• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should the legal age to possess, buy, and sell tobacco products be raised from age 18 to age 21?

  • Yes because it is inappropriate for people that age

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes because it is similar to alcohol and can lead to death

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes because family member or friend has died from it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No because I'm already addicted to nicotine

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Should the legal age to possess, buy, and sell tobacco products be raised from age 18 to age 21?
To what end?
I mean other than to make some people obtain feel good feelings that at least something is being done, regardless of how effective it actually is?
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming this is in the US?

I never understood the 18 and 21 legal age limits. What are these numbers based on? Why were these ages, specifically, decided?

I think it makes more sense for age limits in general, especially when it comes to substances which can impair the development of our neurochemistry, to 25 since that is around the age that the human brain begins to fully mature.

That said, I can't say that I find much agreement with prohibition. I do think that temperance is a virtue, but it's not a virtue if you're forced into it. More than that, I think arbitrarily limiting the jobs that teenagers can take on might exacerbate the effects of inherited poverty, although that not a promotion of child labor.

As such, I think the limit on selling tobacco products could actually stand to be lowered 1 or 2 years, depending on the labor laws in the state, and I think that's more important than raising the age to obtain goods that underage minors honestly already have access to regardless of the legal limits.
 
I'm assuming this is in the US?

I never understood the 18 and 21 legal age limits. What are these numbers based on? Why were these ages, specifically, decided?

I think it makes more sense for age limits in general, especially when it comes to substances which can impair the development of our neurochemistry, to 25 since that is around the age that the human brain begins to fully mature.

That said, I can't say that I find much agreement with prohibition. I do think that temperance is a virtue, but it's not a virtue if you're forced into it. More than that, I think arbitrarily limiting the jobs that teenagers can take on might exacerbate the effects of inherited poverty, although that not a promotion of child labor.

As such, I think the limit on selling tobacco products could actually stand to be lowered 1 or 2 years, depending on the labor laws in the state, and I think that's more important than raising the age to obtain goods that underage minors honestly already have access to regardless of the legal limits.
I don't understand the 18 vs. 21 age limits, but it had to do something with the draft during World War II.
My personal stance is that tobacco should be permanently illegal. Tobacco kills about 400x than marijuana, but marijuana is illegal in most states and illegal federally. The point is marijuana is safer than tobacco so why is tobacco still legal at all?
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
I'm assuming this is in the US?

I never understood the 18 and 21 legal age limits. What are these numbers based on? Why were these ages, specifically, decided?

I think it makes more sense for age limits in general, especially when it comes to substances which can impair the development of our neurochemistry, to 25 since that is around the age that the human brain begins to fully mature.

That said, I can't say that I find much agreement with prohibition. I do think that temperance is a virtue, but it's not a virtue if you're forced into it. More than that, I think arbitrarily limiting the jobs that teenagers can take on might exacerbate the effects of inherited poverty, although that not a promotion of child labor.

As such, I think the limit on selling tobacco products could actually stand to be lowered 1 or 2 years, depending on the labor laws in the state, and I think that's more important than raising the age to obtain goods that underage minors honestly already have access to regardless of the legal limits.

Eh... Not so sure I agree on your child labor take. Making it easier for companies to exploit younger people for profit doesn't sound like such a great prospect to me - especially when we've already seen how that manifests in history. I'd like to see refocusing efforts on strengthening unions so people can bargain for higher wages and more protections against those greedy corporations so families can have more disposable funds to help alleviate themselves from poverty, imo. Not sure that there's a better way out there than that, that I'm aware of
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Eh... Not so sure I agree on your child labor take. Making it easier for companies to exploit younger people for profit doesn't sound like such a great prospect to me - especially when we've already seen how that manifests in history. I'd like to see refocusing efforts on strengthening unions so people can bargain for higher wages and more protections against those greedy corporations so families can have more disposable funds to help alleviate themselves from poverty, imo. Not sure that there's a better way out there than that, that I'm aware of
That's not going to happen, though.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Should the legal age to possess, buy, and sell tobacco products be raised from age 18 to age 21?
It is self-evident that the age at which society judges a human being old enough to be appropriated involuntarily for warfare is the age at which he can enjoy all rights reserved for adult-level judgment. Any other course is an abuse of rights on the part of society.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It is self-evident that age at which society judges a human being old enough to be appropriated involuntarily for warfare is the age at which he can enjoy all rights reserved for adult-level judgment. Any other course is an abuse of rights on the part of society.

There's some truth in this.
We can raise the age for soldiering, of course, but expecting people to be old enough to kill and be killed on command, but not old enough to decide whether they want to use a perfectly legal product is somewhat perverse.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
There's some truth in this.
We can raise the age for soldiering, of course, but expecting people to be old enough to kill and be killed on command, but not old enough to decide whether they want to use a perfectly legal product is somewhat perverse.
I agree. I'm curious to know what part of the idea you wouldn't consider to be truth? ("some truth in this") I'm not asking to find fault; I'm genuinely curious to know if you would include some other qualifier, etc.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. I'm curious to know what part of the idea you wouldn't consider to be truth? ("some truth in this") I'm not asking to find fault; I'm genuinely curious to know if you would include some other qualifier, etc.

Mostly just a turn of phrase to be honest. There are some age limits that aren't really related to mere adulthood, but more to having time to acquire life experience (I think).
An example is that you need to be 35 to be the President. I'm not sure what my opinion is on that, but I guess there is a line there where you're old enough to kill on an individual level, but not old enough to have access to a nuclear arsenal. Or something.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Mostly just a turn of phrase to be honest. There are some age limits that aren't really related to mere adulthood, but more to having time to acquire life experience (I think).
An example is that you need to be 35 to be the President. I'm not sure what my opinion is on that, but I guess there is a line there where you're old enough to kill on an individual level, but not old enough to have access to a nuclear arsenal. Or something.
Understood. I think we all have to admit that any age selected is arbitrary.

Either way, for my part, if a person is mature enough to be ordered to die for his country (which government cannot lawfully do), that person is mature enough to participate civilly on all levels, including the presidency. Else he is not afforded equal protection of the laws, which is his civil right.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Tobacco smoking should be banned completely. We are currently likely to be getting a new generation of people addicted to vaping - and this has hardly been proven to be safe, and apparently is already showing signs of causing health problems, many of which could be just as long-term as those caused by smoking from an early age. I tried to persuade my early friends (from school) to stop smoking (unsuccessfully), given that the link between smoking and lung cancer had been made by then. But the main point, as per vaping, is that if one smokes one is just wasting money that could be spent elsewhere and which is hardly nominal. Just a silly habit. :eek:
 
Last edited:

Friend of Mara

Active Member
Either you are an adult at 18 or not. We shouldn't have a drinking age of 21 either. It should be 18 like the rest of the world as well. Either make it outright illegal or let adults do it. I'm not a fan of half measures and impotent safety standards. Same with guns.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Should the legal age to possess, buy, and sell tobacco products be raised from age 18 to age 21?

No. If we're going to claim that we have a free society, we have to make some effort to demonstrate that. If we're unwilling to practice what we preach, then that will have its own consequences.
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
That's not going to happen, though.

Eh... I don't think it's such an outlandish prospect, though it is an uphill battle since the political messaging has been anti-union for a very long time now. It's gotten so bad that people in the USA don't even know what May Day actually is. They think it's something you say when a plain is going down

That said, more and more people are unionizing lately. It's a trend that I hope gains momentum, and I hope our country continues on it's path to stop normalizing union busting and demonizing unions, but we'll see

 
Tobacco smoking should be banned completely. We are currently likely to be getting a new generation of people addicted to vaping - and this has hardly been proved to be safe, and apparently is already showing signs of causing health problems, many of which could be just as long-term as those caused by smoking from an early age. I tried to persuade my early friends (from school) to stop smoking (unsuccessfully), given that the link between smoking and lung cancer had been made by then. But the main point, as per vaping, is that if one smokes one is just wasting money that could be spent elsewhere and which is hardly nominal. Just a silly habit. :eek:
I've been saying this point exactly for over a decade now. Great response Mock Turtle!
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Other: I don't care.

Or rather, if I had to pick a food and drug issue to focus on, it wouldn't be this one. We've had decades of industry marketing candy to children for breakfast and they've gotten a free pass on this - to disastrous effects that eclipse those of nicotine products. Where's the regulation? Nowhere to be found, apparently.
 
Top