…so, does that mean that ex-smokers who quit, improve their IQ, get a raise, forsake God, buy a new car, move, sell their guns, and switch parties to vote Democrat?
No, it means they ask people both whether they smoke now *and *if they’ve smoked 100 cigarettes in their life but don’t smoke now. Both groups are included in applicable counts when they score the surveys. A low-income high school dropout living in Kentucky is very likely to have been a smoker at one time, even if he isn’t right now.
John F Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton all were smokers so they also apparently were in that degenerate third class group of smokers.
I doubt that education has much to do with it. Much depends on the culture, peers, and personality. And let’s not forget that smoking (i.e., nicotine) is an addiction. (Yeah, tell me that people who snort coke are working-class, uneducated nobodies.) My history: I first smoked because my junior high school peers smoked at a time when it was neither a health nor environmental issue and I wanted to be “cool.” My father smoked, mother didn’t; brother smoked and he’s now in his 70’s with no health issues related to smoking; an uncle who visited frequently smoked cigars that would eventually drive me out of the room. In over 100 years, the only person in my immediate family to die of cancer was maternal grandma (non-smoker) of colon cancer. I quit about 10 years ago after 30+ years of smoking. Recent chest x-rays show no lung damage. My sister continues to smoke and is suffering emphysema-like symptoms. Parents were working-class, no college; I started out as a secretary and retired as a mid-level professional human resources specialist. Hubby grew up in a middle-class family and smoked when we first met - he has two bachelor’s degrees - one in agronomy and one in law enforcement. Bottom line: addiction (to anything) is a combination of genetics and environment (nature AND nurture). I don’t smoke now, but I am still using nicotine gum after 10 years, and drinking a lot of wine in the evening. I take anti-anxiety drugs, which I don’t think I’d need if I still smoked. About 14 years ago, I was doing Jazzercise classes (aerobic exercise), and after going home, first thing I did was get a glass of wine and light up a cig. Man, that cig was so damed good! If I get diagnosed with a terminal illness, one of my last acts will be to smoke as many cigarettes as I can!
That’s not a smoker, that’s a wimp.
No, he quit last year.
Heh. I did.
(Well, everything but the Democrat part…and the part about my guns…)
Well, I care if a stranger’s smoking is impacting me in some way. I don’t care about the stranger, I care about whether or not I can breathe. If I inhale tobacco, pot, incense, or even wood smoke, it usually triggers an asthma attack and possibly a migraine. And I LIKE the smell of incense and wood smoke. I also don’t like to buy stuff that is infused with smoke smell…this means that I always ask about whether the eBay item comes from a smoke free house.
Oh, and my last name is spelled Bodoni, two Os, one I.
How about Sir Walter Raleigh? As long as you’re supplying historical anecdotes that doesn’t impact current demographic information one iota?
People, we’re in GQ here. Factual answers to factual questions. If you’re offended by my daring to ask this clear and factual question (“who has written up a study of smokers’ identifying traits?”) or, more likely, by my admitting that my question stems from having biases I’m seeking to correct, please take it to the Pit.
I’m particularly interested in learning if there’s a correlation between smoking and politics, in that it seems to be a partly political question: IOW, “individual choice vs. governmental mandate” would seem to divide down political lines, with Republicans feeling that they were striking a blow for freedom by inhaling carcinogenic matter into their bodies and Democrats buying into a government-based program to discourage smoking.
At a guess, I would say the only political line when it comes to smoking is that lefties are more likely to be found smoking dodgy rolled-ups while right wingers are more likely to smoke Montecristos ;).
Highly educated, wealthy people aren’t less likely to be smokers. They’re less likely to be seen smoking in public or by non-smokers. And they’re more likely to claim to be non-smokers in a poll.
When in a non-smoking situation, and outside or on a balcony, etc. with a few other smokers, I was often shocked at people that I KNEW were non-smokers coming out to have a smoke and constantly looking over their shoulders to make sure that they weren’t caught.
I work with a mix of scientists, engineers, and managerial types, from a myriad of backgrounds. There’s a subsegment from each group that smoke. They all happen to be male, though. I wonder if women smokers are easier to parse out demographically than female non-smokers.
I went to a racially diverse high school (~60% black, 40% white). Almost all the kids you’d find smoking in the bathroom or under the bleachers were white. I have seen studies showing that white adolescents are more likely to be heavy into smoking and alcohol than their black counterparts. And the white smokers were not the poor working-class stiffs. They tended towards the middle class, upper middle class group. Though, most of the whites at my school fell into this group so maybe that’s not really relevant.
Interestingly enough, on the plus side for smokers, fewer smokers develop Parkinson’s disease (a fact I recently learned). One hypothesis is that nictotine is protective of neurons of the basal ganglion–some researchers are experimenting with nicotine patches to see if that slows down the progression of the disease. Another hypothesis is that smoking is an indicator of risk-taking. Risk-takers generally have higher dopamine levels, while people with Parkinson’s have a dopamine deficit. So a penchance towards smoking and other high-risk activities may indicate who’s at lowered risk for developing the disorder. Also interesting, on the flip side, many schizophrenics are heavy smokers. Like 2 to 3 pack a day smokers. The hypothesis offered for this observation is that smoking is a way of self-medicating the unpleasant features of the disease.
Maybe, but if this is statistically significant, don’t you think the tobacco companies will account for it in their private demographic studies? I suppose I’m I’m asking if any NON-proprietary studies of this issue have been released. I don’t know for absolute certain that the tobacco companies have privately studied this to the fourth decimal place, but I’d think they’d have a fidiciary responsibility to their stockholders to do the best studies of their clients and their potential clients in the history of marketing. After all, they know their product is under constant attack and they MUST identify potential markets with zeal, so I assume these studies exist. Question is, can I read one?
Guess I am a little confused. Are you looking for cites to factual scientifically derived statistics or internal tobacco company marketing surveys?
If the former, it did not take much searching around the CDC site to find the answers that are significant from a social welfare point of view. Education, income, regional variation etc. You won’t find political or religious affiliation as no one is going to support policy to change that.
If the later, here is a link to an abstract of a paper that may contain some, all, or none of what you are looking for. I am not interested enough to pay the fee.
“NON-proprietary studies.” I’m saying that I’m sure the tobacco companies have studied this carfully, but obviously they’re not releasing their findings.
Sounds like there may be a book in this, entitled WHO SMOKES?
For some reason smokers are only required to work 7.5 hours per day, but non-smokers are required to work 8.5
Look, I know prr has a way with language, but he’s not trying to say that everyone who smokes is stupid, Republican, etc. Obviously a lot of smokers around here don’t fit into the norms. It’s not like we’re implying causation.
Still, prr, don’t tell me you were surprised by the response. Smokers are discriminated against, and, like all discriminated groups, are bit kneejerk about it. I can’t say I haven’t been on mental health issues.
Are you saying this would go so far as to lie on studies?
I’ve noticed that, too. Strange how that works.