Question of the day
Friday, Feb 19, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s news service…
Should Illinois raise the legal smoking age from 18 to 21?
A proposal by Sen. John G. Mulroe, D-Chicago, would do just that.
Mulroe, surrounded by public health advocates, pitched the idea Thursday in a news conference. He said the change would serve the public well for several reasons, among them:
* Smoking is deadly, and the proof’s available on every pack of cigarettes in the form of a warning from the U.S. surgeon general.
* Smoking is expensive to the individual. A two-pack a-day habit in some areas (notably Chicago) can run a person $24 a day or more than $8,700 a year, Mulroe said.
* Smoking is expensive to the state. The senator and public health advocates said $5 billion annually is spent in Illinois treating smoking-related illnesses, and $2 billion of that comes from taxpayer-supported Medicaid funds.
* Raising the legal age for the purchase and possession of tobacco is a research-proven way to cut use among young people. Mulroe said research also shows that if people make it to 21 without smoking, they likely never start.
Mulroe said he’s not targeting smokers, many of whom have told him they support raising the legal age.
“The smokers tell me, ‘It’s a good bill, John,’” and when he asks why, they respond, “I wish I’d never started smoking.”
* The Question: Should the smoking age be raised to 21? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
panel management
- Rhino Slider - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:03 pm:
Probably not, but just yes.
- nobody - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:06 pm:
That won’t stop kids from smoking. How about spending more on educating kids so they might not want to start smoking.
- The Muse - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:07 pm:
Why can’t we just start treating people like adults when they are legally considered adults at 18??? I don’t smoke but it’s truly bothersome when young men and women are able to serve in the Armed Forces but are treated like they’re not grown up enough to drink a beer or glass of wine.
- Spliff - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:10 pm:
I voted Yes. I started at an unbelievably early age not because of age but because in Mississippi they would sell them to me then. I smoked for almost 20 years and haven’t had one in 16 years now.
- Thoughts Matter - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:10 pm:
All true facts, but I Voted no. People are considered adults at 18( any parent knows better). If they can sign contracts, marry, join the military, vote, tan, get tattooed, then they can make this decision for themselves. If they aren’t going to be allowed to make a decision about smoking…then why don’t we prohibit all of the above until they are 21 also?
- 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
Absolutely not. No one should smoke, but let’s stop treating legal adults like they are children.
At what age is a person considered an adult?
- MegaScribbler - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
I agree with Muse. If you are responsible enough to be held legally accountable and to serve our great nation why restrict their adult decisions? They’ll learn one way or another of what consequences come out from their decisions.
- Dee Lay - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
Yes with a quid pro quo to legalize recreational marijuana
Tax Revenues for days!
- Gooner - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
I voted no.
Tobacco kills. It kills if you start at 18, and it kills if you start at 21.
I’m just not seeing a meaningful distinction between the two.
If as a society we are comfortable with 21 year olds doing it, we may as well allow 18 year olds to do it.
- OFFM16 - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:24 pm:
Why not just do now what will inevitably be done at some point: Ban tobacco as a public health hazard? Age and adulthood have nothing to do with it. Tobacco harms those who use it and those subjected to it second-hand; the costs of dealing with its consequences are huge.
- m - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
Voted no for pretty much the same reasons as everyone so far.
- Wensicia - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:29 pm:
No. It’s wrong to restrict young adults when the targeted behavior is not harmful to others.
- Amalia - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
yes. health care costs will be lowered.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
Appreciate the sentiment but…Another law nearly everyone knows is unenforceable, fostering even more disrespect for the law. We have created a three headed monster, dividing people into minors, adults, and something in between. Anyone who can die for their country, have a full time job, operate a motor vehicle, and enter into a bad contract legally should be able to take a puff legally. If the argument is to move the age of majority for everything to 21, it would be more defensible.
- Ahoy! - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:34 pm:
Voted yes mainly because I view healthcare expenditures as a crisis and see this as a way to improve health outcomes and reduce long term healthcare costs.
- Homer J. Quinn - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
all the smokers I know started before they were 18. raising the age wouldn’t do anything.
- olddog - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
Voted yes. Revenue from fines, etc., could be earmarked for prevention, public education.
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
Yes. Cancer and lung diseases are not age-sensitive.
- Earnest - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:46 pm:
Voted ‘no’–we need the tax revenue! /snark
- Groucho - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:49 pm:
Although I am generally against the government mandating what anyone should or should not do, making it more difficult to smoke is good for all. When you stop to realize how many of the people you know who have died from smoking related diseases (heart, COPD, lung cancer) it is worth the government intrusion. Just think about it, smoking is considerably worse than asbestos, yet look at the rules we have around asbestos abatement in a home.
- Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:51 pm:
There will be no savings in healthcare expenditures from this. We’ve already cut smoking rates by more than half, so where are the savings from that? The only changes to healthcare expenditures are when they are paid, not how much they will cost. We all die eventually, and smokers dying ten years earlier can actually reduce old-age benefit costs.
One public expenditure sure to rise from this will be enforcement costs. Just like we see right now, county jails & court systems will be littered with 16-20 year old minority males who are too poor to afford to pay the fines for underage smoking. Any revenue from fines will be dwarfed in size by the enforcement costs and reduce resources for prevention and education.
- ChiefM - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
This puts tobacco in line with alcohol. Plus it gets tobacco out of school age.
- NoGifts - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
No, we’ve criminalized enough activities. This is one more way to criminalize youth.
- zatoichi - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
No. If you can vote, marry, and military you can smoke even if it is better that you do not.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
For those who say that 18 year olds are adults, you are wrong. 18 year olds are generally immature people who tend to make bad decisions that they end up paying for for the rest of their lives. They shouldn’t drink, smoke or vote.
- Chad - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:57 pm:
Folks like this are beginning to argue that the voting age should be lowered to 16 — yet the same people can’t smoke until 21? Too much of a nanny state, I protest.
- Groucho - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:57 pm:
I voted Yes. Asbestos is safer than smoking. We should regulate smoking as heavily as we do asbestos.
- Grouch - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:59 pm:
1
- D.P.Gumby - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
No reason not to…and legalize pot, too.
- tominchicago - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:03 pm:
I voted no. There is little difference in the maturity of a 21 year old v. an 18 year old. As someone else pointed out, if we can send an 18 year old to war, they should be sufficiently mature enough to decide about cigarette smoking for themselves. And in any event, kids who smoke don’t wait until they are 18 now. No reason to think that they will wait until 21.
- Annonin' - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
We voted nope
Smokin’ is a right much like the 2nd A
If you are old enough to fight and die for your state you are old enough to lite em up.
- Tom - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:19 pm:
another stupid idea from the do-gooders. They never stop. I am just surprised Mulroe bought into their game.
- Decatur gal - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:49 pm:
Yes, it will help deter young people from getting hooked as easily.
- ToughGuy - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:54 pm:
Voted yes. Anything that prevents or postpones someone from an unhealthy and disgusting habit is good. Plus is will drive the “militant smokers” and “freedom fighters” crazy whining about something else.
- Mama - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 4:09 pm:
I think it is a good idea. However, 18 - 20 year olds in the military defending our country should have the right to smoke if they want to.
- Any Mouse - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 4:28 pm:
Yes. It’s not a cure all, but at the margin, fewer kids will take up the habit. If you are too young to drink responsibly, you are too young to take up a lethal addiction.
- downstate commissioner - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 4:45 pm:
Wensica@2,29 WRONG!! It affects anyone who passes by that stuff, including YOU and me…
Voted yes