This is absurd.
'The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has officially changed the federal minimum age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21.
The new minimum age applies to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and vaping cartridges.
The provision came as part of a $1.4 trillion spending package signed by President Donald Trump Dec. 20, which amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which also included $1.4 billion reserved for building the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $25 million for gun violence research.'
While they're at it they may as well raise the age of adulthood to 21, the age at which you can join the armed forces to 21, etc. When you are legally an adult you should be able to buy whatever you want. As the saying goes, if your old enough to fight and die for your country you're old enough to buy alcohol, and now tobacco.
I won't even go into how the border wall and gun violence research has any business being rolled into a spending package for the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
(12-27-2019, 01:53 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]This is absurd.
'The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has officially changed the federal minimum age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21.
The new minimum age applies to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and vaping cartridges.
The provision came as part of a $1.4 trillion spending package signed by President Donald Trump Dec. 20, which amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which also included $1.4 billion reserved for building the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $25 million for gun violence research.'
While they're at it they may as well raise the age of adulthood to 21, the age at which you can join the armed forces to 21, etc. When you are legally an adult you should be able to buy whatever you want. As the saying goes, if your old enough to fight and die for your country you're old enough to buy alcohol, and now tobacco.
I won't even go into how the border wall and fun violence research has any business being rolled into a spending package for the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
I agree with the bold undelined part.......
Maryland where I live raised the tobacco age to 21 last October
If they cant buy guns, cigarettes, or beer then they damn well shouldn't vote.
(12-27-2019, 02:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If they cant buy guns, cigarettes, or beer then they damn well shouldn't vote.
Or be allowed the join the Military. But then the vast majority of people would never join.
The backbone of the military has always been fresh high school graduates that don't know what they want to do in life... if you give them 3 years to think about it, they aren't ever going to join.
(12-27-2019, 02:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If they cant buy guns, cigarettes, or beer then they damn well shouldn't vote.
I agree for the most part. I think an exception should be made for military members though. I can remember back when I served there being "beer machines" (pretty much like a soda machine) as well as cigarette machines in the barracks areas. Before my time the "MRE's" (called C-Rations) used to include a cigarette and matches.
While I don't advocate smoking cigarettes (I was addicted for many years) I feel that anyone old enough to serve our country should be able to choose whether or not he/she wants to smoke or drink. I also think that they should be afforded the privilege to vote (voting is not a "right").
(12-27-2019, 07:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 02:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If they cant buy guns, cigarettes, or beer then they damn well shouldn't vote.
I agree for the most part. I think an exception should be made for military members though. I can remember back when I served there being "beer machines" (pretty much like a soda machine) as well as cigarette machines in the barracks areas. Before my time the "MRE's" (called C-Rations) used to include a cigarette and matches.
While I don't advocate smoking cigarettes (I was addicted for many years) I feel that anyone old enough to serve our country should be able to choose whether or not he/she wants to smoke or drink. I also think that they should be afforded the privilege to vote (voting is not a "right").
I dont think your right to engage in commercial transactions should be tied to your occupation.
The dems want to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. Maybe we should allow them to smoke and drink, as well.
(12-27-2019, 07:40 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]The dems want to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. Maybe we should allow them to smoke and drink, as well.
I like your point.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
We recently moved the alcohol buying age up to 21 and now we're going to change tobacco to 21 as well. I think Florida just eliminated the possibility of getting married before age 18 as well. So the minimum age for those things is going up.
Meanwhile, we also recently changed the voting age down from 21 to 18.
Interesting that those things are going in opposite directions.
Underage drinking and underage smoking have always been widespread - but do we ever hear about underage voting? So we are tightening a law that is frequently disobeyed and loosening a law that is not. Seems kind of backwards. Seems like the people writing these laws are dealing with the way they wish the world was, rather than the way the world is.
(12-27-2019, 07:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 07:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I agree for the most part. I think an exception should be made for military members though. I can remember back when I served there being "beer machines" (pretty much like a soda machine) as well as cigarette machines in the barracks areas. Before my time the "MRE's" (called C-Rations) used to include a cigarette and matches.
While I don't advocate smoking cigarettes (I was addicted for many years) I feel that anyone old enough to serve our country should be able to choose whether or not he/she wants to smoke or drink. I also think that they should be afforded the privilege to vote (voting is not a "right").
I dont think your right to engage in commercial transactions should be tied to your occupation.
You know what? Upon thinking about this further I think that you are right. The "normal" thought is that when a child reaches the age of 18 they are all of the sudden an "adult". That might have been true in earlier times, but in today's world I question whether or not a 21 year old is an "adult". I think it's pretty rare nowadays to see an 18 year old that is "adult".
As much as I hate to say it, I think that the minimum age to join the military should be raised to 21. From what I see every day working with the military, young members (basically under 21) are not nearly as responsible as they were when I served. If I look back to generations before me, 16 year old's were much more responsible than many of today's 21 year old's.
Of course, in an ideal world there would be no government restrictions and we would let natural selection take it's course.
I only have issues with it on either federal level, where Does the fed get constitutional authority to dictate commerce restrictions in all states?
This is a state issue at best, why stop at 21? Isn’t the purpose to discourage cigarettes so at 22 are we saying it’s ok to smoke but not at 18? Why not just raise the age to 30 or ban it all together?
Prohibition works so well after all
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Yet more reason why Congress needs to go back to actual budgeting with proper spending bills instead of the nonsense they've pulled since the Democrat resurgence of 1998. The current way of doing business is how nonsense like this gets slipped in where no one notices, where it never belonged to begin with.
Yet, there are few Republicans who even care anymore. Their foes have endlessly run as Santa Claus and viciously attacked any fiscal responsibility efforts. It's been a losing issue that no one wants to touch because they lose office/power at the very mention of fiscal responsibility.
Thomas Massie is one of only maybe a handful of people on either side that doesn't seem suffer from demanding fiscal reform.
Unsustainable federal spending is the greatest threat to our great nation, and there's not even any close second.
(12-31-2019, 01:04 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Yet more reason why Congress needs to go back to actual budgeting with proper spending bills instead of the nonsense they've pulled since the Democrat resurgence of 1998. The current way of doing business is how nonsense like this gets slipped in where no one notices, where it never belonged to begin with.
Yet, there are few Republicans who even care anymore. Their foes have endlessly run as Santa Claus and viciously attacked any fiscal responsibility efforts. It's been a losing issue that no one wants to touch because they lose office/power at the very mention of fiscal responsibility.
Thomas Massie is one of only maybe a handful of people on either side that doesn't seem suffer from demanding fiscal reform.
Unsustainable federal spending is the greatest threat to our great nation, and there's not even any close second
You're totally right about the part in bold.
This is not just about spending or the minimum age for smoking, it's also about the voting rights act, campaign finance legislation, the federal communications act, The clean air Act, and many other acts, that are out of date to the point that the commissioners enforcing them have to kind of make stuff up if they're going to enforce them at all. Congress has been asleep at the switch for at least 20 years. That means the president and judges are making our policy now.
Regarding the part in italic, you're wrong. Money is just paper that we use to buy stuff. As long as this nation keeps producing oil, and airplanes, softwoods, and soybeans, and all this other stuff that the rest of the world needs, the deficit is not going to be a thing. Look at Japan. They have much more debt than us, in a smaller GDP, and they don't even have oil, but they are fine. you might be scared that some hostile government like China would buy all of our debt and then do something bad to us, but that would hurt China more than it would hurt us.
The biggest threat to our nation it comes from the bolded part - pretty soon the executive or the judges are going to overreach so much that Congress is not even going to matter. And pretty soon after that one of the presidents will say, "hey we don't need to have an election this year," and no one will stop him.
(12-30-2019, 06:48 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 07:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I dont think your right to engage in commercial transactions should be tied to your occupation.
You know what? Upon thinking about this further I think that you are right. The "normal" thought is that when a child reaches the age of 18 they are all of the sudden an "adult". That might have been true in earlier times, but in today's world I question whether or not a 21 year old is an "adult". I think it's pretty rare nowadays to see an 18 year old that is "adult".
As much as I hate to say it, I think that the minimum age to join the military should be raised to 21. From what I see every day working with the military, young members (basically under 21) are not nearly as responsible as they were when I served. If I look back to generations before me, 16 year old's were much more responsible than many of today's 21 year old's.
Of course, in an ideal world there would be no government restrictions and we would let natural selection take it's course.
I don't really agree with the 21 age limit for much of anything. 18 year olds are adults and should have all the rights and privileges of adults in this society. Perhaps if the military needs more mature recruits then they should consider some type of transitional program, similar to ROTC or military school, for "cadets" who enter at 17 or 18 and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies after graduation at 20. We used to do that with the Citadel and VMI and other schools, no reason we couldn't bring that back full force. It would probably give the military a much more highly educated talent pool to work with right from induction.
(12-31-2019, 11:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2019, 06:48 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]You know what? Upon thinking about this further I think that you are right. The "normal" thought is that when a child reaches the age of 18 they are all of the sudden an "adult". That might have been true in earlier times, but in today's world I question whether or not a 21 year old is an "adult". I think it's pretty rare nowadays to see an 18 year old that is "adult".
As much as I hate to say it, I think that the minimum age to join the military should be raised to 21. From what I see every day working with the military, young members (basically under 21) are not nearly as responsible as they were when I served. If I look back to generations before me, 16 year old's were much more responsible than many of today's 21 year old's.
Of course, in an ideal world there would be no government restrictions and we would let natural selection take it's course.
I don't really agree with the 21 age limit for much of anything. 18 year olds are adults and should have all the rights and privileges of adults in this society. Perhaps if the military needs more mature recruits then they should consider some type of transitional program, similar to ROTC or military school, for "cadets" who enter at 17 or 18 and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies after graduation at 20. We used to do that with the Citadel and VMI and other schools, no reason we couldn't bring that back full force. It would probably give the military a much more highly educated talent pool to work with right from induction.
Because they'd be officers and the military needs grunts to function.
It can never, ever raise the enlistment age to 21 because the military would fall apart
(12-31-2019, 04:10 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-31-2019, 11:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really agree with the 21 age limit for much of anything. 18 year olds are adults and should have all the rights and privileges of adults in this society. Perhaps if the military needs more mature recruits then they should consider some type of transitional program, similar to ROTC or military school, for "cadets" who enter at 17 or 18 and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies after graduation at 20. We used to do that with the Citadel and VMI and other schools, no reason we couldn't bring that back full force. It would probably give the military a much more highly educated talent pool to work with right from induction.
Because they'd be officers and the military needs grunts to function.
It can never, ever raise the enlistment age to 21 because the military would fall apart
"...and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies..." leaves room for cadets to matriculate as enlisted personnel. And hogwash, the military is already bloated; time to declare victory in the Cold War, bring them home, and scale them down to more suitable operational levels for modern, hi-tech warfare.
(12-31-2019, 04:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-31-2019, 04:10 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Because they'd be officers and the military needs grunts to function.
It can never, ever raise the enlistment age to 21 because the military would fall apart
"...and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies..." leaves room for cadets to matriculate as enlisted personnel. And hogwash, the military is already bloated; time to declare victory in the Cold War, bring them home, and scale them down to more suitable operational levels for modern, hi-tech warfare.
I'm just saying, you give an 18 year old three years to think about his life - he isn't going to join the military.
(12-31-2019, 04:47 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-31-2019, 04:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]"...and transition to the full service branches or to the Military Academies..." leaves room for cadets to matriculate as enlisted personnel. And hogwash, the military is already bloated; time to declare victory in the Cold War, bring them home, and scale them down to more suitable operational levels for modern, hi-tech warfare.
I'm just saying, you give an 18 year old three years to think about his life - he isn't going to join the military.
That's not true. I was 20 when I went in and there were a few other girls in my boot camp unit who were 20-21.
I don't know their reason for going in later. Mine was family stuff that needed to be taken care of before I felt I could enlist. I'd always wanted to serve so....
(12-31-2019, 10:35 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-31-2019, 04:47 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just saying, you give an 18 year old three years to think about his life - he isn't going to join the military.
That's not true. I was 20 when I went in and there were a few other girls in my boot camp unit who were 20-21.
I don't know their reason for going in later. Mine was family stuff that needed to be taken care of before I felt I could enlist. I'd always wanted to serve so....
And that's about 30% of recruits.
The rest are all fresh out of High School that don't know what they want to do in life or just want to get the hell out of town.