Sunday, August 29, 2010

Torches of Freedom

"I never smoked a cigarette until I was nine." - H. L. Mencken


I just finished reading a book titled The Cigarette Century by author Allan M. Brandt. The sub-heading on the book's cover describes it thusly: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. It is certainly no exaggeration to argue that the cigarette was indeed the dominant consumer product of the American 20th Century. Indeed, by the mid-point of the century more then half of all American adults were habitual cigarette smokers. That by itself is quite remarkable when you consider that the cigarette was scarcely in evidence when the century began.

A century ago, the cigarette was widely viewed as a "dirty habit", and a disreputable form of tobacco consumption. A mechanical means of rolling cigarettes, all of a uniform quality, was only the first step in the process of turning them into the preferred method of consuming tobacco. Just as important, was the campaign to change the public perception of cigarettes. In fact, that campaign marked the birth of modern advertising and marketing. The tobacco companies were aided immensely by the advent of the First World War. When asked what the nation could do to assist in the war effort, General Pershing famously answered "You ask me what I need to win this war. I answer tobacco, as much as bullets.". And by "tobacco", he meant cigarettes.

Once they had secured the rights of male smokers, the tobacco interests turned their attention to the "disenfranchised" half of the population. Consequently, in the hands of shrewd marketers, cigarettes became "torches of freedom". It was considered socially unacceptable for woman to smoke in public, right up through the 1930's, and the industry set out to knock down those barriers. In an era that saw woman struggling to attain equal status with men, the very act of smoking in public became a powerful statement of equality. The result was an astonishing increase in cigarette sales.

Throughout the first-half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry enjoyed a period of sustained growth that was literally without precedent. The cigarette, and smokers, became ubiquitous. The industry spent liberally on advertising, and the ads always featured happy and attractive people enjoying the good life, of which the cigarette was an integral part. Hollywood pitched in with the result that you could hardly find a movie in which the stars didn't smoke cigarettes. The cigarette quickly became an indispensable prop in cinema, an object that could be employed to convey any number of meanings. In 1950, the outlook couldn't have been brighter for the industry.

Then, came the fall. Over the course of the second-half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry went from being respected and admired, to being castigated as lying "merchants of death". The industry fought back ferociously with every tool at it's disposal, legal and otherwise to create and sustain a "controversy" over the scientific evidence. The industry managed, in the face of overwhelming evidence that their product poisoned and killed it's users, to continue promoting and selling cigarettes.

The list of crimes that one can level at the tobacco industry is a long one. Topping it of course, would be the deliberate addicting of generations of children, many of whom would be consigned to a slow and painful death by way of lung cancer, emphysema, or any one of a host of other serious medical conditions, all attributable to years of smoking cigarettes. One would be hard-pressed to find a more convincing case of corporate malfeasance. And yet, they are still in business. The story of how that came to be would take up much more space then I am willing to dedicate to it right now. Maybe another time...






5 comments:

  1. I find it ammusing that long-time smokers consider themselves "victims" of the tobacco industry.

    While all the dangers of smoking may not have been known years ago, anyone who thought that sucking a mouthfull of smoke into one's lungs was healthy, is only a victim of his own stupidity.

    My grandfather used to refer to cigarettes as "coffin nails" way back in the 1950s, so I assume people were aware of a danger.

    One could also argue that soda and fast food is also a dangerous threat to health, possibly moreso that smoking. One must also admit that driving might be one of the greatest health risks.

    I suggest we take government out of tobacco altogether. No more subssdizing its production or regulating and taxing its consumption. I think the free market can decide as well as any government employee, the cost vs. benefits of using the product.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for taking the time to read my post and comment on it. As far as your assertion that individual smokers should assume responsibility for their own decisions, I will say this: Every single smoker I have known, and I include myself in this category, took up the habit as children. The tobacco companies have long been aware of that fact and have tailored their marketing efforts accordingly. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance. They have known that for a long time as well. It should classified as a drug, and regulated by the food and drug administration. Cigarettes are the only legal product I know of, that when used exactly as intended, sickens and kills it's users.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last time I checked, McDonalds is a legal product in most parts of the United States, although I have not been to NYC for a while and Mayor Bloomberg may have ended the right to eat such things in his fair city.

    I have never read a cigarette package that included instruction, so what is the evidence that they are "intended: to be smoked at the rate of two packs a day?

    I have smoked since I was about 27 years of age, I have never smoked more than a few cigarettes a day, save the occasional big partying night, when I tend to overdue things a bit.

    One would have to be delusional to believe that even mild smoking is a healthy activity, sucking smoke into one's lungs will probably not improve lung fuction; however, what is the real downside? We do not know, all studies come from organizations that have plenty of skin in the game.

    I will submit that mild smoking is no more dangerous than over-eating, excessive alcohol consumption, scrambles eggs and omelets, milk shakes, riding bicycles and motorcycles, climbing tall trees, backyard swimming pools, grilled cheese sandwiches, mountain climbing, skateboarding, blind dates, surfing..... Well, you get my point.

    Life is dangerous, and I can live with that. A completely safe bubble is not what I seek for myself or children because such a bubble WILL eventually fail, death happens to be unavoidable. A government run bubble will, like all such programs, not only fail, it will more than likely accelerate the eventuality.

    A cigarette do not "sicken and kill" every user, it might increase ones chances of becoming ill, but death was not discovered after the advent of smoking, it had been around a long time before tobacco. All smokers do NOT die from tobacco. Many are unfortunate victims of auto accidents, drowning, murders, etc.

    The last organization I want deciding what is best for myself and family are the self-described "leaders" and reprobates inhabiting Washington, DC , and that includes the good-for-nothings probably eating lunch about now (it is 11:45 am) at the FDA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete