Smoking

Ariel Rieffer
English 101
Research Paper
 Rieffer 2

A man was smoking on his porch. He relaxed while inhaling his nicotine and

tobacco through a little cigarette, letting the embers fall apathetically on the wooden

deck. When he was finished he dropped the cigarette and went inside. Not long after, his

house was ablaze. When the fire department arrived, he had already begun attempting to

put out the fire with a hose and another cigarette hanging out of his mouth the whole

time. After a fireman asked him several times to put his cigarette out, he realized how

ridiculous it was and decided to quit.

People’s views of smoking have changed within the past 30 years. The changes

were caused by an increase in the awareness of health risks associated with smoking as

well as health costs that are related with smoking, the price of cigarettes, non-smoking

campaigns, and new policies and regulations. The results themselves are quite

significant. For example, more people quit smoking, less people start, and there is less

exposure to second hand smoke for those who are not smokers.

One of the most significant changes that occurred in the last 30 years is an

increased knowledge of the health risks involved with smoking. This consciousness was

partially initiated by studies that show the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. However,

this research was conducted before there was much change in the perception of smoking

(Stratton 594-597). In addition, the results were not necessarily acknowledged when they

were first discovered. This information became more widely recognized when the
 Rieffer 3

research became more intensive and the results more definitive. Eventually, warnings

and advertisements alerted the public to the real danger involved in cigarette smoking.

The health risks that are resultant of smoking cigarettes are copious. According to

John W. Whitehead, a comprehensive report on smoking and health, released by the

surgeon general, reveals that “smoking causes diseases in nearly every organ of the

human body.” For example, lung cancer, buccal cancer, chronic nonneoplastic

bronchiopulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, chronic

obstructive lung disease, stroke, miscarriage, prematurity, still birth, neonatal death, and

fetal damage are all health risks that are proven to be increased among smokers (Stratton

594-604). The surgeon general report, which Whitehead refers to, indicates that smoking

also leads to leukemia, cataracts, pneumonia and cancers of the cervix, kidney, pancreas

and stomach; it shortens the lives of men by approximately 13.2 years, and women’s lives

by about 14.5 years.

Smoking induced diseases do not only affect the health of a smoker, but hurt

economically as well. In the United States, direct medical costs due to smoking exceed

$75 billion per year, the economic toll from lost productivity is equal to about $82 billion

(Whitehead), and other losses include further indirect costs such as disability, lost wages,

and higher renovation and cleaning costs (World Health Organization, protection 7).

Smoking cigarettes also increases the risk of a fire. Ten percent of apartment fires and 40

percent of apartment fire deaths are caused by cigarettes (Wood). Because of all the risks

involved with smoking, insurance premiums are also higher for smokers (Stratton 598).

The additional costs involved with smoking make it an expensive and dangerous

habit. That is not the worst part, economically, for smokers. Buying the actual cigarettes
 Rieffer 4

is one of the most costly aspects of smoking. Prices of cigarettes began to rise in 1980,

when a pack of cigarettes cost about 80 cents. However, in 1999 the real price had risen

to around $1.35 per pack and today, as the price continues to increase, a pack is

approximately $6.50 (Warner 47). This was the first time in 30 years that the real price

of cigarettes had increased and at the same time taxation on cigarettes increased, making

the product increasingly expensive (Sweanor 74).

Non-smoking campaigns have become progressively more popular with time.

One of the very strong movements is Monitor, Protect, Offer, Warn, Enforce, and Raise

(MPOWER). This endeavor is led by the World Health Organization (WHO). The first

letter means monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies. The World Health

Organization finds this important because it provides vital information about the

problems caused by tobacco and proves how different solutions work along with insight

to new ideas. The second objective is to protect people from tobacco smoke. It is

imperative to maintain smoke-free environments because any exposure to second hand

smoke is considered a health risk. Next, this program encourages offering help to quit

tobacco use. Three out of four smokers want to quit, but because of addictive chemicals

some people need help from things like counseling, pharmacotherapy, quit lines, and

simple medical advice. Warning about the dangers of tobacco is also included to

illustrate that smoking is a serious health risk rather than a bad habit. The World Health

Organization stresses the importance of enforcing bans on tobacco advertising,

promotion, and sponsorship because marketing from tobacco industry encourages

smoking and decreases motivation to quit. Finally, raising taxes on tobacco “is the single
 Rieffer 5

most effective way to decrease consumption and encourage tobacco users to quit” (World

Health Organization, MPOWER 39).

Although the World Health Organization is one of the most influential non-

smoking groups, their MPOWER campaign is not the only one of its kind. Most of the

ideas captured in this campaign are seen in other policies as well. For example, the

Ministries of Health and Labor appealed to businesses by awarding a certificate of honor

to companies that meet standards of workplace bans and educational programs. Those

businesses then have become examples to others and the system is a success (Da Costa

42-43). Some other changes include legislation on smoking regulations in public places,

requirements for warning labels, banning broadcast ads, discounts on life insurance for

non-smokers, education about smoking in schools, and decreased advertising (Stratton

594-597).

Some regulations on smoking have more than one cause. For example, apartment

owners know that second hand smoke is a dangerous toxin, but they have also realized

that there is an additional cost to get an apartment ready for a new tenant after a smoker

moves out. This incentive has led some apartment owners to have at least a percentage of

smoke free units (Wood).

Some of the strategies for tobacco control include prevention, protection,

cessation initiatives, and action from politicians. The increase in protection is extensive

and includes workplaces, public areas, some restaurants and bars, and flights. Some

prevention measures have been heavily increased with new packaging and labels that

show illustrative warnings and reveal the toxins in tobacco smoke. These precautions

were not taken in the past and the few policies and regulations that were in existence over
 Rieffer 6

30 years ago were not as extensive and were generally not enforced. “The only controls

on advertising and labeling were in a voluntary code of conduct” and for the most part

tobacco companies did not follow the code (Sweanor 73).

The perceptions and laws associated with smoking have changed significantly

over the last 30 years, but “things were so bad then that significant improvements were

not hard to achieve” (Sweanor 72). For example, non-smokers would have to breathe in

second-hand smoke because there were few or no regulations on where people could

smoke. People were more apathetic in the past because at the worst they viewed smoking

as a bad habit. Sweanor points out that when the US surgeon general released a report on

smoking and health in 1964, little concern was expressed. Also, warnings on cigarette

packages and ads were not strengthened until 1984 (Stratton 599), so people could buy a

product without knowing the dangers or what toxins it contains. Previously, the only

warning on cigarettes was included voluntarily by tobacco companies. It was very small

print on the side of the pack and said, “Danger to health increases with amount smoked.

Avoid inhaling” (Sweanor 82).

However, health issues are not the only concerns that were worse before the

1980s. Once again, the cost plays an important role in a recognizable change. Cigarette

prices did not just increase from 1980 to present, but increased dramatically from past

decades into the 1980s as well. Inflation in the 1970s caused federal and state taxes on

cigarettes to increase. As a result, the price of cigarettes rose for the first time in 30 years

(Sweanor 72). Before the change in the 1980s, the price of cigarettes was actually

decreasing; federal tax on cigarettes decreased by 25 cents per pack before it started
 Rieffer 7

increasing in the 1980s and the real price per pack of cigarettes had decreased by 30 cents

in the decade before the 1980s (Warner 47).

The deluge of changes that were made in the past 30 years has led to a revolution

in the perception of smoking. One of the most important impacts is an increase in the

number of smokers that quit. When smokers are aware of the dangers of smoking, they

are more likely to quit because of health concerns. Making the information more

available helps smokers to realize the risk they put themselves in by continuing to smoke.

The new availability of quitting assistance has benefitted smokers. The World

Health Organization’s MPOWER campaign discusses the advantages of smokers who get

help. For example “Advice from health-care practitioners can greatly increase abstinence

rates” from smoking, quit lines provide a type of counseling that helps smokers mentally

(some are now online for further availability), and nicotine replacement treatment can

now be found in the form of patches, lozenges, gum, nasal sprays, and prescription

medications (World Health Organization, MPOWER 30).

Though smoker assistance methods are helpful in cessation, the cost of cigarettes

has had the largest effect on people quitting. The World Bank states, “The affordability

of tobacco products has repeatedly proved to be the single biggest factor in determining

per capita consumption.” According to a study in the 1990s from the World Health

Organization, a tax increase on tobacco, which caused the price of cigarettes to double,

resulted in a remarkable decline in consumption. About 40 percent of the decrease was

from smokers who quit and the largest decrease was from people who smoke less when

prices go up because they are young or earn low wages. Sweanor also writes about an
 Rieffer 8

occurrence where price affects consumption. As taxes increased between 1985 and 1991,

cigarette sales dropped by 40 percent.

Like the tax increases, there have been cases where assistive methods such as

health warnings on cigarette packs, limits on indoor smoking, and restrictions on tobacco

advertising have attributed to a decrease in cigarette consumption. Sometimes such

campaigns are successful even when the price of tobacco goes down. These instances are

much rarer than the decline of smoking due to increase in cost, but increased knowledge

greatly encourages quitting and discourages starting.

Another important cause of reduced consumption is smoke-free environments.

The World Bank says that smoke-free workplaces reduce tobacco consumption by

approximately 29%. That is a reduction of about 3.1 cigarettes per smoker each day.

Even in 1985, the United States Tobacco Institute said,

“Those who say they work under restrictions smoke about

one-and-one-quarter fewer cigarettes each day than those
who don’t. That one-and-one-quarter per day cigarette
reduction then, means nearly 7 billion fewer cigarettes
smoked each year because of workplace smoking
restrictions. That’s 350 million packs of cigarettes. At a
dollar a pack, even the lightest of workplace smoking
restrictions is costing this industry 233 million dollars a
year in revenue.”

This reflects the impact on smoking if smokers have less chance to smoke. When the

opportunity is more scarce, people in that situation will smoke less often (World Health

Organization, Protection 3).

There are also other beneficial effects from smoke-free environments. First of all,

these environments decrease the toxins in the air. In one study the nicotine in the air

decreased by 83%. As a result, people who were breathing in second-hand smoke

 Rieffer 9

improve their health. In the same study, a device that tests saliva for smoke toxins

absorbed by the body showed that the level of smoke toxins fell by 69%. There are also

economic benefits from smoke-free environments. Smoke-free environments are nine

times more cost affective and clean air increases productivity by 3%. Non-smoking

businesses are also very popular. Smoke-free regulations usually attract new clientele

(World Health Organization, Protection 10-13). Because 80 percent of Americans do not

smoke, this increases business (Wood).

Another benefit of smoke-free environments is the decline of teenagers and young

people that start to smoke. Teenagers that work in smoke-free sites are 68% less likely to

start smoking on average. Also, studies examining cigarette use in teenagers showed that

communities with smoke-free laws versus those with no smoking regulations saw a

relative reduction in prevalence of 17.2%, and a relative reduction in per capita cigarette

consumption of 50.4% (World Health Organization, Protection 12). Smoke-free

environments contribute to the change in attitude about the social acceptability of

smoking. That change leads to a decrease in new smokers (World Health Organization,

MPOWER 28). For the most part, whether or not teenagers smoke comes from the

environment they grow up in. They are not only influenced by their workplace, but

teenagers are also more likely to smoke if someone at home smokes. Teenagers in

smoke-free homes are 74% less likely to become smokers (World Health Organization,

Protection 12).

In 1994 a surgeon general report stated that tobacco might be a gate-way drug for

youth. It also discussed the significance of the age when people start smoking, issues

encountered with cessation for young people, effects of advertising, and school-based
 Rieffer 10

prevention programs (Stratton 601). Ten years later, graphic images, along with health

warnings and explanatory messages on cigarettes, are said to increase consumer

knowledge in order to discourage youth from beginning to smoke (World Health

Organization, MPOWER 51). Schools also increased education on the negative effects of

tobacco. Many non-smoking campaigns targeted youth and smoking prevention

education. For example, 70,000 students took part in an anti-tobacco children’s slogan

and drawing contest. In addition, a children’s magazine called Stop Smoking Around Me

was published to increase awareness along with tobacco control posters that were

published on the cover of an international journal (Da Costa 43-44).

Finally, the issue that is always the most influential in terms of decreases in

smoking, money. In 1965, fifty percent of teenagers over 15 smoked, in 1979, 46 percent

smoked (42 percent of them smoked everyday), but due to increases in taxes and cost of

cigarettes, by 2001 that percentage dropped to 22 percent. A survey also shows that,

during a time of increased taxation on cigarettes, teenagers achieved a per capita decline

of 60 percent and the 42 percent of everyday smokers in 1979 decreased to 16 percent in

1991 (Sweanor 71-89).

The changes seen in the last 30 years have been varied and have had a wide

spectrum of effects. However, some of the most significant are cessation services, tax

and price increases, advertising, promotion and sponsorship bans, anti-tobacco

advertising and establishment of smoke-free places (World Health Organization,

MPOWER 8). Fifty years ago most of these ideas might have seemed excessive or

extreme. As the times changed, people became more aware of the consequences of

smoking, therefore deciding to try to diminish the damage it causes.

 Rieffer 11

The reason that the views of smoking changed when they did came as a result of

more than one factor. The most important of these reasons are the increases in science

and technology that led to discoveries about the harm of smoking tobacco, getting that

information to the public, and the increase in price of cigarettes as well as the taxation on

them.

Throughout the years, increased awareness and concern led to further anti-

smoking action. As more people became interested in this cause, more tobacco control

strategies were put into place. As a result, many people are healthier. The decline in new

smokers is visible in lung cancer studies that show the number of new cases of lung

cancer decreasing by 100 per year, starting in 2000 (Sweanor 71). Increase in health

leads to a longer life expectancy as well. This generation’s life expectancy is longer than

that of people in the 1970s, due in part to the changes in smoking.

To conclude, people’s assessment of smoking has changed with the times since

1980. The causes of the change were increased awareness and recognition of damages to

health, increased economic cost that smokers face, increased cost and taxation of

cigarettes, powerful non-smoking campaigns, new policies and regulation regarding

smoking, bans, increased availability of help for smokers wanting to quit, education for

youth about the dangers of tobacco smoke, and protection from second-hand smoke for

people who do not smoke. The strides for anti-smoking ideas have been great and so

have the effects of these movements and principles. From these changes, the results can

be seen in cleaner air, increased cessation, reduced initiation of smoking (especially in

teenagers and young people), less exposure to second-hand smoke, and over-all increase

in health and wellbeing.

 Rieffer 12

Works Cited

Da Costa, Luisa M., and Silva Goldfarb. "Government Leadership in Tobacco

Control."Tobacco Control Policy: Strategies, Successes, and Setbacks. By Beyer

Joy. De and Linda Waverley Brigden. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2003. 38-

46.

Stratton, Kathleen R. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm

Reduction. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy, 2001.

593-604.

Sweanor, David, and Ken Kyle. "Legislation and Applied Economics in the Pursuit of

Public Health." Tobacco Control Policy: Strategies, Successes, and Setbacks. By

Beyer Joy. De and Linda Waverley Brigden. Washington, D.C.: World Bank,

2003. 71-96.

Warner, Kenneth E. "Reducing Harm to Smokers." Regulating Tobacco. By Robert L.

Rabin and Stephen D. Sugarman. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. 111-137.

Whitehead, John W. "Tobacco Use Should Be Outlawed." Opposing Viewpoints:

Gateway Drugs. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing

Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Cochise College. 15 June 2010

Wood, Daniel B. "Smoking Bans Help Reduce Tobacco Addiction." Opposing

Viewpoints: Addiction. Ed. Christina Fisanick. Detroit: Greenhaven

Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Cochise College. 15

June 2010
 Rieffer 13

World Health Organization. Protection from Exposure to Second-hand Tobacco Smoke:

Policy Recommendations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,

2007. 2-13.

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: the

MPOWER Package. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2008.