Typed by Edwin Bonilla
Unfortunately, many cities around the United States have raised the smoking age to 21. Organizations such as Tobacco 21 are to blame for this rise of oppression. I agree that tobacco is more dangerous than alcoholic beverages and Cannabis but raising the smoking age to 21 is unjustified oppression. People who work for the Tobacco 21 organization are nothing less than wannabe oppressors who see nothing wrong with taking away the rights of young adults. Those people also support the ageist drinking age of 21. This is why the Tobacco 21 organization is a hate group. A hate group doesn’t need to incite intolerance against a certain group but it can justify the oppression of a certain group.
The movement to raise the smoking age to 21 is an ageist movement against the rights of young adults, no matter what the purpose is, because it means that they are trying to take a right a way. Smoking cigarettes is a right for people who are at or above 18-19 years old.
Everyone knows that tobacco is a harmful drug. This means there should be a major policy overhaul. Tobacco should be reclassified as a harmful drug in the federal drug schedule. Second, tobacco products should be banned from being sold in stores or gas stations. Hookah bars should be closed.Third, factories which make cigarettes should be closed. Tobacco fields would still be legal.
This would not be a ban on cigarettes but cigarettes would be harder to find. Smoking cigarettes should still be legal. The minimum age to smoke cigarettes should be 18-19. This should be a policy idea if the anti-smoking movement wants to reduce harm from tobacco. The lessons of Prohibition shouldn’t be forgotten which is why cigarettes should not be illegal. There are limits to restricting personal freedom, which is what the anti-smoking movement refuses to acknowledge.
Instead, anti-smoking organizations want to raise the smoking age to 21. That is oppression. What a young adult does to her or his body or mind is the concern of that person. No government, no company or no person who the young adult doesn’t know can restrict civil rights. Tobacco is harmful but the rights of young adults should be equivalent to the rights of older adults. This means that the policy idea of raising the smoking age to 21 is nothing more than a policy idea to serve up good feelings for the people who work for those organizations. The movement to raise the smoking age to 21 is totalitarianism. Young people should not be bound to elected officials and organizations who can determine what the rights of young adults should be.
Either tobacco is banned from stores or tobacco remains legal for all. Nothing else is justifiable.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
Liberals think that they are above bigotry. However, this is not the case regarding youth rights. Oppressive liberals are liberals who support oppression against young people. For example, they support the idea that a person must be 21 or older to smoke tobacco products. It is a public policy which violates the civil rights of young adults. Unfortunately, California’s Governor signed a bill which would raise the smoking age to 21. The legislator who wrote that oppressive bill is Mark Leno. He said that he wrote the bill for the public health. However, there’s no justification for violating the civil rights of young adults. He is one of many people in this country responsible for the erosion of youth rights.
Young adults who are 18-20 years old should have the right to smoke tobacco products in any part of the United States. However, Democrats don’t agree because Democrats treat young adults as children. Legislators and governors who support bills to raise the smoking age to 21 no longer deserve their elected office. Those elected officials have shown themselves as oppressors of young adults. The purpose of government shouldn’t be to save lives but it should be to protect civil rights and civil liberties. There’s no justification for raising the smoking age to 21 because civil rights and civil liberties come first.
If oppressive liberals actually wanted to make cigarettes safer, then they would support the following idea. They would support a federal law banning additives in cigarettes and toxic pesticides on tobacco plants. However, since Democrats believe that young adults should be treated as subjects of the government, Democrats have not supported such a law. The oppressive law in California which will raise the smoking age to 21 is an example of Democrat’s disdain for the youth rights of young adults. Shame on those legislators!
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
There is an oppressive bill against young adults in Congress. The Tobacco to 21 Act is this oppressive bill. As its oppressive title suggests, the bill would raise the smoking age and the tobacco purchasing age to 21. This bill should be defeated. It is currently in committee after being introduced by a Democrat in September 2015. The smoking age and tobacco purchasing age should be 18-19 in every state, territory and municipality in the United States.
Supporters of this oppressive policy idea are ignorant of solutions to make cigarettes less harmful. If there was a law which banned chemicals in cigarettes and if this law banned toxic pesticides onto tobacco plants, then cigarettes would be safer. Commercials on TV say that 7,000 chemicals are in cigarettes but there is no movement to ban chemicals in cigarettes. Instead, there is a movement to oppress young adults when it comes to making decisions about cigarettes.
The Tobacco to 21 should never become law. The federal government should not be concerned with protecting people from themselves. The federal government should be concerned with protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of people, including young people. To defeat this oppressive bill, Democrats in Congress should be voted out of office. Democrats are more likely to support the Tobacco to 21 Act. One of my Senators from Virginia has expressed support for this oppressive bill. However, I sent him a letter against this bill earlier this year in which he stated his position.
The Democratic Party should not be supported when it comes to youth rights. Young adults who are 18-20 years old should be allowed to smoke and purchase tobacco products. Members of Congress who support this bill support the oppression of young adults. There is no other way to describe supporters of the Tobacco to 21 Act. This bill should be abandoned.
The only political party which youth rights supporters can trust with protecting youth rights is the Libertarian Party. This is a political party which understands that the role of government should be to defend civil rights and civil liberties. In contrast, the Democratic Party believes in micromanaging the lives of young adults, leading to their violations of civil rights. Shame to this bill.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
The Governor of Hawaii has signed a bill which will raise the smoking age to 21. A smoking age of 21 is oppression against young women and young men who are 18-20 years old. There is one thing in common with Hawaii and many of the cities which have raised the smoking age to 21. Those are places in which the Democratic Party is popular. In a previous article, I said that oppressive liberals are responsible for supporting ageist smoking ages. It is true. Real liberals, like myself, do not support any smoking age past 19. The Democratic Party is dominated by oppressive liberals. This means that the Democratic Party is an ageist political party. Real liberals don’t have a role in that political party.
Young adults who are 18-20 years old are mature enough to smoke cigarettes. If there was a federal law which banned tobacco companies from putting in additives to cigarettes and if that law banned tobacco growers from putting in toxic pesticides, then cigarettes would be less harmful. For ageists, their answer is to oppress young adults while ignoring this type of answer. Ageists say that young adults are immature for cigarettes and alcoholic beverages but they are wrong. The trend of raising the smoking age to 21 has got to stop. If you are a Democrat, then you should stop voting for that political party. The Democratic Party is responsible for oppressing young adults when it comes to tobacco.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
Organizations which support Cannabis legalization have been ageist by supporting a Cannabis smoking age of 21. Those organizations are responsible for the referendums in states which have legalized Cannabis. Using the age of 21 for minimum ages is ageism. The smoking age for Cannabis should be 18. Using the phrase “Regulate like Alcohol” is age discriminatory against young adults because the current drinking age is discriminatory in itself. Supporters of “Regulate like Alcohol” support that young adults be oppressed twice when it comes to alcoholic beverages and again when it comes to Cannabis. I wouldn’t vote in favor of a referendum if it meant denying young adults who are 18-20 the right to smoke Cannabis. Young women and young men who are 18-20 are responsible enough to smoke Cannabis. Organizations which support Cannabis legalization should not oppressive when it comes to young women and young men.
People have become better informed about Cannabis and to why it should be legalized. Unfortunately, a wrong approach to regulating Cannabis is being taken. Laws which require strong punishment for young people who have used Cannabis is oppression. Cannabis legalization is not worth if it would significantly erode youth rights. It doesn’t make a difference if an older person was in jail for using Cannabis before Cannabis was legalized and if a young man goes to jail after Cannabis is legalized. Cannabis legalization laws should have a minimum age of 18 to smoke Cannabis. Young adults should get nothing less regarding Cannabis legalization. Other than plain ageism against young people, supporters of the “Regulate like Alcohol” strategy say that the brains of young adults are still developing. The developing brain propaganda from ageists is ageism in the form of junk science.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
There is a trend around the country to raise the smoking age to 21. New York City, Columbia, Missouri and several towns in Massachusetts have an ageist smoking age of 21. This is an erosion of the rights of young women and young men who are 18-20 years old. Young adults in this age group should be allowed to smoke tobacco. The smoking ages should be 18-19 in every state, district and territory of the U.S. The reason why cigarettes do a lot of harm to a smoker’s health is because of chemicals which are put in cigarettes. Tobacco companies put those chemicals in cigarettes to be preservatives. Tobacco growers use toxic pesticides against weeds on their tobacco fields. If there was a federal law which banned tobacco companies from putting in chemicals and if such a law banned tobacco growers from using toxic pesticides, then cigarettes would be less harmful. People who support a smoking age of 21 are ignoring this solution.
Young women and young men should have their civil rights respected. This includes being able to buy tobacco products. Because something may cause harm, doesn’t mean that it should be banned. Supporters of the ageist minimum smoking age say that this type of law would reduce smoking by girls and boys who are 13-17 years old. Smoking rates for girls and boys in this age group are small and it has been declining. Regardless of any reason, the smoking age should never be 21. The towns and cities that have raised the smoking age to 21 are liberal. All of liberalism should learn to respect the rights of young adults when it comes to everything. As I have said in a previous article, supporters of a smoking age of 21 are of the oppressive liberalism ideology. Real liberalism would not erode the rights of young adults because real liberals would find the solutions such as in this article.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
The smoking ages of 18-19 are under attack. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has signed a bill which would raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. There’s a cultural obsession with using the age of 21 as a minimum age. This cultural obsession should be challenged at every turn. As if the bad law in New York City wasn’t bad enough, two legislators in Utah want to raise the smoking age from 19 to 21. Some legislators are considering a smoking age of 21 in New Jersey and Hawaii. The smoking age should be 18 and the minimum age for purchasing tobacco should be 18. As reported from the National Youth Rights Association and elsewhere, these examples show that the smoking ages of 18-19 have come under attack.
Some legislators are probably considering an ageist smoking age because of the stigma against smoking tobacco. Many anti-tobacco commercials use harsh criticism against tobacco. Some of those commercials feature people who have lost a leg or which feature people who can only communicate with an electronic device. The message from those commercials is that tobacco should never be used. A problem with those commercials is that they are as hard on tobacco as some of the chemicals in cigarettes. Those chemicals should be the target of harsh criticism but not tobacco. The federal government should ban certain chemicals in cigarettes which are more harmful for smokers. With that law, cigarettes would be less harmful for people who smoke them. That type of law won’t come into effect if anti-tobacco commercials keep using scare tactics. Smoking tobacco causes negative health effects but rights are not always supposed to be beneficial.
A smoking age of 21 and a tobacco purchasing age of 21 is oppression. For youth rights supporters, we don’t want a shrinking list of what young women and young men old can and can’t do. Some people who support a higher smoking age have said that the risk of addiction to nicotine is why they want a higher smoking age. However, a right to do something is not always supposed to always be beneficial. Over the last decades, the percentage of people who smoke tobacco has declined. Information about the negative health effects of smoking tobacco is well known. Young women and young men who are 18 are mature enough to know about the negative health effects of tobacco. To say otherwise would be ageism as well. Keeping the tobacco purchasing age at 18-19 is as important as keeping the smoking age also at 18-19. A movement to raise the smoking age would be an age discriminatory movement.
If a legislator who represents you is supporting a bill which would raise the smoking age, then you should send a letter by mail. This is a good method to fight those oppressive bills.
Typed by Edwin Bonilla
Some of the information has been obtained by the blog of Ajax the Great.
The smoking age and the minimum age to buy tobacco products should be 18. If the age of majority in a state or territory is above 18, then young women and young men who are 18 should still be allowed to purchase tobacco products. Unfortunately, the ridiculous idea of using 21 as a minimum age is popular in this country. New York City’s council is considering a bill which would raise the age to buy tobacco products to 21. That’s oppression. Michael Bloomberg supports that bill. Not all tobacco products have bad chemicals. An example of this is smoking tobacco leaves. There is ignorance and age discrimination in the reasons in support of the bad bill.
The percentage of people smoking the United States has been declining over the decades. Advertisement for tobacco products has declined significantly than they were in the 1960s. In school, girls and boys are taught about the negative health effects of cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco. With that information, young women and young men can make informed decisions when it comes to smoking. People who support the age discriminatory bill in New York City are ignoring statistics and information which girls and boys get on smoking. People who support that bill are ageist because they assume that young women and young men are unable to make an informed decision or that they don’t know enough about cigarettes.
New York City’s council should not pass a bill which would raise the tobacco purchasing age or smoking age above the age of majority.