Or would it only be retrospective legislation if they penalised anyone who sold 16-18year olds cigarettes before the change?|||Merely raising or lowering the legal smoking age would not be a retroactive or "ex post facto" law.
You are correct that a retroactive law would be to punish a retailer with the new law for selling cigarettes to 16 year olds when it was legal to do so.
Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution makes ex post facto laws unconstitutional.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."|||It would be retrospective legislation only if it made it illegal to do something that was legal when it was done. So as long as it only applied after it was passed (i.e., smoking underage before the law was passed would still be legal) it would be fine.|||I think the age that you can buy cigarettes, should be the same as anything else you can legally do as an adult. It makes no sense that in the UK you can leave school and work as an adult at 16. you can consent to any sexual activity at 16, you can even get married at 16. But you are not deemed old enough to drink alcohol. buy pornography or vote or gamble. The age of consent for being an adult should be 16 universally.|||The government of the uk allowed persons from the age of sixteen years to smoke and to buy cigarettes, but then they raised the legal age to eighteen years. What are the kids? of 16 but not yet 18 to do if they were already smoking within the law when this new act was passed. As far as i'm concerned this was without consideration and is totally unlawful, to allow a person to become addicted to a substance and then to threaten them or any person who may help them obtain that substance with prosecution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment