Smoking is dying out. Governments beseech us to save the cats, Hollywood is begging us to stub out the butts, and entire generations have never known a world without anti-tobacco advertising. It’s one of the biggest public health campaigns in human history, and it’s worked. Between 1965 and 2014, the percentage of smokers in America went from 42.4% to just 16.8%, heavy smokers (those who puff more than a pack and a half a day) dropped by almost half in the first decade of the 21st century, and teenagers now smoke far, far less than the teenagers of yore.
But for some, it’s still not enough. They want the smoking age raised to 21. Welcome to the new battlefield in the war on cigarettes.
The reason to raise the smoking age, according to advocacy groups such as Tobacco21 is simple: It cuts off would-be smokers in high school from cigarettes, and helps keep younger smokers from getting tobacco. The idea is that if teenagers can’t get their older classmates to buy them smokes, they won’t start, and those that do smoke will have a harder time getting at them, thus making them more likely to quit. Nobody thinks this will end smoking entirely, but it will keep would-be smokers away from cigarettes longer.
There’s some evidence to back that this works. The vast majority of smokers are made before the age of 20, and if a would-be smoker can get to 21 without cracking a pack, their odds of never doing it jump substantially. So a movement has sprung up, and it’s been surprisingly effective, at least in getting legislation passed. Hawaii, Maine, California, New Jersey and Oregon have all made the smoking age 21, and cities and towns have followed suit.
The Tabacco21 movement has been nothing if not swift — Hawaii was the first state to raise the age and that was just June 2015. But it hasn’t been without controversy. Maine’s increase, which passed at the beginning of August, was vetoed by governor Paul LePage, who saw his veto overridden by the legislature. California’s law, passed in May 2016, saw governor Jerry Brown approve the age increase, but veto a rule change letting towns and counties decide tobacco tax rates. In a Vice overview of the movement, Chris Sherwin, the vice president for state advocacy for Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, explained it makes the most sense to go state by state, town by town, steadily chipping away at the legal smoking age.
But is it actually common sense? Therein lies the problem. The legislation might look good, and depending on your perspective on individual rights, be either an encroachment by the state or absolutely harmless. The significance of age of 21 comes from a rare moment of federal command of the states: In 1984, the federal government took the unusual step of forcing states to raise the legal drinking age. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 tied the minimum drinking age to federal highway funding; if it was below twenty-one, states would see a ten percent cut in desperately needed highway funds. But the goal wasn’t to stop kids from drinking. It was to stop kids from driving drunk.
Whether that worked specifically is an open question, but drunk driving fatalities dropped quickly starting in 1982. This is different — the goal isn’t to get teens to not smoke and drive, it’s to get them to never start smoking or quit if they’ve already started. And according to a Harvard study, shifting the legal drinking age did nothing to stop teenage drinking. It’s unsurprising if you think about it; even with a legal drinking age of eighteen, most teens were already breaking the law to drink. They just kept doing that for longer. Really all the law did was give older brothers that much more leverage over their teen siblings. Thanks, Washington.
There’s little to indicate teen smokers would stop just because a law was in their way. It might be more instructive to figure out why smokers quit in the first place. But there’s little data on that, and what we do have is less than inspiring. For example, a 2013 study of Italians who quit smoking discovered 43.2% quit because their health made it impossible to keep smoking. 31% said they quit to avoid future health problems, at least, so those anti-smoking ads are arguably having a positive effect.
For kids to stop smoking, there does appear to be a clear answer: Price them out of the habit altogether. It’s a technique that works, but also creates an odd age division: Smoking rates are heavily tied to socio-economic status, and long-term working-class smokers are less likely to quit over price fluctuations than younger would-be smokers. In fact, they’re so unlikely to do so that a well-meaning attempt to raise cigarette taxes in Missouri was backed by a major tobacco company as a weapon to drive smaller competitors out of business. That means that lower-class, long-term smokers will get poorer as a result of this play.