| There is known evidence that smoking when young, | | | | becoming smokers! This strongly suggests that |
| whether directly or passively, has a much more | | | | advertising will in fact influence whether or not children |
| significant impact on future health than starting when a | | | | start smoking.Smoking has definite detrimental health |
| young adult. However, there is a major health risk | | | | effects on children and known smokers have double |
| associated with smoking irrespective of when | | | | to six fold increased likelihood of respiratory illnesses |
| smokers' start and half of all smokers will die | | | | including coughs, phlegm, wheeziness and shortness of |
| prematurely due to smoking.In the UK, about 1 in 4 girls | | | | breathe. This results in significantly poorer attendance |
| and 1 in 6 boys at the age of 15 smoke. The higher | | | | records for these children at school. It is also known |
| proportion of girls smoking is thought to be due to the | | | | that in non-smoking children exposed to secondary |
| (false) assumption the smoking acts as an appetite | | | | smoke i.e. passive smokers, there is an increased risk |
| suppressant and aids dieting. The current likelihood of | | | | of bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and other chronic |
| boys and girls smoking has reversed from the | | | | respiratory illnesses.Infants also suffer considerably |
| statistics in the 1970s and 1980s when more | | | | from secondary smoke. This is compounded by the |
| secondary school boys smoked.Whilst the likelihood of | | | | size of the children being smaller, the concentration of |
| smoking in girls is biased as a result of their | | | | the toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke are |
| misconceptions of appetite suppression, boys or girls | | | | extenuated. Babies, infants and children all have |
| are three times more likely to smoke if their parents | | | | significantly increased likelihood of contracting cancer |
| smoke. It is accepted that parental approval or | | | | dependent upon the amount of time they have been |
| disapproval does have an impact on the likelihood of | | | | exposed to secondary smoke. There is a directly |
| children to take up smoking. However, it is the child's | | | | proportional correlation between exposure and risk and |
| peer group and elder siblings that are the most | | | | as such babies risks are greatest, followed by infants |
| influential on their take up of the habit.Tobacco | | | | then children.The socio-economic background of |
| advertising, whilst not widely regarded as encouraging | | | | children is a major determinant factor in whether or not |
| smoking within the tobacco industry itself has a | | | | children smoke themselves or are exposed to |
| significant impact on children smokers. Children are | | | | secondary smoke. Children from poorer backgrounds |
| more likely to select a brand that is heavily advertised | | | | are not only more likely to have smoking parents and |
| than one which is not. According to Charlton, White | | | | hence become more likely to smoke themselves. They |
| and Kelly in their paper "Boys' smoking and | | | | also suffer more from secondary smoke as a result |
| cigarette-brand sponsored motor racing", an interest in | | | | of their parents increased likelihood of smoking. It is in |
| motor racing doubled the chance of the children fans | | | | effect, a vicious circle. |