|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2005, 4:09 PM
Post #101 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: As to children not understanding the drug or its effects, well that's why we have a legal age limit for buying cigarettes now isn't it? That's a law, that is not education. We have the same law for drinking (to use your alcohol reference), but it doesn't appear to work. It must be in conjunction with education, starting with the top, but more importantly cooperation from individuals to set a better example. TO get off topic for a minute, here is a link to some of the problems with children smoking: http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cdc.gov%2ftobacco%2fresearch_data%2fyouth%2fythsprt.htm Josh
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #102 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: Are you kidding me? Kids these days are more informed then most adults. My 4 year old knows more about the health risks from smoking then I do. It's time for you to give up your dream of being an internet superhero and face reality. I assume you don't work with kids. Kid's are not able to process information the same way adults can. During adolescence their is a lot of exerimenting and they become influenced by the world around them. There is also the feeling of invincibility, that "Oh, it won't effect me" or "I'll worry about it when I'm older" And by reality, do mean VERTICAL REALITY?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Mar 11, 2005, 4:33 PM
Post #103 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: It must be in conjunction with education, starting with the top Mmmm, yes and no. Education is certainly a must, with any area of risk. However, I know that many people - yourself included from what you've written - struggle with the fact that people can be well-educated about the risks of an activity but still take part in it. Perhaps you have the giant warnings on cigarette packs like we have here - they cover a third of the front of the package with a variety of imaginatively lurid messages. And perhaps you're aware of the effect they've had on smokers (none, in case you're wondering). The arguments, "they only smoke because they're addicts" and "they only smoke because they don't know the risk" sound great, but they're completely wrong. People smoke because they like smoking. Thousands quit every day, for a variety of reasons, which says little for the strength of the addiction. And the colossal warnings on the packs certainly make it hard to believe that anyone might be ignorant of the risk. Smokers aren't stupid. They know the risks and do it anyway. To say they don't is arrogant and condescending to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2005, 4:44 PM
Post #104 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: The arguments, "they only smoke because they're addicts" and "they only smoke because they don't know the risk" sound great, but they're completely wrong. People smoke because they like smoking. Thousands quit every day, for a variety of reasons, which says little for the strength of the addiction. And the colossal warnings on the packs certainly make it hard to believe that anyone might be ignorant of the risk. Smokers aren't stupid. They know the risks and do it anyway. To say they don't is arrogant and condescending to say the least. And it's condescending to all those people that are trying to quit and can't. At no time in any of my posts did I say smokers are stupid and they don't know the risks. My posts are about children, who, as a group, are not totally aware of the risks. Yes, with all of the information, I would find it hard to believe that any adults have not become totally aware of all the risks. I also think it is condescending to say simply that smokers smoke because they like it. It sounds to me like you are totally discounting the addictive properties of it. If you are able to control your habit rather than it controlling you, then that's great, but a lot of people struggle with that control every day.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Mar 11, 2005, 4:49 PM
Post #105 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Blueeyed, I notice throughout this thread you always refer to the subject group as children. It has a certain impact to talk about these poor exploited children when who we're talking about are teenagers, for the most part 16 & 17 year olds. While technically minors, do you really think of the 16 & 17 year old climbers you meet as children? Granted they are not adults, but constantly refering to them is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Based on your statements about these "children" not trying tobacco before their 18th birthday, it's pretty easy to apply the same standards to alcohol and drugs - NO ALCOHOL BEFORE 21 & NO DRUGS EVER!!! High school students are going to try tobacco, alcohol and drugs. This has been a given for over 40 years. To stem that adolescent curiousity/rebeliousness would require some very dramatic changes on the national level. Changes that would make the Patriot Act look like unchallenged freedom. You want to curb the number of minors who smoke? Make harsher laws for retailers - on par with underage alcohol sales. Institute a zero tolerance policy in schools, with smoke detectors in all known smoking areas. And lastly, even though this is a bit of a stretch, hold parents accountable for their underaged children's smoking habits.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #106 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Yeah, you're right. When I was 16, I wouldn't want anyone calling me a child. But, I was referring to as young as 8, which is certainly a child. The average age to start is 12-14. And man, wouldn't I love to hold parents accountable for what they do to their children, but I can't really do that, except in extreme cases (abuse), which, thank God I havent' had to encounter. Josh
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Mar 11, 2005, 5:37 PM
Post #107 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: Yeah, you're right. When I was 16, I wouldn't want anyone calling me a child. But, I was referring to as young as 8, which is certainly a child. The average age to start is 12-14. From the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA)
In reply to: The average age of first use of tobacco products in 1999 among all persons who ever used in their lifetime was 15.4 for cigarettes, 20.5 for cigars, and 16.7 for smokeless tobacco across all age groups An estimated 3.2 million people tried their first cigarette in 1997; most of these new users were aged 12 to 17 (2.3. million). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/...bacco/highlights.htm So, the average age for first time smokers (in 1999) was 15.4 and 72% were younger than 18. 12-14 is not the same as 15.4 90% is not the same as 72% :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Mar 11, 2005, 6:09 PM
Post #108 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
In reply to: Whether you are a smoker or not, I think we can all agree that they should not be advertising to children. If you can't agree with that then you are an a**hole. Did you know almost all smokers had their first cigarette at 18 or before. In 1998, they agreed to a settlement to stop advertising to children. The next year they spend billions more on advertising in stores and magazines that they knew children frequent. The tobacco industry knows that they will lose significant profits if children stop smoking. In September, a new trial began to hold them liable for years of deceipt. They have contributed a lot of money to the current administration and are now expecting something in return. If you go to the website below you can help send a message to Pres. Bush that children's health and safety is more important. I sent my letter. http://tfk.grassroots.com/act/ Josh Who cares? Guess I'm an "asshole" then. Then again, I don't care. You want kids not to smoke? Then get them good parents. THE END. I didn't touch them until I was 19. Don't know why I did, but I did. Used to smoke two packs a day. Now, I only smoke socially (like at the bar only). Only when I drink so, maybe once a week. Why don't we all jump the bandwagon on important issues and stop worrying about something as insignificant as advertising. You know, there's cancer and all sorts of sicknesses out there that have nothing to do with smoking, right? You know, people and organizations that need our help. Children dying, etc. People are so small minded. They sit there and b*tch about a company's advertising and where and who they feel it is targeting. If they're targeting kids, so be it. The ARE the next generation of smokers. Granted, that's not a good thing to be. It's only advertising. Wake up. All the magazines that are geared for younger people are more responsible than, say, Philip Morris. It's their magazine and we all know that the advertisements pay for the magazine, not the subscribers. So, and obviously, the magazines don't care about their own demographics because they allow Marlboro or Newport to place an ad in a magazine they put out for children. Really, let's get some priorities here. I donate to St. Luke's Children's Hospital and a host of others. My money goes to help find cures for cancers of all sorts and to find a way to keep children alive. I look for important issues; there is a person on this site that lost someone to cancer, a friend of my wife just died of breast cancer last year after only six months from diagnosis at the age of 33, my wife is a cancer survivor. You know, important issues. Letter not sent.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Mar 11, 2005, 6:52 PM
Post #109 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: I assume you don't work with kids. Re-read my post.
In reply to: Kid's are not able to process information the same way adults can. During adolescence their is a lot of exerimenting and they become influenced by the world around them. There is also the feeling of invincibility, that "Oh, it won't effect me" or "I'll worry about it when I'm older" Bumblie showed that the average age of first time smokers was around 15. Do you really believe that a 15 year old cannot "process information the same way adults can"?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2005, 7:55 PM
Post #110 of 111
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yeah, you're right. When I was 16, I wouldn't want anyone calling me a child. But, I was referring to as young as 8, which is certainly a child. The average age to start is 12-14. From the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) In reply to: The average age of first use of tobacco products in 1999 among all persons who ever used in their lifetime was 15.4 for cigarettes, 20.5 for cigars, and 16.7 for smokeless tobacco across all age groups An estimated 3.2 million people tried their first cigarette in 1997; most of these new users were aged 12 to 17 (2.3. million). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/...bacco/highlights.htm So, the average age for first time smokers (in 1999) was 15.4 and 72% were younger than 18. 12-14 is not the same as 15.4 90% is not the same as 72% :wink: I think it depends on who you want to believe. I have found plenty of reports backing up what i have already stated. http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.communityhealth.dhhs.state.nc.us%2ftobacco%2ffacts.htm http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.canadayouthchallenge.citymaker.com%2fpage%2fpage%2f1017491.htm I believe the study you are refering to was a sample of all ages, and the younger the age group, the younger they were when they had their first cigarette. The starting age has gotten younger since. You have only proven that a study taken out of context can prove anything you want it to prove. edit: btw, I am on vacation next week so you undoubtedly will have the last word. Good luck and thanks for the discussion. As always, you are a worthy opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Mar 11, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #111 of 111
(1497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: I believe the study you are refering to was a sample of all ages, and the younger the age group, the younger they were when they had their first cigarette. The starting age has gotten younger since. You have only proven that a study taken out of context can prove anything you want it to prove. You very well may be right on this one. The language is a little vague. However, on the number of 1st time smokers in 1999, I think my 72% number is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|