Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette
Smoke, Smoke, Smoke It Till You
Smoke Yourself to Death!
Tell Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates-
You Just Hate to Make Him Wait-
But You Gotta Have Another Cigarette!
After 25 years I stopped on January 8, 2000.
If it jams, force it; if it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
I could have sworn I replied with this quote!
If it jams, force it; if it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
I think you got Tex Ritter confused with Tex Williams.
Ritter was more famous for “Deck of Cards.” But then, so was T. Texas Tyler. Wayyy to many Tex’s here.
And unless you want a bunch of angry Japanese on you, don’t look up the lyrics of the original “Smoke on the Water.”
(1944)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by BunnyGirl:
I heard a '40’s Tex Ritter song (“Smoke, Smoke that Cigarette” ?). IIRC, it talked about them killing you in the song. Sounds like a “common-knowledge” type thing. Just a thought. /QUOTE]
It went,"Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette. Puff, puff, and if you smoke yourself to death; tell St. Peter at the golden gate you just have to make him wait; youv’e gotta have another cigarette.
Well, I personally figured it out in my 15th year. A winter’s worth of pneumonia was key to my epiphany.
Well, I wasn’t around for that era, but personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the smokers really didn’t know about or appreciate the risks…considering that most smokers seem to start in their teens–which is quite simply not an age known for its insight or clear reasoning, even if more mature individuals and scientists may have had an inkling. Even today, while there is a general understanding that smoking is bad for you, many people don’t seem to fully appreciate how rampant and destructive smoking-related diseases really are. (For anyone who is interested, take a look at the Lung Cancer Awareness Campaign)
19th century physicians were already concerned with health problems from tobacco, particularly the link between smoking & emphysima.
And 19th century athletic coaches at British universities banned smoking for student athletes.
It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.
JWK, as usual, is spot-on; I remember being a twelve-year-old kid with an interest in history stuck at my grandma’s house every summer. She had the entire collection of Reader’s Digest going back to the mid-30s and they were full of anti-cigarette articles, well before 1964 and the Surgeon General’s warning.
I also remember reading Owen Johnson’s The Lawrenceville Stories, featuring Dink Stover and company. These were short stories, vaguely reminiscent of the British school stories, that were published about 1900. Cigarettes are invariably referred to as “coffin nails” in them.
Yes, that is probably true that they didn’t take the warnings seriously - and it probably still could be considered true - teens can be utterly clueless. Look at teem pregnancy rates. It’s a shame, and let’s hope that more education helps the problem.
But, the point being made by my “victim card”-playing friends is that they didn’t know. No information available to them. Which is obviously BS. I don’t care if a kid is 12, if there is a warning label on the cigarette pack, they can frickin’ read, can’t they? They know what the words mean. They see the publicity about it on the TV news. If they are too young or impetuous to take the warning seriously, that is a shame. But at least they had the information available to them.
Many smoking friends of mine have sighed “Yeah, I knew it was bad, but I was young and dumb.” That’s not the same as claiming (with big puppy-dog eyes) “Oh, I never knew. Poor me. Now I’m hooked.” Which is what these particular friends have claimed.
In the case of lung cancer, the short answer is 1950.
The paper which first proved a link between smoking and lung cancer was published by Doll and Hill in that year. Sir Richard Doll, one of the authors of the paper, is still around (based in Oxford, IIRC) and occasionally makes public pronouncements about the dangers of smoking.
Doll and Hill conducted a prospective, controlled study of general practitioners (don’t know what they’re called in the States, but they’re the kind of all-round family doctors, usually the first person you’d go to if you’re ill). They discovered a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer among the smoking than among the non-smoking group.
Having said that there is evidence, as other posters have pointed out, that it was suspected long before that smoking was bad for the health. I seem to recall that, in one of the early Sherlock Holmes stories, Watson refers to Holmes as a “self-poisoner by tobacco”. Since Conan Doyle was a doctor, it’s likely that this reflected (one of the) conventional medical wisdoms of the day.
Make that 1952. Here’s the reference:
Doll R, Hill AB. A study of the aetiology of carcinoma of the lung. British Medical Journal 1952;2:1271-1286.
Sorry, I also forgot to mention that Doll and Hill’s research demonstrated that the risk was dose dependent as well. That is, the more you smoke, the higher the risk.
There have been a few postings here talking about the 1964 Surgeon General’s warning on packs of cigs, but I distinctly recall seeing an episode of I Love Lucy where Ethel points out to Lucy the warning label on the side. It wasn’t worded as strongly as the 1964 version, instead saying that the Surgeon General warns that it may cause health problems (maybe specific ones, I don’t recall). When did I Love Lucy stop? I think it was in the 1950’s.
Also, I’ve seen references to the term “coffin nail” being used in a play by O. Henry around 1900, so it was in general use at least by that time.
This has come up lately because the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry largely hinges on the idea that the poor smokers didn’t know the dangers of smoking, because the tobacco industry kept it from everyone. The suit also alleges that the government-provided health care costs are higher for smokers, which seems logical at first blush, but then you realize that everyone must die at some point, and smokers tend to die earlier, the health costs should be no higher for smokers.
I’ve got to quibble with the “I Love Lucy” reference. For at least part of its run, the show was sponsored by a cigarette company. Lucy smoked, Ricky smoked, and there’s a classic bit where Lucy wears a putty nose and sets it on fire lighting a cigarette. There may have been a reference to not smoking in one of the later Lucy shows, but I even doubt that.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
Wasn’t there an economic study that essentially demonstrated that if we’re talking about sheer economics the government should really encourage smoking? That is, it showed that smokers die so much earlier that despite the expense of caring for them in their very last years, they cost a hell of a lot less overall than people who don’t and live longer (because end-of-life care tends to be expensive no matter who we’re talking about, and those who live longer live to get other things that must be treated).
“It won’t do to have truth and justice on his side; he must have law
and lawyers.” Charles Dickens, Bleak House.
CurtC writes: “The suit also alleges that the government-provided health care costs are higher for smokers, which seems logical at first blush, but then you realize that everyone must die at some point, and smokers tend to die earlier, the health costs should be no higher for smokers.”
There was, in fact, a nice study some years ago in the UK showing that smoking saved the government there money. The extra expense of medical care for people with smoking-induced cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc. was less than what the government would have had to pay the same people in benefits if they did not die prematurely.
(Perhaps TomH can track down this reference too?)
I found this with a quick search:
Here’s the link to the entire paper published in 1984:
http://www.philipmorris.com/tobacco_bus/tobacco_issues/link22(5).html
I knew that smoking was bad for me when I started, but what people forget when dealing with teen smoking is the fact that teenagers are immortal I always thought ‘okay so what if I’m smoking now at 15, I’ll either be dead at 30 or I’ll quit’. I never realized what a noose I was putting around my neck. I’m now 35 and the years keep passing quicker and quicker. I want to quit, but my god, what an addiction. It would be easier (and it has been) to starve my self than to give up my cigarettes. I hate them, but the thought of not ever having another cigarette for the rest of my life scares the crap out of me. Alot of ex-smokers that I have talked to tell me they still crave a cigarette after years of quitting.What an awful thought.
I know, I know - teenagers are very impetuous, and it’s a tragic thing. And it frustrates me. And I feel sympathy for someone who is hooked now. But only a certain amount of sympathy (sorry to be a heartless bitch.) I feel more sympathy for someone who didn’t have any clue of the risks, compared to someone who did, but ignored them. You said that at 15 you thought:
I mean, you knew. You made a very bad choice, and you are paying the price for it now. But you knew. 15 is old enough to know. 12 is old enough.
I just read something about this in a book called “An Underground Education”. I can’t find it right now, so I’ll have to paraphrase.
When Columbus came back from the new world, bringing some natives and other sundries with him. The king was amazed when he was shown tobacco and how the natives used it.
I don’t know when the king said this, if it was immeadiately, or a few years after, but he (paraphrased) said, “Doing this is bad for the lungs, makes your dizzy, and stinks.”
Now that was back at least before 1800.