Smoking cigarettes is an issue that has had many negative effects worldwide. It can lead to lung cancer and many other diseases. In New York City the smoking age has been raised to 21 from 18. From my personal experiences, New York City is covered with smokers and second hand smokers. Just walking down the street you can smell that harsh tobacco. If people think this will solve the problem of less people smoking in New York City, they are wrong. This will just cause a problem with the law. More and more teens will find a way to buy cigarettes and use them whether its from fake identification or simply having someone older than them buy it.
Underage drinking is a problem in the U.S. and now after this change in law, "underage smoking" will also be a problem. Almost every teen is able to buy alcohol. What makes people think this won't be the same with the purchase of cigarettes. I, personally support this new law. Smoking cigarettes has absolutely no positive effects. The problem with cigarettes is the aspect of addiction. Nicotine is an addictive substance and has "hooked" many people to smoking. This is another reason as to why this law will not cause a lower rate in the amount of people in New York City who smoke.
In a sense smoking is part of the New York City culture. This law may have a positive affect and have a lower turnout of smokers than beforehand but ultimately will not be the case. It is almost too easy to purchase something illegally in our present day era. Smoking will always be a problem and this law will not stop that.
It's interesting that you both support the law and think that it will be ineffective. In an earlier blog comment on someone else's post, I pointed out that this is usually not the case. Those who support or oppose such a prohibition generally also believe that it will be effective, at least to some degree. I wonder if this has something to do with a type of cultural conservatism. By this I don't mean that the impulse is conservative in a political sense, but rather that this approach suggests that there is a certain value in the image or message a society upholds. By banning buying cigarettes (not actually smoking, mind you) among the 18-20 year olds, society would "send a message" and perhaps set a norm that would discourage future smokers. Perhaps the message is even more powerful than the actual ban. Is this a form of cultural conservatism, then? Or is it something else? Symbolic prohibitionism? What would you call it?
ReplyDelete