Corey Vikser
Executive Digital Editor
California Governor Jerry Brown signed an extension of bill SBX2-7 that will raise the legal smoking age, beginning yesterday from 18 to 21. The law is detrimental as it targets the incorrect demographic and does not provide effective and adequate solutions for those who are addicted.
Under the laws, the sale of electronic vaporizers, cigarettes and products containing nicotine are illegal for those under the age of 21.
One of the motivations stated as justification by the state for this ban was that, according to California lawmakers, 90% of lifetime smokers begin before the age of 19. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of all California minors aged 12-17, only 7.3% have ever tried smoking a cigarette, which is one of the most addictive substances legally available, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
This statistic ranks California as the 43rd state with minor smoking initiation rates, hardly a justifier for such intense measures. Therefore, these measures are highly superfluous, directed at a state that is hardly endangered by its youth rates of smoking.
One of SBX2-7’s main points is that it would ban vaporized nicotine products for those under the age of 21, a detrimental decision for addicted teenagers. Because a study by the University of Michigan stated that 7% of high school smokers self report as daily, dependent users, this shows that the state should adopt measures that will help that specific 7%, and banning vaporized products is not the way to do so. A commissioned report by the government organization, Public Health England, alerts smokers that vaping contains only 5% of harmful inhalants from cigarettes and helps smokers kick the habit quickly. Therefore, the state should not remove one of the safest and most effective measures to get addicted 18-to-20-year-olds off of nicotine.
A study by the New England Journal of Medicine sampled six Massachusetts towns, three of which increased the enforcement of tobacco laws, and three of which that acted as controls. The three towns that intensified their laws experienced an increase in tobacco use amongst minors, creating a counter-productive effect, similar to alcohol.
As shown by the study, by increasing prohibition, the youth is further prompted to begin smoking. Therefore, the prohibition law is ineffective and should not be implemented by the state.
Within the Royal College of Physicians’ study, it is stated that the U.S. surgeon general’s report on youth smoking concluded that an increase in cigarette prices reduces use and the prevalence of smoking in youth communities.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a similar measure was proposed in California last year to raise the per-pack price of cigarettes by $2; however, it ultimately did not get passed by California legislation. This would’ve been much more beneficial as New York’s teenage smoking rates dramatically plunged after a $4.35 tax was added to every purchased pack of cigarettes.
Brown’s decision to enact SBX2-7 ignores much more effective techniques of reducing teen smoking and bans vaporizers that could potentially remove one of the most widespread tools for reducing cigarette addiction.
Leave a Reply