smoking age going to 18, do you agree?

Question

i think it's stupid, it's not going to help, you can pay taxes at 16, go to war at 16 ect... but can't smoke

Answer 1

i think smoking should be held to 21 not 18

Answer 2

err...no you cant do any of those things(unless you have a great paying job at 16 which i doubt very much) ....you can drive a moped that goes slower than a pedal bike though if that makes it better.
i think raising the age is a good idea, there are too many people smoking especially those under the age of 18. there is going to be a smoking ban soon so may as well get used to not being able to smoke. i understand it is addictive but i don't understand why people want to stink and cough and basically look like they are trying to be older than they are by smoking. i think its good that something is being done to stop people killing themselves earlier in life than they will if they start smoking earlier...however for some people there is no hope.

Answer 3

Well as an ex smoker (used to smoke 50 per day) gaveup 5 years ago) Personally, i dont think it will make much difference raising the age to 18 cos kids of any age will get fags if they want them. U ask most kids, they all could get hold of them around 14ish. The law is 16 right now so u telling me that there r no under 16s smoking? Yeah, right!
I know they have to have a threshold but unless it is going to be policed ( and dont know how that would be done) its a waste of time, cos kids will smoke if they wanna smoke.
Bet i get loads of thumbs down for this, but i am just saying it as it is.

Answer 4

Well, in the US, the smoking age has been at 18 for a while and that means that people start smoking when they're, oh, 13 or 14. So if the smoking age here were 16, then kids would start smoking at, what, 8? 9?

Studies have shown that kids who start smoking when they're teenagers have trouble quitting, but if they don't start by the time they're 18, they almost never start. There's only a certain window of time to get most people addicted. So I'm all for making it a little harder for kids to start smoking, because it's more likely they'll never get addicted at all. Smoking is a killer, and if it doesn't kill you, sometimes you get diseases so bad, you wish you were dead.

Like my great-aunt smoked for years and wound up getting a blood clot in the big blood vessel going across her stomach. She had to fly several states away to get it operated on because nobody in her area would do the surgery. She had all these complications and her throat got all screwed up and her mouth turned black from lack of blood flow. Black! Do you think it's a good idea to get a blood clot and permanent chronic bronchitis and a black throat and mouth! That's so terrible! And f*cking gross, besides.

Tax them little f*ckers all you can, I say. Nobody should smoke, especially not kids who are practically guaranteed to get addicted. I never smoked when I was younger and now all that "mystique" about how "cool" it is to smoke is past and I'm not an addict. Good for me! Now, if only we could get all the other kids to avoid cigarettes. Cigarettes are a f*cking plague. I'd outlaw them outright if I could. Only Native Americans could use them in their ceremonies.

Answer 5

I don't think it will make much difference. I'm 16, and I know loads of people who smoke, and they started when they were 12/13/14 so it's not going to change the age people start and or underage smoking. It's the same with drinking. The more 'naughty' it gets made, the more encouraging it is going to be for younger people to smoke as the 'thrill' will be there and they can rebel. I don't smoke or get drunk, doesn't make me an angel.

Answer 6

don't pay tax until you're 18 (unless you're in a very good job!). you can't go to war at 16. as for smoking being raised to 18: fantastic idea. too many 16year olds are easily influenced by their friends, but by 18 years old, the person would have matured sufficiently to make their own decisions.

Answer 7

Ooh, this has got us going, hasn't it? Smokers are a burden on the rest of us. The immense revenue raised in tax on smoking materials would not cover the expense of treating smoking-related illnesses (even if the government chose to use it in that way). Unlike alcohol, it has no proven measurable beneficial effects. It doesn't even make you feel good. Pointless habit. I would raise the age limit to 18 or higher, and raise the tax to an even more ridiculous level. You know those people who whine "it's the only pleasure I get"? They are sad.

Answer 8

The smoking age, recruitment age and the age at which you can be charged as an adult (under most circumstances) is 18 where I live.

I believe that people will make up their own minds about smoking regardless of the laws. I do not see the purpose of criminalizing teen smokers or the lowly paid shopkeepers for selling to them. It is comical to me that most people who are so anti smoking are for the legalization of drugs. Prohibition did not work on alcohol, does not work on drugs, why would it work on tobacco.

Smoking does not add to the cost of health insurance it does just the opposite, it lowers it. Smokers are polite enough to die at an earlier age and they do not tax the system like non smokers who hang around much longer.

Not that I suggest smoking, when I quit I gained a lot of weight, it took a year to lose it.

Answer 9

I agree that the law should be changed up to 18 - its not about personal rights to kill yourself slowly with a coctail of poisons, its about the age the body matures. You'll do more damage to your lungs if they're still growing (just like you'll do more damage to your liver if you drink while you're still growing). Not everyone finishes growing by 18, sure, but its a step in the right direction.

If you want a human rights at 16 question, why don't you campaign for the vote at 16 instead?

Answer 10

I think it makes sense, it's the same in lots of other countries and it's going to make it harder for really young kids to get hold of smokes. Anyway if you're still at studying when you're 16 which you should be you don't pay tax

Answer 11

16 going to war? Uhh...no.
You could theoretically go to war at 17- but joining the military under 18 requires parental consent- and so should smoking. How many 100's of MILLIONS of dollars do you think smoking alone adds to insurance premiums? You are probably way too young to understand- but wait until you have to pay your own health and life insurance for you and your family- and then tell me what you think.