Hawaii just raised its legal smoking age to 21

This is a good example of changes in laws supervening upon changes in public opinion, rather than vice versa. It's the decrease in social acceptability of nicotine use that's gotten less teens to light up, not tougher laws. This bill was probably some state legislator's resume piece. He had his finger on the pulse of public opinion enough to make a winning bet that this bill would pass.
 
It should be 21 here too in Australia. Fair enough, I know some people want to smoke. When they're mature enough they can take up the habit. I've seen many lives ruined by this dirty habit. E-cigarettes are not nearly as bad, but still, it's nicotine and it's habit forming. At the age of 21 I would think 99% of people would be smart enough to know. At 18, maybe 80%...but 99% is better than 80%.

I think the drinking age should also be lifted to 21. It's not that I'm attacking young people, but there is so much violence resulting from young guys drinking to the point of complete inebriation, and I've heard of so many lives ruined through alcohol fuelled violence. A lot of this could be avoided.

I don't think anyone should be sent to prison for any drug use/possession/buying. But by limiting the use only beyond the age of maturity knowing how these substances will fuck you up if you get on the wrong side of them, is an important step in reducing harm.
 
I have no great love for tobacco or cigarettes but 18 is old enough to decide what you put into your body. If you are old enough to go fight and die for oil in a war on behalf of rich old white men, then you are old enough to buy a packet of cigarettes imho.

Seriously, I get that the brain isn't fully developed until sometime into the 20's, but at a certain point you have to grant individuals autonomy over what they put into their own bodies. What if we found out brains didn't stop developing til 40, should we ban everyone from taking drugs til then if that was the case?

I don't think we should be calculating at what point drugs do the least damage, and telling people they have to wait til then to indulge. That seems like a slippery slope to me, similar to banning diabetics from consuming certain foods just because their body is less equipped to handle it than a non diabetics.

The primary issue with access to cigarettes and any other drug should be acknowledging a person is old enough to make their own decisions. Considering people can go to war and operate a motor vehicle at 18, that seems like a good age to allow people legal access to intoxicants. If you wanted to make an argument that people should be 21 to drink/smoke/take drugs, then imho you have to make pretty much the same argument for joining the military, getting married and driving a car.
 
Flynnal said:
It should be 21 here too in Australia. Fair enough, I know some people want to smoke. When they're mature enough they can take up the habit. I've seen many lives ruined by this dirty habit. E-cigarettes are not nearly as bad, but still, it's nicotine and it's habit forming. At the age of 21 I would think 99% of people would be smart enough to know. At 18, maybe 80%...but 99% is better than 80%.

I think the drinking age should also be lifted to 21. It's not that I'm attacking young people, but there is so much violence resulting from young guys drinking to the point of complete inebriation, and I've heard of so many lives ruined through alcohol fuelled violence. A lot of this could be avoided.

I don't think anyone should be sent to prison for any drug use/possession/buying. But by limiting the use only beyond the age of maturity knowing how these substances will fuck you up if you get on the wrong side of them, is an important step in reducing harm.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
drug_mentor said:
I have no great love for tobacco or cigarettes but 18 is old enough to decide what you put into your body. If you are old enough to go fight and die for oil in a war on behalf of rich old white men, then you are old enough to buy a packet of cigarettes imho.

Seriously, I get that the brain isn't fully developed until sometime into the 20's, but at a certain point you have to grant individuals autonomy over what they put into their own bodies. What if we found out brains didn't stop developing til 40, should we ban everyone from taking drugs til then if that was the case?

I don't think we should be calculating at what point drugs do the least damage, and telling people they have to wait til then to indulge. That seems like a slippery slope to me, similar to banning diabetics from consuming certain foods just because their body is less equipped to handle it than a non diabetics.

The primary issue with access to cigarettes and any other drug should be acknowledging a person is old enough to make their own decisions. Considering people can go to war and operate a motor vehicle at 18, that seems like a good age to allow people legal access to intoxicants. If you wanted to make an argument that people should be 21 to drink/smoke/take drugs, then imho you have to make pretty much the same argument for joining the military, getting married and driving a car.
Click to expand...

I think 21 is a good minimum age to join the military as well.
We get driver's licenses several years before we are adults, where I come from - 15.5 for a permit, 16 for a license - and I don't have a problem with that, though I also wouldn't mind it being pushed back by a couple years (and I bet many fewer accidents would occur as a result).

But your argument - about why laws trying to force people to wait until they have developed brains to take drugs doesn't entirely make sense - is a good one. We can't force people to treat their bodies in the way that we think is best, because they are THEIR bodies.

Still, thinking of my own children, I can't help but hope that they wait. Then again, it was usually the socially-challenged who end up waiting until 21 to try drugs in the world when I was that age, and I would like my kids to fit in with the world around them as well. Hard call.
 
Where I live you get your learners permit at 16, but you have to be 18 to get your probationary licence where you can drive on your own. Even then, there are strict rules like you can have a limited amount of passengers below a certain age, and you are not allowed any alcohol in your system. I believe some states in Australia you can get your P's at 17, but I am not 100% on that.

I have no problem with 18 year old's driving a car, but the point I was making in relation to a car is operating a vehicle can be just as dangerous as taking any drug. What's more, when you take drugs, for the most part you are only placing your own life at risk, when you get behind the wheel of a car you are in a position where you can easily kill several other people. It just makes no sense, to me personally, to say you are responsible enough to engage in an activity that could well result in the deaths of another car full of people, but not responsible enough to light up a cigarette and breathe smoke into your own lungs.
 
drug_mentor said:
If you are old enough to go fight and die for oil in a war on behalf of rich old white men, then you are old enough to buy a packet of cigarettes imho.
Click to expand...

Good point.

The age at which people are allowed to go to war should also be raised to 21.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top