Guess kids will have to find an older guy to buy smokes for them.
Land of the Free…
You’re old enough to kill but not for [del]votin’[/del] smokin’
they are going to ban some of the vaping flavors next
So is that an effective immediate kind of thing? How does that work? What about those that went and got hooked last year, legally buying cigarettes at 18, that can now no longer do so? Are there any provisions for helping them quit, or are they just expected to quit cold turkey, or else turn to a life of crime?
If I’m interpreting the linked article correctly, they can still (legally) get someone over 21 to buy cigarettes for them.
my therapist mentioned to me that a lot of therapists think getting off smokes is just as hard as getting off heroin.
It’s odd to think that one day soon there’s going to be a porn set somewhere where a young lady just got plowed by 3 men for money but can’t light up a smoke to take the edge off.
How can they possibly enforce this? If the state law is only 18, there is no incentive for local police to enforce the limit for the feds. Are they going to have the FBI or the US Marshals running stings on convenience stores in rural West Virginia? Are they going to clog the dockets of US District Courts with underage cigarette sale citations?
In addition, there is serious constitutional concerns with the feds not having any power to enact such a thing.
They’ll do it just like they did with the drinking age. Raise the age to 21 to qualify for Federal funds. “Quid Pro Quo”.
My understanding is that is not what they did, though. Yes, they could have, but this is a direct federal regulation which takes place immediately without a change in any state law.
If that’s possible, why did they need the loophole for other things?
Probably because the direct regulation is of doubtful constitutionality and is unenforceable. Are we really going to devote a federal agency and federal court dockets to retailers selling smokes to 20 year olds?
If so, it is the most ludicrous use of law enforcement funds probably in the history of the country.
Further, as the law only pertains to retailers, there would be nothing prohibiting the transfer of a carton of smokes to the 20 year old in the parking lot of the store.
You might say that they could do that with booze, but then they could be prosecuted under state law. Even if the FBI pizza delivery van was watching this transfer, they couldn’t do anything as no law was violated.
As stated on the FDA site:
"Note: On December 20, 2019, the President signed legislation to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and raise the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21 years. It is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product – including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes – to anyone under 21. FDA will provide additional details on this issue as they become available.
FDA regulates all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco, and cigars. If you sell tobacco products, you must comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations for retailers."
If I understand it correctly, if you sell to anyone under 21 you’re in non-compliance to Federal law regardless of what the local State law is.
It seems this is the same conundrum as selling marijuana is allowed in certain states, but is illegal in all states by federal law.
I suspect stores will voluntarily comply with the federal law or stop selling those products completely.
If they’re just raising the age from 18 to 21, can’t they enforce it the way they already did for under-18-year-olds?
Agreed.
Not at all. The feds have no interest in enforcing marijuana possession in compliance with state law. This is the exact opposite. They have enacted a new requirement where they will solely enforce a new age limit for a legal product.
If they wanted to enforce the federal marijuana ban, they could close any dispensary as marijuana is illegal federally for everyone. In this case, cigarettes are legal for everyone over 21. They would have to conduct stings similar to local police departments to find those retailers violating the law. They are not currently equipped to do this and enforcing it in all 39 states that have not raised the minimum age will be nigh impossible.
Just like when the alcohol age was raised to 21, there were/are no retailers that sell to underage kids? And that was backed up with state enforcement. Your faith in your fellow man that all will comply with the law is admirable yet unsupported by facts.
AFAIK, they never enforced the age restriction. They relied on states to do so. I’ve never heard of a retailer being charged in federal court for selling smokes to underage people and I’ll bet that it has never been done.
I recall when my son was about 11 or 12 he asked me, “If the government really wants to stop people smoking why don’t they increase the age that you can buy cigarettes every year? Then no-one that doesn’t already smoke can legally buy cigarettes.”
Apart from other problems, the prime reason would be the course that the government in Australia chose - increasing the tax on cigarettes such that it constitutes most of the price of a cigarette, now about $1.30 each. That’s quite a windfall.
Maybe the US can enact my son’s idea? First 21, then 22, then …
It’ll be interesting to see. In Chicago, which has had a 21 and over law for a while, I occasionally see someone carded for smokes. I imagine if I went to rural Illinois I wouldn’t and they’d look the other way.
I’d imagine the difference is because if a 7/11 sold a teen alcohol and he killed someone driving drunk, you know there’s a lawsuit coming. Someone who gets lung cancer at 60 from smoking isn’t gong to have much of a case against a 7/11 from years ago even if it’s still open.