Double standard is killing our kids

The Boston Herald

BEVERLY BECKHAM

I'm at a shoe store at the check- out counter when a boy who works there walks over to the register and tells the girl who is waiting on me that he's going outside for a cigarette.

The boy looks young, no more than 17. He's thin and cute and reminds me of my son at that age.

The mother in me speaks: "What's a smart, good looking boy like you doing smoking? Don't you know it's bad for you?"

The kid grins. "Everything's bad for you." Then he says, more seriously, "I read an article that said second hand smoke is even worse than smoking. Both my parents smoke, so I figure I may as well smoke, too."

He tells me he has been smoking since he was 12. All his relatives smoke. All his friends smoke. "I know it's a nasty habit." But his eyes say he doesn't really believe this.

"Aren't you afraid of getting cancer?"

"Nope. People who don't smoke get cancer all the time. Everybody's gotta die of something."

"What about the cost? Don't you hate spending money on cigarettes?"

"My mother works at CVS. She can get a carton for $10. That's about a dollar a pack."

Some 11,000 Massachusetts residents die each year from illnesses linked to tobacco, 435,000 nationwide. These are huge numbers.

But how little they mean.

Scare tactics mean even less. You tell a smoker about sitting beside a guy who has to carry around an oxygen tank because his lungs were destroyed by cigarettes and you get a look that says, "Yah? Well that's not gonna happen to me."

Sometimes it doesn't. A smoker relates a story about an uncle, a two-pack-a-dayer, who lived to be 87. Never sick in his life. Stepped off a sidewalk and got hit by a car. This is the kind of tale smokers choose to believe.

Non-smokers, of course, see things differently. They condemn smoking. They denounce the cigarette companies for enticing people to smoke. They lobby for laws, which will limit where and when smoking is allowed and push for tax increases so that the high cost of cigarettes will deter people, especially young people, from smoking.

Which brings me to Question 1. Should Massachusetts voters impose a 25 cent per-pack state tax on cigarettes, which would be used to pay for smoking and drug prevention programs? Good God, yes. The wonder is that this sensible proposal is actually on the ballot in this state.

It wasn't all that long ago when schools were tripping over themselves giving kids permission to smoke first on school grounds, then in school buildings, because kids were going to do it anyway.

Giving permission is what we tend to do best.

Giving permission is what we tend to do best in Massachusetts. Some 38,000 of our young people begin smoking every year. The ballot initiative aimed at getting them to stop smoking - or even better, to never start - is unique for this state.

Consider how we deal with AIDS, another health issue. We don't say don't. We don't say condom companies are conning you. We don't talk about how they're getting rich pedaling their wares. We don't warn kids that AIDS isn't the only sexually transmitted disease to worry about, that there are others, with terrible long-term effects.

If we treated smoking the way we treat AIDS, counselors would be in schools telling kids that smoking is a controversial issue, yes, with serious risks involved. But whether to smoke or not to smoke is their decision.

Picture it: "If you decide to smoke, boys and girls, we encourage you to take precautions. Do not inhale. This will cut down on your risk of lung cancer. Do smoke in well-ventilated areas. This will reduce your exposure to second hand smoke. Make sure you know your cigarette. Don't smoke just anything. Choose the ones with the lowest amounts of tar and nicotine. And above all, always use a filter. That way, if you accidentally inhale, you will be protected."

Of course, there would be filters in the bathrooms for those who need them and support groups for kids for whom filters failed.

Isn't it ludicrous that as a society we get hell bent on righting one wrong, while at the same time we rationalize another.

Is smoking bad for you? Sure it is. So we'll vote yes on Question 1 and assuage our consciences a little.

Recreational, indiscriminate sex is a health hazard too. And yet we continue to wink at its promotion virtually every- where we look.

But the message in both cases is the same. It's the promise of independence, glamour and maturity. And it's a lie paid for in lives.