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

Under 21 in NYC? Buying cigarettes could be out of reach

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,483
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's latest public health initiative would make New York the first major U.S. city to raise the legal age for buying tobacco products to the same age for buying alcohol.

New York put forward a proposal Monday that, if adopted, would make it the first major U.S. city to raise the legal age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 21 — the same age for buying alcohol.

The proposal is part of a decade-long, anti-tobacco campaign by outgoing Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has imposed some of the highest cigarettes taxes in the country, banned smoking in parks and run graphic ads on the hazards of smoking. Last month, his administration proposed a requirement that stores keep cigarettes out of sight unless an adult customer asks for them.

"That will literally save lives," New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said about the new bid to raise the age for buying — but not necessarily using or possessing — tobacco products. "The more difficult it is for (young people) to gain access to tobacco products, the less likely they are to start smoking."

Quinn, a leading mayoral candidate who's pushing the proposal along with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, says 80% of the city's smokers started before age 21.

Although at least four states — Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey and Utah — have raised the legal buying age to 19, the Boston suburb of Needham, Mass., appears to be the only U.S. city so far to raise the minimum to 21. Federal law bans tobacco sales to those younger than 18.

Public health advocates have welcomed the city's leadership in fighting tobacco use, noting its adult smoking rate has fallen from 21.5% in 2002 to 14.8% in 2011 — well below the current national average of 19.3%..

"This proposal builds on the unprecedented progress New York City has made in reducing smoking," says Susan M. Liss, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an anti-smoking group that receives funding from Bloomberg, a billionaire.

Critics have complained that some of the measures are bad for business. Last year, a federal appeals court said the city couldn't force tobacco retailers to display gruesome images of decaying teeth and diseased lungs.

cont at
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/22/new-york-21-legal-age-buy-cigarettes/2104533/
 
IMO, I would keep essentially all drugs* away from children until they are at least 21.
Especially nasty drugs like tobacco!
I support what Bloomberg is doing (at least this time).

* I would exclude caffeinated beverages and chocolate, tylenol, and other drugs that I feel that 18-year-olds should be allowed to use. The LD50 is difficult to reach, and overall harm due to such drugs is minimal. Cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, heroin, MDMA, and other drugs should be freely available after one turns 21, and has had a solid, science-based education without any political involvement.
 
IMO, I would keep essentially all drugs* away from children until they are at least 21.
Especially nasty drugs like tobacco!
I support what Bloomberg is doing (at least this time).

* I would exclude caffeinated beverages and chocolate, tylenol, and other drugs that I feel that 18-year-olds should be allowed to use. The LD50 is difficult to reach, and overall harm due to such drugs is minimal. Cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, heroin, MDMA, and other drugs should be freely available after one turns 21, and has had a solid, science-based education without any political involvement.

I would agree with you except I would hold the age at 27. I bet addiction would go way down. It would have in my case.
 
That is a good idea and surprised the 21 year old age restriction isn't more popular in other states.
Big Tobacco's not going to like this, as many smokers get hooked as teenagers.
 
if the government was consistent with it's views on addiction then legal cigarretes wouldnt even be a thing. personally i think those executives who lied through their teeth about tobacco being addictive and causing cancer should've been publicly executed and tobacco placed in schedule 1 where it rightfully belongs.
 
^Nothing belongs in schedule 1.
I don't see raising the age change a whole lot.
 
Get the fuck outta here!

This bloomberg is a fucking tool. Get him the fuck outta office already!
 
Yes, let's continue with our systematic infantilization of adolescence. Fuck Bloomberg, now 18-20 year olds will have to go all the way to Jersey/leave city limits to get their smokes. 8)

I would agree with you except I would hold the age at 27. I bet addiction would go way down. It would have in my case.

Yeah, 'cause no one smokes until they're of legal age (actually I didn't start until I was, but that was mostly a wanting to move out so as not to be bitched at sort of thing), and making drugs illegal to buy prevents people from getting them.
 
Yeah, 'cause no one smokes until they're of legal age (actually I didn't start until I was, but that was mostly a wanting to move out so as not to be bitched at sort of thing), and making drugs illegal to buy prevents people from getting them.

I was mostly talking about alcohol but yeah cigarettes too. I started smoking in 1975 at age 13 when I could ride my bike to the store and buy a pack of Camels. I'm now battling throat and sinus cancer. It was nobody's fault but mine but if raising the age to 27 would prevent one child from smoking it'd be worth it.
 
This is a good thing.

I know a lot of cigarette smokers (especially on this site) started before they were 18, so I'm not sure if this is actually going to have an effect on lowering the number of people smoking in the 18 to 21 age bracket, but I'm hoping it does. I'm sure I'll catch flack from you proud smokers out there, so feel free to flame me all you need to.

Even if the 18 to 21 year olds just hop online and order vaporizer pens and nicotine solution, that's so much better than smoking cigarettes.

Cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, heroin, MDMA, and other drugs should be freely available after one turns 21, and has had a solid, science-based education without any political involvement.

How would you evaluate someone's education regarding drugs? "Sir, what's the side effects for the drug you're asking for? What is it's action in the brain?" Really though, what would you ask them? Are you going to require adults to pass a drug-taking class or something? If so, would it be like the reverse of DARE?

Fuck Bloomberg, now 18-20 year olds will have to go all the way to Jersey/leave city limits to get their smokes. 8)

Actually, the funny thing is, there will just be cigarette dealers now. In a city like New York City, that's what I'm betting. People who are 21+ will go pick up a carton, and sell loose cigarettes as well as individual packs to the under 21 year old crowd.

What's even better is that there won't be any enforcing of these people, they'll be on the streets and moving, instead of a convenience store with a physical address and location you can go to, so virtually, these people will get away with re-sale of cigarettes to the under 21 year old crowd, and will probably make a fat buck off of it too.

If anything, people who work dope corners/spots (selling base/cocaine and/or heroin) may start selling cigarettes by the pack. I can't wait for NYC Bluelighters to be reporting this (as it'll be a sign I was right). In fact if I was working a corner I'd stock smokes by the pack too, knowing what was coming in the future. The 18-21 year old bracket is big money.

Here's to the future, let's see if my predictions come true.

I was mostly talking about alcohol but yeah cigarettes too. I started smoking in 1975 at age 13 when I could ride my bike to the store and buy a pack of Camels. I'm now battling throat and sinus cancer. It was nobody's fault but mine but if raising the age to 27 would prevent one child from smoking it'd be worth it.

Oh man, I'm really sorry to hear about your throat/sinus cancer. Much <3
 
Last edited:
This isn't going to change much IMO. Most 18 year olds know someone 21 who will buy for them. Hell where I grew up most 15 year olds are everyday smokers. It's all about who you know.

But your all forgetting something. When your 18 your old enough to go to war, prison, get audited, your defined as an adult at that age. So maybe we should think about raising the adult age to 21, since that's the magic number it seems like.
 
But your all forgetting something. When your 18 your old enough to go to war, prison, get audited, your defined as an adult at that age. So maybe we should think about raising the adult age to 21, since that's the magic number it seems like.

My first thought when I read the article. They want it one way, but it's a two way street.

If an 18 year old is too childish to consider the consequences of smoking before deciding to smoke, then they are too childish to consider the consequences of debt and crime, and should not be held accountable as such. Of course that is total BS, but so is Bloombergs idea.:p
 
Top