The USFG and state and local government should increase the punishment to age restriction violators.

Alright momo, I'll bite. Your argument is a little ridiculous. First of all, here are some actual statistics on this topic According to Dave Gershman of the Ann Arbor News, studies show that teen smoking is decreasing. (http://www.mlive.com...) "Now in its 33rd year, the Monitoring the Future survey was given in 2007 to 48,025 students in the eighth, 10th and 12th grades in 403 schools across the country. U-M's Institute for Social Research conducts the study for the federal government. The latest findings were released Tuesday in Washington and President Bush hailed the results at a press conference. The proportion of 8th-graders who reported being daily smokers dropped to 3 percent, down nearly 1 percentage point from last year. Among 10th-graders, 7.2 percent reported being daily smokers, down about half a percentage point from last year. Among 12th graders, 12.3 percent reported being daily smokers, which is nearly the same as last year. Researchers don't know exactly why the decline in smoking rates resumed this year, but they say it's an important development. Smoking is still the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the country, said Johnston. Overall, the use of drugs and alcohol declined slightly in all three grades of teenagers this year, continuing a long-term downward trend that - like the decrease in smoking - also began in the mid-1990s. " This is showing that the teen trend is decreasing, which means your focus is a little off. There have also been tremendous declines in the amount of teen smoking after the tobacco companies had severe limitations and bans placed on cartoon and illustrated advertisements. But the timeliness of this issue is not the real problem to focus on, yet it is your solution of putting a cigarette out on someone's arm. I do not know if you have heard of this thing called the 8th amendment, however, it bans cruel and unusual punishment. In 1972, Justice Brennan cited a litmus test on whether or not a punishment is cruel or unusual. Here are his four principles: 1. The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. 2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." 3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." 4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." I will stick with two particular principles. The first, and the third. In terms of the first principle, torture is an essential concept that must be defined. It is defined in international law as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Your solution qualifies as torture for a few reasons. First that is considered an act of inflicting severe physical pain. It may also be difficult to prove that someone has smoked three, let alone once cigarette. Therefore, the punishment could be labeled as coercion for some kind of confession. Also, if it were inflicted by a public official (like a police officer) it would be labeled as torture. But what if the punishment was to be enforced by a parent? This idea allows me to segue into my analysis of the 3rd principle, a punishment that is rejected throughout society. If it is to be carried out by a parent, then it would be constituted as child abuse. According to Peltier and Purdue, burns are constituted as child abuse. "Nonaccidental burns caused by a hot solid object are the most difficult to distinguish from accidental injuries. Cigarette and iron burns are the most frequent types of these injuries. Cigarette burns on a child's back or buttocks are unlikely to have been caused by walking into a lighted cigarette, and therefore are more suspect than burns about the face and eyes, which can occur accidentally if the child walks or runs into the adult's lighted cigarette held at waist height. Accidental burns are usually more shallow, irregular, and less well defined than deliberate burns. Multiple cigarette burns are distinctively characteristic of child abuse." (http://www.ncjrs.gov...) Needless to say, child abuse is something that is rejected throughout society. The rising increase of attendance in foster homes, or the amount of litigation surrounding child abuse shows this is true. Which means your solution violates two principles of the current interpretation of the 8th amendment, which means your solution is unconstitutional, and therefore ineffective. Finally, your own solution would only replicate your problem. According to Columbia University, child abuse causes more teen smoking. (http://www.columbia.edu...) "2. Several recent studies use sophisticated designs to identify causal impacts. a) Some establish a cross-sectional relationship between adverse events in childhood (ACEs) and current risky behaviors/outcomes including depressed affect, suicide attempts, multiple sexual partners, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse (Felitti (1998), Dube et al. (2003, 2003b), Hillis et al. (2004) ) But these effects may not be causal and maltreatment is only one type of ACE." In conclusion, your solution is not only unconstitutional, but also replicates the problem you try to solve. So, take these two arguments, and put them in your pipe and smoke it.