Smoking Age

185 posts / 0 new
Last post
jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 1 2007 12:19
Smoking Age

BBC story
Do you reckon this is a good idea? I think it is but how will they phase it in? What will they do about current 'legal' smokers who will stop being able to smoke?

I reckon it's a step in the right direction. I can't wait for smoke free pubs and clubs.

Quote:
About 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke and ministers hope the move will reduce this figure.

smile

rasputin
Offline
Joined: 30-01-05
Jan 1 2007 12:29

it's an alright idea in theory, but given how popular and easy underage drinking is I really don't see how useful it's gonna be in practice.

I'm also a little confused by the bit of the article which claims the entertainment industry portrays smoking as "a cool thing to do", maybe I'm just watching the wrong TV/films/games but I haven't seen that much.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jan 1 2007 12:30

There've been weeks of heated discussions about this point at a local GLBT website. They whine about how they smoke bothers them. They whine about how they want to enjoy their cigarettes. Meanwhile, their civil rights are going down the drain. Bunch of bohemian assholes.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jan 1 2007 13:16
JonnyT wrote:
it's an alright idea in theory, but given how popular and easy underage drinking is I really don't see how useful it's gonna be in practice.

I think it'll work, there's a big difference in attitudes to smoking between 16 and 18 yr olds. If you're underage you could easily find a 16 year old friend to buy you cigarettes, but 18 yr olds would just laugh in your face. (and hopefully punch your friends)

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 1 2007 13:50

A load of moralist trash. Only Jack would support such a doomed policy. I broadly accept the ban on smoking in pubs though.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 1 2007 14:09
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
A load of moralist trash.

Bollocks. Public health "trash" maybe but not moralist. On the whole I'd say it's probably a good thing as it would most likely slightly reduce the number of young people getting cigarettes. Not really bothered either way though, prohibition's not a good idea in principle.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 1 2007 14:31
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
A load of moralist trash. Only Jack would support such a doomed policy. I broadly accept the ban on smoking in pubs though.

Smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs here since Dec 1. It's nice to come home without reeking of smoke but a minor unpleasant side effect is that the Irish pub in the CBD turns out to have a rather peculiar smell that was previously masked by the cloud of smoke emanating from the pseudo-bohemians who frequent it.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jan 1 2007 14:37

The only possible conclusion can be that Alan is sexually aroused by children dying of lung cancer.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 1 2007 14:46
Jess wrote:
The only possible conclusion can be that Alan is sexually aroused by children dying of lung cancer.

Are you still drunk jess? Or is Jack using your computer?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 1 2007 14:47

Fucking idiotic. 16 is more than old enough to decide whether or not you want to smoke.

I can sympathise with banning smoking in pubs, it seems pretty reasonable to me, but come the fuck on, I think some people on here are taking the anti-hippy thing a little too far.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jan 1 2007 14:57
John. wrote:
Are you still drunk jess? Or is Jack using your computer?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 1 2007 15:06
madashell wrote:
Fucking idiotic. 16 is more than old enough to decide whether or not you want to smoke.

Well more 16 year olds start than 18 year olds. It's such a bad habit with pretty much no benefits that there's no reason to defend it.

Quote:
I can sympathise with banning smoking in pubs, it seems pretty reasonable to me, but come the fuck on, I think some people on here are taking the anti-hippy thing a little too far.

Anti-hippy?
Banning it in pubs and clubs seems pretty logical to me.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 1 2007 15:10
jef costello wrote:
Well more 16 year olds start than 18 year olds. It's such a bad habit with pretty much no benefits that there's no reason to defend it.

Hows about because its not your decision? What business is it of yours of somebody else chooses to smoke in private?

Quote:
Anti-hippy?

You know what I mean, this "Well, an individualist might say X, so as a communist, I should say the exact opposite".

Quote:
Banning it in pubs and clubs seems pretty logical to me.

No arguments from me.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 1 2007 15:21

Won't somebody please think of the children?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 1 2007 15:45
madashell wrote:
Hows about because its not your decision? What business is it of yours of somebody else chooses to smoke in private?

It's a bad thing and I don't see how protecting the right to do something stupid is in any way a good thing.
Also it is about protecting young people. Smoking is much more dangerous than booze so I think should at the least have similar restrictions. I'm surprised 16 year olds can afford fags tbh. I know I wouldn't have been able to.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 1 2007 15:50
jef costello wrote:
It's a bad thing and I don't see how protecting the right to do something stupid is in any way a good thing.

I can't believe I'm seeing this kind of paternalistic crap on here. I happen to think side fringes and body piercing are fucking stupid, but I still wouldn't want them banned.

Quote:
Also it is about protecting young people. Smoking is much more dangerous than booze so I think should at the least have similar restrictions. I'm surprised 16 year olds can afford fags tbh. I know I wouldn't have been able to.

16 is legally old enough to fuck, drive and join the army, I think that we can just about trust the ickle teenagers with the choice to smoke or not smoke. Prohibition is completely inneffective anyway, as with drinking, it just adds to the mystique.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 1 2007 16:09
madashell wrote:
I can't believe I'm seeing this kind of paternalistic crap on here. I happen to think side fringes and body piercing are fucking stupid, but I still wouldn't want them banned.

calm down dear, it's only a commercial.
Side fringes have never killed anyone, body piercings have.
One in two smokers will have a premature death as a result. These ill-effects disproportionately affect working class people. I think discouraging them is a good idea. I'd not let a 16 year old get a body piercing a tattoo or take acid. It's about informed decisions.

Quote:
16 is legally old enough to fuck, drive and join the army, I think that we can just about trust the ickle teenagers with the choice to smoke or not smoke. Prohibition is completely inneffective anyway, as with drinking, it just adds to the mystique.

I don't think 16 year olds should be able to drive or join the army.
I'm not talking about prohibition, this is an age limit.
Although if you want to talk about prhibition you'll find friends here. MANY OF THEM USE CAPITALS TO HIGHLIGHT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS!

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 1 2007 16:25
jef costello wrote:
calm down dear, it's only a commercial.
Side fringes have never killed anyone, body piercings have.
One in two smokers will have a premature death as a result. I think discouraging them is a good idea. I'd not let a 16 year old get a body piercing a tattoo or take acid. It's about informed decisions.

That's not the point though. Everybody knows that smoking will kill you, a sixteen year old is perfectly capable of understanding that, they're hardly infants, are they?

Quote:
These ill-effects disproportionately affect working class people.

Everything bad disproportionately affects working class people, that's not an argument for anything.

Quote:
I'm not talking about prohibition, this is an age limit.

As far as sixteen year olds are concerned, it is prohibition, no?

Quote:
Although if you want to talk about prhibition you'll find friends here. MANY OF THEM USE CAPITALS TO HIGHLIGHT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS!

Which has what to do with anything I've said?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 2 2007 01:22
John. wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
A load of moralist trash.

Bollocks. Public health "trash" maybe but not moralist.

Of course it's moralist, it's paternalistic as fuck. That's not to say that it's objectively a bad thing though.

And why is Jack trolling again? He needs to quit hanging out with morons. Is his understanding of the world really so crude that it's either uncritically supporting state bans or millions of children dying of cancer? Does he support Fair Trade or organic food then? Or perhaps his one-eyed liberal thing is just a seasonal thing caused by spending too long in Brighton?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 10:33
madashell wrote:
That's not the point though. Everybody knows that smoking will kill you, a sixteen year old is perfectly capable of understanding that, they're hardly infants, are they?

Sixteen year-old kids do not understand the consequences properly. I'm not being paternalistic, I'm thinking about how me and my friends behaved at 16. With something like smoking which is entirely harmful I think we shouldn't let them harm themselves. I'd stop a 16 year old kid topping themselves because they'd be too young to understand what they were doing. I think raising the age limit is an acceptable way of doing this.

Quote:
As far as sixteen year olds are concerned, it is prohibition, no?

In a sense, I did ask about existing smokers in the original post. We don't talk about prohibition of alcohol or sex, both of which also have age limits.

Quote:
Which has what to do with anything I've said?

Well your use of the word prohibition made you sound like one of them and I thought it was funny.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 10:50
revol68 wrote:
pure paternalistic drivel and since when did this shite become somehow "political" in any meaningful sense.

I posted it up in news cause I felt it was interesting.

Quote:
if 16 year olds are perfectly capable of fucking each other, if they can shag 35 year old saddo's who bought them a necklace from Argos

Well I'd like it if they didn't do that actually.

Quote:
My da had mates who were smoking since they were 9 ffs.

And?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 12:35
revol68 wrote:
Now to bring it back on point, would you support a government ban on 16 year olds fucking, would you make it illegal for silly lil 17 year olds to shag the 35 year old saddos?

No but I'd like to be able to give them some sense. It seems to be practically a rite of passage. (though the guy is usually a bit younger)

But generally shagging a weirdo is something you learn from and has no lasting consequences.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 2 2007 12:54

Raising the legal age won't do shit, while I think Jess kinda has a point with the different attitudes thing I still know people my age who hang out with people my sister's age and buy them alcohol and I'm sure people like that would also buy cigarettes for underage people. Plus a lot of underage people still manage to access restricted things like alcohol, nightclubs, 18-rated films and so on, I don't see why this would be any different.

If you're dumb enough to start smoking you're dumb enough to deserve death from lung cancer. There's plenty of help available for giving up smoking and plenty of warnings about - if you ever watch TV, read magazines or see a cigarette packet you'll know that smoking will damage your health, and they teach it in schools anyway - those who choose to ignore them and smoke regardless don't deserve any protection, however old they are. What I would support is a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs, or at least introducing more non-smoking pubs/clubs or separate smoking rooms, because bar staff and the rest of us who aren't idiots don't deserve cancer.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 12:55

So would you drop the alcohol age limit?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 2 2007 13:02
jef costello wrote:
So would you drop the alcohol age limit?

Don't see why not. I'd rather a kids' first experience of having a few drinks was around their parents at a family do or in the pub than drinking an entire three litre bottle of Frosty Jack's in the hope of impressing that Sarah from the year above, passing out in a park and nearly ending up with alcohol poisoning.

Not that I would know.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 2 2007 13:03
Jack wrote:
Coming soon on the revol68 show "Me, The individual, and complete abstraction from society" and "Seatbelt laws? Bastards!".

Not quit the same thing though is it?

By not wearing a seatbelt you are putting others at risk, that's a matter of fact and a fairly well recognised one.

RPG
Offline
Joined: 8-08-05
Jan 2 2007 13:06

Prohibition doesn't work so I don't see this having much effect. It is also somewhat arbitary. If the thinking is that restricting the sale of cig's reduces their harmful effect, why pick 18? Why not 21 or a total ban? There has been a decline in teenage smoking, which is good, but this has been a result of health education.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 13:08
revol68 wrote:
The more you talk about stuff the more I reckon you missed your calling in the priesthood.

Yes, fight the power. Ket for Kids!!

revol68 wrote:
seriously if your old enough to have sex and have a kid your old enough to get pissed, of course the drinking age being 18 never stopped me or any of my mates getting pissed at 14 on cider.

Me neither, but that's not the question.

I think that by having these limits can help to curb dangerous behaviour.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 13:11
madashell wrote:
jef costello wrote:
So would you drop the alcohol age limit?

Don't see why not. I'd rather a kids' first experience of having a few drinks was around their parents at a family do or in the pub than drinking an entire three litre bottle of Frosty Jack's in the hope of impressing that Sarah from the year above, passing out in a park and nearly ending up with alcohol poisoning.

Not that I would know.

With the drinking law at 18 it is stil the case that most people's first experience is with family in private.

Revol I tend to think that obtaining alcohol/smokes underage is a test of maturity/intelligence. Maybe not common sense though.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 2 2007 13:15
Jack wrote:
madashell wrote:
By not wearing a seatbelt you are putting others at risk, that's a matter of fact and a fairly well recognised one.

Well I think only if you're in the back, directly?

Indirectly you are because your selfish actions are wasting NHS resources. Same as smoking.

For a start, tax revenue from smoking actually exceeds the cost to the NHS from smoking related diseases by a fair margin.

Furthermore, by your logic, maybe we should be introduce a tax on anybody with a BMI over the medically recommended ammount? Or perhaps a ban on extreme sports?

Quote:
I mean I don't really think the ban is gonna work or anything, but ffs, it's hardly a horrific violation of kids liberty to prevent them smoking.

But as revol says, it's a part of this increasing tendancy for the state to try to micromanage people's lives, and it's as much motivated by ideas of national efficiency and paternalism as anything else. You might not see it as an important example, but I can't see any good reasons for libertarians to support something like this.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 13:16
revol68 wrote:
So what about the age of consent? I mean surely if we accept that a person of 16 years old is perfectly capable of having sex and getting pregnant then we should accept their right to smoke?

Sex is different to smoking.