Brown signs bill to raise legal smoking age in California to 21
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
SACRAMENTO — California will raise the smoking age to 21 years old under a package of bills signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday.
Facing a midnight deadline to act on six anti-tobacco bills, Brown signed all but one. The lone veto was for a bill that would have allowed counties and cities to ask voters to approve local tobacco taxes.
“Although California has one of the lowest cigarette tax rates in the nation, I am reluctant to approve this measure in view of all the taxes being proposed for the 2016 ballot,” Brown wrote in his veto message.
Brown did not offer comments on the bills he signed, which includes legislation by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to regulate e-cigarettes the same as tobacco products, and bills to increase the licensing fee on cigarettes and tobacco products and expand smoke-free laws to workplaces and charter schools previously exempt.
The bills signed by the governor will go into effect in 90 days.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Brown-facing-midnight-deadline-on-bills-to-7393373.php
By Melody Gutierrez Updated 5:28 pm, Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Short article. No more at link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bunnies
(15,859 posts)That's so fucked up.
TygrBright
(20,777 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Kid killers and kid casualties are fine. Kid smokers? Hell no!
PatSeg
(47,728 posts)I certainly wouldn't encourage young people to smoke, but this is going too far.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)took me more than 20 years to quit. Yeah. It's bad. But these days kids are equipped with the knowledge of the dangers when they're young. I'm 43 and we had smoking sections in Jr. High. (Grade 7, 8 & 9)
All these years later and the nanny state is trying to "protect" kids from cancer. All the while shoving them into a death traps: war. FUCK THAT.
PatSeg
(47,728 posts)that people believe the solution for every problem is to pass yet another law. And you are right, young people are far more knowledgeable about the dangers of cigarettes than previous generations. I can't see a valid reason for such a law other than to treat young adults like children. They apparently aren't children when they are sent into a war zone.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)make in that they CAN BUY a gun, but they CAN'T take it everywhere.. Or, they can buy a gun but cannot put a SILENCER on it?
Or a builder saying 'I can BUILD a HOUSE for someone else but I have to use QUALITY MATERIALS even with my super-low bid?!'
At least the three arguments I just presented are somewhat related.
War and cigs? Not so much, sorry.
PatSeg
(47,728 posts)I don't think the law serves any purpose and it is inappropriate to treat a 19 or 20 year old like a child.
beevul
(12,194 posts)
Aristus
(66,511 posts)bad for them.
Everyone alive today at least had radio, right?
Has anyone ever heard a news report of a catastrophic fire somewhere? And the reporter is on the scene trying to get the story:
"What killed them, Chief? Was it the flames?"
"No, it was smoke inhalation."
How could smokers not know it was bad for them? It's smoke.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, the US had a rule that someone could NOT enlist into the US Army unless he meet one of three conditions:
1. He was over age 21
2. If both age 21, his parents agreed to the enlistment
2. The enlistee was an emancipated Minor, i.e. no longer under the "Care, Control and Supervision of his parents do to acts of the parents".
Furthermore, you could NOT serve overseas unless you were over age 21.
There were further exceptions to this rule. For example membership in the Militia started at age 18 but that was tied in with NOT having to serve outside the US borders till you turned 21.
Thus during the Civil War, the age of enlistment into the units raised for the Civil War was 18, but remained 21 for the Regular Army during the Civil War (the Regular Army made up less then 5% of the Union Army during the Civil War, so not much of a restriction).
During WWI, was the next time the Age of 18 became the age for service overseas, but only in August 1918. Technically you could enlist at age 18 if he could get his parents to sign off, but in August 1918 Congress extended the draft and also the age to enlist to 18, but then only till the end of the war, which was November 1918.
Till WWII, the age to enlist remained 21 unless you could get your parents to agree (My Father tried to get into the Navy in the late 1930s, but could not locate his father to sign off on the enlistment, but then enlisted into the National Guard where the age 18 applied).
With the adoption of the Draft in 1941, the age of enlistment became 18 again (from 1942 till 1945 you could NOT enlist into the US military, you could only be drafted, this was to prevent the unwritten policy of giving enlisted personal more privileges while in the service then draftees, which had occurred during WWI). The old policy of NOT sending soldiers overseas until they were 21 was also ended in WWII.
When the post WWII draft was started, enlistment and draft age remained at age 18.
Just a comment that age 21, was the age for enlistment for most of the time prior to WWII, as was the age to marry, buy a drink or buy tobacco in many states (Age to buy Alcohol became 21 when prohibition ended in 1933 and that was extended to tobacco about the same time period in many states). Prior to Prohibition the states varied on the age to buy and those laws were NOT vigorously enforced.
A good example of the lack of enforcement was my home state of Pennsylvania. When the age to vote was dropped to 18, Pennsylvania refused to change the age of Minority, instead Pennsylvania permitted 18 years old to vote and enter contracts as if over age 21 and change a lot of other laws from 21 to 18, but kept the age of majority at 21. The main reason for this was to keep people under age 21 from buying alcohol (Pennsylvania was one of those states that NEVER permitted 18 year olds to buy alcohol). The state also NEVER changed the law as to the age to buy Tobacco, but the law said "No Minor" could buy Tobacco products. In the 1980s an into the 1990s the Tobacco companies all said that meant a buyer had to be over age 18, then a series of local police forces started to go after sellers of Tobacco to 18 year olds on the ground it was illegal. The courts looked at the law and kept ruling minority continued till age 21 and thus a law banning minors from buying something meant anyone under age 21. No case ever made it to an appellant court, most sellers of tobacco paid the fine and stop selling to anyone under age 21, but that hurt tobacco sales. Since it was hurting sales, the tobacco companies lobbied the state legislature to "Clarify" the law to make it age 18. There was NO confusion in the law, the law was quite clear and the courts had ruled so, but those rulings had been disliked by the tobacco companies and they knew they could NOT get the State Legislature to LOWER the age, so they decided just to lobby to "Clarify" the law.
Just pointing out the age of minority has varied over the years, but every so often it keep returning to age 21 for that is when most young adults, who do NOT go to College, go on their own. The real push to drop the age of consent to 18, was colleges, who wanted to be able to get students to sign up for the college and pay the tuition without having to get their parents to sign also. That is who pushed for dropping the age of consent from 21 to 18, prior to the 1940s the vast majority of young people did NOT go to college. The first big push for large number of people to go to college was post WWII and the GI bill, but all of men who were eligible for the GI bill were over 21 (they had served in the Military from age 18 to 21). It is only in the 1960s that you start to see a lot of people going to college starting at age 18 whose parents had NEVER gone to college. One reason was it was a way to avoid the draft while the Vietnam war was on going. Another reason was a lot of women were going from high school to college instead of marriage. Both groups could not get their parents to agree to co sign for their student loans and tuition for the simple reason such parents did not have the financial assets to guarantee a student loan (and in many cases refused to for the parents could not risk the loss of their home if their child defaulted on the loan). Thus the push to lower the age to consent to 18 was driven by the desire of Colleges to get 18 year olds into their schools. That such 18 year olds could fight and die was an convenient excuse, for it sounded better then "Lets force 18 year old into debt to pay for their college".
Remember the old saying "Follow the money". They was no money in leaving 18 year old vote, but there was money it getting them to agree to pay college tuition and loans to pay for their college. They was money in getting them to buy alcohol and tobacco (and Automobiles for the same set of law that lower the age of consent from 21 to 18 also made it possible for 18 year old to enter into auto sales agreement and en-debt them even more).
Please remember Minors can NOT make enforceable contracts. i.e. if you are a minor and you agree to buy something, and later want to return it, you could do so for the contract was voidable for you were a minor. The contract could NOT be enforced against the minor. Thus a minor can NOT agree to pay tuition, or buy a car, AND BE FORCED TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS. That is how the law protects minors. Prior to the 1960s the age of majority was 21 not 18, thus if you were 18, you had to get your parents to agree to pay if you did not or no one would enter into a contract with you. Thus parental agreement, no college, no automobile, no lease etc. Drinking and tobacco usage was at best a minor concern, the main concern were these big ticket items. The right to vote at age 18 was seen as a way to get the age of minority dropped from age 21 to 18 and it worked, but the problems with dropping that age has become more and more clear since the 1970s and thus the push to return certain activities to age 21.
As to age 18 bring in the Military, that age goes back to Roman Times. In Ancient Rome you could enlist at age 16, but most youths wanted till age 18. At age 18 most males have done most, but NOT all of their growth and thus ready to be trained. Ancient Rome does not appear to sent anyone under age 21 into battle, for it took them three years to train a soldier to act as a soldiers AND to act as a member of a team of soldiers. Thus 21 was the age one entered combat in normal times (in times of an invasion, age limits and other limits were ignored for example when the Gauls invaded Rome after the defeat of Hannibal, even Roman Priests had to serve in the ranks, something Rome did not have to do when dealing with Hannibal).
Thus in normal times, the age of service generally started at age 18, but actual participation in combat was not till age 21. This is why these to ages keep coming back (and recent studies have indicated that do to brain growth post age 21, you are best at being a leader of a group in your late 20s, which reflects another habit of ancient people, those are the NCOs and company grade officers in almost all armies).
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)
vkkv
(3,384 posts)make in that they CAN BUY a gun, but they CAN'T take it everywhere.. Or, they can buy a gun but cannot put a SILENCER on it?
Or a builder saying 'I can BUILD a HOUSE for someone else but I have to use QUALITY MATERIALS even with my super-low bid?!'
At least the three arguments I just presented are somewhat related.
War and cigs? Not so much, sorry.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)youre old enough to decide you want to smoke a damn cigarette. Period.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)can't you take it anywhere you want?
I'm NOT advocating that, obviously - it is a matter of danger, yes?
When a kid signs up for the military he KNOWS the danger.. cigs, slow death is not as obvious. Plus the second hand smoke is bad news for other people.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)danger to our security...
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)It's an addiction - that doesn't go away overnight because of a pen put to paper.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,241 posts)
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)...but I disagree with this. If you're old enough to decide and be legally responsible for everything else in your life, you should be able to decide whether or not to smoke... and drink as well, actually.
It wouldn't bother me if the legal age were raised though, a compromise of sorts.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Cigarettes, Alcohol, Red Meat, Refined Sugar, Soft drinks.
Let's just go complete nanny state and regulate all aspects of everyone's life.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)What's with all of the complaints here ???
Throd
(7,208 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)helmet laws long ago?
Throd
(7,208 posts)I see a lot of obese people. For their own good we should start making their dietary choices for them.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Again, unrelatable comparisons are being made here.
And besides, once you are a legal smoker, you can still smoke as many cigs as you like..
beevul
(12,194 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)IT's my life to make all the foolish decisions I want.
I wonder if you feel the same about pot, since people who want to keep it illegal consider pot poison. I've noticed most militant anti-smoking/vaping/hookah people are also people who want to legalize drugs and barely concern themselves with alcohol at all. That's called talking out of both sides of their mouths.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)I don't need the State to dictate how I can live my private life. If I want to engage in victimless vices, so be it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)
malthaussen
(17,234 posts)Speaking personally, I never had any problems evading "age requirements" when I was young enough to be subject to them, nor did I know anyone who did have a problem. Who ever said "I want to buy cigarettes, but I'm too young?" Give me a break.
Furthermore, given the myriad ways by which our society poisons us without our consent (or knowledge, in some instances), I find it hard to celebrate a law that forbids us to poison ourselves voluntarily.
-- Mal
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)But you can be 17 to walk into Camp Pendleton and become a Marine to fight & die for your country. I'm with Republicans on this one. Govt. needs to leave me the fuck alone.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Wow, Calif. is about HALF the average of per pack sales tax.
Effective 4/1/2016
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0222.pdf
Jennylynn
(696 posts)33+ year FORMER smoker here. Finally able to quit with the use of electronic cigarettes.
Not the greatest way but much less harmful than tobacco.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Drive by any street just down the block from a high school and you'll see that's not the case.
Jennylynn
(696 posts)So, no. But they'll be harder for them to get. And maybe they'll realize it's not worth the effort.
If it keeps just one from smoking....it's well worth it.
David__77
(23,603 posts)18 - 20 year olds are adults, and, in my opinion, should have the same right to use tobacco that a 21+ year old has.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Unless they start arresting kids for underage smoking this is fucking useless.
Oh God, I said that out loud didn't I?
jmowreader
(50,583 posts)Idaho is the worst: up to six months in jail, up to $300 in fines, or both, and both youth and his/her parents can be ordered to attend tobacco education program. It kinda HAS to be harsh...in much of Idaho, unless you play sports or do the church youth group thing, your entertainment options are cigarettes, beer, meth and sex. (Which explains why Idaho is the unwed motherhood capital of America.)
