juliet: My rat Holly grooming herself (holly rats)
[personal profile] juliet
I've seen some (although not that much, excluding the obligatory newspaper articles) discussion online about the smoking ban, but nothing about the fact that the age for buying fags is to be raised to 18 as of October.

I'm broadly in favour of this (it won't actually stop 16/17yos buying fags, I imagine, but it might stop 14yos doing so. Although it may just increase the numbers of kids pestering people to buy fags for them). But it throws up, again, the discrepancy in age legislation. 16 is old enough to get married & have kids, but not old enough to vote, drive a car, buy alcohol or cigarettes. 17 is old enough to join the army but still not to vote or smoke/drink.

Bringing all of it down to 16 would seem a bit of a retrograde step. Taking everything up to 18 is impractical (well, not in the army or driving cases, but definitely in the sex/babies case). I don't think there is a solution, but it still seems *untidy*.

I am so far very much liking the smoking ban. Was v pleased on Sunday lunchtime to see a sand bucket outside the greasy spoon for fag-ends, & *not* to have to eat my chipses (yes, I know, bad for me as well) through other people's smoke.

Date: 2007-07-03 01:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com
17 is old enough to join the army but still not to vote or smoke/drink.
You can die for your country, but not help decide who will send you to war. Although I'm not sure whether they actually post under-18s to the lines.

And, of course, squaddies not smoking would be like squaddies not drinking tea ...

Date: 2007-07-03 02:04 pm (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
They certainly used to, see the coverage of the 25th anniversary of the Falklands: at least one 17 year old died.

Date: 2007-07-03 02:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com
Aye, but I think that they might have changed the policy since. Although I could easily be wrong.

Date: 2007-07-03 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com
... and of course, you don't need to be serving in a war zone to die in uniform, anyway.

Date: 2007-07-03 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lovelybug.livejournal.com
.. and of course, you don't need to be serving in a war zone to die in uniform, anyway.

Quite right. Going to Deepcut is one of the ways...

Date: 2007-07-03 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com
Going to Deepcut is one of the ways...
Actually, while I was thinking of terrorist attack, that had also crossed my mind ...

Date: 2007-07-03 03:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com
Mind you: you can bring a new human into the world but not vote as to the world they grow up in
Aye, that too!

Is the Army exempt from the new legislation re smoking?
Hmmm. Good question. "Company. Company, exit building! Company. Company ... light up!"

Date: 2007-07-03 03:19 pm (UTC)
abi: (boozes)
From: [personal profile] abi
Army barracks count as private residences, therefore smoking is permitted. Though in Scotland at least, the MoD brought in their own smoking bans in military facilities & announced a programme to help soldiers quit - perhaps same is now happening in England.

Date: 2007-07-03 03:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
Is the Army exempt from the new legislation re smoking?

I wouldn't imagine so - they're an employer like any other. On the other hand, would you like to be the one to tell a gang of testosteroned-up squaddies that they can't have a swift fag after dinner?

Date: 2007-07-03 03:51 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
another one in the eye for freedom: if nanny knows best why are most of her schemes such resounding failures?

Date: 2007-07-03 05:17 pm (UTC)
karen2205: Me with proper sized mug of coffee (Default)
From: [personal profile] karen2205
It'd make sense if they separated the age limit for marriage from that for consenting to sex. Deciding to have sex requires less maturity than deciding to get married. Both have consequences, but generally the consequences of sex will be less serious than those of marriage. Of course, I can't actually see this happening due to questionable numbers of people holding the moral position that sex before marriage is wrong.

If you do that you get:
16 - consent to sex, able to leave school/get full time job
17 - drive car/join army (could be moved to 18)
18 - marry, vote, serve in army in war zone, buy alcohol & cigarettes, sit on jury etc.

I think keeping driving and buying alcohol at different ages is good, as it means you get to do one first & there's less temptation to mix the two.

I'd like to see voting brought down to 16, as if you're able to leave school and get a full time job you ought to be eligible to vote for the government you want.

Date: 2007-07-04 10:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thekumquat.livejournal.com
You need parental permission to get married at 16 or 17 though, certainly in England and Wales.

Given how few kids can afford to pass a driving test at 17, I think in practice most teenagers drink (bearing in mind it's legal at 16 with a meal) long before they can drive.

Date: 2007-07-03 09:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] emarkienna.livejournal.com
There's also the one about it being 16 for sex, but 18 is the age limit for child porn (and this is a new discrepancy, in that the latter was raised in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act).

Date: 2007-07-07 04:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] i-ludicrous.livejournal.com
I can sort of understand society not wanting people to be in porn movies until they are 18. What I don't get is why one should be allowed to have sex, and children, two years before being allowed to watch other people doing so on video.

December 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930 31    

Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags