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