Letter to the editor: Children vaping & voting | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Children vaping & voting

Lori Falce pulls no punches in “Vaping defense is up in smoke.” The mother of all truth-bombs was “These aren’t grown-up decisions.”

This blows up any progressive argument in favor of lowering the voting age to 16; children should not vote. Child-like citizens of voting age get addicted to the false euphoria of big-government solutions to problems, from inhaling the toxic “candy-colored smoke” blown by Democratic presidential candidates. Why endure the inconvenience to quit vaping, when the real problem is those who destroy the planet filling their gas tanks and eating meat in air-conditioned comfort? Why worry about hospital bills resulting from self-destructive behavior when your free health care is funded by everyone else’s taxes?

Recently, friends discovered their 30-something son was so addicted to the Bernie brand of “jellybean-flavored haze” that he stopped paying his college loans; their credit score plunged because they co-signed. How’s that for grown-up, responsible decision-making?

There is plenty of blame to go around, and pointing fingers won’t begin to correct the path in which we have wandered so far astray. If schools and laws don’t require people to accept consequences for small mistakes, they will likely suffer consequences of big errors in judgment.

To counter the “personal choice” argument, the critical role of faith and religion must be re-emphasized. When someone naively believes they can do whatever they choose because it’s “their body,” they should be instructed that it is not their body at all. It is only on loan from God.

Joe Schmidt

Lower Burrell

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.