Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Probably don't have the guts to do it, but I do think they should.
Tobacco, like most "drugs of choice", has been in use by humans for many a millenia and will not go away anytime soon, if at all.
Only PARENTS can influence their children to exhibit correct and healthful behavior while growing up under their roofs. After children leave the nest (and in some cases long before) they will do as they please, regardless of their upbringing. Sports figures and entertainment celebrities have long been (and will long continue to be) a very heavy influence on young people from preteen to young adulthood and sometimes way beyond that age.
The powers that be in MLB and other sports may indeed ban certain habit forming substances along with all drugs of choice, but people will do whatever they wish anyway, with most of them throwing away their lucrative careers in the process.
Once we stop paying these "superjocks" millions of dollars to just play a game that all of us used to play as kids out in a vacant lot somewhere just for fun, then perhaps they will no longer be the heavy influence upon our lifestyles as they are now.
If it's going away on its own, then why pass a law? What's the point?
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080630&…
How do you propose we stop paying them millions of dollars to play a game? Millions of people attend those games despite rising ticket prices or purchase merchandise, or watch them on television or follow them on the internet, and so on.
As far as this "heavy influence", I seriously doubt most people would start smoking or chewing tobacco or drinking or using some other mind-altering (or body-altering) substances because a ballplayer does it. The heaviest influence, at the crucial point where people become aware of such things and start to form desires for them, is primarily people they already know around them (parents, friends, etc), and not far off celebrities.
If you want to ban friendships or the existence of peers period (this is not the same as "peer pressure"), then that'd be more likely the solution to this issue than dealing with baseball players or some other famous source of supposed influence for most people.
Younger people are influenced by what they do. Not adults.
I don't see 5 year olds chewing tobacco. If that's what you mean.
And as far as teens, teens will tend to do what other teens in their peer group do. They don't take their cues from random famous adults very much at all by comparison.
Both of you are wrong.
Sports figures and entertainment celebrities have a very pronounced influence on children of all ages.
From birth to about 6 years of age parents have the most influence on children as far as behavior is concerned. From 6 to about 12 teachers have about 60% to 80% behavioral influence with parents covering about 5% and sports figures and entertainment celebrities filling in the rest. 13 on up you have an even split between sports figures and entertainment celebrities at about 90% with peers making up the rest. After about age 40, and only if they actually settle down and have children of their own do they figure out that parents had it right in the first place.
If you don't believe me, then ask yourself which are the most popular in entertainment and sports today . . . The answer will always be the most radical in their behavior.
What's your source?
Because you seem to be about 85% off on the last one. (and the second one is rather specious as well). There are effects from media or from popular figures, but I think you're greatly underselling the impact that immediate choices of friends or associates at that age has on someone. As in you seem to think it has no meaningful impact at all. I don't recall ever doing anything because some famous person did it or sold it on TV at that or age or any other time frame. Nor do I recall that being a very common occurrence to see anyone else doing something because it was deemed cool by a famous person. It may be more comfortable to blame these supposed famous radicals for the rebellious and rambunctious behavior of a child as they run through those teenage years, but comfort has very little to do with reality.
PS. I'd definitely question your parallel on that last point. The "most popular" in sports or entertainment is easily measured by things like "Q factor" or box office receipts or some other empirical feature. It's very rarely the most radical person. For example, the most successful actor/actress last year in terms of net pay for her work was Sandra Bullock. Who makes boring safe movies and doesn't seem like a model of insanity at all. Similarly with athletes, you've got Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, etc (I wouldn't put Tiger Woods in the radical camp either, but your mileage may vary). There was a stretch where Allen Iverson was among the most popular in basketball or John Daly in golf. Which I guess you could call them radicals if you must. But that's about as close as you get to making that idea stick.
There may well be a subculture that worships people who are deemed radical by this measure and who are most visible among teens to make it look like you have a point, but the regression back around the mean is pretty strong. Most teens are just as boring and safe as adults are. They just want to look like they are not.