have the right to decide who they hire. I this idea coincides with my feelings about public smoking laws in general. Businesses should decide for themselves, not government. A no-smoking restaurant can advertise that, as well as a smoking restaurant can. It's a selling point that cators to both sides.

[Kornman00]

I don't view it as discrimination in terms of business employment. Discrimination would be like not taking someone because of a specific trait they posses: heritage, age, sex, etc. The person is using a drug which can not only affect their performance but also the residents of the institution and their health (which doesn't need second hand smoke added to the list). Their usage is something they can fix themselves, unlike their nationality or heritage. Sure, you could argue that it's filtering against current (not rehabbers) drug users, but in terms of employment, what normal business doesn't already do this? Employment discrimination has always been about traits a person has and can't address, like being disabled.

Not trying to make it sound like I was attacking you on that last bit. Just giving my view on the use of "discrimination" in job hiring.

[p0lar_bear]

To add to that, at the places I've worked, if things go nuts and a smoker starts getting edgy, they're allowed to go take a smoke break. As a non-smoker, if things start getting nuts and I'm losing my cool, I'm often not allowed to take a breather. However, I can get around this by claiming that I need to use the bathroom, and regardless of whether I do or not, I often find myself sitting in the stall taking a break anyway. Regardless of whether or not the managers tell us during orientation that smoke breaks aren't allowed, it happens anyway.

Short of them losing their temper, why are smokers rewarded breaks to feed their addiction? If I took up drinking, could I get a break every hour or so to run to the package store to down a 6-pack because I'm getting edgy? I don't see why not, alcohol is a legal drug, just like cigarettes.

[sleepy1212]

That's a good point about discrimination although i view it as more of a point of lifestyle. They could just as easily decide not hire spelunkers. The only real basis, which is part of the drug testing practice, is insurance. smokers are more likely to get sick and have company insurance pay for it. That and image, which is a selling point and beefs up the appearance that they really care for your health. In fact i find that to be a smart business practice for a hospital.

My real concern here is that they can't be smokers at home either. The company will be testing them through urinalysis. It's a little scary but there are many cases that employees have lost in regards to companies restrictions on what they do in private life. There was even a case a woman lost when she was fired for not removing a particular bumper sticker from the car she drove to work. Not too long ago a school was sued for spying on students at home via webcam on a school issued laptop. the students won the suit but only because schools are state run. In similar cases regarding employers, the courts typically favor the company.

Second hand smoke is a non-issue, especially at a hospital where most smokers are courteous enough to use designated smoking areas or if you've ever driven behind one, you'll see them standing at the loading docks, doctors and nurses alike. Though the smell might still be unpleasant to customers err.. patients.

I think taking a 'smoke break' is a leftover term from a time when no one cared about smoking. In our state, and I think it's federal too (OSHA), employees are required to take breaks at specific intervals. I've never worked for a company where non-smokers and smokers were treated differently in that respect, but that is my experience. I would have a problem with that too. of course you could also make that case against religious practices or periods lol.

[Choking Victim]

I've witnessed the same thing polar. It angers me to no end when someone takes a smoke break while I'm left to do the work that the said smoker was getting aggravated by.

[kid908]

Smoking breaks are really unfair if it only applied to smokers, I have nothing against smokers but getting benefits or discriminated for it just annoys me. Everyone have something they're addicted to, whether it's smoking, alcohol, gaming, music, art, etc. Even with that, I still understand why one might not hire smokers at a hospital. The addiction might effect their performance when it is needed to save a life, but at an office, maybe not; just tell them to do it on their own time, like every other hobbies and personal matter.

What I was concern with when I found this bill was the bullshitiness of the 1 year change. I'd have no problem if they moved it up the age of 21, same as alcohol, but 19, really? WTF is that going to do? If you say they might have friends who are 18 who buy them smokes. Well, I known people who started smoking before high school, and that 1 age gap between 19 and 18 will do almost nothing, if anything at all. They will likely have friends who are older than 19 who would provide it for them.