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

[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 ) 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.