Posted on 06/03/2002 8:55:24 AM PDT by ozone1
Access Laws Do Not Lower Rates of Teen Smoking Mon Jun 3,10:29 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Laws that prohibit merchants from selling cigarettes to minors have not helped to reduce rates of teenage smoking in the US and should therefore be abandoned, researchers conclude.
Their study found no association between laws that make it difficult for teenagers to buy cigarettes and the prevalence of smoking. There was no difference in rates of teenage smoking between communities with and without such laws, and no association between compliance with the laws and the incidence of smoking among teenagers, according to the report in the June issue of Pediatrics.
The findings indicate that resources to curb smoking among adolescents may be better directed at other types of interventions such as taxes on cigarettes, smoke-free workplaces and homes, and educational efforts on the health effects of secondhand smoke.
"Given the limited resources available for tobacco control, as well as the expense of conducting youth access programs, tobacco control advocates should start redirecting their energies and funds away from youth access and toward other interventions that have proven effectiveness," write Dr. Stanton A. Glantz and Caroline M. Fichtenberg from the University of California, San Francisco.
Over the past several years, all 50 states in the US have implemented youth access laws, which make it illegal to sell cigarettes to teenagers younger than 18. Some states go so far as to criminalize the possession of tobacco by teens.
But while these laws may present obstacles to buying cigarettes, they do not actually influence overall rates of youth smoking, possibly because many teens obtain cigarettes from parents, friends and strangers. What's more, these laws may reinforce the belief that smoking makes kids seem more grown-up, the researchers note.
"As teens find it harder to buy cigarettes they may simply shift to these other sources," they write.
SOURCE: Pediatrics 2002;109:1088-1092.
puff
dws
None from the information in this post.
Bill may up smoking age to 21
By Andrew Bridges
Associated Press
A lawmaker planned to unveil a bill today that would raise California's smoking age from 18 to 21, making it the highest in the nation.
The bill would make it illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase tobacco products, including cigarettes, in the state. All 50 states set a minimum age of at least 18 after a 1992 directive from Congress. In three states -- Alabama, Alaska and Utah -- the legal age is 19.
State Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, said the goal is to cut smoking rates among kids in their teens, the age when most smokers pick up the habit.
More than 400,000 deaths each year in the United States are attributable to tobacco-related causes, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The American Lung Association estimates about 90 percent of all smokers begin smoking before the age of 21.
"Our highest calling is to do things that save lives and the best way to prevent smoking deaths is to prevent people from becoming addicted to tobacco in the first place. My bill is the best way to do that," Koretz said.
The move follows a February vote by the California Medical Association to push for the change in state law.
Dr. Leonard Klay, a Santa Rosa obstetrician and gynecologist who introduced the measure at the association's annual meeting, said a higher smoking age, along with peer pressure and the taxes that make cigarettes unaffordable for many teens, should cut smoking rates.
"If you're smoking by age 21, it's very difficult to quit," said Klay, 64, who smoked for more than a dozen years after beginning at age 19.
The American Lung Association initially was cool to the medical group's proposal, saying it preferred to concentrate on enforcing current tobacco-related laws.
On Friday, however, Paul Knepprath, a lobbyist for the American Lung Association of California, said the group would support the proposed legislation, despite what he called a lack of evidence that a hike in the minimum age would reduce youth smoking.
Anti-smoking activists fear the bill could derail other tobacco-related legislative efforts, including continued pushes to boost taxes on cigarettes.
Gov. Gray Davis has proposed tacking 50 cents on each pack of cigarettes to help close an expected $23.6 billion budget shortfall. The Lung Association and others are pushing to add an additional 15 cents on top of that to go to anti-smoking efforts.
Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco company, said the company believes a better approach to curbing youth smoking is enforcement of existing laws, but that it would remain neutral on the bill.
"We will be guided by whatever society says the minimum age should be for tobacco products," McCormick said.
The law forbiding the sale of cigarettes to minors is not a failure. The failure is that it is NOT illegal for minors to purchase cigarettes. Pass laws and start fining minors who attempt to purchase cigarettes and minors caught with them in their possesion and it will cause a reduction. Not a great deal of reduction though, as most of the activity would just move 'indoors'. But you will no longer have a gang of 15 year olds at the mall entrance puffing away, and that would be a good thing.
I wonder how much more effective a $50 fine for possesion and a $100 fine for attempted purchase would be than a $1.00 increase in the price of a pack.
Especially if you increased fines per incident, and after 3 incidents start tacking on long hours of community service.
Like I said, the activity would probably not be greatly reduced. But the activity in public would almost immediatly halt. Who here has not seen a roving gang of 20 15 year olds puffing away at the mall entrance?
And there is NO law against those under 18 purchasing cigarettes. If a 15 year old buys a pack of smokes they have broken no law. The person who sold them the smokes is the only one who has borken the law.
THIS IS NOT A LAW!!!
It is, instead, a regulation. A "law" is something voted into effect by representatives that are accountable to constitutents. A "regulation", which is what this really is, is created by a bureacrat that you will never meet, probably will never even know the name of, and has substantial power to screw up your life with impunity.
The findings indicate that resources to curb smoking among adolescents may be better directed at other types of interventions such as taxes on cigarettes, smoke-free workplaces and homes, and educational efforts on the health effects of secondhand smoke.
I do not give a darn what the bloody anti-smokers have been denying for years - here it is in BLACK AND WHITE!!!!!! and we all know that the "educational efforts" are nothing short of propaganda brainwashing.
"Given the limited resources available for tobacco control, as well as the expense of conducting youth access programs, tobacco control advocates should start redirecting their energies and funds away from youth access and toward other interventions that have proven effectiveness," write Dr. Stanton A. Glantz and Caroline M. Fichtenberg from the University of California, San Francisco.
First of all this is coming from Stanton Glantz - so we know it is all false - particularly when it comes to talk about money. He is one of THE most highly paid anti-smoker professional nannies in the World. He has publicly stated he will only do research where he knows the results will come out the way "it should." He claims to have a Ph.D in Economics when he has no such thing - his Ph.D is in Mechanical Engineering.
Next, about the only "interventions" that have been proven effective are ones taken in Florida - underage possession or use of tobacco products can result in the loss of a teen's driving privileges. I think that would be a great incentive to avoid using tobacco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.