NationStates Jolt Archive

A minimum smoking age sounds great in theory. Young people need to be protected from what are often dangerous and addictive substances at an age where they are usually too immature to make these sorts of decisions for themselves. However, practical experience in many countries has shown that personal responsibility and good behaviour can't usually be taught through legislation.

For example, energy drinks like Red Bull contain some harmful substances that could be dangerous to the nervous system. However, I am the only person that I know of in my circle of friends or in my entire college year group at that matter who ever consumed large quantities of energy drinks on a daily basis. Red Bull is a mild drug, but there are no age restrictions on it, and it does not make the news that there are problems with adults being addicted to it as there are with smoking and drinking.

Legislation is a blunt object that tries to impose a one-size-fits-all-policy to every case, and is sometimes awkward or even impossible to enforce. When I was at college last year, and was aged 20, I went to a local store to buy some beer so that me and my friends could do some social (not heavy) drinking. The guys at the store started asking for proof that I was over 18, and asked to see an ID card with my date of birth written on it.

This meant that I had to go to the next store down the road where they did not ask anything and instead just gave me my order. Responsible behaviour in young people can only be taught through responsible parenting, proper discipline in school and at home and by good role models, but not by legislation. Legislation only encourages young people to test the boundaries.

The legislation does not stop those who are determined from getting hold of cigarettes in the first place. They either get an older friend to go to a shop for them, or they steal from their parents. Having minimum drinking and smoking ages only sends the message that there is nothing wrong with doing those things in any excess or irresponsible manner once you are passed the minimum age. It does not teach people about the real dangers of drinking or smoking. I also don’t agree that drinking causes violent crime. Criminals cause violent crime.

There is a certain type of person who has no sense of personal responsibility and so will tend to both binge drink and have no respect for the law. No amount of nanny state legislation stops these people from behaving like the scumbags that they are. Only when we firstly, get tough on real criminals, and secondly, end all of this nanny state legislation that doesn’t stop the real culprits, will we see behaviour improve in this country.

For more of my views see my Second Chances (http://uk.geocities.com/wenduss/secondchances/mainpages/frontpage/frontpage.html) website.

Absolutely ridiclous. Okay, picture this situation: an abusive parent doesn't particully care if his/her three year old son/daughter gets drunk. Okay, they get drunk. They find a open bottle of wine on the table. They drink it. They live on the 20th story of an apartment building. Maybe they have a deck. So the kid is too drunk to know what he/she's doing, and falls off the deck, and dies. Tada!

You had me laughing at you when you compared RedBull to cigarettes and alcohol!

You aren't 18 yet, are you? Be serious now, we won't ostracize you, I promise!

Absolutely ridiclous. Okay, picture this situation: an abusive parent doesn't particully care if his/her three year old son/daughter gets drunk. Okay, they get drunk. They find a open bottle of wine on the table. They drink it. They live on the 20th story of an apartment building. Maybe they have a deck. So the kid is too drunk to know what he/she's doing, and falls off the deck, and dies. Tada!

The abusive parent might as well have left a bottle of rat poison on the table, so that the child inquisitively drank that. Also, a child is relatively unlikely to fall of the 20th story in the first place if there was a one-meter high banister that the child would have to climb over. A child is much more likely to be killed by a moving car when he or she is trying to fetch a ball that landed on a busy road, and the child does not necessarily have to be drunk for that to happen. (a drunk child would unlikely be playing with a ball in the first place.)

The scenario you have described seems pretty unlikely to me. If a parent is irresponsible enough to leave alcohol on the table then they will not be responsible enough to teach their kids to cross the road properly, or to make sure that the kids are properly clothed and fed in the first place. Anyway, your scenario could easily have happened with age restrictions in place, but where the parent was drinking and put the alcohol where the child could reach it.

You had me laughing at you when you compared RedBull to cigarettes and alcohol!

You aren't 18 yet, are you? Be serious now, we won't ostracize you, I promise!

Well just to point out if you read the whole thing it mentions at 20 how he wasn't served alcohol. But anyway

On someone under 16 I think Cigarettes are more dangerous especially to their developing lungs and added with its addiction I'd say legislation prohibiting it is justified.

That said on the topic of alcholol 4% alcopops being refused to a 17 year old but absinth or strong vodka being given to any 18 year old stikes me as an unfair law. Redbull fails to be addictive or as dangerous as cigaretts thus not in my opinion the best example but I see your point.

How much difference do you think that would make? To me that plan also sounds good in theory but lets face it. The youth in our society today are to impregnable. All around them they see ads just begging them to smoke. I don't think smoking is that much of a huge issue in the US today. People are becoming more aware of the damage that smoking can do to your body. Why let it get into the hands of younger kids that have no self control? If kids today are so addicted to candy and video games don't you think it will become astronomically worse if the thing you give them that has an addicting substance in it?

And if you tell me that smoking is not a health hazard you are sadly mistaken.
Giving cigarettes to youth can hurt their lung and body development leading to serious health problems in the future.

How much difference do you think that would make? To me that plan also sounds good in theory but lets face it. The youth in our society today are to impregnable. All around them they see ads just begging them to smoke. I don't think smoking is that much of a huge issue in the US today. People are becoming more aware of the damage that smoking can do to your body. Why let it get into the hands of younger kids that have no self control? If kids today are so addicted to candy and video games don't you think it will become astronomically worse if the thing you give them that has an addicting substance in it?

And if you tell me that smoking is not a health hazard you are sadly mistaken.
Giving cigarettes to youth can hurt their lung and body development leading to serious health problems in the future.

Smoking and drinking laws are part of the problem. Kids need responsible parenting, and having these laws only encourage them to become alcoholics as adults, rather than responsable parents themselves.

This guy has to be kidding. Then again, setting up an entire website to campaign to allow all tests to be retaken...:confused:
But honestly, saying alchohol doesn't cause violent crimes, criminals do...By that reasoning everyone who has ever gotten drunk is a dangerous criminal...O...K....
*dies from overuse of...*

Tell me again how a shopclerk asking me for an ID before I can buy dangerous substances MAKES me an alcoholic?

i dont think you understand the point of having a legal smoking age. (although i think in my state its a legal age to buy tobacco products)

if i SELL a minor tobacco, im in violation of the law and face a big fine. if i provide a minor with tobacco products i may well have to face jail time or some kind of fine

no kid goes to jail because he's caught smoking.

BTW, with your reasoning that laws make us want to test boundaries: By the same logic, would you have us leagalize murder and leave it to parents to make sure their kids don't choose the option to kill?

I'm sorry, but I missed the reason why there shouldn't be a smoking age... you're saying that it's because you can get RedBull at any age so why shouldn't you be able to get cigarettes at any age?
From my experiences with red bull (I only had it on one occasion, mixed with alcohol...) it isn't addictive and I don't think it was terrible for my health. Sure too much might be, but then since your'e talkign about college students abusing it, I'm guessing without red bull they'd be drinking coffee or taking caffiene pills or ritalin or any number of things that are just as bad if not worse for you. And yes, they should be more responsable and perhaps smarter with their choices of study habits (for instance, studying a couple weeks in advance rather than at the last minute and cramming all night) but they should learn that one way or the other. It doesn't even compare to cigarettes.

Smoking and drinking laws are part of the problem. Kids need responsible parenting, and having these laws only encourage them to become alcoholics as adults, rather than responsable parents themselves.
lol. That's a joke.

I think the american drinking age is absolutely retarded (but hey, if you're in a northern state, you're welcome to come visit Canada after you're 18 or 19 and if you're in the south that's what Mexico's for) but not allowing people to sell alcohol to minors doesn't cause alcoholism, nor does arresting minors who are drunk. Alcoholism is not related to high drinking ages. Look at Russia, I'm going to bet that their drinking age is like the rest of Europe, but their rates of alcoholism are so high...

I saw in the NY times last summer Russia is pouring tons of money into quitting programs for middle schools. There were all these pictures of kids my age (13-14) lighting up in front of school. Also, russia has HUGE fetal alcohol syndrome rates...really saddening!

but hey, if you're in a northern state, you're welcome to come visit Canada after you're 18 or 19 and if you're in the south that's what Mexico's for

What if you're in between? It's a long drive to drink alcohol.

I saw in the NY times last summer Russia is pouring tons of money into quitting programs for middle schools. There were all these pictures of kids my age (13-14) lighting up in front of school. Also, russia has HUGE fetal alcohol syndrome rates...really saddening!
I read some thing that linked russia's high rate of alcoholism to Ghengis Khan. The european ancestors had been exposed to alcohol for quite some time so many of those who would get addicted to it wouldn't reproduce as much so their family lines would die out faster leaving the remaining population relatively alcoholic-free, whereas alcohol wasn't around in asia much at the time and when Ghengis Khan conquered, he spread his seed far and wide, I can't remember what % of the male population has his y-chromosome but it was fairly significant... anyways, but he was genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and so his descendants are predisposed to alcoholism too.

What if you're in between? It's a long drive to drink alcohol.
Bootlegging? Or very long and fun road trips... come on, Canadian strippers are worth the trip...

Dont' you have laws that you're allowed to drink at home?

ciggerates for teh lose

marijuana for teh win

Bootlegging? Or very long and fun road trips... come on, Canadian strippers are worth the trip...

Dont' you have laws that you're allowed to drink at home?

Nope, I'm pretty sure drinking under any circumstances (except for church) is illegal. And I don't think I can get Canadian strippers either. I'm 16....

Nope, I'm pretty sure drinking under any circumstances (except for church) is illegal. And I don't think I can get Canadian strippers either. I'm 16....

In British law from the age of six a minor can drink small amounts of alcohol under parental supervision

In British law from the age of six a minor can drink small amounts of alcohol under parental supervision

I wonder what "small amounts" translates to in some areas, heh

I read some thing that linked russia's high rate of alcoholism to Ghengis Khan. The european ancestors had been exposed to alcohol for quite some time so many of those who would get addicted to it wouldn't reproduce as much so their family lines would die out faster leaving the remaining population relatively alcoholic-free, whereas alcohol wasn't around in asia much at the time and when Ghengis Khan conquered, he spread his seed far and wide, I can't remember what % of the male population has his y-chromosome but it was fairly significant... anyways, but he was genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and so his descendants are predisposed to alcoholism too.
I'm (I.E. N Y C) reading the book "Genghis Kahn and the making of the modern world" Believe me, that idea is bogus, alcoholism is something rooted in Russian culture. Every Eurasian people have tried to make the Mongols scapegoats. The Iranians believe they would be a new Persian Empire now if the Mongols hadn't destroyed their irrigation systems. The Arabs claimed if not for the Mongol destruction of their libraries, they would have been 1st to the A-bomb. And in Afghanistan, the ethnic group borne of the Mongols, the Hazaras, were slaughtered by the Taliban just before they lost power. EVERYONE LOVES BLAMING THE MONGOLS!

In British law from the age of six a minor can drink small amounts of alcohol under parental supervision

British law, Canadian law, Chinese law...it doesn't really matter because I am in America.

British law, Canadian law, Chinese law...it doesn't really matter because I am in America.

You might travel or move somewhere one day.

Redbull is only useful when it's mixed with vodka anyway, so that solves the age problem.