The flaw in this argument is obese children.
Children didn’t smoke in 1970 so the explosion of obese children can’t be blamed on them smoking less.
It’s the food and the chemicals. The food and the mass produced goods are poisoned.
High-fructose corn syrup is probably the worst: high-calories, produces insulin spikes and carries estrogen-like chemicals from corn. Studied independently under current guidelines it would probably be banned.
Portion size: there was plenty junk food in the 60s like soda, chips, etc. But no ginormous sodas and bags of chips. Restaurant portions were also much smaller. You were full easting an ordinary meal, but now we train ourselves to overeat big portions and still feel hungry after eating an adequate meal.
Most importantly is exercise: kids were encouraged to go out and play and there were no video games, computers, and smart phones. I am often in Europe and you can see European kids are catching up with obesity now, too, despite the fact that food quality in Europe is much better than here.
When we were kids, we walked to school, played outside and rode our bikes all over the neighborhood. Today, we set our kids down in front of computer screens, never let them out of our sight, then scratch our heads and wonder why they become flabby and obese.
Very excellent point.
The growth in obesity can’t be blamed on any one thing. There are multiple factors. Sedentary lifestyles due to changes in workplace, transportation, entertainment, increased leisure time. The price of food has fallen drastically as a percentage of income while it’s availability has risen. And the big focus on cheap carbohydrate and seed oil heavy processed foods and beverages drives an unhealthy insulin response that packs on the pounds.
Exactly. The difference between the past decades and today is that people were more physically active. Adults worked more physically demanding jobs rather than being sedentary office drones. They engaged in sports or outdoor pastimes rather than watching Netflix. Kids played sports or at least played outside rather than playing computer games. Smoking had nothing to do with either - the whole article is based on the author's inability to distinguish correlation and causation, or else he's simply being dishonest in order to advocate for smoking.
I have a pretty libertarian attitude towards drug use - someone is free to smoke like a chimney until they get emphysema, or drink until their liver fails. As far as I'm concerned they should be free to use meth or heroin until they overdose as long as they aren't pushing it on kids, or go around dishonestly telling people that any of the above are good for them.