Anti-smacking arguments are bad logic

Researchers confirm what we all knew: that firm discipline combined with tender care and love is the best way to raise children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10004517/Smacking-does-children-no-harm-if-they-feel-loved-study-claims.html

The anti-smacking lobby need some new arguments.

Does imprisoning criminals teach them that it's OK to kidnap people?

Does fining criminals teach them that it's OK to steal money?

So why do the anti-smacking brigade allow discipline via "the naughty step" or withholding away your children's pocket money - but claim that smacking your children means that you're teaching them to be violent?

The inability of the anti-smackers to imagine a smack in any other terms than a violent assault says nothing about the realities of discipline as carried out within loving homes. It says something very worrying about what presumably must be going on in their homes.