Here is an area where local governments can aid parents: by helping their children not smoke.

According to an Associated Press story, smoking bans in restaurants DO curb smoking among teenagers.

Youths who lived in towns with strict bans were 40 percent less likely to become regular smokers than those in communities with no bans or weak ones, the researchers reported in the May issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

The findings back up the idea that smoking bans discourage tobacco use in teens by sending the message that smoking is frowned upon in the community, as well as simply by reducing their exposure to smokers in public places, said Dr. Michael Siegel, of Boston University School of Public Health, and the study's lead author.

Of course, parents wield enormous influence over their children by kicking the habit themselves.

The study found that having a smoker as a parent or a close friend was a factor in predicting whether children experiment with cigarettes. But strong bans had a bigger influence on whether smoking grew into a habit, reducing their chances of becoming smokers by 40 percent.

Massachusetts is among 23 states to ban smoking in most public places, including restaurants and bars, according to AP.

We all know smoking is a disgusting, unhealthy and unnecessary habit. But should smokers pay more for their employer-sponsored health insurance?

The Tribune Company, which owns major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, says "Yes"-- and they are not alone.

The media conglomerate is drawing fire from its unionized employees for imposing a $100 monthly fee on workers (and their covered family members) who smoke. Company officials say it is a necessary cost-containment effort, as they pay the lion's share of insurance coverage.

Union leaders say the fee is just an additional (and contract-forbidden) premium, and it could lead the company down the proverbial slippery slope. A writer at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel posted this in a blog item:

"Will there be fees for alcohol use? Eating fast food? Having high cholesterol? Not adhering to proper weight/body mass guidelines?" he wrote, in part. "The other thing that gets me is that there’s no reward for not being a smoker. If the company imposed a surcharge on smokers and then gave a proportionate break to all the non-smokers I could maybe be a little more positive about the whole thing. Instead, everyone’s premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums are going up next year...

My two cents:

1. It's a fact that smokers are much more likely to deal with chronic and expensive health conditions, as well as endanger the health of those around them. I think it is fair to ask them to pay more for insurance.

2. Smoking is a choice; eating is, obviously, necessary for survival. So while obesity and diabetes and high cholesterol are very real problems, healthy and nutritious food isn't equally affordable or accessible to everyone, thanks in part to misguided government policies and subsidies. So penalizing poor people for eating off the dollar menu at McDonald's isn't a valid comparison.

The health care situation in this country is an undeniable mess, but I am grateful to my employers for offering me and my family insurance. If not for them, I would be uninsurable, thanks to a burst appendix and the emergency surgery that followed 9 years ago.

I do agree with the writer quoted above that rewarding non-smokers makes more sense than just penalizing those who light up. My former employer (another major newspaper company) had a "Wellness Rewards Program" that refunded us up to two months of insurance premiums for doing simple things like getting dental check-ups, regular Pap smears and flu shots; exercising regularly; and not smoking or at least trying to quit.

What do you think? Is it fair to penalize smokers? Is it too Big Brother-ish? And am I the only one who gets irrationally angry when I see some troglodyte tossing a butt out their car window and using the world as their personal ashtray? (In case you're wondering...yes, I believe that my personal feelings toward smoking color my view on the health insurance issue.)

Discuss...and take the poll!

There is a wonderful, quaint candy store in the heart of our little downtown area. I love it. My kids love it. The problem? They sell candy cigarettes. I didn't notice, but my 5 year old daughter sure did. She was mortified as we've been teaching her that smoking is a no-no. Below the fold is an email exchange between the owner and me.

The MPAA film rating system was first instituted in 1968 (the year of my birth) and has gone through about as many changes as I have. The mystery-shrouded MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration recently announced the newest rating criteria: flagrant depictions of smoking will earn a film an R rating.

(The announcement) outlined three paramount factors as reviewers consider the impact of smoking in films: Is smoking pervasive in the movie? Is it glamorized? Is there a historical reason or other factors that make inclusion of smoking relevant?

In an interview yesterday, Joan Graves, chairwoman of the association's ratings board, described the new ratings system as "an art, not a science. We don't have rules like if you see incidences of smoking three times it's this rating, if you see incidences of smoking four times it's this rating."

To illustrate the complexity of their task, Graves pointed to the 2005 drama "Good Night, and Good Luck," the cinematic portrayal of the battle between the chain-smoking Edward R. Murrow and red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Even though smoke clouded nearly every frame of the film, because it reflected a period of rampant smoking, it still would have kept its PG rating under the new system -- but with a notation that it included heavy smoking.

A few factors greased the slides for this move. Former father of the movie-rating system Jack Valenti died. His successor Dan Glickman does not have the same reluctance to telling filmakers how and when to use images of smoking. This time around, they brought out the big guns: the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health and other prestigious researchers testified to Hollywood heads in February about the impact that glamorized images of smoking in films has on teenagers' behavior.

"Any portrayal of tobacco in a glamorous or a positive way or as an adult-thing-to-do puts adolescents at much greater risk of using tobacco," said Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the Office on Smoking and Health at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who said that teens who are repeatedly exposed to smoking in movies are 1 1/2 to 2 times more likely to start the habit than teens who see less movie smoking.