Suggest a bill to be debated on BackMic.com
Describe the Bill – Be as detailed as possible. Please include the bill number and author if possible. Visit the Texas Legislature Online to search bills.
 

Backmic.com

Your Voice in the Legislative Process

Submit a Bill
SB268
SUMMARY
Research has shown that simply delaying access to smoking reduces the risk of adolescents becoming addicted during their most formative years. The best way to accomplish this change would be to raise the legal smoking age by just one year — from 18 to 19. Read & Follow the Bill
Interact with this bill

Post vote to


 
 
the debate: SB268
6 Comments   |   Post a Comment     
the mood on this bill

Comments from Carlos Uresti

Despite the mountain of evidence against tobacco use and increased awareness of its deadly effects, cigarette smoking persists across Texas to the great detriment of individuals and society as a whole.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, almost one in five Texans age 18 and older are regular smokers — that's more than 3.2 million people who are putting their own health and lives on the line, and perhaps endangering others with second-hand smoke.

Particularly troubling — because it seems to be at the heart of the problem — is the smoking rate among those under age 18. The 2010 CDC data found that more than 9% of Texas adolescents admitted to smoking less than 30 days prior to the survey date. Unfortunately, many of these kids are unwittingly laying the foundation for a lifelong addiction.

Research has shown that simply delaying access to smoking reduces the risk of adolescents becoming addicted during their most formative years. The best way to accomplish this change would be to raise the legal smoking age by just one year — from 18 to 19.

Here's why it's important. According to those studies, the earlier someone tries smoking for the first time, the higher their risk of ultimately becoming a regular smoker, and the less likely they are to eventually quit. In fact, nearly 80 percent of adult smokers started the habit before the age of 18, and 90 percent did so before turning 20.

These facts make it essential to minimize exposure to cigarettes as much as possible during this crucial age range. That's difficult to do when 18-year-olds can legally purchase cigarettes, then bring them to school and hand them out to their younger friends.

In fact, most underage smokers do not purchase cigarettes for themselves. One study revealed around 60 percent get their cigarettes from other sources, and a significant amount has others buy cigarettes for them. Raising the smoking age, then, would limit availability to the vast majority of high school students, most of who have graduated by the time they turn 19. With this decrease in availability would come a corresponding decrease in accessibility for underage adolescents.

So by raising the legal smoking age to 19, this devastating cycle of youthful experimentation and addiction could be broken.

Raising the smoking age would provide other benefits as well. A staggering 503,000 kids currently under 18 in Texas are estimated to die prematurely from cigarette use. And annual healthcare costs in Texas associated with complications from smoking are $5.83 billion, with estimated "productivity losses," which factor in missed work time due to smoking-related illnesses, reaching nearly $7 billion.

Opponents of raising the legal smoking age argue that it would lead to decreased tax revenues from cigarette sales, reducing the amount of money for the Property Tax Relief Fund. While this is true — the loss would have totaled more than $12.5 million in the 2010-2011 biennium, according to the Legislative Budget Board — the decreased healthcare costs from fewer smoking-related issues would eventually more than make up that deficit.

Raising the legal smoking age to 19 will save thousands of people from an expensive and harmful addiction, and will likely result in substantial savings through decreased healthcare costs.

Contributor Comments
hope
(Travis County) February 15, 2011, 4:02 pm report abuse
This bill has a laudable goal, but the author's comments don't make a strong case that this particular mechanism will be effective in reaching that goal. How many fewer kids are projected to start smoking annually if the legal age is 19 rather than 18, and what assumptions underlie the projection? For example, is there any research from other states on the effect of a higher legal age on smoking/initiation of smoking rates among young people?
NewTexan
(Hays County) February 15, 2011, 1:02 pm Thumbs Down report abuse
Why not just throw the age requirement out and require citizens to be at least high school graduates to purchase cigarettes. Studies show that those that graduate high school and move on to college degrees smoke less....I guess they finally figure it out by then that cigarettes cost a lot of money, especially as they increase financial responsibility as one gets older! Here is a good article to read:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/04/consumption
( County) February 15, 2011, 1:02 pm Thumbs Down report abuse
I don't know anyone who waited until they were of legal age to start smoking. Half the fun is the fact that you aren't suppose to be doing it.
patriotgirl88
(Denton County) February 15, 2011, 12:47 pm Thumbs Down report abuse
While I understand what Senator Uresti is trying to do, I don't feel like it is an efficient use of time. Let's worry about getting our kids an education or to a degree program after high school. There are other laws in effect that are tightening the rope on smokers and where they can smoke and the taxes on cigarettes. Let's use efficiently our time. Good idea, but not this session.
Mr.Smith
(Bastrop County) February 15, 2011, 12:21 pm Thumbs Up report abuse
I guess anything would help, but all of my friends who smoke certainly didn't wait until they were of legal buying age to start. I think this will be more a mole hill than a speed bump.
Backmic Update
(Travis County) February 9, 2011, 2:47 pm report abuse
Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Finance (1/31/11)
 
 
6 (67%) 3 (33%)