*DEBATE* Should the age of being allowed to buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18

[JackHb]

Should the age of being allowed to buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18


The Government is preparing powers to allow the age for buying cigarettes to be raised from 16 to 18.

Amendments to the Health Bill will let ministers take "swift action" if consultation on raising the minimum age favours a move to 18, the same as for buying alcohol.

The Government has also tabled amendments to the Bill allowing MPs a free vote on whether there should be a total ban on smoking in public places in England.

The legal age limit for buying cigarettes and tobacco was set at 16 more than 70 years ago. In December, the Government announced that it would consult on raising the minimum to 18. Although difficult to enforce, ministers believe the move would curb the sale of cigarettes to young people.

Campaigners argue that bringing the law on cigarettes into line with that on alcohol would reduce under-age smoking. The proposal has won backing from groups on all sides of the smoking debate. But some say the only real way to tackle smoking is to introduce a total ban in public places.

Rules
Please do not comment with "yeah it should" or "No it shouldnt" please make relevent points and point of views aswell as evidence to back up your post. Thanks

[Wizzdom]

Yes it should. Anyway it wouldnt stop people from smoking....

I hate smoke and ive never tried it either....

Bann smoking all together :)

[Tommy]

Should it hell. There is no real reason, i dont see a problem behind it so why mess with it?

[Wizzdom]

Smoking should be banned it public spaces.

[Dracolis]

It should because its the 16 year olds who still go to school that give the younger pupils their cigarettes. This would help stop schoolkids from smoking as there would be no one to pass around cigarettes in the playgrounds and on the buses.

[Tommy]

It should because its the 16 year olds who still go to school that give the younger pupils their cigarettes. This would help stop schoolkids from smoking as there would be no one to pass around cigarettes in the playgrounds and on the buses.
Not necesserily, 15 year olds can easily buy cigerrettes these days, and many kids get them from thei parent or from s trangers off the streets, it doesnt all relate down to 16 year olds.

[Dracolis]

Not necesserily, 15 year olds can easily buy cigarettes these days, and many kids get them from their parent or from strangers off the streets, it doesnt all relate down to 16 year olds.

Yeh but I used to see these older schoolkids pass their cigarettes to the younger schoolkids to try, and then they got hooked too. I had to suffer 4 years of breathing in the horrid muck everytime I went on the school bus to go to and from school. Your right about what you say but there never was the same problem in the earlier school I went to. Surely then they would have got hold of the cigarettes as well but I never saw anyone with them in middle school.

[Lyca]

Yes i think it should
This will stop lots of fires and problems in school
In secondary school I'm sure smoking is strictly forbidden and over 70% of fires in schools are caused by smoking so instead of an exclusion or someone getting expelled they are breaking the law so can end up with a criminal record for Arson and that will affect thier chances in life for getting a good job so it can affect the whole of thier career if nobody takes them on
In conclusion i think the smoking age limit should be changed from 18-16

[Tommy]

Well also imagine telling all these 16 year olds that are hooked, because alot of my mates are, imagine telling them they cant buy any more cigarettes, its not fair on them. Because its difficult to give up and you cant just pull them away from them.
They obviously havnt thought if it from that prespective.

[Dracolis]

Well also imagine telling all these 16 year olds that are hooked, because alot of my mates are, imagine telling them they cant buy any more cigarettes, its not fair on them. Because its difficult to give up and you cant just pull them away from them.
They obviously havnt thought if it from that prespective.

Yeh but it will stop others from buying them who are not hooked. The ones that are hooked already will get over it.

[Mit]

Well also imagine telling all these 16 year olds that are hooked, because alot of my mates are, imagine telling them they cant buy any more cigarettes, its not fair on them. Because its difficult to give up and you cant just pull them away from them.
They obviously havnt thought if it from that prespective.


But rasising the age of buying them would make it harder for them to get cigarettes causing some people to stop. Ok it isn't easy to quit but it will be better for them in the long run.

It would also mean less 16 yr olds are wasting their money on cigarettes, and some may not start. If its there and they can buy it they will begin smoking. Also a lot of people find buying cigarettes cool at 16, so if the age was higher then it would stop all these wannabe cool people from buying them...

[Dracolis]

I agree with you. The age limit should at least be the same as drinking as both are unsociable activities that all good people who care about others and themselves hate. Hopefully one day these things will both be ended and ppl can go around and not worry about being choked to death by smoke or being kicked and punched to death by drunks.

[Tommy]

Yeh but it will stop others from buying them who are not hooked. The ones that are hooked already will get over it.
Dont you realise how dangerous it is too immediatly take away something someone is addicted too? If youre addicted to something you will do anything to get it. Anything... if you dont know someone who is addicted then i see why you say what you say but i do know people. And taking cigerrettes from people can cause more illnesses than it caused before hand.

[holo-jonny]

smoking is a waste of money.
they cost loads of money and they can actually kill you.
I think that since OAP`s don`t have to work to get money and since they will die soon anyway they should be the only ones getting them.
increase the ciggarette age to 60.

[Tommy]

smoking is a waste of money.
they cost loads of money and they can actually kill you.
I think that since OAP`s don`t have to work to get money and since they will die soon anyway they should be the only ones getting them.
increase the ciggarette age to 60.
Well that ruined the mood of the debate, with such a stupid answer.

[Dracolis]

Dont you realise how dangerous it is too immediatly take away something someone is addicted too? If youre addicted to something you will do anything to get it. Anything... if you dont know someone who is addicted then i see why you say what you say but i do know people. And taking cigerrettes from people can cause more illnesses than it caused before hand.
I think that anyone who is addicted to anything is weak-minded. As soon as you realise that something is bad for you, you stop. Or at least you can wean yourself off of it.

[Bef]

It should because its the 16 year olds who still go to school that give the younger pupils their cigarettes. This would help stop schoolkids from smoking as there would be no one to pass around cigarettes in the playgrounds and on the buses.


And the sixth formers? There eighteen... Plus most over age teenage smokers dont go in the shop for little kids. I know i wont... why waste my time helping someone else get in to a habbit that i wish i had never started?
Anyway... Sixteen is the right age i think. I mean, you can get married, have sexual intercourse, move in to your own home at sixteen... If sixteen year olds are responsible enough to do that then they are resbonsible enough to make an informed decision at whever they should smoke or not.
I dont know one person who smokes who couldn't tell you in detail how every ciggerette is giving them less and less hope of a pain free future.
Also, now they have bought in an agreement that you have to look eighteen to be served with out ID so its alot more differcult for younger children to get served in shops.
The problemn which needs to be dealt with are cigeratte machines. Kids of any age could easily walk into a pub foyer, family club etc and use the *** machines without being seen. With this still an issue i feel that the age of smoking shouldn't even be considered. You need to lay down all the bricks before you start the next layer or the house wont be very well built :P
At present children under 16 dont get arrested for smoking or have to pay fines, Its not even the shop owners like many people think. Its the person behind the tills responsibility, this means that they are thinking of themselves, all shop workers should know this and tbh i doubt anybody is stupid enough to risk the neck selling someone blatently under 16 cigerattes anymore...
Its been proposed that a new law be brought in so children as young as 11-12 can be forced to pay an on the spot fine for vandelism, drunken and disordally and graffeti. I think smoking should be added to the list. Yes some under 16's may still smoke even with the threat of having there pocket money cut for a year but it will be the minority. It will also discourage children from standing outside the shop asking randomers to go in for them, and also sneaking into pubs to use the machines.
I think this would be a far more sucessful method of stopping under age smoking. If the smoking age is raised to 18 but children are still not threatend by any real punishment then they are still going to smoke.
Alcohol to young children can actually be alot more damaging then cigerettes at the time. Children are more likely to injure themselves, get in fights, get lost, even die of alcohol poisoning on the spot when drinking yet alot more young children drink. It seems that people wanting to change laws to things like this really dont have much understanding of how alcohol effects children, how they can drop dead on the spot from one or two drinks when there really isnt much chance of them dropping dead from one or two cigerettes... It seems silly to compare something thats prooven to be able to kill people within an hour of the first drop to something that is prooven to kill people in 20/30 years.
Meh, most children smoke too shock, they do it as a way of rebillion or a way of fitting into the "cool" crowd. Putting the age up to 18 will just make it seem even bigger and badder.

An issue i really think should be dealt with is the increasing availability of tobacco on the black market.
Taxation to record levels has caused a smuggling epidemic which has resulted in millions of cheap cigarattes on the black market, many sold to children.
Reducing taxation will help run down the black market making tobacco less, not more, available to younger smokers.
There is an awufl lot of obsticales and issues to be dealt with before jumping straight on with a new age limit...

People tend to think that underage smoking is increasing. Infact statistics published by the Office for National Statistics (Social Focus in Brief: Children 2002) suggest that the number has decreased since 1996.

Also alot of this information we are given on the tele etc seems slightly exagerated. Children, like adults, must be educated about the health risks of smoking, but there is a fine line between education and propaganda, and the "quit or die" message we hear on a daily basis, is mostly propergander... Yes you CAN die from smoking evantually. It DOES cause health problems but so does tanning, drinking, eating excessivly, or really doing anything in excess... Your most likely not going to drop dead for taking a puff of a cigerette. And when people realise this then they start questioning the other smoking facts, It's dangerous, it causes a slow and painful death but not on the spot. Not right their, right then

Is it any wonder that many people rebel or develop "warning fatigue"?

In a conclusion i really think that underage smoking should be dealt with, as i now wish i had never started and i know alot of others who feel the same, But i do not think the age should be raised.
I believe there is alot of other methods which would be alot more sucessful. Il sthu now. :P

[Bef]

It should because its the 16 year olds who still go to school that give the younger pupils their cigarettes. This would help stop schoolkids from smoking as there would be no one to pass around cigarettes in the playgrounds and on the buses.


And the sixth formers? There eighteen... Plus most over age teenage smokers dont go in the shop for little kids. I know i wont... why waste my time helping someone else get in to a habbit that i wish i had never started?
Anyway... Sixteen is the right age i think. I mean, you can get married, have sexual intercourse, move in to your own home at sixteen... If sixteen year olds are responsible enough to do that then they are resbonsible enough to make an informed decision at whever they should smoke or not.
I dont know one person who smokes who couldn't tell you in detail how every ciggerette is giving them less and less hope of a pain free future.
Also, now they have bought in an agreement that you have to look eighteen to be served with out ID so its alot more differcult for younger children to get served in shops.
The problemn which needs to be dealt with are cigeratte machines. Kids of any age could easily walk into a pub foyer, family club etc and use the *** machines without being seen. With this still an issue i feel that the age of smoking shouldn't even be considered. You need to lay down all the bricks before you start the next layer or the house wont be very well built :P
At present children under 16 dont get arrested for smoking or have to pay fines, Its not even the shop owners like many people think. Its the person behind the tills responsibility, this means that they are thinking of themselves, all shop workers should know this and tbh i doubt anybody is stupid enough to risk the neck selling someone blatently under 16 cigerattes anymore...
Its been proposed that a new law be brought in so children as young as 11-12 can be forced to pay an on the spot fine for vandelism, drunken and disordally and graffeti. I think smoking should be added to the list. Yes some under 16's may still smoke even with the threat of having there pocket money cut for a year but it will be the minority. It will also discourage children from standing outside the shop asking randomers to go in for them, and also sneaking into pubs to use the machines.
I think this would be a far more sucessful method of stopping under age smoking. If the smoking age is raised to 18 but children are still not threatend by any real punishment then they are still going to smoke.
Alcohol to young children can actually be alot more damaging then cigerettes at the time. Children are more likely to injure themselves, get in fights, get lost, even die of alcohol poisoning on the spot when drinking yet alot more young children drink. It seems that people wanting to change laws to things like this really dont have much understanding of how alcohol effects children, how they can drop dead on the spot from one or two drinks when there really isnt much chance of them dropping dead from one or two cigerettes... It seems silly to compare something thats prooven to be able to kill people within an hour of the first drop to something that is prooven to kill people in 20/30 years.
Meh, most children smoke too shock, they do it as a way of rebillion or a way of fitting into the "cool" crowd. Putting the age up to 18 will just make it seem even bigger and badder.

An issue i really think should be dealt with is the increasing availability of tobacco on the black market.
Taxation to record levels has caused a smuggling epidemic which has resulted in millions of cheap cigarattes on the black market, many sold to children.
Reducing taxation will help run down the black market making tobacco less, not more, available to younger smokers.
There is an awufl lot of obsticales and issues to be dealt with before jumping straight on with a new age limit...

People tend to think that underage smoking is increasing. Infact statistics published by the Office for National Statistics (Social Focus in Brief: Children 2002) suggest that the number has decreased since 1996.

Also alot of this information we are given on the tele etc seems slightly exagerated. Children, like adults, must be educated about the health risks of smoking, but there is a fine line between education and propaganda, and the "quit or die" message we hear on a daily basis, is mostly propergander... Yes you CAN die from smoking evantually. It DOES cause health problems but so does tanning, drinking, eating excessivly, or really doing anything in excess... Your most likely not going to drop dead for taking a puff of a cigerette. And when people realise this then they start questioning the other smoking facts, It's dangerous, it causes a slow and painful death but not on the spot. Not right their, right then

Is it any wonder that many people rebel or develop "warning fatigue"?

In a conclusion i really think that underage smoking should be dealt with, as i now wish i had never started and i know alot of others who feel the same, But i do not think the age should be raised.
I believe there is alot of other methods which would be alot more sucessful. Il sthu now. :P

[mynameishelen!]

It should because its the 16 year olds who still go to school that give the younger pupils their cigarettes. This would help stop schoolkids from smoking as there would be no one to pass around cigarettes in the playgrounds and on the buses.

Nah I've been buying them for a mate since I was 14.

and no it shouldn't, it's not going to change the number of people who smoke, 16 year olds will just get older people to buy them for them, or buy them themselves if they can pass for 18.
It's pointless.

[Lyca]

And the sixth formers? There eighteen... Plus most over age teenage smokers dont go in the shop for little kids. I know i wont... why waste my time helping someone else get in to a habbit that i wish i had never started?
Anyway... Sixteen is the right age i think. I mean, you can get married, have sexual intercourse, move in to your own home at sixteen... If sixteen year olds are responsible enough to do that then they are resbonsible enough to make an informed decision at whever they should smoke or not.
I dont know one person who smokes who couldn't tell you in detail how every ciggerette is giving them less and less hope of a pain free future.
Also, now they have bought in an agreement that you have to look eighteen to be served with out ID so its alot more differcult for younger children to get served in shops.
The problemn which needs to be dealt with are cigeratte machines. Kids of any age could easily walk into a pub foyer, family club etc and use the *** machines without being seen. With this still an issue i feel that the age of smoking shouldn't even be considered. You need to lay down all the bricks before you start the next layer or the house wont be very well built :P
At present children under 16 dont get arrested for smoking or have to pay fines, Its not even the shop owners like many people think. Its the person behind the tills responsibility, this means that they are thinking of themselves, all shop workers should know this and tbh i doubt anybody is stupid enough to risk the neck selling someone blatently under 16 cigerattes anymore...
Its been proposed that a new law be brought in so children as young as 11-12 can be forced to pay an on the spot fine for vandelism, drunken and disordally and graffeti. I think smoking should be added to the list. Yes some under 16's may still smoke even with the threat of having there pocket money cut for a year but it will be the minority. It will also discourage children from standing outside the shop asking randomers to go in for them, and also sneaking into pubs to use the machines.
I think this would be a far more sucessful method of stopping under age smoking. If the smoking age is raised to 18 but children are still not threatend by any real punishment then they are still going to smoke.
Alcohol to young children can actually be alot more damaging then cigerettes at the time. Children are more likely to injure themselves, get in fights, get lost, even die of alcohol poisoning on the spot when drinking yet alot more young children drink. It seems that people wanting to change laws to things like this really dont have much understanding of how alcohol effects children, how they can drop dead on the spot from one or two drinks when there really isnt much chance of them dropping dead from one or two cigerettes... It seems silly to compare something thats prooven to be able to kill people within an hour of the first drop to something that is prooven to kill people in 20/30 years.
Meh, most children smoke too shock, they do it as a way of rebillion or a way of fitting into the "cool" crowd. Putting the age up to 18 will just make it seem even bigger and badder.

An issue i really think should be dealt with is the increasing availability of tobacco on the black market.
Taxation to record levels has caused a smuggling epidemic which has resulted in millions of cheap cigarattes on the black market, many sold to children.
Reducing taxation will help run down the black market making tobacco less, not more, available to younger smokers.
There is an awufl lot of obsticales and issues to be dealt with before jumping straight on with a new age limit...

People tend to think that underage smoking is increasing. Infact statistics published by the Office for National Statistics (Social Focus in Brief: Children 2002) suggest that the number has decreased since 1996.

Also alot of this information we are given on the tele etc seems slightly exagerated. Children, like adults, must be educated about the health risks of smoking, but there is a fine line between education and propaganda, and the "quit or die" message we hear on a daily basis, is mostly propergander... Yes you CAN die from smoking evantually. It DOES cause health problems but so does tanning, drinking, eating excessivly, or really doing anything in excess... Your most likely not going to drop dead for taking a puff of a cigerette. And when people realise this then they start questioning the other smoking facts, It's dangerous, it causes a slow and painful death but not on the spot. Not right their, right then

Is it any wonder that many people rebel or develop "warning fatigue"?

In a conclusion i really think that underage smoking should be dealt with, as i now wish i had never started and i know alot of others who feel the same, But i do not think the age should be raised.
I believe there is alot of other methods which would be alot more sucessful. Il sthu now. :P
Nice ;)
That should win the debate

[Dracolis]

Everything you say is right but this one statement is bugging me:


Yes you CAN die from smoking eventually. It DOES cause health problems but so does tanning, drinking, eating excessively, or really doing anything in excess... Your most likely not going to drop dead for taking a puff of a cigarette. And when people realise this then they start questioning the other smoking facts, It's dangerous, it causes a slow and painful death but not on the spot. Not right there, right then


Because what does it matter about the length of time that it takes to die from each of these things. The fact of the matter is that smoking causes a detrimental effect on the human body as does all the others.

[Sly]

Its not really the Age, most Young smokers get Adults to buy there **** anyways. or get people their age that look over 16. The goverment need to be alot more strict on ID

Even though people get Fake ID's, its hard to get one. If shop owners asked for ID more often then it should be Ok a little bit.

The law is 16+ to Smoke...If the police conviscate your **** in the street you dont get arrested or even a warning...Then whats the point in that Law if you dont get in truble?

[samuel]

i think it should have never been leagal
Ciggarettes and all other smoking is stupid.
It bugs me :l

[/Rossco\]

Smoking should be banned it public spaces.

It is as of next month, But I was hearing that public places means public buildings, In town outside etc people are still allowed to smoke. It is a move I think should be made to be on level terms with alcohol however I don't think it will have the impact that is neccessary. you'll still find 12 year olds smokeing down the back allys.

a point to note. The is a program on in the monrings during weekdays just now. "how to live longer" It calculates your biological age and compares it with your real age. concentrates mainly on drinkers and smokers. but one person had the lungs of a 84 year old i think it was. and she was only in her 50's, thats what 40 years of smoking done to her. Can have different effects on other people

i.e. worse.

that lung age though doesn't take into account the permanent damage that the smoking has caused though. Only on the ability of your breathing.

[Ellis.]

It should. MOST 18 year olds are more responsible than MOST 16 year olds. 18 years olds would know that they'd want to do it rather than 16 year olds being pressured by peers to be "cool"

Also, I think that smoking should be banned in enclosed public areas or public areas all together, Second hand smoking.

[Tyed]

When U Think About It If Ur Gonna Take **** From People Who Are Nicotine Addicts Ur Gonna Have 2 Talk Booze From Alcoholics There Is Just No Point Anyway When Ur 12-13 U Learn About The Effects Of Smoking So Its Ur Own Fault For Smoking And Getting Addictid In The First Place Its There Life If They Wanna Smoke And Die Let Them...... Also Nowadays Most Smokers In Schools Only Smoke Due 2 Peer Pressure

[Mentor]

Yes Im for the rase.

It was orgnaly Set at 16 when the health implications were not fully known about, In this ignorace they didnt think there would be little trouble or damage from it and the age was mainly set to stop children getting the hands on matches.
Now we KNOW its harmful, more so that Alchol and we rank them pretty equaly.
18 is now the accespted age for adualt hood and full choise, and therefor it would make sence to put the age there, this would be pretty easy to understand and be quite logical, sure people under the age would get them, but 12 year olds get them already, Its seen as far less cool now anyway so far less people would have the interest to start with, the legal issue would also stop many people becomeing full time smokers becuses of the added diffulty and by 18 they would defintly be sencible enogh to understand the ramifactions of smokeing and what it may do to there heath "/
I dont smoke, never have and never will. personaly id support banning it all together to make the compleat logica sence, nicotean is more adictive than herowin and more deadly the nearly all of the class C drugs.
But the govemnet rakes to much tax money in from it for this, same with alchol, but the rase in age limit seems like a step in the right direction. So yea im all for the rase.


Yes you CAN die from smoking eventually. It DOES cause health problems but so does tanning, drinking, eating excessively, or really doing anything in excess... Your most likely not going to drop dead for taking a puff of a cigarette. And when people realise this then they start questioning the other smoking facts, It's dangerous, it causes a slow and painful death but not on the spot. Not right there, right then
Drinkings already set at 18.
Plus one diffence between tanning and eating exseivly and smokeing is. Smokeing is MORE adictive than Herowin. The others arnt adictive at all... one cig can actaly get your hooked, a burger cant...

[-Sweex]

I Think It Should.It Would Stop More People From Smoking.Until There Have Left School

[Groovy]

I think it should, even though this won`t stop younger people getting hold of cigarettes. Its like alcohol, your not supposed to drink it till your 18 or buy it under 18 but there are loaadz of ways of getting hold of it.

[Tommy]

True i believe they should be focusing on a bigger problem and stop making the easy way out. ID should be made a bigger subject when buying.
But honestly no one really cares if some kids hate smoking because it wont change anyones mind at all. If the goverment wanted to cut down on people smoking they would make it available in less places and ban it in more places but they wont just erase it completely. It will be made more of a luxury and not a neccesary. The goverment has no rights to deprive people of cigerrettes, when they can easily be addicted as it is. I mean if people can drive at 17 what makes people cant be mature at 17?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I Agree That We Should Raise The Age, But NOT Ban It From Public Buildings Such As Pubs, Work Etc..

[Bef]

Drinkings already set at 18.
Plus one diffence between tanning and eating exseivly and smokeing is. Smokeing is MORE adictive than Herowin. The others arnt adictive at all... one cig can actaly get your hooked, a burger cant...

No, you can drink from the age of 5 up, you just cant buy it.

And it depends on who you ask about the Heroin/Nicotine which is more addictive debate


Among heroin addicts, about 38 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal to or stronger than the urge to take heroin. Among those addicted to alcohol, about 50 percent say the urge to smoke is at least as strong as the urge to drink.
As i personally have never taken heroin and i am assuming you havn't either as you seem to have a brain in your head
then we can't say from personal experience that heroin is less addictive the nicotine.
What i can say from personal experience is that it takes alot more then one cigerette to make you addicted.



1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

Henningfield Ratings

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication

Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
******* 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4


Benowitz Ratings

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication

Nicotine 3* 4 4 1 6
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
******* 3* 1 1 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4

* Equal ratings

Withdrawal Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Reinforcement A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

From the above information you can see that both scientists have similar views on the addictivnes of Nicotine and Heroin. It seems that they both agree that Nicotine is harder to quit but personaly i belive this is becaus people ar offered methadone. I have met a few heroin addicts who have all been perscribed methadone free off the NHS. I dont know any of these people that well as thats a circle i try not too move in but iv been told of alot of people who methodone has helped. Heroin, is known to destroy people, they become nothing more then shaking wrecks that live as if they are posessed, it can only take a matter of weeks/ months for them to be taken over by the drug. It cannot be compared to nicotine.
Anyway, I also know alot of people who have paied around £40 a month for nicotine patches and it hasn't helped most of them. Anyway. In a nutshell. Nicotine is no where near as dangerous as heroin.

[Mentor]

No, you can drink from the age of 5 up, you just cant buy it.


Wrong, drinking it is illgal outside till 17, then only in restandts with a meal.
after 18 its fully purchace and drinkable.

What your thinking about is on your own propety. And the age is 3 and up. You could also drive a car at that age on your own property. But we still say the age is 17...



And it depends on who you ask about the Heroin/Nicotine which is more addictive debate
Well i dont usealy get my evidance from asking them to rate addictivness out of 10. There are quite simple scientifc means to find out how quickly a orgnaic sample will gain a depenaces on a chemical... Its alot more accuret "/



As i personally have never taken heroin and i am assuming you havn't either as you seem to have a brain in your head
then we can't say from personal experience that heroin is less addictive the nicotine.
What i can say from personal experience is that it takes alot more then one cigerette to make you addicted.
Well how ever you feel about it, im actaly working of fact not opionion here "/



From the above information you can see that both scientists have similar views on the addictivnes of Nicotine and Heroin. It seems that they both agree that Nicotine is harder to quit but personaly i belive this is becaus people ar offered methadone. I have met a few heroin addicts who have all been perscribed methadone free off the NHS. I dont know any of these people that well as thats a circle i try not too move in but iv been told of alot of people who methodone has helped. Heroin, is known to destroy people, they become nothing more then shaking wrecks that live as if they are posessed, it can only take a matter of weeks/ months for them to be taken over by the drug. It cannot be compared to nicotine.
But im not talking about the effects, nore the withdrawl simtoms im actaly talking about how adictive the substance is "/


Anyway, I also know alot of people who have paied around £40 a month for nicotine patches and it hasn't helped most of them. Anyway. In a nutshell. Nicotine is no where near as dangerous as heroin.
Well the people comeing off obvisly have next to no will power, alot of people in my family have gone cold turky, even afterr some of them have been smokeing for over 50 years, no nicoteen patches. Just instanainus stopping, and maintaing that. It may not be easy buts very possible "/

Also another thing. Nicoteen isnt taken directy, 90% of a ciagrett is tar, herowin on the other hand, is injected intravusly, meaning no filtering would take place. u take nicoteen like that, youd be dead... So if your trying to make that comparuison its a bad exsample...

[Bef]

Mentor ssh, your too clever :P
But you did how ever contridict yourself... If a cigerette is only 10% nicotine then its only 10% addictive (I think) and also you say you are working on fact and then talk about your family.
And um were going on to a different debate now lol...

Back to the age thing, what im trying to say is theres alot more effective ways of dealing with underage smoking.
Even if the age is raised, children will still be able to easily get hold of ciggerettes. If they were to get rid of machines in pubs and have them behind the bar, and to start an on the spot fine for teenagers causing trouble it would deal with the problem alot better.
As i said before, most children start smoking to look more adult. Raising the age is just going to make it look more "adult"

[poll]

well i smoke occasionaly at my local shop my friends can get cigarettes from the age of 12 so its hardly going to stop me im almost 15 so not a big deal i smoke when depresed

[Bef]

Spud, the law really should have cracked down on that. Theres now a policy that they cant serve anyone who looks under EIGHTEEN without proof of ID. But meh, it doesn't matter anyway, as like i said, kids can easily get them from machines.

[Mentor]

Mentor ssh, your too clever :P
But you did how ever contridict yourself... If a cigerette is only 10% nicotine then its only 10% addictive (I think) and also you say you are working on fact and then talk about your family.
And um were going on to a different debate now lol...
10%? im not even sure nicoteen levels get up to .5 % of a cigaretts conetnt.

And im not saying it would only be an equal % addiction. The more of a substance is inputed to the body the more the body will build an indepeance on it. So hypoteticaly if one cig dosnt get u adicted, a pure nicoteen load would be about the equivlent of 200 Cigs... which would have more of an impact.
Seocndly that much intacke of nicoteen at once would overwhelm the body anyway and youd be dead.

The effects are even more lessened by the ingestion method, the lungs filter things massivly. You breath in things commonly that if injected would have you a place in the morg...



Back to the age thing, what im trying to say is theres alot more effective ways of dealing with underage smoking.
Even if the age is raised, children will still be able to easily get hold of ciggerettes. If they were to get rid of machines in pubs and have them behind the bar, and to start an on the spot fine for teenagers causing trouble it would deal with the problem alot better.

I agree, but the govemnt makes alot of tax so is unlikly to actaly make a particaly decent effort to cut smokeing down. The 18 age will still stop some and make people think of it more. it will also make more sence to be placed at the same age as alchol anyway "/


As i said before, most children start smoking to look more adult. Raising the age is just going to make it look more "adult"
personly i think that views kinda died, most people that smoke just look like ****s these days, the whole idea of it being cool, or adult to smokes pretty much out the window imo "/

[StripedTiger]

From a non-smokers side i would say Yes. This is because school children (under aged) can still pas as 16 year olds by the amount of make up their wear etc. They then buy ciggarettes and sell them on to children in school, which encourages smoking underaged.

From a smokers view it shouldnt be because 16 year olds + are already addicted and they should see it unfair. but you might aswell wait a few more years before killing yourself.


The more of a substance is inputed to the body the more the body will build an indepeance on it. So hypoteticaly if one cig dosnt get u adicted, a pure nicoteen load would be about the equivlent of 200 Cigs... which would have more of an impact

Yes i do agree with that but people dont smoke just becuase they are addicted. Alot of children will smoke to look tough / good and to show off to others. Or they will smoke becuase their friends smoke too.


01101101entor]I agree, but the govemnt makes alot of tax so is unlikly to actaly make a particaly decent effort to cut smokeing down. The 18 age will still stop some and make people think of it more. it will also make more sence to be placed at the same age as alchol anyway

Taxes may go up becuase of cigatettes but it is also very expensive when people claim benefits when they have cancer. So it can be a bigger loss then it is a gain.


personly i think that views kinda died, most people that smoke just look like ****s these days, the whole idea of it being cool, or adult to smokes pretty much out the window

Even if you think the idea is out of the window people still do it becuase of that reason among others that i mentioned earlier.


well i smoke occasionaly at my local shop my friends can get cigarettes from the age of 12 so its hardly going to stop me im almost 15 so not a big deal i smoke when depresed

Alot of people seem to think that smoking releaves them from stress. Just like alcohol. but jsut like alcohol, smoking is a depresser and will actually make you feel worse eventually and it could be the final thing that makes you decide to injur yourself as it has been prooved in some cases.


Wrong, drinking it is illgal outside till 17
Wrong. You can drink in your home from the age of 5 years old. Drinking out pubs is not allowed until the age of 18. Drinking with meals such as wine is around 17 years old.

[Mentor]

From a smokers view it shouldnt be because 16 year olds + are already addicted and they should see it unfair. but you might aswell wait a few more years before killing yourself.
If there already on em, may be a chance to save themselves? so where's the loss




Yes i do agree with that but people dont smoke just becuase they are addicted. Alot of children will smoke to look tough / good and to show off to others. Or they will smoke becuase their friends smoke too.
Well i tend not to befreind anyone quite that pathetic, Most people wont even go near you if you smoke now days. All you gain is the abilty to be smelt from a great distance "/




Taxes may go up becuase of cigatettes but it is also very expensive when people claim benefits when they have cancer. So it can be a bigger loss then it is a gain.
They make ALOT of cigs, more than they loose to the NHS on its reprotuons, althogh thats only if you dont put a value on human life "/


Even if you think the idea is out of the window people still do it becuase of that reason among others that i mentioned earlier.
Who exsactly? do you think this? do people u know think this? who exsactly thinks this, as i and the people i know dont "/



Wrong. You can drink in your home from the age of 5 years old. Drinking out pubs is not allowed until the age of 18. Drinking with meals such as wine is around 17 years old.Which is just a repeate of what i actaly said...

[Dakara]

Yeah I can't be bothered to actually read through all those posts, so I'm just going to say that frankly I think that people shouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes anyway, as hospital wards are full of people suffering from illnesses caused by cigarettes using up hospital beds because they've been stupid enough to smoke.
Edit:
Didn't mean to offend anyone.

[Phorum]

make it higher age it but i don;'t think it will stop them. My brother has been smoking since he was 14 and he's never had a problem buying

[FlyingJesus]

I've read right through this debate, and as far as I can remember, only one person has mentioned anything about the health risks previously being an unknown factor. Think back 30, 40, 50 years, and there was smoking everywhere. Doctors used to advertise smoking as a good thing, a "scientifically proven stress reliever". We know now that they only relieve the stress that addicts have when they are without a cigarrette - that is to say, a smoker who doesn't have a cigarrette feels calmer after having one, because their habit has been fulfilled.

Think how long tobacco as a smoking product has been around. We brought it back from the natives and turned it into a national craze. For about 200 years we have been a smoking nation, and taxes from cigarrettes and other smoking products are a part of what keeps the economy up. I'm not a smoker, and I don't endorse smoking, but in small amounts smoking is needed by the government to keep the country running. The same can be said for many things that cost a lot and seem to have little/no practical use. People often slate the football industry, but the country and countries that the players represent make money off of it, and so that helps boost economy (rich foreigners buy big clubs, put lots of money into the British system). In the same way, but in a smaller amount, tobacco brings money in from abroad and from our own people.

I was also surprised at the fact that only one person (Bef I believe) mentioned the idea of kids smoking as a "rebellion". Being a school child myself, I witness every day the people who believe themselves to be rebellious and whatnot, smoking outside the building. I'm not saying that all smokers are part of this rebel culture, but in youth particular there's a quite prominent correlation between smokers and vandals. Raising the age of legal tobacco purchase to 18 will only make smoking a more rebellious act, and although it might deter some users, others will try harder than before to fool the newsagents and other shops into selling them their much-loved cancer sticks, and will by nature become more "rebellious" and more likely to commit other crimes.

It was a mistake letting tobacco into the country in the first place, but we didn't know the risks back then, and now it would be too costly - monetarily and morally - to just take it out. I believe this is the reason that an age update is in discussion, because if the government can cut back the amount of smokers far enough, they may eventually be able to stop it almost completely. However, I don't agree with the raise, partly for the reasons above to do with economy, partly because of the crime theory, and partly because there simply isn't any point to do so in a smoking nation. I also disagree with the banning of smoking in public places, I believe that the owners of the property, whether it be a pub, restaurant or club, should be the ones to choose.

[Mentor]

Think how long tobacco as a smoking product has been around. We brought it back from the natives and turned it into a national craze. For about 200 years we have been a smoking nation, and taxes from cigarrettes and other smoking products are a part of what keeps the economy up. I'm not a smoker, and I don't endorse smoking, but in small amounts smoking is needed by the government to keep the country running. The same can be said for many things that cost a lot and seem to have little/no practical use. People often slate the football industry, but the country and countries that the players represent make money off of it, and so that helps boost economy (rich foreigners buy big clubs, put lots of money into the British system). In the same way, but in a smaller amount, tobacco brings money in from abroad and from our own people.
Ok, but your argument seems to be based on the asumptions that people would simply hoard there money insted of simply spening it on somthing else, which i see as far more likly. If they cannot buy ciguaretts they will most likly spend the money on somthing else, which would save more money in tern as chances are the alternative woulnt put so many people in to the NHS's cair "/
Also where not actaly talking about Banning it compleaty, so the above realy isnt an issue to start with "/



I was also surprised at the fact that only one person (Bef I believe) mentioned the idea of kids smoking as a "rebellion". Being a school child myself, I witness every day the people who believe themselves to be rebellious and whatnot, smoking outside the building. I'm not saying that all smokers are part of this rebel culture, but in youth particular there's a quite prominent correlation between smokers and vandals. Raising the age of legal tobacco purchase to 18 will only make smoking a more rebellious act, and although it might deter some users, others will try harder than before to fool the newsagents and other shops into selling them their much-loved cancer sticks, and will by nature become more "rebellious" and more likely to commit other crimes.
Personly from my own exspeince smokeing isnt a particaly rebellius act, since for the most part, no one realy gives a **** if you do it, and the rest of people simply avoid them becuse they smell so bad "/
I would also include myself in the latter since the smell of smokeing realy is pretty descusting "/
Im doubful vandallism rates would change or even be effected where people had ciguretts, althogh if they didnt have cigurets chances are they would also be without matches and lighters, and if they did make them a more suspisos item. Which would actaly reduce vandilsm in terms of small fires and just randomly burning things, as well as arson in genral as a form of vandilsim "/
So eqaly it could have quite an oppsit effect to what your suggesting. Fires also are likly cause the biggest amounts of propety damge as well as being far more unsafe than other forms vandlism, so cutting that out probly would be a help in my opinon.



It was a mistake letting tobacco into the country in the first place, but we didn't know the risks back then, and now it would be too costly - monetarily and morally - to just take it out. I believe this is the reason that an age update is in discussion, because if the government can cut back the amount of smokers far enough, they may eventually be able to stop it almost completely. However, I don't agree with the raise, partly for the reasons above to do with economy, partly because of the crime theory, and partly because there simply isn't any point to do so in a smoking nation. I also disagree with the banning of smoking in public places, I believe that the owners of the property, whether it be a pub, restaurant or club, should be the ones to choose.
Personly i think the goverment should phase smokeing out all together as in esseants is just as bad as most Class C drugs if not worse, and is only around becuse so many people use it.
For the Smokeing in public places debate is about personal freedom, but this is hard when talking about personal freedoms if trying not to be compleaty hypocrital.
To make sence ether, smokeing should be banned full stop, just like other drugs. raseing the age is a step in that direction.
OR
We should go the freedom rout. WHich would require it to be a personal choise, in that case ALL other drugs should also be legaly avaible, and Taxed of cause, then people can make a personly choise on whether to use them SAFTLY, or to avoid them, the same choise made with cigaretts for exsample "/ In that case then yes it should be the owner / operator of the venue that makes this choise.

[FlyingJesus]

Ok, but your argument seems to be based on the asumptions that people would simply hoard there money insted of simply spening it on somthing else, which i see as far more likly. If they cannot buy ciguaretts they will most likly spend the money on somthing else, which would save more money in tern as chances are the alternative woulnt put so many people in to the NHS's cair "/

True, people would spend their money on other things, but there aren't many things you can buy that are as heavily taxed as cigarrettes. As I've said, I'm not a smoker and I don't like it, but I'm thinking here about the economy of the country (seeing as England is actually getting poorer and poorer) rather than the personal preferences of the non-smoking public. I see your point about less smokers meaning less to do for the currently overworked NHS, but raising the age of legal tobacco purchase by 2 years won't affect much, especially seeing as the majority of smokers needing NHS care (because of their habit) are in their late twenties and upwards, rarely 16-year-olds.



Personly from my own exspeince smokeing isnt a particaly rebellius act,

In many people's case, their first cigarrette is smoked below the age of 16. I think I was 13 or 14 when I first tried it, and at the time I didn't think it was being rebellious, but I knew it wasn't what I was "supposed" to be doing, so looking back I guess I probably did think I was a right rebel at one point.


since for the most part, no one realy gives a **** if you do it, and the rest of people simply avoid them becuse they smell so bad "/
I would also include myself in the latter since the smell of smokeing realy is pretty descusting "/

People obviously do care, otherwise there wouldn't be plans to change the laws on smoking, and this thread wouldn't exist. I agree, it smells bad, but really that contradicts your point about not caring, because automatically when you smell cigarrette smoke you think "Eurgh.. dirty smokers" and as you said, you avoid them. This gives them this "cool to be different" image, which is part of the youth rebel culture.


Im doubful vandallism rates would change or even be effected where people had ciguretts, althogh if they didnt have cigurets chances are they would also be without matches and lighters, and if they did make them a more suspisos item. Which would actaly reduce vandilsm in terms of small fires and just randomly burning things, as well as arson in genral as a form of vandilsim "/
So eqaly it could have quite an oppsit effect to what your suggesting. Fires also are likly cause the biggest amounts of propety damge as well as being far more unsafe than other forms vandlism, so cutting that out probly would be a help in my opinon.

My point wasn't that smoking makes people turn into vandals, just that with those who do smoke to rebel against something (at first anyway) they will always want to show to themselves and their friends that they are the most rebellious, and if you take smoking away from them then they have to look for other ways to rebel, and crime is a simple solution to that problem. Perhaps we need to look at an increase in police control and crime/punishment, rather than changes to tobacco purchase.


Personly i think the goverment should phase smokeing out all together as in esseants is just as bad as most Class C drugs if not worse, and is only around becuse so many people use it.
For the Smokeing in public places debate is about personal freedom, but this is hard when talking about personal freedoms if trying not to be compleaty hypocrital.
To make sence ether, smokeing should be banned full stop, just like other drugs. raseing the age is a step in that direction.

In terms of health risks and such, yes, tobacco should be a class C, perhaps even B, illegal drug. My first paragraph in my other comment was just outlining the reasons as to why it isn't (historical note), and why it would be so difficult to simply say "goodbye" to the tobacco industry. I agree that raising the age of legal purchase may eventually help phase out smoking, but in the short-to-mid-term of things I think the government, and the country as a whole, could suffer from it if they try it too fast.


OR
We should go the freedom rout. WHich would require it to be a personal choise, in that case ALL other drugs should also be legaly avaible, and Taxed of cause, then people can make a personly choise on whether to use them SAFTLY, or to avoid them, the same choise made with cigaretts for exsample "/ In that case then yes it should be the owner / operator of the venue that makes this choise.

This could work, again though only as a long-term idea. In the short-to-mid-term this idea would have an even worse effect than the proposed law change, as there are so many people out there who would abuse drug after drug after drug, and as we all know, "Drugs are baaaad, m'kay?" After a generation or two people may realise that it's not such a great idea to take all of these now-legal substances, but by that time we'd all be mutated anyway.

[Mentor]

True, people would spend their money on other things, but there aren't many things you can buy that are as heavily taxed as cigarrettes. As I've said, I'm not a smoker and I don't like it, but I'm thinking here about the economy of the country (seeing as England is actually getting poorer and poorer) rather than the personal preferences of the non-smoking public. I see your point about less smokers meaning less to do for the currently overworked NHS, but raising the age of legal tobacco purchase by 2 years won't affect much, especially seeing as the majority of smokers needing NHS care (because of their habit) are in their late twenties and upwards, rarely 16-year-olds.
true, but after 4 years of smokeing in there 20's they may be, if they only have been doing it two years, that still means the NHS is let of 2 years worth of patence from then on "/



In many people's case, their first cigarrette is smoked below the age of 16. I think I was 13 or 14 when I first tried it, and at the time I didn't think it was being rebellious, but I knew it wasn't what I was "supposed" to be doing, so looking back I guess I probably did think I was a right rebel at one point.
Suppose but now days the over all conspet is your just killing yourself and being a prat, it isnt realy seen as doing anything rebellius since no one realy cairs..



People obviously do care, otherwise there wouldn't be plans to change the laws on smoking, and this thread wouldn't exist. I agree, it smells bad, but really that contradicts your point about not caring, because automatically when you smell cigarrette smoke you think "Eurgh.. dirty smokers" and as you said, you avoid them. This gives them this "cool to be different" image, which is part of the youth rebel culture.
I was refering to no one cairs, as in no ones impressed or interested, no one would give em a second look, unless forsed to smell there stench "/
Theres a diffence between the "cool" and the compleate and utter "reject" image.



My point wasn't that smoking makes people turn into vandals, just that with those who do smoke to rebel against something (at first anyway) they will always want to show to themselves and their friends that they are the most rebellious, and if you take smoking away from them then they have to look for other ways to rebel, and crime is a simple solution to that problem. Perhaps we need to look at an increase in police control and crime/punishment, rather than changes to tobacco purchase.
Vandlalism / crime isnt the issue here, and i wasnt implying it does. if people are smokeing, there friends would be smokeing as well so if hyptheticly they wanted to make them selfs the bigger rebel they would still need to do the same amount of damage to get ahead of others, as they would all be on the level of smokeing, taken away all on the level of not smokeing. So what effect does that have.
Smoeking people, have matches and lighters, makeing it far easyer to commit crimes such as arson, which is a bad thing imo.



In terms of health risks and such, yes, tobacco should be a class C, perhaps even B, illegal drug. My first paragraph in my other comment was just outlining the reasons as to why it isn't (historical note), and why it would be so difficult to simply say "goodbye" to the tobacco industry. I agree that raising the age of legal purchase may eventually help phase out smoking, but in the short-to-mid-term of things I think the government, and the country as a whole, could suffer from it if they try it too fast.
A two year jump isnt what id call fast "/ plus i still cant see a good reason which would equate to being suffering for the contary as a whole as apposed to it being a good thing "/



This could work, again though only as a long-term idea. In the short-to-mid-term this idea would have an even worse effect than the proposed law change, as there are so many people out there who would abuse drug after drug after drug, and as we all know, "Drugs are baaaad, m'kay?" After a generation or two people may realise that it's not such a great idea to take all of these now-legal substances, but by that time we'd all be mutated anyway.
Why would people suddenly start takeing them. Ciggaretts are legal, not everyones on them. Theres no bad boy image as there all perfectly legal, before hand when they were illgal, they did have that, plus there rediculsy easy to obtain, and have the added helth risks of being made in unsantised conditions, and cut with what could protantly be deadly chemicals "/
Licened they would be more safe, no rebel image, and i dont actaly think theyed be any easyer to obtain, seriosly there vertaly thrown at you in some places..

[Dudeitsme]

Here in the US its 18 , but most of you saying your hooked when your 16 :S you dont know what hooked is, just because you think your hooked, your actually not. you havent been smoking long ehough to know what hooked is.

[Mentor]

Here in the US its 18 , but most of you saying your hooked when your 16 :S you dont know what hooked is, just because you think your hooked, your actually not. you havent been smoking long ehough to know what hooked is.
people in my family have gone stoped full stop, some over 50 years of smokeing. if they can do it, its pretty patheic if someone whos been smokeing less than a year or two cant "/

[FlyingJesus]

true, but after 4 years of smokeing in there 20's they may be, if they only have been doing it two years, that still means the NHS is let of 2 years worth of patence from then on "/

It should probably be noted at this point that not nearly all smokers have serious health problems because of smoking. Of course, there's the scientific evidence that shows deterioration of the lungs etc., but why is there this panic about being super healthy these days? We have programs on TV hosted by bony old women about what you have to eat to make your faeces look and smell nice, and all too often we hear what you "must" do in order to be happy. Fat people are happy. Smokers are happy. If they aren't, that's when they seek help. It's unfair to assume that all smokers want to quit, or that all smokers are going to die of cancer.


Suppose but now days the over all conspet is your just killing yourself and being a prat, it isnt realy seen as doing anything rebellius since no one realy cairs..

I was refering to no one cairs, as in no ones impressed or interested, no one would give em a second look, unless forsed to smell there stench "/
Theres a diffence between the "cool" and the compleate and utter "reject" image.


This isn't really the point of the debate but I'd like to just differentiate from your view of the rebellion of smokers. As you stated, everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, and I believe this is what the average young smoker thinks of as the rebellious part - it's dangerous, it's wrong, and it's something that the "normal, sensible" people of the world aren't seen doing. I completely agree that if people are going to think that way then they should be given up as a lost cause, but unfortunately there will always be the younger brother/sister and their mates who see smoking as the way to stand out - the reject image as you said, which these days is actually seen by some (generally chavs and goths) as being cool.


Vandlalism / crime isnt the issue here, and i wasnt implying it does. if people are smokeing, there friends would be smokeing as well so if hyptheticly they wanted to make them selfs the bigger rebel they would still need to do the same amount of damage to get ahead of others, as they would all be on the level of smokeing, taken away all on the level of not smokeing. So what effect does that have.
Smoeking people, have matches and lighters, makeing it far easyer to commit crimes such as arson, which is a bad thing imo.

I'm pretty sure the opinion of most people is that arson is a bad thing, and I won't argue against that. What I will say is that smokers who commit arson generally will do so in the form of setting a bin on fire or something trivial, just to impress their mates. With people like that, the vandalism that goes on would happen whether they smoked or not, it's just how they are. Taking their cigarrettes away will only enrage them, and from the amount of anti-chav websites and forums I've seen, the general consensus seems to be that angry chavs aren't fun.


A two year jump isnt what id call fast "/ plus i still cant see a good reason which would equate to being suffering for the contary as a whole as apposed to it being a good thing "/

A two-year jump might not seem fast, but if it goes ahead the government will most likely be unable to control the outbursts of the youths who would then find themselves without their "pacifier" as it were. Young people are much more wreckless than older people, with a divide even between teens and those aged 21 or older. The younger, more wreckless people will find themselves a real reason to become the rebels they so wish to be, and I would predict an increase in young offenders. I can't really back this up with proof as it's just a theory based on my own observations of young people today, but if you've ever watched Brat Camp or another similar program, you will have seen how much they riot when they find out they can no longer smoke.


Why would people suddenly start takeing them. Ciggaretts are legal, not everyones on them. Theres no bad boy image as there all perfectly legal, before hand when they were illgal, they did have that, plus there rediculsy easy to obtain, and have the added helth risks of being made in unsantised conditions, and cut with what could protantly be deadly chemicals "/
Licened they would be more safe, no rebel image, and i dont actaly think theyed be any easyer to obtain, seriosly there vertaly thrown at you in some places..

Not everyone would use drugs if they became legally available. I wouldn't even go as far as saying all smokers would use them, or even half. Still, the amount of drug abuse going on right now is cause for concern, and I personally know people who would not be able to control themselves or think well enough to decide against trying whatever came onto the market, just because of their personalities. There would be a significant rise in drug use, and the bad-boy image would remain I believe. I think this because smoking is legal and still thought of as a bad-boy habit, and so more harmful substances such as *******, heroin, ecstasy or any other currently illegal drug would still carry that image, and so be thought of by many youth groups as "cool". I know drugs are pretty easy to find if you look around, but if they were legalised then people wouldn't have to worry about getting caught or anything, and so would be more open to the idea of looking for dealers in the first place.


Here in the US its 18 , but most of you saying your hooked when your 16 :S you dont know what hooked is, just because you think your hooked, your actually not. you havent been smoking long ehough to know what hooked is.

The human body is extremely open to addiction. Think about it, you can become addicted to heroin after one hit, and nicotine is a highly addictive drug, so a couple of packs of cigarrettes could get you addicted. It has nothing to do with having smoked for longer. Congratulations to those members of Mentor's family who have managed to give it up, my dad gave it up when he married my mum (long before I was born :P) and he's told us many times how difficult it was.

[madchild24]

in canada u cant legally till ur 18 :S

[NekkLe]

I feel that it doesn't matter as such, whatever age you are 16-18 years old, you make your own choices in life, its up to yourself to make the right decisions, and smoking being a bad habit.
It won't totally stop teenagers recieving there cigarettes "/ 16 year olds can look older than they are from being big and having facial hair :rolleyes: its not exactly difficult to walk into a shop with the person behind the counter being foreign and not speaking a word of English and selling you that packet of cigarettes.

If anything it'll cause alot of hassle, the amount of young smokers gets lower every 2 years or so, instead of young smokers you'll get moany teenagers with nothing better to do.

I myself don't smoke and don't intend on starting "/ but in my view teenagers need to learn that responsability is key in life and making your own decisions will get you to the places you either want to be or not. And with smoking in hand, you'll be in a early grave.

[FlyingJesus]

Some good points there. If people get into smoking, it's their own fault if they get lung disease from it. Smoking isn't the only way to get these, but it certainly helps along the way. A better change to law would perhaps be to take smokers off of the NHS lists for lung/heart/throat/otherwise smoke induced treatment and surgery, that way the treatmen and surgery would also cost them, and would be a much better deterrant than raising the legal age of purchase by 2 years. This might sound harsh, but what works, works.

Edit: Also, whoever still decides that smoking is a good idea after this sort of law goes into action isn't worth saving in my own opinion.

[Dudeitsme]

This thread should be closed. NONE OF YOU ARE HOOKED SO STOP SAYING THAT.

[FlyingJesus]

I know I'm not hooked, I never claimed to be. I don't see your point.

[Mentor]

Some good points there. If people get into smoking, it's their own fault if they get lung disease from it. Smoking isn't the only way to get these, but it certainly helps along the way. A better change to law would perhaps be to take smokers off of the NHS lists for lung/heart/throat/otherwise smoke induced treatment and surgery, that way the treatmen and surgery would also cost them, and would be a much better deterrant than raising the legal age of purchase by 2 years. This might sound harsh, but what works, works.

Edit: Also, whoever still decides that smoking is a good idea after this sort of law goes into action isn't worth saving in my own opinion.
Kinda sounds like the belive in dawin quotes, althogh not quite as harsh, if you aint familure with it its the "Belive In dawin. canser Cures smokeing"
-im to lazy and tired to respond to your big post so i may do that tommro :D

[FlyingJesus]

Cancer cures smoking.. true in a sense I guess, but yes, harsh ^_^ Don't suppose you have any idea of what Tré is on about? I haven't noticed anyone saying that they're hooked throughout this debate, except for near the beginning.

[Php]

yeh it should, and smoking shouldnt even be allowed, if it causes cancer, why the hell do they sell ****, if it was up to me i wud never sell ****

[Iggy]

Cigarettes should not be sold. Yet as they are sold it just depends what the buyer wants. Personally i don't wna die early from a smoking related disease, i don't wna be affected by smoke, so i don't smoke. I believe that hu-ever smokes is letting themself down, when they get diseases, they only have themself to blame

[Php]

yeh i agree, if they want to smoke it is up to them.

[FlyingJesus]

I explained in previous posts the reasons why cigarrettes are still sold.. and take a realistic point of view, a good government will make decisions based on how they will affect the country, not just because a lot of people don't like something. Plenty of people despise iced tea, but it isn't made illegal.

[c0stah]

that makes no sence, ice-t isnt harmful to ur health. they should be banned all together. but obviously tha wodnt happen, people only smoke and carry on smokin coz there 2 weak to give up.

[c0stah]

that makes no sence, ice-t isnt harmful to ur health. they should be banned all together. but obviously tha wodnt happen, people only smoke and carry on smokin coz there 2 weak to give up.

[brodeo]

Yeh but I used to see these older schoolkids pass their cigarettes to the younger schoolkids to try, and then they got hooked too. I had to suffer 4 years of breathing in the horrid muck everytime I went on the school bus to go to and from school. Your right about what you say but there never was the same problem in the earlier school I went to. Surely then they would have got hold of the cigarettes as well but I never saw anyone with them in middle school.

This has nothing to do with the debate but i bet they don't force the ciggarettes down their throats? There's always the option to say no, you may say peer pressure, but if your freinds were true freinds you wouldn't feel pressuirsed anyway. Just walk away. Nobody forces them, they wish to try, let them.

[FlyingJesus]

I didn't mean that iced tea was harmful, my point had nothing to do with iced tea really. What I've been trying to get across throughout most of this thread (after I got onto it) is that smoking is now part of the economy, and stopping it will have effects on the country as a whole, as in - less money. England's already losing money rapidly due to war and import, we literally cannot afford to lose more by taking away a heavily taxed commodity. It's nothing to do with whether people like it or not, I know I certainly don't like it, it's simply the fact that it would be too damaging to the country to take it away.

[Polly-alyssa]

Ciggys shudnt be sold at all init

[FlyingJesus]

I don't know if that was supposed to be funny or something, but to me that post just shows the ignorance of the people in this country.

[ilovejordan]

I think it shouldn't no because there would be absoloutly no point whatsoever, My brother is 16 & he's been smoking since he was at least 14 how he got those ciggarrettes i dont know but he managed and i'm sure its the same for other people. If it is raised it isn't really "protecting teenagers" because of passive smoking as well. I basically think smokin should be banned altogether.

[Kerreh]

It's higher here in NZ anyway I think..
But of course it should be. What you've gotta think about though is would it make any difference? 18 year olds aren't necessarily any more responsible than 16 year olds, the two year age difference will not change anything in the context of what they do with the cigarettes. It's not hard for younger people to get hold of them anyway..

[RedStratocas]

I think it shouldn't no because there would be absoloutly no point whatsoever, My brother is 16 & he's been smoking since he was at least 14 how he got those ciggarrettes i dont know but he managed and i'm sure its the same for other people. If it is raised it isn't really "protecting teenagers" because of passive smoking as well. I basically think smokin should be banned altogether.

That is EXACTLY the reason the drinking age in the US was raised (from 18 to 21). I might have said this on the forum before, but its because its easier for high school kids to get a hold of it. There are many 18 year olds in high school, so they can buy it, and pass it on to younger kids. Also, a lot of kids can pass as 18. Now that its at 21, kids in high school can't get it that easily.

I disagree with the smoking thing however. People should do what they please as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. It should be banned from resteraunts because its inconsiderate, but if not all together

[YellowParasol]

Smoking should be banned full stop..

[FlyingJesus]

The ban in pubs, restaurants etc. is coming into action soon, which helps with the whole "I don't like smokers near me" factor of this argument. I still don't think that stopping smoking completely is a good idea, for reasons that I've posted time and time again on this thread.

[omgabear]

Even if it was would be abide by it?

[Aimseh]

I think it should definatly be moved up to the age 18. Although some people enjoy smoking they may aswell try and stop now because it is getting banned next summer in all public places so they are going to have stay in all the time. If some people stay in all the time then they are letting a cigarette rule their life. Also people are still teenagers when they smoke so i think it should definatly be moved up. Smoking is worse than drinking alcohol and you aren't allowed to do that until you are 18 and then they let something that is worse than alcohol at the age limit of 16. I don't think it's right.

[FlyingJesus]

It's not worse than drinking.. the health risks may be higher in the long run, but when people smoke they don't become dangerously aggressive or uncontrollable. So far the only reasons to push up the age are to do with health or personal preference, and the latter shouldn't come into reasoning when you're talking about something that will affect an entire country. The reasons not to far outweigh this, as most people agree that people will still smoke whatever the legal age of purchase (which is what the debate is about, not the legal age of smoking), and so far no-one's come up with anything to counter the argument about commerce and economy, it's just different people saying the same things over and over.

[Jordan3]

No it shouldn't, I don't need any evidence, I just have a question, why raise it?

[GJay]

Should the age of being allowed to buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18




YES! It should be banned altogether tho

[Krusty]

It should just be banned altogether..
Or at least in public places..
Smoking = killing your self over a period of time
Gun to the head = Quicker, Cheaper

[Proof!]

There's no point in raising it because, there going to ban smoking in public places.So no point really lol And plus people who really are 16 cant buy because they dont look 16 lmao unless they can look it off..

[FlyingJesus]

It would probably help if people read the topic before just posting "YES BAN IT COMPLETELY".

[Bimbybecca]

I'm 19. I've been smoking since I was 14. There would be no point in raising the age to buy ciggerettes because underage people would still get them, in fact by raising the age **** would seem even more 'rebelious' and you'd probably get more rebels trying it out.

I really wish I had never smoked my first ciggerette, but I did and now I'm hooked. The government should'nt be making silly laws about ciggerttes that will go nowhere they should ban smoking all together (but they obviously won't because they'll loose far too much money).

When I was 14 I was dating a 16 year old guy who would buy **** for me, I had no problem getting ciggerttes and niether do millions of other teenagers, I'll be honest with you, the only reason I started smoking was to look 'cool', now I realise that it's very anti-social and it's now cool in the slightest.

Smoking has absolutely no good points, unfortunately by the time I learnt my lesson it was far too late. I don't want this to happen to anybody else. I propose that smoking should be banned, raising the age limit will do nothing (you have to be 18 to buy alcohol, does that stop any 13 year olds?)

I'm gonna leave you with a shocking fact. Nicotine is more dangerous than heroin. This is 100% true.
You can buy a gram of herion on the streets and inject it, you won't die (please don't try this). A ciggerette contains 0.9mg of nicotine, if you were to inject yourself with one gram of nicotine you would die instantly, please take my word for this and don't try it.
The thing I don't understand is why the government has banned heroin when nicotine is far worse for you (btw i dont think heroin should be legalised!). As I said before the government won't ban ciggerettes because they'll loose too much tax, however they need to think about how much money they'll save on the NHS, which currently spends billions on smokers.

[FlyingJesus]

On the subject of nicotine poison, apparently if you get pure nicotine (in liquid form), it takes just one tiny drop to kill a fully grown man. Yummy.

+rep for taking both/all viewpoints into perspective and getting a good argument in ^_^

[Pancrate]

Yes most surely they should
Infact they should ban smoking
forever you see why is the worlds
population going down because of war
and **** i say just ban it

[FlyingJesus]

To be honest it's good in a way that the world population of humans is going down.. we're overpopulated. I hardly think cigarettes are the main cause of death though.

[Desjardens]

Smoking should be banned, no questions asked

[FlyingJesus]

That's not really a debate answer.. that's just an opinion, with no backup at all.

[Throne Sofa]

Guys the worlds population is going down RAPIDLY.

Anyway smoking should be allowed if the parents allow it.

[uh huh her]

What i dont understand is Smoking (Which has more life threatening impact than drinking) is leagalised at a younger age. Its just stupidity. I think that you should have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, and maybe a younger age for buying alcohol? (I understand how Alcohol is at 18 because it changes your behaviour if you drink to much).

[bubble79]

I think that the somking age should not be raised to 18, because, young people very rarely listen to the age limits of thingas like this, and so, in some ways, it is going to happen the other way and people are just going to see if they can get away with it more if you had to be older to do it. However I do think that you should have to always show ID to buy cigarettes if you look anything under 21, because at most shops people don't ask for ID even when the people clearly only look about 16. To discourage smoking, in my opinion, there should be an awareness campaign, with celebrites, rather than an age raise, because our generation seem to be far more influenced by celebrites than rules, so people would be les likely to start smoking if an 'uncool' image was attached to it.

[Colourful™]

I definately think that the minimun age of being able to buy cigarettes should rise from 16-18. I think that they should also rise the price of packs so that people will get more and more put off about it and may hopefully want to stop smoking. Why smoke when you can live longer?

[micky.blue.eyes]

I don't think it should be raised to 18, I'm a non-smoker and I hate the smell of cigarettes, but raising it to 18 will only cause more troubles, people under 18 will get their cigarettes anyway from some older weirdo's. I think they should raise the price and make the price equall in many counties, at least in whole europe, because in Luxemburg, cigarettes are very very cheap compared to some other countries (so are alcoholic drinks and petroil), if the prices are the same, people won't travel to get them cheap (less pollution ;) :p) and higher prices will make less people buy it than an minimum age.

[FlyingJesus]

"and maybe a younger age for buying alcohol? (I understand how Alcohol is at 18 because it changes your behaviour if you drink to much)."

Well you just contradicted yourself quite royally there..

Listen, people. Smoking may well be harmful, and many people don't like it, but as I've said over and over, there's too much money to be made in the tobacco industry for it to be banned, so that's out of the question. As for raising the age, that will simply encourage young smokers to forge friendships with older smokers, and these "suppliers" will most likely start the little 'uns on vandalism and possibly drugs (not saying that all smokers are drug users, that would be stupid, just that in my experience the suppliers are into crime and drugs). If you think that having 12 years olds spraying their names on your walls and snorting dust is a good idea, by all means be for the age rise, otherwise, it really isn't worth it when you stop to think.

[bubble79]

I think that they should definetely carryu on with the no smoking in public places, toughen up on askling for ID, because although I don't think the age should be raised, I think that it should be implemented so under 16's can't buy them. And they should raise the tax ion them

[FlyingJesus]

toughen up on askling for ID

And they should raise the tax ion them

Two good ideas there. Tax increase on them can deter people from buying them, and also means that the government don't lose money on people who do give it up.

[Isoelectric]

Raise the age to 200, that way NO ONE can buy them!

I dont see the point of cigarettes

What do they do?

Its not like theyre good for you!

[bubble79]

There are 3 reaosns people start smoking, mainly I think.

1) they're old and started before people knew it was bad for you.
2) friends are doing it
3) make your life supposedly seem less miserable

and the reasons why people don't quit.

1) can't be bothered (e.g. I'd like to but I haven't got the willpower so I'm not even going to try). Often applies to people who started because of reason 1).
2) worry about being left out of a social group.
3) seriously think it looks "cool",
4) they insist that it makes them feel better about their worthless miserable life.

and the things I think the government should do to try and stop each group.

group who started for reason 1) raise cigarette taxes even more so that they can't afford to smoke really, annd so feel the urge to quit.

reason 2) ask for ID always because this is often the younger market. Raising taxes will also discourage these,. And also a big anti-smoking campaign with celebriotes that teenagers listen to. (I say listen to because otherwise the givernment are the sort of people who would get Myleene who used to be in Hearsay or some other such fading celeb.)

reaosn 3) agaian ddo all of what is in step 2, but often these people are likely to be the ones that are going to get more withdrawal symptoms,and need some help with what cigarettes are trying to make them forget.


And finally, my fewreaons to give up smoking

1) makes you smell nicer. Smokers almost always stink.
2) makes your teeth look nicer. Smokers often have manky yellow teeth
3) it won't make you put on weight if you eat the same amount. The only reason that soem people do is because nicotine dulls the apetite.
4) you'll live much longer! Research has shown that EACH CIGERETTE takes 5-10 minutes off your life!
5) of corse you'll be much heathier, but people already know this so I won't go into a waffle about the health benefits.
and finally
6) you'll save loads of money! Think about how much you could save if you had 1 packet of 20 cigarettes a day. Let's say they cost about £4 a packet, that may be an exaggeration, I;m not quite sure, but if you had a £4 packet per day then if you quite you'd save £1460 per year! Think about what you could do with that? Wouldn't you rather have an extra holiday abroad, or full sky tv and broadband AND a new computer??? SDurely that's an incentive if nothign is.

But no the age shouldn't be raised, people will do it anyway. Thye need to have a big awareness campaign, and also focus on the immediate negatie effects, such as smell, money etc, because teenasgers seem more influenced by now than the future.

Wow, that post was a lot longer than I expected.

[Niallwozere94]

There are 3 reaosns people start smoking, mainly I think.

1) they're old and started before people knew it was bad for you.
2) friends are doing it
3) make your life supposedly seem less miserable

and the reasons why people don't quit.

1) can't be bothered (e.g. I'd like to but I haven't got the willpower so I'm not even going to try). Often applies to people who started because of reason 1).
2) worry about being left out of a social group.
3) seriously think it looks "cool",
4) they insist that it makes them feel better about their worthless miserable life.

and the things I think the government should do to try and stop each group.

group who started for reason 1) raise cigarette taxes even more so that they can't afford to smoke really, annd so feel the urge to quit.

reason 2) ask for ID always because this is often the younger market. Raising taxes will also discourage these,. And also a big anti-smoking campaign with celebriotes that teenagers listen to. (I say listen to because otherwise the givernment are the sort of people who would get Myleene who used to be in Hearsay or some other such fading celeb.)

reaosn 3) agaian ddo all of what is in step 2, but often these people are likely to be the ones that are going to get more withdrawal symptoms,and need some help with what cigarettes are trying to make them forget.


And finally, my fewreaons to give up smoking

1) makes you smell nicer. Smokers almost always stink.
2) makes your teeth look nicer. Smokers often have manky yellow teeth
3) it won't make you put on weight if you eat the same amount. The only reason that soem people do is because nicotine dulls the apetite.
4) you'll live much longer! Research has shown that EACH CIGERETTE takes 5-10 minutes off your life!
5) of corse you'll be much heathier, but people already know this so I won't go into a waffle about the health benefits.
and finally
6) you'll save loads of money! Think about how much you could save if you had 1 packet of 20 cigarettes a day. Let's say they cost about £4 a packet, that may be an exaggeration, I;m not quite sure, but if you had a £4 packet per day then if you quite you'd save £1460 per year! Think about what you could do with that? Wouldn't you rather have an extra holiday abroad, or full sky tv and broadband AND a new computer??? SDurely that's an incentive if nothign is.

But no the age shouldn't be raised, people will do it anyway. Thye need to have a big awareness campaign, and also focus on the immediate negatie effects, such as smell, money etc, because teenasgers seem more influenced by now than the future.

Wow, that post was a lot longer than I expected.

You took the words out my mouth..... You could'nt of said it better ;)

[Bimbybecca]

There are 3 reaosns people start smoking, mainly I think.



And finally, my fewreaons to give up smoking

1) makes you smell nicer. Smokers almost always stink.
2) makes your teeth look nicer. Smokers often have manky yellow teeth
3) it won't make you put on weight if you eat the same amount. The only reason that soem people do is because nicotine dulls the apetite.
4) you'll live much longer! Research has shown that EACH CIGERETTE takes 5-10 minutes off your life!
5) of corse you'll be much heathier, but people already know this so I won't go into a waffle about the health benefits.
and finally
6) you'll save loads of money! Think about how much you could save if you had 1 packet of 20 cigarettes a day. Let's say they cost about £4 a packet, that may be an exaggeration, I;m not quite sure, but if you had a £4 packet per day then if you quite you'd save £1460 per year! Think about what you could do with that? Wouldn't you rather have an extra holiday abroad, or full sky tv and broadband AND a new computer??? SDurely that's an incentive if nothign is.

But no the age shouldn't be raised, people will do it anyway. Thye need to have a big awareness campaign, and also focus on the immediate negatie effects, such as smell, money etc, because teenasgers seem more influenced by now than the future.

Wow, that post was a lot longer than I expected.

I have to disagree with some of what you said. I am in no way condoning ciggerettes however you haven't thought about how difficult it is to quit.

Smokers have an addiction and just like any other addiction it is very hard to stop. Surely if it was easy to quit then I'm sure that most smokers would stop (I know that me and all my friends would).

The people who preach about smoking are rarely ex-smokers and if they have never smoked then they really don't understand nicotine addiction, the people who preach should be ex-smokers etc. People who have been there and understand it.

I know I stated in my last post that smoking should be banned however I have something else to add on that front. If it is banned it will still be purchased illegally, increasing the illegal drug trade. However the plus side is that it would'nt be legal to smoke it in public places, decreasing the amount of passive smoking.

[bubble79]

I'm not saying it isn't difficult to quit, but people do manage it, and people aren't even going to think of quitting if theres no incentive. And there are things to help you out there. I have never smoked and I never plan to, because whenever I inhale other peoples smoke it makes me cough, and it's disgusting. But saying that you have to have done t before you can preach is not really right, because, you don't have to have done something to know how you shouldn't do it. That's like saying 'you can't tell people not to take drugs, unless you've taken them yourself'. It just wouldn't work. And I do know people who have quitted succesfully. And speaking to them, they say that although ti wasn't easy, there were enough incentives so that they did stick at it. And there are. Especialy the money. Think about how you and your friends social life would improve if you did manage to get off cigarettes.

[FlyingJesus]

Some people are naturally more prone to addiction than others, and so will by no fault of their own find it much much harder to give up a habit, especially when withdrawal from drugs such as nicotine makes an addict feel depressed and angry (not a fantastic mix of emotions).

[Spectate]

I personally believe that the age should be raised to 18. I believe that although a lot of people who smoke at 16 are addicted, a lot of people also just smoke because those they hang around with do. I think that if it were raised to 18 maybe people would feel less pressured into smoking by their mates, as they would do at 16. Also on the point of younger people smoking, I think that it would be harder for them to get hold of the cigarettes to start smoking in the first place, as younger children probably know less 16 year olds than they do 18 year olds.

[FlyingJesus]

Surely peer pressure would increase, seeing as the smokers would be in association with the 18+ year olds that buy them cigarettes, and therefore in their little group be more "mature".

[bubble79]

I agree, and there would also be the added thrill of doing something which is banned at a much later age. And a lot of people behind the counter in shops is only about 16, so people would still be able to get them themselves if they looked old for their age. When was the last timeyou saw someone being asked about their age when trying to buy cigarettes? Or even booze really becAUSE the same thing applys.

[Webhamster]

Yes it should, I hate smokers, and all them young kids that smoke them, idiots!

I also disagree with the type of shops that sell alcohol and cigs to people that don't look 21, I think people that don't look 18, should be asked for ID.

Did I mention I think that Alcohol and Cigs should be raised to 21.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes it should, I hate smokers, and all them young kids that smoke them, idiots!

Useful argument there.


I also disagree with the type of shops that sell alcohol and cigs to people that don't look 21, I think people that don't look 18, should be asked for ID.

That's the law anyway, you're meant to ask for ID...


Did I mention I think that Alcohol and Cigs should be raised to 21.

No you didn't, nor did you post any reasoning for.. well, anything.

[meta1gearsold3]

Here, the limit is 18.

[bubble79]

*sarcastic moment ahead* Wow! That's really going to win taht debate metagearsolid! *sarcaticness over*

I think 21 is a bit old, especialy for alcohol, but cigarettes I'm going to focus on, because people are legally adults in Britain at 18, and so forcing them to wait until 21 seems harsh for things like booze and cigarettes. I think, if things wetre raised to 21 like that then they could not call you an adult at 18, because as an adult you shoul;d be able to make your own choices about drink, and, although I detest it, smoking.

[-!scotty-!1]

They should just ban smoking all together.

[bubble79]

I hate smoking however I am not in favour of a complete ban. These are my reaosns.
1) Britain gets a lot of money from the very high taxes placed on cigarettes, and although a lot of this is used to cover the NHS for smoking related illnesses, I think some isn't and so we, as a country would lose out finacially.
2) If smoking was banned, then it still wouldn't stop entirely. It would still carry on like drugs are now, and from this the country would lose more money, we would still have smoking related ilnesses, and there would be more violence as people often end up shoplifting in order to pay drug dealers, which if such a popular drug was banned, there would be more of.

And finally,
3) As long as people are aware of the risks, which is what our country shoud be trying to promote, and as long as they don't inflict their habit on other people, which is why I believe in a public smoking ban, then I think that as adults, people should be able to smoke, if they wish, and can afford it.

[FlyingJesus]

Finally, someone intelligent in the debate ^_^ +Rep
Shame I agree with you, that kinda dulls the moment :P

Edit: Anyone know where Mentor's gone? He put up some good arguments for a while before he left.

[micky.blue.eyes]

I hate smoking however I am not in favour of a complete ban. These are my reaosns.
1) Britain gets a lot of money from the very high taxes placed on cigarettes, and although a lot of this is used to cover the NHS for smoking related illnesses, I think some isn't and so we, as a country would lose out finacially.

I don't think a country would lose out financially, no smokers would mean less sick people, which means less medical costs and a better working society, so you would win on that.
But I agree with you that smoking can't be banned.

[holo-jonny]

smoking is a waste of money.
they cost loads of money and they can actually kill you.
I think that since OAP`s don`t have to work to get money and since they will die soon anyway they should be the only ones getting them.
increase the ciggarette age to 60. I still Stand By My Post :)

[bubble79]

I don't think a country would lose out financially, no smokers would mean less sick people, which means less medical costs and a better working society, so you would win on that.
But I agree with you that smoking can't be banned.

W ewould. Drugs aren't that hard to get hold of. People would still use cigarettes, except we would not get tax on them, and we would still be forced to pay for the illness caused by them. I could go onto whether drugs and self inflicted illnesses should be covered on the NHS, but that's another debate

[FlyingJesus]

I don't think a country would lose out financially, no smokers would mean less sick people, which means less medical costs

Not really.. a lot of money comes in from tax on not just tobacco itself, but tobacco products. Think about the amount of little kids who go around trying to buy bongs, lighters and other things associated with smoking, there's money in that too. Also, I know smoking does cause problems with health, but something like 9% of lung cancers are caused by natural radiation in the air, nothing to do with smoking - and there are other causes.


and a better working society, so you would win on that.

So are you saying that smokers can't/don't work as well as non-smokers? I don't see what you were getting at there.


But I agree with you that smoking can't be banned.

As long as everyone agrees with me ^_^

[micky.blue.eyes]

So are you saying that smokers can't/don't work as well as non-smokers? I don't see what you were getting at there.
They want more breaks, for a quick smoke, they get stressed easily, I notice that a lot, and healthier people can do the physical harder jobs better.
I think we should go back to the reall point though, if the age should or shouldn't be raised to 18, not if smoking should be banned. ;)

[bubble79]

But the thing is, we've pretty much covered most people's points of views. How do they decide a winner, or start a new debate? I've put my views forward already in my previous posts.
I think that thew age should not be raised, because that willa dd to the 'rebellious' look associatedwith them, and a large awareness campaign aimed at the younger people should be truesd instead.

[meta1gearsold3]

*sarcastic moment ahead* Wow! That's really going to win taht debate metagearsolid! *sarcaticness over* cuff. Who said i was going to win the debate you fa.g? i was just stating that here the limit is 18. dumba.ss :rolleyes:

[Eye!]

where i live it is already 18

I THINK THAT IS OUTRAGOUSLY YOUNG!!

Once people hit 18 they are most all like "hey im cool i'm gonna buy me some smokes"

like honestly they are throwing their life away to look cool

if they made the age something like 15-30 maybe the teens would take a moment and think about what they are doing to themselves

its honestly NOT worth throwing your life away to be cool

[KickerFliper]

Raise it to 25, 30 Maybe,

But sometimes its better for them to do it younger to be aware of the conciquences.

But thats more with Alcohol. ''/

[bubble79]

You don't need to have smoked to know that it's stupid. How has it become considered "cool"? It really makes you smell and your teeth go yellow, and your breath smells.Plus you lose out on money that could be spent on soemthing far better, like clothes so youm look even better than if you do smoke.

[micky.blue.eyes]

if they made the age something like 15-30 maybe the teens would take a moment and think about what they are doing to themselves

I assume you mean 25-30?
But I agree, most people buy them to look cool, but that's their problem, they'll find out that smoking isn't cool later on.

[FlyingJesus]

Once people hit 18 they are most all like "hey im cool i'm gonna buy me some smokes"

I'm sure people aren't like that.. and if they are, they really need to mature a bit, and probably deserve what they get.



if they made the age something like 15-30 maybe the teens would take a moment and think about what they are doing to themselves

I'm sure you didn't mean 15-30.. but anyway, why make the age so high? You're legally an adult at 18 (21 in some places I believe), so why should something else be restricted until you're an older older adult? Thinking on those lines, why not just have cigarettes an optional hand-out for when you collect your pension money after retirement?



its honestly NOT worth throwing your life away to be cool

So that's where I've been going wrong..

[bubble79]

'Once people hit 18 they are most all like "hey im cool i'm gonna buy me some smokes'

I doubt people think that to be honest. If they're that stupid then they will smoke before they're 81 (of course, but Ii meant 18. Typing errors lol). Not Being allowed to buy them doesn't stop people from buying them. And also, most people do not want to smoke.

[asher_]

Although raising the age to 18 won't stop the majority of youngsters smoking, it will stop some and that's exactly what needs to be recognised. I really think a noticable decrease will be seen in how many kids are seen smoking on the streets, which is great for themselves and people around them also getting affected by their smoke. I know that many 16 year olds disregard the fact that smoking damages their healths, and may be angry with this possible law being enforced, but hopefully it will make them realise, smoking isn't good and it really does do more harm than good.

[bubble79]

But although it will get a few people off, some people will start if the age is raised, because ti will add to the 'rebellious' nature of them, and if there was this chanhge, then despite all the publicity it woud cause as a short term effect, there would also bethe risk of trying something not allowed until later, as a long term cause.

[FlyingJesus]

It's not worth what little money our government currently has to stop a small percentage of teenage smokers quit. There's already been a price increase of something like 9p per pack (doesn't seem a lot but when you think about how many cigarettes are bought/sold... and how often some people buy), and I think that's the way to go about the problem. It costs very little to make the changes, will generate more money quite quickly, and potentially stop a very small amount of young users from smoking, which the government can make claims on to show us as a good country. Basically, you can rip off a smoker to ridiculous amounts if you change things little by little, as their habit needs to be fulfilled, and they will have to fork out the price for it, or stop - either way the government wins.

[NIKKEE]

nah
two years wont make much difference to anyones health

^_>

[bubble79]

I don't think that the point is thatpeople will be smoking for 32 years less. I think the point is more thatpeople will understand the risks better by 18 and so will decide not to smoke at all.

[NIKKEE]

i dont
no one listens
if there dumb enough to smoke at 16
they'll still be dumb enough to smoke at 18
and anyway
how many people do you know wait till the legal age?

[FlyingJesus]

Quite a lot.. lots of people start in college or uni, or if they've been steering away from it most of the time, on their 16th their friends say "here, have one just because you can", stuff like that. Still, that isn't the issue at hand..

[:G.M.T:]

tbh i think it should but i know lots of shops around where i live which actually do sell cigarettes to people under the age of 16 so i dont know what difference it would make :)

[Ash♥]

I suppose, but people smoke under age anyway. :P

[Billabong]

Yes it should. Anyway it wouldnt stop people from smoking....

I hate smoke and ive never tried it either....

Bann smoking all together :)

Yep, goverment would lose too much tax profit though so it shows whats more important, lives or money....

[FlyingJesus]

Money obviously. Countries with no money do much worse than countries with smokers.

[:baris:]

dont smoke cigerets smoke tea bags like meeeeeeeee * burp *
----------------------------------------------------------------

did you know that cigerets are worth like 7p and all the rest of the money it costs like £3-£4 of it is all tax, so the goverment wont make it illegal as they would lose money for tax, and it shows that money is worth more than people infront of there eyes.









:rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

That's been said a few times through this thread.. and why wouldn't money be important? Referring to my last post, cigarettes don't kill nearly as many people as extreme poverty does. If everyone was as liberal as to think about people before commodities, we'd have no humans left.

[:Alpha]

If someone start smoking at a low age when normally he dont know what he doing or just want to try.. he might get addicted. At 18 years old people are older and are more mature.

[JackHb]

Yep, goverment would lose too much tax profit though so it shows whats more important, lives or money....

Goverment rip smokers off, it use to be 2.50 for a pack of 10 now its 2.58. I know its only 8p but if you smoke and then add that 8p up of how many packets you buy it adds up. It's the same with alchol they earn loads out fo that

[FlyingJesus]

Tax increases on smoking are a good idea. They might deter people from smoking, because of the cost (which is what the government can claim) and also it brings in more money, helping to solve two problems. It might make some people unhappy, but as good ol' Uncle Íosif said: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette".

[-Emz]

no way!!!!!!! i can only just get served for 16 - keep it at 16!!!!!!!!!

[Phaon]

Smoking should be risen to 18 year olds

[JackHb]

Tax increases on smoking are a good idea. They might deter people from smoking, because of the cost (which is what the government can claim) and also it brings in more money, helping to solve two problems. It might make some people unhappy, but as good ol' Uncle Íosif said: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette".

I disagree it is not a good idea, and it don't put me off from smoking cause they raise the price, it just means i need to spend 8 more p on a pack of ****.


no way!!!!!!! i can only just get served for 16 - keep it at 16!!!!!!!!!

And rofl! I thought you were giving up anyway!

[-Emz]

And rofl! I thought you were giving up anyway!
Erm I have, god what kind of person do you think I am? I think the age should be raised to at least 21, if not 25 you know? Yep definately 25..

[JackHb]

Erm I have, god what kind of person do you think I am? I think the age should be raised to at least 21, if not 25 you know? Yep definately 25..

say dat without the cig in ur other hand :@!

[-Emz]

no can do soz

[foxyfox00]

Yes Of Course. You are not physically mature until 18-22.
Why should young adults have access to this sort of product.

Here in Australia it is 18, the same for alchol. Smoking has been banned in 99% of public enclosed spaces and cigarette packets have pitchers of the effects of smoking. Its working with the addition of tv ads to reduce smoking

It is essential for the health of the community and is a vital step for all govenments

[FlyingJesus]

I disagree it is not a good idea, and it don't put me off from smoking cause they raise the price, it just means i need to spend 8 more p on a pack of ****.

Government still wins. If you quit they can say that such-and-such percentage of Britons have stopped smoking (and they can add "due to the tax increase") which shows them in good light. If you don't quit, they get more money. I fail to see how that isn't a good idea for the government.

[Spotteh]

they should leave it because its not going to stop the people all ready underage smoking an its too late now because 16 yr olds already smoke

[JackHb]

Government still wins. If you quit they can say that such-and-such percentage of Britons have stopped smoking (and they can add "due to the tax increase") which shows them in good light. If you don't quit, they get more money. I fail to see how that isn't a good idea for the government.

Because it won't stop me, it will just cost me an extra 8p.
Goverment are stupid anyway.

[Biseinen]

Yes, it should be.

Debate owned.

Edit: BUT, like anyone would pay attention, I've seen some 11 - 14 year olds smoking. >_>

[lolerskates]

Money, Money, Money. Thats what makes the world go round really, forget love thats just a myth. It'll always be around because the tax is good income for the goverment and if it's lower people can start buying them earlier and hence the goverment makes more money. :eusa_wall

[Edge]

Definatly should be raised. Should be banned in public places aswell cant stand it when your just walking around happily and normally till someone blows cigerette smoke in your face -.-

[Cloud-Strife]

Yes i think it should be.

It will stop inconsiderate smokers that are imature and smoke all over the place.

If i inhale smoke i start coughing and have to rest and breath!!!! and all because some immature 16 year old smokes right in front of me as i walk out of a public place. Passive smoking can also damge younger children and i think 16 year odls that smoke don't always realise this

[FlyingJesus]

Because it won't stop me, it will just cost me an extra 8p.
Goverment are stupid anyway.

And as I said before, that means they get more money from it. It's a win-win situation for the government, some people might quit due to the costs, but the tax increase makes up for it, and if not many people quit, they make even more money.

[Nightrose]

Yeah it should be, to many people smoke now

[Jordan3]

Yeah it should be, to many people smoke now

Define "too many". You don't know exactly how many people smoke, and what makes you think too many people do?

[anthenth.]

Ye For Defo :)

[Foks]

Ye For Defo :)

Yes but why ;s

Lets face it, if they raised the smoking age the government would hike up the taxes on everything else. quite alot of the revenue from the selling of cigarettes is actually taxes. not much of the money goes the the companies who produce them in the first place.
The government need money just like we do. they can;t just make it. so would you prefer to spend more on taxes when your older, or let a few pathetic 16 year olds smoke themselvs to death? ;s i know which one i'd choose.

[FlyingJesus]

Britain has become basically unindustrialised. We don't rely on our own produce to make us money anymore, we now only get money through taxes, loans (3rd world countries) and labour service. We send out people to work for foreign companies, bringing the money from that country into our own in return for the work our citizens do. Aside from that, all we have is taxes. Take away cigarettes and like Alumina said, tax on other things go up.

[JellyWorm]

I smoke Draw and Green Doesnt bother me as i look 18 :S

[FlyingJesus]

It would bother you, seeing as how just about everyone 18 year old has some form of ID, so it would be easier to establish between people who are 18 and people who look 18. Still, for reasons said throughout this debate by myself and others, no to the age increase.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If we made the limit higher theres not point because underage kids are smoking now, so what differance does it make ?

[mxavier11]

just ban smoking from everywhere :) easy solution.

[Darren_x]

NORRRR IT SHUDNT !

[bubble79]

I've mentioned this before, and so have many other people. You can't ban smoking completely. Thios debate seems to be going round in circles

[Ezzie.]

I find that people can ruin their lungs and raise the chance of themselves getting lung cancer before they're even aloud todrive. One point that puzzles me :s
To ban smoking completely would ruin the economy, but I do believe that a partial ban should come in order, maybe the limit of cigarettes per week for example?
If smoking was completely banned the addicted users of this "drug" would search for blackmarket sellers who would sell the cigarettes for a LOT more than the shop selling prices were.

[Frank459]

Do what we (Scotland) do.

Ban smoking in public places

[FlyingJesus]

That's coming into action in the summer supposedly. I think it's a good idea, as it makes all the people who complain about smokers quiet, and also means that the government can keep all their much-needed tax money.

[bubble79]

I agree fully with a smoking ban in public places because smoking is antisocial and disgusting to non smokers.

[James.]

sHOULD stay as it is.

[FlyingJesus]

just ban smoking from everywhere :) easy solution.

Just saw this post at the top of the page, and I'd like to point out that it wouldn't be easy, or a solution.

[Kingzy]

Hmmm... I can't really say since I live in America where the cigarrette age law has ALWAYS been 18 and alcohol isn't allowed 'til 21.

[Door]

Doesnt matter. 12 year olds will still buy them.

[bingoking]

I think it should be banned anyway because smoking is just like a murderer!

[FlyingJesus]

Yes you're quite right, anyone who smokes is obviously planning to kill.

[The Professor]

If youre not going to ban it, give it to everyone. Whats the point in only wanting to kill people over 18?

[SiteOnline]

I recon it should i cant stand the smell I hate it get rid of ciggaretes all together but wait we can coz then ppl would go broke well what bout their life! (im way too serious)

[Crouch]

Hmmm. It shouldn't because people will still smoke under age anyway no matter what the legal age is :P

[Rockstar]

Yes should be put up age or even better they should burn all cigretts away and make it alligel alltogether

[PixelDoom]

Smoking is common in people as young as 13, many people at my school do it and just today my mate showed me his bag full of illegal drugs that he was going to smoke, also i hear people scrounging money off others to buy cigs. Raising the age limit would make it less available to people who arent allowed; often people have brothers/sisters aged 16 who buy cigs for them, and so they would be stopped. Smoking can never be completely banned as people addicted would go mentally unstable. The age limit should be raised.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes should be put up age or even better they should burn all cigretts away and make it alligel alltogether

I seriously laughed out loud when I read this. You hate cigarettes so you want to put them all together and burn them? Way to solve pollution problems.

[Corq]

What Is The Point In Raising The Age Limit?

People Will Still Be Able To Get Them And Smoke Them, Just Like The Age Limit For Drinking Alcohol Is 18 But People That Are Under Age Can Still Buy And Drink It.

So I Can't See The Point In Altering It...

[Reseller]

Should the age of being allowed to buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18




Rules
Please do not comment with "yeah it should" or "No it shouldnt" please make relevent points and point of views aswell as evidence to back up your post. Thanks

Nope because i wont be ableto buy mine then!

[Leuven]

I say yes.

People are saying that smoking should be abnned. I agree with them. So I think that if we increase the age limit on smoking we will probably be stopping some young smokers ruining their lives.

[sarey]

I think it should be raised to 18, like alcohol, but anyway, the age of smoking is too low, and if you begin smoking at a low age, 1. the risk of having cancer is more high & 2. It becomes addictive. But if the law changes for the age of smoking, sometimes those who are addicted wont be able to stop.. hence: 'addicted'.
And ive seen my friend smoke and she was 12! She wasnt addicted, so i helped her stop, but it just proves that not very many people take the smoking law very serious..

[DJ Dut Chat]

Kids don't do it because they want it. I think a reason maybe that its against the law. if you raise it. even more will start..

don't shoot me. just an idea :eusa_danc

[Tristan]

I think they should raise it. Even people of 13/14 are smoking in our school. ;l

[Heart Break Kid]

whats the point people that are under 16 and smoke are already addicted to it theyll just find more ways of stealing ciggerettes

[Halting]

Smoking should be banned it public spaces.

Very True. Lowering the age would mean more people purchasing cigarettes. More money for the goverment but I don't want to breeve in other peoples smoke. I don't want to breeve in the thousands of chemicals which are killing them.

Every Cigarette takes approximately 6 minutes of your life.
24/25 People who smoke die of heart attacks and Cancer
1/25 People who smoke die of age.

Can't you see your killing yourself?! The only real reason why you can purchase the drug in everyday supermarkets is because the goverment owns thousands of money from it!

No to lowering the age.

[FlyingJesus]

Every Cigarette takes approximately 6 minutes of your life.
24/25 People who smoke die of heart attacks and Cancer
1/25 People who smoke die of age.


24 of 25 smokers die of heart attacks/cancer? I don't know where you get that idea from, it's certainly a load of absolute dung. Also, the question was about raising the age of legal purchase, not lowering it.

Bear in mind people, that there is no law whatsoever concerning the age a person is allowed to smoke, the law only covers buying the product.

[Halting]

We got told that 'dung' from connexions 2 years ago.

[Fiddle-Sticks]

In Ireland it already is. Just hasent effected anyone. 16 year olds look 18 anyway! My sister is 16, she would be able to get them, no questions asked.

[Jasminz0r]

I dont know, because it'd be pointless really, when these kids aged like 13-16 are addicted to smoking, they need it, so they will just get someone to buy it for them, or they'll steal it anyway. If they are truley addicted, and have failed giving up they will do anything to get their hands on them, stealing from parents, friend getting them for them, ect.

[Teh_Dazeh]

Who cares?
The age limit dosen't matter...

People can get them anyway, no matter what the age limit is.

[Gareth.™]

I think it should be raised, as if you smoke at an age like 16 (or even less) it is even the greater chances of dieing than smoking when you're like 20 +.

[FlyingJesus]

I think it should be raised, as if you smoke at an age like 16 (or even less) it is even the greater chances of dieing than smoking when you're like 20 +.

Surely that's the choice of the would-be smoker.

[Nixt]

I personally,agree that the age should be raised; if the government were to raise the age however, I do not see the impact it would have.
A quarter of 15 year olds are regular smokers [Quoted from Jessica Williams' 50 Facts that Should Change the World] and if they are not worried about breaking the law, why would 16 year olds not be?
The best thing that the government could do, is ban cigarettes altogether; the problem with this however would be a huge plummet in industry, something far too risky for the governement to do.
However, the new lawas that ban smoking in public places is welcome, the question is; will this be enforced?

[FlyingJesus]

Yes, the public smoking ban is coming into effect some time in the summer.

What people seem to be failing to realise throughout this thread is that smoking is not illegal under 16 (there's no law on what age you can smoke at), only the purchase of tobacco and tobacco products. Raising the age required to buy cigarettes will hardly change anything anyway, if anything it will have negative effects.

[Teh_Dazeh]

At the moment, people under the age limit to buy Cigarettes are paying profit to Legal buyers to get Cigarettes for them, if the age limit was put up higher, people under the age limit would start paying MORE profit.

Cigarettes are so addictive i doubt this will stop a lot of people smoking, it will just basically make them steal money to get them.

[DJ-Precocious]

Right coming from first hand experiance, smoking is disgusting, i personally have tried smoking once and hated it. (this is not a personal Vendeta because smoking has done something to me(it is simply to warn you not to experiment))

Although many people would say that it wont change anything and that children of all ages still have acces to cigarettes, it would make it harder for them to buy cigarettes!

And Although People say that it is the choice of the smoker as to whether or not they want to smoke I do think that they shouldnt be alowed to make this choice until they are mature enough and the age at which i think any person is mature enough to make this choice is 18:eusa_danc

[FlyingJesus]

What makes you think that 18 year olds are any more mature? The majority of 18 year olds in Britain spend their free time at pubs and clubs, drinking and shágging around.

[DJ-Precocious]

What makes you think that 18 year olds are any more mature? The majority of 18 year olds in Britain spend their free time at pubs and clubs, drinking and shágging around.

And i suppose you have statistics to show that a majority of 18 year olds drink and shág during all of theyre spare time???