Should the smoking age be lowered back to 16?

Here is a research report from the American Cancer Institute which finds no link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

http://m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

Anything more concrete than a single research report in a sea of thousands declaring it to be incredibly dangerous? Do you genuinely believe that passive smoking isn't harmful considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Claiming passive smoking isn't damaging is even more nuts than being a global warming denier.

Yes, I failed to post sources that state passive smoking is dangerous out of my inability to do so, and it had nothing to do with being in awe of the fact someone can honestly believe that passive smoking posts no risk to anyone. The paper you linked only even referenced lung cancer, which is only one of a myriad of issues associated with passive smoking. What about asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia? What about coronary heart disease? Other cancers?

If you really want some links to research and evidence of passive smoking being harmful, here's the result of about 2 minutes of googling;

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_596.pdf
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_597.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304215425.htm
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20140716/Research-highlights-potential-cancer-risk-in-non-smokers.aspx
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20140328/Public-smoking-bans-decrease-rates-of-premature-births-hospital-visits-for-asthma.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0103.pdf

You'll find plenty of research papers published that counter global warming. The lunacy comes from believing that such papers, which are a tiny minority of the published materials on the subject, are accurate, despite the overwhelming majority of papers finding that global warming is occurring.

Criminaling smoking tobacco would be fascistic and insensible. The fact that you don't like it is not a good argument to stop others from enjoying it. Passive smoking is a drop in the ocean compared to urban pollution.

There are probably several more idiotic replies but for the sake of my sanity I'll read and respond to only these first two.



Criminaling smoking tobacco would be fascistic and insensible. The fact that you don't like it is not a good argument to stop others from enjoying it. Passive smoking is a drop in the ocean compared to urban pollution. As for straining the NHS, smokers contribute huge amounts of tax money through buying tobacco and generally die younger; the reasonable assumption is that they give far more than they take from public services in this respect. All that would be achieved by criminalising it would be an enormous boom for the black market as it scooped up the huge demand no longer satisfied by legitimate business - and inevitably at enticingly lower prices - and the police service would consequently be further strained. From the perspective of easing the strain on public services your argument makes absolutely no practical sense.



As above regarding passive smoking. As for the harmful effects towards the smokers themselves, aside from advising you to butt out of other people's affairs, I would also point out that the other poster was right to say that alcohol causes a much greater strain on a person's health and on the NHS - by that logic would you also criminalise alcohol? Alcoholism also has detrimental effects behind closed doors in families and also professionally; I'm fairly certain a smoking habit doesn't inspire anywhere near as much domestic violence or professional dysfunction, and while a nicotine addiction poses health risks in the long-term, alcohol addiction and over-indulgence poses much more likely serious health problems and causes far more interference in every area of human life.

I take your point and others' on tax. My views don't change on banning smoking however. It may cause a boom in a black market for smokers but it would undoubtedly reduce consumption if ordinary people have to go to a drug dealer to get their fags. The government should sense a clear message that smoking is terrible for your health and ban it outright.

What right have you or the government to make other people's lifestyle choices? Can you not see how totalitarian that suggestion is? I don't think it would reduce consumption; smoking is disproportionally popular among the lower classes, a large portion of which would find it much easier to buy them; among the young it would take on the cool factor currently held by weed - except, unlike weed, it would be the most addictive substances on earth, and probably hook a great many. The list goes on...



I'm not convinced. Evidence? Even if passive smoking were significantly harmful in small quantities, you would do well to remember Benjamin Franklin's words that 'He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither'. In many cases a little bit of drink becomes a lot of drink at every possible opportunity; I tremble to think how many cases of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect have alcoholism at their roots. The most a nicotine addiction can do for the vast majority is make you cranky before your first fag of the day. Many things are harmful, but the sensible response is not to deny people the freedom to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies. If you are going to ban substances, however, it makes no sense to ban smoking ahead of drinking.

This is really silly and a classic way to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Stop making it about alchohol. We're talking about smoking. Alchohol is for another topic.

I'm not 'making it about alcohol', I'm comparing tobacco to alcohol to demonstrate how idiotic your position on smoking is.

As of now, the age to purchase tobacco in England is 18, and the age to smoke it is 16.

In Scotland, the age to purchase is 18 and the smoking age is also 18 as well.

I'm not sure about Wales and Northern Ireland, but do you think it should be lowered back to 16 to purchase and smoke?

Even though the ages are mainly 18, youth are still finding ways to obtain them anyway from friends and adults, so it seems a tad pointless.

Actually, the 18-years rule is for the sale of tobacco. Unlike with alcohol, it is not unlawful to attempt to purchase, to purchase, or to purchase on behalf of under-18s.

It's also not unlawful to smoke under the age of 16, however constables (and park-keepers in uniform...) are obliged to confiscate tobacco and cigarette papers from under-16s. It's not in its own right a criminal offence to smoke at say 14 in the sense that you can't be fined/imprisoned, but you can have it taken off you. Police often class it as anti-social behaviour if they're feeling uptight though.

I think the laws (the specific ages aside) are fair. If parents want to buy their children tobacco then the law is largely irrelevant. What the law does try and limit is children getting it without their parents knowing. Undoubtedly this still happens, but I bet the law at least reduces the rate of this.

Should it be 16 or 18? I've no idea. Heck, why not 14, 17, 21? We do have this odd view of age-based laws in this country in that we can't seem to decide whether adulthood starts at 16 or 18 in law. Of course in practice it varies, so it's about the minimum safeguard, which in most cases I think should be 16. I'd apply that to consent, smoking, drinking, voting and so on.