But, frankly, that's a bit overdone (even if it is sadly true).
So I decided to go in a completely different direction, although it may be related somehow. Today I'm going to focus on a better way to keep people from smoking.
This is not something new either, I realize. Everyone from the President to the folks here in Oklahoma realize that smoking is both dangerous and costly (especially as we look at health care reform) and want to do something about it. That said, most anti-smoking campaigns are comprised of either scary labels like the one to the left, or items like the patch (or pills, etc., etc.). Unfortunately, studies have shown that these labels are largely ineffective and the FDA has recently added it's own warning for those who take anti-smoking pills.Truthfully, neither of these methods really get at the root of the problem. Labels dealing with the health risks of smoking may prevent some people from smoking but people take far more obvious life-endangering risks all the time (see this video for at least 20 examples). And pills might help the most motivated to quit but these too don't ultimately deal with the root cause.
What might work better is a direct attack on the reason many people start smoking in the first place: smoking is perceived as "cool." People often start smoking because somebody they perceive as cool smokes. It's the same reason people want to "keep up with the Joneses" and, probably, why most Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs after buying bigger houses and nicer cars than their income can support. People want to be richer and smarter, or at least appear to be richer or smarter. Thus these ads:
That's why I think we should change the labels on cigarettes to say: "Smoking will make you look stupid and poor."
After all, you can back that up with more studies. Here's one from Virginia:
I realize this general idea is not new. The Truth Campaign and others have similar efforts. But why not make this the new label the FDA is looking into?It may not keep people from smoking altogether (the population who chooses to smoke does so for a variety of reasons, thus no campaign is a "silver bullet"), but it might work for some. And if that's the case, it's worth throwing into the mix.
8 comments:
Images, graphs, and analysis, now that's a blog post I can get behind. Well done sir.
Also, I saw on CNN yesterday that the military is considering a total ban on cigarettes, thought you might find that interesting.
Thanks, Mike...In the spirit of another anti- campaign, "I learned it from watching you!"
I saw that article on the military deal and should have mentioned it...thanks for putting it in the comments...and keep up the good work at onestopschop.blogspot.com! Wish I could join the crew coming to see you guys this weekend but, alas...duty calls.
Another, somewhat related (though a bit more philosophical) post coming later this week if I can carve out the time.
Hmm... honestly not sure about this approach, Jeff. Two objections: Don't we stigmatize people with low-incomes and less education enough already? Would we really want campaigns aimed at stigmatizing smokers further for being "dumb and poor"? The other objection is that we hardly need this campaign - over the course of the past two decades, smoking has become an entirely class-based activity. At least when you get past age 30, there are very few upper middle class smokers. So who would the campaign actually be addressing?
an excellent point, David, and one that I actually did think about before posting. I hesitated to make the post that harsh largely because of that issue.
As I'm sure you know, the last thing I want to do is further stigmatize the poor (Full disclosure: I do have a serious prejudice against the inexcusably stupid...).
That said, I'm actually intentionally aiming at exactly that class that still smokes (meaning those with less education and less income). My new proposed warning would admittedly not work well with upper middle class folks. That's not who is targeted (it would be dumb to target those who smoke less after all).
The warning is aimed at people with less income and education who smoke to appear "cool" or who fall prey to the tobacco ads portraying smoking as a wealthy, intellectual habit. It is actually because of the stigmas of poverty and low education that this campaign might work for people in poverty and with low educational status.
Now, again, I'm not one normally to add stigmas to those who are poor or uneducated. I have a summer camp for low income people helping them increase education, after all. But which is better, a graphic (i.e. visibly offensive) picture of a blackened lung that is ineffective--therefore indirectly leading to continued health problems (and expenses) among the poor and undereducated--or an admittedly offensive label that might get to the root of the problem and actually help the people it unfortunately stigmatizes? That, I think is the true dilemma.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Jeff. I know you'd never want to stigmatize poor people, which is why I bothered to raise my objection in the first place. Anyhow, the more I think about this, the less convinced I am that I or you or anyone really knows why people smoke anymore. The idea that we have to attack the idea that smoking is cool was conventional wisdom way back when I started smoking in the early 1980's. Did you notice that the ads you used to make your point about making smoking seem cool were from roughly the 1830s?
The only thing I think I know on the subject is that smoking is less stigmatized among lower class adults than it is among upper middle class adults. How we make smoking as unacceptable among welders and secretaries as it is among lawyers and ministers is a mystery to me.
I should add that this is where my Libertarian instincts kick in and ask what should the role of government be here regarding personal behavior?
We know smoking leads to cancer, that it disproportionately impacts lower income individuals, and drives up healthcare costs. But right now the short term high for smokers is > any potential negative outcome in the future. Which is to say that there is no mystery about why people smoke. It's fun, an escape, etc... and then you get addicted.
So in this case should it simply be the goal of a government to regulate the industry and tax the risky behavior to both reduce it's practice and pay for programs that benefit everyone? Like say healthcare. Or attempt to achieve some sort of ideal state where no one smokes?
I would argue that the latter is impossible, so the former (while not ideal) might be the only solution.
Post a Comment