Pipes Magazine » Tobacco Legislation

Search Forums  
   
Tags:  No tags yet. 
[closed]

Raising The Smoking Age

(43 posts)
  1. puffy

    puffy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 2,506

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I read today that our buddy up in the big apple..The outgoing mayor..before he leaves his post wants to raise the age that folks can buy tobacco from 18 up to 21.Don't you just love this guy?

    Life's most valuable treasure is..Love
    Posted 5 years ago #
  2. scrapyardape

    scrapyardape

    Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 267

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sheesh. What a maroon. He may as well just get tobacco declared illegal in NYC so I can go ahead and make a fortune smuggling the stuff into the Big Apple.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  3. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 15,036

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    That is both idealistic and moronic.

    How many kids die or get maimed in accidents when the underage driver is DUI?

    How many kids choke to death from smoking or get beat over the head with a pipe?

    Where should tax money be focused on between the two?

    Gotta love our nannies.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  4. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,488

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    At 18 years of age, you can make your own decision about joining the military, possibly going to war and being killed. But then you can't make your own decision about smoking or drinking?

    Arrrrr, shiver me timbers! International Talk Like a Pirate Day is September the 19th!!!
    Brothers Of The Black Frigate
    Posted 5 years ago #
  5. andrew

    Andy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 2,967

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I remember here in Canaduh me and my friend buying a pack of cigatettes and we were 5 years old and my friend said they were for his mom. I remember us blowing on them, then I tried sucking it, then telling my friend I don't think you're supposed to suck these....... as I coughed up a lung

    Posted 5 years ago #
  6. papipeguy

    papipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 16,187

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    It's still 18 here in Pennsylvania but shop owners are supposed to request ID up to age 27. Why? Nobody knows. This is the kind of stuff that happens when the Pleasure Police run amok.

    Blowin' smoke since 1970.
    Posted 5 years ago #
  7. timely

    timely

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 785

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    If a person can sign up for duty and then possibly be sent to war, as anthony74 has said, then
    by god they can drink, and smoke all they want.
    In my opinion.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  8. ejames

    ejames

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 4,126

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    If a person can sign up for duty and then possibly be sent to war, as anthony74 has said, then
    by god they can drink, and smoke all they want.
    In my opinion.
    [quote]

    +1-- or be eligible for the draft.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. mso489

    mso489

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 25,940

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I think New Yorkers have enjoyed all of Bloomy they can stand. He knows how to get things done,
    but as is true of people in general, sometimes strengths turn into weaknesses when they are
    over-applied. Let's hope the next apple mayor is a good change, and doesn't stay around in office
    too long.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. erichbaumer

    erichbaumer

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 758

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The military service example is always the best, but a point I heard a while ago may be a bit more disturbing. You can't be expected to drink or (apparently) use tobacco responsibly until 21, but it's perfectly fine to drive the vehicles that are one the leading causes of death in this country at 16? Hmmm.

    "I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it." -Mark Twain
    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. jkenp

    jkenp

    Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 207

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Here in Indiana they passed a strict carding law -- since modified.

    When I took a bottle of wine to the checkout, I was carded. No exceptions!!!

    I am 73.

    Thank you, Indiana. In a weird way, it was fun while it lasted. Got a lot of people talking about stupid laws.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. fitzy

    fitzy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,996

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    At this point it's all about his legacy. Between the age limit increase, the stupid soda gate and the no smoking in parks. He doesn't give a damn about the people he only gives a crap about his legacy. Arrogant ahole.

    "These are ghosts that are more at home in a girdle-filled drawer than one of my pipes." Quote by Neil Archer Roan on lakeland ghosts
    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. fitzy

    fitzy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,996

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    jkenp I can understand where they are coming with on that strict carding law.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ctron

    New Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 41

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There have been a lot of great points already made on this thread. As an 18 year old who is in the reserve (NROTC), drives and votes, this law is unnecessary. 18 year olds can voice political opinions but not make the personal choice to smoke? How does that make sense?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. northernneil

    northernneil

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 1,454

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well, all the 18 - 20 year olds had better get out and vote this law / bill down! That is one right theyhavent taken away yet.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. dervis

    dervis

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 1,677

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Military example is always the best. I do want to point out I NEVER see anyone under 18 smoke....

    Point being they cant enforce the current law, so making another one seems to be just a way to have more people to give fines to.

    Here in AL you have to be 19 to buy tobacco.

    "You have to be a man first before you're a gentleman. "

    John Wayne
    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. jkenp

    jkenp

    Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 207

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    fitzy: jkenp I can understand where they are coming with on that strict carding law.

    Really, as I mentioned, I am 73. Can you come up with a reason to card someone so obviously over 18?

    People need to review their gut moves more. So, many laws have come about by opening our hearts instead of using our brains.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  18. murf

    murf

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Good point, dervis. Did changing the age for alcohol from 18 to 19, and then to 21 really do all that much? Didn't stop me and my friends in high school or college. Didn't stop me from having my first taste of skoal at the age of 15 either

    Posted 5 years ago #
  19. petes03

    petes03

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 5,455

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    If you're old enough to drive, which involves making decisions that directly involves other peoples lives, then you should be able to make decisions about your own life!

    Posted 5 years ago #
  20. jeepnewbie

    jeepnewbie

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2013
    Posts: 898

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I too understand the carding law, as you can lose your job to selling either tobacco or alcohol to a minor. Being said, I don't drink other than once in a blue moon (has to be something to celebrate). Last one I had took everything I had to choke down the one bottle I had (god it was nasty). However I have been in the military over 8 years now and seen "kids" as our government wants to call them. Go outside the wire and get IED'd, Morter shot at them, AK's and anything else able to shoot fired at them. They have lost lives, limbs, sanity, and yet they can not drink.

    As Erich stated earlier you can drive at the age of 16. People (not just kids) are texting and driving all the time these days, why not outlaw text phones, cars, the right to drive? This country is tipping over faster and faster.

    "Keep it Classy"
    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. philip

    Philip

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 1,804

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I have an Old Codger card.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  22. sothron

    Perique

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 3,842

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    [remembers last Bloomberg thread,,, bites lip,,, holds tongue....]

    Needless to say, I'm not a fan. But I know someone who (counterintuitively) is.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  23. av8scuba

    av8scuba

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 308

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    We have so many laws and rules (many defying common sense) that they can't be controlled or enforced as it is. Why do we as in "we the people" keep allowing it to spiral down? I know that question opens up a can of worms, but who is finaly going to have a big-enough foot to put it down and say enough is enough?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  24. sothron

    Perique

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 3,842

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    If the conversation is 'Rich' enough, maybe we can get some more opinions.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  25. profpar

    profpar

    Senior Member
    Joined: Dec 2011
    Posts: 331

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    If 18 is old enough to go to war, it old enough to smoke. May be too young to drink. (One doesn't get drunk and crash their car after smoking a bowl). The good news is that moronic nanny mayor is leaving.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  26. briarfriar

    briarfriar

    Senior Member
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 339

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The law raising the legal smoking age to 21 was signed today, and will take effect in May. The Wall Street Journal has it here.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  27. piperl12

    piperl12

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2012
    Posts: 996

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Maybe the problem isn't with changing the smoking and drinking age to 21 but the problem is we should change the age of consent to join the military to 21? All of a sudden our governments won't have kids they can brainwash as easily. Of course I won't hold my breathe for that change because that will not be in the governments best interest.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  28. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 3,311

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Let's hope the next apple mayor is a good change

    He is another douchebag...As if Bloomberg wasn't bad enough..the new mayor elect thinks he didn't go far enough on restricting peoples 2nd amendment rights.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/2 ... 36552.html

    and in his former life...

    http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/guns/home

    Posted 5 years ago #
  29. piperl12

    piperl12

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2012
    Posts: 996

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    They are like a plague trailboss. The only way to deal with a plague is to burn it out.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  30. dryseason91

    dryseason91

    Senior Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 387

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    All due respect but I don't think bringing guns into this is appropriate.

    Tenants of the house,
    Thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season.
    - 'Gerontion'
    Posted 5 years ago #
  31. eazye77

    eazye77

    Member
    Joined: Aug 2012
    Posts: 253

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Doesn't matter if it's raised to 21 or 91, there is always a way to get what you want. I was in clubs drinking alcohol before I was 21. Explain that?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  32. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 3,311

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    All due respect but I don't think bringing guns into this is appropriate.

    A constitutional right is a God given right that precedes the constitution, the right of self defense is a most basic right, directly after the first amendment. If this guy disregards an enumerated right, how do you think he feels about smokers rights that aren't specifically codified in our constitution?

    Or more succinctly, Suzanna Gratia Hupp:

    How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  33. philip

    Philip

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 1,804

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Political Posts Not Allowed

    6. We want to keep it friendly and fun around here. Political threads make it nearly impossible to maintain that type of atmosphere, so they are forbidden ... (unless they have to do with tobacco policies and legislation).

    From The Rules.

    We have a lot of new members and I'd hate to see anyone get started here on the wrong foot.
    I'd like to hear your thoughts on the tobacco legislation.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  34. erichbaumer

    erichbaumer

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 758

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well, that's one hell of a lovely precident.
    (In response to the law passing, not anything about political posting or the related rules)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  35. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 3,311

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There are a lot of parallels in gun rights and tobacco rights legislation, we ignore the strategical attacks to our own doom...case in point.

    In gun rights issues, the control freaks were able to divide gun owners for years...hunters were willing to compromise to restrictions as long as they weren't hurt, so many never saw the "need" for semi-auto guns, magazines with "high capacity", etc...Never mind the fact that the second amendment had nothing to do with hunters rights..it is about individually defending yourself against tyrants and those that would rule you as a subject.

    In smokers rights, cigar and pipe smokers never really lit up on airplanes and buses that I can remember, and the primary focus was on demonizing cigarette smokers, not much was really ever made about cigar and pipe smokers, but as the voice of the cigarette smoker was effectively neutralized politically, those willing to lord their power over you now, can much easier pass anti-pipe/cigar legislation...cig smokers aren't really going to rally to our defense...hell, they have already had their butts handed to them.

    Most people don't know, but after the Tobbacco companies were effectively demonized, and sued, the same lawyers used the template to go after gun manufacturers which would have ended all gun manufacturing and crippled the industry...the difference was, organizations like the NSSF rallied hunters and pro- second amendment groups to fight it, and the lessons of Al Gore losing his home state and thereby lose the presidential election by gun owners, was not lost on the politicians that wanted to keep their jobs.

    It really is about individual rights...the same people that would say you cannot smoke will rally to the defense of another to say "keep your hands off my body"...it really is an Alice in Wonderland attitude.

    'Scuse me while I get my pipe from the Rabbit.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  36. dryseason91

    dryseason91

    Senior Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 387

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I simply think that putting guns and pipes together under the same banner of 'individual rights' is misleading and too much of a generalisation. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a US citizen. No doubt many will consider that as devaluating what I have to say on the issue, but I don't think it precludes me from having an opinion on it.)

    I agree with a lot of the stringent legislation designed to protect non-smokers. Ireland, where I live, was the first country in the world to implement a general ban on smoking in workplaces. By and large, I think this was a good thing: employees, employers, bar-goers, restaurant-goers etc who choose not to smoke (in other words, the majority of the population) have a right to work and socialise in an environment that is not laden with smoke. I would also, for example, support a ban on smoking in cars with children. Certainly these policies have their flaws, and represent a nuisance to smokers, but that's what living together as a society requires: compromise.

    (What I don't agree with, and where the 'nanny state' goes too far, is targeting smokers not on the grounds of protecting non-smokers but on those of protecting the smoker from himself. This includes taxes designed specifically to be prohibitive and/or punitive, and making no distinction between the various forms of tobacco - and, again, as an Irish citizen, I know an awful lot about outrageous tobacco taxes.)

    My point is that I don't oppose SOME elements of tobacco legislation simply on the grounds of individual rights. Rights and liberties (I'd consider smoking a 'liberty', not some elemental 'right') need to be curtailed for any society to work properly. Smokers' 'rights' need to be curtailed to a degree, but equally non-smokers' (or, more specifically, anti-smokers') 'rights' also need to be limited to a place where they are reasonable and logical. My point is - and apologies for the muddled ramble - it doesn't follow that opinions on tobacco legislation and gun control are interchangeable or based on the same fundamental principles.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  37. rebornbriar

    rebornbriar

    Member
    Joined: Aug 2013
    Posts: 260

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What I don't agree with, and where the 'nanny state' goes too far, is targeting smokers not on the grounds of protecting non-smokers but on those of protecting the smoker from himself.

    An excellent point. In the UK what was the point in banning "smoking clubs" (except for the only smoking club that exists in the UK in the Houses of Parliament!). At the British Pipe Smoking Championship last year, the event was held in a marquee away from any buildings. The ridiculous part of the law is that we still have to comply with the "substantially enclosed area" rules and had to leave 50% of the walls of the marquee open. With a cold wind and rain howling in, this isn't particularly pleasant. A satirical example in how they use the legislation to protect smokers from themselves.

    Now they want to extend no smoking areas to include some outdoor areas, like a certain distance from entrances and not in parks etc. Reminds me of the joke where the old Irish man is smoking outside a pub door. The Gard walks over to him and says, "You know it is illegal to smoke within 30 feet of the pub door." The old man replies, "Ah well you see sir, I am drinking in that pub across the street!".

    Alan
    Posted 5 years ago #
  38. dryseason91

    dryseason91

    Senior Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 387

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    That's a good one Reborn And I agree that it's on these irrationally particular points of technicality that such laws tend to make fools of themselves.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  39. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 3,311

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I simply think that putting guns and pipes together under the same banner of 'individual rights' is misleading and too much of a generalisation. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a US citizen. No doubt many will consider that as devaluating what I have to say on the issue, but I don't think it precludes me from having an opinion on it.)

    Certainly one is entitled to his own opinion, I will grant you that, but our government is suppose to be very different than that of really anywhere else on earth, and we have a representative republic, not a Parliament and of course we have a first amendment, 2nd and so on...these are God given rights that man possessed before the founding of the government, we do not derive rights from these articles, they are simply enumerated to tell the politicians that these rights are irrevocable and outside their power to strip us of....incrementally, the American public has allowed overreaching by politicians, that is why we are fighting incremental regulation that encroaches on these rights. In the days of the founding fathers, they would have never even entertained the thought of tobacco restrictions, the mere proposal of it would have been ludicrous. Conversely, the colonist's saw the royal monarch attempt to disarm people and deprive them of the ability to defend themselves from a tyrant. I made that point, because fundamentally if our constitution recognizes the right of the people to bear arms, depriving the same people from smoking is absolutely ridiculous.

    I agree with a lot of the stringent legislation designed to protect non-smokers. Ireland, where I live, was the first country in the world to implement a general ban on smoking in workplaces. By and large, I think this was a good thing: employees, employers, bar-goers, restaurant-goers etc who choose not to smoke (in other words, the majority of the population) have a right to work and socialise in an environment that is not laden with smoke. I would also, for example, support a ban on smoking in cars with children. Certainly these policies have their flaws, and represent a nuisance to smokers, but that's what living together as a society requires: compromise.

    Restrictions in the workplace, I get...However, nonsmokers aren't forced to go into a restaurant, or pub that allows smoking, if a merchant decides to disallow it, smokers aren't required to frequent that non smoking business either...workplace, I understand more... Here in Arizona, all of the Indian casino's allow smoking, no one complains about it...selective outrage at smokers, because the nanny's have no power on tribal lands...follow the money. We do have some political forces here that view compromise as a one way street, they really are cockroaches and need to be treated as such.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  40. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    In before the lock

    Posted 5 years ago #
  41. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Anonymous

    Unregistered

    Posts: 3,311

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    In before the lock

    Maybe so, but if smokers aren't willing to at least discuss the political realities of what is at stake amongst themselves, the anti-smoking crusaders will prevail...maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but prevail they will.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  42. sothron

    Perique

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 3,842

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    trailboss: excellent posts. Thank you.

    I will stay out of it as I have found myself incapable of politely discussing these issues with nanny-state 'banners'. There's simply too much at stake right now to entertain or excuse continued infringements on individual liberties. There's also too much hoplophobia to have a rational conversation on the issue.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  43. pstlpkr

    Lawrence

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 10,210

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Ok...
    I think this has more than run its course.


    "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill
    View Lawrence  Whitcomb's profile on LinkedIn
    Posted 5 years ago #

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

 

 

    Back To Top  | Back to Forum Home Page

   Members Online Now
   jfred, pipestud, chilllucky, sholto, ben88, jiminks, elbert, milehighpiper, tuold, jaytex969, philobeddoe, dcon, ashdigger, pitchfork, rodo, danimalia