• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

California raised its smoking age to 21. That will likely save lives.

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
California raised its smoking age to 21. That will likely save lives.

In California, you now must be 21 or older to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products. That's a bump up from the previous smoking age of 18 — and a massive victory for public health advocates who are pushing for new restrictions on the deadly, addictive drug.

The law "will save countless lives, reduce astronomical costs to the health care system, and cost very little because it uses existing enforcement mechanisms," California Sen. Ed Hernandez, who authored the smoking age bill, said, according to CNN. "Today was an enormous victory for not only this generation, but also for many generations to come who will not suffer the deadly impacts of tobacco."

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law in May. The decision followed Hawaii's move to raise its smoking age to 21, making it the first state to do so. Most states set the age at 18, while some set it at 19. And some localities, including New York City, have already raised their age to 21.

Many people, citing their own experiences smoking and drinking before they were of legal age, are likely skeptical of the arguments for the law. But the research on this point is actually pretty clear: A higher minimum legal age for buying cigarettes really does save lives. Not only that, but the research shows that the logical comparison point — the minimum legal age for buying alcohol — saves lives, too.

A higher nationwide smoking age would save lives

A report released earlier this year by the highly prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) found raising the smoking age to 21 could prevent approximately 223,000 premature deaths among Americans born between 2000 and 2019.

The analysis, which reviewed the available research and used a mathematical model for its projections, concluded that increasing the minimum legal age to 21 would decrease smoking initiation rates by 25 percent among 15- to 17-year-olds, while other age groups up to 21 years old would see smaller but significant decreases. In total, IOM's model projected that the increased minimum legal age would drive a 12 percent decrease in the prevalence of tobacco use by the time today's teenagers became adults.

IOM%20smoking%20report%20chart.png


Richard Bonnie, a University of Virginia professor of health and law who headed the analysis, said delaying when people start smoking is crucial because older people — perhaps more aware of their mortality and the health effects of tobacco — are less likely to initiate smoking. About 90 percent of adults who become daily smokers report first using cigarettes before 19 years of age, and almost 100 percent report first use before 26, according to the IOM report. So preventing people from starting to smoke at a young age could very well stop them from smoking for a lifetime.

The higher legal age for smoking would delay the initiation rate in two ways. Most obviously, it would prevent 18- to 21-year-olds from legally purchasing cigarettes. But it would also have trickle-down effects on younger groups — particularly 15- to 17-year-olds — by limiting their access to friends and family who can buy cigarettes legally. The logic is simple: It's possible that middle and high school students may have access to 18-year-old peers to purchase cigarettes now, but they're likely not going to have as much access to people who are 21 or older, who will likely be in college or living their adult lives.

Older friends and family members "are largely where young people get their tobacco," Bonnie said. "If you raise [the smoking age] to 21, over time we think that's going to have a significant effect on separating these social networks."

The drinking age saves lives, too

Raising the smoking age lends itself to comparisons to the minimum legal age for alcohol. Indeed, several people on social media and Reddit immediately drew the comparison when Hawaii hiked its smoking age.

Bonnie cautions against putting too much emphasis on this comparison. For one, there's a much bigger stigma against smoking than against drinking, which surely plays some role in people's obedience of the age laws. Furthermore, the age policies for drinking and smoking have different goals: Raising the smoking age is supposed to deter people from smoking altogether by delaying their initiation, while raising the drinking age is supposed to stop people from drinking only until they're more responsible adults.

Still, Bonnie notes that the research does show the drinking age works to delay some drinking. "The evidence is overwhelming [that] raising the age reduces consumption," he said. "Even though consumption remains significant among the younger population and increases as people get older, it's still lower than it would be if you lowered the age to 18."

A 2014 review of the research published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs bore this out: Although many young people disobey the drinking age, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it has depressed drinking and saved lives.

"THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING [THAT] RAISING THE AGE REDUCES CONSUMPTION"

The review found the drinking age saves at least hundreds of lives annually as a result of reduced alcohol-age-related traffic fatalities among underage drivers. One study cited in the analysis found the number of fatally injured drivers with a positive blood alcohol concentration decreased by 57 percent among those ages 16 to 20, compared with a 39 percent decrease for those 21 to 24 and 9 percent for those 25 and older, between 1982 and 1995, after the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Other studies had similar positive findings.

Critics of the drinking age commonly argue that it forces youth to drink in secret, which may lead to binge drinking as people stash booze to secretly consume all at once. But the review of the research found no evidence for this, and instead concluded that the national drinking age law reduced access to alcohol and consumption. And New Zealand, which reduced its drinking age from 20 to 18 in 1999, saw increases in drinking among ages 18 to 19 and even bigger increases among those 16 to 17 years old, as well as a rise in alcohol-related crashes among 15- to 19-year-olds.

Cont -

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8838839/smoking-age-drinking-age-works
 
I feel that this bill will be a waste of time. If people want to smoke or drink they will do it regardless of the legal age/legal status of a drug. Although I do want the number of smokers to be reduce.
 
I love this!
I think that this will help lower the number of addicts.
When they are 18-21, people don't have any real understanding that they are mortal. That is the time when you need to get them to fight in wars for oil, for example, risking their lives and sanity for someone else's profit (oh yeah, and some abstract adjectives that don't cost the rulers anything, like "pride" and "glory"). The tobacco companies know that they need to get people addicted early, or else they will wise up and realize how shitty of a drug tobacco is.
My opinion is that all drugs should be legal once someone turns 21, and none (except for things like coffee) before that.
 
i hate this - we allow govt to run everything on our lives - mose as well call it 1984.
 
I love this!
I think that this will help lower the number of addicts.
When they are 18-21, people don't have any real understanding that they are mortal. That is the time when you need to get them to fight in wars for oil, for example, risking their lives and sanity for someone else's profit (oh yeah, and some abstract adjectives that don't cost the rulers anything, like "pride" and "glory"). The tobacco companies know that they need to get people addicted early, or else they will wise up and realize how shitty of a drug tobacco is.
My opinion is that all drugs should be legal once someone turns 21, and none (except for things like coffee) before that.

How delightfully cynical. I love it.
 
I feel that this bill will be a waste of time. If people want to smoke or drink they will do it regardless of the legal age/legal status of a drug. Although I do want the number of smokers to be reduce.

I agree with this. If someone who is not the legal age to smoke or drink alcohol wants to get either tobacco or alcohol they can easily get both.
 
I love this!
I think that this will help lower the number of addicts.
When they are 18-21, people don't have any real understanding that they are mortal. That is the time when you need to get them to fight in wars for oil, for example, risking their lives and sanity for someone else's profit (oh yeah, and some abstract adjectives that don't cost the rulers anything, like "pride" and "glory"). The tobacco companies know that they need to get people addicted early, or else they will wise up and realize how shitty of a drug tobacco is.
My opinion is that all drugs should be legal once someone turns 21, and none (except for things like coffee) before that.
I agree - and to me it's not cynical at all. It's to do with brain development that occurs into early adulthood.
For some of us, our conception of our own frailty and mortality does not kick in until well after we turn 18.
I agree with this. If someone who is not the legal age to smoke or drink alcohol wants to get either tobacco or alcohol they can easily get both.
True, but i think the bigger the age gap between "at risk of addiction" youthfulness and "legal to purchase" age is, the more difficultly teenage kids will have in obtaining cigarettes.
I know when i was 16 or 17, it was easy to get smokes or booze from a kid a year or two older than me - or buy them myself.
But you can buy smokes and booze at 18 here; not a huge age gap.
How many 21+ year olds did i hang out with during my high school years? A few, but not a whole lot.
I dunno, i think this could certainly save lives.
 
I know when i was 16 or 17, it was easy to get smokes or booze from a kid a year or two older than me - or buy them myself.
But you can buy smokes and booze at 18 here; not a huge age gap.
How many 21+ year olds did i hang out with during my high school years? A few, but not a whole lot.
I dunno, i think this could certainly save lives.

I agree. It was a whole lot harder for me to get booze than it was cigarettes. I could just get seniors to buy me smokes, booze was a little trickier. I had some connections, but a lot of people didn't. It was harder to get than pot for sure. I def think it will have an impact on younger teenagers picking up smokes. 13-15 year olds at least. its a shitty habit and I hope it dies eventually. I still vape but I hate it. Its such a waste of an addiction. addiction is supposed to at least make you feel good dammit.
 
Last edited:
This isn't going to save any lives, I could always get alcohol and cigarettes were even easier, though where I live all any kid has to do is cross the border or buy them from the numerous people selling untaxed cis on the street. The last thing we need is more pointless restrictions
 
I have worked in restaurants since I was very young. It was always very easy to get alcohol and cigs from one of the other employees, and it was commonplace to have a shift drink after work no matter the age.

I do believe for the average person it will make it slightly harder to get. I definitely don't believe raising taxes on alcohol or cigs will have a positive impact anywhere on society other than enriching special interest groups.
 
I don't have a problem with restricting legal TOBACCO age to 21.

What I DO have a problem with is lumping medical cannabis devices in with tobacco and tobacco accessories. Nobody smokes tobacco with a RAW or Elements paper. Nobody smokes tobacco with a $10000 bong, not even a $1000 bong. Nobody smokes tobacco out of glass hand pipes with a carb.

Let 18-20 year olds have their cannabis, which they are legally allowed to have with a medical recommendation (under California law).
 
I have worked in restaurants since I was very young. It was always very easy to get alcohol and cigs from one of the other employees, and it was commonplace to have a shift drink after work no matter the age.

I do believe for the average person it will make it slightly harder to get. I definitely don't believe raising taxes on alcohol or cigs will have a positive impact anywhere on society other than enriching special interest groups.

My experience also. When I was 17 cigarettes and booze where just a coworker away. I got shift drinks and people would go buy me beer for a few bucks didn't even think much of drinking really till I was 21.

EDIT: Leave it to California. Give the citizens some freedom with the pot and take away their cigs...
 
If you allowed to be given a gun and sent overseas to kill a dark man then you should be allowed to unwind with a beer and a cigarette
 
Alcohol aside, these lawmakers have sidestepped that argument in ca serviceman are exempt from this law and can still smoke at 18. This is ridiculous once you are 18 and legally an adult you should be free to treat your own body as you like.
 
don't ask, don't tell.

i was under the impression that soldiers were virtuous and not inclined to indulge in vice.

edit - just saw that post, glitter_kiss. are you kidding? that's fascinating.
They changed the drinking-age here to 18 from 21 in the Vietnam War era, for exactly the reason otw mentions above.
I suppose cigarettes are the least of some people's worries, when it comes to risk, in the forces. also, the military has been pushing cigarettes on people for over 100 years. it's a tradition.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do believe I heard the exemption for active-duty servicemen. Probably partially because there's so many military bases in CA.

That's fucked on the AUS drinking age, in the U.S. it didn't become 21 in most places until the 1980s.
 
drinking age was lowered in the 60s, and remains 18. :)
i don't think 21 is used to indicate adulthood for anything here any more. Once you're 18 you're legally an adult.
 
Oh shit, I misread your post.. that's better for sure.

I think alcohol is really the only thing that's 21 in America. Though I think the legal cannabis states have also created a 21 age limit (medical remains standard at 18, with pediatrics considered).
 
The work of educating their kids is on the parents. If you teach, rather than limit, you take away all the mysticism, and "bad" nature to these things. Putting an age limit on it is not going to do anything. Information is what works.
 
Adult or not it's about maturity as well. I don't give a shit if someone under 18 smokes, I sure did. I wouldn't condone it bc I think its a waste. Smoking is a big problem no matter what age you are. The younger you start, the harder it is to quit. By the time someone is 21, had some college, made new friends on a different path, etc, smoking would seem less appealing imo.

Its not about is someome old enough, but mature enough. Not as suspetible to peer pressure whatever. I'm immature AF and I'm in my 30s. Having a better understanding of the risks is huge. Who takes anything seriously at 18 besides over achievers? The dudes that enlist in the army? Lolollo

People make sacrifices and compromises with their health that they are grossly uninformed about. You hear 'everything is bad for you, gonna have,to die somehow, etc...except that not,getting enough air,and,dying,slowly is a horrible death. And yeah we all kmlnow that 105 yo lady that smoked her whole life,and was super healthy.

The war argument...fuck the government sending 18 year olds to war anyway.like they have any clue what they are taking part in. Most think they'll get to play volleyball with Val Kilmer and Tom cruise and fly planes or hook up with hot foreign chicks. They are simply taking advantage of the idealistic patriotism that has been b9mbarded into every American child since,birth.

18 is old enough for some shit. Prob much younger. But we baby everybody and tell them to enjoy their youth. Drink smoke whatever. 21 year olds with serious alcohol and drug issues bc their life never really startee,until 18. enjoy your life. Everybody smokes, drinks, fucks everbody and their mom, go ahead....blah blah blah. But when a 19 year old gets herpes, has mental health problems, or battling a serious addiction, they are going to have a hard life

When a dipper has to remove,their jaw, gets cancer, bc they were using tobacco that's a big deal and most don't know how to deal with adult shit like that. Likewise, the 19 yo that sees his friend blown to pieces is going to have some issues too, people don't know how fucked shit can be.

Fuck tobacco anyway, at least in its,current form with mao,etc, I wouldn't give a shit if it was banned. Like criminals would be growing fields of tobacco to supply the blessed plant to people. I doubt it and I'm not a prohibitionist but this shit is like a bad RC. You think Nbomes or fent should be regulated freely?

Tobacco is a shitty drug, it's a shitty vice, you better Damn know what you are,messing with before you start fucking with it. Its one of my most hated addictions and I started at,like 11. Just vape now but I hate it too, can't quit.

Of course we could all get cigs underage. Were bluelighters and druggies. We do drugs no one has ever heard of but whatever. That doesn't mean everyone can. I'm interested to see how this makes an impact.

Restrictions suck, but tobacc0 has been roping in young users for a long time. I don't think young people should be,punished at all just restricted from purchas9my and see if it helps.

I'm for making the drinking age 16 and up btw or even abolishing it altogether, moderation practice is a good thing. Most people are adults around 16 imo but not mature adults. Good luck moderating cigs tho.

Smoking is a huge health problem in the states and around the world. Who knows how many issues these things are causing people besides the traditional cancer, emphysema and stuff. It's depleting, destabilizing, and one of the worst habits you can have. Period. It's just as bad as crack meth, heroin, etc, as far as what it does,to your body, even worse prob. before I started vaping, I literally could not,get enough, and every cigarette was great. Like 2 packs a day. Its an insidious addiction and one of,the most difficult to quit.

Fuck tobacco and Fuck big tobacco even more. Let them smoke weed instead I say.

I really don't care That much and I see both sides, but I am curious to see if this makes an impact. I wouldn't say I'm all for it, but I get where they are coming from.

Sometimes we can be quick to jump on the stupid gov bandwagon. States like Colorado and California have decent state governments and are genuinely interested in hr imo. Not every state gov is regressive.
 
Top