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