News Flash - the Federal Court turned down the FDA's efforts to ban e-Cigarettes. (See the New York Times article.)
The bigger question is why would Government agencies and anti-tobacco groups be against a product that relieves some of the greatest harms of smoking (second hand smoke, the smell, the hacking cough) and works as an anecdotally acclaimed means of quitting?
3 reasons:
1. Money
2. Power
3. Self-righteousness
Their attitudes are so repugnant that I feel like smoking again. I won't, but I am willing to fume.
Here's why.
1. Money. The government has found a fantastic source of revenue built on the backs of tobacco addicts. Like any addict - in this case, revenue addicts - they are deeply reluctant to give it up. When the time is ripe - we'll discuss a 12 step method for the tobacco taxers.....
The same applies to the major anti-tobacco groups. There are a small handful that get the lion's share of the paltry few million the government doles out from its tobacco revenues. They are just as dependent on this tax income and so they too have every incentive to attack (Tobacco Free Kids being high on his list). The game has become fixed to the point where they actually function as a handmaiden to the tobacco industry - warding off newcomers (competition) and making it seem like the tobacco companies are staying away from kids. They also support big pharma and its plethora of patches, gums, pills and other cessation paraphernalia.
2. Power. Agencies like the FDA derive their power from what they control. First you ban, then you control. Overlaps with money. (Also reminds us of the record companies and downloading - is it any coincidence that Time Warner's Richard Parsons told Napster "first you stop, then we talk." Now he runs Citibank. Guess what - all are in ruins. Note to FDA: the internet has changed all that - dictatorships just don't work like they used to.)
3. Self Righteousness. Everybody loves to point out somebody else's weakness and health groups are notorious in this regard. The fact that people have reasons for smoking - however troubling - is of zero interest to them. Just stop. Have will power blah, blah, blah. Smokers are motivated by deep reasons that rarely disappear just because they quit - they are typically sublimated to other practices. Often medication - both good or bad (e.g. how many smokers were really using tobacco as a crude form of Ridalin, or Prozac, or an upper or a downer). The worst fears of these zealots emerge when smokers appear to be enjoying themselves. You can't really respond to them - unless there truly is a skeleton in their closets - except to let their own fanaticism do its own discrediting.
Guaranteed - all 3 of these types will have something to say about the children. This makes children smoke blah, blah. I say this makes children distrust politicians. As usual this is just a smokescreen, no one is promoting this for kids just for people who already smoke.....but the tactic always pulls at someone's heartstrings - including smokers'.
Bottom line - for better or worse there are approximately 40 million smokers in the U.S. as they get up from the back of the bus they will realize that fate has given them a reprieve in he form of e-Cigarettes. Once the word truly gets out and they learn to rust these products, and understand the actions of these high-placed malefactors - I predict there will be a huge backlash. Some heads will roll. The argument will change completely.
He fact that this innovation came to us from China will also deliver a lesson about what happens when Government gets too involved - its stifles ideas and protects the insiders who become effectively corrupt. Of course, they never see it that way - hence point 3. self-righteousness. But there it is - another little vignette about why we are on our way to becoming a lost force in the world.
Showing posts with label Smoking brands why smoke cigarettes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smoking brands why smoke cigarettes. Show all posts
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
