Home› Cigar 101

Minimum age?

havanaalhavanaal Posts: 155 ✭✭
in Cigar 101
There's a recent post about how one was introduced to cigars, which reminded me how my dad gave me a cigar for my 16th birthday, and how I have continued the tradition with my kids. Now here's the question: my sons both got the birthday cigar, and were generally unimpressed, but my daughter, who just turned 16 loved the flavored cigar I gave her. (was a little DE Blonde) She wants more! And my wife says Absolutely not! She's way too young. I have a friend who regularly smokes cigars with his daughter, who's 18. At what age is it legitimate to enjoy an occasional--once every 2-3 weeks smoke?

Comments

  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947 ✭
    havanaal:
    There's a recent post about how one was introduced to cigars, which reminded me how my dad gave me a cigar for my 16th birthday, and how I have continued the tradition with my kids. Now here's the question: my sons both got the birthday cigar, and were generally unimpressed, but my daughter, who just turned 16 loved the flavored cigar I gave her. (was a little DE Blonde) She wants more! And my wife says Absolutely not! She's way too young. I have a friend who regularly smokes cigars with his daughter, who's 18. At what age is it legitimate to enjoy an occasional--once every 2-3 weeks smoke?

    If your inside your own home and not in public i say its none of anybodys business. Smoke away !!!
  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947 ✭
    havanaal:
    There's a recent post about how one was introduced to cigars, which reminded me how my dad gave me a cigar for my 16th birthday, and how I have continued the tradition with my kids. Now here's the question: my sons both got the birthday cigar, and were generally unimpressed, but my daughter, who just turned 16 loved the flavored cigar I gave her. (was a little DE Blonde) She wants more! And my wife says Absolutely not! She's way too young. I have a friend who regularly smokes cigars with his daughter, who's 18. At what age is it legitimate to enjoy an occasional--once every 2-3 weeks smoke?

    If your inside your own home and not in public i say its none of anybodys business. Smoke away !!!
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249 ✭
    Well there are two answers. The legal answer, depending on where you live, is probably eighteen or so. The MORAL answer is up to you. We can't decide for you; you and your wife need to figure it out.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    I never got this, I see kids smoking that look 10 walking down the street and cops even roll by. It doesn't seem too enforced. I wouldn't want to get my kid addicted to cigars, a lot of kids do things just to look cool, and it may lead to a cigarette addiction too. But I say it's all up to you. You know your kids.
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249 ✭
    That's because, at least in the united states, it isn't illegal to smoke cigarettes underage, it's just illegal to sell them to underage kids.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    betasynn:
    That's because, at least in the united states, it isn't illegal to smoke cigarettes underage, it's just illegal to sell them to underage kids.
    That explains it..
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    betasynn:
    That's because, at least in the united states, it isn't illegal to smoke cigarettes underage, it's just illegal to sell them to underage kids.
    Incorrect sir. In the state of TX it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to posses tobacco of any kind and yes, tickets are written all the time for it here. No cigarettes, cigars, snuff, or chew. I'm not saying it's right, but it it illegal here. Many many other states have the same laws on the books now too.
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249 ✭
    Ah, I'm from Massachusetts, or at least that's where I'm drawing it from. It's the same deal in New York, too, where I live now. I spent maybe the first year of my life in Texas, so I guess I'm not so much the authority there.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    betasynn:
    Ah, I'm from Massachusetts, or at least that's where I'm drawing it from. It's the same deal in New York, too, where I live now. I spent maybe the first year of my life in Texas, so I guess I'm not so much the authority there.
    They put that law out right about 6 months before I turned 18 and about 2 months after they did I got popped for it back in 98. PISSED ME OFF!!! lol
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249 ✭
    Should have said it was for medicinal purposes.
  • VidarienVidarien Posts: 246
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    Vidarien:
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
    Not a problem with age requirements, it's the problem with a 17 year old getting a $200-$500 ticket for having a can of snuff.
  • betasynnbetasynn Posts: 1,249 ✭
    Vidarien:
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
    It's an interesting thing, this whole age law. On the one hand, this semi-prohibition has created a subculture of underage binge drinking; the mental attitude of 'drink it all when it's available' is a dangerous one, and a reason why kids under 20 get so messed up so easily on the stuff. It's also why people smoke; that whole rebellion stage. As it stands, I think we should lower the age of drinking to 18. Maybe keep tobacco the same, but decrease the penalty.
  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947 ✭
    betasynn:
    Vidarien:
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
    It's an interesting thing, this whole age law. On the one hand, this semi-prohibition has created a subculture of underage binge drinking; the mental attitude of 'drink it all when it's available' is a dangerous one, and a reason why kids under 20 get so messed up so easily on the stuff. It's also why people smoke; that whole rebellion stage. As it stands, I think we should lower the age of drinking to 18. Maybe keep tobacco the same, but decrease the penalty.

    I understand the min age concept and even agree to a point But ...if the government declares you of legal age to be subjected to the rigors and horrors you will encounter in a war zone or combat then your old enough to drink and smoke. Just IMHO...if your old enough to be stranded in a combat zone and make life or death decisions then your old enough to decide to drink or smoke or not to IMHO...Their either children and need protection or the legal age for the armed services needs to be raised ...same thing with law enforcement as well...
  • VidarienVidarien Posts: 246
    gmill880:
    betasynn:
    Vidarien:
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
    It's an interesting thing, this whole age law. On the one hand, this semi-prohibition has created a subculture of underage binge drinking; the mental attitude of 'drink it all when it's available' is a dangerous one, and a reason why kids under 20 get so messed up so easily on the stuff. It's also why people smoke; that whole rebellion stage. As it stands, I think we should lower the age of drinking to 18. Maybe keep tobacco the same, but decrease the penalty.

    I understand the min age concept and even agree to a point But ...if the government declares you of legal age to be subjected to the rigors and horrors you will encounter in a war zone or combat then your old enough to drink and smoke. Just IMHO...if your old enough to be stranded in a combat zone and make life or death decisions then your old enough to decide to drink or smoke or not to IMHO...Their either children and need protection or the legal age for the armed services needs to be raised ...same thing with law enforcement as well...
    I agree completely, i think this is just the clash of different laws made in different generations. Alcohol moved to 18 would probably be the great equalizer. But, on the other hand, i for one could say that at 18, i was a bit more nuttier/juvenile than at 21. Maybe its a good thing I didnt have legal access to unlimited liquor? I dont know. Im sure the politics of it will keep everything as it is now for the distant future at least though.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    Vidarien:
    gmill880:
    betasynn:
    Vidarien:
    I dont necessarily think the age requirements are a terrible thing to stand by. The whole reason that kids were kept away from it (and liquor for that matter) is that their brains arent fully developed at that point, and they're more prone to addiction as opposed to starting later on.
    It's an interesting thing, this whole age law. On the one hand, this semi-prohibition has created a subculture of underage binge drinking; the mental attitude of 'drink it all when it's available' is a dangerous one, and a reason why kids under 20 get so messed up so easily on the stuff. It's also why people smoke; that whole rebellion stage. As it stands, I think we should lower the age of drinking to 18. Maybe keep tobacco the same, but decrease the penalty.

    I understand the min age concept and even agree to a point But ...if the government declares you of legal age to be subjected to the rigors and horrors you will encounter in a war zone or combat then your old enough to drink and smoke. Just IMHO...if your old enough to be stranded in a combat zone and make life or death decisions then your old enough to decide to drink or smoke or not to IMHO...Their either children and need protection or the legal age for the armed services needs to be raised ...same thing with law enforcement as well...
    I agree completely, i think this is just the clash of different laws made in different generations. Alcohol moved to 18 would probably be the great equalizer. But, on the other hand, i for one could say that at 18, i was a bit more nuttier/juvenile than at 21. Maybe its a good thing I didnt have legal access to unlimited liquor? I dont know. Im sure the politics of it will keep everything as it is now for the distant future at least though.
    I've known a lot of adults who hasn't had their brain fully developed yet. Also I too find it funny how you can join the Armed Services but can't legally drink. Though you can't have alcohol in warzones anyway so like it really matters right now. I know when I was in Korea, I was 19 and hit the bars pretty hard, though coming back on base was rough, luckily I was able to "sneak" in with the crowed or just didn't get any pissy MP's who checked my ID. Though the penalty is rather rough.
  • Alex WilliamsAlex Williams Posts: 1,515

  • robert69165robert69165 Posts: 219
    I won't say if I allow my 16 yo to take puffs off my cigar, But, If I so choose to in the privacy of my own home then that is my decision which btw is illegal in the great state of Nebraska. If your 17 and younger you get stopped for smoking, and ticketed.
Sign In or Register to comment.