Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.med
Subject: Re: Why Smoke?
Message-ID: <3055@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 16:51:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3055
Posted: Tue Jun 19 16:51:21 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 05:44:09 EDT
References: <3045@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <332@ames-lm.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 28

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