FDA officially raises federal minimum age to purchase all tobacco products from 18 to 21

[Elderberry]

American Military News by  Joshua Bote 12/27/2019

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has officially changed the federal minimum age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21.

The new minimum age applies to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and vaping cartridges.

The provision came as part of a $1.4 trillion spending package signed by President Donald Trump Dec. 20, which amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which also included $1.4 billion reserved for building the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $25 million for gun violence research.

What was unclear in the proposal, however, when the change in the minimum age would be enacted. From the date of Trump signed the legislation, the FDA had six months to amend their policies, per Convenience Store News.

After that, the minimum age change would take place within 90 days.

However, the FDA website now reads: “It is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product – including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes – to anyone under 21.” The FDA website states that the website was updated on Dec. 20.

More: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/12/fda-officially-raises-federal-minimum-age-to-purchase-all-tobacco-products-from-18-to-21/

[Elderberry]

Soldiers can fight, but they won’t be able to smoke

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/12/soldiers-can-fight-but-they-wont-be-able-to-smoke/

Everyone knows about death and taxes. This is a story about war, tobacco and how much power teenagers don’t have, including the ones who sign up for military service.

Congress has approved a bill banning the sale of these products to anyone under 21, and President Donald Trump signed it into law.

A government that sends young soldiers into bomb-filled towns but makes it illegal for them to buy tobacco might sound inconsistent. But Thomson and Ferrary say a prohibition on tobacco sales to people younger than 21 is smart policy.

[Smokin Joe]

So, what's the age for pot in states where it is legalized?

[mountaineer]

Soldiers can fight, but they won’t be able to smoke

I  read somewhere there was an exemption for the military. Will have to try to find it.

Edit to add:   Looks like I was misinformed; see Military Times, "Plan to ban tobacco sales to anyone under 21 will hit the military too"

[Smokin Joe]

From my observations of people teetering on the brink of shock self-medicating with tobacco, I predict (and I pray I am wrong, for our troops' sake) an increase in PTSD and other problems. I have seen accident victims and others who have narrowly dodged a serious situation smoke to calm down, many, many times.

Or will the solution be to hand out happy pills when a guy could have just had a smoke?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Any idea on the constitutional authority given the federal government to regulate the age of purchasing tobacco?

Seems if this is the way it's going to be, there is nothing that are kept solely to the states.

[Smokin Joe]

Any idea on the constitutional authority given the federal government to regulate the age of purchasing tobacco?

Seems if this is the way it's going to be, there is nothing that are kept solely to the states.

They've just bypassed the step of withholding funds to the State until it passes its own law complying with federal demands. I know 'kids' who started and quit smoking (tobacco) by the time they were 21.

[EdinVA]

Seems if this is the way it's going to be, there is nothing that are kept solely to the states.

@IsailedawayfromFR

It costs the lobbyists to much money to go after 50 states.  It is cheaper, and more money in the pot if they consolidate at the federal level.

Anything for money (AFM)

[Smokin Joe]

@IsailedawayfromFR

It costs the lobbyists to much money to go after 50 states.  It is cheaper, and more money in the pot if they consolidate at the federal level.

Anything for money (AFM)

That, and it is far easier to change the Fevered minds inside the Beltway than where people actually walk among those they serve (who WILL give them an earful!).

[mountaineer]

Any idea on the constitutional authority given the federal government to regulate the age of purchasing tobacco?

Seems if this is the way it's going to be, there is nothing that are kept solely to the states.

I'd guess the Commerce Clause.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'd guess the Commerce Clause.

Only for interstate commerce. 

How can that possibly be true for purchases solely within the state?

[mountaineer]

Only for interstate commerce. 

How can that possibly be true for purchases solely within the state?

I believe the inter/intra-state distinction became irrelevant to the SCt during the FDR years.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe the inter/intra-state distinction became irrelevant to the SCt during the FDR years.

Irrelevant or not, the Constitution remains relevant, doesn't it?

Seems a state has standing to simply ignore what it believes is unconstitutional or press its case before the SC.

The Constitution is pretty specific on who controls activities absent a interstate commerce being made.

[mountaineer]

Not saying I agree,  just observing that since the FDR years, the court has gone to great lengths to give itself jurisdiction under the commerce clause, no matter how tenuous.

[jmyrlefuller]

I believe the inter/intra-state distinction became irrelevant to the SCt during the FDR years.

Close. The Warren Court killed it off in the 1960s as a way to justify the Civil Rights Act. A restaurant owner somewhere in the South, I don't remember exactly where (and admittedly it was before my time so I read this in hindsight), sued the government stating they didn't have the power to force a private business to serve people against his will. The government used the Commerce Clause as their justification.

The Warren Court basically said that if even if the businessman engaged in no interstate transactions, the government could still use the Commerce Clause against him.

It is yet another example of how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.