My mom (81 yo) smoked when she was a teenager. When she met my dad she quit. She was 52 yo when my dad died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 54. Within a year she was smokin’ away and is still smoking. I think part of it was, now that she was on her own, she could do anything she wanted. When I ask her about it now, she says that she wishes she had never started. It’s expensive and because she won’t smoke in the house, she has to stand outside in Minnesota winters to puff.
Well, they smoked pipes, not cigs, and there is a pretty large difference. Cigs are made as a nictotine addiction delivery system, not for any quality to the tobacco. And it was a ritual thing to start. Some of the early English smoked pipes as it looked cool and set them apart.
Then there was peer pressure later, of course.
Sorry, I don’t see how this answer my question in any way. Saying “it was a ritual thing,” isn’t an answer - why was it a ritual thing? Why this particular plant used in rituals, if it doesn’t produce any noticeable effect outside of suppressing nicotine withdrawal?
Your same cite says that from 2002 to 2019 “ The percentage of youth-rated movies (G, PG, PG-13) that were smokefree increased from 35% to 65%”
I suspect that what has happened is that the number of movies that include smoking has decreased. But, where it does get shown, it gets shown a lot.
(And I think that makes sense. If smoking is no longer a casual thing that people do, it becomes a more extreme thing that becomes notable - which is to say, it becomes a part of that character’s portrayal. So, if you are playing the role of the “person (perhaps bad guy) who smokes”, then your always doing that in your scenes).
I mean, I was recently skimming channels and the movie Big was on, and it was jarring to see a character causally smoking in the office. But it wasn’t a notable character trait back then.
…
As for why I ever smoked (in college)? I had a beer buzz one night and a girl gave me a cigarette and said that we were going to smoke. It enhanced the buzz immediately, and I became the guy who bummed a smoke whenever he was drinking. (Fortunately, I don’t do either anymore)
Smoking can now get you points toward a R rating, it’s recent. It is to mollify the crowd that want smoking to be always a R, so it depends a lot. There are many circumstances and situations. In fact even a brief flash of nudity doesn’t make a automatic R.
MPAA Adds Smoking as Factor in Rating Films : NPR.
The Motion Picture Association of America has announced that, along with swearing, sex and violence, smoking on screen will help determine what audience-rating a film receives. The MPAA says it will consider how much a movie glorifies tobacco use, and who’s doing the puffing. The movie board says they will weigh historic context, as well.
So apparently, this rather recent ruling has cut down on smoking in PG etc, but more in R. Overall, I guess that means less smoking overall than 15 or so years ago, but still more smoking that IRL.
Study turns up an unexpected twist in ancient tribes' smoking habits.
Back when Columbus got his first taste of tobacco, Native Americans viewed smoking as a ceremonial and religious ritual, marking occasions that ranged from prayers to peace treaties.
Today’s dominant strain of commercial tobacco, known by the scientific name Nicotiana tabacum, was introduced to tribes in the western United States European settlers in the 1800s. Before contact, Western tribes ranging from Alaska to California used wild strains of tobacco instead, such as N. quadrivalvis (Indian tobacco) and N. attenuata (coyote tobacco). Some tribes were also known to smoke an entirely different kind of plant known as kinnikinnick or bearberry (which is now a popular ornamental plant for Northwest gardens).
https://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditional-tobacco-use/
I think we’ve made some progress!
There should have been a noticeable effect in Native American rituals, what with the predominant plant used (Nicotiana rustica), though not as pronounced as with, say, Datura. An account I read of smoking Datura to commune with the spirits was hair-raising.
You realize that’s not an article. You’re pushing a particular product.
I think the first step is probably understanding people the world over had a habit of smoking things, often times it was for “perceived medicinal” reasons. Prior to tobacco being introduced to the Eastern hemisphere, various plants were smoked–many of which don’t have a strong pharmacological effect at all, but certain people would make claims that it had various spurious health benefits. With that being “primed” people were disposed to thinking smoking something could be a good thing to do.
When Europeans first arrived in the Western hemisphere and first observed indigenous peoples using tobacco, their curiosity would have been piqued, particularly in areas where indigenous tobacco use were widespread and where it was used as a commonly carried item for trade.
An early account of European tobacco use noted that it produced an effect of giving the smoker energy and a “numbness” that let them basically work harder or longer at some physical task.
This is not entirely out of line with the known pharmacological effects of nicotine. The exact type of tobacco plant these Europeans were consuming, how it was cured etc will affect the exact make up of it–but the basic description matches a known physiological reaction to consuming nicotine–which is stimulant and a mild analgesic.
There is something called Nesbitt’s paradox, while nicotine is a stimulant, with repeated use it actually starts to have a sedative effect on a person. It is thus plausible early European travelers to the New World smoked it to see what it was about, then heard that it was a good pick me up that also reduced any aches and pains you might have. After a time smoking it regularly, they would also start to experience the sedative effects that it can have in someone who has become acculturated to it. Then of course they become physically addicted to nicotine, and it becomes unpleasant to not smoke regularly. However, not having a good working model of addictive substances, it’s highly likely most people who were happily smoking would simply share stories of how cool smoking was for the physiological positives.
The negatives of withdrawal would not have been unknown, but it’s pretty easy for people at mass scale to start doing a drug.
Sorry, this might have been lost in the flow of conversation, but my question was rhetorical, and should be understood in the context of another poster’s claim that tobacco smoking does not cause any amount of “relaxation or pleasure,” only the cessation of nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
Sorry–I also hadn’t noticed I was responding to a much older post in a recently resurrected thread, so I had missed the convo flow.
If I made to 70 while smoking why would I quit now? I didn’t make it to 70 quite yet, and I did quit, but I quit because I got tired of the cost, not specifically for my health. Turns out my health is bad enough even if I didn’t smoke, but the smoking didn’t help either.
Why would it have to be under 70? How about over 70 which is even worse. Older people should not smoke but it is hard to quit and is addictting.
I guess it comes down to Cigarette manufactures will do all they can to keep selling them.
The original poster’s point was that anyone under 70 would have grown up (and have potentially started smoking) after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on the dangers of smoking. A 70-year-old today would have been 12 (and probably not have started smoking regularly, if at all) in 1964.
I don’t think the Surgeon General’s warning had much in the way of deterring or scaring others from smoking. Smoking was pretty popular long after 1964 and it wasn’t until the Clinton Administration cracked down on it in the 90’s.
This chart shows that the U.S. smoking rate peaked in the mid '50s, and then began to slowly decline, before returning to a similar peak in the early '70s, before the decline resumed. The steepest part of that decline actually appears to have been throughout the 1980s, when it dropped from around 40% to below 30%. (What happened in the '90s was many public places started banning or restricting smoking.)
It’s interesting to see that spike into the early ‘70s. It sort of mirrors the time of the Vietnam war; would military service explain this bump? Maybe cigarettes were being provided to conscripts. Or is there another reason to explain why a gradually reducing rate shot back up?
It looks like the numbers are based on a poll that Gallup has done yearly, for decades. I’d suspect that draftees in Vietnam probably weren’t in the sample.
That spike around '71 or '72 looks to only be a couple of percentage points higher than the years surrounding it; it might well be within the range of statistical error for the study.
At any rate, the story seems to be that there was a generally slow decline in smoking rates from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s, and then it dropped off pretty dramatically for the rest of the '80s, before resuming a slow, steady decline since.
My guess is that more people were smoking pot, and it served as a gateway drug to tobacco.
The fuck? There is no way that pot smokers were switching to or adding tobacco in any large numbers. I don’t have the time to list all of the ways that that’s silly but I will mention one which is that since the legalization of pot in many parts of the US, tobacco rates have continued to drop. Pot isn’t the gateway drug to anything.