mps seeking to increase smoking age to 18

Former Member

no matter how much i dislike smoking, this is utterly the wrong way to go about reducing numbers of smokers, since most smokers start at 14/15 anyway where its already illegal to buy

already done in scotland now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4089658.stm

and new linkage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4106334.stm
'yes we're a bloody nanny state and yes we'd just rather pass laws than improve enforcement to stop under 16 getting hold of fags'

Former Member

.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote:

I think the theory behind it is that many 14 year olds can pass for 16, but not so easily for 18, thereby preventing younger teenagers from being able to buy tobacco when they are most likely to begin smoking.

a change in attitudes with young girls in particular needs to be done, for most boys in school its seen as rather pointless to smoke whilst not so for girls

doing the if you dont look 18 we'll need some proof youre over 16 method should work better if thats the plan

this problem is best solved by long term gradual changes and its happening too, so why any increase in this?

Former Member

.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote:

Well, I suppose it could also be argued that by having a lower age limit than alcohol sales, it sends out the message that tobacco is much less harmful than alcohol.

I agree that a change in attitude is what is really needed, but that's the most difficult to achieve.

ooohh other drugs are illegal lets bring alcohol and cigarettes in line with them then :shocking:

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

ooohh other drugs are illegal lets bring alcohol and cigarettes in line with them then :shocking:

Why not?

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote:

I think the theory behind it is that many 14 year olds can pass for 16, but not so easily for 18, thereby preventing younger teenagers from being able to buy tobacco when they are most likely to begin smoking.

14 year olds have no problem getting their hands on alcohol...walk up to someone who looks old enough and give them a shopping list with the money - most will oblige. I see absolutely no reason why tobacco would be any different.

Former Member

This is a good idea because by the time they are 18 many kids would have outgrown that trying to be cool by smoking state of mind.
*waits for Man of Kent to call me a racist*

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Why not?

Individual liberty for a start. You've never drunk alcohol or smoked?

What a free and fun society you'd like to see eh?

Former Member

Born Slippy wrote:

This is a good idea because by the time they are 18 many kids would have outgrown that trying to be cool by smoking state of mind.
*waits for Man of Kent to call me a racist*

well i don't see the word "darkie" there so i don't see the need for him to call you one

as for the topic, it doesn't matter a difference, teenagers will smoke regardless of what the law says, they'll just get older people to buy them, it's not as though they're holding out until they're 18 until they start, we need a culture change, these things are hard to come by though...

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

doing the if you dont look 18 we'll need some proof youre over 16 method should work better if thats the plan

We operate a similar system in the shop were i work, but for alcohol, if they look under 21 we have to ask them to prove they are over 18. I get a lot of abuse from customers when i ID them. I hate working in a shop. :impissed:

Former Member

satehen wrote:

We operate a similar system in the shop were i work, but for alcohol, if they look under 21 we have to ask them to prove they are over 18. I get a lot of abuse from customers when i ID them. I hate working in a shop. :impissed:

i think that policy sucks, i mean if they don't look 18 then ask them for ID, i'm 18 now and am not used to being asked for ID but sometimes in offies they have that under21 policy, it's quite annoying and embarressing, and who cares anyway, i'd serve anyone unless they looked really young, like 15 or something like that...

Former Member

satehen wrote:

We operate a similar system in the shop were i work, but for alcohol, if they look under 21 we have to ask them to prove they are over 18. I get a lot of abuse from customers when i ID them. I hate working in a shop. :impissed:

Just don't ID anyone unless your superiors are about - problem solved.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

well i don't see the word "darkie" there so i don't see the need for him to call you one

as for the topic, it doesn't matter a difference, teenagers will smoke regardless of what the law says, they'll just get older people to buy them, it's not as though they're holding out until they're 18 until they start, we need a culture change, these things are hard to come by though...

these things are happening only group left that isnt decreasing is young women realy

Former Member

Stupid idea. Patronising.

I think most 16 and 17 year olds are aware that smoking is harmful, most are also mature enough to make a decision about smoking. If they choose to smoke I see absolutely no problem.

The witch hunt against smoking is getting tiring. What next? An age limit on fast food? Let people take responsibility for their own actions...

If 16 and 17 year olds want to smoke they should be allowed to. And if the age ever was ridiculously increased what would happen to existing smokers who are 16/17? It would be stupid and pointless to turn them into law-breakers.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Stupid idea. Patronising.

I think most 16 and 17 year olds are aware that smoking is harmful, most are also mature enough to make a decision about smoking. If they choose to smoke I see absolutely no problem.

The witch hunt against smoking is getting tiring. What next? An age limit on fast food? Let people take responsibility for their own actions...

If 16 and 17 year olds want to smoke they should be allowed to. And if the age ever was ridiculously increased what would happen to existing smokers who are 16/17? It would be stupid and pointless to turn them into law-breakers.

exactly and most people who start smoking are under 16 anyway so it wouldnt solve anything, enforcing the under 16 rule better and keeping on with messages that smoking a stupid thing to do, is and continues to work - it just needs mroe targetting at girls who somehow think its cool still when its filthy

out of everyone my age who smokes, its mainly girl smokers and the few guys that do, only do when at pub etc

Former Member

exactly and most people who start smoking are under 16 anyway so it wouldnt solve anything, enforcing the under 16 rule better and keeping on with messages that smoking a stupid thing to do, is and continues to work - it just needs mroe targetting at girls who somehow think its cool still when its filthy

Smoking is instrinsically "cool" - you can't stop the view from being widely held.

out of everyone my age who smokes, its mainly girl smokers and the few guys that do, only do when at pub etc

Now that's what i call a bad generalisation.

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Just don't ID anyone unless your superiors are about - problem solved.

Unless trading standards are doing spot checks, because the teller is liable to prosecution along with the licensee.

Girls do smoke more than boys now, in my experience. It "keeps them slim" :yeees:

They should ban smoking in public full stop, tbh, it's a vile habit.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

They should ban smoking in public full stop, tbh, it's a vile habit.

I bet you would like to ban everything you don't like.

Don't like long hair? Lets just ban it.
Think old people are vile? Ban Them.

Vote Labour by any chance?

Former Member

Born Slippy wrote:

I bet you would like to ban everything you don't like.

Don't like long hair? Lets just ban it.
Think old people are vile? Ban Them.

Vote Labour by any chance?

Whereas you'd just like to deport everyone with a darker skin tone.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Unless trading standards are doing spot checks, because the teller is liable to prosecution along with the licensee.

Girls do smoke more than boys now, in my experience. It "keeps them slim" :yeees:

They should ban smoking in public full stop, tbh, it's a vile habit.

exactly a zero tolerance public smoking ban would be a good move, so you can do it, but in own home, open areas are fine, just indoors public areas im on about

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

They should ban smoking in public full stop

"Public" ????????? :chin: :chin:

All smoking should be solitary ?

twisted_trinity wrote:

exactly a zero tolerance public smoking ban would be a good move, so you can do it, but in own home, open areas are fine, just indoors public areas im on about

If there is to be no smoking in public,would you ban "the public" from your "own home" and "open areas" ?


seeker

Former Member

sorry i posted under TTs username

anyway

smoking in public open areas should never be illegal, im all for a ban on smoking inside commercial premises IF there is no decent ventilation, people should be allowed to smoke in their homes, and at their friends houses etc etc

Indrid Cold

What ages and where it's legal won't solve a problem. Unless a way can be found to make stupid people smarter and smart people use their common sense then it will just keep happening, in the same cycle again and again.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

i think that policy sucks, i mean if they don't look 18 then ask them for ID, i'm 18 now and am not used to being asked for ID but sometimes in offies they have that under21 policy, it's quite annoying and embarressing, and who cares anyway, i'd serve anyone unless they looked really young, like 15 or something like that...

You can get a large fine for serving people under age. They do spot checks undercover too. Also are you trying to say people under the age of 18 don't look 18 sometimes? The 21 rule is a good system and I don't find it embaressing at all and I am 19.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

They should ban smoking in public full stop, tbh, it's a vile habit.

Ban smoking in public full stop? Or do you just mean enclosed spaces?

Nose-picking is a vile habit, should we ban that in public 'full stop' too?

An outright ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces is totally unjustified and those that support it are extremists. A ban would be a disgusting infringement of civil liberties and an unnecessary, unwarranted interference akin to something a dictator would propose. Oh wait a minute, wasn’t the first such ban in Nazi Germany?

We all have to use buses and trains and they can’t be avoided, therefore I don’t see a problem with them being non-smoking. (Although there’s no reason why you can’t have at least a carriage for smokers on the train). Pubs and restaurants however are different. You choose to go to them. If you don’t like a restaurant that allows smoking go to one that doesn’t. And I don’t know of many restaurants which don’t have a non-smoking area. Likewise people who work in pubs can’t complain about passive smoking, they knew when they got the job that they would be working in a smoky environment. Likewise I knew when I got a job in a supermarket that I’d be near food.

Leave it up to the owner of the pub/restaurant, it's their business and therefore should be their decision.

Former Member

Bomberman444 wrote:

You can get a large fine for serving people under age. They do spot checks undercover too. Also are you trying to say people under the age of 18 don't look 18 sometimes? The 21 rule is a good system and I don't find it embaressing at all and I am 19.

maybe in the big cities, where i live there's no cops full stop nevermind undercover one's, yeh and i already said unless i knew someone was really young and couldn't handle it then i'd still serve them, don't say you weren't a 16 year old wanting to get some drink and feeling really annoyed when you couldn't get served, let people have a bit of fun...

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

smoking in public open areas should never be illegal, im all for a ban on smoking inside commercial premises IF there is no decent ventilation, people should be allowed to smoke in their homes, and at their friends houses etc etc

What about smoking in "the home" if there is no decent ventilation ?

Or a friend`s house,if there`s no decent ventilation ?

What defines "commercial premises" ? (You see my ad in Quids In and come to mine to see the product.In you come,impressed with my sophisticated manner,but you are shocked to see the marlboro hanging from my lips.Go to jail,seeker ?)

What about premises to rent ? (These are "commercial",aren`t they?).

What if you live at a "commercial premises"(assuming a definition could be found ),does it become "your home",or does the "commercial" aspect overrule ?

seeker

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Ban smoking in public full stop? Or do you just mean enclosed spaces?

Nose-picking is a vile habit, should we ban that in public 'full stop' too?

An outright ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces is totally unjustified and those that support it are extremists. A ban would be a disgusting infringement of civil liberties and an unnecessary, unwarranted interference akin to something a dictator would propose. Oh wait a minute, wasn’t the first such ban in Nazi Germany?

We all have to use buses and trains and they can’t be avoided, therefore I don’t see a problem with them being non-smoking. (Although there’s no reason why you can’t have at least a carriage for smokers on the train). Pubs and restaurants however are different. You choose to go to them. If you don’t like a restaurant that allows smoking go to one that doesn’t. And I don’t know of many restaurants which don’t have a non-smoking area. Likewise people who work in pubs can’t complain about passive smoking, they knew when they got the job that they would be working in a smoky environment. Likewise I knew when I got a job in a supermarket that I’d be near food.

Leave it up to the owner of the pub/restaurant, it's their business and therefore should be their decision.

would it be akright to smoke a joint in public? or in your own home, grown by yourself?

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

would it be akright to smoke a joint in public? or in your own home, grown by yourself?

Not sure if I really see your point.

Tobacco is totally legal, cannabis isn’t.

Personally I favour legalising cannabis.

So I wouldn’t have a problem with somebody smoking a joint in public (if it were legal as it should be) and in say a pub for example even if cannabis was legal it should still be up to the pub-owner.

I guess there are differences too…Whilst I don’t see a problem with an adult smoking a cigarette outside near a children’s playground I think it would be pretty inappropriate for some adults sharing a joint to be near a children’s playground.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

maybe in the big cities, where i live there's no cops full stop nevermind undercover one's, yeh and i already said unless i knew someone was really young and couldn't handle it then i'd still serve them, don't say you weren't a 16 year old wanting to get some drink and feeling really annoyed when you couldn't get served, let people have a bit of fun...

Any place can be spot checked by undercover people. It doesn't matter if I was the fact still remains the age limit is there. By those rules is it OK that I drive a car around with L plates on at 15 just because I want to?