There are bans in multiple major cities in California and more being added, they are just being lazy rather than just blocking the individual cities.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
So according to an email from the VTA today, the big news out of Washington is an increase in the age to buy tobacco was raised to 21 effective immediately. Not exactly unexpected, surprise big news for release on this Friday. Was this the big rumor of something about to happen yesterday or today out of the White House? If so, a little anticlimactic after the call to arms over a Pearl Harbor attack on flavors.
I saw that yesterday... But to me it was a bit unexpected. It was not supposed to take effect until Summer/Fall 2020. For the FDA to make it effective immediately was a bit unusual.
But the Trump flavor ban rumor has popped up twice that I have seen. Once a few days before Xmas saying it would happen in 2 days (by Xmas eve I think) and then one on the 26th saying it would happen in 2 days... but neither rumor offered any sources and nothing could be found on a reputable (or even less than reputable) new source.
I was reading something about the raise in the age limit was an alternative to a flavor ban. I'm so sick of the rumor mill.
Anonymous sources say = we made up this BS.
I think an immediate switch from 18 to 21 is evil for a legal (addictive) product.
Should happen over 3 years from date of decision.
Of course, many start smoking earlier anyway, but that can't be helped.
Should happen over 3 years from date of decision. Of course, many start smoking earlier anyway, but that can't be helped.
Agreed, that 19yo who has been legal for a year, who is now dependent, is now illegal. Not very fair.I think an immediate switch from 18 to 21 is evil for a legal (addictive) product.
Of course, many start smoking earlier anyway, but that can't be helped.
I suppose they can do "selective enforcement" for the three-year transition period. So basically, bust under 18 sales, then 19, 20 ... even if the law says 21.
When I turned 18 I was allowed to drink. Four months later they upped the age to 21 and I was no longer legal.
The age change will just make criminals out of young adults is all.
But the supposed problem is teens under the age of 18 smoking and/or vaping. I've never seen anyone get so much as a summons they need to bring home and have a parent fork out a fee for under that law. Maybe if they had been doing that all this time in front of high schools instead of just ignoring it, things may well have not gotten so out of hand. When you can stand right there and not have anyone tell you not to smoke or vape in front (or in back) of the school, it's hard to convince those kids they're not allowed to use it. I've walked by high schools by me with public safety police officers (not real cops, but city school guards who are able to enforce laws and detain a kid for the real cops) right in front and not even a second glance at the kids. If they had a can of beer someone would intervene. Not like it's a huge deterrent, but it's something to remind them of consequences.
The issue I believe they might address by this is that many under the age of 18 get their underage stuff from young adults, 18-21. That's the closest in age to them, and more likely to get something illicit for underage use. Same statistics apply to alcohol, and one reason the increase to 21 slightly reduces availability to under 18 users. Note the slightly. Far from a resolution of the problem.
Government lauds the establishment of gun free zones but coerces the young to refrain or quit vices at the point of a gun, for reasons.
Good luck.
Good luck.
I understand and agree with you. When I was a kid we all knew where we could by beer and cigarettes or anything else we wanted. IMHO enforcement needs to be taken more serious. I also am a strong believer in if an 18yo has all the responsibility of an adult they should also have all the privileges of an adult.
Unfortunately, CASAA was between a rock and a hard place with the flavor ban rumor. If the rumor didn't come to pass and CASAA did a Call to Action, CASAA would get criticism for fear mongering. If the rumors were true and CASAA knew about them and did nothing, CASAA would get criticism for not warning members. Paul Blair isn't "just someone" and VTA had already issued a Call to Action. CASAA ultimately decided to issue the updated Call to Action out of an abundance of caution, but tried to mitigate panic by making it as clear as possible that it was based on rumor.
An organization loses credibility when they have a call to action based on rumor. There is way too much of this crap going on all over the place.
Anonymous sources say = we made up this BS
At one point there was a fairly serious proposal in the UK to raise the legal age to buy tobacco products by one year, every year. The net effect would have been: If you were of legal age already, it would be legal for you to purchase tobacco products for the rest of your life, but if you were not yet of legal age, then you would never reach legal age, and could never (legally) buy them.I think an immediate switch from 18 to 21 is evil for a legal (addictive) product.
If a country is going to allow its rulers to outlaw tobacco products, this seems like the most rational way to do it. But of course it still begs the question: Where do some folks get they idea that it's OK to tell other adults what they may or may not consume?
Agreed and that was a huge concern for CASAA, but a decision had to be made. We faced backlash no matter what we did or what happened. Ultimately, renewed pressure on the White House based on rumor had far fewer negative consequences than not having a Call to Action and the rumor being true. We still don't know that it wasn't true. For all we know, it's still pending or our efforts blocked the flavor ban once again.
Similar threads
- Locked
