Legal smoking age in NJ: 19

[ilvny]

In most of the US, the age to buy/smoke cigarettes and tobacco is 18.  However, in New Jersey, the age is 19.  Does anybody know the reasoning behind New Jersey's higher smoking age?   I found out the age was increased from 18 to 19.  This was also done in Alabama, Alaska, and Utah, along with New York counties Onondaga, Nassau and Suffolk.

It doesn't bother me at all because I don't smoke.  I'm just curious as to why those areas increased the age from 18 to 19, while the other states have the smoking age at 18.

[Big John]

When the drinking age was 18, a push to make it 19 was to  make it harder for high school students to illegaly obtain it.  I suspect a similar reason here.

Now don't get MADD started on raising that age to 21 too.

[bugo]

If the fascists had their way, the legal age would be 40.  Actually, they would be illegal.  This is coming from somebody who hates tobacco with a passion.

[Molandfreak]

What is it with NJ and their one-year-higher business? First the driving licenses, and now this? Next thing you know, the drinking age is going to be 22

[agentsteel53]

What is it with NJ and their one-year-higher business? First the driving licenses, and now this? Next thing you know, the drinking age is going to be 22

nanny state.  they also don't let you pump your own gas.

[cpzilliacus]

In my perfect world, the minimum age to purchase any legal recreational drugs (alcohol and tobacco), a firearm (and ammunition for same) and vote would be the same.

[cpzilliacus]

When the drinking age was 18, a push to make it 19 was to  make it harder for high school students to illegaly obtain it.  I suspect a similar reason here.

Now don't get MADD started on raising that age to 21 too.

I dislike tobacco (for my own use, or more to the point, non-use) with a passion.   But I don't think I need to lecture others about smoking, and I won't.

But if someone is old enough to be drafted, then they are old enough to smoke and drink alcohol.

[agentsteel53]

16 seems about right for all of those activities.

except getting drafted.  that needs to stay abolished.  to volunteer for the military can be 16.

sure, it's a bit young.  but that is how people develop life experience - by doing stuff that they are just a little too young for.

[J N Winkler]

except getting drafted.  that needs to stay abolished.  to volunteer for the military can be 16.

I think the limit should be 18.  Allowing people to enlist as early as 17 1/2 means we have to have a derogation from the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a lot of trouble for very little benefit since people aged between 17 1/2 and 18 do not form an appreciable proportion of personnel in any branch of the service.  Given that the Army at least (and I think all other branches of the armed forces) now require new recruits to have a diploma from an accredited high school (no GEDs), and the military does not recruit among people who finish high school early, we lose very little by having a minimum age of 18.

[agentsteel53]

I think the limit should be 18.  Allowing people to enlist as early as 17 1/2 means we have to have a derogation from the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a lot of trouble for very little benefit since people aged between 17 1/2 and 18 do not form an appreciable proportion of personnel in any branch of the service.  Given that the Army at least (and I think all other branches of the armed forces) now require new recruits to have a diploma from an accredited high school (no GEDs), and the military does not recruit among people who finish high school early, we lose very little by having a minimum age of 18.

fair enough.  drinking age 16, enlist at 18.  let 'em get wasted a few times before they get wasted.

[vdeane]

Allowing people to enlist as early as 17 1/2 means we have to have a derogation from the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a lot of trouble for very little benefit since people aged between 17 1/2 and 18 do not form an appreciable proportion of personnel in any branch of the service.

Last I checked, we never signed that treaty.  Did that change?

[J N Winkler]

Last I checked, we never signed that treaty.  Did that change?

Wikipedia says no--we are not one of the 20 ratifying nations, nor are we one of the 193 contracting parties (which puts us in the same low company as South Sudan and Somalia).

[TXtoNJ]

Last I checked, we never signed that treaty.  Did that change?

Wikipedia says no--we are not one of the 20 ratifying nations, nor are we one of the 193 contracting parties (which puts us in the same low company as South Sudan and Somalia).

Well, that's just par for the course for the US. When you're the hegemon, there's no point in agreeing to any restriction on your own power that you didn't come up with in the first place.