Too Real

When is it too much toy?

"Talk To Me Elmo" is an interesting toy. Now I have not seen one in action in person, but I have heard one in action over the phone being played with by my friend's 2-year-old and have seen the slightly more venerable "Tickle Me Elmo" which started that toy ball rolling. It was very interesting listening to "Elmo" chattering away with my "niece" while my friend was on the phone. My friend described how Elmo was flapping his arms and how my niece was flapping hers and later how she had set Elmo up at her drawing table expecting Elmo to do some drawing.

(image to left of "Talk To Me Elmo" from USA TODAY.com)

Now I don't think that "Talk To Me Elmo" is quite up to doing any drawing... yet ... but it did get me wondering about what people have said in the past about the effect of television on children. I was wondering about the effect of such life-like toys on children. There was always this controversy about how children might not understand the difference between reality and fiction, or reality and fantasy with the television offerings they had. That was combined with the large number of hours of TV viewing that children were starting to have.

Toys like the new Elmo might be bending that line further. Perhaps not too much problem with the current generation of Elmo toys, but what about the near future?

This Elmo can interact with the child at least by touch and "...remembers a child's name and habits..."¹ according the the 2005 article on USA TODAY.com. The current one I know does much and probably more than the 2005 edition.

I am not sure if we should be worried or at least be concerned over the direction toys might be taking in blurring the boundaries between toy and reality... or is it toy? These toys are small robots and computers and the children are becoming very comfortable with them.

Of course perhaps we have to watch about not the boundary between reality and illusion, fiction, or fantasy -- but rather the boundary between life and automation.

Later!
~ Darrell

153.

__________
¹ "New tech toys walk, talk and play tunes this Christmas" Sept 6 2005; Angela Moore; Reuters USATODAY.com -- Tech Products..

Hair!

A Hairy Issue - I thought we were beyond this.

I thought this sort of thing was out of the dark ages of modern western civilization. A 5-year-old kindergarten student was apparently punished for his family's religious beliefs¹. In Needville Texas the Needville Independent School District (NISD) have forced an American Indian kindergarten student into "isolated In-School Suspension"¹. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas is saying it is for the student practising his family's religious beliefs and heritage -- and indeed it is -- but it centres around the school dress code and the young boy wanting to keep the long hair that is a part of his American Indian Heritage.

(image to right from American Civil Liberties Union of Texas)

The boy's -- AA² -- Father is of American Indian heritage and follows American Indian religious beliefs and he and his son belive that one's hair should only be cut for "life-changing-occasions, such as the death of a loved one."¹ believing that hair is a sacred symbol of their own lives. The boy's hair has never been cut.

The School District has a dress code which requires boys to have short hair and their response to a successful appeal that the NISD can not force the boy to cut his hair is that he keep it in a single tight braid tucked out of sight down the back of his shirt at all times. He must also re-prove his religious sincerity to NISD officials every school year.

The parents requested exemption from that area of the dress code over 8 months before school and it wasn't until a week before school that it was granted after appealing the initial denial.

I gather that "Independant School District" does not mean the school is a private one or religious one but the normal public school for the area. I might understand that a school that is a religious institution might have some restrictions, but this seems out of place in our day-and-age.

Perhaps it is because I come from a generation when hair length was at the heart of things. When I was in kindergarten many of the boys had brush cuts and others had different short styles. But it was also the time when the Beatles became popular and long hair was made famous or infamous by the "Hippies". Gradually long hair became more and more acceptable and by the time I reached Grade 7 and Junior High School they had changed dress codes to allow for much that wasn't allowed the year before. But this was 1971. That was the first year that jeans were allowed in our school -- of course not any jeans with "rivets". Girls still were not allowed to wear pants in school which was awkward in -30º - -40ºF weather with girls changing in the halls.

But boys by the time I reached grade 12 sometimes had hair that was a foot or more long! That was in 1975-76 when I graduated. I guess there weren't the problems with gangs and such... I have heard that they are trying to combat hairstyle as a distraction in the school system.

(image to left of 6-year-old with Mohawk from USATODAY.com)

Distraction at least is what they are claiming in the case of a boy in Parma, Ohio shown here. The Principal of the school, "Linda Geyer" says that the boy's hairdo was "disrupting the educational program."³There is a school uniform at that school and the boy wears it, but they have given him a third infraction of the school dress code and suspended him from his kindergarten class.

In this case it is a matter of freedom of expression rather than religious freedom, but for some I think they would be very similar. In USATODAY,com there is an article pointing out yet anothr case of a 7-year-old sporting a "Mohawk" -- "a 3-inch spike of hair running down the middle of his scalp."⁴

In another article -- again from USATODAY.com⁵ -- where they describe coveralls for students breaking the dress code to wear, they have a link to the Dress Code for "Gonzales Independent School District"⁶.

Tuesday, 15 July 2008
GONZALES DRESS CODE
The District’s dress code is established to teach grooming and hygiene, prevent disruption, and minimize safety hazards. The district prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, obscene, that advertise tobacco products, alcoholic beverages of any kind, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under school policy. It prohibits any dress or grooming that, in the principal’s judgment, may reasonably be expected to interfere with normal school operations. The dress code applies anytime a student is on campus during a normal school day and anytime a student is involved in an event or extra-curricular activity that represents Gonzales ISD. Co-Curricular and extra-curricular uniforms will be specified by the sponsors of organizations and approved to meet GISD Standard of Excellency by the campus Principal. Violations of the dress code; see student code of conduct for consequences. Students and parents may determine a student’s personal dress and grooming standards, provided that they comply with the following:
1. No student on school property or at any school activity shall wear, possess, use, distribute, display or sell any clothing, jewelry, emblem, badge, symbols, sign or other things, which are evidence of membership or affiliation in any gang.
2. Hair must be neat and clean. Boys’ hair must not extend below the bottom of the collar of a dress shirt, below the bottom of the ear, or over the eyes.
3. Any hairstyle, which by its appearance causes a disruption of any kind, as determined by a school administrator, is unacceptable.
4. Males must be clean-shaven if facial hair is noticeable. Sideburns cannot extend below the bottom of the ear.
5. Shorts, skorts, dresses, and skirts should be to the knee and appropriate for the school setting. Decency when sitting shall be a prime factor in determining appropriateness for the school setting.
6. Miniskirts, leggins, tight shorts, tights, cut-offs, wind shorts and biker shorts may not be worn; including jean shorts that are tight and rolled up.
7. All shirts will have a collar and sleeves. All shirts will be free of words and/or pictures and may have a logo of not larger than a 2 inch square. NO t-shirts are allowed except for Gonzales Apache spirit shirts which may be worn any day of the week. All shirts worn by males must be tucked in. Shirts worn by females must be tucked in if they are longer than the bottom of the hip.
8. All clothing that shows undergarments is unacceptable, including clothing with conspicuously low necklines and/or low backs.
9. Sagging pants (pants worn below the waist) will not be allowed. Belts will be worn in grades 5-12 for all male students. Pants must be hemmed and not frayed. Nylon, athletic, or wind pants are not acceptable. Boxer or spandex shorts are not acceptable as outer wear and must not be visible.
10. Oversized clothing or coats may not be worn. Sweaters, sweat shirts, and jackets must not fall below the back pockets.
11. Clothing such as undergarments, muscle shirts, halter-tops, cropped shirts, tank tops, spaghetti straps, and clothing that shows a bare midriff or cleavage are not acceptable.
12. Students shall not be permitted to wear hats, caps, sunglasses, sweatbands, or other disrupting apparel in any building on campus during school hours.
13. Garments that have spikes (bracelets, necklaces, belts, etc.) are not permitted.
14. Males may not wear earrings. Females may wear earrings. No other body piercing jewelry of any kind will be accepted.
15. Bare feet and metal taps are not acceptable.
16. Cleats may not be worn in any school building. Shoes with built-in skates or wheels (Healies) are not permitted in any building unless the wheels have been removed.
17. Clothing that displays violence, obscenity, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under policy FNCF (L), is prohibited.
18. Any other attire that disrupts the educational process as determined by a school administrator is prohibited.
19. The school, advisor, or sponsor of any specific activity or function may impose additional guidelines.
20. Additional dress code guidelines are required by S.A.F.E. They may be obtained from the campus principal.
21. Inappropriate tattoos will be covered at all times as determined by school administrator.
22. House shoes, distracting, or unsafe shower shoes (beach type) will not be allowed.
23. No cargo pants allowed.

Perhaps much is understandable and most would agree is reasonable -- though of course coming from a T-shirt and jeans generation... some seems excessive. I would have problems with my own personal T-shirts and cargo pants that I wear and probably the track pants I wear normally while I am losing weight and my waist is changing so much. I have a few pair of pants with belt loops...

I can only imagine what they would do with groups such as the devout Sikh or people of other religious groups who have set religious rules about dress and hair that do not fit this set of rules. I guess they would feel these people belong in separate schools? Perhaps even in their own separate parts of the city or town so as not to disrupt things?

I don't know... I look at the picture of the boy's Mohawk, and I did have a better picture of the boy with the braided Native American hair, and if this is disruptive to the educational program... those must be very poor programs. There had better not be anything controversial in any newspaper the children might read or newscast they might see.

Later!
~ Darrell

144

¹ "ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because of Family's Religious Beliefs" Posted Oct 2, 2008 (updated Oct 9, 2008) American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

² AA will be used to identify the boy in this article.

³ "School suspends kindergarten student over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney, (Photo by Peggy Turbett, The Plain Dealer via AP) February 27, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

⁴ "FLA. school boots little boy over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney April 24, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USA TODAY.com.

⁵ "School district will force dress-code violators to wear blue jumpsuits" Posted by Mike Carney July 30, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

⁶ "Gonzales Independent School District -- Dress Code 2008-2009" 15 July 2008; Gonsales Independent School District.

Thunder in the Distance - It wasn't Zeus on Mt Olympus

Freedoms of Expressions Clash at Official Start of Olympic Spirit Train

It was mostly cloud Sunday afternoon -- September 21st, 2008 -- and though the Sun only showed occasionally, it wasn't rainy and it was very pleasantly warm for the assemblage who turned out for the launch of the "Olympic Spirit Train"¹. (image to left of 2010 Winter Olympic Locomotive -- image from Canadian Pacific) I didn't go to the event at the Port Moody West Coast Express Station, but I sure ended up experiencing it²

I was a bit buried in some work -- I have other projects on the go -- and hadn't realized that the Olympic Spirit Train was launching from just blocks away from The Gnomestead.³ I began to hear the sound of "tom toms" in the distance and at first thought the Air Cadet band had come to practise at the local schoolyard. The music continued and got louder and I realized that it must be coming from some sort of celebration which I figured was at the local Rocky Point Park -- they have an outdoor stage there. The music started to expand to include other cultures than Aboriginal American and was okay in the background and I sort of enjoyed the ethnic diversity we have here. But then I heard a different sort of chant and drum. That chanting and ranting that we have begun to hear again and again with all sorts of gathering where protesters have gathered -- whatever the protest or statement being made.

(Spirit Train Landscape -- Image from Canadian Pacific)

I must admit that the forms the chants take became boring to me years ago regardless of the words they put to them, but I recognize that the pattern and chanting helps to unify the protesters into a cohesive group. That is something important -- especially if you expect opposition of some sort.

I couldn't make out the words, but with the music sounding like there was some sort of "cultural mosaic" celebration I could only guess that the celebration was being protested by "Right-To-Life" people or perhaps it was a group protesting for or against gay rights. They seem to use the same sounding chants.

The chants being loud enough for me to hear from blocks away -- between 3 and 6 depending on where the event was -- became very annoying. Isn't it interesting how sound can be more annoying depending on content? Music you like at one volume in the distance is okay but music or chanting you don't like is annoying. The volume of the music began to increase too. It started to actually be louder than the music I had playing at the Gnomestead so I had to shut my windows for the remainder of the afternoon.

(Protest banners blocking CP Spirit Train Stage - image to right from No2010.com)⁷.

I found out later, on the 5-o'clock news, that it was the Olympic 'Spirit Train' send off celebration and that there was a fracas there with Anti 2010 Olympic protesters trying to interrupt the proceedings.

The protesters were protesting the Olympic Games' impact on the environment, the homeless, and on aboriginal rights.² There were around 3 dozen protesters.² Police arrested two people in connection with the protest. PM Police Sgt Phil Reid said he experted the protesters would be charged with assault.⁴ From the reports they say that the protesters where shouting "Homes, not Games!"⁴ and shouting down the scheduled entertainment for more than an hour. The performers turned up the volume but were unable to proceed.⁴

According to one of the protester's shouts:

The Province⁴

"I think the idea is to make some f---in' noise here," shouted Garth Mullins, a fixture at anti-Olympic protests. "They're trying to drown us out, so let's drown them out."

(image to left taken by Dawn Paley of protesters from The Dominion)⁸

The protesters positioned two large banners so it was difficult for the audience to see the show and tempers flared when spectators tried to see the entertainment despite the banners and protesters. Colin Hansen, BC minister responsible for the Olympics; federal minister James Moore and four other guest speakers cancelled their speeches.⁴ One of the acts which was interfered with that was performing on stage was an aboriginal band. Cree musician Dallas Arcand sang and beat on a drum while his music was drowned out by screaming and banging on pots by the protesters.⁵

The protest did move from in front of the stage to the Canadian Pacific corporate tent next to a table where families were collecting autographed postcards.⁴ Eventually the protesters moved on to the Port Moody police station where the arrested protesters had been taken. The Globe and Mail⁶ reported 40 protesters were present.⁶  The Dominion's Dawn Paley⁸ puts the number of protesters at 50 while the No2010.com website places the number at up to 75 protesters. With the Canadian Press estimate of around 36 and from what it looked like on TV I would personally say that the number was between 36 and 50.

(image to right taken by Dawn Paley of protesters being arrested from The Dominion)⁸

There are a number of different sides to the whole episode. There is the side of the Olympic promoters and the people who were putting on the whole send off for the Olympic Spirit Train. There is the side of the Protesters who very much want their message to be heard on the injustices they see being done to the homeless or those who might become homeless and the aboriginal people, and the damage that they see being done to the environment. There is the side of the politician who does not want to see discord in the community. There is the side of the police who are there to keep the peace and the law... hopefully the two coincide. There is the side of the public who have come to be entertained at a family event and celebration open to the public. There is the side of the entertainers who are their to express themselves in their art. There is the side of the people in the neighbourhood who expect to live in a peaceful community and the businesses in the neighbourhood who expect the same.

It is not peaceful to sit at my desk in my room and listen to this protest war. The argument with the volume control over who can be loudest is not confined to those for or against the Olympics. While the protesters were heard to say that the protests did not bother or scare their children that they brought -- their children were brought to the event expecting to be taking part in their parent's protest. The children at the event were there with their parents expecting to be entertained at a show and they were -- from what I saw on camera and what parents and reporters said -- scared, afraid, or at least bothered by what was going on.

(No 2010 banner from no2010.com)

Perhaps the protesters nearly outnumbered the spectators? (Gord hill speaking on behalf of the "Olympics Resistance Network")⁸ Perhaps the police presence was too much with three separate police contingents? Regardless, there was too much something.

The event was attended by uniformed and undercover officers from:⁸ the Canadian Pacific Police Service, the Port Moody Police Department, and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service. The Dominion Paper⁸ also reported a large group of private security guards from Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security. While I am not sure of numbers, I do note that the train is on CP property and their train and thus responsibility of their CP Police Service; the venue for the event being the Port Moody West Coast Express Station Park and Ride lot means that Translink is also responsible and thus the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service; and the whole station is in the City of Port Moody so it is fairly obvious that the Port Moody Police Department be there.

(image to left, Spirit Train - image from Canadian Pacific)

I am sure that a quiet protest at the entrance to the event with the banners and placards would have announced to everyone the issue without problem. But I am also sure that there was a desire for confrontation that would be enough to make news headlines and national television news coverage on the part of protesters. It was pointed out that a number of the faces among the protesters are regulars at many different sorts of protests and seem to be keys in organizing them. I recognize the faces without them being pointed out.

I do believe in freedom of expression -- which I believe is a part of freedom of speech -- but I think that there is a problem where what people are considering a "freedom of expression" is instead infringing on other's freedom of expression, and on other's rights to peacefully appreciate that freedom of expression.

People do have a right to peacefully protest and make their voice heard -- but stretching things just a slight bit farther to illustrate a point -- would they have the right to disrupt a movie in a theatre or a show on stage to make their point?

(image to right of Vancouver 2010 Mascot Wallpaper from Vancouver 2010)

I agree with some of the points of the protesters, but not the protest. I agree that there are also many benefits that come with hosting the Olympics as well. I do think that we could be getting greater benefit from the games and we could be creating fewer problems with them as well. But I don't think the protesters are helping with the way they are protesting.

I think that the protesters of the games lost much credibility before with some of their protests -- I think they may have lost a lot of support with their "demonstration" on the 21st.

Later!
~ Darrell

139

__________
¹ "Vancouver 2010 Mascots Sumi, Quatchi and Miga join the CP Spirit Train Experience" Breanne Geigel Sept 8, 2008; Canada Pacific

² "Departure of Olympic 'Spirit Train' met with protesters in B.C." Sep 21, 2008; The Canadian Press

³ If you hadn't gathered, "The Gnomestead" is the location from which I write and live.

⁴ "Protest mars Olympics fun" Ian Austin Sept 22, 2008; The Province

⁵ "Spirit Train spreads Games excitement" Allison Cross Sept 21, 2008; The Vancouver Sun

⁶ "Olympic spirit train makes debut in B.C." In Brief Sept 22, 2008; The Globe and Mail

⁷ "Banners Blocking CP Spirit Train Stage" No 2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land -- Resist The 2010 Corporate Circus no2010.com

⁸ "Protesters Disrupt "Spirit Train" Sendoff" Dawn Paley Sept 21, 2008; The Dominion Paper.

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.

Here's the Caboose!

What's a Caboose?

When I grew up any child -- at least in Canada and the USA knew what a Caboose was. I figure most folk who spoke English natively might know that. The "caboose" was the special train car that came at the end of a train. In fact it confused me that passenger trains didn't have them!

Now they no longer put cabooses at the end of freight trains, they have been replaced by electronic boxes of some sort they put at the back of the last car in the train. The function of the caboose as a car for the train crew no longer exists and the entire crew is -- I imagine either in the engine or in the various railroad offices.

Perhaps cabooses have become "extinct" on today's railroads, but what does this mean for the caboose in the English language? I don't imagine that many will miss it and people will simply think that those who talk about getting a "swift kick in the caboose" are a bit eccentric. They might wonder at some of the children's books that talk about trains and mention cabooses. (image of CPR caboose to right -- image from "Railway Photography by Chris vanderHeide") Of course "caboose" might not be the only word that gets you weird looks. What do you think kids today make of "Choo choo train"? Other than special tour trains and museums and in movies and on TV they might not see a steam engine or even if so not equate it with "Choo choo trains".

It is something that has happened again and again with changes in society and technology. When was the last time you talked about a "Hi Fi"? "Gramophone" "Victrola". I wonder how long before "record player" disappears from our normal vocabulary and is relegated to Scrabble games or Crossword puzzles?

I hope that doesn't happen with something like "polar bear".

Later!
~ Darrell

112.

Smoke the Trial Frontier

A Different Reason Kids Might Not Want To Smoke

I think that by now most kids and adults have been hit over the head with so many health reasons not to smoke that they might even be doing studies on how anti-smoking studies could be harming your health. But if I had children, or were to be talking to young people about smoking I think I would take a very different direction. Sadly it probably would not work for any who are already smoking with any regularity.

It has to do with choice.

I think that many young people are very sensitive when it comes to what choices they have in their lives and what limitations they have placed on them. In fact I believe that many young people might take those first puffs -- if not out of pure experimentation - do so for a large part in a form of rebellion. Smoking is not something that will kill them outright, but is a bit dangerous and probably would get them in trouble with their parents if caught to one extent or another. Perhaps they might consider it safer than drinking or doing other recreational drugs, or doing some other dangerous activity and they can always stop -- right?

That is where my own personal discussion on why not to smoke comes in. I know far too many people -- smart people, strong people, people with great will power, people who have accomplished great things -- who can not break their dance with this smoky dragon. That goes for people who are trying to quite after a few years of smoking in their teens or twenties or a decade in their twenties or thirties or after decades. That is whether they have health reason to quit or a reason like a religious one or simply wanting to go out with people who are non-smokers who simply do not like to get too close to someone who smells of tobacco smoke.

With all of these people who are finding it nearly impossible to quit smoking that there is a huge industry in patches, gums, acupuncture, and hypnosis "stop smoking" systems, I figure it is not just so simple as saying "I'm going to quit and I just need a little will power."

I figure that if I were talking to a young person I would ask, if all these people are having such big problems, and if smoking really is no big deal to you, then why risk becoming hooked to something that might trap you into a habit you'll be stuck with for the rest of your life?

I watch people dutifully go out once an hour at work for a few puffs, I'll see them dress up to go out into freezing and soaking weather, I'll see them "needing" to go out first thing when they get up in the morning and last thing when they go to bed. They are hooked.

They all had to start somewhere, some time. Perhaps one puff doesn't turn you into a chain smoker, nor one cigarette, nor a pack. I don't know when or where it happens -- the thing is I don't think that any smoker really does and I do not think any young person does either who hasn't smoked and I ask, "Is it worth getting chained to a life long habit?"

Now I don't have any children and don't really speak in front of any as a speaker, but that is the argument I would give. They all know the score as much as it will have sunk in about the health issues.

Now there are some studies showing that indeed teens do greatly overestimate their ability to quit smoking -- so it isn't just my own anecdotal observation on this.

I have this quote of epidemiologist, Jennifer O'Loughlin talking about teens' ability to quit smoking after even having smoked a short while:

. . .

Many made a first serious attempt to quit after 2 1/2 month of sporadic smoking - and most failed.

"And by the time they've have smoked for 21 months they have lost confidence in their ability to quit," O'Loughlin said. "As soon as they experience craving, the story is over."

Despite early and increasing difficulty in quitting, it took about three years for the smokers to realize that they could not quit smoking of their own free will.

. . .

©Montreal Gazette 2008
Quotation from Canwest News Service - published July 16, 2008 "Teen smokers can't quit: study" author not cited

Now of course, if not smoking, what other form might this mild form of rebellion take?

Later!
~ Darrell

87.