Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.med Subject: Re: Why Smoke? Message-ID: <4017@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 17:20:20 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.4017 Posted: Mon Jul 2 17:20:20 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jul-84 17:20:20 EDT References: <3045@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <332@ames-lm.UUCP>, <3055@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 107 Will, There are at least 2 problems with your scheme. The first is that (unless the facts have been updated in the last 6 months, while I wasn't looking) the evidence that smoking harms people not actively smoking is, to say the least, equivocal. So it depends on who you decide to believe -- those who say it harms or those who don't. (I don't know what the current evidence about the effect of smoking on fetuses is. The last time I checked it seemed to be going in favour of those who said it was harmful, though.) So we have a situation where it is conceivable that somebody is lying and faking results, but more likely that smoking only effects certain people in such a way. This is reasonable, given that the effect of smoking on smokers is not quite the direct ``Smoking causes Cancer'' that many people believe. I think (but this too could be out of date) that the best theory on the relatedness of smoking to cancer goes like this: most people have a ``weakness'' for cancer. If they smoke, they are likely to get cancer. Some people do not have this ``weakness''. They can smoke all they like and won't get cancer. Of course, it is actually a lot more complicated than that. But it seems to indicate that certain people can smoke all they like and not harm themselves and members of their immediate families, while other people may find that smoking (and other people's smoke) is dangerous for them. Okay. There are several issues here. 1. Should the people who *can* smoke be forced to suffer for the sake of those that can't? Why or why not? 2. Should the government really be in the safety business at all? (This, of course, is a subset of the great question ``What is a government for?'' ) 3. Is danger good for you? I think that the third question is not raised enough. Here is a theory that can get hashed over if people are interested. it goes like this: People do not think enough. They do not think because it is possible to survive for a long time within society while doing a minimal amount of thinking. It is possible to view these people as parasites on the people who actually do the thinking. The more you do to ``protect these people from others'' and, worse still, ``to protect them from themselves'' the more you further the idea that ``everything is safe -- if it were dangerous then it would be illegal''. Sooner or later these protected people will come up against a dangerous situation where they have to think, and being totally unfamiliar with the whole idea, they will fail miserably. I catch people expounding this ``if it weren't safe, it would be illegal'' philosophy all to frequently. I am seriously worried that we may be so badly off that we would find it very difficult to go back to living in a more dangerous fashion. I also wonder if the current demand for ``hooting-and-waving-sickly-user-friendly'' programs that come close to verifying every keystroke are in demand because many people have grown up expecting this high level of protection and security. But back to the smoking parents... There are 2 cases. Either they think that they are harming their children, or they do not. If they think that they are harming their children, but don't care, should you confiscate their children? What if they think that they are harming their children and are trying to do something about it (like quitting) but are unsuccessful? If you decide that they should be confiscated, then where are you going to put them? What about children who don't want to be confiscated? And who is going to pay for all of this? The other case is probably more likely. The parents do not think that they are harming their children. Assuming that you disagree with them, then what? While it is rather easy to show that a broken arm is damage, these things are a lot harder to prove. Remember that we are not dealing with sadists whjo are looking for every loophole to allow them to mistreat their children, but rather people who believe that their smoking is not damaging their children. Since they have a real reason for wanting to believe this, they are likely to be tough to convince. *And they might even be correct!* Should you start confiscating children in this case? Or fining parents? If you do you have opened a tremendous can of worms. What will you do with the people who think that Christianity is harmful to young people and that teaching Christianity amounts to psychological damage? Or the people that think that *not* raising children as Christians is damaging? I could mention at least 10 similarily touchy subjects right now... Think of any controversial subject in child raising.... There is just too much opinion, and no way to get real evidence without conducting experiments on generations of children, something that I, at least, am opposed to on principle. I don't think that it is possible to know ``the proper way to raise a child'' at this time -- and to start legislating that certain things are correct would be a terrible mistake. I think that the day that smoking is considered assault (and there had better be more evidence before that happens) is a very good day for smoking to be considered child abuse. But on that day, all people should be protected from smoking, not just children, because it is proven to be very harmful. Before then, it seems rather wrong to me to make a ``special category'' for parents. After all, is a beating wrong because a parent should not beat a child, or because a person should not beat any other person? Wow. A long article. Goes to show what no netnews for a month will do to you... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura