There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities.
Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are by definition fewer and smaller than the wealthy. Cigarettes should appear undesirable by those than can easily afford superior enjoyable experiences. A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5.
The poor aren't stupid. They are just making the best of poor hand they were dealt.
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5.
There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
A related thing that is often ignored is that nicotine is a stimulant and makes it easier to put your body through physical abuse that it otherwise wouldn't take. Some health conditions are improved by nicotine but I suspect in many cases it clearly makes things worse but also makes it possible to work.
I was able to quit my 1/2 pack a day addiction four years ago after 15+ years, but it was challenging. Smoking was expensive (four years ago: 4 packs a week = $40), but quitting smoking was even more expensive. In addition to the expense of Chantix, I also started surfing Amazon for things to reward myself instead of going outside for a smoke break. So it was probably $100 - $200 a week.
Now nicotine-free for 4+ years, it's less costly all around (not to mention the health costs), but I understand all too well the difficulty and economics of quitting.
I think cigarettes share something in common with the meth epidemic in rural America, and I'm not talking addiction: When you don't have a job or you're seriously underemployed, no money, no hope, no opportunities for upward mobility, you look at things almost as a "why not?" issue. Anything to take the edge off of life, make things a little different. It gets compounded by the addictive nature of cigarettes and meth and other drugs.
Among the nation’s less-educated people — those with a high-school-equivalency diploma — the smoking rate remains more than 40 percent..
This fits what I have always heard: That education is more predictive of smoking than income. I am homeless, as are my two adult sons. We do not smoke. I have about six years of college.
Some random thoughts, in no particular order and not backed up by citations:
Smoking helps control depression. One anti-depression medication has a shockingly high side effect of causing people to stop smoking.
Smoking suppresses appetite. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons that so many homeless people smoke: Because they sometimes don't eat for up to three days at a time.
Smoking also seems to be common in certain situations where it is the only stress relief. Many years ago, I volunteered at a homeless shelter in Vacaville, CA. All the employees seemed to smoke. They had enormous difficulty giving it up because there was nothing else to do on their breaks but either smoke or sit with co workers and talk, who were themselves smoking.
If you want to combat this, trying to education the least educated peoples is probably a better path than framing it as a poor vs rich thing. Poverty grows out of lack of education, but some very educated people don't have much money for various reasons.
I run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide in part because I am convinced that good information is sorely lacking and is a genuine means to start solving the difficult problems of the poorest of the poor in the U.S.
So America has massively increased the tax burden on the poorest Americans (ever increasing tobacco taxes) while simultaneously cutting taxes on Capital Gains and Inheritance and now we are considering a large cut to the Corporate rate?
Not to mention all the states with a lottery, which can also be thought of as a tax on poor people who are bad at math.
In California we have a crisis, not enough people are smoking and paying the taxes. So the cigarette taxes have to be raised again and again then other tax sources have to be found.
With that spin, sure it would seem that way. You might consider it "Warfare" if the poor were being forced to smoke, or say there weren't pictures of cancer on the cover of the packages of cigarettes, or minors were allowed to smoke or there wasn't a huge vice tax on cigarettes essentially everywhere in the world, and a ban on cigarette advertising in most countries then yeah if you ignore all of that you might consider it class warfare...
That's not just limited to America. I travel a lot, a few years ago, say 15 or so it would be pretty rare to see young people smoke and now somehow it is 'cool' again. I've had the unfortunate experience of delivering a couple of friends to an early grave courtesy of lung cancer, the one thing that seemed to unite them was that they wished they had never started smoking and that once they did they had the strength to quit. The youngest of those was mid 40's. It's an intelligence test of sorts with a very high price if you fail.
The decline of the middle class and the huge explosion of the riches of the rich class will ensure that rich and poor in 50 and 100 years look and live like different species...
Slum dwellers and "city trash" on one hand, and 150 year old clean shaven organic vegan genetically modified uberlords on the other.
A theory postulated without evidence: Considering throughout history power and wealth inequality was in many ways much worse (monarchies, despotism, no voting rights without land etc) I wonder if the current distribution is simply an artifact of genetic changes that have already occurred. Perhaps the slum dwellers of yesteryear adapted to those conditions and now in some way subconsciously seek them out.
This has been my theory, but it'll take longer than 50-100 years. It should coincide with Earth's population decline.
After technology removes another 10-15% of jobs, and we settle into global warming, the population should settle at ~3-4 billion, with ~80% of it being service and maintenance workers, and the rest as the controlling elite.
This, if correctly publicized, would be the best motivation in getting huge amounts of people to stop.
Think of a slogan like "Only the poor still smoke" or "it's what losers do" and how it would impact people. Suddenly you'd be embarrassed of being seen smoking.
I don't think so. You are correct that there are a large number of people who don't want the social stigma of being poor etc., but for many they see it as one of the few pleasures they can still have. To these people, they smoke, most of their friends and family smoke, and life is a struggle on a day to day basis. To them calling them a loser doesn't shame them, it just makes them more angry towards you.
Uh, what? I know I'm a poor loser, and all the poor losers I know, know we're poor losers. We don't exist in an arena where that's embarrassing. That's just you lot.
That's already more or less the attitude that prevails among those of moderate to high socioeconomic standing. Making it official doesn't seem likely to change anything, especially in light of the fact that you don't really find a lot of cases in which people from different situations mix like that - it's pretty difficult for social opprobrium to exert much pressure upon people who never actually experience firsthand because they're never around those who would express it, or vice versa.
Quite aside from which, as I mentioned before, this is already pretty much the attitude, and the natural response to contempt is resentment. I've gotten any number of sidelong looks and smartassed comments from people who seem to find it a trespass upon their persons that I happen to be smoking within their eyeshot, and I can't say it has made me any more inclined to quit than the perceptible effects of maintaining the habit already do.
I don't think so. You're talking about a class of people who have been beaten up so much by society for being poor, that I think most will look at that sign and go "yeah no shit" and light up again. Followed by a few more choice words at you and the sign.
Some of those anti-tobacco (I'm blanking on the name) commercials targeted at teens/kids use this approach. I forget the actual line, but they mention something about how smokers make less money .. anyone have a link?
Prohibition makes things edgier and cooler, it only makes people want to do it more. Pretty sure there are places that legalized drugs and usage rates went down.
The smoking cessation class teacher they referenced in the article really made me cringe. She seems like a very positive person, but her ideas about how to quit smoking just seem so very misdirected. I wonder if she has smoked in the past and quit herself?
>“People down here smoke because of the stress in their life,” Seals said. “They smoke because of money problems, family problems. It’s the one thing they have control over. The one thing that makes them feel better. And you want them to give that up? It’s the toughest thing in the world.”
I'm sorry but this is facile. "Stress" and "problems" cause people to smoke only in the broadest sense of the word "cause". Something else is at work, here, and my hunch is that it's cultural. I've found that in much of blue-collar America, smoking is something of a status symbol.
> Cigarette companies are focusing their marketing on lower socioeconomic communities to retain their customer base, researchers say.
> Advocacy groups say funding for smoking cessation is dropping
It seems like an uphill battle to let the tobacco industry tell everyone to smoke, and then try and undo that with anti-smoking campaigns. Is there a reason we can't rein in or eliminate tobacco advertising?
What always puzzles me is if the lower socioeconomic class is disproportionately affected by smoking and money issues, why are sin taxes the only political solution?
Some interesting fact on the quitting front, there are some vape shops that actually help people quit by gradually lowering the amount of nicotine over time.
In the documentary, "A Billion Lives", the former spokesman for Winston says he was told by tobacco executives (who did not smoke) that smoking is for "the poor, the black, the young, and the stupid".
One of the things that surprised me in Germany was the extremely high smoking rate. Apparently the adult smoking rate is between 40-45%. My experience was that it is by no means limited to poor people either. It was really surprising to me to see a country which presents itself as a modern, progressive force in the world having cigarette vending machines on almost every street in the country.
To contrast, I was recently in South Africa at a wedding full of people of all ages (all white, though). We noted that out of 100+ guests only 2 were smokers. A recent study shows that the overall rate in both whites and blacks is about 15%, while in coloureds it is 40%. It's interesting because it shows more of a race divide rather than class divide.
As of roughly 5 or more years ago, half of tobacco consumed in the US is by people who are mentally ill and/or substance abusers. For example, people with Schizophrenia are heavy smokers and 90% smoke. Those with clinical depression 60%. They are self-medicating for their underlying illness. We need to ensure that they are getting proper treatment.
This study shows that in the 15 years studied, only the smoking rate of high income individuals has decreased from 14% to about 9%. Those at the poverty level or below has remained about 36.5% who are smokers (some of those will be the mentally ill and/or substance abusers) and middle income is about 24% who are smokers.
Former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg with his latest donation of $360 million in December, now donated a total of $960 billion to combat tobacco in low- and middle-income countries (e.g. China, Russia, Bangladesh, but also Turkey). Bill Gates added another $125 million.
The plan is to implement the World Health Organization's (WHO) MPOWER program which has been implemented in NYC since 2001. Raising the cost of tobacco has over half the effect of getting people to quit or never start. Also very important is banning smoking in public places and hard-hitting, scary, advertisements spending about $1 to $2 per capita. Clinical interventions such as doctors speaking with patients about quitting, providing nicotine replacement therapy, and telephone counseling support are also important. But most of the gains are from the public policy initiatives.
A frustration I have with the healthcare system in the US is that too little is sent on public health interventions such as MPOWER compared with the spending on clinical interventions. If you want to lower healthcare costs, ultimately more effort has to be put in public health interventions which is much more scalable and more effective than clinical interventions.
Under ObamaCare, smokers can be charged premiums 50% higher than non-smokers because the healthcare costs of smoking are so high, yet most insurance plans don't charge the premium nor does the ObamaCare let insurers really verify if someone is a non-smoker.
If you want to lower the high costs of healthcare, nationally implement MPOWER in the US as well as other public health interventions. ObamaCare made a huge mistake when they did not implement the tobacco tax policies of Canada, UK, France and other nations which have universal care which is pay for the healthcare partially with high tobacco taxes in the range $5 to $7 per pack or more. Our federal tax is about $1. Raising that of these other nations would result in tens of billions of dollars for paying for healthcare while helping people, especially the poor, to quit smoking.
[+] [-] protonfish|8 years ago|reply
Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are by definition fewer and smaller than the wealthy. Cigarettes should appear undesirable by those than can easily afford superior enjoyable experiences. A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5.
The poor aren't stupid. They are just making the best of poor hand they were dealt.
[+] [-] Pxtl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|8 years ago|reply
There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
[+] [-] joveian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellbanner|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations_campaigns_of_...
More on how this guy shaped modern advertising in Century of Self https://vimeo.com/10245146
[+] [-] ryan606|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|8 years ago|reply
This fits what I have always heard: That education is more predictive of smoking than income. I am homeless, as are my two adult sons. We do not smoke. I have about six years of college.
Some random thoughts, in no particular order and not backed up by citations:
Smoking helps control depression. One anti-depression medication has a shockingly high side effect of causing people to stop smoking.
Smoking suppresses appetite. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons that so many homeless people smoke: Because they sometimes don't eat for up to three days at a time.
Smoking also seems to be common in certain situations where it is the only stress relief. Many years ago, I volunteered at a homeless shelter in Vacaville, CA. All the employees seemed to smoke. They had enormous difficulty giving it up because there was nothing else to do on their breaks but either smoke or sit with co workers and talk, who were themselves smoking.
If you want to combat this, trying to education the least educated peoples is probably a better path than framing it as a poor vs rich thing. Poverty grows out of lack of education, but some very educated people don't have much money for various reasons.
I run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide in part because I am convinced that good information is sorely lacking and is a genuine means to start solving the difficult problems of the poorest of the poor in the U.S.
[+] [-] GeekyBear|8 years ago|reply
Not to mention all the states with a lottery, which can also be thought of as a tax on poor people who are bad at math.
This seems like class warfare.
[+] [-] gscott|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ManFromUranus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
Slum dwellers and "city trash" on one hand, and 150 year old clean shaven organic vegan genetically modified uberlords on the other.
Warlocks vs Elois all over again...
[+] [-] KekDemaga|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|8 years ago|reply
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
After technology removes another 10-15% of jobs, and we settle into global warming, the population should settle at ~3-4 billion, with ~80% of it being service and maintenance workers, and the rest as the controlling elite.
[+] [-] Pxtl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmeredith|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PopsiclePete|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruturo|8 years ago|reply
Think of a slogan like "Only the poor still smoke" or "it's what losers do" and how it would impact people. Suddenly you'd be embarrassed of being seen smoking.
[+] [-] kemiller2002|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psyc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatok|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flipp3r|8 years ago|reply
I'm sure it would eliminate smoking among kids almost entirely; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjsSVCLxcZ4
[+] [-] BOBOTWINSTON|8 years ago|reply
The "drugs aren't cool" campaign's have never really worked.
[+] [-] throwanem|8 years ago|reply
Quite aside from which, as I mentioned before, this is already pretty much the attitude, and the natural response to contempt is resentment. I've gotten any number of sidelong looks and smartassed comments from people who seem to find it a trespass upon their persons that I happen to be smoking within their eyeshot, and I can't say it has made me any more inclined to quit than the perceptible effects of maintaining the habit already do.
[+] [-] jayess|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
Or, you know, even more determined than ever to smoke.
Psychology is not that simple.
(Some english guy, don't remember who, described the same reaction when someone like Princess Diana was on TV telling people to "Say no to drugs").
[+] [-] josefresco|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TausAmmer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] almonj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErikVandeWater|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsjhfiuerheru|8 years ago|reply
They know they are poor, everyone can see that they are poor, no need to point it out.
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Neliquat|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] skybrian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkerside|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omginternets|8 years ago|reply
I'm sorry but this is facile. "Stress" and "problems" cause people to smoke only in the broadest sense of the word "cause". Something else is at work, here, and my hunch is that it's cultural. I've found that in much of blue-collar America, smoking is something of a status symbol.
[+] [-] kardos|8 years ago|reply
> Advocacy groups say funding for smoking cessation is dropping
It seems like an uphill battle to let the tobacco industry tell everyone to smoke, and then try and undo that with anti-smoking campaigns. Is there a reason we can't rein in or eliminate tobacco advertising?
[+] [-] tmaly|8 years ago|reply
What always puzzles me is if the lower socioeconomic class is disproportionately affected by smoking and money issues, why are sin taxes the only political solution?
Some interesting fact on the quitting front, there are some vape shops that actually help people quit by gradually lowering the amount of nicotine over time.
[+] [-] smileysteve|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmagin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ackfoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torrent-of-ions|8 years ago|reply
To contrast, I was recently in South Africa at a wedding full of people of all ages (all white, though). We noted that out of 100+ guests only 2 were smokers. A recent study shows that the overall rate in both whites and blacks is about 15%, while in coloureds it is 40%. It's interesting because it shows more of a race divide rather than class divide.
[+] [-] falcolas|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidf18|8 years ago|reply
Income Disparities in Absolute Cardiovascular Risk and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in the United States, 1999-2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28593301
This study shows that in the 15 years studied, only the smoking rate of high income individuals has decreased from 14% to about 9%. Those at the poverty level or below has remained about 36.5% who are smokers (some of those will be the mentally ill and/or substance abusers) and middle income is about 24% who are smokers.
Former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg with his latest donation of $360 million in December, now donated a total of $960 billion to combat tobacco in low- and middle-income countries (e.g. China, Russia, Bangladesh, but also Turkey). Bill Gates added another $125 million.
The plan is to implement the World Health Organization's (WHO) MPOWER program which has been implemented in NYC since 2001. Raising the cost of tobacco has over half the effect of getting people to quit or never start. Also very important is banning smoking in public places and hard-hitting, scary, advertisements spending about $1 to $2 per capita. Clinical interventions such as doctors speaking with patients about quitting, providing nicotine replacement therapy, and telephone counseling support are also important. But most of the gains are from the public policy initiatives.
A frustration I have with the healthcare system in the US is that too little is sent on public health interventions such as MPOWER compared with the spending on clinical interventions. If you want to lower healthcare costs, ultimately more effort has to be put in public health interventions which is much more scalable and more effective than clinical interventions.
Under ObamaCare, smokers can be charged premiums 50% higher than non-smokers because the healthcare costs of smoking are so high, yet most insurance plans don't charge the premium nor does the ObamaCare let insurers really verify if someone is a non-smoker.
If you want to lower the high costs of healthcare, nationally implement MPOWER in the US as well as other public health interventions. ObamaCare made a huge mistake when they did not implement the tobacco tax policies of Canada, UK, France and other nations which have universal care which is pay for the healthcare partially with high tobacco taxes in the range $5 to $7 per pack or more. Our federal tax is about $1. Raising that of these other nations would result in tens of billions of dollars for paying for healthcare while helping people, especially the poor, to quit smoking.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]