Smoking mums have 'problem kids'

So, if they can't get smokers to stop smoking because of the threat of death and every disease known to mankind falsely attributed to smoking, then the fraudulent researchers can then threaten women with smoking leading to bad kids. Of course there is no reason to ever believe that this would happen, yet the freaks at anti-smoking march forward in jackboots. The idiots do not even resemble scientific researchers anymore. They are just freaks.

Sheri wrote:

So, if they can't get smokers to stop smoking because of the threat of death and every disease known to mankind falsely attributed to smoking, then the fraudulent researchers can then threaten women with smoking leading to bad kids. Of course there is no reason to ever believe that this would happen, yet the freaks at anti-smoking march forward in jackboots. The idiots do not even resemble scientific researchers anymore. They are just freaks.

"Sheri": You may be wrong. Infact I'm living proff you're wrong.>>;~)

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> "Sheri": You may be wrong. Infact I'm living proff you're wrong.>>;~)

Had your mom not smoked, we might never have had the pleasure of experiencing your highly unique personality.

I smoked no more than 4 cigarettes a day, contrary to my doctor's advice to smoke no more than 8. As a light smoker who also had the issue of age risks during pregnancy, I can share the outcome of my children and their behavior. My daughter is a junior in college with a 3.4 grade average who is known for her smile and easy going attitude as well as her generosity. My son is a high school junior with a 140 IQ and a 3.97 GPA in AP classes. His lowest grade in the last five years is an A-. He was honored as one of 8 kids who has NEVER gotten a discipline slip. He is active in church groups, has never had a drink or smoke, and is known for his sweetness. He does have some friends whose mothers have never smoked who are what we used to call "hell on wheels" One of those kids was not allowed to go on the eighth grade trip because of his accumulation of discipline slips. His mom claims that was because the big bad teachers like to pick on poor little Jonathon. I rather doubt that, having had Jonathon stay overnight at my house as I watched him run up and down the stairs and throw things all over the room. Another friend of my son's had very strict parents who neither smoked or drank. Now, that their son is 17, he has become fond of both alcohol and little cigars. A third friend's mom has offered my son free dinners at the local Mexican restaurant the kids love if my son will tutor her son in trigonometry so that he does not fail. Those parents are also committed non-smokers and non-drinkers. I thank God every day for my two children and am particularly thankful that they were not mixed up with babies from non-smoking moms like those who produced the above children.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> "Sheri": You may be wrong. Infact I'm living proff you're wrong.>>;~)

Because you and most every other anti smoker has issues with their parents ( that,s a surprise for ya huh?) does not make the allegations a fact. I suggest you seek counseling for you're past parental problems.

Sheri wrote:

I smoked no more than 4 cigarettes a day, contrary to my doctor's advice to smoke no more than 8.

No, "contrary" is not the right word. You followed your doctor's advice (since you smoked no more than 8 cigarettes a day.)

Since you limited your smoking even more than he recommended, you must have thought smoking could have been bad for your baby. Why didn't you just quit smoking completely while you were pregnant?

Glad your kids turned out fine!

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
No, "contrary" is not the right word. You followed your doctor's advice (since you smoked no more than 8 cigarettes a day.)
Since you limited your smoking even more than he recommended, you must have thought smoking could have been bad for your baby. Why didn't you just quit smoking completely while you were pregnant?
Glad your kids turned out fine!

I didn't quit completely because my doctor and many others at the time of my pregnancy said that quitting completely was more stressful and harder on the baby than smoking no more than 8 cigarettes a day.

Sheri wrote:

He does have some friends whose mothers have never smoked who are what we used to call "hell on wheels" One of those kids was not allowed to go on the eighth grade trip because of his accumulation of discipline slips. His mom claims that was because the big bad teachers like to pick on poor little Jonathon. I rather doubt that, having had Jonathon stay overnight at my house as I watched him run up and down the stairs and throw things all over the room. Another friend of my son's had very strict parents who neither smoked or drank. Now, that their son is 17, he has become fond of both alcohol and little cigars. A third friend's mom has offered my son free dinners at the local Mexican restaurant the kids love if my son will tutor her son in trigonometry so that he does not fail. Those parents are also committed non-smokers and non-drinkers. I thank God every day for my two children and am particularly thankful that they were not mixed up with babies from non-smoking moms like those who produced the above children.

So, based on your experience, will you encourage your daughter to smoke so her children won't be raised by a "non-smoking mom"?

Before you do, you may want to consider this:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/f...

"The data from adoptive families suggest that exposure to parental smoking represents an environmental risk for substance use in adolescent offspring. In biologically related families, the effect of exposure to parental smoking is larger and more diverse, including substance use, disruptive behavior disorders, delinquency, deviant peer affiliations, aggressive attitudes, and preference for risk taking."

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
So, based on your experience, will you encourage your daughter to smoke so her children won't be raised by a "non-smoking mom"?
Before you do, you may want to consider this:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/f...
"The data from adoptive families suggest that exposure to parental smoking represents an environmental risk for substance use in adolescent offspring. In biologically related families, the effect of exposure to parental smoking is larger and more diverse, including substance use, disruptive behavior disorders, delinquency, deviant peer affiliations, aggressive attitudes, and preference for risk taking."

My daughter has never had a cigarette. She is almost 21 and has many college friends who smoke. She is not interested in smoking, but she doesn't mind if others do. Ditto for my 17 yar old son. My kids have none of those conditions, so WTF is your point in repeating them? As I said before, my son's friends who come from non-smoking homes and do indeed abuse substances, show disruptive behaviors, and have aggressive attitudes. I mark it as due to having nanny anti smoking parents who tend to spark that rebellious streak in their kids. I feel sorry for them.

year old

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I said before, my son's friends who come from non-smoking homes and do indeed abuse substances, show disruptive behaviors, and have aggressive attitudes.

So, aren't you worried about your grandkids, since they will come from one of those non-smoking homes?

Interesting how all of your anecdotes seem to run contrary to what common sense and social research tells us is typical. You remind me of the lyric from a Paul Simon song "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
So, aren't you worried about your grandkids, since they will come from one of those non-smoking homes?
Interesting how all of your anecdotes seem to run contrary to what common sense and social research tells us is typical. You remind me of the lyric from a Paul Simon song "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

They are not anecdotes. They are absolutely true stories. Here, in the real world where I live, we depend on common sense and experience rather than statistics from "scientists" on Big Pharma's payroll. You should try it. As for my grandchildren, I am absolutely not worried because my kids are not paranoid nanny types. They will be able to raise their kids with common sense, rather than fear. For the record, I was referring to anti-smoking parents, not non-smoking parents.

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
So, aren't you worried about your grandkids, since they will come from one of those non-smoking homes?
Interesting how all of your anecdotes seem to run contrary to what common sense and social research tells us is typical. You remind me of the lyric from a Paul Simon song "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

You must have reading comprehension problems.

Here is what Sheri said....

"I mark it as due to having nanny anti smoking parents who tend to spark that rebellious streak in their kids. I feel sorry for them."

How could you miss that...oh controlling one?

Here is your latest "social research" from the new group of self righteous moral busybodies who think they are something new...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2242...

An unusual study released in the British Journal of Psychiatry suggests that there is a link between childhood candy consumption and adulthood violence. Simon Moore and others from the University of Cardiff followed 17,000 children for the past 40 years and discovered those that ate candy daily as 10-year-olds were significantly more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as adults. In fact, the police already had booked 69 percent of the daily sugar eaters for violence by age 34. Even after accounting for sociological differences, a significant link between candy and violence remained.
---------

Oh...and just so you know...the self righteous control freaks over at PETA say the same things about the meat addicts.

First they came for the smokers....

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
They are not anecdotes.

Yes, they are.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdo...

an&#8901;ec&#8901;dote
–noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they are.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdo...
an&#8901;ec&#8901;dote
–noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

God, I feel sorry for you.

"Sheri" Have you ever considered you may be the exception that proves the rule?:~)

just candid wrote:

"Sheri" Have you ever considered you may be the exception that proves the rule?:~)

Exception to what rule?

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they are.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdo...
an&#8901;ec&#8901;dote
–noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

So, what's your point? All of me "anecdotes" are 100% true.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
So, what's your point? All of me "anecdotes" are 100% true.

Well, when you said:

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
They are not anecdotes. They are absolutely true stories.

That seemed to indicate that you thought the word "anecdote" meant something untrue. That's why I posted the definition.

My larger point is that whenever a statistic or study is posted, you respond with an unverifiable counter-example (an "anecdote") from your personal experience. I tend to discount that "information" from you because it always seems to be self-serving.

http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

"Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate."

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, when you said:
<quoted text>
That seemed to indicate that you thought the word "anecdote" meant something untrue. That's why I posted the definition.
My larger point is that whenever a statistic or study is posted, you respond with an unverifiable counter-example (an "anecdote") from your personal experience. I tend to discount that "information" from you because it always seems to be self-serving.
http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
"Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate."

I have not told one single lie in anything I have ever posted here. Whether you believe that or not is inconsequential.