Access Laws Do Not Lower Rates of Teen Smoking

Reuters helath via yahoo ^ | 06/03/2002 | reuters

[RikaStrom]

! The wisdom of Kalifornia elite says that a new law proposed to raise the legal age to 21 to buy cigarettes will reduce the number of smokers.

Riiiiiight, just like making the drinking age 21 will stop underage drinkers.

[Phantom Lord]

Obviously the 5 year old analogy is a big stretch that would never actually happen. I am NOT suggesting that the current punishments for selling tobacco to minors be removed or reduced. I would say increase the penalties if deemed neccesary. I do not know if retailers need a license to sell tobacco products. If they do, yank it upon conviction of selling to a minor.

But consequences should be instituted on the minor purchaser of tobacco. And I would gladly venture to say that a vast majority of minors you see puffing away did not buy their smokes at the local gas station. I would say that they were purchased by someone else for them or stolen from someones parents. Be it their own or a friends. That is why i have also suggested penalties for the possesion and use of tobacco products.

Give all teenagers puffing away in front of the mall a $50 fine and we could wipe out the national debt in a week. Ok, thats a big stretch, i admit. But it would reduce, if not eliminate that regular scene. And how many kids start smoking when a 'friend' or someone in their peer group asks them "want a smoke"? I would gladly put money on it that the number is high, and that the question isnt being asked at a back yard BBQ. It is being asked away from their homes in public places such as the mall, the sidewalk across from school, movie theaters, and other places of public accomidation that teenagers heavily populate.

[Gabz]

It sounds like the author is in favor prohibition, just a different sort - prohibitive taxation. They really don't give a rats about teen vs adult smoking, the goal is to prevent anyone from smoking.

The author of this "study" is 1000% in favor of any and all kinds of prohibition when it comes to tobacco.

[Gabz]

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.

Exactly - it is only illegal to sell them to a minor not a minor purchasing in most jurisdictions.

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.

Florida takes it a step further - subesequent offenders are subject to possible loss of their driver's licens.

[Dakmar]

Good points, I wasn't trying to imply that teenagers are completely blameless for their actions, just questioning the logic behind the situation. Sometimes philosophy fails where "Just Because" really is the better answer. :-)

[Phantom Lord]

All agree that the reduction of teen smoking is the goal, and a worthwhile goal. But when those that are engaging in the behaviour trying to be reduced face no punishment or consequences for engaging in the behaviour most attempts will be futile.

While another long stretch analogy, say the goal was to reduce teen speeding. Who should be ticketed and punished, the speeding teen, or the guy that sold them the car?

[Dakmar]

That's a different situtation, speeding is illegal for everyone. A better analogy would be teens driving before they are old enough to get a license.

[Gabz]

Yes, but with alcohol the seller can and should lose their license.

A license to sell tobacco products is required by the State of Delaware. 3 years ago legislation was introduced to also penalize the minor attempting to make the purchase along with the clerk - just like alcohol. The only opponents to it were the anti-smoker groups that claimed it was unfair to punish these young people because they were "addicted and didn't deserve punishment." Another proposal was to make possession an offense - same argument.

Needless to say, in Delaware it is perfectly OK for kids under 18 to smoke. Their parents can't give them the cigarettes or buy them for the kid - but the kid can smoke them.

This makes a whole lot of sense to me - NOT

[Dakmar]

Although driving without a license is also illegal, I must add. The point is should you punish someone for driving if they are too young to understand that they shouldn't be driving.

[Gabz]

I disagree.

I know in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, and a host of other states, the legislatures enacted the laws that make it illegal to sell tobacco products, or even matches or cigarette lighters, to anyone under 18.

[Dan from Michigan]

It is illegal to posesss tobacco if you are under 18, at least in my state. It's a $50 fine, and I THINK a misdemenor, although I'm not sure about the misdemenor part.

[Dakmar]

I'm mostly debating on philosophical rather than practical grounds here, but since the purpose of the law is to protect minors from their lack of judgement, should they be punished for failing to exercise good judgement when they break the law that was meant to protect them? It's sort of a weird paradox.

[Dan from Michigan]

BTW - One of the reasons it was "COOL" for 14,15yr olds to smoke is because it is giving the middle finger to authority.

My first response to reading this? No @#%^ Sherlock!!!!

By 19-20-21, The only cool part about smoking is standing outside striking up conversations. Other than that, it's expensive.

I just smoke an occasional cigar myself.

[Gabz]

I see where you're coming from with your paradox.

However.................

From the time these kids are in kindergarten they ar being "brainwashes" about the evils of smoking, the evils of the tobacco industry and how to disrespect adults who do choose to smoke.

Sorry - I don't think there is a 10 year old, let alone a 16yo, in this country that is not aware that tobacco is bad and it is illegal for them to try and buy it.

[Lee'sGhost]

OK, so as an exercise in logic, should we drop the laws for youth access to alcohol as well if there are comparable studies?

Perhaps ENFORCEMENT of youth access laws might make more of difference.

[Gabz]

BTW - One of the reasons it was "COOL" for 14,15yr olds to smoke is because it is giving the middle finger to authority.

And when I was 14, 15 it was perfectly legal for me to buy cigarettes, and for anyone to sell them to me.

The kids today are not giving the middle finger to the same authorities we were - it was because our parents were telling us "we couldn't." the authorities today's kids are doing it are the nannyists on the TV and in the schools that are telling them outright lies.

One thing that has not changed with kids, especially teens, they don't want to be treated as stupid by people that truly should know better.

[GailA]

Same goes for cost of cigs. If a teen can't afford them they steal them or steal money from parents wallets for them. Socialist are so stupid.

[weegee]

tell them that smoking at an early age will stunt their growth and then show them this picture:

[lewislynn]

The word "youth" is used a lot in this study(?)...What is THEIR definition of "youth"?

[Almondjoy]

Come on you were a kid once. The same thing happens with alcohol as well. We all know that our kids here punish themseleves more often than the Europeans when it comes to drinking and they are allowed to drink at 16.. I dont know DUI rates but I do know that we have alot of dumb people in this country so I'm gonna guess we are higher... but in any case like in California where they are upping it to 21. What's the point? So now 21 year olds will buy them for 18 year olds.. and 18 year olds will pass them on to 15 year olds.. this is pathetic. Of course what they don't tell you is that there was a study just released on Anti-Smoking Ads.. they said the more you tell children NO.. the more they want to smoke.. hmmm so let's increase the age so we can tell people of fighting age that they too can't smoke.. bet you anything smoking rates go higher.