Comments on: Cigarette sales would drop to zero overnight if the warning said "CIGARETTES CONTAIN FAT."

Cigarette sales would drop to zero overnight if the warning said "CIGARETTES CONTAIN FAT."

TedW — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:34:25 -0800

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.

By: TedW

TedW — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:36:16 -0800

The patient at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, in 1919, might have wondered during his last days why all the physicians were so peculiarly interested in his case. When the man died, Dr. George Dock, chairman of the department of medicine, asked all third-and fourth-year medical students at the teaching hospital to observe the autopsy. The patient's disease had been so rare, he said, that most of them would never see it again. The disease was lung cancer. The first paragraph of the American Heritage article; also, I don't normally quote Dave Barry but it seemed to fit here.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:43:49 -0800

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"

By: MtDewd

MtDewd — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:01:32 -0800

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)

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:18:07 -0800

NannyFilter

By: djgh

djgh — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:36:12 -0800

Also worth a look, Thank You For Smoking.

By: brandz

brandz — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:38:15 -0800

if cigarettes contained fat i think smoking would increase.

By: porpoise

porpoise — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:39:19 -0800

"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 that ~~kills~~ contributes to morbidity.

By: tommasz

tommasz — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:00:13 -0800

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.

By: phaedon

phaedon — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:06:04 -0800

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.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:23:05 -0800

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.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:32:31 -0800

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.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:37:53 -0800

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".

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:40:42 -0800

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.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:05:12 -0800

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.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:38:46 -0800

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.

By: briank

briank — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:51:07 -0800

Good post. Thanks.

By: TedW

TedW — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:55:12 -0800

"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.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:00:16 -0800

Yeah ... if Charles Lane hadn't smoked for 70 years, he might have lived to 122.

By: porpoise

porpoise — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:43:39 -0800

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.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:45:40 -0800

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.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:58:44 -0800

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...

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:53:37 -0800

[Lights up, inhales] Looks like an nterest - *kaff* - ing read, thanks *blach* TedW!

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:07 -0800

Lawsuits I'd Like to See Part One: Sue the DEA to Prove Nicotine Is Not a Drug

By: quin

quin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:19:36 -0800

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.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:20:38 -0800

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.

By: TedW

TedW — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:32:35 -0800

"Moderation"-approximately a pack a day; "bad"-the diseases listed here, plus deaths from fires caused by cigarettes.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:16:44 -0800

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.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:22:45 -0800

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.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 04:55:26 -0800

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.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 04:56:33 -0800

"Graphy". Whoops.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:19:11 -0800

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.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:03:36 -0800

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.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:15:55 -0800

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.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:00:44 -0800

Confirmation. Unneeded, yet welcome.