If you can vote and die in a war at 18 you should be able to smoke, drink, gamble and everything else. Doesn't make sense to me, its not like people magically mature between 18 and 21 and suddenly start making more intelligent, thought out decisions about their health and life.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lawmakers vote to make California the second state to raise smoking age to 21
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The human brain isn't done maturing until the mid 20s. The parts of your brain that stops you from doing stupid things isn't full matured, nor is the part that helps you feel empathy for others, nor the part that keeps you from blowing up at small stressors.
Beyond that, certain substances are very damaging to the growing brain. Marijuana use in teen years hugely increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, for example.
Damn.
How about MDMA causing depression later in life due to the serotonin levels.
John Kowalski
Banned
If you can vote and die in a war at 18 you should be able to smoke, drink, gamble and everything else. Doesn't make sense to me, its not like people magically mature between 18 and 21 and suddenly start making more intelligent, thought out decisions about their health and life.
Again, this isn't about how intelligent someone is at 18 or 21 or 24 or 27 or the summation of any number by three. They don't want people smoking at least until they're 21. That's mitigation (i.e. harm reduction).
If you can vote and die in a war at 18 you should be able to smoke, drink, gamble and everything else. Doesn't make sense to me, its not like people magically mature between 18 and 21 and suddenly start making more intelligent, thought out decisions about their health and life.
They don't magically mature, they biologically mature.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs
A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age.
State Laws are weird and inconsistent. Blow your head off with a shotgun at 18 but a cancer stick, not until you're 21, when you can smoke while holding your hand gun like a thug.
In that case it probably has something to do with the fact that rifles and shotguns have legitimate uses for hunting, whereas handguns are literally only useful for killing other human beings.
Again, this isn't about how intelligent someone is at 18 or 21 or 24 or 27 or the summation of any number by three. They don't want people smoking at least until they're 21. That's mitigation (i.e. harm reduction).
Well I find that people who make bad decisions and don't think things through at 18 won't do that at 21 or even 25 or 30. Not only that but again, if they trust you with the right to vote or to fight in the military, those are both incredibly harmful to a person or persons. You can easily be killed or traumatically fucked in the head by the battlefield and if you vote like a complete dumb ass for people like Trump and Cruz thus I think you should be able to smoke and drink if you really want to.
They don't magically mature, they biologically mature.
My point as I said above is that a few years doesn't make your decision making process any better. That's something that's being built up and developed since you're an infant. Its my own personal experience but people don't change that much in my eyes. It does happen but its far rarer than most people taking the same track they took when they were a teenager.
John Kowalski
Banned
Well I find that people who make bad decisions and don't think things through at 18 won't do that at 21 or even 25 or 30. Not only that but again, if they trust you with the right to vote or to fight in the military, those are both incredibly harmful to a person or persons. You can easily be killed or traumatically fucked in the head by the battlefield and if you vote like a complete dumb ass for people like Trump and Cruz thus I think you should be able to smoke and drink if you really want to.
They don't need to know what any one individual will do, they have data about e.g. how and when people start smoking. If you have, say, 70% of long term smokers beginning to smoke when they're 18 (or, out of highschool), then upping the age limit will hopefully diminish the number of long term smokers (i have no idea what the real numbers are of what the true motives behind the proposed changed were, this is just an example). Which, again, to make it clear that this isn't about whether any one individual, or a universe of individuals, can make good decisions (and neither is "good decision" a metric anyone should be using when trying to affect social change), their interest is people smoking less.
Voting is a completely different thing, there is (or ought to be that is) an interest in ensuring that every individual has the ability to participate in the democratic process, regardless of what they might choose. Voting is an unalienable right, and the less obstacles there are the better because any policy that affects one's right to vote is infringing on an unalienable right, as any suffragist would tell you. They don't "trust you" with the right to vote, they have a mandate to ensure voting rights and any change is and should be under immense scrutiny. Not that they are exactly good as they are, but others can expand on that if they want.
The military, well, i'm a very anti militaristic person so i don't want to touch that subject here, and there's many talk of malpractices concerning the military in the US. But, were i to expand on it, i would again demonstrate that it is a unique problem, and related regulation would again have no bearing on whether a person is intelligent enough, or makes good decisions (before being tested by the military on whether they have the necessary skillset that is).
The human brain isn't done maturing until the mid 20s. The parts of your brain that stops you from doing stupid things isn't full matured, nor is the part that helps you feel empathy for others, nor the part that keeps you from blowing up at small stressors.
Beyond that, certain substances are very damaging to the growing brain. Marijuana use in teen years hugely increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, for example.
Then why we not raise the majority age for almost everything including voting and joining the military, consenting age that is usually lower than 18 in most states.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
Then the whole adult age should be raised. So fucking stupid that you can fight and die for your country at 18 but can't buy a pack of smokes or a 6 pack.
Everything should be 18. Not sure why 21 became the go-to age for certain vices. An adult is an adult.
Yep. They're going the wrong direction.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Then the whole adult age should be raised. So fucking stupid that you can fight and die for your country at 18 but can't buy a pack of smokes or a 6 pack.
Active military would be exempt.
JAV Actress
Banned
Really it needs to be consistent across the board.
You'd have to either write out exceptions for those in the military or raise everything to 21. I've never been comfortable with the idea that soldiers can't drink until 21 but they have the maturity to enlist into something that might get them killed?
I mean let's face it, I feel like there's a growing consensus that much of the 18 year old population aren't really adults anymore. There's still a tremendous amount of emotional development between 18 and 21 relative to everyone 21 and up.
For what it's worth, most bars/strip clubs around military installations let 18 year olds in and serve them drinks. Not legal but nobody questions it.
Maintenance
Member
21 is due to highway funding. If you don't raise your alcohol age to 21 as a state, you don't get money to fix your highways. So while a state could make drinking 18, they'd lose a ton of money.
Seems like a case of my way or the highway.
Might have a marginal positive effect, but are we going to see cops walking around carding smokers and writing them expensive tickets? Will you have to make a court appearance if you get caught smoking at age 20?
I went to a university where cops tried to wage an all-out war on underage drinking. All it did was cause students to despise the cops while everyone went on drinking anyway.
Bingo.
That's all this is.
They don't need to know what any one individual will do, they have data about e.g. how and when people start smoking. If you have, say, 70% of long term smokers beginning to smoke when they're 18 (or, out of highschool), then upping the age limit will hopefully diminish the number of long term smokers (i have no idea what the real numbers are of what the true motives behind the proposed changed were, this is just an example). Which, again, to make it clear that this isn't about whether any one individual, or a universe of individuals, can make good decisions (and neither is "good decision" a metric anyone should be using when trying to affect social change), their interest is people smoking less.
Voting is a completely different thing, there is (or ought to be that is) an interest in ensuring that every individual has the ability to participate in the democratic process, regardless of what they might choose. Voting is an unalienable right, and the less obstacles there are the better because any policy that affects one's right to vote is infringing on an unalienable right, as any suffragist would tell you. They don't "trust you" with the right to vote, they have a mandate to ensure voting rights and any change is and should be under immense scrutiny. Not that they are exactly good as they are, but others can expand on that if they want.
The military, well, i'm a very anti militaristic person so i don't want to touch that subject here, and there's many talk of malpractices concerning the military in the US. But, were i to expand on it, i would again demonstrate that it is a unique problem, and related regulation would again have no bearing on whether a person is intelligent enough, or makes good decisions (before being tested by the military on whether they have the necessary skillset that is).
We will have to agree to disagree on the smoking bit and I think smoking has been killed off far more successfully by lawsuits, ad campaigns and general awareness of the issue than just raising the age to 21. It certainly doesn't stop or hinder underage drinking in many cases and I think again, is a foolish thing to do if you're trying to stop people from doing something. Prohibiting things like drinking and such only make them more taboo and interesting to a younger crowd in my opinion.
If you want to stop smoking there seem to be far more effective ways that have been working for years now than just randomly jacking the age up higher. I just think its a very half assed way of doing things and doesn't take into account the many other dangerous things you can do to yourself at age 18.
18 isn't an adult, not really outside of the legal definition.
I mean yes and no.. plenty are mature before 18 years old.. most aren't mature until years after 18.. you have to draw the line somewhere though. 18 does seem really fucking arbitrary.. and I would heavily argue that the time/era when 18 was determined to be an adult is WAY different than today..
I'd say 21 nowadays would probably be a "safer" age to unleash adult-level decision making on society. maturity seems to just crawl from like 13 to 20.
You shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes until you actually move out of your parents house. So, around 35 years old.
I mean this right fucking here. I've seen way too many people filter through work (in a professional environment no less) where the only difference between 16 and 24 is how much money they make and maybe a bill or two. And they'll even gleefully admit to as much. My 20 year old sister-in-law had to practically drag her boyfriend out of his parents' house (where they were both living, along with his sister and HER boyfriend).. and his response was basically "why the hell would we move out?" I mean fuck.
Bornstellar
Member
Kids are not mailing as quickly as they used to. An 18 year old today is certainly not an adult.
Might have a marginal positive effect, but are we going to see cops walking around carding smokers and writing them expensive tickets? Will you have to make a court appearance if you get caught smoking at age 20?
I went to a university where cops tried to wage an all-out war on underage drinking. All it did was cause students to despise the cops while everyone went on drinking anyway.
It'll stop high school seniors that are 18 from buying cigarettes for their younger classmates. I'm an ex-smoker who was definitely guilty of this, unfortch.
I really despise smoking. If it wasn't the source of such disgusting and unhealthy externalities I'd be more tolerant of it. I'm glad I quit.
It'll stop high school seniors that are 18 from buying cigarettes for their younger classmates. I'm an ex-smoker who was definitely guilty of this, unfortch.
I really despise smoking. If it wasn't the source of such disgusting and unhealthy externalities I'd be more tolerant of it. I'm glad I quit.
I'd rather someone smoke than use chewing tobacco. After working in a movie theatre and finding water bottles and cups of the nasty disgusting spit left over, I'd rather someone blow cigar smoke into my face for a few hours than deal with that gross mess for a minute.
Edit: They are both gross and I don't think people should do either if they want to stay healthy but man, chewing tobacco is the fucking worst.
perfectchaos007
Member
Ive heard California would raise the age of consent to 21 if they could. Sounds like they want 21 to be the blanket legal age
Yeah but the cigarette companies would no longer see revenue from 18-20 year olds. Which is a good thing. The bad thing is the revenue will be given to those who illegally sell the 18-20 year olds cigs. Is that better?
Good I guess but it's not like people under 21 will have much difficulty getting them.
Yeah but the cigarette companies would no longer see revenue from 18-20 year olds. Which is a good thing. The bad thing is the revenue will be given to those who illegally sell the 18-20 year olds cigs. Is that better?
Ive heard California would raise the age of consent to 21 if they could. Sounds like they want 21 to be the blanket legal age
This seems significantly unfounded.
outunderthestars
Banned
I'm ready for cigarettes to be banned all together just to eliminate the litter problem that the vast majority of smokers cause.
I'd rather someone smoke than use chewing tobacco. After working in a movie theatre and finding water bottles and cups of the nasty disgusting spit left over, I'd rather someone blow cigar smoke into my face for a few hours than deal with that gross mess for a minute.
Edit: They are both gross and I don't think people should do either if they want to stay healthy but man, chewing tobacco is the fucking worst.
honestly, both are the worst. chew is extreme grossness in a confined area.. smoke is slightly less grossness everywhere.
Everything should be 18. Not sure why 21 became the go-to age for certain vices. An adult is an adult.
Legal drinking age used to be 18. However, the age increase was snuck into a transportation bill decades ago.
Kids are not mailing as quickly as they used to.
even collectable stamps couldn't keep them interested in snail mail.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Well I find that people who make bad decisions and don't think things through at 18 won't do that at 21 or even 25 or 30. ...
My point as I said above is that a few years doesn't make your decision making process any better. That's something that's being built up and developed since you're an infant. Its my own personal experience but people don't change that much in my eyes. It does happen but its far rarer than most people taking the same track they took when they were a teenager.
There's what you think, and then there's science. We try not to base policy on anecdotes and misguided "common sense." (Unless you're Republican, then all bets are off.)
Excerpt from link:
COX: Is this idea that the brains of 18 year olds aren't fully developed a matter of settled science?
AAMODT: Yes. The car rental companies got to it first, but neuroscientists have caught up and brain scans show clearly that the brain is not fully finished developing until about age 25.
COX: To not be too clinical in the spin that we put on this, what parts of the brain are we talking about and what changes happen between the ages of 18 and, let's say, 25?
AAMODT: So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal.
And the other part of the brain that is different in adolescence is that the brain's reward system becomes highly active right around the time of puberty and then gradually goes back to an adult level, which it reaches around age 25 and that makes adolescents and young adults more interested in entering uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations.
COX: So this is important. Are the physiological changes in the brain, in terms of the development of young people, as significant and impactful as the cultural changes and environmental changes that they go through vis-a-vis peer pressure things of that sort?
AAMODT: Well, actually, one of the side effects of these changes in the reward system is that adolescents and young adults become much more sensitive to peer pressure than they were earlier or will be as adults.
So, for instance, a 20 year old is 50 percent more likely to do something risky if two friends are watching than if he's alone
Anyway, I support this change, and some higher taxes on cigarettes also wouldn't hurt. If they won't ban the things outright, then tax them to death.
honestly, both are the worst. chew is extreme grossness in a confined area.. smoke is slightly less grossness everywhere.
The smoke will usually disperse in most situations and usually the worst is a left over cigarette butt. Chew just sticks around either as spit wads everywhere or a big container of nasty ass brown crap that no one wants to deal with.
There's what you think, and then there's science. We try not to base policy on anecdotes and misguided "common sense." (Unless you're Republican, then all bets are off.)
Excerpt from link:
Anyway, I support this change, and some higher taxes on cigarettes also wouldn't hurt. If they won't ban the things outright, then tax them to death.
I said it was anecdotal evidence and I stand buy that. Those people who are making dumb decisions and not thinking things through that I knew through school and growing up didn't much change at the age of 30. Did some people really change their habits and get a lot healthier, yeah sure, but it was far rarer than people who generally stuck to the same path in life. Whether that was entirely their doing or societies or what not, I have no clue, but in my experience a few extra years doesn't change a person all that much.
Spaced Harrier
Member
If you agree with this you fundamentally do not agree with the concept of adult emancipation, or you do not agree an 18 year old is an adult.
Either's pretty dodge to me.
Either's pretty dodge to me.
If you agree with this you fundamentally do not agree with the concept of adult emancipation, or you do not agree an 18 year old is an adult.
Either's pretty dodge to me.
In today's society, an 18 year old is less of an adult now than say 20 years ago.
If you agree with this you fundamentally do not agree with the concept of adult emancipation, or you do not agree an 18 year old is an adult.
Either's pretty dodge to me.
That's pretty silly. I can agree that an 18 year old is an adult, albeit a young one who shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes or vapes. Prohibition is not something that defines adulthood.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
I'm not sure if I agree with this.
That's pretty silly. I can agree that an 18 year old is an adult, albeit a young one who shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes or vapes. Prohibition is not something that defines adulthood.
Prohibition isn't also what caused the drop off in smoking and I don't think it ever really solves the problem and could even exacerbate things because now its taboo and "cool" especially among those who want to be edgy and shocking and what not. What killed off smoking was a ton of different things from societal changes on how it viewed things, all those lawsuits, the studies about how smoking is bad for you and the fact its plastered everywhere from labels on the boxes to build boards to the constant TV commercials. Hell smoking isn't even cool anymore, how many people smoke in movies and how many of them aren't the villain? The last one I can think of is John Constantine and that's because its a big part of his character for obvious reasons I won't spoil.
NullPointer
Member
This.Everything should be 18. Not sure why 21 became the go-to age for certain vices. An adult is an adult.
I don't like feel-good measures like this. An adult can either make that choice for themselves or they can't, and if they can't there better be a damn good argument for why not.
Why not increase the enlistment age?
Enlistment age is less than 18 with parents permission. Basically if you finished high school, you can join. Before 18 requires parental consent so that's the only difference.
I guess on your point they could require parents consent until you're 21. That won't really change the amount of teenage enlistment.
teruterubozu
Member
Hawai'i did this because they get many tourists from Asia, especially Japan where smoking at 18 is illegal. Not sure why Cali is doing it though, except for nanny reasons.
I'm uncomfortable with the continual advance of 'adolescene'. Now 18 year olds aren't adults? I can't agree with that.
The argument that 'You're more mature at 21 than you are at 18' doesn't wash with me, despite being true - because you're more mature at 24 than you are at 21, and at 27 than 24, and so on. Life experiences bring wisdom, and a person never stops developing. I'm sure I'll look back at 32 year old me and find that I was callow in certain ways that will change. Such is the nature of life.
The question is whether a person is intelligent enough and mature enough to take control and responsibility for the their own life, career, health and safety. And I think 18 is a good age to put that at. Some people are ready for that at 16, some not until 20. But by and large, most people have that maturity by 18, and it's unfair on them to deny them rights because there are a small few that don't.
The other element to the argument is that you can't gain maturity and wisdom in relation to something (ie. drinking) until you're allowed to do it. So you could simply be delaying the learning experience to 21 instead of 18.
Personally, my parents let me drink from 16 on, and my high school let us drink from 16 on as well. That meant that I had some overdrinking experiences at 16-17, but very rarely from 18 onwards. I had gained that maturity through experience.
Anyway, whether you decide on 18 or 21, it should be consistent across the board. Driving and enlisting are the biggest decisions one can take, both of which put others' lives in your hands, so if those are at 18 then nothing should be beyond that.
The argument that 'You're more mature at 21 than you are at 18' doesn't wash with me, despite being true - because you're more mature at 24 than you are at 21, and at 27 than 24, and so on. Life experiences bring wisdom, and a person never stops developing. I'm sure I'll look back at 32 year old me and find that I was callow in certain ways that will change. Such is the nature of life.
The question is whether a person is intelligent enough and mature enough to take control and responsibility for the their own life, career, health and safety. And I think 18 is a good age to put that at. Some people are ready for that at 16, some not until 20. But by and large, most people have that maturity by 18, and it's unfair on them to deny them rights because there are a small few that don't.
The other element to the argument is that you can't gain maturity and wisdom in relation to something (ie. drinking) until you're allowed to do it. So you could simply be delaying the learning experience to 21 instead of 18.
Personally, my parents let me drink from 16 on, and my high school let us drink from 16 on as well. That meant that I had some overdrinking experiences at 16-17, but very rarely from 18 onwards. I had gained that maturity through experience.
Anyway, whether you decide on 18 or 21, it should be consistent across the board. Driving and enlisting are the biggest decisions one can take, both of which put others' lives in your hands, so if those are at 18 then nothing should be beyond that.
This.
I don't like feel-good measures like this. An adult can either make that choice for themselves or they can't, and if they can't there better be a damn good argument for why not.
It's not really a feel-good measure as it is a measure to prevent the recent phenomenon of vaping from getting into younger kids' hands.
I worked a youth center for teenagers, 13 and up, and the ones who were caught possessing vape paraphanelia usually got it from a sibling or a friends' sibling who was 18. It happens pretty frequently because of the age proximity. A 21-year old is an adult less likely to hang out with school-aged kids.
FWIW I also believe the enlistment age should be 21
Not really. A 18 year old millennial is not an adult. Hell not even at 21 or 30 even. On the other hand, a 18 year-old boomer is certainly an adult.
Damn dude, you must know some really pathetic 30 year olds.
QuantumBro
Banned
This is probably just going to increase the use of e-cigs amongst teens and young adults since it's incredibly easy to buy juice online even if you're underage.
I hope that they're still going to allow the current 18-20 year olds to buy cigarettes, since it would be silly to be able to legally buy them one week, but not the next.
In all honesty, if someone wasn't convinced to not take up smoking by 18, another 3 years of propaganda isn't going to stop them.
The cigarette companies will still see revenue from every pack sold to underaged smokers since they have to be bought legally at some point.
I hope that they're still going to allow the current 18-20 year olds to buy cigarettes, since it would be silly to be able to legally buy them one week, but not the next.
In all honesty, if someone wasn't convinced to not take up smoking by 18, another 3 years of propaganda isn't going to stop them.
Yeah but the cigarette companies would no longer see revenue from 18-20 year olds. Which is a good thing. The bad thing is the revenue will be given to those who illegally sell the 18-20 year olds cigs. Is that better?
The cigarette companies will still see revenue from every pack sold to underaged smokers since they have to be bought legally at some point.
ShironRedshift
Member
Why is that? You realize that 18 is just an arbitrarily picked age for adulthood that became the norm when secondary/high school being completed became the norm and instituted in law and has nothing to actually do with whether one truly is an adult or not, right? It's not based on any science as the decision was made decades before the science was actually in. According to the science, the brain doesn't actually finish development until 24/25, when the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for such critical functions as planning, inhibition, impulse control, long-term thinking and other executive functions, finishes development and meanwhile until that point the limbic system, which includes the reward and pleasure centers and risk-taking areas of the brain, are running on overdrive (and putting the two together, explaining a lot of the stupid stuff teenagers do because their pleasure and risk-taking areas of their brains are on overdrive while impulse control and inhibition aren't fully developed yet).If you agree with this you fundamentally do not agree with the concept of adult emancipation, or you do not agree an 18 year old is an adult.
Either's pretty dodge to me.
When you consider that.... if anything 18 would seem to be a rather terrible age to suddenly be declared an adult with that all going on and it would seem pretty dodge to argue otherwise. So yes, if anything, I would argue that if we have to decide on an arbitrary age when people are divided into adult/not-adult for the sake of legal necessities that 18 seems to be a very poor dividing line and it would be more optimal to set it a few years later as that's what the science seems to suggest (which, while it may not itself be perfect, seems to be the most objective and fair criteria to use if we have to use anything to decide something so arbitrary) at this point and the arguments otherwise are more just appeals to tradition and things that have nothing to do with whether someone is truly an adult or not anyway like the completion of secondary school (especially since most people attend at least some college, university, or other form of tertiary education making that null and void at this point anyway).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.