SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
ens and young adults are likely to stop smoking — or never start — if they have to ask those 21 and older to buy cigarettes for them.

That's the premise of research that supports a new plan put forth by Mayor Rahm Emanuel last week to raise the minimum age for buying tobacco.

Experts say the approach is gaining traction around the country after a recent study estimated such laws would discourage smoking at an age when many people first get addicted. Chicago would join a list of more than 100 cities nationwide, including Evanston, to raise the legal age for buying tobacco from 18 to 21.
...
Most states long ago set the legal tobacco age at 18, but a March 2015 study from the Institute of Medicine in Washington, D.C., sparked a new look at the issue.

That study concluded that raising the minimum age to 21 would help delay when young adults and adolescents start using tobacco. Almost 90 percent of adult daily smokers say they began smoking before they were 19, according to the study.

Researchers said 21 as a minimum age would be particularly effective because young people who are unable to buy tobacco are most likely to get the products from friends and peers. It is less likely a 21-year-old would be in the same social circles as high school or middle school students, and thus able to provide cigarettes, according to the report.

The researchers' model predicts that if all states immediately raised the minimum age to 21, there would be a 12 percent decrease in tobacco use among today's teenagers by the time they become adults.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-m … story.html

Raising the age makes sense. I support this. If it is combined with increased fines on places that sell smokes to under 21 people it could be effective. Sure teens will still manage to get cigarettes but we should do more to protect young people from a deadly habit when they are young. Especially since their brains aren't fully developed until they are 21.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
More stupidity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+492|3450
raising the age/making the purchase more prohibitive and tightening the laws around smoking in public have made a HUGE and measurable difference in deterring smoking in the UK. the 'big government' initiatives totally work. so much so in fact that it seems the public's attitude towards smoking has almost completely reversed in the last decade. of course, this isn't all down to the law changing – far from it – but it has definitely galvanised and catalysed that cultural change. deal with it. this shit does actually work. we are petty creatures and we crave big brother mandated taboos.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714
Besides law students, most of my mates who used to smoke have all quit now since it's too expensive and can't smoke in 99% of places now lel.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

uziq wrote:

raising the age/making the purchase more prohibitive and tightening the laws around smoking in public have made a HUGE and measurable difference in deterring smoking in the UK. the 'big government' initiatives totally work. so much so in fact that it seems the public's attitude towards smoking has almost completely reversed in the last decade. of course, this isn't all down to the law changing – far from it – but it has definitely galvanised and catalysed that cultural change. deal with it. this shit does actually work. we are petty creatures and we crave big brother mandated taboos.
Smoking rates have dropped for decades without raising the age of purchase. Teens who want to smoke have still always been able to smoke, just like teens who want to drink find liquor. We need to strongly push back on the prohibitionists, not say 'yeah, well it doesn't effect me so it's probably no harm'. Our 21 minimum for alcohol just criminalizes a bunch of people and encourages them to binge drink.

Hell, raising the age might make smoking rebellious and cool again.

Again, stupid, especially since Rahm is trying to deflect attention from his hyper violent police and impending municipal bankruptcy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717

Jay wrote:

Smoking rates have dropped for decades without raising the age of purchase.
Because we have been raising the taxes and forcing cigarette companies to pay for anti-smoking ads. Stuff we need to continue and do more of.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6630|949

yeah, raising the tax impacts the smoking rates more than raising the minimum age.  Chicago has far more pressing concerns than the smoking rate.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
I don't know anyone who quit because of the cost increase. People quit because they've done a good job advertising the tremendous downside and making smoking uncool. The societal attitude went from acceptance to judgy holier than though almost overnight. I personally got tired of feeling that I had to hide my habit in order to avoid the feeling people were looking down on me. Once the scolds gained the moral high ground, smoking was going to plummet, and it has.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6630|949

It was shown as very effective in Canada, and smoking rates increased once the tax expired.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you regarding negatively portraying smoking and it's impact on the overall numbers, but I like statistics more than anecdotes and immeasurable social pressure.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

Some states let you purchase a handgun at 18. Vermont lets 16-year-olds buy them. Montana lets you carry a long gun at 14. To be fair, Illinois is 21 across the board for firearms, but it goes to show how batshit insane and inconsistent state law can be.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
21 would probably be a good age for someone to buy a gun. People like to bring up how inconsistent it is for 18 year olds to be able to vote but not drink or join the military and not have beer. I can see how someone can get annoyed by it but I think people need to remember that small changes in age for laws have an impact on millions of lives. If you lower the drinking age to 18, there will be a rise in DWIs and fatal accidents. If you raise the age on gun ownership, the amount of suicides, accidental deaths, and murders will slightly go down. More taxes and restrictions on tobacco will make cancer illness go down. I know Americans are obsessed with Freedom but when you get down to the facts, numbers, and tangibles, it is often a very good thing for society to sometimes protect people from themselves.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

SuperJail Warden wrote:

If you lower the drinking age to 18, there will be a rise in DWIs and fatal accidents.
lolno.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717

Cybargs wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

If you lower the drinking age to 18, there will be a rise in DWIs and fatal accidents.
lolno.
???

The effects of drinking age law changes on traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have been studied extensively. These effects are relatively easy to evaluate for several reasons. Each law applied to all drivers in an entire state as of a specific date, so crash results can be compared within the state, before and after the law, and with other states that did not change their law at the same time. Each reduction or increase in a state's drinking age provided a new opportunity to evaluate effects. Finally, evaluations can use large traffic crash data files. In particular, FARS has provided uniform national data on fatal crashes since 1975.

The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." They note that the traffic accident studies they reviewed were high-quality. While the studies used different evaluation methods, they produced "remarkably consistent" results. Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996).
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/rese … caused.htm
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

If you lower the drinking age to 18, there will be a rise in DWIs and fatal accidents.
lolno.
???

The effects of drinking age law changes on traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have been studied extensively. These effects are relatively easy to evaluate for several reasons. Each law applied to all drivers in an entire state as of a specific date, so crash results can be compared within the state, before and after the law, and with other states that did not change their law at the same time. Each reduction or increase in a state's drinking age provided a new opportunity to evaluate effects. Finally, evaluations can use large traffic crash data files. In particular, FARS has provided uniform national data on fatal crashes since 1975.

The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." They note that the traffic accident studies they reviewed were high-quality. While the studies used different evaluation methods, they produced "remarkably consistent" results. Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996).
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/rese … caused.htm
https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/95553f4ed9b60a374a2568030012e707/9d6bf872da173905ca25748e00123519/Body/1.199E!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Most drink driving actually happens around the 20-24 year old mark.

People aged 20-24 years also had the highest adjudication rate of all age groups for dangerous or negligent driving. The rate for men of this age (712 adjudications per 100,000) was about seven times higher than that for women (97 per 100,000).
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected] … ter5002008
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
Okay? There will still be more cases of drunk driving. I didn't say the rate would double or triple or whatever you think.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
I think there should be a minimum age for religion.

Its much harder to brainwash people after the age of 21 than before, we could nip this whole religion thing in the bud, eradicate it during our lifetimes.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


lolno.
???

The effects of drinking age law changes on traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have been studied extensively. These effects are relatively easy to evaluate for several reasons. Each law applied to all drivers in an entire state as of a specific date, so crash results can be compared within the state, before and after the law, and with other states that did not change their law at the same time. Each reduction or increase in a state's drinking age provided a new opportunity to evaluate effects. Finally, evaluations can use large traffic crash data files. In particular, FARS has provided uniform national data on fatal crashes since 1975.

The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." They note that the traffic accident studies they reviewed were high-quality. While the studies used different evaluation methods, they produced "remarkably consistent" results. Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996).
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/rese … caused.htm


Most drink driving actually happens around the 20-24 year old mark.

People aged 20-24 years also had the highest adjudication rate of all age groups for dangerous or negligent driving. The rate for men of this age (712 adjudications per 100,000) was about seven times higher than that for women (97 per 100,000).
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected] … ter5002008
That's America though, most Europeans have got the whole "ZOMG drinking is like so cool" out of their system by the time they start driving, lowering the drinking age might actually be a good thing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
Considering alcholism and alcohol consumption rates are much higher in Europe than the U.S., I don't think we should go in that direction.

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/20110219_WOM582.gif
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Considering alcholism and alcohol consumption rates are much higher in Europe than the U.S., I don't think we should go in that direction.

I highly doubt lowering the drinking age would equal higher alcohol consumption.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Considering alcholism and alcohol consumption rates are much higher in Europe than the U.S., I don't think we should go in that direction.

Europe dumped its puritans on America - do what you like.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6630|949

Cybargs wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135057/U-S-teens-worst-western-world-binge-drinking-drugs-violent-deaths.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … per_capita

Per capita.  Not teens
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135057/U-S-teens-worst-western-world-binge-drinking-drugs-violent-deaths.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … per_capita

Per capita.  Not teens
So Americans drink less and fail more.

Barring smoking in pubs and other public places has really cut it down here, a lot of people seem to be using vapourisers now.

It seems some people are predisposed to become addicted to tobacco.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3717
An outright ban on the sale and smoking of cigarettes might not be such a bad idea. Restricting legal access to something does make it more difficult for people to try it and use regularly. The majority of Americans have zero access to LSD or someone who can buy it for them. Can't go to a store and get it. Which is why only 9% of Americans have tried it over a lifetime compared to 18% of Americans who smoke regularly.

I know people will point to prohibition in 1920's as proof that making something illegal will not stop folks from using it but I think there is a difference between alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol gives you an immediate and strong high and causes little body damage compared to cigarettes which really don't provide a high and will start to damage your body immediately. Only 0.4% of Americans smoked meth in the last year and that gives a very strong high but it is well vilified like tobacco.

However much a ban may upset people's idea of freedom™, getting the regular smoking percentage down from 18% to 10% or 5% will save millions of lives. That is millions of more parents to support their families and millions of more stable households and kids brought up in a good environment. I think we should do it.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Stupid
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard