nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (06/11/84)
I've always been opposed to the practice of smoking. Whether a pipe,
cigar, cigarette, or some other variation on the theme. I've heard and
repeated various arguments against it. Personal health, public health, cost
to taxpayers, sin to most religions, fire hazard, and on and on. If you work
around computers you've probably heard a couple others like the real aversion
some disk drives have for smoke particles.
I have yet to hear a valid reason *for* smoking. I've read the arguments
about the loss of income to individuals and tax revenue to governments, but
maintaining the economic base that rests on the tobacco industry isn't a valid
reason for an individual to start or continue to smoke. It's just an excuse
used by legislators to justify getting their campaign contributions from
Reynolds etal. I won't even give credence to the "I'll start to gain weight"
type of response. That's just defending one lack of will power with another.
This isn't tongue in cheek. I'm trying to solicit tangible reasons for
smoking. I want to try and understand what motivates people to start or keep
smoking in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they are seriously harming
the health of themselves and the people they associate with. I've got 3 kids
that are going to have to make the decision to smoke or not some day and I
want to be able to understand both sides of the issue so I can explain it to
them. Experience tells me that dad saying no isn't going to cut it, and I've
got enough respect for my kids not to try it.
If you smoke you must have a reason. Let me hear it. I'll be glad to
hear from non-smokers too. I realize this is an issue akin to religion in
that logic doesn't always prevail. I stayed of my soap box (as much as
possible) so please don't get too carried away. If you know of a better group
or other forum to carry on this discussion please let me know.
Jerry Nowlin
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlinjlh@loral.UUCP (06/12/84)
Well, when I have lots of fireworks to shoot off I tend to light up a cigarrette because the punk sticks designed for that job don't work well at all. Other than that, I too see no reason to smoke. Of course, I assume you are talking about tobacco. Jim The opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and probably have nothing to do with reality.
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (06/12/84)
"..dad saying no isn't going to cut it.." ... it depends on *how*
you say no. I know a chap, of Polish extraction, who once told
me how his father convinced him never to smoke. Understand that
his father had the strength of several bulldozers, was the size of
a house, and had hands the size of shovels. Father once said to
son slowly with unflinching eye contact: "Son, if I ever catch
you smoking," he said, "I will break both your legs." To
reassure his son that this was not infact an act of mercy, he
continued, "..and if that doesn't make you stop, I'll kill you."
Son never smoked, never particularly wanted to, after that heart-
to-heart.
--
..{allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettlabelle@hplabsc.UUCP (06/12/84)
I used to smoke 2 packs a day, I have quit for 3yrs now. I originally
started because "everyone else did". Later I continued (until about
31 yrs old) because 1) I was hooked and 2) I enjoyed it (probably due to
1)!! Honestly, if you're a smoker, there's nothing like sitting back after
doing something and having a smoke. If it didn't bother others so much
and didn't carry such a health risk, I WOULD STILL SMOKE!
I respect the rights of others to smoke (or anything else they may wish
to do for that matter) so long as it dosen't infringe on someone elses
right.
I have two teenage kids. One smoke lightly probably for the same reason
I started. She is 17 and old enough to know what she is doing to her own
body. There is a point beyond which you no longer have control over your
children and they reach that individual status. All you can do is advise!
She is not allowed to smoke in or around the house because we as her
parents feel an obligation to her as a child (until 18 or moved out of the
house) to protect her health. At this point example and education are the
only tools we have to work with!!
My advise to you is 1) If at all possible, educate your children as to
the health risks, bother to others, and expense of smoking such that
THEY DON'T START IN THE FIRST PLACE!! 2) Do not condone smoking even
if you know that they are smoking anyway. I started smoking at about
14 and heavily smoking at 16 WHEN MY MOTHER DISCOVERED I WAS SMOKING
AND GAVE UP TRYING TO DISCOURAGE ME!!
I must reiterate however smoking was pleasurable and I respect other
adults right to indulge.
P.S. I like cheap wine
GEORGEheahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/12/84)
See reply in net.misc.
--
/\ /\
/ /~~~~~~\ \
( ( \ / ) )
Yrs. in Fear and Loathing, \ [~] [~] /
The Blue Buffalo \ / || \ /
Haunted by the - \ /||\ / ~~~
G \(^^)/ ) o
h `--'\ ( z
o \) n
s o
t of G
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd john@plx.UUCP (john butler) (06/12/84)
<Here's a rolled-up line for the line-smoking bug!> This is in response to Jerry Nowlin's request for information on why people smoke. I feel particularly qualified and interested in responding to the subject for the following reasons: 1. I smoked a pipe for 3 years. 2. I smoked cigarettes after that for 5 more years. 3. My wife smoked cigarettes for 10 years. 4. I had a 1-1/2 pack-a-day habit. 5. My wife had a 3-pack-a-day habit. 6. We quit smoking together last summer (July 1983). I am going to present two sets of reasons for smoking: 1. Why do people start? 2. Why, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, do they continue? (In other words, why don't they just quit?) Before I begin, I want to clear up a misconception in the original article. Nowlin states that he won't give credence to the excuse that "I'll gain weight if I quit." He calls this substituting one lack of willpower for another. There is now physiological evidence for weight gain in people who quit smoking. A certain enzyme has been isolated, the amount of which can predict how much the quitter will gain. The national average weight gain for people who quit smoking is 15 pounds. The higher the level of this enzyme *before* the subject quits smoking, (I don't remember the name of it--it just came out in a medical journal a month ago) the more weight the person will gain. The lower the level, the less the gain. Let's stop beating people over their body chemistry. Now to the subject: Why do people start smoking? One barrier to this answer is that until medical professionals acknowledged the seriousness and strength of tobacco, nobody gave a rat's ass and therefore never researched it. Research is just now beginning to surface. 1. It's a drug. Nobody seems willing to admit this, but when you first start smoking, it makes you high after a fashion. It gives you a "hit". When you first start smoking, and suck burning nicotene into your lungs, it jolts your system to constrict the blood vessels, raise the blood pressure, and speed up the heartbeat. When I first started smoking, I couldn't believe it was legal to smoke and drive. I damn near blacked out a couple times when I took a hit from a non-filter Camel. Later on, the effects are nowhere near as pronounced, but by then you're hooked. 2. A recent study has shown that nicotene desensitizes a person (or a rat) to random sensory input. I can vouch for this. As a writer, I found it much easier to concentrate in a noisy, open office when I smoked than I do now. This may indicate a cause-effect relationship between the higher incidence of smoking found in urban dwellers and workers. It may also explain the higher rate in non-professionals, since they tend to live in more cramped living conditions and with larger families than the professional, suburban types. 3. Nicotene stimulates the colon somewhat like coffee does. I had a small constipation problem until I started smoking a pipe. After a bowlful at night, however, I was always then ready to "lighten my load" and then go to bed. 4. Cigarettes serve as a mood enhancer. Studies have shown that even though nicotene physiologically speeds up the metabolism, it can have the opposite effect under certain circumstances. As I noted in item 3, above, it helped me calm down and go to sleep. 5. Although this is diminishing rapidly, smoking has several social aspects: Lighting someone else's cigarette, offering a light or match, offering a cigarette, sharing a pack, etc. all denote familiarity, courtesy, generosity, or intimacy, depending on the context. Smoking makes extra opportunities to be generous or grateful. No such phenomenon occurs among non-smokers (Hey, can I offer you a pair of Adidas shoelaces?). 6. Cigarettes are a boon to self-conscious people. It gives them an outlet for venting random anxieties, allowing them to speak more directly and forcefully in situations wherein they might otherwise be intimidated. I speak from experience. You may call this a "crutch", but it enables self-conscious people to function in circumstances they would otherwise avoid altogether. 7. One of the strongest reasons to start smoking is pre-addiction. My wife's mother smoked 2 packs of unfiltered Pall Malls while pregnant with Renee, who is now my wife. Thereafter, for the next 20 years, Renee shared 988 square feet with her mother and step-father who each smoked at least two packs of cigarettes per day. When Renee took up smoking at about age 17, she was simply following a craving she'd had all her life. It's like craving eggs if you have a protein/cholesterol deficiency. When my wife took up smoking, it also desensitized her to the asthma, allergies, and other respiratory irritations she'd suffered all her life (from secondary smoke). Now, here are the barriers we encountered when we quit smoking. 1. Couldn't wake up all day. We had come to depend on nicotene to wake us up in the morning and regulate our metabolism throughout the day. We doubled our coffee intake, and still felt sleepy all day. In fact, after a month of total body shock we felt like we had defective voltage regulators: we'd alternate periods of hyperactivity with lethargy. There was no normal pace for the first 3-4 months. 2. Weight gain. We each gained 15-20 pounds within the first 2-3 weeks after quitting! That is nearly impossible through simple overeating. So two weeks after we quit, NONE of our clothes fit. We both had to buy new tops, bottoms, and underwear. The only thing we could keep was our shoes. This cost at least $500 just to get some lightweight, low-budget stuff, as we didn't want to buy nice clothes for our F-A-T selves. So if quitting smoking is going to save money, don't count on it for at least a year. Our top weights, Me: 5'9", 200 lbs (normally 165-170). Renee: 5'2", 147 lbs (normally 115-120). If you don't think this would alter one's self-esteem and send most people back to their cigarettes, guess again. 3. Anxiety-induced ailments. We had major intestinal gas problems. Sometimes I nearly knocked myself off my own chair. Renee had it so bad she got a spastic colon and went to the doctor. He prescribed Tranxene, which cleared it up. Stress produces illness. Quitting smoking creates much stress on the body. (Nicotene is the most addictive substance known to man, both in terms of the quantity required to addict, and the persistence of the addiction after quitting.) We both got sick and had to stay home more last summer than we had had to in the previous five years. The stamina just wasn't there--for AT LEAST SIX MONTHS!!! 4. The irritability factor is phenomenal. I almost punched out a co-worker because he knocked over some of my papers. Nearly every weekend my wife and I fought over something really stupid, to the point where we began to doubt the soundness of our marriage (that is, until we got the Tranxene). 5. We were unable to make rational decisions for at least six months. We hired a landscaper to put ground cover on our yard. He hosed us for $3000 which came up weeds. It would not have happened under any other circumstances in my life. 6. For all the above reasons, it jeopardized my job. Who wants an employee who doesn't wake up all day, who is distracted very easily, who doesn't have the stamina to work a full day, whose attendance record is suspect, who is surly and irritable? One final note: to add insult to injury, the medical insurance company disallowed our claims (a total of eight-five piddling dollars) for the doctor's visit for the spastic colon, the diagnosis (nicotene withdrawal), and the treatment (Tranxene, a mild tranquilizer) even though they cover illness (spastic colon?), drug treatment (but nicotene's not a drug??), and anxiety and nervous disorders (but since it was just cigarettes, it couldn't have been too bad???). Would the insurance company have paid for a coronary bypass or lung removal? You Betcha! So quitting smoking is possible, but not easy. I lost a year of my life to quit smoking. I wasted $4000 from buying clothes to fit, making irrational decisions, and experiencing medical problems. There is no immediate reward in spite of the BULLSHIT the American Cancer Society spews out. I lost wind and stamina for six months. I lost my sense of health and well-being. I continued to refrain from smoking because I knew I'd be better off in the long run. And now, nearly 12 months after I quit, I am finally beginning to feel the benefits.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/13/84)
An excellent and frightening article on smoking! My respects to the author. One point he made, excerpted below, is quite important: > One of the strongest reasons to start smoking is pre-addiction. > My wife's mother smoked 2 packs of unfiltered Pall Malls > while pregnant with Renee, who is now my wife. > Thereafter, for the next 20 > years, Renee shared 988 square feet with her mother and step-father > who each smoked at least two packs of cigarettes per day. > When Renee took up smoking at about age 17, she was simply > following a craving she'd had all her life. It's like craving > eggs if you have a protein/cholesterol deficiency. This is further evidence for a contention I have stated for years. Simply put, for a parent/stepparent/guardian to smoke is child abuse. If you care about your or other children, for whatever reason, it is inexcusable for them to be exposed to smoke or smokers, whether in the womb or out of it. There is no reason to treat this child abuse any differently than that involving physical beating or imprisonment or any of the other forms for which parents/guardians are criminally charged. A movement to add "smoking while pregnant or in the presence of or in the same domicile as a child" to the legal definition of child abuse in the various states may well be the most effective anti-smoking tactic for the effective reduction of smoking. I wonder why the Surgeon General has not adopted this tactic instead of emphasizing the dangers to current adult smokers. Why waste time on them; if the next generation can be weaned away from smoking, the problem will vanish as the preceeding one dies off. Will
barnett@ut-sally.UUCP (Lewis Barnett) (06/13/84)
>A movement to add "smoking while pregnant or in the presence of or in the >same domicile as a child" to the legal definition of child abuse >in the various states may well be the most effective anti-smoking >tactic for the effective reduction of smoking. I wonder why the >Surgeon General has not adopted this tactic instead of emphasizing >the dangers to current adult smokers. >Will I suspect that the tobacco lobby is simply too strong for this idea to be politically feasible, however sensible it seems. I'm certain that the smoking public would also raise merry hell if any legislator brought such a bill before the congress. Lewis Barnett,CS Dept, Painter Hall 3.28, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 -- barnett@ut-sally.ARPA, barnett@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!barnett
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/13/84)
Nationally, and in many states, the tobacco lobby WOULD be too strong, as it is currently. However, it might be possible to get it through one or two states, if it was simultaneously introduced in all, and the tobacco lobby had to fight it everywhere at once. So it might be possible to get a toehold that way and work on others gradually. The tobacco lobby will inevitably weaken as fewer people smoke; they'll own some states forever (or thereabouts) and therefore some congresscritters, but elsewhere the power will diminish and such efforts as these will have a better chance. Will
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (06/13/84)
(oo) <- a healthy set of lungs....
Nice horror story, John, but you've made the mistake of projecting
your own experiences on others. Just because you had a horrible
time kicking, there's no reason to assume everybody does. I'll
try to relate my own experiences:
I started smoking at age 17 for the usual stupid reasons. At the time,
it seemed like something I was supposed to do, just part of becoming
a man. Why not? Both my parents smoked, as did many of my friends. I
really got hooked when I went away to college and discovered that
smoking is a way to relieve tension. It gives you something to do when
you don't know what to do next, a real boon to the activity addict.
Needless to say, there're a lot of times when I don't know what to
do next, so I smoked a lot, as much as three packs a day, with a mode
of 1.5 packs. It probably averaged out to 2 packs per day, and this
went on for 13 years.
My decision to quit came about as part of the traumatic process of
turning 30. I realized that I was not really going to live forever
and that my health was nothing to screw around with. Now, I couldn't
climb two flights of steps without getting dizzy, and couldn't swim
a length of the pool underwater. What really did it for me, though,
was realizing just how offensive my habit was to others. My breath
and clothes stunk, I had a yellow sheen all over everything I lived
with, and I polluted the air around me for several yards every time
I lit up. I used to think that it wouldn't bother anybody as long
as I didn't exhale in their direction. What put the cap on it was
my non-smoking office mate's remark that his wife could smell my
cigarette smoke on his clothes when he got home from work. He was
never nasty about my smoking, either, just civil as could be.
I quit cold turkey in late February, 1980. The experience was very
uncomfortable, but not unbearable, and the worst of it was over after
three days. For a period of about three weeks, my sleep and bowel
habits were disrupted, but that, too, was not unbearable, and it passed
altogether after a few months. I did gain about 15 pounds, but I lost
all of it and more thanks to watching what I ate and riding a 10-speed
bicycle.
I have not had a cigarette in over four years now, and I feel better for
it by several orders of magnitude. Nowadays, cigarette smoke offends
me just as much as the most vehement, never-smoked, anti-smoker, thanks
to the quick return of my sense of smell after stubbing out that last
butt. In short, it's the biggest favor I ever did myself.
So, for any of you out there who are contemplating quitting, DO IT!
It's well worth whatever temporary discomfort you might experience,
and not as bad as some people would have you believe.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/13/84)
<> >From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) Tue Jun 12 09:38:23 1984 >... "Son, if I ever catch >you smoking," he said, "I will break both your legs." To >reassure his son that this was not infact an act of mercy, he >continued, "..and if that doesn't make you stop, I'll kill you." >Son never smoked, never particularly wanted to, after that heart- >to-heart. Who says health warnings aren't effective in discouraging smoking! By golly, those packs ought to say WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that he will kill your ass if you smoke. Thank you. Call this Damned Assured Distruction (DAD). :-) (if you need help) D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/15/84)
[*************=8>:) (snort)] > There is no reason to treat this child abuse any differently than > that involving physical beating or imprisonment or any of the other > forms for which parents/guardians are criminally charged. > A movement to add "smoking while pregnant or in the presence of or in the > same domicile as a child" to the legal definition of child abuse > in the various states may well be the most effective anti-smoking > tactic for the effective reduction of smoking. I wonder why the > Surgeon General has not adopted this tactic instead of emphasizing > the dangers to current adult smokers. Why waste time on them; if > the next generation can be weaned away from smoking, the problem will > vanish as the preceeding one dies off. Did I really read this? C'mon, Will, you're kidding, right? You can tell me, I won't give your secret away. If you're serious, though, congratulations! You have just won the Kenn Barry "Fascist-of-the-Year" Award, 2nd-class (for 1st class you would have had to propose death camps for smokers, not merely prison). But why limit this new law to parents and guardians? Surely anyone at all who smokes around children is likewise abusing them, and should also be punished. With proper enforcement we could soon have every smoker in the country behind bars, thus saving you non-smoking adults as well as your children from damnation (oops, I mean cancer). Enforcement could be a problem, though. Maybe, as a first step, we should repeal a few amendments to the Constitution; might be too hard to get evidence, otherwise. Also, how about a Surgeon-General's Youth Corps? These children could be trained to report anyone they caught smoking (if they saw 'em, it was 'in the presence', right?) to the police. And let's not forget the fringe benefits! Suppose you have a neighbor that you know is nothing but un-American commie filth, and a smoker, besides. No longer would they be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment, for we could turn them in to the Smoke Police. This is almost identical to what we did with some political radicals in the '60's, only it wasn't tobacco they were smoking. It's sure nice to know that there are still people who understand that the best solution for any problem is to throw somebody in jail. Send me flames, I need a light. Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/15/84)
"write in haste, repent in leisure" Just reread my last submission - "Fascist-of-the-Year" should read "Fascist-Idea-of-the-Year". No personal attack was intended on the author of the posting I quoted, only on the idea expressed in his posting. Apologies tendered for any misimpressions caused by my sad lack of care in phrasing. Kenn Barry
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/19/84)
An amusingly defensive response. Yes, it was serious. And what makes you think that adding "smoking in the presence" (we need a good abbreviation here) will result in all smokers ending up in jail? All current child abusers are not in jail; practically none of them are. To enlarge the definition of "child abuse" as I suggested would merely add another category (smoking) to the lists of actions considered to be "abuse". Enforcement, conviction, etc. would be as haphazardly and unfairly applied in this case as it is now in all other cases, and most "offenders" would not be punished at all, just as it is now. What it would be is an EXTREMELY visible attack on smoking. It would have much more of a psychological effect than an actual legal effect. Interesting that your reaction did not address the issue at all. I contend that if you care about children, and that if you consider "abusing" them a bad thing, you cannot differentiate between direct physical actions against them, such as beatings, and direct psychological actions against them, such as imprisonment and "mental cruelty", and indirect physical/psychological actions against them, such as sensitizing them with a prediliction to nicotine addiction. Counter that argument if you can. Don't waste time on flailing about. Will
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (06/20/84)
Anti-smoking legislation has less chance of passage than just increasing
the taxes on it even more. I'd favor a $2.00/pack Federal nuisance tax
on cigarettes, in addition to the already exhorbitant taxes on them now.
The tax would be collected by the manufacturer, and would only filter
(pun unintentional) down to the consumer through the usual chain of
middlemen. This would reduce black-marketeering.
The money collected could be used to fund cancer research and go toward
anti-smoking information campaigns. The large price of cigarettes would
induce more people to stop, discourage young people from starting (when
I was a kid, I had to be frugal with my allowance. Unfortunately, cigs
were $0.35 a pack then, and I smoked 'em), and put the burden of public
expense for smoking on the people who cause the problem.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishlaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/03/84)
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