I swear something is in the water this year up in the state legislature. The latest evidence of it? House Bill 1250, which further attempts to raise the age for being considered a legal adult to 21, as it applies to tobacco use:
HB1250P – raise smoking age to 21 by Pat Powers on Scribd
The measure actually passed a Republican majority House Health and Human Services yesterday:
.. and is headed for the House floor.
This legislation is being brought in state legislatures across the country this year, but has met with success in mainly blue states such as California and Oregon. As noted in Fortune Magazine a few days ago:
Opponents to the law, which includes the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, argue young people who are old enough to vote and serve in the military should be able to make their own choices. There’s also a concern that pushing up the age requirements will shift revenue of cigarette sales to border states that allow anyone 18 and older to buy tobacco products, a move that could harm small businesses and reduce tax revenue. Supporters argue that increasing the age to 21 will reduce smoking rates, which in turn, will cut health costs for the state.
and…
Last year, Oregon became the fifth state to raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21. The law went into effect Jan. 1. California and Hawaii were the first states to pass a law that bars the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to people younger than 21. New Jersey and Maine followed in 2017.
Ironically, the bill to raise the age of tobacco use is also coming at the same time that legislators are trying to make the argument that we should be LOWERING the drinking age, because those who have the right to vote and serve in the military should be considered legal adults.
And as a point that came to mind… So, how exactly would tribal entities be affected? Since there’s no federal highway funds ‘hammer’ as there is with the drinking age, are they free to regulate tobacco within their borders as they wish? (And are trying to assert with marijuana).
Would Legislators inadvertently be creating a confusing ‘patchwork’ where 18 year olds could buy Skoal just outside of Flandreau… but not in Brookings? Ugh. What a mess.
Voting for reduced restrictions, i.e., less government, makes far more sense than increasing the heavy hand of the bureaucracy.
If we as Republicans believe in less government, then we should quit trying to make more of it.
Most of the legislators in Pierre are not actually Republicans. Or at least, they have no idea what the philosophical beliefs of the the party have been. They merely registered and ran as Republicans.
The meaning of “republican” has changed significantly. The folks in Pierre are indeed “republicans”, just not the republicans of olde. The majority is not conservative, or in any way interested in less/smaller government.
Similarly, what would JFK have thought if he could have seen his great-nephew’s “Chapstick” speech the other night, promising to tear down the wall and put the interests of illegal aliens ahead of US citizens. Both parties have moved to the left, with the former democratic party occupying space that would have been called socialism (if not communism) before. The republican party has then occupied the vacated space. Any one to the right of what would have been a liberal democratic position in the day is referred to as “alt-right” (or “racist”, or “sexist”).
“Vapin’ in the boys’ room” just doesn’t have that ring to it.
How would a vote go to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21?
SMH.
The whole problem, as I see it, is that we have 18 year old adults still in high school interacting with kids on a daily basis. If you allow 18 year olds to purchase alcohol and tobacco those products will be available to younger people.
We have other problems with 18 year olds still in high school, when they age out of foster or parental homes before they have time to graduate. I have met people who dropped out during their senior year because they had to support themselves.
Meanwhile, at the other end, we have the parents of four year olds realizing their kids are ready for school and want free pre-k. The kids are capable of dressing themselves, feeding themselves, they are toilet trained and a lot of them have started reading and writing.
All that is necessary is to start kindergarten at 4, give them 13 years of publicly funded education, and graduate them before they turn 18. Once they are out of high school they can be full-fledged adults.
My daughter was an 18 year old high school senior. As a night shift worker I wanted to hit the sack ASAP and didn’t want to have to stay up “late”
(9 AM) to call in an explanation for an absence from school. When I complained that “she’s 18 you know, I shouldn’t have to do this,” I was told I still had to provide excuses for an adult child.
Legal adults don’t belong in high school. 4 year olds belong in kindergarten. This should be simple.
Most four year olds are not ready for kindergarten. Not even close. This is silly.
As a career police officer, I am curious as to how much thought is given to the enforcement part of a bill like this? If this bill were to become law, you would be tasking law enforcement to now make time and give attention to a new group of law breakers. In a small town when one officer is asked to be in front of the school twice a day for school zone enforcement, deliver notices to homeowners that their grass is too high, that their house needs repairs to bring it back into code, catch the dog or cat that is bothering the neighborhood, take that caught cat to the diagnostic lab that is a few hours away, because some idiot adult wanted to pet the dirty feral cat and was bit, pull on every business’ door too ensure the owner/manager locked it, report to the city when they see a streetlight not working, make sure to drive by the sewer lift stations a few times a night to (check if the light is red or green) ensuring it is working, pick up the city’s mail from the post office deliver it to city hall (even though the USPS have employees who do this), and I could go on and on. These are all actual duties that I know many towns require of their one and two person police departments. Now, this doesn’t even account for time that they respond to accidents and give aid to the injured, respond to the municipal liquor store/bar because they overserved someone who started a fight, respond to the report of a domestic assault where weapons are present and the subjects are both fueled by alcohol or drugs, attempt any type of traffic enforcement to stop the drinking, reckless, or speeding, drivers who are on the road, chase bad checks (essentially working for free to collect for the business)for the local businesses who are dumb enough to still accept checks, back up officers from other departments, ensure that the paperwork is all done from every contact they had with someone during the shift, and try to find some continuing education training to do online because the city doesn’t want to spend money to send you out of town to train but the state requires more training than you can find online, and oh yes, the state’s attorney’s office would like you to try and find more victims of the bad checks to help prosecute the case from the original victim (and then plead that felony down to a class 2 misdemeanor) and then there is the court cases that result from the real work you do: harassment of innocent people because you have no real crime to look for. Then, and only then, will I have time to ticket a 20 year old adult for a child’s crime. Great bill.
My dad was a cop in a small town for over 20 years when I was younger. Reading this brought back some memories for me of the things he was asked to do. A thankless job for sure.
“How much thought is given to the enforcement part of a bill like this?”
I believe the answer to that, is absolutely none.
It’s stuff like this that’s causing me to reconsider my opposition to the legislature “pee test” bill.
This blog on pot measures: DANGEROUS WEST COAST HIPPIES WANT TO FOIST A SMOKED PLANTS ON YOU
This blog on tobacco measures: DANGEROUS WEST COAST HIPPIES WANT TO TAKE SMOKED PLANTS AWAY FROM YOU
Hooray for consistency.
Sorry but your comment makes no sense. What are you trying to say?
Forget it. One can’t reason with potheads.
The level of inconsistency in GOP positions is confounding.
Are we for government restrictions on our personal choices like cannabis or are we against them like here on tobacco.
Every single argument against raising the legal tobacco age is an argument for legalizing cannabis. LEO time and resources, government nanny state, on and on.
I would LOVE to hear a single reason this bill shouldnt pass that doesnt totally indict the anti cannabis position.
Weed is illegal and an intoxicant and we have enough legal intoxicants with the problems they bring. Don’t need more.
raising age of legal Tobacco use? bring down healthcare and societal costs and it is a movement gaining popularity across the nation. Less chance of people starting to smoke.
So it is the government’s job to prevent people from using chemicals. Cool. Just apply the reasoning equally. This blog claims that raising the age is “nanny-state” shenanigans, but then mocks the proponents of marijuana and sees a place for the government to nanny people there. It’s not consistent. At all.
one of the Dem legislative candidates posts about moving out of state very soon to start a Hippie Commune in a state where Jeff Sessions may be taking legal action against for breaking federal law. If that candidate or anyone else wants to move out there then that is their choice and risk.
That’s completely unresponsive, but cool?
For a long time, I’ve said there are two versions of statists and civil libertarians.
A conservative statist is willing to use the power of the government to regulate or encourage behavior for a conservative, traditional outcome.
A liberal statist is willing to use the power of the government to regulate or encourage behavior for a liberal, progressive outcome.
A liberal civil libertarian wants a government actively protecting behavior of individuals but not actively promoting/encouraging particular outcomes.
A conservative civil libertarian wants a government minimally interfering with behavior of individuals and not desiring particular outcomes.
Most conservatives lean one way or the other (libertarian or statists) but hold certain positions on the other side. Same with liberals.
Conservatives who support raising the age for smoking above the age of majority (18) are expressing a statist position. For different reasons, the liberals who support the same position are also being statist. Opponents of raising the age (liberal or conservative) are expressing a civil libertarian position.
Conservative statists refer to “nanny state” for any law that doesn’t support their favored outcome? So, again, it’s not about government influence. It’s about government influence over things Pat considers icky or not icky. Just call a spade a spade and stop decrying “big government” then because that is not what you are about.
Sorry but you are wrong on that one. By definition conservatives are beholden to traditional values and are cautious about change. In this and many cases more government oversight would be an anathema to republican conservative values.
Many people confuse libertarian with conservative and like to claim hypocrisy that conservatives like selectively advocating government control.
i think the constant push for a marijuana-friendly sd ends up tainting the whole practice of smoking for recreation and fun. this is why we can’t have nice indoor ashtrays and spitoons. sad.
yeah and they keep claiming it is not addictive.
If it’s bad for 18-21 year olds, then it’s bad for everyone…maybe raise the minimum age to 85?
Maine Governor 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.”
Amen