Age restrictions on tobacco?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

After reading and posting in the "Ideas on the legal drinking age" thread, it got me thinking about tobacco products and age restrictions. Here in America the age restriction on tobacco products is 18 if I am not mistakened. Considering tobacco products can be damaging to any age, why is there an age restriction on cigarettes and the like? Tobacco products do not cause DUIs or anything like that and people have to deal with second hand smoke and other air pollutants all too often so its not like kids haven't been exposed to it.

What is the age restriction (if any) on tobacco products in your country and do you think there should be restrictions?

The age restriction is there to prevent children from purchasing harmful products.

The limit is 18 in Australia. The first cigarette I ever had was at 18, and I liked it.

Yes, there should be restrictions. Why? Because after the age of 18 people children tend to stop growing so much. Tobacco products stunt growth and the like.

True about tobacco slowing growth, however children are exposed to second hand smoke and will often smoke before 18 due to peer pressure. Also, is it really so bad if some people are a little shorter? I'm not trying to advocate tobacco products but merely try to further discussion.

It's to protect kids from their own immaturity. At some point it is deemed you are mature enough you get to decide if you want to slowly kill yourself.

SilentCom:
True about tobacco slowing growth, however children are exposed to second hand smoke and will often smoke before 18 due to peer pressure. Also, is it really so bad if some people are a little shorter? I'm not trying to advocate tobacco products but merely try to further discussion.

I am sorry to say this, but if someone smokes because of peer pressure then they are somewhere between a weak-willed husk and plain pathetic. If you do not want to smoke (knowing the risks) and do so anyway out of peer-pressure then you have no respect for yourself.

Personally, I'm all for the banning of tobacco in public areas (including out-door areas, the wind is not enough) and think that keeping the legal age to 18 here is a good idea.

ravensheart18:
It's to protect kids from their own immaturity. At some point it is deemed you are mature enough you get to decide if you want to slowly kill yourself.

This is pretty much the best reason and a really nice way of saying that until they are older people are really stupid. So you don't get to do stuff like sign contracts, get guns, or buy stuff that can mess you up till your old enough to really get it.

it's a physically addictive substance that causes damage to your body. a bit different from, say alcohol, because alc takes quite a bit of abuse to become addicted... though still causes severe physical damage if taken in improper doses.

the reason it's got the age limit on it, is because of the mental/physical addiction. do you think a 10yr old can comprehend the pros/cons of smoking? do you think a small child understands what lung cancer is? or even mortality? or even addiction?

when they say 18, they are saying you are now an adult, with the knowledge of consequence, and should be able to understand, legally, what would happen to you when you smoke. also, for the same reason, I'd say alcohol could be lowered to 18.

I am totally against bans of tobacco in public areas, like outside, AND against bans of tobacco in places like restaurants or bars. it should be the CHOICE of those establishments if they want to allow tobacco to be smoked there. a public notice at the door should suffice to alert non smokers that smoking will take place on the premiss. If YOU don't like smoke and don't want to be around it... DON'T GO TO THAT BAR OR RESTAURANT!! I'm sure I'll be unpopular for my opinion on that... but I just don't like how the choices of the few can impose on the rights of the many. people can choose not to go somewhere, but when you make a law preventing the choice of an establishment to have a smoking section or not, that's an imposition on their rights.

Oh... and I don't smoke. never have, never will. but just cause I don't, doesn't mean everyone should have to stop.

SilentCom:
After reading and posting in the "Ideas on the legal drinking age" thread, it got me thinking about tobacco products and age restrictions. Here in America the age restriction on tobacco products is 18 if I am not mistakened. Considering tobacco products can be damaging to any age, why is there an age restriction on cigarettes and the like? Tobacco products do not cause DUIs or anything like that and people have to deal with second hand smoke and other air pollutants all too often so its not like kids haven't been exposed to it.

What is the age restriction (if any) on tobacco products in your country and do you think there should be restrictions?

The age is 18 the US government has decided that those under the age of 18 are too stupid to decided wether or not they want to smoke.

Both tobacco and alcohol would be class A drugs right now if they hadn't been in use so long that they've become ingrained into society.

Interpret that how you will.

Its 16 here in the UK for the reason if you're old enough to fight for your country, have sex, marry or all of the above, you're old enough to slowly poison yourself (I say that as a smoker) As others have said, kids can't understand the reasoning for why its bad. A few may have lost people to smoking related diseases but all they know is that everybody says these things are evil, but yet many, many people still do it. Plants the idea of an illicit, tempting danger in their heads and its hoped by 16 they can make a more reasoned decision

Coffinshaker:
it's a physically addictive substance that causes damage to your body. a bit different from, say alcohol, because alc takes quite a bit of abuse to become addicted... though still causes severe physical damage if taken in improper doses.

the reason it's got the age limit on it, is because of the mental/physical addiction. do you think a 10yr old can comprehend the pros/cons of smoking? do you think a small child understands what lung cancer is? or even mortality? or even addiction?

when they say 18, they are saying you are now an adult, with the knowledge of consequence, and should be able to understand, legally, what would happen to you when you smoke. also, for the same reason, I'd say alcohol could be lowered to 18.

I am totally against bans of tobacco in public areas, like outside, AND against bans of tobacco in places like restaurants or bars. it should be the CHOICE of those establishments if they want to allow tobacco to be smoked there. a public notice at the door should suffice to alert non smokers that smoking will take place on the premiss. If YOU don't like smoke and don't want to be around it... DON'T GO TO THAT BAR OR RESTAURANT!! I'm sure I'll be unpopular for my opinion on that... but I just don't like how the choices of the few can impose on the rights of the many. people can choose not to go somewhere, but when you make a law preventing the choice of an establishment to have a smoking section or not, that's an imposition on their rights.

Oh... and I don't smoke. never have, never will. but just cause I don't, doesn't mean everyone should have to stop.

I agree with almost everything here, just don't think we should tell people they can't smoke outside. I think of that as more of a common courtesy issue, although that may be wishful thinking.

Shodan1980:
Its 16 here in the UK for the reason if you're old enough to fight for your country, have sex, marry or all of the above, you're old enough to slowly poison yourself (I say that as a smoker) As others have said, kids can't understand the reasoning for why its bad. A few may have lost people to smoking related diseases but all they know is that everybody says these things are evil, but yet many, many people still do it. Plants the idea of an illicit, tempting danger in their heads and its hoped by 16 they can make a more reasoned decision

It's 16 to smoke them but 18 to buy now, I remember buying them myself at 16 and a few months before I turned 18 it went up!

I think 18 is a better age to have to buy them, at 18, again I see that as you being an adult where you can make any decision you want and if one is to smoke... so be it.

Scrubiii:
Both tobacco and alcohol would be class A drugs right now if they hadn't been in use so long that they've become ingrained into society.

Interpret that how you will.

Seconded. Alcohol is just as deadly as tobacco, and its infinitely more socially damaging, you could start now and be dead of alcohol poisoning before the morning. But most of us enjoy a drink, some of us enjoy a cigarette, so its just part of society cause it always was and nobody really looks at it.

It should stay the way it is because people can make a more informed decision when they're older and not so heavily subjected to peer pressure.

the human mind isn't fully mature till around about 25 so you're more likely to make better decisions as you age, most people I know who began smoking at a young age wish they had never started.

It's 19 here in New Jersey. I think the idea was to prevent high school seniors from legally buying tobacco, so they aren't tempted to sell it to minors. I don't particularly care. I'm neither 18 nor a smoker.

Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

I'm a smoker, and I think it should be 18.

However, it ain't like I couldn't find ways to get smokes was I was 16-17.

I remember hearing smoking stunts your growth.

Children stop growing by 18 usually.

It's all for the childrens sake!!!!!!!

I'm actually not sure what the age restriction is around here. I think 16. Having said that I don't think I've ever met anyone who gave a damn about the age restriction. Ever since I was an eleven year old boy people around me who wanted to smoke, just smoked. People are more concerned with hiding it from their parents than breaking some kind of law.

i dont really care i dont smoke and i am 16, here it is 16 and ppl say you stop growing when you hit 18. that is not true your brains grow till 23 and your body till 21

SilentCom:

What is the age restriction (if any) on tobacco products in your country and do you think there should be restrictions?

18 and yes.

Tobacco doesn't cause diseases/death (No it doesn't) but it can accelerate the chances of those occurring. People can still live to a ripe old age and smoke 20 a day - it's just not as likely.

But if you're going to make it legal, while making safer drugs illegal, then why do you think people are confused about it?

Let's take a quick look at how "lethal" smoking is.

Your average smoker takes in .2g of Tar, .02g of Nicotine and .18g of Carbon Monoxide a day.
(20 full strength a day)

Most smokers suffer a loss of 13.2 years of their life from their habit. Non-smokers (even those around smokers) suffer far less (as there would be statistics to prove otherwise).

If I'm about to die at 70 as a non-smoker, and 56.8 years as a smoker (and I started at 18); I'll have taken in 283,000 cigarettes - cost myself 8.5 million pounds - and imbibed 2.8 kilos of Tar, .3 kilos of Nicotine and .25 kilos of Carbon Monoxide (though I'm not sure how gas is a weight rather than a volume)

While it DOES kill you and it DOES lower your lifespan and it DOES reek to high heaven - it's not as toxic as people make it out to be.

All the class A's (AFAIK) can kill you with one dose. So can peanuts.

Cigarettes, for all their myriad of faults, have never killed anyone without prolonged (over a year) exposure. (AFAIK)

Caveworm:
Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

A friend of mine got a pipe thinking it would make him cool and sophisticated, but it made him look like a complete tool, like a young arrogant kid trying to be cool. The first time he brought a pipe, about four or five strangers laughed at him.

Pipes are classier, sure. But I doubt it would be easy to pull it off without a beard or some kind of refined hat.

The_root_of_all_evil:

18 and yes.

Tobacco doesn't cause diseases/death (No it doesn't) but it can accelerate the chances of those occurring. People can still live to a ripe old age and smoke 20 a day - it's just not as likely.

But if you're going to make it legal, while making safer drugs illegal, then why do you think people are confused about it?

Let's take a quick look at how "lethal" smoking is.

Your average smoker takes in .2g of Tar, .02g of Nicotine and .18g of Carbon Monoxide a day.
(20 full strength a day)

Most smokers suffer a loss of 13.2 years of their life from their habit. Non-smokers (even those around smokers) suffer far less (as there would be statistics to prove otherwise).

If I'm about to die at 70 as a non-smoker, and 56.8 years as a smoker (and I started at 18); I'll have taken in 283,000 cigarettes - cost myself 8.5 million pounds - and imbibed 2.8 kilos of Tar, .3 kilos of Nicotine and .25 kilos of Carbon Monoxide (though I'm not sure how gas is a weight rather than a volume)

While it DOES kill you and it DOES lower your lifespan and it DOES reek to high heaven - it's not as toxic as people make it out to be.

All the class A's (AFAIK) can kill you with one dose. So can peanuts.

Cigarettes, for all their myriad of faults, have never killed anyone without prolonged (over a year) exposure. (AFAIK)

Thank you. A lot of people are adamant that cigarettes "kill" you, which isn't the case. They're an accelerant to a slow burning fire.

Also, I'm still surprised that an "average" smoker is 20 a day. I barely smoke 5 a day, and I don't reckon I could handle 20.

Scrubiii:
Both tobacco and alcohol would be class A drugs right now if they hadn't been in use so long that they've become ingrained into society.

Interpret that how you will.

Holy crap, someone else gets it.

Every time I bring that up, people look at me like I'm a Class A autistic.

100. Smoking is dangerous. It harms everybody around them and not just with something easily fixable.

Just my opinion.

I believe that people should be able to choose their own vices without regulation. I even think the heavy taxation on such products shouldn't be allowed. However, I don't really see a clear solution to keeping it out of the hands of kids until they are ready to reap the consequences without using age restrictions. Sure, there are still plenty of ways for kids to get their hands on them, but at least you're not encouraging it then. So... keep it as is I suppose.

Raineheart:

Caveworm:
Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

A friend of mine got a pipe thinking it would make him cool and sophisticated, but it made him look like a complete tool, like a young arrogant kid trying to be cool. The first time he brought a pipe, about four or five strangers laughed at him.

Pipes are classier, sure. But I doubt it would be easy to pull it off without a beard or some kind of refined hat.

I have all 3, and people respect me for it.

possumboy:

Raineheart:

Caveworm:
Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

A friend of mine got a pipe thinking it would make him cool and sophisticated, but it made him look like a complete tool, like a young arrogant kid trying to be cool. The first time he brought a pipe, about four or five strangers laughed at him.

Pipes are classier, sure. But I doubt it would be easy to pull it off without a beard or some kind of refined hat.

I have all 3, and people respect me for it.

I respect you for it, and I've not met you.

Smooth faced boys wandering around with pipes and trying to act cool? Minus respect there.

Raineheart:

Caveworm:
Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

A friend of mine got a pipe thinking it would make him cool and sophisticated, but it made him look like a complete tool, like a young arrogant kid trying to be cool. The first time he brought a pipe, about four or five strangers laughed at him.

Pipes are classier, sure. But I doubt it would be easy to pull it off without a beard or some kind of refined hat.

I used to have a pipe, but then I also had a beard and a hat and no one laughed at me. I stopped smoking the pipe when I stopped wearing the hat, make of that what you will.

Raineheart:

Also, I'm still surprised that an "average" smoker is 20 a day. I barely smoke 5 a day, and I don't reckon I could handle 20.

I know of people averaging 60 a day. Let's just say I don't expect them to reach the next decade.

Raineheart:
A friend of mine got a pipe thinking it would make him cool and sophisticated, but it made him look like a complete tool, like a young arrogant kid trying to be cool. The first time he brought a pipe, about four or five strangers laughed at him.

Pipes are classier, sure. But I doubt it would be easy to pull it off without a beard or some kind of refined hat.

What about cigarette holders? Classiest of all... *hrk*

The_root_of_all_evil:

SilentCom:

What is the age restriction (if any) on tobacco products in your country and do you think there should be restrictions?

18 and yes.

Tobacco doesn't cause diseases/death (No it doesn't) but it can accelerate the chances of those occurring. People can still live to a ripe old age and smoke 20 a day - it's just not as likely.

But if you're going to make it legal, while making safer drugs illegal, then why do you think people are confused about it?

Let's take a quick look at how "lethal" smoking is.

Your average smoker takes in .2g of Tar, .02g of Nicotine and .18g of Carbon Monoxide a day.
(20 full strength a day)

Most smokers suffer a loss of 13.2 years of their life from their habit. Non-smokers (even those around smokers) suffer far less (as there would be statistics to prove otherwise).

If I'm about to die at 70 as a non-smoker, and 56.8 years as a smoker (and I started at 18); I'll have taken in 283,000 cigarettes - cost myself 8.5 million pounds - and imbibed 2.8 kilos of Tar, .3 kilos of Nicotine and .25 kilos of Carbon Monoxide (though I'm not sure how gas is a weight rather than a volume)

While it DOES kill you and it DOES lower your lifespan and it DOES reek to high heaven - it's not as toxic as people make it out to be.

All the class A's (AFAIK) can kill you with one dose. So can peanuts.

Cigarettes, for all their myriad of faults, have never killed anyone without prolonged (over a year) exposure. (AFAIK)

I don't smoke, but I merely want to say that even being a non-smoker doesn't guarantee you to nice pink lungs and a chemical free body. Between second hand smoke and living in a city (albeit a small city compared to places like Vancouver, London or New York City), my lungs are likely just as bad as that of a smoker depending on how long that person has been smoking. Not to mention all those chemicals absorbed through breathing the air, drinking the water, etc.

OT: The restriction is 18 years old where I live and yes, I think the restriction should be in place. While kids do have other ways of getting their hands on tobacco, that doesn't mean we should make it any easier for them.

Caveworm:
Get the kids on pipes I say! Give them a bit of class and sophistication it would.

I had a friend that despised smokers but just loved the look of a pipe, we went on a trip to Belgium (WWI Battlefield tours) and in Bruges we saw a shop with tinted windows and a sign with a pipe on it. We opened the door and saw 50 Belgians all aged around 60 each with their own glorious beard (Santa's and Gandalf's seemed the most popular) and a wall of concentrated pipe smoke which decided to try and make a break out the door. It was like being hit with tear gas.

OT: I agree with the age limit, it has helped to massively downcurb smoking Britain, which as an asthma sufferer I am glad of. If only we could do the same with binge drinking.

Complete ban on tobacco in my opinion, it's a harmful drug and while people will no doubt say stuff like "it can't be done" well clearly they haven't seen some of the cigaret reforms here in Australia that have already taken place that had their own skeptics.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Raineheart:

Also, I'm still surprised that an "average" smoker is 20 a day. I barely smoke 5 a day, and I don't reckon I could handle 20.

I know of people averaging 60 a day. Let's just say I don't expect them to reach the next decade.

I read 20 a day and thought "gross." Then I saw 60 a day and felt like vomiting. Just being near another smoker makes me physically sick. And I can tell if someone has smoked recently because they stink for ages afterwards. Mind you, I have a higher than average sense of smell. I can't imagine someone smoking 60 cigarettes a day because of the smell, let alone the monetary implications. Aren't cigarettes really expensive?

OT: If someone wants to smoke then let them and don't try and force them to quit. That's no better than them trying to force you to smoke. But smokers, please be aware; the smoke from your cigarettes isn't just an annoyance for all of us, some really strong cigarettes can physically drain me and a few other people like we had just run a marathon.
I'd like to think it was common courtesy that you shouldn't smoke in public places like shopping centres and restaurants. I'd like to think there was no need for a law on the matter. Though to be completely honest, I wish that cigarettes would just disappear completely.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked