Comments:Children of smokers more likely to go hungry, according to study

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

I never went Hungry, I had a Cuban grandmother to over feed me :D--KDP3 (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of my parents were smokers and I'm fat as hell. Mike Halterman (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

poor people smoke dummies, "household income accounted for some but not all" what are the numbers?

Do these children go hungry because their parents are smokers, or because their parents are "low-income"? The headline makes it sound like smokers don't feed their children enough. Perhaps the problem is the system which not only coerces people to pick up expensive and addicting habits, but then keeps them exploited, in poverty and squalor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.139.232 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew one couple with 2 (or was it three?) children. Both of them worked, and both of them smoked REALLY heavily. So much so that they were spending upwards of 500 a month on ciggies between that. Given that they were already a poor family, that was an insane amount of money to spend on a luxury item like cigarettes. But they couldn't just quit if money got tight... Gopher65_talk 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The study seems to have been "loaded". It is already a known fact that smoking is more prevalent among low-income families, so the fact that children of smokers are more likely to be underfed is no surprise. They could have picked any habit that is associated with low-incomes and reached the same conclusions. For example, I bet that people who play instant lottery games are also more likely to have underfed children. They should have done a relative comparison. Are kids of rich smokers underfed when compared to kids of rich nonsmokers? Are kids of poor smokers underfed when compared to kids of poor nonsmokers? --SVTCobra 23:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

The article implies that smoking leads to the undernurishment of children. Most likely, however, there are common factors causing both smoking and poverty/undernurishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.127.10 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

bull

i noticed in the article that the children in smoking households were from low income households and were being compared to all children overall. of course children in low income households will have more food insecurity than the national average. i am not convinced that smoking adults has anything to do with starving children....i think it has more to do with starving adults than smoking adults. and you can't blame all the worlds problems on something that you don't like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.184.25 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)