I have written before about the phenomenon I like to call "crackpot libertarianism." We see it again in the current debate over a bill that would raise the age for purchasing cigarettes in New Jersey from 19 to 21.

The opponents argue that such a move would constitute a great infringement on the liberty of New Jerseyans. That might be true in some ideal world in which all drugs were legal. In modern-day New Jersey, though, that proposition is absurd.

If you doubt that, think of the other drugs that can be smoked: marijuana, opium and crack cocaine. Now think about the fact that cigarettes annually kill more Americans than all of those drugs combined, plus alcohol use, car accidents and suicide. So just what is the basis for outrage at a minor restriction on the most deadly drug of them all?

If you told the local pothead he could buy all the weed he wants down at the 7-Eleven, he’d think he was in heaven. If you then told him the sole restriction was that he’d have to be over 21, he’d still be ecstatic, even if he were 19. He’d just have one of his older buddies score for him.

A strict libertarian could argue that the government has no role in regulating either drug. That’s logically consistent. But the crackpot element creeps in when a politician gets up on his hind legs and starts bellowing about how restrictions on cigarettes violate our liberties. Unless that politician is a libertarian — a category that seems empty now that Ron Paul has retired from Congress — then he is a complete hypocrite.

Just for fun, let’s imagine this bill makes its way to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie. Christie has made it difficult if not impossible for those suffering from serious diseases such as cancer to get medical marijuana. Could he then, with a straight face, argue that the cause of liberty is set back by preventing those between the ages of 19 and 21 from buying a drug delivery device that causes cancer? If so, he will deserve to ascend to the presidency.

The real defect in the bill is one noted by Sal Risalvato, who is executive director of the New Jersey Gasoline, Convenience and Automotive Association. The bill, which is sponsored by state Sen. Richard Codey, penalizes the seller of cigarettes but not the buyer.

"The store owner is on the hook," said Risalvato — even though it’s the kid who’s making the purchase, usually with some sort of fake ID.

"Why doesn’t Senator Codey propose penalties for those who violate the law and purchase cigarettes?" he asked.

I put that question to the Essex County Democrat.

"It’s something I’m going to look at," he replied. "I’m thinking about that, but I don’t know if I want to go there."

I can’t see why he shouldn’t. If the senator doesn’t want people under 21 to smoke, then he should tell cops to enforce the law, not clerks.

That’s especially true when you consider how easily the kid in question can buy smokes over the internet, at half price and without paying state taxes. Under Codey’s bill, that kid could smoke those cigarettes openly on a street corner — and blow smoke in a cop’s face if the officer raised any objections. If the same kid were drinking beer on the corner, he’d be collared by the cops. Why should there be a different standard for cigarettes?

Codey is on much firmer ground when it comes to the "nanny state" argument often raised by the crackpot libertarians. Codey argues that people who get through their teen years without smoking are much more likely to avoid addiction. This is backed up both by science and his own observations as an undertaker. In that capacity, he meets many relatives of people killed by smoking.

"It’s interesting now how many people say, ‘He was a smoker, but he quit 10 years ago,’" Codey said. "But he always hated that he started young."

Nannyish? Perhaps. But that same state is on the hook for any medical care that smoker may require. If we taxpayers are going to pick up the tab, why shouldn’t we tell young people how to behave?

I can’t think of a good reason. But then I’m not a politician — or a crackpot.

Comments: Watever you do, please don't repeat that moronic bit of spin about how cigarettes are different because they're "a legal product." Of course they're legal. So would marijuana be - if it were legal. That, boys and girls, is what is known as a tautology.

Also, please spare us that brilliant observation about the voting age and the age for entering the military being 18. Those are federal laws. They have no bearing whatsoever on state law.