A little video to start of the blog http://youtu.be/x4c_wI6kQyE?t=4s. He seems healthy to me, I think 18 year olds can handle it.
I am always interested in government bans or restrictions of certain substances. Whether alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. I think the issue of substance regulation by government is a little more tricky than people realize. Both sides of the debate have difficult implications to deal with. Heavy regulation of substances to the point of prohibition is noble from the stand point that government is looking out for the interest of the people. However prohibition costs a lot of money and in some sense infringes on individual liberty. Furthermore, prohibitions /restrictions of substances have debatable success, some say they're even counterproductive. On the other hand, is removing all restrictions on every substance responsible? Can the government really just allow people to do what they want to their bodies? The idea of a "free for all" substance policy, suggested by politicians like Ron Paul, tends to make people uneasy. After all, toddlers will start smoking two packs a day! The difficulty seems to lie in walking the line between infringing on individual liberty and government responsibility.
The New York tobacco legislation seems partially contradictory to me. The law aims to protect citizens from addiction and dangerous health implications. However does raising the legal age 3 years really help? Doesn't this imply that something significant changes in an individual between the age of 18 and 21 that makes the government less concerned about them? From the readings, I got the impression the law doesn't focus on prohibiting use or possession, simply purchase. That seems odd to me. Many of the young cigarette users seem to imply underage individuals already use alternative means to acquire their cigarettes. The legislation doesn't seem to address that issue.
I find it fascinating that the U.S. seems to place such an emphasis on substance regulation, yet we seem to have the most substance abuse and health issues. Countries like Germany, who have a legal drinking age of 16, seem to have far less abuse problems with teens. This makes me wonder about the effectiveness of legalizing ages and the nature of American citizens. Perhaps there is simply something about our society that makes teenagers want to use substances they're not supposed to.
There are a few different ways of approaching the issue: the question of effectiveness is one, the question of appropriateness is another. Nonetheless, I find that most people who believe that the proposal is an infringement of some rights, and thus inappropriate, also believe that it will be ineffective. I wonder if others notice the same thing, and what they think of this?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how you talk about US teenagers and their substance usage compared with other countries at the end. I know that in some European countries teenagers can't legally start driving cars until they're 18 but they can legally drink at 16. It seems like driving is a way more dangerous activity than drinking yet American teenagers are given that responsibility fairly early on their way to adulthood.
ReplyDelete