Quote (Santara @ 23 Dec 2019 08:04)
So the federal government decided in the most recent omnibus spending bill that they would institute a nationwide raising of the legal age to consume tobacco and vaping products to 21.
Personally, I am not only opposed, but genuinely curious as to where they think they have the legal authority to enact this. The legal drinking age being 21 is a federal endeavor that came about by the feds threatening to withhold 10% of each state's federal highway funding if those states failed to enact state-by-state drinking ages at 21. This is because such regulations are state's rights, not entrusted to the feds. But here we are watching the feds assume powers they don't have, and most people don't seem to bat an eye.
Legit question: will 18-20 year old people be tried as adults for breaking this law?
You raise good points. Outside of the 18th and 21st Amendments, the US Constitution doesn't address drugs, including nicotine or cigarettes. As such, rules addressing smoking should probably be left to the states under the 10 Amendment.
I am a fan of disincentivizing smoking, but the ways in which that is done or not done should be left up to the states. There is some evidence that waiting until age 21 could decrease the number of people who start smoking (probably something to do with a lot of brain development between ages 18-21), but again, that decision should be left to the states.
On another note, this is a similar reason why I find proposals such as Bernie Sanders' to legalize or decriminalize weed via executive order so egregious. Not only would that be grossly and unnecessarily bypassing the legislative branch, it's also probably not the federal government's role to weigh in on that topic.
Lastly, I do think states should probably increase the cost of cigarettes even more. It would place an even larger tax burden on the poor, but I think that's okay. Cost-benefit wise, less people smoking saves us more money. But again, that should be up to the states.