Right: Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest. The iron ore magnate began the latest campaign against smoking by urging that the smoking age be raised to 21 years.
Arguments against the smoking age increasing to 21
1. The number of people smoking and taking up smoking is in decline Critics of the proposal to increase the legal smoking age to 21 argue that current smoking trends do not justify such an action. Researchers from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) compiled a report into smoking patterns, released in September 2016 , which found less than 13 per cent of Australians are daily smokers. AIHW spokesman, Tim Beard, stated, 'That's one of the lowest smoking rates in the world...It's come down by a good 3 percentage points [since 2010]... Even 15, 20 years ago it's almost halved. It was 21, 22 per cent ... so the rates are just continuing to drop quite dramatically and that's a very large drop compared to some of the international rates you look at.'  The report found improvement in a majority of indicators used to measure smoking rates under a strategy to reduce tobacco usage. Analysts are particularly pleased with smoking trends among young people. There has been a decline in smoking among children and young adults which has been seen as an indicator that lifting the legal smoking age to 21 is an unnecessary measure. The report indicated that fewer high school students were experimenting with cigarettes and that young adults were adopting the habit at a lower rate. Mr Beard stated, 'We've also found that in general terms ... when you look at school students and young adults taking up smoking, they're not only taking up at a much lower rate, but they're also taking it up later. When you put those two things together, it's a very powerful story about the fact that the smoking rates are coming down with those factors working in combination.' 2. There are many measures already in place in Australia to discourage smoking Those who are opposed to increasing the legal smoking age to 21 argue the measure is unnecessary as Australia has a large number of other measures in place to discourage smoking and protect public health. Federal law bans smoking in all Australian Commonwealth government buildings, public transport, airports, and international and domestic flights. Further bans are in place but are governed by individual states. Currently all Australian states and territories have banned smoking in vehicles with children, in some enclosed public places, particularly most major company-owned workplaces, and most enclosed restaurants. Tobacco products cannot be sold or supplied to persons under 18 years old, but there is no legal age to use them. While there are other restrictions dependent on state laws. In addition, Australia has the most rigorous standards in the world limiting the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. In 1972 the federal government introduced mandatory health warnings for radio and television cigarette advertisements. In September 1976 a total ban on tobacco and cigarette advertisements on TV & radio commenced. In December 1989 tobacco advertising was banned from all locally produced print media - this left only cinema, billboard and sponsorship advertising as the only forms of direct tobacco advertising. In 1992 the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 expressly prohibited almost all forms of tobacco advertising in Australia, including the sponsorship of sporting or other cultural events by cigarette brands. In April 2010, the Australian government announced plans to prohibit the use of tobacco industry logos, colours, brand imagery or promotional text of tobacco product packaging from 2012, requiring that brand names and product names be displayed in a standard drab brown colour, font style and position in a policy known as "plain packaging". As of December 2013, most cigarette packaging carried graphic images of the effects of smoking as well as information about the names and numbers of chemicals and annual death rates. Television ads included video footage of smokers struggling to breathe in hospital. Since then, the number of smokers has been reduced by one quarter. 3. People are generally treated as legal adults from the age of 18 Opponents of the legal smoking age being lifted to 21 argue that this limitation strips away the rights of a significant section of the Australian community who in virtually every other context are judged mature enough to make their own decisions. These critics argue that if 18 is deemed a suitable age at which to be treated as an adult before a court, to purchase alcohol, drive a car or enter the armed forces, then it should also be the age at which it is possible for an individual to decide whether or not to purchase a packet of cigarettes. Bill Rowlings, chief executive of Civil Liberties Australia, has said, 'If you're going to look at what age people are entitled to do things, you've got to look at driving and at drinking alcohol and other measures.' The same point has been made with regard to United States anti-smoking legislation in an article written by Linsay Stroud and published in Inside Sources on April 26, 2016. Stroud stated, 'At the age of 18, a person enters new parameters of life. They are able to go to war, to vote, to be held legally responsible for contracts that can amass significant debt, such as credit cards and student loans, and at 18 years old, a person can and will be defined as an adult in a court of law. But despite all of the responsibilities the government heaps on young adults, many officials believe they simply can't handle making tobacco-related...decisions.' When a legal smoking age of 21 was proposed for California, civil liberty issues were a significant concern. Assemblyman Keith Richman was reported speculating, 'I think that people are going to wonder whether 18-year-olds who can join the armed forces should have the right to smoke and make that choice on their own.' The same point was made by Thomas Savidge in an opinion piece published in The Daily Caller on May 31, 2016. Savidge stated, 'Eighteen year olds help decide who governs the country; they pay taxes; they routinely take on potentially crippling levels of student debt; fight our nation's wars; and if they commit a crime they are tried and sentenced as adults. Surely they can be trusted to choose whether or not to smoke.' 4. Lifting the legal age is likely to result in non-compliance Opponents of the smoking age being lifted to 21 argue that there would be a significant level of non-compliance. Put simply, sellers and consumers would break the law. Currently, the high cost of cigarettes in this country as a result of government imposts results in a significant black market within which illegally grown or supplied tobacco and cigarettes are sold outside the law. It has been claimed that nearly 15 percent of the tobacco consumed in Australia is illegally imported and around 14 percent of the total tobacco consumed in Australia is black market. Illegal sale of imported or locally grown untaxed tobacco (commonly known as 'chop chop') is via tobacconists, grocers and even service stations that keep the product under the counter. Given the extent of this illegal trade, in the event of an increase in the legal smoking age, it is likely that many tobacco sellers would also be prepared to sell to customers below the age of 21. Research conducted in 1996 indicated that there were already significant numbers of cigarette outlets selling cigarettes to minors. A 1999 report stated, 'For older male and female smokers, the primary source of supply of cigarettes is through illegal purchases from retail outlets, with 55 per cent of 16-17 year old males and 45 per cent of 16-17 year old females reporting purchasing their own cigarettes.' In 2011 a Western Australian Health Department sting found almost 40 per cent of Perth retailers sold tobacco to minors when tested. In a similar operation conducted in Canberra in 2013, nine of 24 stores tested were found to be selling cigarettes to people under 18. Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney has speculated that were the smoking age to be raised, 'with prosecutions of shopkeepers for selling cigarettes being very uncommon, many [retailers]would reason that the risks of being caught selling, let alone of being fined, are minuscule.' In addition, there would remain the networks of friends and relatives who currently supply minors with cigarettes. Once the young smoker was aged between 18 and 21 the number of people prepared to help him or her acquire cigarettes illegally may well increase as it would no longer be seen as a question of protecting a minor. A 2001 study conducted in ten Massachusetts communities (where there is a legal smoking age of 18 and where retailer compliance rates are 90 percent or above) found that teenage clerks sell to other teenagers, steal tobacco, and help their friends steal from their employers; while friends who are 18 years of age or over are a second major source for older adolescents. Parents also often purchase tobacco for their older adolescent children. 5. A total ban on cigarettes would be fairer and more consistent than further imposts and restrictions It has been argued that to prevent those between 18 and 21 from buying a product that is legally offered for sale to all other adults is inconsistent. In an opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times on March 11, 2016, Mike Males claimed that California's recent lifting of the legal smoking age to 21 was a poor idea. Males stated, 'Lawmakers mistakenly believe they are protecting youths when they restrict them from (and punish them for) behaviors that are perfectly legal for adults.' Males argued that such actions were not only seen as unjust but tended to be ineffective as in some jurisdictions where this had been tried smoking rates among young people increased. It has been noted in the United States that a recent increase in cigarette smoking among young adults 'has occurred concomitantly with an increase in other risk-taking behaviours regarding substance use, including binge drinking and the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs.' The implication here is that there is an element of rebellion in smoking and other risk-taking behaviour of young people and therefore they may be more likely to begin the smoking habit if they feel they are being unjustly prevented from smoking relative to the rest of the adult community.This is part of a more general argument that smokers, as a group, are treated inconsistently from a legal and public health viewpoint. The product they wish to consume is currently deemed legal and yet there are dramatic use limitations and exorbitant taxes imposed upon it. It has been claimed that the only legally consistent action for governments would be to ban the sale of cigarettes rather than imposing ever-greater restrictions and taxes on a product still legitimately offered for sale. In response to the most recent limitations in Victoria on the locations where it is legally possible to smoke, Herald Sun commentator, Rita Panahi, noted the inconsistency of keeping the sale of a product legal, yet imposing physical restrictions upon where it can be consumed that make it virtually unusable. Panahi stated, 'I have to admit smokers are entitled to ask just where they can enjoy their filthy, yet entirely legal, habit.' The same question can be asked regarding the taxes imposed on cigarettes. These are justified from a public health perspective, yet, Panahi has noted, 'When the dangers of asbestos were fully realised, the government banned the importation, sale and use of all products containing the material; they didn't just impose a tax.' At least some opponents of the on-going limitations placed on smokers argue that if the product is deemed to be harmful enough to warrant these restrictions then a complete ban is required. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on July 6, 2012, Craig Dalton, Conjoint Senior Lecturer in the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Newcastle, argued 'When will we finally reach the logical conclusion that banning tobacco is much more compassionate than squeezing smokers with more and more painful stigmatisation?' |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.