This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should the smoking age be lowered back to 16?

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.

Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.

Reply 2

Rakas21

21

Original post by GrimReaper205

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.

Definitely not. Rates of smoking have fallen and keeping the age high should deter more.

Reply 3

ldsbabe

15

What would be the point?

Reply 4

Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet. I wouldn't be as bothered except it's everyone who has to pay for these people's treatment on the NHS.

Reply 5

Mackay

17

Original post by Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet.

More people die from alcohol per year than smoking.

Reply 6

Skunk

Original post by Mackay

More people die from alcohol per year than smoking.

A little bit of alchohol isn't harmful. Any amount of smoking is harmful and harmful to those around the smoker.

Reply 7

60065

Original post by Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet. I wouldn't be as bothered except it's everyone who has to pay for these people's treatment on the NHS.

Are you for real? A pack of fags seems to cost around £6. The vast majority of that is tax direct to the government. Smokers more than pay for themselves, especially when reduced pension payouts are considered. :wink:

It is a disgusting habit however.

Reply 8

grace1011

4

Unless everyone can hand-on-heart say they have never tried a cigarette, your opinions on smoking are pretty much null and void. However with respect to the question, the law that you can smoke at 16 but purchase at 18 isn't really protecting anyone from much. I don't think the purchasing age should but lowered but I think smoking generally should be raised from 16 to 18.

I thought they were going to pass a new law which states that anyone born after a certain year (2002? 2003?) will never be able to buy cigarettes, no matter whether they're 18 or 45. Maybe that was just a rumour.

Reply 9

60065

I doubt restrictions on tobacco will increase any further. They threatened to introduce plain packets but Big Tobacco got it's way. Packets are still shiny and seem set to remain so. They are however now hidden from display in most shops.

Reply 10

Moosferatu

19

Original post by Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet. I wouldn't be as bothered except it's everyone who has to pay for these people's treatment on the NHS.

Well if you make it illegal, there won't be any taxes on tobacco products, therefore people will still smoke (probably more, a completely illegal tobacco market could mean much lower prices without high taxes) without paying what they pay now to cover the problems they almost inevitably develop as a result of the habit.

I don't know if you know this but smokers actually pay three times what costs to treat them on the NHS. So your education and healthcare may have been partly funded by smokers habits. Think about that Skunk :wink:

Reply 11

GrimReaper205

OP

5

Smokers more than pay themselves with the ridiculous taxes on cigarettes. A sixteen year old is capable of making life decisions and should be allowed to smoke.

If you don't like smoking, don't smoke and try avoid smokers simple. We won't stop just because a few health nuts moan about it.

Reply 12

DarkWhite

17

Original post by GrimReaper205

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.

Reply 13

SinaPars

Original post by Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet. I wouldn't be as bothered except it's everyone who has to pay for these people's treatment on the NHS.

Agreed

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

Birkenhead

3

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

Original post by Skunk

It's ridiculous that smoking isn't ilegal yet. I wouldn't be as bothered except it's everyone who has to pay for these people's treatment on the NHS.

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.

Original post by Skunk

A little bit of alchohol isn't harmful. Any amount of smoking is harmful and harmful to those around the smoker.

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.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

NonniT

1

Original post by 60065

I doubt restrictions on tobacco will increase any further. They threatened to introduce plain packets but Big Tobacco got it's way. Packets are still shiny and seem set to remain so. They are however now hidden from display in most shops.

They didn't get their way on plain packaging; that legislation is coming back in fortunately :smile:

Original post by GrimReaper205

Smokers more than pay themselves with the ridiculous taxes on cigarettes. A sixteen year old is capable of making life decisions and should be allowed to smoke.

If you don't like smoking, don't smoke and try avoid smokers simple. We won't stop just because a few health nuts moan about it.

Most 16 year olds are not old enough to make informed life decisions on if they should take highly addictive and dangerous chemicals, no. Old enough for many things, maybe even to vote, but no, most 16 year olds aren't old enough for this.

Passive smoking is a very serious issue and more restrictions need to be put in place to protect non-smokers. If people want to damage their own health fair enough, but nobody has the right to inflict that on other people.

Reply 16

Birkenhead

3

Original post by NonniT

They didn't get their way on plain packaging; that legislation is coming back in fortunately :smile:

Most 16 year olds are not old enough to make informed life decisions on if they should take highly addictive and dangerous chemicals, no. Old enough for many things, maybe even to vote, but no, most 16 year olds aren't old enough for this.

Passive smoking is a very serious issue and more restrictions need to be put in place to protect non-smokers. If people want to damage their own health fair enough, but nobody has the right to inflict that on other people.

Passive smoking is of no real danger; as I have said above urban pollution is far more damaging to general health. The truth is that this is just another hook for people who dislike smoking to try to see less of it. A free society should tolerate especially those things it dislikes, and smokers have had enough of their freedom to enjoy tobacco curtailed already.

Reply 17

NonniT

1

Original post by Birkenhead

Passive smoking is of no real danger; as I have said above urban pollution is far more damaging to general health. The truth is that this is just another hook for people who dislike smoking to try to see less of it. A free society should tolerate especially those things it dislikes, and smokers have had enough of their freedom to enjoy tobacco curtailed already.

Do you have any reliable sources regarding passive smoking being of no real danger? This is rather contrary to the information I've seen.

Reply 18

Birkenhead

3

Original post by NonniT

Do you have any reliable sources regarding passive smoking being of no real danger? This is rather contrary to the information I've seen.

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

Reply 19

username1445222

18

Original post by NonniT

x

Burn..

Should the smoking age be lowered back to 16?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you