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?

December 2024

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

Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags