This bill is now open for debate.

I suggest the following ammendments.

Smoking age - 16
Beer, Wine and Cider - 15
Spirits including Alchopops - 18

i support this amendment.

Poiters. MP for SM.

I like the amendment proposed except for the beer, wine and cider, I'd say we allow that after 18 years of age.

Sincerely,

My proposition is the way it doen in France ans stuff.

I do not support the amendment Monsieur James offered, I don't want my 16 year old kid to be able to smoke at such an early age it's not appropriate nor my 15 year old to go out and get drunk. At that age, kids don't have the maturity to stay away from these things, at 18, kids generally already have a little bit more maturity than a 15 year old.

I stick to my original version of the bill.

Living in a country where teh smoking age is 16 and the drinking age in 18, let me address your concerns from my experiance.

Smoking.

Among High School Students(12-18), the majority of those who smake are aged 12-16 (Legal limit 16) among these around 5% smoke. In those aged 17-18 I know of 4 people in my year and about the same in the year below who still smoke.

Now this number is distorted by those who leave at 16, however in teh uk it is true that the highest number of smokers are in the 25-35 age group those who you say have more maturity. IMO he smoking age at 18 is ludicrous.

Drinking.

Like I said the drinking age is 18. However binge drinking on vodka and alchopops is a problem, especially in those from around 15-18. Now if we allowed beer, wine and cider at 15 this would cut out binge drinking on stronger drinks significantly. additionally it would take youngsters off the streets and into Public Houses where it is obviously safer than staggering around drunk in the middle of the road at 10pm on a Friday night.

To close it is clear you don't agree with Smoking, and to a lesser exstent Alchohol. I ask the Honerable Gentleman if he has ever consumed an alchoholic beverage under the age of 19 or smoked a ciggerette under 18?

As a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian in real life my relgion abhores and condemns these behaviors, so on a personal level i do no agree with ither behavior. In other words I have never drak nor smoked in ym entire life and i will keep it that way. His majesty can back me up on this one as well as Enrique who are both the same religion as well.

i prefer to allow people who know what they're doing as legal adults to engage in this behavior legally. I do not want to see my 15 year old smoking nor my 16 year old drinking and not do anything about it because its legal. THEY ARE STILL MINORS.

I am opposed to the proposed amendments as well. Speaker Frias is correct when he said that they are still minors.

It doesnt matter if the proposed amendments is the way it is done in France because this is Alexandria.

In places where such measures are inplace there is a bigger incidence of what the British call "anti-social behavior", why do you think it's such a big problem in GReat Britain?

Because Sentences are not tough enough and the police do not have the powers they should, nor do they have guns. If they did the scum would pay more attention.

Additionally the brittish age is 18, not 15 like I proposed. Like I said is we take teh youth off the streets and into licenced establishments there will be no such problem, and if the honerable gentlemen are suggesting that a low smoking age causes anti-social behaviour the I suggest they need to find out more about them. I wish to remind the honerable gentlemen that this is the parliament of a secular state and to remember that there are those amoungst you that do not share the same religious convictions.

Faithfully,

The only argument that I am using is that they are still considered minors. I am fully aware, and I am positive the Speaker is aware as well, that this government is secular. But it is these religious teachings that guide people in their beliefs throughout their lives.

I may not share the same beliefs as the Speaker in many things, but I agree with him that minors should not be permitted to drink or smoke. They are still at an age where they are continually learning. Developing bad habits at such a young age that will continue throughout the rest of their life may shorten the length of time they live.

I also stick to 18. I am in highschool in real world and god only knows what some of my friends would do if this was legal at 15!

if you are so worried about it then why dont you outlaw it all togeather?

Leaving tabacco aside, for I think that should probably be in a seperate act.

If I may quote:

I am willing to ofer the following comprimise however.

Beers and ciders under 5% alchohol - 16
Wine's under 12% alchohol - 16
All other alchoholic drinks - 18

Note: Sources availible upon request

Because adults, responsible ones, know WHEN to quit. And i find this unacceptable. I dont care how much the alcohol levels are! 16 is still to young. I for one stick to 18.

Pete, your arguments are baseless. Anyone with a conscience worth a grain of salt will tell you that it is obvious that 15 and 16 year olds cannot rightfully moderate their drinking or smoking! They are minors, and they do not know what they are getting themselves into. Your arguments assume that early/mid teenagers have the maturity to regulate their intake to "moderate". I don't think so.

I stand in the original version of my bill.

I move for a vote.

I also stand by the original and second that motion to vote.

I second the motion.

Motion recognized. The House will now divide.

Voting will last four days or until a majority has been reached.

DEFER

OUI

(he voted defer so i guess we're back in debate)

i'd liek to address the compromise that the representative from the province of valenciennes stated - i believe that the compromise is basically useless. there are too many loopholes or loopholes can be created. i say we stick wine at the age of 16 and that is the farthest step i'll take. at this point in debate if i see a legislation that looks as if kids at the age of 16 can drink i'll go with no. (members are probably confused as to my remarks, i did not read the amendment or didnt understand it as well as i do now. pardon me.)

Poiters. MP for SM.

Monsieur Poitiers, we are still in voting. A majority must vote DEFER for debate to continue. Please state your vote.

As for mine, I vote OUI.

Actually I don't see much sense in lowering the age limits, reason?: I tasted my first cigarette at age 12, and started smoking at age 16, and now I can't leave it. I know for a fact that if laws where tighter in my country I would have started much latter, or not even at all. therefore, I vote OUI.

Voting is hereby closed.

This bill is now PASSED.
1- DEFER
3 - OUI