This book provides us with a thorough examination of the industry and culture of cigarettes in the 20th century. This book is primarily about the United States, however here in Canada we underwent the same kind of developmental parallels as our southern neighbor. Cigarette manufacturing started in the 1880s. By the 1940s they became dominant over other types of tobacco (pipes, cigars, chewing tobacco…).
Tobacco companies always played close attention to marketing. Initially it was seen as negative for women to smoke. So, advertising in the 1920s focused on making smoking acceptable for women. It was marketed as a symbol of a woman’s independence – this was the age of the suffragette and more employment opportunities for women. The cigarette companies latched onto this growing women’s movement to make smoking seem even more glamourous and feminine. For men, the marketing was more towards being individualistic – the American ethos of libertarianism and rugged individualism.
Smoking and cigarettes was egalitarian – all social classes smoked and more women were picking up the habit. It became pervasive – at work, on the streets, in restaurants, bars, and transportation. It also had a strong social aspect, cigarettes could be shared and talked about.
There was always a movement opposed to smoking and smokers – some of it based on health reasons. Health was always a concern, like causing throat dryness – which the cigarette companies combatted by promoting brands marketed as ‘less irritating’. Also, and more dubiously, smoking was perceived as morally wrong – a smoker was not a good person, a woman who smoked was “loose”. Smoking was associated with bad values.
The cigarette companies fought back and were very successful in countering both health and moral issues – as the number of smokers rose more and more. By the end of the 1940s smoking was very acceptable in most social situations. But there were changes brewing that would shatter this smoke-screen.
By the end of the 1940s there were alarming increases in the rate of lung cancer - and it was linked to cigarettes.
Page 160 (my book)
Try though it might – often with considerable success – the tobacco industry would never again unequivocally control the meaning of the cigarette. The scientific findings of the 1950s constituted a sea change in the history of smoking. Industry executives found themselves in uncharted waters, and the boat was leaking.
The cigarette industry constantly denied the links between their product and lung cancer. They obfuscated continually – and whenever research results were published the refrain was that more research was required. This was repeated ad nauseum over the decades – until it became simply laughable.
To compound this, smoking became linked to other health problems like heart disease.
The author explains how the research methodology linking smoking to cancer was vastly more complex and different than the research that had been done prior on air-borne communicable diseases that had pre-occupied medical science prior to the 1940s. Researchers could isolate cause and effect over a much shorter time period, unlike lung cancer which builds over decades. Naturally the cigarette companies used their “different” statistical research to attempt to deny the results. It was only in the late 1990s that the tobacco industry was forced to acknowledge that the link between smoking and lung cancer was no longer an issue that could be disputed in a court of law.
By the 1960s, with more reports by the Surgeon General, and more bad press, there started to be an upsurge in grass-roots guerilla tactics against smoking – namely second-hand smoke. Smokers were seen as responsible for their own predicament – but guilty of infesting those around them. The cigarette companies had a much harder time combatting these groups which were springing up locally. They were not part of a government lobby that could be bought off.
In the late 1960s television ads were made to counter the effects of the cigarette ads on TV. They were so explicit as to the long-term effects of smoking that the cigarette companies agreed to remove their ads if the anti-smoking ads were also removed. This was the beginning of the end of visual cigarette advertising in the U.S. Ads started disappearing as well from newspapers and magazines. Less and less organizations wanted to be associated with the tobacco industry.
Other aspects started to go bad for the tobacco companies. During litigation court trials they were forced to disclose documents they had previously concealed from the public. This put their vast hypocrisy on full display. They had known for decades that there were carcinogens in their product. They researched methods to make nicotine more addictive and create a greater “rush” on inhalation. They deliberately marketed to teenagers who were more apt to be a life-long addict than an adult who started smoking in their twenties.
This is a detailed book and devastating to the tobacco companies. Shouldn’t their product be banned for all the deaths it has caused? Shouldn’t the CEOs be arrested for making a deadly addictive product and lying about it? Perhaps I am being too idealistic. Large companies obviously have a different standard in front of the courts of law.
The cigarette companies are now using their long-held expertise gathered over the last hundred years to market and sell their deadly product into overseas markets like China, India, and many developing countries that do not have regulations and prohibitions on smoking like Western countries. As a British epidemiologist noted (page 454) on the increase of American cigarette exports to China: “If the Chinese smoke like Americans, they’ll die like Americans.”
Smoking in many developing countries like the U.S. is shifting to the poor, whereas the wealthy seem to have moved away from the habit.
I did feel that the author did not dwell enough on the success of the 180 degree turn that has occurred in countries like Canada and the United States in the last thirty years. When I started work in the 1970s there were ashtrays all over the place, restaurants were filled with smoke, and it was far worse in bars and coffee-shops. That is all gone now and I want to keep it that way. I am hardly aware of people smoking anywhere now. It is anathema to see a politician smoking. Relatively few shops sell cigarettes, and these are hidden from view in something that looks like a filing cabinet. The customer has to ask the cashier for the brand desired – then the filing cabinet is opened and the pack taken out. I recall talking with a thirty-something, and she was astounded that smoking had been permitted on airplanes!
As the author mentions, at one time smokers were looked on as not only acceptable but positively and glamorously (think of Humphrey Bogart films). Now smokers are looked upon with derision.
This book provides us with a history of the culture (mostly U.S.) and the nefarious ways that the tobacco industries maintained their power despite repeated onslaughts to their product.