Oregon considering raising smoking age to 21...

[Strike]

From oregonlive.com


Bill would raise smoking age in Oregon
by Janie Har, The Oregonian
Tuesday March 31, 2009, 8:13 PM

SALEM -- Cigarettes used to be available to just about anyone, with high school students regularly taking smoke breaks.

Then the minimum age of tobacco consent crept up to 18. Now, if some Oregon lawmakers have their way, buying and smoking cigarettes will be limited to people 21 and older.

Likening tobacco to alcohol is just the latest swipe at smoking by health-conscious legislators. House Bill 2974 gets its first airing today in the House Human Services Committee.

"I was a high school administrator, and I saw students at a very young age have an addiction to tobacco," says Rep. Betty Komp, D-Woodburn, the chief backer of the proposal.

Her co-sponsor on the bill, Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, wants to take the restriction even further by making the dizzying drug nicotine available by prescription only.

Two years ago, lawmakers banned smoking in bars and restaurants. This year, they also want to outlaw cigarette vending machines and penalize adults who smoke in cars with children. That idea, made popular by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is up for a committee vote later today.

All of which prompts this from tobacco lobbyist Mark Nelson.

"Why don't you just introduce a bill to ban the sale" of cigarettes, he says. "And then you have one small problem: Where are you going to make up the revenue?"

Good point. Oregon smokers pay $1.18 in state taxes on a pack of cigarettes, and that would jump by 60 cents a pack under a proposal pending in the Legislature. That's on top of a 61-cent increase already approved by Congress earlier this year.

Democrats who control the House appear game. "Any policies that reduce teen smoking," said House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, at a media briefing Tuesday, "are on the table."

Under Komp's bill, it would be a violation for anyone younger than 21 to possess tobacco. Anyone caught selling to minors would merit a $100 fine.

In 1992, Congress effectively made 18 the minimum age for cigarette sales in most states. Some states make the minimum age 19.

Opinions? Comments?

[BacktoBasics]

2nd worst drug behind alcohol.

Its an abomination to be mature enough to die for your country but not be mature enough to decide whether or not to smoke.

I understand the idea is to limit availability in the school systems but this countries habit of taking away the rights of its legal citizens to curb the habit of the minors is nothing more than a glorified way to beat around the bush.

[Spurminator]

Just helps to build more underground/untaxed cigarette distribution.

[Strike]

2nd worst drug behind alcohol.

Its an abomination to be mature enough to die for your country but not be mature enough to decide whether or not to smoke.

I understand the idea is to limit availability in the school systems but this countries habit of taking away the rights of its legal citizens to curb the habit of the minors is nothing more than a glorified way to beat around the bush.

Really? Worse than meth and heroin? I disagree 100%. Though I agree with the rest of your take. If raising the minimum age prevented 18-21's from smoking, fine. But it won't. It will just criminalize the act. And what if you're 18 now and you go from being allowed to smoke to back to not being allowed to? Kind of a mind fuck if you ask me.

[Brutalis]

This doesn't matter. If a 13yo wants to smoke, he will. If a 15yo wants to smoke a blunt, he will. If a 18yo wants to get drunk, he will.

[BacktoBasics]

Really? Worse than meth and heroin? I disagree 100%. Though I agree with the rest of your take. If raising the minimum age prevented 18-21's from smoking, fine. But it won't. It will just criminalize the act. And what if you're 18 now and you go from being allowed to smoke to back to not being allowed to? Kind of a mind fuck if you ask me.There are millions of people who smoke or would casually smoke but never ever consider meth or heroin. Just by that alone I consider it worse.

[BacktoBasics]

Just helps to build more underground/untaxed cigarette distribution.I laughed

[Strike]

There are millions of people who smoke or would casually smoke but never ever consider meth or heroin. Just by that alone I consider it worse.

From that point of view, I see where you're coming from. I was coming from the point of view of physical damage. Meth and smack can fuck you up damn fast.

[SAhoops]

There are millions of people who smoke or would casually smoke but never ever consider meth or heroin. Just by that alone I consider it worse.

Really?? :lol

[BacktoBasics]

From that point of view, I see where you're coming from. I was coming from the point of view of physical damage. Meth and smack can fuck you up damn fast.They all fuck you up to the potential point of death. Meth and heroin could potentially kill you sooner and they impair motor skills temporarily. Thats the only individual differences. Smoking kills millions more if not billions so its far and away more destructive in the big picture.

[baseline bum]

This is stupid. Just make the penalty harsh as hell for selling to anyone under 18.

[Blake]

There are millions of people who smoke or would casually smoke but never ever consider meth or heroin. Just by that alone I consider it worse.

if you talk to the right anti-tobacco group, they might tell you that meth is a gateway drug to tobacco.

[Blake]

This is stupid. Just make the penalty harsh as hell for selling to anyone under 18.

honestly they ought to just do away with an age limit.

what 18 year old can afford cigarettes right now any way, much less a 12 year old?

[Richer]

honestly they ought to just do away with an age limit.

what 18 year old can afford cigarettes right now any way, much less a 12 year old?Raises hand

[mrsmaalox]

You know I looked at it a bit differently. Raising the age restriction is not going to accomplish much, right? But it could be a tiny step to the legalization of marijuana. I know that is not part of the long term plan, but once it becomes a very relevant issue, that's one hurdle already crossed. How much time would be wasted at that time over what age is it legal to smoke what? At least with the alcohol and tobacco age being the same, it's easier to sneak the weed in under the same restrictions. I know, I know, I'm grasping.....:lol

[Blake]

Raises hand

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Hey...

I live if this fucked up state.

Lawmakers everywhere, not just Oregon, have stupid ideas. Why is that news?

[MiamiHeat]

good. anything to help this bad habit die already.

[J.T.]

Really? Worse than meth and heroin? I disagree 100%. Though I agree with the rest of your take. If raising the minimum age prevented 18-21's from smoking, fine. But it won't. It will just criminalize the act. And what if you're 18 now and you go from being allowed to smoke to back to not being allowed to? Kind of a mind fuck if you ask me.

Drinking age used to be 18 and was raised to 19, 20 and then 21 in consecutive years. And I'm not sure what the proportionate death doll for meth or heroin vs nicotine cigarettes is, but I'm willing to bet both of my balls that there are tens of millions more smokers than there are meth and heroin addicts. Without looking with the stats I'm also willing to bet that if you add up the annual death tolls of all amphetamines (including meth), cocaine and heroin, and then multiply that number by 10, it still won't equal the cigarette death toll.

[J.T.]

You know I looked at it a bit differently. Raising the age restriction is not going to accomplish much, right? But it could be a tiny step to the legalization of marijuana. I know that is not part of the long term plan, but once it becomes a very relevant issue, that's one hurdle already crossed. How much time would be wasted at that time over what age is it legal to smoke what? At least with the alcohol and tobacco age being the same, it's easier to sneak the weed in under the same restrictions. I know, I know, I'm grasping.....:lol

Weed will never be legal. The U.S. government has invested nearly 90 years of falsified information about marijuana being harmful to blindfold most people into thinking it really is (or at least making them think potheads are all lazy, unmotivated kids with an addiction to junk food). The cigarette lobbies are probably doing everything they can to block pro-marijuana legislation as that would definitely become an instant competitor for them.

If Christ himself came back to Earth and smoked a joint, even he would be arrested for it.

[Blake]

If Christ himself came back to Earth and smoked a joint, even he would be arrested for it.

He would get crucified for it

[J.T.]

He would get crucified for it

Does any country still crucify its citizens as capital punishment outside of whatever piece of shit KBP is from?

[Don Quixote]

Smoking is stupid and kills you. Everyone knows that. I'm sure every 18-year-old in America know that too. While it is true that few 18-year-olds have acquired the life knowledge and wisdom necessary to always make informed decisions (and end up paying for it in the end), we can't expect to just legislate away their decision-making process. People make dumb choices and pay for it. Tough.

Why not raise the age of intercourse to 21?
Why not dictate that only men over 30 may ride fast motorcycles? It'd be for their good, right?

I suspect this law has more to do with sticking it to Big Tobacco (and getting more of its $$) than with public health.

[Wild Cobra]

I suspect this law has more to do with sticking it to Big Tobacco (and getting more of its $$) than with public health.
Then, when they start going bankrupt, it will be another industry too big to fail... New bailout...

Anything for the demonrats to gain more control over us serfs.

[Obstructed_View]

This is stupid. Just make the penalty harsh as hell for selling to anyone under 18.

That might actually make sales go down. They'd rather just make a symbolic law so they can tell voters they are "doing something". If tobacco is so fucking bad, then they should go ahead and make it illegal. As we've long discussed, look how well that works for everything else.

[Wild Cobra]

That might actually make sales go down. They'd rather just make a symbolic law so they can tell voters they are "doing something". If tobacco is so fucking bad, then they should go ahead and make it illegal. As we've long discussed, look how well that works for everything else.
This isn't about the law, it's about control. The elitists think they know best.

[Winehole23]

21 to puff in Oregon. What is the country coming to?

[Strike]

Hey...

I live if this fucked up state.

Lawmakers everywhere, not just Oregon, have stupid ideas. Why is that news?

Because I live in Oregon, too. It's news to me. Thought I'd share it with the group. If you don't give a crap, don't post.

[Strike]

Drinking age used to be 18 and was raised to 19, 20 and then 21 in consecutive years. And I'm not sure what the proportionate death doll for meth or heroin vs nicotine cigarettes is, but I'm willing to bet both of my balls that there are tens of millions more smokers than there are meth and heroin addicts. Without looking with the stats I'm also willing to bet that if you add up the annual death tolls of all amphetamines (including meth), cocaine and heroin, and then multiply that number by 10, it still won't equal the cigarette death toll.

That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. More people die from smoking than meth and heroin because more people smoke than use meth and heroin. That is painfully obvious. My point was that while cigarettes are bad for you, meth and heroin are probably worse. Most smokers who get sick from smoking usually do so after many years of use. On the other hand, you can do smack or meth for a month and it will not only trash the hell out of your body but it can also do irreversible damage. Generally not the case with tobacco.

[desflood]

Its an abomination to be mature enough to die for your country but not be mature enough to decide whether or not to smoke.

[Winehole23]

^^^Persuasive then, persuasive now.

[Wild Cobra]

Because I live in Oregon, too. It's news to me. Thought I'd share it with the group. If you don't give a crap, don't post.
[/sarcasm]
Actually, the particular fact was news to me too. My point was simply that politicians are always making stupid laws.

What do you think of the changes they made for school zones and changes in the crosswalk laws over the last few years? Bike boxes? You name it, and stupid things are not just in our state.

Where in Oregon do you live?

[Strike]

[/sarcasm]
Actually, the particular fact was news to me too. My point was simply that politicians are always making stupid laws.

What do you think of the changes they made for school zones and changes in the crosswalk laws over the last few years? Bike boxes? You name it, and stupid things are not just in our state.

Where in Oregon do you live?

Didn't catch the sarcasm. Usually I do. And I live in Portland. Milwaukie to be more specific.

I'm not aware of the changes made for school zones and crosswalk laws. I do remember for a short time that the speed limit in school zones was changed to 20 mph at all times instead of "school hours" or "when children were present". That was retarded, in my opinion. Thankfully it didn't last long.

I used to love this state and never considered living anywhere else. I've always been a fan of no sales tax and the bottle bill, especially the addition of water bottles to the standard. But after a few years ago when gay marriage was shot down I thought of Jello Biafra who said "So this is Oregon, huh? TOLERANT OREGON!" I thought Oregonians were more evolved than that. Apparently I was wrong. Now with this whole smoking thing being discussed I am forced to ask myself what the hell is going on in this state?

I continue to fall back on the cliche argument "If you're old enough to vote for your leaders and die for your country, why are you not old enough to have a beer (and possibly a smoke)?

I don't get it.

[J.T.]

That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. More people die from smoking than meth and heroin because more people smoke than use meth and heroin. That is painfully obvious. My point was that while cigarettes are bad for you, meth and heroin are probably worse. Most smokers who get sick from smoking usually do so after many years of use. On the other hand, you can do smack or meth for a month and it will not only trash the hell out of your body but it can also do irreversible damage. Generally not the case with tobacco.

I still disagree with you. Most of the meth and heroin death toll numbers come from ODs. Everyone knows that meth causes massive physical defects, heroin fucks up your veins as well and makes you feel like death, and both of them make you lose your teeth. But get real. A month of moderate use of either of those substances may increase and accelerate the physical addiction symptoms but you won't get meth mouth or have pitch black collapsed veins.

If users did those drugs every day for an extended period of time, of course it's going to quicken the onset of the more noticeable effects. But that kind of frequency is rare. Yes, meth and heroin have potentially more dangerous and hasty consequences of doing them, but you have to do high amounts of the substance, at a high potency and a high frequency. Cigarette smoking across the board is worse, and it has a laundry list of diseases and harmful effects that can occur LONG before getting lung cancer or dying from it.

[Obstructed_View]

This isn't about the law, it's about control. The elitists think they know best.

If they really thought that, they'd have the guts to try to outlaw it. They'd rather bad mouth it publicly, pass impotent laws and take the tax money that it generates.

[Wild Cobra]

If they really thought that, they'd have the guts to try to outlaw it. They'd rather bad mouth it publicly, pass impotent laws and take the tax money that it generates.
Isn't that a type of control?

[Heath Ledger]

I say go for it. This will be great for military recruting just think of the masses of Oregonians signing up to work for uncle sam so they can smoke their cancer sticks.

Brilliant I say....

[Obstructed_View]

Isn't that a type of control?

If by "control" you mean "not actually controlling it" then yes.