Is it fair to ban menthols? Of course not, at least not if you are a person of color. Or love the flavor of mint in the morning. Everyone else, mainly white smokers are left unscathed, or is that scathed?
But why go after menthols? The industry depends on flavorings – it is an essential part of turning cheap Bright leaf tobacco into the product we all love and use.
The fact that this process was invented by a slave by the name of Stephen in 1839 is all the more reason why we should tread lightly.
One group says this is this just another way of going after people of color. Another group says it’s a great way to get African Americans off smoking. They predominately smoke menthols and suffer disproportionately from tobacco-born illnesses.
So, to many this is just the powdered coke vs. crack debate – discriminate by way of cultural choices.
The real issue is what do we do instead?
Smoking is increasingly about self-medication and it is really only when people have chemical alternatives do they quit en masse.
Since American tobacco is so dependent on flavorings it’s pretty obvious this ban will be watered down or at least become somewhat discriminatory and absurdly shaped by lobbyists.
The truth is that light tobacco – the inhalable kind is the real problem. Not the specific flavorings.
Smoking wasn’t always about inhaling. Getting rid of fomaldehyde and glycerine may be fine but if congress really wants to help the world it should consider the lesson of President. Don’t let them inhale – just ban those kinds of tobacco and confine us to the coarse old stuff the real Indians smoked.
Case closed.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Obama Smokes Out Blue Collar Voters?
Tony Horwitz is not entirely wrong about Barack Obama attracting blue collar supporters by dropping Nicorettes and taking a return trip to smoking. [New York Times “Leader of the Pack”]
He just doesn’t have the brands right. Nor does have the tobacco history quite right.
He suggests that Obama would identify with blue collar whites by smoking Winston, the long-time cigarette sponsor of NASCAR. It’s not a bad idea, except that Winston is generally perceived as a convivial brand based on its historical connection to another great talker, Winston Churchill. It is also rarely smoked by women.
Obama is already perceived as convivial, his problem is that blue collar whites are not sure that he strong enough on defending America. For that reason, he’d be better of with Marlboro, the traditional cigarette of the fighting man which is notable for having a subliminal medal on the pack. As a bonus, this brand is also widely smoked by women. He could attract the blue collar and the Hillary vote all in one.
On the other hand, he would alienate the elite who long ago exited smoking. But wait, there is a solution.
Historically, he is right that tobacco is the first great product of America since the establishment of Jamestown. But not cigarettes - they are a 19th century innovation that only took off during WWI. You could argue that cigarettes as an inhaled form of smoke is rather like the crack version of tobacco. Historically, Indians puffed on a rough product that could not be inhaled or even taken with the portable regularity of cigarettes. In other words, Obama could still form a relationship with tobacco that does not carry the dread of lung cancer. Yes, that would be smokeless tobacco – what was once known as chew. But today, they come in a convenient pouch, endless colors, flavors and working class subtexts.
Nevertheless, he would be the better candidate if he could account for his smoking habit and reach out to voters by talking about why he got into it and what it took to get on the road to quitting.
The greater part of smoking is what it means to the smoker and why. If he could address that – and all the pieces he needs to understand this are in Cigarette Seduction – then voters would get to know who he really is as a person.
He just doesn’t have the brands right. Nor does have the tobacco history quite right.
He suggests that Obama would identify with blue collar whites by smoking Winston, the long-time cigarette sponsor of NASCAR. It’s not a bad idea, except that Winston is generally perceived as a convivial brand based on its historical connection to another great talker, Winston Churchill. It is also rarely smoked by women.
Obama is already perceived as convivial, his problem is that blue collar whites are not sure that he strong enough on defending America. For that reason, he’d be better of with Marlboro, the traditional cigarette of the fighting man which is notable for having a subliminal medal on the pack. As a bonus, this brand is also widely smoked by women. He could attract the blue collar and the Hillary vote all in one.
On the other hand, he would alienate the elite who long ago exited smoking. But wait, there is a solution.
Historically, he is right that tobacco is the first great product of America since the establishment of Jamestown. But not cigarettes - they are a 19th century innovation that only took off during WWI. You could argue that cigarettes as an inhaled form of smoke is rather like the crack version of tobacco. Historically, Indians puffed on a rough product that could not be inhaled or even taken with the portable regularity of cigarettes. In other words, Obama could still form a relationship with tobacco that does not carry the dread of lung cancer. Yes, that would be smokeless tobacco – what was once known as chew. But today, they come in a convenient pouch, endless colors, flavors and working class subtexts.
Nevertheless, he would be the better candidate if he could account for his smoking habit and reach out to voters by talking about why he got into it and what it took to get on the road to quitting.
The greater part of smoking is what it means to the smoker and why. If he could address that – and all the pieces he needs to understand this are in Cigarette Seduction – then voters would get to know who he really is as a person.
What’s in a Cigarette Brand?
David Sedaris in the New Yorker and Russ Smith in NY Press have begun a
conversation about the meaning of cigarette brands and the people who
smoke them.
Obviously, the brands say a lot about the smoker. Why wouldn’t they?
People are putting their lives on the line for them, so they ought to
stand for something important.
So how do you come up with an accurate meaning system other than
plucking stuff out of thin air? Can Sidaris really tell that Salems are
for alcoholics, is Smith right that you can trust a Marlboro smoker?
As the author of Cigarette Seduction, a book that delves into the
meaning of smoking as gleaned from the researchers who worked for the
tobacco companies, I can add some clarity.
The tobacco companies are not exactly oblivious to the deeper
significance of their brands. In fact, they began in 1922 by hiring
Freud’s first U.S. disciple, A.A. Brill to put Luckies on the couch to
figure out why women would smoke them. (“Torch of freedom,” he noted
plus it was important in an ad just who lit whose smoke.)
By the 50’s, Marloboro’s creators even published books about the
psychological testing behind the package. So most brands have a
carefully calculated meaning that is shaped by its marketing campaigns
and the user response – there is a kind of never-ending dialog going on
there.
The bottom line is that, if I didn’t know who Sidaris was but just
happened to see him smoke, I certainly would be forewarned by his
choice of Kool Milds that he was not your regular guy. Likewise, Russ
Smith, New York Press’ Mugger, is not entirely wrong in saying that he
would trust a Marlboro smoker.
Why?
Kool menthols are an odd choice for a sophisticated white male since
they are mostly popular with macho African Americans, some blue collar
whites and hip-hop wannabes. But since Sidaris chose milds, he was not
trying to keep up with the prevailing African-American machismo of the
brand. Instead, he was trying to set himself apart from standard white
male brands.
Since Kool was once the choice of blue collar white males who
considered menthols an amelioration of excessive smoking, the chances
are his family had blue collar roots. Today, menthols in general, are a
sign of pleasure-seeking or detachment. His choice of macho menthols
over say, the more feminine Salem (witchy force) or the more neutral
Newport (upward mobility) reflects his roots, his special creative
drive and sexual orientation. The brand also warns you about his
diabolic skewering of those close to him.
As for Marlboro, and Smith’s willingness to trust those smokers –
there’s an element of truth in that. Marlboro was designed to look like
a medal, so anyone who smokes it, tends to view it as some kind of
badge of honor. It is often ironic, but they do at least have a bit of
a command-and-serve instinct.
How do we know Marlboro was intended as a medal? That’s because, in the
50’s, researchers spent hundreds of thousands running tests with a
flashing projector at close to subliminal speeds to determine what
image, if any, should occupy the center of the pack. Hands down, he
crest won. If you take a closer look at the crest you’ll even see the
little inscription in Latin: Veni. Vidi. Vici. That was Julius Caesar’s
famous victory statement.
The best part is they were so proud of all this psychic probing that
researchers like Louis Cheskin even published books about this -
including pictures of him and George Weissman, the Philip Morris
executive in charge, on the back cover of “How To Predict What People
Will Buy” having a smoke while looking over color research.
Needless to say, very few Marlboro smokers are alike. But they share
some traits. You can narrow down the meaning of those traits once you
get to know their full smoking history. What, if anything did their
parents smoke? What brand did they kick of with (usually the parents’)
and what brand did they bond with? That differential alone tells you a
great deal about their entry into adult life.
Smith’s story is a good example. He copies his hip redheaded brother by
smoking Kools but begins a search for a more appropriate brand as he
cycles through other menthol choices (Newport, Alpine) until he finds
his center with non-menthol Merits. This is the brand of the
intellectual wannabe. An overachiever would love this brand, but so
would his opposite. Why? Because of the name and the strange upwardly
stepping chart-like graphic on the pack. If Sidaris sees this as the
brand of the sex addict, he has no basis except to say that if you
smoke this brand and like sex a lot, you could be an overachiever.
conversation about the meaning of cigarette brands and the people who
smoke them.
Obviously, the brands say a lot about the smoker. Why wouldn’t they?
People are putting their lives on the line for them, so they ought to
stand for something important.
So how do you come up with an accurate meaning system other than
plucking stuff out of thin air? Can Sidaris really tell that Salems are
for alcoholics, is Smith right that you can trust a Marlboro smoker?
As the author of Cigarette Seduction, a book that delves into the
meaning of smoking as gleaned from the researchers who worked for the
tobacco companies, I can add some clarity.
The tobacco companies are not exactly oblivious to the deeper
significance of their brands. In fact, they began in 1922 by hiring
Freud’s first U.S. disciple, A.A. Brill to put Luckies on the couch to
figure out why women would smoke them. (“Torch of freedom,” he noted
plus it was important in an ad just who lit whose smoke.)
By the 50’s, Marloboro’s creators even published books about the
psychological testing behind the package. So most brands have a
carefully calculated meaning that is shaped by its marketing campaigns
and the user response – there is a kind of never-ending dialog going on
there.
The bottom line is that, if I didn’t know who Sidaris was but just
happened to see him smoke, I certainly would be forewarned by his
choice of Kool Milds that he was not your regular guy. Likewise, Russ
Smith, New York Press’ Mugger, is not entirely wrong in saying that he
would trust a Marlboro smoker.
Why?
Kool menthols are an odd choice for a sophisticated white male since
they are mostly popular with macho African Americans, some blue collar
whites and hip-hop wannabes. But since Sidaris chose milds, he was not
trying to keep up with the prevailing African-American machismo of the
brand. Instead, he was trying to set himself apart from standard white
male brands.
Since Kool was once the choice of blue collar white males who
considered menthols an amelioration of excessive smoking, the chances
are his family had blue collar roots. Today, menthols in general, are a
sign of pleasure-seeking or detachment. His choice of macho menthols
over say, the more feminine Salem (witchy force) or the more neutral
Newport (upward mobility) reflects his roots, his special creative
drive and sexual orientation. The brand also warns you about his
diabolic skewering of those close to him.
As for Marlboro, and Smith’s willingness to trust those smokers –
there’s an element of truth in that. Marlboro was designed to look like
a medal, so anyone who smokes it, tends to view it as some kind of
badge of honor. It is often ironic, but they do at least have a bit of
a command-and-serve instinct.
How do we know Marlboro was intended as a medal? That’s because, in the
50’s, researchers spent hundreds of thousands running tests with a
flashing projector at close to subliminal speeds to determine what
image, if any, should occupy the center of the pack. Hands down, he
crest won. If you take a closer look at the crest you’ll even see the
little inscription in Latin: Veni. Vidi. Vici. That was Julius Caesar’s
famous victory statement.
The best part is they were so proud of all this psychic probing that
researchers like Louis Cheskin even published books about this -
including pictures of him and George Weissman, the Philip Morris
executive in charge, on the back cover of “How To Predict What People
Will Buy” having a smoke while looking over color research.
Needless to say, very few Marlboro smokers are alike. But they share
some traits. You can narrow down the meaning of those traits once you
get to know their full smoking history. What, if anything did their
parents smoke? What brand did they kick of with (usually the parents’)
and what brand did they bond with? That differential alone tells you a
great deal about their entry into adult life.
Smith’s story is a good example. He copies his hip redheaded brother by
smoking Kools but begins a search for a more appropriate brand as he
cycles through other menthol choices (Newport, Alpine) until he finds
his center with non-menthol Merits. This is the brand of the
intellectual wannabe. An overachiever would love this brand, but so
would his opposite. Why? Because of the name and the strange upwardly
stepping chart-like graphic on the pack. If Sidaris sees this as the
brand of the sex addict, he has no basis except to say that if you
smoke this brand and like sex a lot, you could be an overachiever.
Monday, February 18, 2008
How Come School Shooters Don’t Seem to Smoke?
How Come School Shooters Don’t Seem to Smoke?
[We revisit this chillingly cogent argument - should cigarettes be considered a form of self-medication? Or, since cigarettes are addictive and consumed like clockwork whereas most shooters are set off because they quit their antidepressants - should not the two should be combined?]
by Alan Brody
After the horrific shootings, there is always a swarm of agents with alphabet soup windbreakers that rummage through the wreckage. Leading this group is the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is generally there to find casings and match them to the weapons.
It’s hard to imagine how much difference this information will make since we already know who the shooter was and just how legally they got their top of the line weapon technology.
So why aren’t they making good use of their time on the "A" and the "T" - looking for alcohol bottles and discarded cigarette butts? Granted, psychopaths seem to shun alcohol on their highly organized trails of retribution. But what about cigarettes?
Good and bad people - even sober judges - smoke. So how come there never seems to be a trail of smoldering butts? No unfinished Marlboros to mark their High Noon moment? Never a cruel cigarillo to show their contempt for society and its second-hand smoke regulations?
This is not just the Virginia Tech killer, the mad boys of Columbine seemed to be similarly abstemious. Then there is the shooting at Pearl, Miss., Jacksboro, Tenn. - and even the Amish country schoolhouse where I just can’t think of any one of them puffing on a stick, Bogey-like. John Hinckley shot Reagan with nary a puff, ditto for Chapman with John Lennon.
It seems like bad form to talk cigarettes at a time like this, although Virginia Tech’s shooter Cho, did mention Hitler, and Hitler as we know, was a non-smoker. (A vegetarian too, but that is another issue).
Is this to suggest that smoking a pack or two a day might have helped? Maybe - studies like the St. Louis survey and a recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper show that smoking and depression are profoundly linked.
The Secret Service psychologist, Dr. Robert Fein, in his study of stalkers and assassins, called the "Exceptional Case Study,” agrees. He adds there is another connected and recurring issue in the profiles of these diverse killers – with the possible exception of Hitler: that they were all at first suicidal. Once they had accepted their own demise, everything else in their terrible quests seemed to fit in rather nicely.
Now cigarettes, that much maligned flourish of youth, have the reputation, at least as far as former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is concerned, as being little more than a form of slow-motion suicide. Normally, you’d agree - who wants to be suicidal? But now we know what suicidal and depressed people can do once you free them of their bad habits, smoking may not be such a terrible thing after all.
Most reports, including those on the ASH.org website will tell you that 88% or so, of smokers have started by age 18. Except for these fellows, of course. (And it usually is fellows.) Obviously, smoking serves as a much needed form of initiation and these outcasts seem to have missed the boat.
Maybe we should invite them back. There’s something to be said for the idea of troubled people taking their suicide in slow, twenty minute increments rather than letting go in a hail of gunfire. Second-hand smoke may be a small price to pay. Besides, these shooters tend have been prescribed antidepressents but then stop taking their meds. That never happens with smokers – once they’re hooked they keep taking their smokes like clockwork.
So maybe we need to rethink the value of smoking. Of course, this would take some revisionist compromising. But dusting off the old “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Glock” campaign is worth another look. And Lucky Strikes could be a good thing in a world of calculating psychopaths. Kool could have done just that - cooled a killer down. Camel - that could have meant nothing more than a trip to the zoo.
Realistically though, our current cigarette brands aren’t quite suicidal enough. We may have to develop a more compelling, more clinically informed family of brands that communicate the idea: “Why shoot me when you could be smoking one of these bad boys?”
This is not necessarily a call for the resurrection of the tobacco companies. After all, Philip Morris recently left New York in a puff as mounting taxes and regulation seemed to pull the rug under their Park Ave. welcome. So they moved their headquarters back to Richmond, Virginia which didn’t help the situation anyway. Apparently, easy guns trump easy cigarettes.
What we really need are prescription-strength cigarettes that health professionals can custom-design for troubled souls. We could call them Cig-Rx. They could have clinical names like Pufficide DX, or 2 Paxil-a-Day. Or they could go to the heart of the problem with displacement fantasy brands like Death Rays, Anti-Harmony, Bad Deeds, My Punishment and the freshly mentholated, Unhappy Days. These solutions are cheap, generate taxes and nourish our farmlands.
All of this really happening anyway, we just don’t control it properly. Psychcentral.com reports that doctors Cheong, Herkov & Goodman found in the St. Louis study, that depressed smokers use their cigarettes quite successfully as a way to self-medicate. This approach appears to be growing. A September 2003 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (160:1663-1669), shows that smokers today are now more 3 times likely to be depressed than non-smokers. This is a relatively new phenomenon: back when smoking was widely accepted, there was no significant difference in depression rates between smokers and non-smokers.
Twenty five years ago that all began to change. Fewer people were smoking, but those who did were more like likely to be depressed. Note how that coincides with the beginning of this wave of suicidal, depressed, well-armed and non-smoking killers with Chapman in 1980 and Hinckley in 1981. Could it be that the health movement got to the wrong people? If so, could they call off the dogs and let them smoke again. Could the troubled people just blow off their steam again, please. It may not be good for their lungs but it could save my life. If that didn’t work at least their aura of smoke and puffing would serve as an early warning system. If you could at least smell them coming, the head start alone might be worth all the horses in Marlboro Country.
Alan Brody is the author of Cigarette Seduction, www.cigseduction.com
[We revisit this chillingly cogent argument - should cigarettes be considered a form of self-medication? Or, since cigarettes are addictive and consumed like clockwork whereas most shooters are set off because they quit their antidepressants - should not the two should be combined?]
by Alan Brody
After the horrific shootings, there is always a swarm of agents with alphabet soup windbreakers that rummage through the wreckage. Leading this group is the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is generally there to find casings and match them to the weapons.
It’s hard to imagine how much difference this information will make since we already know who the shooter was and just how legally they got their top of the line weapon technology.
So why aren’t they making good use of their time on the "A" and the "T" - looking for alcohol bottles and discarded cigarette butts? Granted, psychopaths seem to shun alcohol on their highly organized trails of retribution. But what about cigarettes?
Good and bad people - even sober judges - smoke. So how come there never seems to be a trail of smoldering butts? No unfinished Marlboros to mark their High Noon moment? Never a cruel cigarillo to show their contempt for society and its second-hand smoke regulations?
This is not just the Virginia Tech killer, the mad boys of Columbine seemed to be similarly abstemious. Then there is the shooting at Pearl, Miss., Jacksboro, Tenn. - and even the Amish country schoolhouse where I just can’t think of any one of them puffing on a stick, Bogey-like. John Hinckley shot Reagan with nary a puff, ditto for Chapman with John Lennon.
It seems like bad form to talk cigarettes at a time like this, although Virginia Tech’s shooter Cho, did mention Hitler, and Hitler as we know, was a non-smoker. (A vegetarian too, but that is another issue).
Is this to suggest that smoking a pack or two a day might have helped? Maybe - studies like the St. Louis survey and a recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper show that smoking and depression are profoundly linked.
The Secret Service psychologist, Dr. Robert Fein, in his study of stalkers and assassins, called the "Exceptional Case Study,” agrees. He adds there is another connected and recurring issue in the profiles of these diverse killers – with the possible exception of Hitler: that they were all at first suicidal. Once they had accepted their own demise, everything else in their terrible quests seemed to fit in rather nicely.
Now cigarettes, that much maligned flourish of youth, have the reputation, at least as far as former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is concerned, as being little more than a form of slow-motion suicide. Normally, you’d agree - who wants to be suicidal? But now we know what suicidal and depressed people can do once you free them of their bad habits, smoking may not be such a terrible thing after all.
Most reports, including those on the ASH.org website will tell you that 88% or so, of smokers have started by age 18. Except for these fellows, of course. (And it usually is fellows.) Obviously, smoking serves as a much needed form of initiation and these outcasts seem to have missed the boat.
Maybe we should invite them back. There’s something to be said for the idea of troubled people taking their suicide in slow, twenty minute increments rather than letting go in a hail of gunfire. Second-hand smoke may be a small price to pay. Besides, these shooters tend have been prescribed antidepressents but then stop taking their meds. That never happens with smokers – once they’re hooked they keep taking their smokes like clockwork.
So maybe we need to rethink the value of smoking. Of course, this would take some revisionist compromising. But dusting off the old “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Glock” campaign is worth another look. And Lucky Strikes could be a good thing in a world of calculating psychopaths. Kool could have done just that - cooled a killer down. Camel - that could have meant nothing more than a trip to the zoo.
Realistically though, our current cigarette brands aren’t quite suicidal enough. We may have to develop a more compelling, more clinically informed family of brands that communicate the idea: “Why shoot me when you could be smoking one of these bad boys?”
This is not necessarily a call for the resurrection of the tobacco companies. After all, Philip Morris recently left New York in a puff as mounting taxes and regulation seemed to pull the rug under their Park Ave. welcome. So they moved their headquarters back to Richmond, Virginia which didn’t help the situation anyway. Apparently, easy guns trump easy cigarettes.
What we really need are prescription-strength cigarettes that health professionals can custom-design for troubled souls. We could call them Cig-Rx. They could have clinical names like Pufficide DX, or 2 Paxil-a-Day. Or they could go to the heart of the problem with displacement fantasy brands like Death Rays, Anti-Harmony, Bad Deeds, My Punishment and the freshly mentholated, Unhappy Days. These solutions are cheap, generate taxes and nourish our farmlands.
All of this really happening anyway, we just don’t control it properly. Psychcentral.com reports that doctors Cheong, Herkov & Goodman found in the St. Louis study, that depressed smokers use their cigarettes quite successfully as a way to self-medicate. This approach appears to be growing. A September 2003 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (160:1663-1669), shows that smokers today are now more 3 times likely to be depressed than non-smokers. This is a relatively new phenomenon: back when smoking was widely accepted, there was no significant difference in depression rates between smokers and non-smokers.
Twenty five years ago that all began to change. Fewer people were smoking, but those who did were more like likely to be depressed. Note how that coincides with the beginning of this wave of suicidal, depressed, well-armed and non-smoking killers with Chapman in 1980 and Hinckley in 1981. Could it be that the health movement got to the wrong people? If so, could they call off the dogs and let them smoke again. Could the troubled people just blow off their steam again, please. It may not be good for their lungs but it could save my life. If that didn’t work at least their aura of smoke and puffing would serve as an early warning system. If you could at least smell them coming, the head start alone might be worth all the horses in Marlboro Country.
Alan Brody is the author of Cigarette Seduction, www.cigseduction.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
