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.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *