Of this we are certain: A federal law that recently went into effect raising the minimum age for the purchase of cigarettes and other tobacco-related products will save lives, millions of them given time, deliver us a country that is healthier and diminish by billions the number of dollars spent on health care that can be redirected for other purposes.

So obviously, based on this Greater Good, we applaud the law? Right?

Not so fast.

There are other measures that we could take that would achieve the same results. A couple that leap to mind:

We could outlaw sugar as a for instance, and that would provide for a leaner and meaner America, one that is not so obese, while taking a rather significant bite out of the scourge of diabetes, which is so evident all around us in Robeson County. But that would deny a lot of people a couple of cubes with their morning coffee. Sugar, addictive as it is, can be consumed in moderation.

We could as well reduce the maximum speed on Interstate 95 to, oh, let’s go with 45 mph. That would reduce by a lot the number of high-speed crashes, reduce suffering, lower the death toll on the highway and save a lot of families the grief of losing a loved one. But the reality is 45 mph is not practical for that highway, and it would add a lot of time to making the trip, time that can be spent on recreation, working or for whatever purpose. It would be a life-saver, but at what cost?

The legislation reeks of a Nanny State, as well as hypocrisy as this nation doesn’t mind sending 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds off to fight our wars, and 18 as well is the minimum age to elect our politicians.

Moreover, the freedom to chose one’s own destiny is a tenant that underscores much of this newspaper’s philosophical view when it comes to creating our laws. We believe strongly that government efforts to protect people from their own choices, certainly those that don’t affect others, are largely wasted and our contrary to the liberties we all seek to enjoy.

Perhaps this will surprise you, but despite all this, we welcome the legislation, mindful that the brain of an 18-year-old is not fully developed, and that tempting them with cigarettes — or alcohol, a drug that is similarly destructive when abused — is in many ways a trap, one that too many are unable to escape. The list of things more addicting than nicotine is relatively short.

Also, it’s not true that smoking a cigarette hurts only the person holding it, and we aren’t even talking secondhand smoke. Smoking can’t be done in moderation, and like when alcohol is abused, the costs are imposed on the rest of us in many ways, the most obvious being when we pay for our health insurance. It is that simple.

The legislation does more than put cigarettes farther from the reach of 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, but does that as well with e-cigarettes, the vaping substitute for cigarettes on which evidence is mounting of its own health hazards.

So we applaud this law, even as we realize that for some teenagers, making it illegal to purchase these products will actually increase their pursuit of them in a quest to rebel. But we are convinced that the overwhelming majority of those being denied by this law will instead abide by it, reach the age of 21 without the risk of addiction and raise the odds that they never become smokers.

That should give us all what we want — a healthier America.