Jump to content
GoDuBois.com
Sign in to follow this  
mr.d

Pa. Moves To Raise Cigarettes, Tobacco Age To 21

SPONSOR:  

Recommended Posts

This legislation certainly won't hurt anyone, especially if it gets a kid to the age that he understands the dangers, values his money a bit more, and has less peer pressure to smoke.  It won't affect kids who are determined to do it and haven't a care beyond today, but at least they will have a better deterrent if they choose to use it.


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, conservativeman633 said:

"class of People" ???

A class of people is any group set aside as being better, lessor, or different than others.   Any law that restricts, exempts, protects, etc anyone differently than others is a violation of the 14A Section 1.

Laws are to apply equally regardless of age, gender, race, religion, LEO, disability, etc, etc, etc.
 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dubois_15801 said:

A class of people is any group set aside as being better, lessor, or different than others.   Any law that restricts, exempts, protects, etc anyone differently than others is a violation of the 14A Section 1.

Laws are to apply equally regardless of age, gender, race, religion, LEO, disability, etc, etc, etc.
 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes---that's nice.

Now,  what 'class' are you referring to ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, conservativeman633 said:

Yes---that's nice.

Now,  what 'class' are you referring to ???

Those in the military, or have been honorably discharged.

The law provides an exemption for the <21yo requirement.  ...for those in the service, or have been honorably discharged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This legislation certainly won't hurt anyone, especially if it gets a kid to the age that he understands the dangers, values his money a bit more, and has less peer pressure to smoke.  It won't affect kids who are determined to do it and haven't a care beyond today, but at least they will have a better deterrent if they choose to use it.

This is for the protection of the young who haven't yet found out that they don't bounce back, or can be rescued from everything.  It takes   while for that to dawn on them.  This will just give them a little extra time to consider their options BEFORE they become addicted.


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 2:55 PM, fedup said:

I kept my fingers still for 2 days. Might be a record.

Now think real hard people, the very same group of people who wants to control a person's decisions to smoke until they are 21 wants 16 year old kids to have the right to vote for the leaders of the nation.

Go figure

The Republicans want 16 year old voters??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Petee said:

This legislation certainly won't hurt anyone, especially if it gets a kid to the age that he understands the dangers, values his money a bit more, and has less peer pressure to smoke.  It won't affect kids who are determined to do it and haven't a care beyond today, but at least they will have a better deterrent if they choose to use it.

This is for the protection of the young who haven't yet found out that they don't bounce back, or can be rescued from everything.  It takes   while for that to dawn on them.  This will just give them a little extra time to consider their options BEFORE they become addicted.

This is not going to stop those that want to smoke.  It will simply make an extra hurdle to legally purchasing them. 

We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.  Proper parenting could accomplish a lot of what the nanny state attempts to do.   It has been proven over the years that smoking causes/contributes to lung cancer and yet people still choose to voluntarily inhale that garbage into their bodies.  Can't fix stupid. 


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, disgruntled said:

This is not going to stop those that want to smoke.  It will simply make an extra hurdle to legally purchasing them. 

We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.  Proper parenting could accomplish a lot of what the nanny state attempts to do.   It has been proven over the years that smoking causes/contributes to lung cancer and yet people still choose to voluntarily inhale that garbage into their bodies.  Can't fix stupid. 

YEP, one law after another and I still see crackheads of all ages on a daily basis. Their in the kitchens of your favorite eating place. They are behind the bar slinging your favorite drinks at you. Some are in the vehicle next to you or behind or in front of you. They most likely have no license, registration or insurance. Those that have been caught and released way too many times resort to riding their skateboard to work after they hit up to get enough energy. Nothing more positive in your life than seeing a 30 or 40 something person on a skate board.

Drugs are the Number one problem in this country. Dumb people like me, that smokes cigs, are way down the list of this Nations problems.


       THE WINDMILL IS LIBERALISM.

       MY QUEST----------REMOVE LIBERALISM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

                                      ALONG WITH EXPOSING THE TPD FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, disgruntled said:

This is not going to stop those that want to smoke.  It will simply make an extra hurdle to legally purchasing them. 

We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.  Proper parenting could accomplish a lot of what the nanny state attempts to do.   It has been proven over the years that smoking causes/contributes to lung cancer and yet people still choose to voluntarily inhale that garbage into their bodies.  Can't fix stupid. 

It affects others, so the government has a duty to step in......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 11:36 PM, conservativeman633 said:

It affects others, so the government has a duty to step in......

I vehemently disagree.  The government does not have the duty to stop me from doing stupid things that harm myself if I am legally an adult.  If I'm legally an adult at 18, and can now vote in elections, join the military, play the lottery, get a tattoo, get married without parental consent, be on a jury, own a gun, own a car, buy a house, and legally enter into a contract;  I should be permitted to purchase a cigarette if I want to. 

That being said, I agree that there should be laws to protect others from the damage I cause to myself.  For instance, I shouldn't be able to drive my car, while smoking, if there are minors in the car. 


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 10:36 PM, conservativeman633 said:

It affects others, so the government has a duty to step in......

Free speech affects others.

So should your government step in and stop it so people don't get their feelings hurt?


       THE WINDMILL IS LIBERALISM.

       MY QUEST----------REMOVE LIBERALISM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

                                      ALONG WITH EXPOSING THE TPD FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, disgruntled said:

I vehemently disagree.  The government does not have the duty to stop me from doing stupid things that harm myself if I am legally an adult.  If I'm legally an adult at 18, and can now vote in elections, join the military, play the lottery, get a tattoo, get married without parental consent, be on a jury, own a gun, own a car, buy a house, and legally enter into a contract;  I should be permitted to purchase a cigarette if I want to. 

That being said, I agree that there should be laws to protect others from the damage I cause to myself.  For instance, I shouldn't be able to drive my car, while smoking, if there are minors in the car. 

Health problems caused by smokers are often paid for by tax payers.  Taxpayers(citizens) are, in effect, the government.  Citizens, therefore, may decide, through their elected representatives, to curb smoking a bit...………..people have the right/duty to change things of this sort when they are being affected, in this case negatively...….smoking therefore, in my opinion, should be discouraged as much as possible, within reason,,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, conservativeman633 said:

Health problems caused by smokers are often paid for by tax payers.  Taxpayers(citizens) are, in effect, the government.  Citizens, therefore, may decide, through their elected representatives, to curb smoking a bit...………..people have the right/duty to change things of this sort when they are being affected, in this case negatively...….smoking therefore, in my opinion, should be discouraged as much as possible, within reason,,,,

Increasing the legal age for smoking by 3 years is only a "feel good" measure so that people can pretend elected officials are actually doing something.  It doesn't stop the problem. 

That being said, I agree that smoking should be discouraged overall.  But splitting hairs over what makes something illegal for a LEGAL adult simply because they haven't made as many trips around the sun is ludicrous. 


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, disgruntled said:

Increasing the legal age for smoking by 3 years is only a "feel good" measure so that people can pretend elected officials are actually doing something.  It doesn't stop the problem. 

That being said, I agree that smoking should be discouraged overall.  But splitting hairs over what makes something illegal for a LEGAL adult simply because they haven't made as many trips around the sun is ludicrous. 

But it helps solve the problem far more than doing nothing....right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, conservativeman633 said:

But it helps solve the problem far more than doing nothing....right?

 

No.  It doesn't.   Doing something just for the sake of doing something is a waste of our tax dollars.  That money would have been better spent in an advertising campaign showing the harmful effects of smoking than making it "illegal" for a LEGAL ADULT ( I don't think I can stress the words LEGAL ADULT  enough to get the point across) to purchase a pack of cigarettes.  The act of tossing that little exception for military proves to me, that they see the folly in this "attempt" to "stop" smoking and to combat the "I can go to war, but I can't buy cigarettes?" argument. 

"Ohh... the nanny state says  I have to wait three more years to legally purchase cigarettes?  Maybe I should not smoke at all?"  <that's not how it's going to work.   You know what's going to happen?  More cigarettes are going to be stolen.  So we replaced a self-harm "crime" with a real crime.  Congratulations.


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen how well making the drinking age 21 has worked to stop underage drinking and how well the illegal drug laws have stopped kids from using them. This deal will be the same way.

This is just another cash grab for the State of PA to dump in to their coffers to piss away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, disgruntled said:

No.  It doesn't.   Doing something just for the sake of doing something is a waste of our tax dollars.  That money would have been better spent in an advertising campaign showing the harmful effects of smoking than making it "illegal" for a LEGAL ADULT ( I don't think I can stress the words LEGAL ADULT  enough to get the point across) to purchase a pack of cigarettes.  The act of tossing that little exception for military proves to me, that they see the folly in this "attempt" to "stop" smoking and to combat the "I can go to war, but I can't buy cigarettes?" argument. 

"Ohh... the nanny state says  I have to wait three more years to legally purchase cigarettes?  Maybe I should not smoke at all?"  <that's not how it's going to work.   You know what's going to happen?  More cigarettes are going to be stolen.  So we replaced a self-harm "crime" with a real crime.  Congratulations.

If I remember correctly the military used to hand out some smokes to the soldiers along with candy bars.


       THE WINDMILL IS LIBERALISM.

       MY QUEST----------REMOVE LIBERALISM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

                                      ALONG WITH EXPOSING THE TPD FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, disgruntled said:

No.  It doesn't.   Doing something just for the sake of doing something is a waste of our tax dollars.  That money would have been better spent in an advertising campaign showing the harmful effects of smoking than making it "illegal" for a LEGAL ADULT ( I don't think I can stress the words LEGAL ADULT  enough to get the point across) to purchase a pack of cigarettes.  The act of tossing that little exception for military proves to me, that they see the folly in this "attempt" to "stop" smoking and to combat the "I can go to war, but I can't buy cigarettes?" argument. 

"Ohh... the nanny state says  I have to wait three more years to legally purchase cigarettes?  Maybe I should not smoke at all?"  <that's not how it's going to work.   You know what's going to happen?  More cigarettes are going to be stolen.  So we replaced a self-harm "crime" with a real crime.  Congratulations.

I would recommend that this would be a great time to decide to quit a bad habit....agree?   Make something positive out of it...??   Save money and health..!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fedup said:

If I remember correctly the military used to hand out some smokes to the soldiers along with candy bars.

Smoking just happens to be a very efficient method of delivering nicotine.  Nicotine has been shown to offer increases in focus, decision-making ability, and concentration, as well as having a calming effect.  Theses effects would be most beneficial to a soldier in battle.  A higher rate of smoking seen kids and adults with ADHD and other mental diseases may be a form of self-medication, as nicotine can improve their mental function.  Anyways, handing out smokes to soldiers may have unknowingly been drugging up soldiers to ready them for battle!

Another interesting thing is chewing tobacco has essentially no effect on risk of developing oral cancer.  Chewers and non chewers have the same risk factor...about 1 to 3 per 100,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Illiterate said:

Smoking just happens to be a very efficient method of delivering nicotine.  Nicotine has been shown to offer increases in focus, decision-making ability, and concentration, as well as having a calming effect.  Theses effects would be most beneficial to a soldier in battle.  A higher rate of smoking seen kids and adults with ADHD and other mental diseases may be a form of self-medication, as nicotine can improve their mental function.  Anyways, handing out smokes to soldiers may have unknowingly been drugging up soldiers to ready them for battle!

Another interesting thing is chewing tobacco has essentially no effect on risk of developing oral cancer.  Chewers and non chewers have the same risk factor...about 1 to 3 per 100,000.

I used to dip and smoke at the same time. Managed to give up the dip but not the cigs.


       THE WINDMILL IS LIBERALISM.

       MY QUEST----------REMOVE LIBERALISM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

                                      ALONG WITH EXPOSING THE TPD FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...