By Israel Ramirez |Staff Writer|
Increasing the smoking age, from 18 to 21, is outrageous because it limits personal freedom.
Many would argue that an 18-year-old is not old enough to make the decision whether he/she should smoke or not.
I argue that if they are old enough for the country to ship them off to war, then they are prepared to make their own choices.
Maybe it would be an even better idea to raise the age requirement to enlist for the selective service from 18 to 21.
I agree with Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision to raise the smoking age to reduce the health issues caused by it.
However, with the decision 18-year-olds are already able to make, I think increasing the age of smoking is unreasonable when at the same age, a person can go into combat in Iraq.
In the same way I am against sending our youth to combat, I am against the way many lose their lives due to smoking. Smoking can cause some of many health issues, such as asthma and lung cancer.
I am pro-progression against health issues regarding smoking tobacco.
While I agree with Gov. Brown to help end this issue, I am more so on the side of those who should have the ability to choose the things they want.
For example, the Eighteenth Amendment for example was established in the 1920s, and the prohibition of the sale of alcohol showed us that enforcing the law just made the situation worse through smuggling and crime.
I am not saying another notorious gangster like Al Capone will re-appear, but people will still find a way to acquire tobacco.
Honestly, the last thing our prison system needs is more inmates for minor possession of something that was once legal.
There are far more dangerous crimes than someone smoking at the age of 18.
“I think raising the smoking age is good because one’s mindset is different when they are 21 rather than when they were 18,” said student Jennifer Ruvalcaba.
Clearly, there are pros and cons to the situations; whether it be helping in preventing future health issues or choosing whether somebody is old enough to act on their own.
I do not agree with the decision to raise the smoking age because 18 years of age comes with a lot of responsibilities for many.
Once we reach adulthood, we are considered mature enough to engage in conditions that require legal action, such as marriage, mortgages, auto loans and enlisting into the military as mentioned before.
All of these things require great responsibility and maybe people who are 18 may not be ready for all of them, the same way California believes they are not ready to purchase tobacco.
If at a certain age we are considered legally responsible to engage in conditions that require a certain level of maturity, then having the choice to smoke a cigarette should really be a no brainer.
Smoking bans would not lead to prison, any more than a speeding ticket does. These are called "infractions" under our justice system.
We have felonies and misdemeanors, and we have infractions.
That clarified, let's discuss the "18 can fight, 21 can't smoke" issue and why it doesn't "hold water":
War, armament, defense – those are social necessities. The age limit for combat readiness is set to a justifiable point at which the country in question can reasonably assume you're ready to catch a bullet, kill on command, and follow basic orders after a two month training regiment.
Smoking, like intoxication, isn't a necessity. It's something people crave in some way, but it's not something that benefits society as a whole.
So, in that vein, societies have two different questions – how soon can we allow socially beneficial acts to be performed, and how long can we hold off before we have to permit socially non-beneficial or destructive activities such as intoxication?
Allowing younger citizens to drive a car (America's 16 is rather low, comparatively, Europe has 18, some African nations require 20) benefits industrialized and sprawled societies by creating a more mobile work force, for example.
The common counter argument, then, is that wars kill people (correct) and that getting smoking doesn't concern the government. While those are, at face value, correct assertions, not having a standing defense hurts society more, while acts committed by smoking or an intoxicated citizen create harm to a society while there is no benefit to smoking or drinking (societal, not individual) at all.
So you had your say about voting regarding your significant issues. Here is mine:
As you may know, I believe there isn't much wrong with this world that couldn't be cured by more democracy. It's an essential safety valve for a healthy society, and I can't praise it highly enough.
And there's never any reason not to vote because even when there's nobody worth voting for, you won't have to look very far to find people who are very well worth voting against. And most of them are not even standing for election.
In my case, it could be virtually anyone from the current malignant progressive consensus of PC numbskulls and cultural relativists and petty censors that seem to have the whole of Western society in it's clammy grip. Safe space crybabies, leftwing authoritarians, social justice warriors, progressive Utopians — whatever these people want from an election, I want the opposite. In spades. And then some. And purely for the sake of my moral health. You see, I find I'm allergic to progressive values. Eugenics (i.e. reducing the population of "undesirables" because of their race or mental disability) was the paramount progressive value of it’s day, exactly like abortion and forced redistribution of wealth under the brutal force of government and the campaign to kill off the differences between the sexes are now. They break my conscience out in a rash. Even if your professors likely omit that part of progressive history in class, bless their little hearts.
So if you think all cultures are equal and that everything wrong with the world is the fault of the West, I vote against you.
If you think group identity should trump individual liberty, I vote against you and against any group you identify with. I don't need anyone to vote for, so long as you're around.
If you think feelings are more important than truth, I vote against your feelings and against your truth.
And if you are the first person to mention race in a political debate, chances are you are the racist. I vote against racism, and against you.
I vote against anyone who thinks a violent tantrum is a valid response when democracy doesn't go their way. Like the hysterical anti-Trump protesters in America right now. The more angry and frustrated those people are, the happier I am.
I vote against anyone who believes they have a right to police someone else's opinion. Free speech is absolutely non-negotiable, whatever some slimy Democrat politician might say, because it is the wellspring of our civilization. I vote against that.
And if you're the kind of dipstick that likes to claim free speech while you're shouting people down to shut them up, you have no business calling anyone a bigot. The definition of a bigot is someone who will not listen to another point of view. That's you. You are the bigot. And I vote against YOU.
I vote against all hate speech laws and anyone stupid enough and corrupt enough to support them. If anything qualifies as hate speech in this world, it is Islamic doctrine. And until we start prosecuting that, and the people who preach it, no law against free opinion has a moral leg to stand on. If you think it does, guess who I vote against. And if you had any personal integrity, you would vote against yourself, you treacherous, common purpose muppet.
If you've ever called Israel an apartheid state, the word "moron" was invented for you. I vote against morons.
And if you think I shouldn’t use the word "moron" because it's offensive, you're an imbecile. And I vote with extreme prejudice against imbeciles . And I can do this because, unlike you, I haven't been crippled by political correctness
So maybe you're a gay man who supports the Palestinians and you like to go to demonstrations and parade around in your "Queers for Palestine" t-shirt and little shorts. If Hamas ever got their hands on you, there wouldn't be anything left of you to vote against, you posturing wazzick. But in the meantime I vote against YOU, with pretty bows on.
And if YOU’RE a progressive female journalist who likes to show non-racist she is by blaming all men for Muslim rape and sexual assault, I would vote for everything you stand for, if I thought you stood for anything at all. Besides, you don't need me to vote against you. You've already voted against yourself, and against every other woman in the West.
I vote against America's rotten Democratic Party of which I used to be a card-carrying member until they intentionally flooded this country with people from a hostile supremacist culture that is never going to integrate, in order to drive down wages, and buy the immigrant vote. Thereby driving a permanent wedge of division into our society and shafting the working-class they claim to represent while calling them racists if they objected. And they're still doing it.
Yeah, that feels better. See what I mean about a safety valve? Isn't democracy wonderful?