Tobacco age restriction benefits teens

Perez is a first-year political science student.

By Anna S. Perez

Defending tobacco by saying smoking cigarettes is a civil
liberty is akin to saying police cannot intervene when someone is
trying to take their own life because suicide is a civil liberty.
In fact, they’re exactly the same.

The editorial defending people’s right to smoke,
(Increasing smoking age will do nothing, Viewpoint, Feb. 28),
contained many credible and justified points. However, it
doesn’t take into account the reasons for why the California
Medical Association wants to raise the smoking age to 21.

Raising the smoking age will make it more difficult for underage
teenagers to have access to cigarettes; the board calls this a
civil liberties violation, but I call it an exercise in protecting
the public. Many teenagers ““ I know I did ““ like to
explore new things as soon as they become legal adults, including
drinking, drugs, sex and smoking. This, more often than not, is
done to spite the years of parental oppression experienced at home.
Teenagers feel that by engaging in these acts they can assert their
independence and feel all grown up. After all, why else would they
smoke?

I can understand the curiosity about drugs and alcohol, which
have an immediate and noticeable affect on the body. But cigarettes
are different; you basically have to get addicted to them in order
for them to serve their purpose. It’s a cycle: you smoke
enough to get addicted to the nicotine so that you become more and
more dependent on it. When you get that craving for a cigarette,
it’s just your body crying out for more nicotine, the
nicotine you put in your body in the first place.

So why start this circular routine, if for no other reason than
to look cool? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Are you
really willing to kill yourself so strangers can think you’re
sophisticated because you smoke those Virginia Slims?

Unfortunately, the answer teenagers usually give to this is
“yes,” whether they do it explicitly or not. Why blame
the government for trying to stop this behavior, a habit born
solely of immaturity? Teenagers are not mature enough to counter
the peer pressure that often prods them into smoking. True, this
can be the case for almost any drug ““ but once a drug or
controlling substance is illegal, it’s almost assured less
people will do it out of fear of imprisonment. And even if we could
only prevent a handful of people from starting to smoke, the law
itself would be justified and worth passing.

In your editorial you make reference to the fact that these
immature teenagers are entrusted with other responsibilities, such
as voting and military service. But these two examples are not
quite convincing.

First, many teenagers likely smoke because of peer pressure,
allowing themselves to be forced into a decision that could forever
affect their health. The same is not true for voting ““ the
government thinks teenagers 18 and over are responsible enough to
vote. This doesn’t present a threat to their bodies. After
all, the school bully never says, “Hey, I’m going to
kick your butt if you don’t vote for Proposition X.”
And since when does voting for George W. Bush give you chronic
liver disease?

Secondly, for the military service example: when 18-year-olds
serve in the military they receive extensive training and are not
allowed to go into battle if they don’t meet the requisite
health requirements. Serving in the military is also a high honor,
as opposed to smoking; you don’t die fruitlessly. If you give
up your life in the military, you give it up in defense of your
nation and family. When you smoke, you die in vain.

Why is it so bad for the government to protect people? The
proposal to raise the drinking age is not being put forth by a
political lobby with ulterior motives ““ it’s being
presented by doctors and medical professionals. Why would doctors
want to lie to us? If they really had corrupt politics in mind,
wouldn’t they actually be against this proposal? I mean,
wouldn’t they want more people to be sick so their business
could also increase? It’s time to listen to people who
actually care about the health of the population, rather than
themselves.

There’s no debate about whether cigarettes are harmful;
sure, lawyers for the tobacco companies can argue there is
“no proof nicotine is addicting,” but if something
wasn’t wrong with cigarettes so many people wouldn’t be
dying.

Teenagers should have civil liberties, but they shouldn’t
be allowed to destroy their own health. If they do try, the
government has a right to step in and make teenagers “follow
the doctors orders.”