Should smoking be allowed for people under 18?

[Justin16]

I am wondering whether anyone here agrees that cigarettes should be allowed for people under 18?

[theOperaGhost]

Since pot is illegal, I don't think cigarettes should be legal, since I think cigarettes have far worse effects then pot.

[JoshDude]

Well honestly, maybe 16. If people under the age of 18 want to smoke cigarettes, they probably will.
I mean, its not that hard to get a friend's older siblings to get them for you, or even ask somebody on the street near the store.

[Zephyr]

Since pot is illegal, I don't think cigarettes should be legal, since I think cigarettes have far worse effects then pot.

Mhmmm.

I'd rather see pot legalized then cigarettes.
Pot does have some medical benefits,
Whereas cigarettes... none at all.

[Maverick]

No, I am happy with it being at 18.

[Θάνατος]

I agree smoking is usually a gateway drug if it is started too early. I personally see no reason to have cigarettes around. They have no medicinal value.

[Sapphire]

I think that smoking should have the same age limit as drinking alcohol. They are the two drugs that kill the most people and this should be reflected in the legal system. So, I am happy with the age limit being 18.

Pot is a gate-way drug, btw, not cigarettes.

[Techno Monster]

All of my friends already smoke, I don't, and I don't think it should it be allowed for people under 18.
POT SHOULD BE LEGAL!!!!

[Avalikia]

I personally think the age limit should be raised. Any decision with such potentially long-term consequences should be reserved for people mature enough to make the decision, and I highly question the judgement of even people my age sometimes. Or, even better, make it illegal. There's absolutely no good reason to smoke. There's several bad reasons, but they're bad reasons so...

Saying it should be lowered just because teens just convince others to buy it is a lame reason. People go over the speed limit all the time, but they don't just raise the speed limit everywhere people speed because it still slows people down more than they would if the speed limit was higher. For similar reason, if you were to lower the age to buy cigarettes to 16 not only would more 16 year-olds smoke, but more 12 year-olds would smoke.

[Atonement]

Wow, lets not start promoting illegal activities here.

Anyway, I personally think that if someone is going to smoke, there isn't much that will stop them. Pots illegal, does that stop people? not really.

[Patchy]

I can see this is starting to turn into a debate

Moved to ROTW

[Sapphire]

POT SHOULD BE LEGAL!!!!
Why?
It is a gate-way drug and as such is dangerous to take. It has been linked with development of mental illnesses which makes it even more dangerous.

[DarkWingedAngel]

all my friends smoke including me
in Canada you can smoke at any age and police don't stop you unless you are under 10.
I like smoking so im not ageist being able to smoke
yes it has it costs physically but it has some advantages to.
I don't know why everyone is against it.

[Sapphire]

all my friends smoke including me
in Canada you can smoke at any age and police don't stop you unless you are under 10.
I like smoking so im not ageist being able to smoke
yes it has it costs physically but it has some advantages to.
I don't know why everyone is against it.
Advantages? What advantages can smoking possibly have that out-weigh the costs?

[DarkWingedAngel]

They don't outweigh the costs
but they have there advantages
it's the way i deal with depression and stress

[Neverender]

woah really? 10? when did this happen? it all depends on if the cop can be bothered enough to pull over and talk to you. but they're probably too busy stuck in the drive through at tim hortons to bother with it, and the advantages arent really that great (because lung cancer is really cool nowadays). but anywho, i don't really think smoking should be illegalized, just imagine what would happen to all the people who smoke currently, once they run out of smokes, they cant just grow their own tobacco in their back yards. the nation would slow with all the people just staying home trying to endure the loss of nicotine, and people getting mad and such. but if anything should be legalized, it should be pot, but with filter tips, but not let any companies put any harmful chemicals in there. that way, you would get a few benefits of marijuana and a few less carcinogens.

They don't outweigh the costs
but they have there advantages
it's the way i deal with depression and stress

there are other ways of dealing with stress and depression. *whispers pharmesutical drugs*

[DarkWingedAngel]

woah really? 10? when did this happen? it all depends on if the cop can be bothered enough to pull over and talk to you. but they're probably too busy stuck in the drive through at tim hortons to bother with it. but anywho, i don't really think smoking should be illegalized, just imagine what would happen to all the people who smoke currently, once they run out of smokes, they cant just grow their own tobacco in their back yards. the nation would slow with all the people just staying home trying to endure the loss of nicotine, and people getting mad and such. but if anything should be legalized, it should be pot, but with filter tips, but not let any companies put any harmful chemicals in there. that way, you would get a few benefits of marijuana and a few less carcinogens.



there are other ways of dealing with stress and depression. *whispers pharmesutical drugs*
ya 10
that's when i was first introduced to smoking by my friends


and i know there are different ways to deal with stress and depression
i just find smoking more effective

[Antares]

In general, no. It should not be allowed. But when I think about it, and the fact that we are overpopulated, maybe...



(Joke)


EDIT:
Wtf? How does smoking justify as treatment for depression and stress?
Why dont you do something healthy such as work out, draw, anything better than that. I think that people that smoke to "relax" are ignorant and should be treated as such because they need to learn how to deal with their problems effectively. If that includes mandating Health classes for all teens or something similar, so be it. Otherwise, smoking is stupid. When(if) you get cancer, I hope you will have health insurance because I don't want to pay for your bad habit that you should have never started in the first place considering 3000 teens start smoking everyday.

[Sapphire]

The age limit on smoking in Canada is about 18/19 years old btw.
(http://canadaonline.about.com/od/canadianlaw/g/smokingage.htm)

Smoking is actually covered by the term self-harm and is very very bad for you. There are other more effective ways of dealing with stress and depression.

[Whisper]

I am wondering whether anyone here agrees that cigarettes should be allowed for people under 18?
Absolutely not

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Well... I think that the harder they make it to get cigarettes the better. Sorry but they really do NOTHING good for you... I mean its like lowering the age to GIVE YOURSELF cancer to under 18. This isn't something that has bad effects if used in moderation... it will ALWAYS POISON you. I'm all for keeping people from KILLING THEMSELVES until they're an adult.

Just my own opinion...

[Mannequin]

no i dont think it should be legal before 18

[Camazotz]

No, cigarettes are unhealthy, and in my opinion, shouldn't be legal. Pot is a different story. It is healthier than cigarettes, and in my opinion, should be legal.

[Random_oso06]

well i think it is wrong to make it legal it is true that smoking relieves stress and relaxes you but it causes more pain then good there is more bad side affects than good it

[theOperaGhost]

I think both pot and cigarettes should be illegal, and maybe alcohol too.

[Halibut]

That is very debatable. Because some of the reasons that teens start smokeing arnt really that good. i mean some start because they are cool and others because they are apparently stressed out. and heard that it helps. but really they are young and there body is still growing. they should be older and know more about it before making a decision like that. its hard to say really though because i know some of those kids really are stressed out and it really does help them..

[ThatCanadianGuy]

That is very debatable. Because some of the reasons that teens start smokeing arnt really that good. i mean some start because they are cool and others because they are apparently stressed out. and heard that it helps. but really they are young and there body is still growing. they should be older and know more about it before making a decision like that. its hard to say really though because i know some of those kids really are stressed out and it really does help them..

You can't ever say that smoking is an effective way for them to deal with stress. When they get lung cancer they are going to be VERY stressed! If we could somehow beat this trend of stupid kids starting to smoke then it wouldn't be a problem if they became illegal. The only reason why they are legal now is because of the overwhelming amount of people ADDICTED to smoking that huge riots would result. IF in several generations we totally prevented kids from wanting to smoke then the whole problem would go away. I don't know how we'd make that happen though...

[Prince_of_Peace]

smoking should be banned...regardless of age...

[Random_oso06]

I think both pot and cigarettes should be illegal, and maybe alcohol too.
well the smoking part i get but pot is sometimes used for treatments and other things that doctor prescribe you
smoking should be banned...regardless of age...

true it should smoking is horrible nothing good comes out of it and stress reliving isn't really stress reliving it causes more stress than reliving

[Kiros]

Smoking is bad, dude. It might be refreshing at times to certain people, but it's still just bad for you. So no, it shouldn't be legal for anyone under 18 to smoke cigarettes.

[just-me]

to be honest i dont think is should be legal. i smoke. im addicted and only 16. i started at 14. its very easy to get hold of them (especially when your parents both chain smoke and buy in bulk). if smoking is legal at all, any age can get hold of them, and its addictive nature is so hard to break.
i say make it illegal, but how i would cope if it was illegal i have no idea.

[Leprachaun]

no i dont think it should be, im 13, 14 in a month and i know about 10 people in my year at school that smoke

[Sapphire]

but pot is sometimes used for treatments and other things that doctor prescribe you
It isn't used legally as a treatment anymore. But, just because it could be used to treat symptoms doesn't mean that it is beneficial enough to warrant legalisation. The more study that is done on the effects of marijuana on the body, the more apparent the health risks are.

Heroin was found from opium and sold as a less addictive alternative to morphine and cocaine was once used as an anesthetic. These are both examples of drugs which have been used, at one point, as medicines. They are no longer used because of the very negative effects they have.

[theOperaGhost]

Pot really wasn't used as a treatment...wasn't it used mainly for pain relief for terminal cancer patients?

[Sapphire]

Pot really wasn't used as a treatment...wasn't it used mainly for pain relief for terminal cancer patients?
It was used as a treatment for earaches, malaria, tetanus, pain relief and many more purposes.

[theOperaGhost]

It was used as a treatment for earaches, malaria, tetanus, pain relief and many more purposes.

Hmm...ok...I thought it was just for pain relief, but I've never really done any research on it, so I learned something new today!

[MissRuby]

Why would anyone think that smoking age should be dropped? I mean, if young children are walking around poisoning their bodies and the government is ok with that, it doesn't say much for the human race. It's bad enough that the government has smoking legal yet spends so much money trying to make anti-smoking campaigns!

[Archer600]

Why not ? If people want to then the government should butt out and let them. it shouldn't be their job to decide what is best for the people if that happens then we all just become slaves to whatever the guy in charge wants Besides if kids want to smoke then they can get the stuff it's actualy really easy, and if I want to crap up my lungs and die some terible early death by smoking then who is gona stop me. More importantly who thinks they have the right cuz I would beat the crap out of him

[phill1]

no It should not be allowed i dont smoke

[Jean Poutine]

and if I want to crap up my lungs and die some terible early death by smoking then who is gona stop me. More importantly who thinks they have the right cuz I would beat the crap out of him
Then don't make me and other taxpayers pay for your lung cancer (inb4 "lol america has no public helat insuraec" : medicaid, even if it doesn't have universal coverage, gtfo).

I've smoked one cigarette, fully, completely. When I was done with it I knew I'd never touch one again. It's so disgusting, how can people keep going and get addicted?

Smoking shouldn't be outright banned at first...but I think any illnesses brought by smoking should not be covered by any health insurance, be it public or private. I don't want to pay for people's stupidity.

THEN it should be banned. I'm not one to agree with government intervention usually but smoking is one of these things so useless and horrible that I wouldn't mind a federal ban.

It's bad enough that the government has smoking legal yet spends so much money trying to make anti-smoking campaigns!
Smoking addicts would riot if they banned it outright. Even in my mom's time (1950s) smoking was considered "cool", so lots of baby boomers took the habit. Unfortunately, as we all learned in school, the baby boomers are, well, many.

The best thing they can do now is try to limit the number of teens picking it up. Which isn't working too well because now it's not necessarily smoking that is cool, it's the defiance.

[byee]

Perhaps the question should be rephrased: "Should smoking be allowed at all?"

Ciagrettes are perhaps the only product sold legally that, when used as intended, results in disease or death of the user.

What diff does the age of the user make?

[just-me]

yes i know this and age doesnt really make a difference.
but for smoking to suddenly be illegal would not be fair on those already addicted. they would have to make non-smoking therapy and products free.

[Triceratops]

I don't think it's a bad thing if smoking was made legal for people under 18 to be honest, they're at risk just as much as people over the age of 18 years.

A lot of people I know already smoke, and have been for a while now. I know smoking increases the risks of cancer and causes health problems etc but so do a lot of other things! There are too many ways in how we're damaging our bodies already, so what's the point?

[Sapphire]

Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are the two drugs that kill the most people each year. But they will never be completely criminalised. They are too interwoven in our society and a proposal to outlaw it wouldn't even make it to the second review stage. Prohibition doesn't work and would simply make it more dangerous.

The most likely state of affairs is that the law continues to criminalise the two for minors and legalised for adults.

[Cindex]

Just a basic belief of mine - if you know what it does, you should be able to use it.

Not that I'm recommending it, but saying something is wrong just promotes doing it! Around here people smoke because they can't. It makes sense too. People, especially teenagers, want to rebel. The same with drinking. Why drink? Because the man said NO!

[dyslexiaa]

Even though they're illegal, it doesn't stop anyone who wants to smoke anyways. Make them legal. Make every drug that doesn't harm anyone but the user legal. So long as it doesn't physically harm anybody other than themselves, I don't see why anybody should take away someone's right to mess up their own lives.

The only way to get kids to stop smoking is to change the culture of self-destruction for respect.

[Sapphire]

Even though they're illegal, it doesn't stop anyone who wants to smoke anyways. Make them legal. Make every drug that doesn't harm anyone but the user legal. So long as it doesn't physically harm anybody other than themselves, I don't see why anybody should take away someone's right to mess up their own lives.

The only way to get kids to stop smoking is to change the culture of self-destruction for respect.
Second-hand smoke is dangerous. So, using your logic, cigarettes should be illegal for everyone...

[dyslexiaa]

Second-hand smoke is dangerous. So, using your logic, cigarettes should be illegal for everyone...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html)

How do you gauge how many cigarettes someone around you has smoked to come up with the statistics for it? The American Lung Assosciation (or something like that) says it causes cancer, but what doesn't cause cancer?

On a global scale, second-hand smoking deaths are miniscule.

I'm not against smoking bans in public places, which would cut down second-hand smoking deaths. The current bans on drugs are useless and just turns selling drugs into an illegal industry ridden with violence. The only reason why cigarettes are legal is because the government can tax their sale. I stand by the fact that if someone wants drugs, they'll get them.

It's debatable how big the effects of secondhand smoking are. I hardly think they're enough to say they cause significant harm to everybody.

[Sapphire]

I hardly see why you are challenging me over what I've said as all I did was apply your own logic. You stated that as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone other than the user, you think it should be legal. The inhalation of any smoke (from smoking yourself or from second-hand smoke) is going to cause you lung problems. So, by your logic, smoking should be completely prohibited.

Yes, many things can cause cancer. But, smoking and second-hand smoke increase the likelihood of it occurring.

As for your claim that it is a "miniscule" cause of deaths is misguided.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/newsarchive/2007/november/18372523

These pages both denounce everything written in the article you have posted. An official medical website is a lot more reliable than a tabloid with a sketchy knowledge on the topic being discussed.

[dyslexiaa]

I hardly see why you are challenging me over what I've said as all I did was apply your own logic.

I hardly see why your challenging me challenging you when you lacked the common sense to gauge what I meant.

But I can see why you disagree because your definition of physical harm is probably different from mine. I meant immediate, severe physical harm, not long-term physical harm that is completely variable and skewed.

The point I was trying to get across in the first place is that by making smoking illegal, you violate someone's right of privacy to do whatever they want with their own body, however destructive.

(Neither of your links worked for me, by the way. I checked with Firefox and IE)

[Sapphire]

You have indicated that your definition of harm was general (or long term) because you spoke about deaths and cancer.
You only mentioned immediate harm in your last post which shows that you obviously aren't completely clear in what you want to say.

To say that "long-term physical harm that is completely variable and skewed" would be alright if the effects of second-hand smoke weren't well known. However, this is not the case and my links back that up. Since you have claimed to not be able to view them (which I seriously doubt as they work for me on both Firefox and IE) I have copied and pasted them below.

They show clearly that passive smoking does cause harm/damage/injury (whichever word you wish to use) and results in thousands of deaths each year.

You can go on about how criminalising smoking would be an invasion of privacy (don't see how it invades privacy - freedom is a better right to advocate in this case btw) but, when it comes down to it, the non-smoker should be protected against someone else's cancer sticks.

Secondhand smoke shown to damage lungs

WEDNESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2007

A new study has provided more evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung damage.
Cigarette smoke has long been known to damage the lungs of smokers, but now researchers have been able to detect microscopic lung injury in non-smokers.
Study leader Dr Chengbo Wang, magnetic resonance physicist in the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's radiology department, said: "It's long been hypothesised that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke may cause physical damage to the lungs, but previous methods of analysing lung changes were not sensitive enough to detect it.
"With this technique, we are able to assess lung structure on a microscopic level."
The researchers used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to create images of the lungs of 60 adults between the ages of 41 and 79, 45 of whom had never smoked.
The non-smokers were divided into two groups - high exposure (consisting of individuals who had lived with a smoker for at least ten years) and low exposure.
The results showed that one in three of the non-smokers with high exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke had developed structural changes in the lungs.
Dr Wang said: "We interpreted those changes as early signs of lung damage, representing very mild forms of emphysema.
"These findings suggest that breathing secondhand smoke can injure your lungs."
It is hoped that the findings, which were presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago, will strengthen efforts to restrict exposure to secondhand smoke.
Dr Julie Sharp, Cancer Research UK's science information manager, said: "This research means that scientists can now reveal the lung damage caused by passive smoking in minute detail.
"We know that breathing in secondhand smoke can lead to cancer and other diseases - these results underline just how important smoke-free legislation is for protecting the health of non-smokers." From http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/newsarchive/2007/november/18372523


Smoking and cancer: Second-hand smoke

Breathing in other people's smoke can cause cancer. Second-hand smoke can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter.
Second-hand smoke can cause other health problems too, including heart disease, stroke and breathing problems. Even 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a non-smoker’s heart. Every year, second-hand smoke kills about 11,000 people in the UK from lung cancer, heart disease and strokes.
For more information about the evidence that links second-hand smoke to cancer, go to our How do we know (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/#Passive) section.
Second-hand smoke and children

Second-hand smoke is particularly dangerous for children because their bodies are still developing. Smoking when you are with your children can increase their risk of cot death, glue ear, respiratory illnesses such as asthma and chest infections, and possibly cancer later on in life.

A study by the Royal College of Physicians showed that about 17,000 children in the UK are admitted to hospital every year because of illnesses caused by second-hand smoke.
Over forty percent of children in the UK live in a household where at least one person smokes. If you are a smoker, try not to expose your child to your smoke.
The chemicals in second-hand smoke

There are two types of tobacco smoke:


mainstream smoke, which is directly inhaled through the mouth end of the cigarette, and
sidestream smoke, which comes from the burning tip of the cigarette.

Second-hand smoke consists mainly of sidestream smoke, which is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, although people inhale it in a more diluted form. This is because sidestream smoke contains much higher levels of many of the poisons and cancer-causing chemicals in cigarettes, including:


up to three times as much carbon monoxide (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/otherpoisons/#carbonmonoxide)
five times more cadmium (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/cancercausingchemicals/#Cadmium)
3-10 times more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/cancercausingchemicals/#PAH)
10-40 times more Nitrosamines (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/cancercausingchemicals/#nitrosamines)
about 15 times more benzene (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/cancercausingchemicals/#Benzene)
40-70 times more ammonia (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/otherpoisons/#ammonia)

Smoking in the workplace

Over half of employees in the UK are exposed to tobacco smoke at work. Their health is being put at risk even though employers have a duty to maintain a safe working environment. Find out more about smoking at work on our public policy (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/publicpolicy/) pages.
Smoking in public places

In February 2006, MPs voted by a massive majority to make public spaces, including pubs and private members' clubs, smokefree. This move will help to protect workers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and has been hailed as a large advance in public health.
Since the ban was brought into place, England has seen the largest ever fall in smoking rates. In the first year of the ban, about 400,000 people quit smoking and scientists have estimated that the new laws will prevent about 40,000 deaths (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressreleases/2008/june/444256) from smoking-related diseases over the next decade.
Our Policy section has more information on the vote for smokefree public places (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/publicpolicy/latestnews/), Cancer Research UK's view on smokefree legislation, and the dangers of second-hand smoke. From http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/

[dyslexiaa]

Thank you for getting the articles up, it's much appreciated.

You only mentioned immediate harm in your last post which shows that you obviously aren't completely clear in what you want to say.

Or I thought my mention of harm was assumed by the terse way I put everything. I was vague, which is agreeable.

To say that "long-term physical harm that is completely variable and skewed" would be alright if the effects of second-hand smoke weren't well known.

It's known they cause cancer. If the amount of exposure can be controlled and is variable, I don't see why you should violate someone's freedom to smoke when you have the freedom to leave.

You can go on about how criminalising smoking would be an invasion of privacy (don't see how it invades privacy - freedom is a better right to advocate in this case btw) but, when it comes down to it, the non-smoker should be protected against someone else's cancer sticks.

I don't mind public places banning smoking for health reasons or for financial reasons, but to get rid of anybody's freedom to do what they want to themselves on their terms for whatever reason is, in my mind, wrong.

[Sapphire]

It seems to me that your argument is sketchy and not thought out properly.
First, you give incorrect information and use an unreliable source to back you up. Then you change your tune (i.e. attempting to re-define words) when faced with solid evidence to the contrary and try to make yourself look better by attempting to make me look incompetent.

And what about when you live with a smoker? When someone in your house smokes, it is almost impossible to get away from it. It isn't as easy as you are making out.

And, by the logic expressed in your last sentence, if someone wants to play Russian Roulette, joyride a car in a field, cut themselves or OD then no one has the right to stop them because they aren't harming anyone (or at risk of harming anyone) but themselves.

Think you need to re-evaluate your argument...

[dyslexiaa]

First, you give incorrect information and use an unreliable source to back you up.

I'll tell the Washington Post you think that they're unreliable. We've agreed that secondhand smoking causes deaths and causes cancer. This is not what we're arguing about.

(i.e. attempting to re-define words)

I was vague when I defined the harm that I meant, I already agreed with this and clarified with you. Bearing in mind this was not the main topic of my post, I didn't feel the need to clarify. Now that it's clarified, you can drop it. This is also not what we're arguing about now.

when faced with solid evidence to the contrary and try to make yourself look better by attempting to make me look incompetent.

How am I making you look incompetent? By stating opinions?

I answer everything you say instead of dancing around the points you are correct about. I acknowledged when you stated facts and thanked you for posting the resources.

And what about when you live with a smoker? When someone in your house smokes, it is almost impossible to get away from it. It isn't as easy as you are making out.

Leave. Arrange something with them. Tell them. Every problem has a solution that's more logical than taking away someone's freedom.

And, by the logic expressed in your last sentence, if someone wants to play Russian Roulette, joyride a car in a field, cut themselves or OD then no one has the right to stop them because they aren't harming anyone (or at risk of harming anyone) but themselves.

No, I'm saying that there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents someone from doing that. What someone does to themselves is not the business of the government.

[Sapphire]

How am I making you look incompetent? By stating opinions? I said attempting to make me look incompetent. Try reading what I said properly.

Leave. Arrange something with them. Tell them. Every problem has a solution that's more logical than taking away someone's freedom.That is not always possible. In the case of a parent/grandparent/guardian smoking indoors, it is near impossible to get away from it.

We got on to the whole thing about out lawing it completely by your logic. I am not advocating it.

[dyslexiaa]

I said attempting to make me look incompetent. Try reading what I said properly.

Pick at my wording and then insult my ability to read? Who's attempting to make who look incompetent again? As the arguments get smaller and you don't confront things that I have a strong argument for, you're making yourself look incompetent.

Insulting my intelligence doesn't make your argument any more valid when I've avoided making it personal and shown you respect.

That is not always possible. In the case of a parent/grandparent/guardian smoking indoors, it is near impossible to get away from it.

I addressed this.

We got on to the whole thing about out lawing it completely by your logic. I am not advocating it.

And now that my logic is explained thoroughly, dragging on with the same argument (based on what you thought my logic is) is worthless, eh?

[Archer600]

I don't think it's a bad thing if smoking was made legal for people under 18 to be honest, they're at risk just as much as people over the age of 18 years.

A lot of people I know already smoke, and have been for a while now. I know smoking increases the risks of cancer and causes health problems etc but so do a lot of other things! There are too many ways in how we're damaging our bodies already, so what's the point?
I agree 100%

[Sapphire]

Pick at my wording and then insult my ability to read? Who's attempting to make who look incompetent again? As the arguments get smaller and you don't confront things that I have a strong argument for, you're making yourself look incompetent.

Insulting my intelligence doesn't make your argument any more valid when I've avoided making it personal and shown you respect. I wasn't trying to make you look incompetent. I was just getting annoyed with having to stated a single, simple sentence again so that you read the words I used properly instead of ignoring some of them. Your argument seems all the more flawed when you fail to get the correct grasp of such a simple statement.

I addressed this. You suggested a way around it for a child who is mature enough to bring this up with a parent. In the case of a young child(ren), your suggestion does not address the issue.

[dyslexiaa]

Your argument seems all the more flawed

If my arguments are flawed then why are you still avoiding them?

You suggested a way around it for a child who is mature enough to bring this up with a parent. In the case of a young child(ren), your suggestion does not address the issue.

In the case of young children, it's the parent's responsibility to stop, quit, or find a way around it. The suffering of the child will be the consequence of the parent's actions. While I'm against the suffering of the few, young children in households with smokers that smoke around the children enough to significantly effect their chances of getting cancer are definitely a minority when compared to people who could simply avoid smokers.

Most parents that I know smoke, keep it away from their children. My step-dad smokes and neither my brother or sister know about it.

Undoubtedly, I'm sure there are kids with neglectful parents who will experience smoking around them constantly. You are right that these select kids will suffer from secondhand smoking. I'm not sure that there are enough of this kids, however, to change my thoughts that a majority of people can avoid smoking without taking away the rights of smokers.

[Whisper]

This being a debate is no better than that Evolution vs Creationism crap
It's basic denial of fact
It's a biological fact that the frontal cortex is responsible for the action conciquence area of the brain
It's that little voice the "No kodie jumping off a bridge would be bad" voice
In children, preteens and teens it is NOT fully developed
Teens especially have difficulty with this because they are distancing themselves from their parents. Ever notice how when you were younger you're parents could do no wrong, then you started to notice things but didn't say anything, then you started to question and now your like FUCK YOU MUM...? ya I thought so.

Smoking kills it's as basic and simple as that
It's just slower and takes others with you
Teens have issues grasping the magnitude of this concept
they go ya it happens....but not to me
negative


The laws are there for a reason
and they will not change

[Sapphire]

You know what dyslexiaa, you can spout your shite until the cows come home. Discussing this with you is pointless because you take things out of context and accuse me of avoiding things which, in actual fact, I have addressed. You can't discuss this like a reasonable person because your reasoning is inadequate and you are in reality the one avoiding addressing certain statements. Learn to take things into context and then you can speak like a reasonable person and not a child.

[Bobby]

The topic of this thread is a debate about smoking under 18, not attacking people.

[Nelson]

The topic of this thread is a debate about smoking under 18, not attacking people.

I agree..

More to the point, I see my neighbours giving cigarettes to there children who are like 13/14, then you hear them coughing up and spitting everywhere, smoking has no benefit to health and it stunts your growth, these kids are like 3foot3 and most likely going to be late hitting puberty.

By 18, they will probably have lung cancer or emphasema in its early stages.

Sorry but the age for smoking should be set at 18 and left there