Maine Governor vetoes tobacco age change similar to South Dakota bill because of “social engineering.”

South Dakota has a bill – HB1250 – up for approval in the State Legislature to raise the age for the legal purchase of tobacco from 18-21, which unfortunately has passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor.

What should happen to it on the House floor is what happened to it in Maine, where when faced with the measure the Republican Governor killed it on the spot:

Gov. Paul LePage said Tuesday that he has vetoed a bill to ban the use of cellphones and other hand-held devices while driving and another to raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco products from 18 to 21.

and…

Speaking during his weekly call-in appearance on the Bangor-based WVOM talk radio show, LePage said he opposes laws that amount to “social engineering.”

“I don’t believe that social engineering a society is going to create a good society,” LePage told the show’s hosts, George Hale and Christian Greeley.

and..

LePage said he vetoed the bill to increase the legal age to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products, including vaping equipment, because 18-year-olds are deemed mature enough to join the military.

“I’m not going to strap a gun to their shoulder and go fight a war if they can’t go buy cigarettes,” LePage said. “I’ll tell you, this is just sinful, it is absolutely sinful, and I believe that at 18 they are mature enough to make a decision and I’m tired of living in a society where we social engineer our lives.”

Read it all here.

Just say no – to social engineering and the nanny state!

6 thoughts on “Maine Governor vetoes tobacco age change similar to South Dakota bill because of “social engineering.””

  1. You say one thing and yet support the very same rhinos who vote for this while you attack Republicans who oppose the rhinos you support?

    1. That’s the nice thing about this country.

      You can like people personally and support them, and when you disagree with how they vote, you express that. Doesn’t make them bad people, just means I disagree, and I hope I can convince them to vote my way.

      Conversely, you can have people who vote your way but who also happen to be horrible people. You’re not going to change them from being loathsome. Doesn’t mean you have to support them.

  2. It’s been said many times but it’s worth repeating: If we are doing this in the name of health and saving money then ban it for everyone. Which opens the door to many other things and activities that we should protect people from.
    Obesity has officially been declared worse then smoking. Substitute tobacco for junk food here and many of the same supporters would be appalled.

    1. Next up, a “sugary drinks” tax, like Seattle’s (passed with identical arguments)

      Sticker shock over Seattle’s new sugary drink tax – “The hope is consumption of the unhealthy product — which causes heart disease, diabetes — will go down, the sugary drinks to go down, and we fully expect that to be the case,” Krieger said.

      The other purpose is tax dollars.
      http://www.google.com/amp/amp.kiro7.com/news/local/sticker-shock-over-seattles-new-sugary-drink-tax/677490924

Comments are closed.