Should the age of being allowed to buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18
RulesQuote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph
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
Yes it should. Anyway it wouldnt stop people from smoking....
I hate smoke and ive never tried it either....
Bann smoking all together :)
Should it hell. There is no real reason, i dont see a problem behind it so why mess with it?
Smoking should be banned it public spaces.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracolis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracolis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by holo-jonny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracolis
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracolis
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
Nah I've been buying them for a mate since I was 14.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracolis
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.
Nice ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bef
That should win the debate
Everything you say is right but this one statement is bugging me:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bef
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?
i think it should have never been leagal
Ciggarettes and all other smoking is stupid.
It bugs me :l
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzdom
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.
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.
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
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.
Drinkings already set at 18.Quote:
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
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...
I Think It Should.It Would Stop More People From Smoking.Until There Have Left School
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.
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?
I Agree That We Should Raise The Age, But NOT Ban It From Public Buildings Such As Pubs, Work Etc..
No, you can drink from the age of 5 up, you just cant buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
And it depends on who you ask about the Heroin/Nicotine which is more addictive debate
As i personally have never taken heroin and i am assuming you havn't either as you seem to have a brain in your headQuote:
Originally Posted by New york times
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas
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.
Wrong, drinking it is illgal outside till 17, then only in restandts with a meal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bef
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...
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 "/Quote:
And it depends on who you ask about the Heroin/Nicotine which is more addictive debate
Well how ever you feel about it, im actaly working of fact not opionion here "/Quote:
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.
But im not talking about the effects, nore the withdrawl simtoms im actaly talking about how adictive the substance is "/Quote:
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.
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 "/Quote:
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.
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...
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"
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
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.
10%? im not even sure nicoteen levels get up to .5 % of a cigaretts conetnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bef
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...
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 "/Quote:
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.
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 "/Quote:
As i said before, most children start smoking to look more adult. Raising the age is just going to make it look more "adult"
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ?Spud?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
If there already on em, may be a chance to save themselves? so where's the lossQuote:
Originally Posted by Aquae
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 "/Quote:
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.
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 "/Quote:
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.
Who exsactly? do you think this? do people u know think this? who exsactly thinks this, as i and the people i know dont "/Quote:
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.
Which is just a repeate of what i actaly said...Quote:
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.
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.