On another article I wrote recently about an anti-smoking campaign, a smoker wrote the following comment:
"Funny how ALL of the world's oldest people are, or were smokers. Not a non-smoker in the bunch. In fact Britain's oldest smoker just died. He was 102, and my friend's grandma just died last month at 107, also a smoker. Car crashes kill more people than smoking does! Those numbers of smoking "related" deaths you read are computer generated, not one name attached, nor can they or will they give one if one is demanded. There aren't any! Propoganda [sic] is propoganda, no matter how you come up with it. In fact, Oregon's funeral director's handbook states to list anyone who dies, even if it's a 25 yr old in a motorcycle accident, as smoking related if he smoked, or someone in his family smoked. It's all bull!"
Her comment made me wonder -- if she truly thinks smoking is healthy and not in the least bit harmful, would she allow her small children to smoke? She seems to be making the argument that smoking is responsible for people living to more than 100 years old, since she claims that none of the oldest living people are non-smokers. If she genuinely feels that smoking is "good" and gives one longevity, did she or would she allow her small children - say, under 12 years old - to smoke?
If you are a smoker, do you agree with the quote above, that cigarettes are not unhealthy and do not contribute to early deaths? If the law allowed it, would you allow your children to light up a cigarette at 3, 5, or 9 years old? If not, why not?



