Parents were not just worried about the situation, they were indignant. It turned out that they recently found out that their teenage son was smoking e-cigarettes with his classmates. In the very first discussion-ban, we heard from our son: “What’s wrong, now all of our people are floating.” That is, he explained to his parents that it was normal that many of his friends and classmates smoke electronic cigarettes. I was very surprised at their reaction, since I sincerely believed that this was the most harmless hobby and then, “what beautiful rings you can make!” In general, the parents and son did not hear each other and in this dramatic conflict they came for a consultation. All the adults’ arguments leaned towards to convince the guy that his addiction is wrong. We had nothing to show for his arguments. Father: Smoking is harmful! Son: There is no nicotine, it’s safe. Father: I forbid you to smoke these electronic cigarettes! Son: You smoke yourself, who would say, but these cigarettes are not even real! Part of the consultation proceeded in this spirit. The parents listed all the punishments they had already taken and were planning to take. The son commented on their punishments as unfair. He was very offended that his instrument of pleasure had been taken away, and that he had been deprived of other things pleasant to him. He was offended and angry, and his parents were perplexed and helplessly asked for my help. What should we do? If we were talking about smoking tobacco products, then our law and medical research simplified the situation, and the rightness would, naturally, be on the side of the parents. But, such The parents had no arguments. And most likely there was no practice in conducting such disputes, conversations when the beliefs and opinions of both sides differed. This applies to disputes not only about bad habits, but also differences on issues of politics, morality, norms, etc. The teenager quite categorically and categorically expresses his opinion, and the parents fall for these provocations and begin to categorically insist on their own. There is no dialogue. If there are two opinions in a dispute, then, first of all, we must recognize these different, non-coinciding points of view on the same issue. “Yes, you now think that education is not important for you, and you don’t want to study now, but maybe over time you will think differently,” this is what parents say to their growing children. But there are situations when parents there is no time to wait for their child to come to his senses and decide to correct the situation, to make up for lost time. It happens that parents have to firmly demand obedience from their child. And this can be justified, since the children themselves, having become adults, reproach their parents and tell them: “I dropped out of school due to my stupidity, I lost time, I missed so many opportunities! You could have insisted and forced me to study, I couldn’t then understand how right you were!” But of course, parents cannot afford to have such a debate with a teenager who is doing something “not harmful” or “not dangerous”. In such cases, we are talking about the health and safety of children. Children argue, defend their “pleasures”, not understanding all the consequences and dangers for themselves. And such disputes take place with a positive result for everyone, if by adolescence the parents have not lost their authority, trust, respect, if they know how to listen and understand each other.