The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1918-02-28
PUNCHES THE
PUNCH BOARD
Attorney General Says is Illegal
Minors and Tobacco

Owing to the fact that newspaper
reports of the recent opinion of the at
torney general on the questions Of
sales Of tobacco TO minors and the
sales of candies by punch boards"
contain misleading inaccuracies, the
opinion is here reprinted in full. 1t
will be noted that, in the opinion of
the attorney general, the law on these
subjects is as follows:
First: That the law relative to the
use by and sales 10 minors Of tobac-
co applies to all minors under the age
of q years, and is not restricted to
minors under IS years.
Second: That the disposition of arti-
cles by the punch board" is in viola
ton of the anti-raffling and anti-lot-
terry law, even though the "puncher"
receive some trifling article with every
chance.
The full opinion follows:
Dear Sir:
You have submitted to this office
for opinion the following questions:
1st. Is Chapter $50 Of the 1913
Session laws which purports to pro-
hibit the use of tobacco by minors,
constitutional, and, if so, what is its
correct Interpretation?
2nd. Is the operation of what is
known as punch boards violation /
Of chapter lat of the 1911 session '
laws, which prohibits lotteries? h
The title TO the Act in chapter $50
is In language prohibiting "the use Of
cigarettes, cigars or tobacco in any a
form by minors under the age of cigh-
teen years.
As to your second question, we are
Of the opinion that the operation of
punch boards in this state is in vio- 7
|ation of the Lottery statute (chapter u
l47 of the 1911 session laws). This "
statute is an exact copy of the Cali d.
fornia statute Statutes very SINH u
ar in wording exist in a great many '.
states in the Union. Under the deci Is
lions of the courts, device of the
lind known as "punch board" would
,e prohibited by the Lottery Statute. III
The question is often raised as to al
the giving Of some article of le
merchandise in return for the money ra
aid for each punch" or chance, ~
gould render the use of the board law ~
III. As matter Of fact. think it is
1variably true that an equivalent in
Merchandise is not given for the mon
v spent However that may be, the
ourts generally hold that the statute
icludes the act of giving away
rize on chance. In my oninion, there "a
,re, the operation of the punch board da
in violation of the lottery statute.
The body Of the act is in language
every minor" from using aft
,bacco. M,
The title attempts to restrict the eff tb,
'ct of the law to persons under eigh- ~
ZEN years of age, while the body of "'
e Act provides that every minor is
-ohibited from using tobacco. We
e inclined to think the Act is con- se'
itutional. In recent case our SUI doc
eme Court held that although the cor
lie of the Anti-Nepotism Act would Mi
pear to be more restrictive than the ). !,
dy of the law, the title was suff- '"e
snt since it expressed the general Y
bject matter of the enactment. The Dr.,
bject matter of this Act is the pro-
bition Of the use of tobacco by min ans
5, and we believe our Supreme Court A
'uld sustain it. We are aware, how
err, Of number of cases in other no'
ties which hold that an act is valid stel
ly to the extent indicated by the IT
lie. In the case just referred to,
r Court held the entire Anti-Nepot- mai
n Act valid and did not restrict it n
the scope indicated in the title.
before stated, the question is not NEE
e from doubt in my mind, but we the
, inclined to think the Supreme vii
art would uphold the statute in the Tho
scope indicated in the body of the ~.
{. ana