Even Republicans are behind making Tobacco limited to adults 21 and over...

npr.org/2019/04/19/715117833/anti-tobacco-advocates-question-mcconnell-plan-to-raise-minimum-purchasing-age

Even Republicans are behind making Tobacco limited to adults 21 and over. They should probably just make it illegal entirely. Smokers are absolute degenerates. But making it harder for highschool kids to get a ciggy is a step in the right direction.

Attached: p0707-tobacco-age[1].jpg (400x320, 98K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24339055
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813310/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.20018
cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Attached: Dhe0i[1].png (770x841, 524K)

Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, with more than 41,000 of these deaths from exposure to secondhand smoke.
In addition, smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and $156 billion in lost productivity.
Race/Ethnicity Prevalence:
>American Indian/Alaska Natives (non-Hispanic) 31.8%
>Multiple Races (non-Hispanic) 25.2%
>Whites (non-Hispanic) 16.6%
>Blacks (non-Hispanic) 16.5%
>Hispanics 10.7%
>Asians (non-Hispanic) 9.0%
Source: cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html

Attached: smoking by race.png (312x162, 8K)

This. I will never vote for anyone promising universal healthcare until smoking and over-eating is banned. If no one in the US smoked and the heaviest people were under 250 lbs, healthcare costs would be down by 50%.

Also, it's faggots who smoke tobacco

Attached: cigarette use by sexual orientation.png (739x476, 96K)

Having worked in a gas station, that much is obvious. Faggots, degenerates, and those who were diddled as kids.

Attached: TCU_smoking-prevalence-for-selected-disadvantaged-groups2[1].jpg (494x291, 49K)

>over-eating is banned
I'm against over eating as well, but a ban might not contain this problem considering the root of the problem may actually be IQ and race:

Low IQ is associated with increased odds of obesity, particularly in female adolescents and in adolescents with high SES.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24339055

Cross-sectional studies have found that obesity is associated with low intellectual ability and neuroimaging abnormalities in adolescence and adulthood.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813310/

Childhood general intelligence has a direct effect on adult BMI, obesity, and weight gain, net of education, earnings, mother's BMI, father's BMI, childhood social class, and sex. More intelligent children grow up to eat more healthy foods and exercise more frequently as adults.
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.20018

Attached: low intelligence=obesity.png (641x585, 84K)

It's funny how people will take your experience and label it as merely "anecdotal" or that you're committing some hasty generalization fallacy or stereotyping, but once there's scientific data then all of a sudden your belief is now "supported by evidence". We don't need to engage in some scientific method to know these things. We just need to be honest with ourselves and apply inductive reasoning in our everyday lives to become red pilled really.

Attached: clerks.jpg (1000x563, 353K)

>nearly 100% of IV drug users
That's pretty pilling
Is smoking the best indicator of degeneracy?

People in other countries use tobacco more per capita than Americans but American users do it so much more which is why we have a higher death rate. I think it's or culture depicts tobacco use as something for miserable edgelords these days using it as a crutch.

I wouldn't say "the best" indicator, but it's a pretty good one.

Then what is the best one?

Having a blue checkmark on Twitter

JUST FUCKING BAN THAT SHIT.
>IT FUCKS UP CHILDREN
>IT FUCKS UP THE AIR
>IT LITERALLY GIVES YOU CANCER

Attached: 5a493ytlgls11.png (899x767, 742K)

21!

That's should be the maximum age.

I agree. Not to mention it fucking smells like shit. Cigarette packs are the #1 cause of litter in the United States, ahead of even food packaging. Plus, they're a large cause of housefires.

If Marijuana is illegal, so too should Tobacco be.

>Implying the tobacco Jew shouldn't be banned

>legislating people's behavior
dogshit retarded
>smokers are degenerate
very true

It's not legislating behavior, it's banning something terrible.

Yeah man, legalize killing people whenever you want because fuck legislating behavior!

Attached: smoking brainlet.png (1073x535, 86K)

That explains a lot.

Attached: C23EF671-EA32-4D49-A727-AB45984E3B0D.png (657x705, 316K)

make cigs illegal will start a fuckin civil war faster than any other thing you could do.
maybe just mind your own business tho, huh?
fucking non-smokers are like atheists.
gotta be pushing your bullshit everywhere.
just fuck off and take care of your own shit so you dont get strangled.

It is no coincidence that the woman in that picture is a black woman. See pic related. Also this:

The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars.
>cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Attached: Obesity by race.png (915x689, 114K)

>legalize killing people
>what I said
one or the other dip shit

Attached: dumbjack.jpg (225x250, 8K)

Attached: smoking-map-2[1].jpg (1257x638, 128K)

>banning something terrible will stop it permanently
holy shit it's as if nobody in this country remembers prohibition was a fucking thing.

Yeah, nah, if people wish to smoke, they should be able to. And if they are old enough to enlist, vote and buy a gun (at least a long gun), they are old enough to smoke.

but keeping others from freely killing each other is legislating behavior bro!

Attached: herp.jpg (200x313, 10K)

>b-but killing each other is legislating behavior
are you seriously this retarded?

murder is already illegal.
right along with any number of things that still happen regardless of the law or how frivolous some of them are.

Explain to me how it's not legislating behavior. In fact, explain to me how any legislation isn't about behavior in the first place.

The thing with cigarettes is that it's much harder to produce them than alcohol. Tobacco doesn't grow everywhere, consumes a lot of water, and cigarettes take months at a time to produce because of the drying process, as well as all the chemicals that go into them.

So, if cigarettes (and tobacco) were banned, it wouldn't be impossible to obtain them, but it'd be pretty difficult to get any without importing them, taking upwards of 6 - 8 months for a batch of ~2,000. Plus, it'd be pretty easy to catch someone smoking since the smell lingers, it's very distinctive, it'd be impossible to do in public, and smokers are fucking retards to begin with, making them more prone to police traps.

I know that murder is illegal, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency in the other person's line of reasoning when they talk about "legislating behavior". If banning behavior x is legislating behavior, then this would apply when it comes to the behavior of killing people.

You're right. Let's move all of that to the same age.

Question about general strategy here: the ethnic group that smokes the most in the U.S. is American Indian/Alaskan Native and they have a strong tobacco/smoking culture. An objector might claim you're being racist by clamping down on their unique tobacco culture. How would you respond to this objection?

This. Drivers licence to 18 along with enlistment and gun ownership, and tobacco, alcohol, and voting to 25.

How is it racist to save them from themselves? If they had a culture of chopping off their dicks, banning self-dismemberment wouldn't be racist.

Not that I really give a shit. If they want it to be legal, they can make it so on their reservations. Just like gambling, prostitution, child rape, and drunkenly stabbing eachother after downing half a bottle of Listerine.

Attached: 6137-004-EABA6B51[1].jpg (1160x800, 473K)

Police traps lol, soon people will be smoking their cigars in dimly lit basements with passwords.

you're an absolute fucking moron, conflating the consumption of a substance that harms yourself with murdering someone.

anyway
>npr.org is of value regarding anything medical
>this shit hasnt been an attack on american industry from the start
>there are no benefits to smoking
>may might maybe attributable to bullshit and stats from cdc

smoking increases your chances of surviving a heart attack, lowers your risk of parkinsons disease, lowers obesity, enhances brain function in people in cognitive decline and a bunch more shit
cdc is absolutely full of shit
bold ass claims that haven't and cant be proven.
'smoking causes harm to every organ in the body' as an example
'smoking is absolute cause of cancer' - no proof at all
fuck the cdc and fuck op for being a huge faggot.

Fine by me. It'd drastically reduce the amount of people smoking, making the public a cleaner place. A smoking ban would not prevent smoking, but it'd remove it from society at large and force it underground where smoker are only hurting themselves.

They'd probably give some lame rebuttal about gentrification or us trying to white wash them by conforming to the white man's silly medical science. You'd be surprised how committed some feminists can be when it comes to Muslims cutting off clits for the sake of cultural relativism

Oh, I fully understand, but it'd be pretty easy to just go "no you" and morally grandstand about the issue. Smoking is pretty unpopular in the United States, and I doubt that'd change.

>make it an illegal drug
>streisand effect ensues
>illegal trafficking and other various crimes ensue
>cartels now primary producer of tobacco
>muh war on drugs
smells like some neocon shit brewing up to me

omg you're retarded, I wasn't comparing smoking cigarettes to killing people. I'm pointing out how if banning behavior x is legislating behavior, then this would apply when it comes to the behavior of killing people.

That's not what the Streisand Effect is, numbnuts. If druggies want to get their tobacco fix, let them. They won't be doing it in public anymore, reducing a great proportion of litter, cleaning up our air, and reducing the effects of second hand smoke in public.

it fucking doesn't apply, killing someone takes their agency, smoking something hurts you, completely fucking different. banning tobacco is legislating behavior, you're trying to prevent someone from doing something you deem immoral or wrong or stupid, banning murder is not, there's no fucking societies where casually icing someone is acceptable, find me an example that isn't some mongoloid niggers in the forrest killing each other. I dare you.

I understand that as well, I'm anticipating these cheap rhetorical shots detractors will usually make. They tend to be persuasive though illogical, while the "no you" response tends to be as persuasive though it is indeed logical. You're the one advocating for the preservation of life, and the lowering of preventable disease and healthcare costs, while they'd de facto be shills for big tobacco. Any leftist trying to use the anti-racist rhetoric will run contrary to this sudden allegiance to big corporation like tobacco companies which prey on minorities.

Attached: African American_Fact2.jpg (1883x1237, 521K)

whatever the concept is still the same dipshit, banning it makes it sexy, you're not solving the problem, you create a void for criminals to fill and people still do it, so basically all the things you said don't happen and we now have more crime, thanks rabbi.

Banning the killing of someone is legislating behavior regardless if it takes away someone's agency. You're also forgetting this:
>Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, WITH MORE THAN 41,000 OF THESE DEATHS FROM EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE
So basically:
>don't smoke
>die of lung cancer anyway because some other douche bag did smoke
How is that not taking someone's agency?
Don't forget the costs smoking has on the tax payer: Your "individual freedom" to smoke is coming at the expense of everyone else.

>smoking increases your chances of surviving a heart attack, lowers your risk of parkinsons disease, lowers obesity, enhances brain function in people in cognitive decline and a bunch more shit
So what exactly makes the studies that verify all this (which I have yet to see) credible but the studies that show the negatives of smoking are all of a sudden not credible? Do the first set of studies practice a super secret version of the scientific method that's more accurate while the latter doesn't or something?

You're right, banning killing makes it sexy and doesn't solve the problem. We're just creating a void for criminals to fill and people still do it, so basically all the things you said don't happen and we now have more crime, thanks rabbi.

Lol i bet you dudes advocating for banning tobacco are the same people pushing for drug legalization because "you cant ban a plant muh freedum stop cartels!"

Tobacco, weed and alcohol should be made legal at 16, same age you can drive a car. It should be the parents' responsibility to teach their kids to make wise choices and use in moderation, or not use. Not the job of the police to babysit.
Voting age should be raised to 21 though, and you should be able to get drafted at 21 and up.

Yes, let's give our retarded leftist state even more power over our lives!

Doesn't matter to me since I am over 21 so I don't care. I am worried they're going to ban internet sales for pipe tobacco.

Attached: de9fsit1bxs21.jpg (1536x2048, 430K)