The logic on this doesn't make sense. From age 17-20, people can defend
our country but in doing so, can not smoke? How about this one: a convicted
killer, age 20, is about to be executed and his last wish is to have a
cigarette. Of course it would be refused as it is not healthy for him to do so
and is against the law. Lastly, how much tax revenue would Utah lose by raising
the age limit to 21?
So, some legislators think that young men and women who have reached the age of
18 are ill-informed, and unable to make sound decisions, and therefore need to
be protected from doing anything which may not be in their long term best
interests?I might agree to that, if the bill will also include
raising the voting age from 18 to 21. If youngsters cannot be trusted to figure
out not to smoke, then they darn sure cannot be trusted to vote for public
officials. Elected officials can do far worse long term harm to people than
mere smoking, so let's REALLY protect the youth of our state!If
not willing to raise the voting age as part of the bill, then just forget it as
another nanny state "control" grab.
Whether the law is good or not, a chilling statistic I heard recently said that
for every year you smoke, you lose 305 days off of your life. It's almost
a year of smoking is literally a year lost of life.
I agree with Davis. If, as the column says, addiction occurs after the age of
20 or 21 then why not raise the age to 25 or 30 ?
Sure smoking is dangerous to your health but breathing through the mouth is
worse. take a look around, see how many people do breath through their mouth and
not their nose. The dry air that isn't moistened through the nose drys the
lungs causes the lungs to crack. All the unfiltered air goes into the lungs,
If a person is old enought to vote to go to war, then such a law whether it be
beer or cigarettes is wrong. Besides, somebody gotta pay for all these programs
supported by the tax.
I don't smoke. Think smoking is one of the dumber habits out there.
Personally wished no one smoked.But...There is no way on
one had you deem someone old enough to sign on the dotted line, enroll in the
military to serve their country, and literally put their life in harms way....
and yet can't choose to smoke because benevolent lawmakers feel letting you
do this is just to risky.I find situations like this, which I feel
is a clear encroachment on your right to choose t be stupid. To this same
group, ObamaCare is an over reach of government - mandating people take care of
their own health needs. This same group though feels that in the case of
smoking... it is their responsibility and right to think for you.Again.... I don't agree with smoking. But either you have a right to
choose, or not. Lets be consistent.
I thought the Republicans didn't like the "nanny state." Guess I
These same lawmakers want to lower the age to buy a handgun to 18, but raise the
age to buy a cigarette. How can they say that restrictions on cigarettes will
stop smoking but similar restrictions on guns will have no effect? You can
enroll in the military at 18. You can be sent to an adult prison for a life
sentence at 14. But you are not old enough to smoke? Really?
Odd, I don't see all those commenter who were just yesterday talking about
how regulating trans fats is one step away from concentrations campsA Conservative poster said: "Liberals that can justify the massacre of the
innocent unborn could easily justify dissident "re-education" camps, or
labor gulags, or concentration camps, to straighten out us poor, benighted
conservatives. After all, liberal "compassion" has only our best
interest at heart."Another Conservative poster said:
"Everything about progressivism attempts to eliminate freedom and replace it
with some rules formed by a group of bureaucrats who are steeped in their own
personal ideology....completely opposite from the American bill of rights.
Everything about extreme socialist societies (China, the old USSR, the old east
Germany, Cuba etc…)"Please, where's the outrage now?
How about enforcing the current law? There are plenty of convenience stores who
will gladly sell cigarettes to minors. Like most, my son got hooked as a young
teen. Thanks in part to retailers who would package them in a plastic bag at
three for a dollar, he remained addicted for several years. No ID required.
Happy Valley HereticOrem, UTOdd, I don't see all those
commenter who were just yesterday talking about how regulating trans fats is one
step away from concentrations camps.====== That's
because they are hypocrites!They say "freedom" and
"ban" in the exact same breath, and can't tell the
difference.As for me?I say -- Let them smoke, Let them smoke pot for all I can.It's a free country,
isn't it?(unless you are a prude).
For all of the posters up to this point, why don't we take away all laws.
They are all so restrictive and take away all of our choices.Or do
we look for the common sence and say that whatever will keep harmful substances
out of anyone's hands for as long as possible is a good thing.Again, according to all the previous posters, the common sence way of doing
things is wrong.
@WRK Nope that's the NRA. "Again, according to all the previous
posters, the common sence (sic) way of doing things is wrong."Common sense would dictate, that if we as a society have decided that the age
of consent and recognition as an adult is 18, than to have age restrictions on
anything be it alcohol or smokes after reaching adulthood is just religious
bias. As pointed out earlier if you can die for your country, than your
country can surely treat you as an adult.or raise the age of consent
to 21, but having it both ways, is hypocritical.
This is a public health issue, not a political debate. Anything that discourages
tobacco use benefits individuals and society.
@WRK.... like said before... no one is saying we shouldn't have laws. Just
that they should be consistent. We have age's of consent raging from 16 to
get married, 18 to go to war, 21 to drink... Government has more
paradoxes then there are books in a library. Somehow China is a most favored
nation... Saudi Arabia doesn't have human rights issues.... and Cuba
represents such a threat that we have had an embargo against them now for 50
years - which is about to work any day now.
WRKRiverton, UTFor all of the posters up to this point, why
don't we take away all laws. They are all so restrictive and take away all
of our choices.Or do we look for the common sence and say that
whatever will keep harmful substances out of anyone's hands for as long as
possible is a good thing.Again, according to all the previous
posters, the common sence way of doing things is wrong.11:00 a.m.
Nov. 19, 2013======== The irony is the radical right who
scream "freedom", and patriotic chats about Government interfering with
private "rights" day and night, and are then the very same people
to turn right around and ban smoking.Oh, and BTW -- they also shrill
about the evils of Obamacare, and personal choice, and choosing good
health habits, blah, blah, blah, and this is even MORE restrictive than
evil Socialist Obamacare?....
"Utah lawmakers raised the age to make it clear that high school students
couldn't legally smoke on campus."I guess these legislators
were absent when the laws were passed prohibiting smoking in public buildings.
When have high school kids EVER been allowed to smoke on campus?The
start of the "message bill" session has begun.More Big
Government into our private lives brought to you by your REPUBLICAN legislators.
Next, more ways to increase taxes and fees while maintaining that they are the
party of keeping government out of our personal lives and that they are against
Liberal logic makes no sense.What does smoking or drinking have to
do with voting or defending ones country?Absolut3ely nothing!The law is a good one, especially from a health stand point.If it is okay to out law trans fats,no one should have any problem
with stronger regulations of poisons and toxins like alcohol and tobacco.