Cigarettes are not illegal but city, state and the federal government are stretching the Constitution to do everything they can to limit the damage done by smoking, especially to our youth.
Their theory is that we all end up paying for the results when smokers eventually get sick so “we” as a society must act to prevent young people from smoking as an act of collective fiduciary responsibility. They argue that without action the healthcare industry is going broke from treating smokers from smoke related illnesses. They say we must protect people from themselves because smoking is sooooooo addictive.
Armed with an obvious belief that behavior can be modified by Big Brother programs, the government spends millions of dollars in PSA’s starring drug addicted sitcom stars urging young people not to start smoking.
They’ve even prohibited tobacco companies from advertising in certain situations whee minors might see it and be influenced. Hollywood has taken up the cause and even made some movies R rated due to smoking in the film.
But since the government believes it not only has the responsibility of protecting young people from themselves but the ability, why then does it completely ignore the problematic issues related to underage sex.
Why does our government ignore sex-related “illnesses” in young people and just for giggles let’s include pregnancy in that because let’s face it that’s how they see it.
If government had a consistent approach they’d be doing everything they could to prevent unmarried sex because we all end up paying the healthcare costs of young mothers.
In its addictiveness smoking has nothing on sex. Let’s face it, sex is quite addictive and people (especially our youth) must be protected from themselves, right?
What about abstinence PSA’s? If the government believes they can effect young people’s behavior by sitcom stars telling them what to do why not employ the same efforts to curb underage sex?
Why not restrict advertisers from using sex in commercials geared towards young people? How about Hollywood treats underage sex in movies as something undesirable rather than the apotheosis of cool?
Certainly, young people engaging in premarital sex is as least as dangerous to themselves and society as smoking.
So why do we spend so much and try so hard to prevent young people from smoking and then just throw our hands up as a society when it comes to sex saying “Ah, they’re just going to do it anyway?
The government’s reaction of just handing out condoms is like putting filters on cigarettes – and about just as effective.
July 16, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think maybe one of the reasons is because they use the "it's just natural" argument a lot to win points. Priests can't be celibate because "It's not natural." Homosexuals are "born that way," despite a decent amount of evidence that it could be psychologically based. God doesn't exist because "It's not natural."
Or maybe it leads to a whole "Responsibility" angle the Government just really, really hates. We have to have Social Security and Medicine and school because, really, we're just not responsible people, and we need the Government to help us.
And of course there's always the theory that having "Pee Wee Herman" tell you not to do drugs just makes you want to do drugs even more. Oh yeah, that's right. Check out You Tube if you haven't seen it.
July 16, 2009 at 4:20 pm
As I recall, the censors gave the Lord of the Rings movies a hard time because nearly everyone in the movie smokes a pipe at some point.
Point of trivia: Pipe tobacco does not have a surgeon general's warning on it.
July 16, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I think we can all agree that premarital sex is immoral. Sexual immorality is only tolerable when the accomplice is against big government. Sexual morality should be based on one's political affiliation. Morality and partisan politics should always go hand-in-hand. As long as you subscribe to the talking points of the morally superior political party of "family values", you have a free pass to any sexual deviance you wish, because, remember….as our Republican Senator Craig (caught in a gay sex sting operation) chastised Bill Clinton by stating: "Bill Clinton, you're a naughty boy! A nasty, bad, naughty boy!" Oh yeah. I guess we really don't like to acknowledge the speck in our own eye since we don't live in glass houses.
July 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Anonymous,
Huh?
July 16, 2009 at 5:36 pm
One thing that bugs me is how a young girl's first time is always "fun" or "exciting." Would it be as tempting if it was portrayed as painful, which it is? The experience is always wonderful and fantastic and perfect… and not painful. It would be a good way to discourage it.
July 16, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Yeah. I think if we scare girls by telling them it's painful, we won't have to teach them the Theology of the Body. It's easier just to scare them. Then they won't want sex and maybe they won't want marriage one day either.
July 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Okay, anonymouses,
Can we at least agree that a cultural shift is in order here?
First of all, anonymous 1:01, there's really no reason to be snarky. Let's face it, not all the adolescent girls out there are Catholic. And of the Catholic girls, not all of them will have parents or pastors willing or able to teach ToB. Many of the Catholic adults I know haven't even heard of it.
I think anonymous 12:36 had a good point about the general attitude of first-time sex for young girls. It actually always is portrayed as the perfect orgasmic experience. If the culture could tell girls what the first time is really like, that it will be painful and awkward and that they will be at the mercy of a partner who may or may not respect them at the time or afterward, they (the girls) might actually want to put it off til they find someone trustworthy who doesn't view them as an object. And if they marry Mr. Trustworthy first, they'll have many years to perfect the technique and erase the possibly negative memories of the painful first time. Finally, also, Mr. Trustworthy can prove himself willing to view the girl as something more than a brief carnal pleasure by promising her forever first, in front of witnesses in a place of worship.
There, see? We really all can get along.
July 16, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I agree with William. I think there's a strong undercurrent of "it's healthy and natural." As in: teens who *aren't* having sex are unhealthy.
Not my idea, just the messenger.
July 16, 2009 at 11:46 pm
1. anything the government (or ANY government) can do to curb smoking is GOOD. Yes, people have a right to be idiots. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it difficult for them.
2. anything the government, society and especially PARENTS can do to discourage premarital sex is GOOD. But considering how few people trust or care what the government says on ANY issue, I wouldn't think it would be the most effective tool in this fight.
3. A girl's "first time" is NOT necessarily painful. It can be, but absolutely does not have to be. If it happens between two fumbling teens who don't know what they are doing, then most likely it will be.
4. It is beyond me why Hollywood has not been pressured/censured into haulting teen/pre-teen sex on screen. All the ratings board has to do is threaten the release with an NC-17 rating, which is a death-knell for the movie, since it will thus receive no sponsors, advertising or even release venues at times. There are ways to reduce this, but I just don't think people in this country are that interested.
July 17, 2009 at 1:31 am
Very good points by the latest Anony.
On the final one, I would actually say it's because Hollywood knows what side their bread is buttered one. Everyone knows that movies are so bad only teenagers who are still clueless about renting movies older than a year go and see them. Plus the old "Sex Sells" adage. It's painful, but true.
July 17, 2009 at 4:23 am
What nonsense! I'm the Catholickest person in the world and I know it's perfectly healthy to be doing it forwards, backwards, upside down and in a leather jump-suit. Perfectly healthy. Perfectly morally acceptable. And no German in a dress is going to tell me otherwise, unless he's got a few X-rated classics to his name…
July 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Why would anyone want to smoke a cigarette in a leather jump-suit upside down? Some of you people are weird.
July 18, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Point of trivia: Pipe tobacco does not have a surgeon general's warning on it.
True, it's not a surgeon general's warning on it, but I have a dozen tins in the basement all carrying the note: "This product contains/produces chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." I doubt there is any sign at an abortuary mentioning reproductive harm.
July 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Promiscuity is less healthy than smoking.
Why wash your hands if you are going to exchange body fluids from various strangers and friends?
The lack of common sense on this issue is astounding.
July 19, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I think people who can't come up with a name other than "Anonymous" are weird….
January 19, 2010 at 5:15 am
good day!! yes, teenagers should be protected from themselves..but they should also be educated on what their actions will bring..like for instance, they'll have sex..she would suspect of course that she's pregnant after a month or two of not having her monthly period..she'll then buy a pregnancy kit (e.g. elisa test kit)..whats worse is she may be tempted to undergo abortion for that unexpected pregnancy…