As a nation comes together to mourn the passing of former first lady Nancy Reagan, we also reflect on the impact she and her husband, Ronald Reagan, left on society. Recently, California lawmakers have raised the smoking age from 18 to 21, reminding us of her most well know campaign, “Just Say No” aimed at fighting drug use amongst youth. The idea seems logical. A raised smoking age would mean less teen smokers. However, on March 11, 2016, sociologist Mike Males wrote an article for the “Los Angeles Times”, explaining why this seemingly obvious approach doesn’t actually work.
A sociologist, author, and former teacher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Mike Males currently serves as senior researcher for San Francisco's Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice with an emphasis on antismoking efforts. In this particular article, he refers to a number of studies, all of which claim no evidence supporting the idea that raising the smoking age prevents teens from smoking. Beyond ineffective, he also makes a strong case that raising the smoking age can even be harmful under some circumstances.
Males begins his article by describing a two year study done by medical researchers in the 1990s. In this instance, several communities in Massachusetts implemented a campaign that would make under age tobacco sales more difficult with the hopes that teen smoking rates would fall. However, a survey of high school students in the communities revealed no drop in teen smoking rates. Males notes that similar patterns have played out across the country, with teens being punished at high rates for status offenses.
An important key to this research is the difference between short term and long term effects. Males notes that California's 1998 Teen Driver Safety Act was successful in reducing fatalities among 16 year olds, but long-term research showed the act interrupted a previous decline and instead increased deaths among older teens and adults. In 1996, Monrovia passed a day time curfew that was meant to cut crime, but it was eventually found that crime was cut more during non-curfew hours. The smoking age is California is similar to these cases. Between 2000 and 2012, teen smoking rates were cut in half with no government assistance, and raising the age for buying tobacco would risk interfering with this trend.
Males makes a convincing argument that raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 could have unintentional consequences. However, he omits some possibly valuable information. If the smoking age is indeed declining, what is causing this trend if not statutory efforts? How might we possibly continue this trend despite the recent vote? He notes that raising taxes on tobacco products has proven effective, but provides no evidence to back this claim up.
Despite minor points, Males does a fine job of defending his belief that lawmakers should know when to leave young people alone. His evidence and research also suggest that Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign may have not been so effective after all, leaving us with the tough question of how to adequately handle drug use among America’s youth.