Have to be 21 to buy cigarettes(?) ...

by Alexa Smith Banned
16 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
NYC to raise minimum age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 21 - CBS News

"Smokers younger than 21 in the nation's biggest city will soon be barred from buying cigarettes after the New York City Council voted overwhelming Wednesday to raise the tobacco-purchasing age to higher than all but a few other places in the United States."

(Their editing is apparently somewhat lackadaisical: I can hardly believe that "after the New York City Council voted overwhelming Wednesday" is acceptable, even for CBS News website?)

I suppose this will make so much difference to an 18-20-year-old's ability to get hold of cigarettes that that age-group will just have to smoke dope instead?
#buy #cigarettes
  • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
    Well this makes sense.. you can be sent off to war at 18 but cannot buy cigarettes until 21

    would love to hear opposing opinions on this..
    Signature

    Skunkworks: noun. informal.

    A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
    https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    [quoteI suppose this will make so much difference to an 18-20-year-old's ability to get hold of cigarettes that that age-group will just have to smoke dope instead? ][/quote]With all the extra taxes on cigs in NYC it's probably cheaper to smoke pot
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664255].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I didn't even know that the minimum age had been 18 up till now. They raised the drinking age in NY from 18 to 21 a long time ago, I believe back in the 80s. Meanwhile, kids aged 15 and even younger have always found ways to obtain smokes.

    The main benefit to the authorities is that they can now impose more fines on stores that are caught selling cigarettes to underage kids.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664388].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    When I was just out of High School the legal age in MI for alcohol was 21. I went to Germany at 18 where there is no age regulation on alcohol. While I was gone the lowered the age to 19 so when I got back at almost 20, I missed the whole thing. Not sure what legal booze age is there now. Where I bartended it was 21 - and that's what never made sense to me is that you could be in war at 18, but couldn't drink.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664421].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Hmmm ... yes indeed: it's really anomalous that you can go off to war and die for your country, but not buy alcohol or cigarettes (in New York, anyway).

      The minimum age for most of those things here is 18, I think (including getting married without your parents' permission, apart from in Scotland where I think it's still 16). For driving it's 17, which some people feel is too young.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664577].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      When I was just out of High School the legal age in MI for alcohol was 21. I went to Germany at 18 where there is no age regulation on alcohol. While I was gone the lowered the age to 19 so when I got back at almost 20, I missed the whole thing. Not sure what legal booze age is there now. Where I bartended it was 21 - and that's what never made sense to me is that you could be in war at 18, but couldn't drink.
      Well, I think there is a NATIONAL law in the US making it 21. In at least one state, I BELIEVE it is indiana, it is AGAINST THE LAW TO BE A WAITER/WAITRESS unless you are at least 21, if the establishment serves alcohol! You can be a host/hostess, and I believe anything else, but NOT a waiter/waitress.

      As for voting and fighting? Well, kids fight at almost any age. So why not for the armed services? They actually had the 26th AMENDMENT to allow people under 21 to vote. It was passed July 1971 "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8665125].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    There is more to smoke than just dope. Pencil shavings, newspaper, and dried cat poop are just a few alternatives.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664886].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      There is more to smoke than just dope. Pencil shavings, newspaper, and dried cat poop are just a few alternatives.
      Maybe that's why my neighbor has glazed eyes & 17 cats?
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8665109].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    A person is old enough to fight for their country (military) & vote at 18 but they can't drink or smoke until they're 21.

    So basically we trust your adult enough to fight or vote but other than that you're just a kid. :p
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8664922].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    He must've forgotten that 18 is still old enough to vote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8665019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Large populations are easier to control than individual behavior.

    Only the most absurd demands by government on the individual are resisted, but the population doesn't have the will power to resist for long, and will eventually cave in to any and all demands and ultimatums.

    That's why the larger states and cities allow officials to place more and more restrictions on their population, while those same cities and states go deeper and deeper into debt.

    The higher age requirement and the higher minimum price will reduce tax revenue. The cycle of debt will accelerate.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666405].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      Large populations are easier to control than individual behavior.

      Only the most absurd demands by government on the individual are resisted, but the population doesn't have the will power to resist for long, and will eventually cave in to any and all demands and ultimatums.

      That's why the larger states and cities allow officials to place more and more restrictions on their population, while those same cities and states go deeper and deeper into debt.

      The higher age requirement and the higher minimum price will reduce tax revenue. The cycle of debt will accelerate.
      How do you know it will decrease revenue one penny? There are fines to provide outlawed items to minors. And police HAVE been known to entrap people. So a person may come out of a store and give a pack of cigarettes to a person outside that he was told was a minor and may find the person is a cop or acting with cops or watched. And what of costs SAVED from related things.

      You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that states are going bankrupt because they are reducing tax revenue? Some states have VERY little such tax revenue and are doing relatively fine!
      BESIDES, whenever taxes go up, expenses do ALSO, and NOT proportionally!

      BESIDES, if you were correct, the debt would go up SLOWLY, and be independent of change. It is SKYROCKETING, and NOT independent.

      If our debt depends on a whim from an addicted minor, we are REALLY in trouble!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666650].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Ya, high population + low tax revenue + issue bonds = balanced budget. It worked for Detroit, so let's take it nation wide.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      Ya, high population + low tax revenue + issue bonds = balanced budget. It worked for Detroit, so let's take it nation wide.
      I have a BETTER formula! lower expenses=balanced budget! Bonds are part of the problem! THEY increase ABILITY TO SPEND, and the government always spends still MORE! Changing ANY tax component is ********NOT******** predictable! DOUBLE the rate, and you increase failure to report, and desire to get away from it! REDUCE the deductions and you increase failure to report, and desire to get away from it, hurt business MORE, and may hurt OTHER things! Adding new taxes is the same as the above. And population is subject to only ONE reliable fact, *****CHANGE*****! People can die or run away. If people are born or come in, COSTS may go up! The ONLY reliable way to improve things is reduce expenses! Reduce them by $1000/month and you are just about GUARANTEED to SAVE $12000 over a year that you otherwise would not have.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8666955].message }}

Trending Topics