Late Night Fiction A blog of much perspicaciousness

Smoking Age and Morals

Apparently nowadays, this is an issue too? While I've been in New Jersey these past few days, I've been enjoying the regular cigarette. Upon depletion of my cigarette pack, I went to my local Wal-Mart, Wawa, and eventually 7-11 to purchase another pack of cigarettes. I was turned down at two of the three locations only to be told I was "too young" to purchase these health-sapping products. My first reaction was, what the fuck?? I'm finally eighteen years of age, a legal adult, and upon travelling 200 miles north in the same country I love, I can't buy a pack of my favorite cigarettes?? Not only this, but the fact that apparently the tobacco-purchasing age in New Jersey has been raised to 19, was complete and utter bullshit in every meaning of the word!

According to Wal-Mart, the age increase was to reduce the availability of cigarettes to minors. What about the availability to legal-frickin-adults?? I was lucky enough to have an employee around my age at a 7-11 who could tell I was 18 and a fricking responsible adult and who would sell me those cigarettes. Yes, I'm with my under-age friends up here, but I'm not buying cigarettes for them! I can sign a contract, I can go to war. I should be able to buy a fucking pack of cigarettes.

And you'd think I wouldn't get so pissed off at this--I live in Virginia, where cigarettes are cheaper and available to legal adults. But it's about the bigger picture. It further reinforces the notion of self-righteous bigots running the country who are either in power to further their personal agenda or trying to win political points with anti-tobacco therefore furthering their own power-hungry agenda. It's a vicious cycle. But it's not only the governer's (in this case) fault, but our society. Generations of adults raising children to not care about when another person's happiness is more important than their own. The one life lesson we are very rarely taught from an early age is that while it is good to be a little self-centered and individualistic, sometimes you reach an ultimatum (whether intentional or not), and have to choose the other person (or in this case, other people) over your own needs and desires. While this is seemingly double-sided (if the governor chooses the people and doesn't get his way, the people do what they want and do get their way), that's why it's a moral and not a law. In a law, one side always wins. In a moral, you use your very own mind to make a decision and be what they call, "human." Having one person (or many) decide what is right and wrong and being able to act upon their beliefs through enforcable laws is simply a conflict of interests; the same reason a separation of church and state is one thing to be happy about in this country (at least in most places).

And being "moral" doesn't mean doing what's best for the general population's health when it involves sapping personal choice because there's that extra human factor: personal choice. When it concerns keeping the general population from getting HIV, for example, not many people are going to want that; and therefore a rigid sex-education program is always a good thing. But it still allows for personal choice and the people who do still wish to risk getting HIV can still go ahead and do so. After all, what is the point of living in a free country without being free to make your own decisions? Especially when you are legally considered an adult. When it doesn't involve destroying other people's lives (e.g. drunk driving), there's no harm in destroying your own health if it is your choice. And although most can't wait until 18 to smoke or star in their next porno, it is, in my opinion, a good age to enforce by law. The drinking age can wait. Obviously it would be nice, but our culture is too irresponsible to lower it at this day and time. Otherwise, leave it up to the responsible parents who aren't idiots and don't have a problem letting their 18-year-olds have a drink with them. While enough people aren't sufficiently responsible to not drunkingly kill people, some are, and that should be enough evidence to allow for a little bit of flexibility in the drinking laws, and health laws in general.