Throughout the history of tobacco products there has always been unavoidable side effects hidden from humans. Within the 20th and 21st centuries, the producers of tobacco products have created an upheaval in the numerous consumption options. The most popular of the various options for tobacco products include: cigarettes, light and menthol cigarettes, cigars and pipes, hookahs, and chewing tobacco. Along with these products, many tobacco companies and entrepreneurs have found their way into the most popular way of nicotine consumption in the 21st century today, which is vaping. Vaping was originally invented to help those who are addicted to traditional tobacco products, but it has since changed to being a popular trend for those who have never been addicted before. The most concerning part of the vaping trend is that younger persons are becoming addicted. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studies have shown that, “About 1 of every 20 middle school students (4.7%) reported in 2020 that they used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days…” and “About 1 of every 5 high school students (19.6%) reported in 2020 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days…” With this issue, I am proposing that the age of all tobacco and nicotine products be raised from the age of 21, which is what it is now, to the age of 25. By doing this it would target youths and young adults under the age of 25 and lower the rate of usage in the United States.
The best way to target this issue is by making it a nationwide policy in the United States. By making this policy enforced by the law it will ultimately help with the access of these products being less available and harder to find for those under the age of 25. There were steps made to make this issue go away by making the legal age 21 instead of 18 has helped, but this age difference is not significant enough. A 25 year old will most likely not want to sell tobacco products to an 18 year old or even younger than that because it is uncomfortable. Yes, it is still possible for a multistep deal to take place if the age is raised to 25, but this would ultimately be inconvenient for all parties involved. By creating an inconvenience, this is going to help lower the rate of addiction within youths and young adults and overall help their health in the long run.
Further examining the health risks that are caused by vaping, the most common knowledge one would have is that it has terrible effects on one's lungs. Because of the harmful chemicals that are put into the different vape products, the chemicals enter the bloodstream and go directly to the heart. It is becoming more common for death to occur because of this and youths and young adults are unaware of it. Not only is nicotine a popular form of vaping, but also many younger people use vapes that have THC in them which also have harmful side effects to the lungs and also the brain. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH), since the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, exposure to tobacco before then can cause severe problems. “Upon entering the blood, nicotine immediately stimulates the adrenal glands to release the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline). Epinephrine stimulates the central nervous system and increases blood pressure, breathing, and heart rate... Studies suggest that other chemicals in tobacco smoke, such as acetaldehyde, may enhance nicotine’s effects on the brain.” (NIH). If these negative effects are happening regardless of one's age, it would be most beneficial for brains that are still developing to not be exposed to this in the way they are being now.
On the opposing side however, there are potential reasons why raising the age would not be beneficial. The first issue many American’s would have a concern about is the loss of tax revenues. The average tax rate on a pack of cigarettes in the United States, according to tobaccofreekids.org, is $1.88-$4.35. By taking away a larger part of the tobacco user demographic, this would take away millions of dollars for the government and the tobacco companies. Another belief is that it will not matter what age the legal sales is, everyone under it will still find a way to feed their addictions. Like other things that are illegal until a certain age, youths and young adults will always find their way to getting what they want. There are other reasons that can be supported for this viewpoint, but the ones mentioned here are the most commonly addressed and discussed on this topic.
Ultimately the idea of raising the legal age to 25 would help more than the people who are addicted to tobacco products. Parents and loved ones are becoming more aware of this issue and are constantly advocating for a change in this industry. I believe by launching a nationwide campaign for schools and colleges once the age is raised from 21 that it will have a big effect on stopping the increasing rate of addiction. Stopping the spread of underage tobacco use for the undeveloped brain would be beneficial for the future health of the American society. With that, it could also have a trickledown effect on the rest of the world and overall help everyone. The sooner we push out the campaigns on why tobacco use is causing deathly consequences, the sooner we can see the results of these horrific chances changing. Furthermore, ethically and medically it would make sense to change the legal age to 25 years old and creating better prevention strategies will help lead to a tobacco free future for our younger population.
Works Cited
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, December 16). Youth and Tobacco Use. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statis tics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021, January 14). Tobacco/Nicotine and Vaping. National Institute on Drug Abuse. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/tobacconicotine-vaping.
States Should Not Increase Tobacco Use Age to 21. InsideSources. (2016, April 27). https://insidesources.com/states-should-not-increase-tobacco-use-age-to-21/#:~:text=The%20evidence%20shows%20increasing%20the%20age%20limit%20required,revenues,%20wasting%20police%20resources,%20and%20higher%20smoking%20rates.
U.S. State and Local Issues: Tobacco Taxes. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. (2020, December 28). https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/us/state-tobacco-taxes.
This is a detailed and well-argued position. I think that aside from tobacco and tobacco product producers, and some tobacco-product consumers who are comfortable with their addictions, most people probably agree with the idea that we ought to do something to reduce the use of tobacco products. For motives we have the value of human life, and health life, and this is violated by products that contribute to more disease, earlier death, or other problems. We also have a self-interest. The costs of caring for persons sickened by tobacco products is usually shared by us all, through taxes that go to cover some costs, and insurance premiums that cover other costs. Since the various diseases and causes of death related to tobacco use tend to be more expensive than other forms of diseases that kills or disable us, we could save some money if fewer persons were addicted to disease-causing products.
This same argument applies to all substances that can cause addiction and disease. We could make the same arguments against alcohol, and the logic would be about the same, even if the manifestation of injury to the health of users would differ. Our problem is to decide what time of health-promotion policy is politically feasible, likely to be effective, is relatively efficient, and fits with our values.
With addicting products or other products that society considers morally dubious, we can add high taxes, and thus restrict access among those who are poorer, leaving only the wealthy the freedom to indulge or become addicted. The taxes can then be used to treat the health problems, or launch public health campaigns to reduce use. We can ban the products. We can restrict the ages of persons who have access to the products. We can impose other regulations to limit access to the products, or ensure that persons who consume the products are exposed to warnings or offers of help to address their presumed addictions.
Consider the various sorts of behaviors and products society may want to discourage:
Tobacco consumption
Alcohol consumption
Patronizing sex workers
Pornography consumption
Gambling
Off-label (recreational) use of addictive medications
Marijuana consumption
Opiate consumption
Hallucinogenic substance consumption
Cocaine and other stimulant consumption
Fossil fuel energy production
Production of excessive waste of resources or pollution
And so forth.
What are some of the various ways that seem to work best to discourage these things?
We can outlaw the behaviors, heavily tax, heavily regulate, carefully restrict, and in various ways use coercion and threats or confiscation to discourage.
We can try to use prevention and social marketing to reduce the use or abuse of these things. That lets people make their own mind about what they want to do, but we can push society to be less accepting of these things.
If you can make money from it, there will always be people pushing to make these things legal, and popularize them. And if they remain illegal, or highly restricted, there will be people eager to make money dealing on a black market.
What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches we use to controlling and discouraging these things? Why do we make some of these illegal, and others we simply restrict and regulate and tax?
No comments:
Post a Comment