Old enough to vote, old enough to smoke
Eighteen-year-olds get many new privileges on their birthdays. They can buy pornography. They can rent carpet cleaners. They can even buy and fill out lottery tickets. But soon, they may be prohibited from buying a pack of cigarettes.
Legislators in the California Senate have proposed a bill that would raise the minimum smoking age from 18 to 21. The Golden State already features some of the nation’s most stringent anti-smoking laws and will now seek to strengthen them even more.
The proposal is quite ironic when taken in connection with other actions proposed by the California Legislature. You may recall that it was recently suggested that teenagers as young as 14 should be given the right to vote. So a 14-year-old is qualified to vote for important state matters but a person two decades old is not qualified to buy a carton of Camels? I do not smoke but even I am ready to light up over that one.
Supporters of the raise cite the success of increasing the national drinking age. As a result of National Highway Traffic Safety Commission policies, all 50 states have made the minimum drinking age 21-years-old. Once the national standard went into effect, there was a 38 percent decline in the total amount of drinking done by high school seniors. The theory is that raising the minimum smoking age to 21 would affect young smokers in the same way.
While the intentions are admirable, there is a fundamental difference in the regulation of the two vices. The minimum drinking age was mainly established to curb alcohol-related automobile accidents. Until 1988, a staggering percentage of vehicular incidents were caused by intoxicated drivers between the age 16 and 20. Since then, the national policy has prevented thousands of unnecessary deaths.
While secondhand smoke is a nuisance and a health risk to those around it, it is nowhere near as dangerous as a drunk driver. Alcohol’s impairment on motor skills and reasoning functions makes such stringent restrictions necessary. While underage drinking in still rampant, the strict laws on booze have made minors much less likely to drink and drive.
People under the influence of tobacco, on the other hand, are not a comparable threat. Their faculties are not impaired and their judgment is still sound. True, they might cough like they just ran the Boston Marathon and smell like Smokey the Bear’s jockstrap, but they are still not an imminent danger. Unlike the alcohol regulation, the smoking restriction is not about preventing accidents. It is about preventing smoking.
The tobacco industry is a disturbing business. It is a complex of massive companies that profit on the pain and deterioration of its customers. Several diseases and health conditions can be avoided by simply not smoking in the first place. Buying cigarettes and other tobacco products is a choice that leads to a bad end. But it is still a choice – one that a willing adult should be able to make.
Tobacco has been a staple of this country since its formation. More so than ever before, the clear and disturbing facts about the dangers of smoking are increasingly known. If 18-year-old adults want to put poisonous toxins into their own lungs, they are certainly responsible enough to make that choice. In this matter, their rights should be respected and their freedoms should be protected.
How can the California smoking situation be resolved? In the spirit of Jonathan Swift, allow me make this modest proposal. Obesity levels among children are at all-time highs in this country. Perhaps we should lower the legal smoking age so kids can crave something besides empty calories. Furthermore, reading warning labels might actually help lift American literacy rates, teaching big new words like carcinogen and emphysema.
And finally, after a scary episode of “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” a cigarette will take the edge off the fright faster than that tired old security blanket.
Now obviously these are senseless suggestions that combine ludicrous rationales with empty solutions. But in reality, they are no more outrageous than the absurd proposal to raise the legal smoking age.
Pfohl is a fourth-year history student. E-mail him at jpfohl@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.
advertise
contact us
top of page