Cigarette sales would drop to zero overnight if the warning said "CIGARETTES CONTAIN FAT."
July 13, 2007 8:34 AM Subscribe
Harvard professor Allan Brandt has a book out, The Cigarette Century, detailing the rise of the cigarette in 20th century America and its continuing spread worldwide. Excerpted here, reviewed here. The same title was used on a very similar work in American Heritage magazine in 1992 that is also worth a look.
Ironically, I think the Barry quote could be reversed today: Junk food sales would drop to zero overnight if a warning said "JUNK FOOD CONTAINS NICOTINE"
posted by DU at 8:43 AM on July 13, 2007
posted by DU at 8:43 AM on July 13, 2007
I have a powerful reaction to the cover of that book.
I used to smoke and still sometimes enjoy second-hand smoking. I have usually responded positively to most parts of the mystique of smoking.
One thing that I have always strongly reacted to is seeing large groups of naked cigarettes. That cover creeps me out.
(as I guess it should)
posted by MtDewd at 9:01 AM on July 13, 2007
I used to smoke and still sometimes enjoy second-hand smoking. I have usually responded positively to most parts of the mystique of smoking.
One thing that I have always strongly reacted to is seeing large groups of naked cigarettes. That cover creeps me out.
(as I guess it should)
posted by MtDewd at 9:01 AM on July 13, 2007
NannyFilter
posted by RavinDave at 9:18 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by RavinDave at 9:18 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
if cigarettes contained fat i think smoking would increase.
posted by brandz at 9:38 AM on July 13, 2007
posted by brandz at 9:38 AM on July 13, 2007
"JUNK FOOD CONTAINS NICOTINE"
Nicotine itself, aside from it's addictive properties, isn't all that harmful of a drug - it's the delivery mechanism thatkills contributes to morbidity.
posted by porpoise at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2007
Nicotine itself, aside from it's addictive properties, isn't all that harmful of a drug - it's the delivery mechanism that
posted by porpoise at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2007
Despite all the studies and warning labels, nothing could stop my mom from smoking. That is, until she died of small-cell carcinoma. She lasted just over a year from the initial diagnosis. It did get my dad to stop, though. He's 85 now and still truckin' along.
posted by tommasz at 10:00 AM on July 13, 2007
posted by tommasz at 10:00 AM on July 13, 2007
Nicotine itself, aside from it's addictive properties, isn't all that harmful of a drug - it's the delivery mechanism that kills contributes to morbidity.
Actually, nicotine is good for you.
posted by phaedon at 10:06 AM on July 13, 2007
Actually, nicotine is good for you.
posted by phaedon at 10:06 AM on July 13, 2007
NannyFilter
RavinDave
Not so; this is a fascinating topic regardless of your views on health policy. The American Heritage article is really interesting. When you watch old movies and shows, everyone is smoking, so I had the impression that smoking had been common practice for a very, very long time, but really it seems like it's only been a mass phenomenon in the last 90 or so years.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
RavinDave
Not so; this is a fascinating topic regardless of your views on health policy. The American Heritage article is really interesting. When you watch old movies and shows, everyone is smoking, so I had the impression that smoking had been common practice for a very, very long time, but really it seems like it's only been a mass phenomenon in the last 90 or so years.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
It seems like it's only been a mass phenomenon in the last 90 or so years.
It might seem that way, but it's not (I think--correct me if I'm wrong). Once smoking tobacco became socially acceptable in the 18th century, it's use really took off wherever it was sold, which was almost everywhere. Among men, mostly. In pipes. Clay pipes, if I recall.
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:32 AM on July 13, 2007
It might seem that way, but it's not (I think--correct me if I'm wrong). Once smoking tobacco became socially acceptable in the 18th century, it's use really took off wherever it was sold, which was almost everywhere. Among men, mostly. In pipes. Clay pipes, if I recall.
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:32 AM on July 13, 2007
Certainly, anti-smoking hysteria been around along time. Tolstoy used to have his criminals take a puff or two to work themselves into a suitable murderous rage, somewhat like "Reefer Madness".
posted by RavinDave at 10:37 AM on July 13, 2007
posted by RavinDave at 10:37 AM on July 13, 2007
MarshallPoe
I think we're talking about two different things. Tobacco use was widespread from the 18th century among men, but if you read the American Heritage article (the last link in the FPP), it says that prior to WWI people smoked cigars or pipes. Cigarettes were considered "somewhat effete and faintly subversive", but massive use during the Great War due to cigarette companies sending free shipments to the fronts resulted in a huge boom of cigarette smoking afterwards. When the war ended, everyone, men and women, started smoking cigarettes.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2007
I think we're talking about two different things. Tobacco use was widespread from the 18th century among men, but if you read the American Heritage article (the last link in the FPP), it says that prior to WWI people smoked cigars or pipes. Cigarettes were considered "somewhat effete and faintly subversive", but massive use during the Great War due to cigarette companies sending free shipments to the fronts resulted in a huge boom of cigarette smoking afterwards. When the war ended, everyone, men and women, started smoking cigarettes.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2007
Nicotine itself, aside from it's addictive properties, isn't all that harmful of a drug - it's the delivery mechanism that kills contributes to morbidity.
Actually, nicotine is good for you.
Unless you inject it, where it's a pretty powerful neurotoxin and will kill you.
posted by quin at 11:05 AM on July 13, 2007
Actually, nicotine is good for you.
Unless you inject it, where it's a pretty powerful neurotoxin and will kill you.
posted by quin at 11:05 AM on July 13, 2007
Sangermaine. Right. I think the important thing to remember tho' is that tobacco sells itself and always has. "Big tobacco" was not responsible for giving the world the habit. The world wanted the habit, and the habit existed long before modern "big tobacco" even existed. That said, they did lie about its harmful effects and should pay the price for that.
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:38 AM on July 13, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:38 AM on July 13, 2007
"Big tobacco" was not responsible for giving the world the habit.
They did, however make it cheap, readily available. and easy to use while at the same time manipulating nicotine levels and bioavailability and manipulating the cigarette's image to make it socially acceptable. There are any number of addictive substances in nature but only alcohol and caffeine compare with tobacco in their global use and neither of those takes near the toll on health that tobacco does. Alcohol in excess is certainly devestating on health but cigarettes even in moderation are bad.
posted by TedW at 11:55 AM on July 13, 2007
They did, however make it cheap, readily available. and easy to use while at the same time manipulating nicotine levels and bioavailability and manipulating the cigarette's image to make it socially acceptable. There are any number of addictive substances in nature but only alcohol and caffeine compare with tobacco in their global use and neither of those takes near the toll on health that tobacco does. Alcohol in excess is certainly devestating on health but cigarettes even in moderation are bad.
posted by TedW at 11:55 AM on July 13, 2007
Yeah ... if Charles Lane hadn't smoked for 70 years, he might have lived to 122.
posted by RavinDave at 12:00 PM on July 13, 2007
posted by RavinDave at 12:00 PM on July 13, 2007
Unless you inject it, where it's a pretty powerful neurotoxin and will kill you.
It's all in the dosage. At high enough pressure, oxygen is a potent toxin.
Heh, you don't even have to inject it; enough of it dissolved in coffee will do the trick.
posted by porpoise at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2007
It's all in the dosage. At high enough pressure, oxygen is a potent toxin.
Heh, you don't even have to inject it; enough of it dissolved in coffee will do the trick.
posted by porpoise at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2007
MarshallPoe,
I think maybe you're reading a little too much into my comments. I was just saying that I had been under the impression that cigarette smoking had been widespread throughout society for a very long time, so it surprised me that cigarettes weren't really widely used or accepted until relatively recently.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:45 PM on July 13, 2007
I think maybe you're reading a little too much into my comments. I was just saying that I had been under the impression that cigarette smoking had been widespread throughout society for a very long time, so it surprised me that cigarettes weren't really widely used or accepted until relatively recently.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:45 PM on July 13, 2007
It's all in the dosage. At high enough pressure, oxygen is a potent toxin.
True, but 60mg is a pretty small dose when talking about something that can kill you.
Heh, you don't even have to inject it; enough of it dissolved in coffee will do the trick.
Hmm, I'll need to see if my boss needs me to get him his coffee tomorrow...
posted by quin at 12:58 PM on July 13, 2007
True, but 60mg is a pretty small dose when talking about something that can kill you.
Heh, you don't even have to inject it; enough of it dissolved in coffee will do the trick.
Hmm, I'll need to see if my boss needs me to get him his coffee tomorrow...
posted by quin at 12:58 PM on July 13, 2007
[Lights up, inhales] Looks like an nterest - *kaff* - ing read, thanks *blach* TedW!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:53 PM on July 13, 2007
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:53 PM on July 13, 2007
Lawsuits I'd Like to See Part One: Sue the DEA to Prove Nicotine Is Not a Drug
posted by homunculus at 2:40 PM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 2:40 PM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
Interesting link homunculus. I never realized that Rohypnol (Roofies) were only schedule 4 or that Ritalin was schedule 2. And to be honest, I guess I always assumed that nicotine was on the schedules somewhere. That it isn't really demonstrates that big tobacco does exert some pressure on policy.
posted by quin at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2007
posted by quin at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2007
TedW: but cigarettes even in moderation are bad
Define 'moderation' and then provide a cite. Here's one. Also, define 'bad' (it can mean lung cancer, but it can also just mean lung irritant).
quin: always assumed that nicotine was on the schedules somewhere. That it isn't really demonstrates that big tobacco does exert some pressure on policy.
Hardly. If nicotine were scheduled, roughly 50-55 million consumers, most of them hooked, would be rendered criminals. It's not Big Tobacco that's really stopping it from happening.
posted by Gyan at 8:20 PM on July 13, 2007
Define 'moderation' and then provide a cite. Here's one. Also, define 'bad' (it can mean lung cancer, but it can also just mean lung irritant).
quin: always assumed that nicotine was on the schedules somewhere. That it isn't really demonstrates that big tobacco does exert some pressure on policy.
Hardly. If nicotine were scheduled, roughly 50-55 million consumers, most of them hooked, would be rendered criminals. It's not Big Tobacco that's really stopping it from happening.
posted by Gyan at 8:20 PM on July 13, 2007
"Moderation"-approximately a pack a day; "bad"-the diseases listed here, plus deaths from fires caused by cigarettes.
posted by TedW at 9:32 PM on July 13, 2007
posted by TedW at 9:32 PM on July 13, 2007
But scheduled doesn't mean illegal, scheduled just means much more heavily regulated.
You wouldn't have 55 million criminals, you would have 55 million users of a controlled drug. One that could be monitored and controlled by the FDA and the DEA.
And if the article is to be believed, have an upset in the determination process of what makes a drug fit into what schedule, which I would view as a Good Thing.
posted by quin at 10:16 PM on July 13, 2007
You wouldn't have 55 million criminals, you would have 55 million users of a controlled drug. One that could be monitored and controlled by the FDA and the DEA.
And if the article is to be believed, have an upset in the determination process of what makes a drug fit into what schedule, which I would view as a Good Thing.
posted by quin at 10:16 PM on July 13, 2007
Disclosure: I finally quit smoking a couple of months ago and I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this issue.
Fortunately that chip seems to have a gravity of it's own because at current count, 3 of my employees/ co-workers have quit in the last month. Apparently they watched what I did and figured; if someone as unbalanced as me could walk away from the addiction without snapping, they could do it while standing on their heads... in the rain.
posted by quin at 10:22 PM on July 13, 2007
Fortunately that chip seems to have a gravity of it's own because at current count, 3 of my employees/ co-workers have quit in the last month. Apparently they watched what I did and figured; if someone as unbalanced as me could walk away from the addiction without snapping, they could do it while standing on their heads... in the rain.
posted by quin at 10:22 PM on July 13, 2007
Yeah ... if Charles Lane hadn't smoked for 70 years, he might have lived to 122.
Ah, the triumph of anecdote over statistics. The wikipedia article on tobacco smoking seems pretty good, especially this graphy a showing a five-fold rise in cigarette consumption between 1900 and 1945 and the trailing tenfold+ rise in lung cancer rates 20 years later. The graph is especially interesting because it supports the thesis 100 years ago, people didn't smoke cigarettes, to first approximation.
Or, to put it in terms you can understand, Ulysses S. Grant died from throat cancer due to smoking those cigars, and smoking can make you impotent.
posted by sebastienbailard at 4:55 AM on July 14, 2007
Ah, the triumph of anecdote over statistics. The wikipedia article on tobacco smoking seems pretty good, especially this graphy a showing a five-fold rise in cigarette consumption between 1900 and 1945 and the trailing tenfold+ rise in lung cancer rates 20 years later. The graph is especially interesting because it supports the thesis 100 years ago, people didn't smoke cigarettes, to first approximation.
Or, to put it in terms you can understand, Ulysses S. Grant died from throat cancer due to smoking those cigars, and smoking can make you impotent.
posted by sebastienbailard at 4:55 AM on July 14, 2007
"Graphy". Whoops.
posted by sebastienbailard at 4:56 AM on July 14, 2007
posted by sebastienbailard at 4:56 AM on July 14, 2007
correlation != connection
If I cared to argue the point I could cite the proliferation of lotsa things in that timespan; power lines, combustion engines ... and heck, if you divided these people by eye color and one group will inevitably have more incidents of cancer. Statistics can be as fun as anecdotes.
posted by RavinDave at 7:19 AM on July 14, 2007
If I cared to argue the point I could cite the proliferation of lotsa things in that timespan; power lines, combustion engines ... and heck, if you divided these people by eye color and one group will inevitably have more incidents of cancer. Statistics can be as fun as anecdotes.
posted by RavinDave at 7:19 AM on July 14, 2007
Every now and then, a Mefite will deposit a crystalline distillation of their thought processes that allows one to instantly assess how much weight to give their future comments, and that's a godsend in online fora.
Thanks, RavinDave, thanks.
posted by NortonDC at 8:03 PM on July 15, 2007
Thanks, RavinDave, thanks.
posted by NortonDC at 8:03 PM on July 15, 2007
NortonDC ... Your posting history on the subject amply exposes you as a hysterical noodge on this issue; a chattering twit with your nose squarely jammed into the behavior of others. Is it overcompensation or a control thing? Maybe a combo? Are you so ineffectual, impotent and frustrated in your daily life that you seek out trendy pariahs that you can bully from the anonymous safety of a like-minded pack of nannies? Or maybe you're just an ass.
posted by RavinDave at 9:15 PM on July 15, 2007
posted by RavinDave at 9:15 PM on July 15, 2007
« Older DIY AR | Choose Your Own Adventure in Graffiti Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The first paragraph of the American Heritage article; also, I don't normally quote Dave Barry but it seemed to fit here.
posted by TedW at 8:36 AM on July 13, 2007