Source on Attitudes Towards Smoking in the 50's-70's?
January 3, 2024 7:17 AM
In watching movies from that era where seemingly a majority of people smoke, I struggle with understanding what the general attitudes were towards the practice.
Some non-smokers (in the old movies) sometimes clearly express annoyance at being around smokers, and other times general disapproval of the practice (e.g., Robert Redford in "Three Days of the Condor"). So why would they allow strangers to smoke in their house?
Then there's the attitude of smokers themselves. In "Breakfast at Tiffany's," Hepburn's character at one point says she'd give up smoking in exchange for marrying some guy she became infatuated with. That seems to say smoking wasn't accepted by everyone, everywhere and even hard-core smokers knew it annoyed others and maybe even felt guilty.
Lastly, there are weird things like a character in "The Birds" saying something like "I felt like a cigarette 20 minutes ago but got so caught up in the gardening". Was Hitchcock mocking someone for thinking this ("oh, I wanted to indulge in something pointless, but doing something productive got in the way") or just reflecting what he thought were normal attitudes?
Some non-smokers (in the old movies) sometimes clearly express annoyance at being around smokers, and other times general disapproval of the practice (e.g., Robert Redford in "Three Days of the Condor"). So why would they allow strangers to smoke in their house?
Then there's the attitude of smokers themselves. In "Breakfast at Tiffany's," Hepburn's character at one point says she'd give up smoking in exchange for marrying some guy she became infatuated with. That seems to say smoking wasn't accepted by everyone, everywhere and even hard-core smokers knew it annoyed others and maybe even felt guilty.
Lastly, there are weird things like a character in "The Birds" saying something like "I felt like a cigarette 20 minutes ago but got so caught up in the gardening". Was Hitchcock mocking someone for thinking this ("oh, I wanted to indulge in something pointless, but doing something productive got in the way") or just reflecting what he thought were normal attitudes?
@EmpressCallipygos Just to disagree with your point since I see it a lot, smokers are annoying to be around not because of any moral qualms but because you're forced to breathe in the smoke (and perhaps some smokers don't realize how much of an allergic reaction it can bring on and how unpleasant the smell is, which stays in clothes for a while.)
posted by Jon44 at 7:25 AM on January 3
posted by Jon44 at 7:25 AM on January 3
Part of it is that the health risks of secondhand smoke slowly filtered out to the general public over decades. For instance, I found this write-up from Gallup, specifically this part:
Americans' awareness of the risks of secondhand smoke is significantly higher today than it was 20 years ago when barely a third (36%) called it very harmful. However, despite the surgeon general's strong warnings in 2006, recognition has consistently hovered near 55% since the late 1990s, apart from one slightly lower reading in 1999.
The data they're using only goes back to 1994, but it seems reasonable to assume that back in the '50-'70s the health risks of secondhand smoke were even less viewed as important considerations by non-smokers, thus leading to non-smokers allowing smokers to smoke in their homes, etc.
I think a good way to think about this is loud music in public (on public transportation, for instance.) It's annoying, but almost no one ever says anything, because the upside is too small and the downsides too great. And that's for something that most people would view as mildly antisocial behavior; smoking was a cultural norm.
It's also important to remember that the developed world was just a lot dirtier and smeller in the middle of the 20th Century: air pollution, leaded gas, no catalytic converters, etc. and so cigarette smoke was just one of many annoying smelly things out there.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:30 AM on January 3
Americans' awareness of the risks of secondhand smoke is significantly higher today than it was 20 years ago when barely a third (36%) called it very harmful. However, despite the surgeon general's strong warnings in 2006, recognition has consistently hovered near 55% since the late 1990s, apart from one slightly lower reading in 1999.
The data they're using only goes back to 1994, but it seems reasonable to assume that back in the '50-'70s the health risks of secondhand smoke were even less viewed as important considerations by non-smokers, thus leading to non-smokers allowing smokers to smoke in their homes, etc.
I think a good way to think about this is loud music in public (on public transportation, for instance.) It's annoying, but almost no one ever says anything, because the upside is too small and the downsides too great. And that's for something that most people would view as mildly antisocial behavior; smoking was a cultural norm.
It's also important to remember that the developed world was just a lot dirtier and smeller in the middle of the 20th Century: air pollution, leaded gas, no catalytic converters, etc. and so cigarette smoke was just one of many annoying smelly things out there.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:30 AM on January 3
I remember more people smoking than not during the 60s and up thru the late 70s. At university we all smoked in lecture hall classes, and even in regular classrooms. In 1975 I remember smoking on the NYC subway. It wasn't unusual. In elevators, taxi rides, restaurants,etc. I remember all the crushed butts on the ground, along with spit out bubble gum on the sidewalks...Seems ages ago.
posted by Czjewel at 7:30 AM on January 3
posted by Czjewel at 7:30 AM on January 3
Oh I just remembered when I was taking a jewelry course at Kent State in 1970 (before the tragedy) we would do our soldering on desks topped with asbestos board. Rest our cigarettes on the board while soldering jewelry...and using solder that contained cadmium...
posted by Czjewel at 7:36 AM on January 3
posted by Czjewel at 7:36 AM on January 3
This PDF, Chapter 2: A Historical Review of Efforts to Reduce Smoking in the United States.” Tobacco Data Statistics
Report, Center of Disease Control and Prevention, describes manifestations of anti-smoking sentiment in the US from the 19th century onward.
I hope that's helpful. This is something I have wondered about before, but I never investigated it. Thanks for asking this question.
posted by Francolin at 7:47 AM on January 3
Report, Center of Disease Control and Prevention, describes manifestations of anti-smoking sentiment in the US from the 19th century onward.
I hope that's helpful. This is something I have wondered about before, but I never investigated it. Thanks for asking this question.
posted by Francolin at 7:47 AM on January 3
Keep in mind that directors like to give actors something to do with their hands. Smoking is one of those things. The action of smoke (particularly in black & white) is visually interesting. I've noticed a lot of unnecessary drinking in movies and TV these days, again because it gives the actors something to do while exchanging exposition.
posted by SPrintF at 7:53 AM on January 3
posted by SPrintF at 7:53 AM on January 3
I actually think EmpressCallipygos' comparison of attitudes towards drinking today to attitudes towards smoking in the 70s and 80s is pretty accurate. The practice is considered by the vast majority to be perfectly fine, and so most people who are opposed to the practice (for whatever reason, moral or practical) wouldn't bother to take a hard line on it because it was outside the norm. Telling someone they could not smoke in your home was a bold stance to take. You might feel comfortable telling a close friend or family member not to, but it would be considered rude or hostile to an acquaintance or stranger.
Holly Golightly is saying she would do something extreme because she likes this guy that much, not that she assumes she would have to give up smoking to be in a relationship. A modern comparison might be someone saying they would get off social media if a potential partner asked them to - it's somewhat shocking!
rhymedirective's point that smoking was only one of the many unpleasant smells that the average person would encounter in a given day is a very good one to keep in mind.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:58 AM on January 3
Holly Golightly is saying she would do something extreme because she likes this guy that much, not that she assumes she would have to give up smoking to be in a relationship. A modern comparison might be someone saying they would get off social media if a potential partner asked them to - it's somewhat shocking!
rhymedirective's point that smoking was only one of the many unpleasant smells that the average person would encounter in a given day is a very good one to keep in mind.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:58 AM on January 3
Cigarettes have been referred to as "coffin nails" since the late 1800s or early 1900s -- they were understood to be unwholesome, even if the lung cancer connection wasn't made until later. In addition, smoking was considered taboo for women until the 1920s or so, when it was heavily marketed (as a weight loss technique, among other things). However, from the 40s through the 70s, 40% or more of the US population smoked -- it was popular and widespread due to heavy marketing and the addictive nature of nicotine.
The combination of these two factors -- a general agreement that smoking was not a good thing (especially for women), along with widespread popularity of smoking -- led to a situation like what you describe. You could compare it to attitudes around drinking today -- everybody knows it's bad for your health, many (if not most) people do it anyway, and there's a lot of "guilty pleasure" rhetoric around the practice.
posted by ourobouros at 8:04 AM on January 3
The combination of these two factors -- a general agreement that smoking was not a good thing (especially for women), along with widespread popularity of smoking -- led to a situation like what you describe. You could compare it to attitudes around drinking today -- everybody knows it's bad for your health, many (if not most) people do it anyway, and there's a lot of "guilty pleasure" rhetoric around the practice.
posted by ourobouros at 8:04 AM on January 3
Telling someone they could not smoke in your home was a bold stance to take. You might feel comfortable telling a close friend or family member not to, but it would be considered rude or hostile to an acquaintance or stranger.
This was true even into the 1980s, at least in some places. I can remember my parents in the 1970s and 1980s, non-smokers who disliked the smell of cigarette smoke, complaining to each other afterwards when guests would smoke in our house, but clearly not feeling like it was acceptable to tell them not to.
In that same time period, I remember how airplanes and some restaurants had non-smoking sections (and so did places like airport gate areas), but with nothing actually dividing the spaces so there was just as much smoke in the non-smoking area. And that was a major improvement on earlier decades, where the vestigial non-smoking spaces didn't even exist.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:12 AM on January 3
This was true even into the 1980s, at least in some places. I can remember my parents in the 1970s and 1980s, non-smokers who disliked the smell of cigarette smoke, complaining to each other afterwards when guests would smoke in our house, but clearly not feeling like it was acceptable to tell them not to.
In that same time period, I remember how airplanes and some restaurants had non-smoking sections (and so did places like airport gate areas), but with nothing actually dividing the spaces so there was just as much smoke in the non-smoking area. And that was a major improvement on earlier decades, where the vestigial non-smoking spaces didn't even exist.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:12 AM on January 3
Smoking wasn't considered dangerous (by the general population) or especially annoying (by the people doing it), and EC is exactly right that even if you didn't smoke you accommodated smokers because it was expected and considered rude and possibly communist to NOT accommodate them unless there was some massive contraindication to open flames, exactly in the same way that people expect there to be alcohol at parties unless you make it clear there won't be, or expect meat to be served unless a meal is specifically called out to be veg'n.
You do not get to disagree with the zeitgeist. It was what it was.
Now, my personal philosophy on this is that the reason smoking was allowed basically everywhere but gas pumps (and even then, enforcement was lax) is that smoking was For Men and you couldn't tell A Man not to do something he wanted to do. On the earlier end of your timeframe, women smoking was - in many cultures - considered dirty, racy, rebellious, or only for fancy people in the movies. But one day in the hallowed halls of tobacco marketing someone sat up in realization that HALF THE POPULATION wasn't buying enough cigarettes, and they fixed that.
But the cat was starting to squirm out of the bag, because the kind of data that was easy to hide in the paper-database era was starting to get into public hands, and this was a public that had suddenly come into painful awareness of the concept of "birth defects" probably most thanks to the Thalidomide scandal in the early 60s, and people started wondering what else one might consume that could harm a developing fetus. By the time I was born in '72, some people were choosing to stop drinking and smoking for the duration of a pregnancy because both were perceived as at least mildly harmful already. My mother did, but smoked at me my entire childhood and did not quit smoking for good until about 6 years ago. I grew up getting a fair amount of anti-smoking messaging in school and children's media, and there's a definite trend over the course of 80s media where increasingly only bad guys smoke (there are a million essays and dissertations on movie smoking if you want to fall down that rabbit hole).
My mom went back to finish college when I was in elementary school in the early 80s, and there was still smoking in classrooms then. She got a job at the university in probably 86ish, and the Student Union where her office was located opened a smoking lounge that year and went smoke-free in the rest of the building. I took my first class there in 1989 and there was no smoking inside classroom buildings anymore.
In the US, restaurants began informally and by self-direction splitting into smoking and non in the 80s, even without the presence of smoking bans. Airlines were I think the first fairly common space to blanket-segregate; I was a teenage smoker and flew in the smoking section in 1988 on my way to spend a year in Sweden where high schools had smoking lounges. I also visited a friend in the hospital there and we went to the smoking room conveniently located on each floor of the hospital.
You have to understand the absolutely demonic genius of tobacco marketing and the tobacco lobby (and billions and billions of dollars spent on it) to contextualize this. In the 50s and 60s they were still running ads of "doctors" proclaiming smoking was extremely healthy and maybe the only thing keeping a man productive and potent in this fast-paced world. As that stopped being a viable advertising vector, the mood switched to smoking making you...well, cool.
And that's weird as someone who remembers this period of advertising specifically, because I can assure you I never actually thought to myself "heyyy, I'm doing a cooooool thing" but it must have been there living in my brain at least a little bit. Like a lot of ex-smokers, part of the mindset shift I had to make to quit for good (after over 30 years) was knocking down all the constructs that smoking was comforting and reassuring and recognize it's actually fucking disgusting AND expensive AND will kill you.
A lot of people were just exposed from the cradle on to the idea that smoking was good and non-harmful, and even in the obvious face of data to the contrary, a lot of us declined to recalibrate our behavior because you couldn't buy anti-anxiety meds over the counter and also we were gruesomely addicted to a substance we were still being told into the 80s-90s was definitely not addictive in any way. But even non-smokers who rightly hated the shit - but still had to come home from literally any public space smelling like smoke - did not really have any ammunition for protest beyond "it's smelly and can cause fires" because the tobacco industry made sure of it. That whole "cool" campaign, even, set the stage so that anyone who was like "please go outside to smoke" kinda came off as a moral scold or fuddy-duddy pretty much all the way up to the widespread implementation of smoking bans.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:20 AM on January 3
You do not get to disagree with the zeitgeist. It was what it was.
Now, my personal philosophy on this is that the reason smoking was allowed basically everywhere but gas pumps (and even then, enforcement was lax) is that smoking was For Men and you couldn't tell A Man not to do something he wanted to do. On the earlier end of your timeframe, women smoking was - in many cultures - considered dirty, racy, rebellious, or only for fancy people in the movies. But one day in the hallowed halls of tobacco marketing someone sat up in realization that HALF THE POPULATION wasn't buying enough cigarettes, and they fixed that.
But the cat was starting to squirm out of the bag, because the kind of data that was easy to hide in the paper-database era was starting to get into public hands, and this was a public that had suddenly come into painful awareness of the concept of "birth defects" probably most thanks to the Thalidomide scandal in the early 60s, and people started wondering what else one might consume that could harm a developing fetus. By the time I was born in '72, some people were choosing to stop drinking and smoking for the duration of a pregnancy because both were perceived as at least mildly harmful already. My mother did, but smoked at me my entire childhood and did not quit smoking for good until about 6 years ago. I grew up getting a fair amount of anti-smoking messaging in school and children's media, and there's a definite trend over the course of 80s media where increasingly only bad guys smoke (there are a million essays and dissertations on movie smoking if you want to fall down that rabbit hole).
My mom went back to finish college when I was in elementary school in the early 80s, and there was still smoking in classrooms then. She got a job at the university in probably 86ish, and the Student Union where her office was located opened a smoking lounge that year and went smoke-free in the rest of the building. I took my first class there in 1989 and there was no smoking inside classroom buildings anymore.
In the US, restaurants began informally and by self-direction splitting into smoking and non in the 80s, even without the presence of smoking bans. Airlines were I think the first fairly common space to blanket-segregate; I was a teenage smoker and flew in the smoking section in 1988 on my way to spend a year in Sweden where high schools had smoking lounges. I also visited a friend in the hospital there and we went to the smoking room conveniently located on each floor of the hospital.
You have to understand the absolutely demonic genius of tobacco marketing and the tobacco lobby (and billions and billions of dollars spent on it) to contextualize this. In the 50s and 60s they were still running ads of "doctors" proclaiming smoking was extremely healthy and maybe the only thing keeping a man productive and potent in this fast-paced world. As that stopped being a viable advertising vector, the mood switched to smoking making you...well, cool.
And that's weird as someone who remembers this period of advertising specifically, because I can assure you I never actually thought to myself "heyyy, I'm doing a cooooool thing" but it must have been there living in my brain at least a little bit. Like a lot of ex-smokers, part of the mindset shift I had to make to quit for good (after over 30 years) was knocking down all the constructs that smoking was comforting and reassuring and recognize it's actually fucking disgusting AND expensive AND will kill you.
A lot of people were just exposed from the cradle on to the idea that smoking was good and non-harmful, and even in the obvious face of data to the contrary, a lot of us declined to recalibrate our behavior because you couldn't buy anti-anxiety meds over the counter and also we were gruesomely addicted to a substance we were still being told into the 80s-90s was definitely not addictive in any way. But even non-smokers who rightly hated the shit - but still had to come home from literally any public space smelling like smoke - did not really have any ammunition for protest beyond "it's smelly and can cause fires" because the tobacco industry made sure of it. That whole "cool" campaign, even, set the stage so that anyone who was like "please go outside to smoke" kinda came off as a moral scold or fuddy-duddy pretty much all the way up to the widespread implementation of smoking bans.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:20 AM on January 3
This was true even into the 1980s, at least in some places. I can remember my parents in the 1970s and 1980s, non-smokers who disliked the smell of cigarette smoke, complaining to each other afterwards when guests would smoke in our house, but clearly not feeling like it was acceptable to tell them not to.
Many friends and family members thought my mother was being ridiculous when she forbade my stepfather from smoking in the house, and this was in the early 90s.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:21 AM on January 3
Many friends and family members thought my mother was being ridiculous when she forbade my stepfather from smoking in the house, and this was in the early 90s.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:21 AM on January 3
As an ex-smoker (quit 2009), who grew up in a family of smokers in a friend group largely comprised of smokers in a world of smokers (you could smoke inside the mall, if not inside the stores until at least the late 90s in the tobacco state where I was), I don't remember ever thinking that secondhand smoke was really that big of a deal until I was maybe in my early twenties because everyone did it. I mean, there was an "opt out if you don't like the smell/have asthma or whatever" aspect that tended to determine whether or not you wanted to live on a smoking hall in a college dorm or where you sat at a restaurant, but even with the public health reports THAT WE ALL READ, it still seemed like a thing that the wider world considered maybe "dirty" but more like preference (see the drinking analogy above). It took me a long, long time before it ever really occurred to me that my smoking could for real have effects on other people and that was AFTER I lived in apartments for years, where I smoked inside, with non-smoking roommates and guests. They didn't say anything either and if they did, again, seen as preference.
Both of my grandmothers smoked into old age. Both of them railed to the end at establishments that did not permit them to smoke inside and, for better or worse, both of them had the material resources (and confidence that came with) to circumvent policy and (when they got older) employ people to work for them that accepted the risk. This makes them sound like villains and maybe they were. But that was the world they knew and they just refused to change.
I do not miss the days of there being smoke everywhere. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever entirely stop missing smoking though.
posted by thivaia at 8:31 AM on January 3
Both of my grandmothers smoked into old age. Both of them railed to the end at establishments that did not permit them to smoke inside and, for better or worse, both of them had the material resources (and confidence that came with) to circumvent policy and (when they got older) employ people to work for them that accepted the risk. This makes them sound like villains and maybe they were. But that was the world they knew and they just refused to change.
I do not miss the days of there being smoke everywhere. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever entirely stop missing smoking though.
posted by thivaia at 8:31 AM on January 3
My mom made my dad quitting smoking a condition of accepting his proposal (early 70s), yet my parents put out ash trays for every single family party we had until the 90s because other people in my family smoked. It was just considered part of being a good host, like making sure the house was clean and putting out bowls of snacks or whatever.
posted by misskaz at 8:32 AM on January 3
posted by misskaz at 8:32 AM on January 3
Acceptance of the science on second hand smoke changed everything. Before, it was seen as being similar to wearing too much cologne/perfume obnoxious in certain circumstances. On the other hand, complaining about it was viewed as being whiney and controlling.
As far as the self harm aspect, it was the same as alcohol or coffee…probably not good for one's health but not illegal and not really harming anyone else.
posted by brachiopod at 8:37 AM on January 3
As far as the self harm aspect, it was the same as alcohol or coffee…probably not good for one's health but not illegal and not really harming anyone else.
posted by brachiopod at 8:37 AM on January 3
During WW2 cigarettes were shipped regularly to soldiers on the frontlines. Soldiers received packets of 9 assorted brands of cigarettes, and the leadership claimed that this was essential for the morale of the soldiers. Military supply of cigarettes to soldiers continued through the Korean and Vietnam wars, and was only discontinued in the '70s.
In the 30's there was a famous cigarette campaign aimed at women "Reach for a Lucky instead of a Sweet." Sales of Lucky Strike increased 300% in the following year, according to that eminent source Google. Lucky Strike paid for endorsements from glamorous movie stars and presented the Jack Benny Program on radio, initially called The Lucky Strike Program. Remember Virginia Slims? Enormously successful at attracting women to smoking. Filter tips were added to cigarettes to appeal to women who didn't want shreds of tobacco in their mouths, but also so manufacturers could put forth that the smoke was "filtered" and somehow cleaner and more refined.
Smoking was just normal. My mother smoked whenever and wherever she desired, in a restaurant between courses, in our home, in a waiting room, on the bus or on the train. When my mom was pregnant with me in the 1950s she was not instructed to stop smoking or discontinue her one-cocktail-a day routine, and she didn't.
At the age of 6 I was sent on a plane unaccompanied to visit my grandfather (a Camel smoker). The stewardess (this was 1960) gave me the thrilling task of passing out all the little complimentary packs of 5 cigarettes to all the passengers. They were Kents, I recall. When I started my nursing career in the 1980s patients and visitors were allowed to smoke in the lounges on each floor! Nurses smoked in the nurse's lounge and while giving report!
From the perspective of 2024 and the past 10 years, this seems inconceivable, but that truly is the way it was. As a young adult I scarcely knew an adult who didn't smoke, and now I scarcely know someone who does. I quit 35 years ago.
posted by citygirl at 8:46 AM on January 3
In the 30's there was a famous cigarette campaign aimed at women "Reach for a Lucky instead of a Sweet." Sales of Lucky Strike increased 300% in the following year, according to that eminent source Google. Lucky Strike paid for endorsements from glamorous movie stars and presented the Jack Benny Program on radio, initially called The Lucky Strike Program. Remember Virginia Slims? Enormously successful at attracting women to smoking. Filter tips were added to cigarettes to appeal to women who didn't want shreds of tobacco in their mouths, but also so manufacturers could put forth that the smoke was "filtered" and somehow cleaner and more refined.
Smoking was just normal. My mother smoked whenever and wherever she desired, in a restaurant between courses, in our home, in a waiting room, on the bus or on the train. When my mom was pregnant with me in the 1950s she was not instructed to stop smoking or discontinue her one-cocktail-a day routine, and she didn't.
At the age of 6 I was sent on a plane unaccompanied to visit my grandfather (a Camel smoker). The stewardess (this was 1960) gave me the thrilling task of passing out all the little complimentary packs of 5 cigarettes to all the passengers. They were Kents, I recall. When I started my nursing career in the 1980s patients and visitors were allowed to smoke in the lounges on each floor! Nurses smoked in the nurse's lounge and while giving report!
From the perspective of 2024 and the past 10 years, this seems inconceivable, but that truly is the way it was. As a young adult I scarcely knew an adult who didn't smoke, and now I scarcely know someone who does. I quit 35 years ago.
posted by citygirl at 8:46 AM on January 3
I am in my 60s. I remember being on airline flights that had smoking sections. I just don't think second hand smoke was yet seen as the health hazard it is today. Most of the objection to smokers was the smell both in the air and the lingering smell on furniture, clothes, etc.
My father was a two pack a day smoker for most of my childhood. What I remember most is the ashtrays around his house. I rarely saw him smoke. He did go outside for walks to smoke, but I think he just wanted the fresh air (so to speak) rather than avoiding smoking inside.
I think as second hand smoke became more of a known problem, and attitudes about personal space changed so that people would speak up about their space, their health, their rights being infringed upon by others attitudes about smoking changed.
I also recall that advertising cigarettes was at some point banned on TV. I also began being taught in school that cigarettes were bad. I think the combination of new health ramifications of smoking for both smokers and non-smokers coupled with changing attitudes such as the me generation, changed.
As for movies and TV shows (Perry Mason had smoking as I recall as did a lot of talk shows including Johnny Carson himself), I think it did reflect the attidudes of the time. They were in flux. Some had gotten the message and did not want smoking and some were still blase about it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:02 AM on January 3
My father was a two pack a day smoker for most of my childhood. What I remember most is the ashtrays around his house. I rarely saw him smoke. He did go outside for walks to smoke, but I think he just wanted the fresh air (so to speak) rather than avoiding smoking inside.
I think as second hand smoke became more of a known problem, and attitudes about personal space changed so that people would speak up about their space, their health, their rights being infringed upon by others attitudes about smoking changed.
I also recall that advertising cigarettes was at some point banned on TV. I also began being taught in school that cigarettes were bad. I think the combination of new health ramifications of smoking for both smokers and non-smokers coupled with changing attitudes such as the me generation, changed.
As for movies and TV shows (Perry Mason had smoking as I recall as did a lot of talk shows including Johnny Carson himself), I think it did reflect the attidudes of the time. They were in flux. Some had gotten the message and did not want smoking and some were still blase about it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:02 AM on January 3
As a kid in the time of blue haze, I didn’t mind smoke. I even remember my mother catching me out for smoking because the bathroom smelled like smoke after I changed my clothes! I was a teen and nose-blind to it. Around then, teens just had to know what stores didn’t give a shit about carding you.
But around ‘96 or so the laws got tighter and society changed. By the time I was a young adult, I actually noticed when things smelled like smoke, and what’s more, I didn’t like it. I used to. I even bitched about the banning of clove cigarettes, but the fact is they did draw me in as a teen because they tasted good. I developed adult asthma in my 40s, which may or may not be related.
Now I don’t understand how people got used to it in the first place. Probably because it was the 1600s and anything that helped Europeans and their homes smell different had to be an improvement. (Native use of tobacco was ceremonial, less frequent, and much better aired out.)
posted by Countess Elena at 9:06 AM on January 3
But around ‘96 or so the laws got tighter and society changed. By the time I was a young adult, I actually noticed when things smelled like smoke, and what’s more, I didn’t like it. I used to. I even bitched about the banning of clove cigarettes, but the fact is they did draw me in as a teen because they tasted good. I developed adult asthma in my 40s, which may or may not be related.
Now I don’t understand how people got used to it in the first place. Probably because it was the 1600s and anything that helped Europeans and their homes smell different had to be an improvement. (Native use of tobacco was ceremonial, less frequent, and much better aired out.)
posted by Countess Elena at 9:06 AM on January 3
> (and perhaps some smokers don't realize how much of an allergic reaction it can bring
> on and how unpleasant the smell is, which stays in clothes for a while.)
I was raised by chainsmokers in the 70s and 80s. Tobacco smoke smell was invisible to me as a child and teenager in much the same way that manure smell is invisible to a farmer.
However, now that I'm 30+ years removed from my family of origin, I can smell a smoker at 20 paces.
> As that stopped being a viable advertising vector, the mood switched to smoking making you...well, cool.
My mom read all the housewife magazines of the day and the smoking advertising I remember from then was heavily gendered. The female-directed ads were rooted in first-wave feminism. "You've come a long way, baby." Dudes, of course, got the Marlborough Man.
posted by Sauce Trough at 9:20 AM on January 3
> on and how unpleasant the smell is, which stays in clothes for a while.)
I was raised by chainsmokers in the 70s and 80s. Tobacco smoke smell was invisible to me as a child and teenager in much the same way that manure smell is invisible to a farmer.
However, now that I'm 30+ years removed from my family of origin, I can smell a smoker at 20 paces.
> As that stopped being a viable advertising vector, the mood switched to smoking making you...well, cool.
My mom read all the housewife magazines of the day and the smoking advertising I remember from then was heavily gendered. The female-directed ads were rooted in first-wave feminism. "You've come a long way, baby." Dudes, of course, got the Marlborough Man.
posted by Sauce Trough at 9:20 AM on January 3
I had the same smell intolerance as Sauce Trough.
This definitely continued on through to the late 90s where I was in the Midwest US. I spent my childhood sitting in smoking sections at restaurants, my dad smoked at work in his office, both parents smoked at home (and still do). To this day my mom believes second hand smoke is not harmful. I assume this is because of the guilt she would have if she accepted it. In the 90s it’s was much less pervasive and fewer of my friends’ parents smoked. People used to wear no coat out to bars in the winter because they didn’t want to get them smokey — smoking in bars wasn’t outlawed in Chicago until 2008!
posted by Bunglegirl at 9:25 AM on January 3
This definitely continued on through to the late 90s where I was in the Midwest US. I spent my childhood sitting in smoking sections at restaurants, my dad smoked at work in his office, both parents smoked at home (and still do). To this day my mom believes second hand smoke is not harmful. I assume this is because of the guilt she would have if she accepted it. In the 90s it’s was much less pervasive and fewer of my friends’ parents smoked. People used to wear no coat out to bars in the winter because they didn’t want to get them smokey — smoking in bars wasn’t outlawed in Chicago until 2008!
posted by Bunglegirl at 9:25 AM on January 3
I grew up with two 2 pack a day smokers. You just don't notice smoke when it's always around you. Smoke was everywhere--restaurants, bars, movie theaters, the mall, my dad's office, in my house. My high school had a smoking courtyard you had to be 18 to use. Very few people would complain. On occasion someone would ask "mind if I smoke," but it was rare.
posted by MagnificentVacuum at 9:26 AM on January 3
posted by MagnificentVacuum at 9:26 AM on January 3
I also agree with EmpressCallipygo's comparison (one might also compare it to caffeine). My parents are in their 70s. My mom smoked for a bit in her 20s and then quit, while my dad never did. Yet growing up there was always an ashtray in the living room in case a friend came over who smoked - this was part of being a welcoming host/friend to them. This was in the 90s, and a kinda unusual stance at the time, but I imagine it was common in their youth.
And yeah, the health risks have only recently become really mainstream. My mom once got my dad a copy of LIFE Magazine from the year he was born (1947), and in it was an article by a doctor about the "health benefits of smoking"!!
And it was only recently that smoking really disappeared in indoor spaces in the US - I remember in the 90s/early aughts people smoking in restaurants/diners, bars, concert halls, etc. My college even had a smoking section for the cafeteria my freshman year (then a law passed outlawing that).
posted by coffeecat at 9:39 AM on January 3
And yeah, the health risks have only recently become really mainstream. My mom once got my dad a copy of LIFE Magazine from the year he was born (1947), and in it was an article by a doctor about the "health benefits of smoking"!!
And it was only recently that smoking really disappeared in indoor spaces in the US - I remember in the 90s/early aughts people smoking in restaurants/diners, bars, concert halls, etc. My college even had a smoking section for the cafeteria my freshman year (then a law passed outlawing that).
posted by coffeecat at 9:39 AM on January 3
I can remember my parents in the 1970s and 1980s, non-smokers who disliked the smell of cigarette smoke, complaining to each other afterwards when guests would smoke in our house, but clearly not feeling like it was acceptable to tell them not to.
Mine too. My visiting siblings who smoked were made to go outside, but when it was Mother's turn to host bridge club, or when my parents' best friends came over, the ashtrays came out -- you didn't tell GUESTS that they couldn't smoke in your home.
posted by JanetLand at 9:55 AM on January 3
Mine too. My visiting siblings who smoked were made to go outside, but when it was Mother's turn to host bridge club, or when my parents' best friends came over, the ashtrays came out -- you didn't tell GUESTS that they couldn't smoke in your home.
posted by JanetLand at 9:55 AM on January 3
I don't think films are the best lens for this.
I was born in the early 1970s. My mom has told me that she and her ob/gyn used to have a cigarette at her appointments together when she was pregnant with me. This is how different the mindset was.
While some of these memories are undoubtedly from the early 80s, I can say that as a kid in the late 70s and early 80s, my parents smoked around us all the time, in cars and restaurants and in the house. We would complain about sitting in the smoking area of restaurants, and they responded like we were just being grumpy kids. Truly, you just can't imagine how everyday and normalized it was to smoke inside around other people who weren't smoking.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:00 AM on January 3
I was born in the early 1970s. My mom has told me that she and her ob/gyn used to have a cigarette at her appointments together when she was pregnant with me. This is how different the mindset was.
While some of these memories are undoubtedly from the early 80s, I can say that as a kid in the late 70s and early 80s, my parents smoked around us all the time, in cars and restaurants and in the house. We would complain about sitting in the smoking area of restaurants, and they responded like we were just being grumpy kids. Truly, you just can't imagine how everyday and normalized it was to smoke inside around other people who weren't smoking.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:00 AM on January 3
Smoking in close spaces - in Portsmouth, NH you can visit and walk on a research submarine that was in service from 1953-1970 something, the USS Albacore, and one of the things that surprised me was the built in ashtrays. Can't imagine being in a submarine with the tight quarters and then adding cigarette smoke into the mix.
Also, a nurse manager who was a floor nurse in the 70s and 80s told us youngsters that there used to be ashtrays at all the nursing stations and they would smoke while doing their charting.
posted by MadMadam at 10:17 AM on January 3
Also, a nurse manager who was a floor nurse in the 70s and 80s told us youngsters that there used to be ashtrays at all the nursing stations and they would smoke while doing their charting.
posted by MadMadam at 10:17 AM on January 3
My high school had a smoking courtyard you had to be 18 to use. Very few people would complain.
We moved a few times so I went to more than one high school. One of them banned smoking indoors, but you could smoke anywhere outside. (To smoke weed, though, you had to go behind the school to The Trail; as long as that was done off the school property no one cared.) At two other schools, there were indoor smoking lounges for the students. The teachers' lounges were completely smoke-filled at all of the schools.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:54 AM on January 3
We moved a few times so I went to more than one high school. One of them banned smoking indoors, but you could smoke anywhere outside. (To smoke weed, though, you had to go behind the school to The Trail; as long as that was done off the school property no one cared.) At two other schools, there were indoor smoking lounges for the students. The teachers' lounges were completely smoke-filled at all of the schools.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:54 AM on January 3
I was born in 1980 and clearly remember a lot of the attitudes y'all are mentioning, and also remembering how it changed in the 1990s. To make this clear to the younger folks, I'm trying this analogy out cause I just thought of it after watching my cousin's tween kid and her Stanley cup collection: cultural attitudes to cigarettes in the 1980s were like water bottles are in the 2020s. Almost everyone just always has one with them. You wouldn't stop a guest from drinking from their bottle in your home unless you were weirdly controlling. (I know the analogy falls apart because of the smell factor, but you have to understand, when ~50% of the population smokes everything always smells at least a little like smoke, all the time. A non-smoke-smelling home or car or shop was a rarity when I was a kid.)
posted by holyrood at 11:37 AM on January 3
posted by holyrood at 11:37 AM on January 3
I was a kid in the late '70s and my parents smoked and it sucked. Everything always smelled like smoke. I would shake out my clothes and clouds of smoke dust would come out. My mom smoked through my birth and my brothers', but quit for my sister's birth in 1988.
My high school had a smoking area, they got rid of it in 1989. After that, the teachers and students went to their cars.
I actually don't recall smoking in the mall or the majority of stores - ever. You had to go outside. Bars were the last holdout. They still have some smoking bars- you can experience the olden days for yourself if you go there.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:08 PM on January 3
My high school had a smoking area, they got rid of it in 1989. After that, the teachers and students went to their cars.
I actually don't recall smoking in the mall or the majority of stores - ever. You had to go outside. Bars were the last holdout. They still have some smoking bars- you can experience the olden days for yourself if you go there.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:08 PM on January 3
My mom once got my dad a copy of LIFE Magazine from the year he was born (1947), and in it was an article by a doctor about the "health benefits of smoking"!!
My grandfather had a bunch of old Readers Digests from the 40s and 50s and there are ads and articles by doctors about smoking as a treatment for depression and anxiety. The past truly is a different country...
For more examples of mid-century attitudes, this post, with text from 1959, starts off by telling non-smokers that they should accommodate smokers with ashtrays and sand-filled pots (wow) and admonishes "He [the non-smoker] shouldn't expect to be asked, by a cigarette smoker, if he objects to smoking, unless he is over 90 or unless this ill-matched pair should find itself in a small closed compartment, like a telephone booth. Asking permission is expected today only of pipe and cigar smokers."
The surgeon general's report only came out in 1964, and it took another two years before health warnings on cigarette packages. (And even then, the tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to skirt the law -- the US warning labels are pitiful compared to other countries' pithy "Smoking Kills.") The dangers of secondhand smoke weren't even recognized until well into the 1980s. As late as 1988, only 17% of school districts were smoke-free. Today you'd be hard-pressed to find a school that isn't smoke-free. I'm too young to remember smoking in schools, but I do vividly remember the "non-smoking" section of restaurants (what a joke) -- my home state did not ban indoor smoking at bars and restaurants until 2009!
posted by basalganglia at 12:17 PM on January 3
My grandfather had a bunch of old Readers Digests from the 40s and 50s and there are ads and articles by doctors about smoking as a treatment for depression and anxiety. The past truly is a different country...
For more examples of mid-century attitudes, this post, with text from 1959, starts off by telling non-smokers that they should accommodate smokers with ashtrays and sand-filled pots (wow) and admonishes "He [the non-smoker] shouldn't expect to be asked, by a cigarette smoker, if he objects to smoking, unless he is over 90 or unless this ill-matched pair should find itself in a small closed compartment, like a telephone booth. Asking permission is expected today only of pipe and cigar smokers."
The surgeon general's report only came out in 1964, and it took another two years before health warnings on cigarette packages. (And even then, the tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to skirt the law -- the US warning labels are pitiful compared to other countries' pithy "Smoking Kills.") The dangers of secondhand smoke weren't even recognized until well into the 1980s. As late as 1988, only 17% of school districts were smoke-free. Today you'd be hard-pressed to find a school that isn't smoke-free. I'm too young to remember smoking in schools, but I do vividly remember the "non-smoking" section of restaurants (what a joke) -- my home state did not ban indoor smoking at bars and restaurants until 2009!
posted by basalganglia at 12:17 PM on January 3
I went to college in 1987 and there 100% were ashtrays on the back desks in the larger classrooms. I was a smoker back then and loved that i could sit in the back of class and smoke.
posted by archimago at 12:21 PM on January 3
posted by archimago at 12:21 PM on January 3
Thanks for all the feedback. (And, yes, you don't get to argue with the Zeitgeist, but since allowing smoking in your house has a cost that serving liquor doesn't, I'm just surprised those who were bothered by smoke didn't band together and counter-attack in some way. Eg., there was a Seinfeld episode where a guy in a restaurant asked Jerry if he minded if he smoked and Jerry asked if the smoker minded if Jerry farted.)
Can anyone knowledgeable about the smoking era comment on the scene in "The Birds" I mentioned? Were people aware they were addicts? Did that cause them shame (i.e., feel bad they needed to drop doing something they loved (gardening) to have a cigarette?)
posted by Jon44 at 12:34 PM on January 3
Can anyone knowledgeable about the smoking era comment on the scene in "The Birds" I mentioned? Were people aware they were addicts? Did that cause them shame (i.e., feel bad they needed to drop doing something they loved (gardening) to have a cigarette?)
posted by Jon44 at 12:34 PM on January 3
Just to disagree with your point since I see it a lot, smokers are annoying to be around not because of any moral qualms but because you're forced to breathe in the smoke (and perhaps some smokers don't realize how much of an allergic reaction it can bring on and how unpleasant the smell is, which stays in clothes for a while.)
Others have come in to address this, but I'll do the same. While you're not empirically wrong, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s - and sometimes in the 80s even - if you felt this way, you just kind of sucked it up. The people who dared object to smokers because of "secondhand smoke" or the smell were considered kind of overly-sensitive or inhospitable. There had to be actual laws written to protect the health of bartenders and wait staff from second-hand smoke, and in New York that law didn't go into effect until 2003, during Mike Bloomberg's first term as mayor. (I distinctly remember all the bars and restaurants in NYC hastily setting out buckets of sand outside their doors for patrons to use as ashtrays during their outside smoke breaks, and they were all nicknamed "Bloomberg buckets.")
The tobacco industry spent an awful lot of money to convince people that smoking was not only harmless, but that it was even helpful in some cases; there were ads from the 1950s where doctors spoke about the health benefits of some cigarettes. The distastefulness of smoke that we feel today is only spoken about because a lot of states sued the tobacco industry in the 1990s over this very cover-up, and that's when the tide started to turn - because there was literal smoking-gun proof that the tobacco industry had been gaslighting us all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on January 3
Others have come in to address this, but I'll do the same. While you're not empirically wrong, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s - and sometimes in the 80s even - if you felt this way, you just kind of sucked it up. The people who dared object to smokers because of "secondhand smoke" or the smell were considered kind of overly-sensitive or inhospitable. There had to be actual laws written to protect the health of bartenders and wait staff from second-hand smoke, and in New York that law didn't go into effect until 2003, during Mike Bloomberg's first term as mayor. (I distinctly remember all the bars and restaurants in NYC hastily setting out buckets of sand outside their doors for patrons to use as ashtrays during their outside smoke breaks, and they were all nicknamed "Bloomberg buckets.")
The tobacco industry spent an awful lot of money to convince people that smoking was not only harmless, but that it was even helpful in some cases; there were ads from the 1950s where doctors spoke about the health benefits of some cigarettes. The distastefulness of smoke that we feel today is only spoken about because a lot of states sued the tobacco industry in the 1990s over this very cover-up, and that's when the tide started to turn - because there was literal smoking-gun proof that the tobacco industry had been gaslighting us all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on January 3
Movies are fiction - not a reliable indicator of how people felt about anything.
As a public health person, I can tell you that we've been pressuring TV shows and movies to stop showing people smoking for quite some time, as it serves to normalize the behavior.
posted by acridrabbit at 12:56 PM on January 3
As a public health person, I can tell you that we've been pressuring TV shows and movies to stop showing people smoking for quite some time, as it serves to normalize the behavior.
posted by acridrabbit at 12:56 PM on January 3
It's been forever since I've seen the flick - could you put that quote in more context?
Although my first thought honestly would be more like she was gonna do one thing stress-relieving or relaxing and wound up doing another. There really was a huge cultural attitude that smoking was relaxing, a nice way to take a break from real life for a few minutes. No shame, no guilt, a modern equivalent might be something like "I was gonna watch a couple episodes of Antiques Roadshow, but I wound up crocheting instead."
Also you keep leaning into the "addiction" idea, which I mean obviously it is addictive, but it's not like 1 puff immediately transforms you into a 3-pack-a-day chainsmoker. Plenty of people can have an occasional cigarette and don't become regular smokers. I know this because I gave an uncounted number of smokes out to friends when we were out drinking and watching indie rock bands in the early 90's. And that was the only time they smoked.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:09 PM on January 3
Although my first thought honestly would be more like she was gonna do one thing stress-relieving or relaxing and wound up doing another. There really was a huge cultural attitude that smoking was relaxing, a nice way to take a break from real life for a few minutes. No shame, no guilt, a modern equivalent might be something like "I was gonna watch a couple episodes of Antiques Roadshow, but I wound up crocheting instead."
Also you keep leaning into the "addiction" idea, which I mean obviously it is addictive, but it's not like 1 puff immediately transforms you into a 3-pack-a-day chainsmoker. Plenty of people can have an occasional cigarette and don't become regular smokers. I know this because I gave an uncounted number of smokes out to friends when we were out drinking and watching indie rock bands in the early 90's. And that was the only time they smoked.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:09 PM on January 3
Were people aware they were addicts? Did that cause them shame...
Think of how normalized caffeine addiction is. "I got so caught up in my gardening that I forgot to have my coffee" is something someone might say. Or, "This tv show is so good I forgot to eat dinner."
posted by bluedaisy at 1:19 PM on January 3
Think of how normalized caffeine addiction is. "I got so caught up in my gardening that I forgot to have my coffee" is something someone might say. Or, "This tv show is so good I forgot to eat dinner."
posted by bluedaisy at 1:19 PM on January 3
I can't remember that line either, but I will say the idea that - in a film of that era - a single reference to having or wanting a cigarette would be seen as shameful is extremely unlikely.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:21 PM on January 3
posted by Rock Steady at 1:21 PM on January 3
> I'm just surprised those who were bothered by smoke didn't band together and counter-attack in some way.
Broad-based resistance to the zeitgeist kinda had to run through the church, the mainstream media, and the government back then. There was nowhere for small people to rally cheaply at scale.
And the media and government did stage a counterattack and it turned out pretty damn awesome. They nuked a whole deep-pocketed industry from orbit and not through draconian prohibition but by changing hearts and minds.
That victory reverberates today, for better or for worse -- I don't think it's coincidental that the gun industry started fighting culture wars and radicalizing their customers right around the time that Big Tobacco was getting trucked by the fightin' nanny state.
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:39 PM on January 3
Broad-based resistance to the zeitgeist kinda had to run through the church, the mainstream media, and the government back then. There was nowhere for small people to rally cheaply at scale.
And the media and government did stage a counterattack and it turned out pretty damn awesome. They nuked a whole deep-pocketed industry from orbit and not through draconian prohibition but by changing hearts and minds.
That victory reverberates today, for better or for worse -- I don't think it's coincidental that the gun industry started fighting culture wars and radicalizing their customers right around the time that Big Tobacco was getting trucked by the fightin' nanny state.
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:39 PM on January 3
I was born in the early 60s to two smokers - same year The Birds came out, actually - grew up around cigarettes, started smoking myself at 15, didn’t quit for good until 2016. You are superimposing a 21st century worldview on 20th century movies. Nobody thought of smokers as addicts, really. The whole idea of addiction to everyday substances or behaviors is mostly a newer one. Back in the day, degenerates might be addicted to illegal drugs, but regular people weren’t considered addicted to something as commonplace as cigarettes, or alcohol for that matter. You would have to be pretty extreme - see Lost Weekend - to be considered addicted to alcohol. Any shame anyone felt about smoking in the early 60s would have been fleeting and mild indeed. It would be at least another decade or more before thoughts of addiction came into play.
Here’s another thing: people who were bothered by secondhand smoke were considered weird outliers. People complained about how it smelled in their hair and clothes sometimes, but nobody considered it a health risk. It was just so all pervasive. Everyone smoked. There was nowhere that was smoke free. The changes didn’t start until the mid - late 80s.
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:23 PM on January 3
Here’s another thing: people who were bothered by secondhand smoke were considered weird outliers. People complained about how it smelled in their hair and clothes sometimes, but nobody considered it a health risk. It was just so all pervasive. Everyone smoked. There was nowhere that was smoke free. The changes didn’t start until the mid - late 80s.
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:23 PM on January 3
It’s not just the cultural attitudes towards smoking that have changed. With some very important exceptions, people didn’t band together to stand up for others’ health rights or comfort.
As a simple example - there were drinking fountains and garden hoses and if completely desperate, asking for a glass of water - but no one carried bottles around and as a kid, there were plenty of hours you were just thirsty, and the adults around you told you to stop complaining. There wasn’t the ADA until 1990 and if you couldn’t get up the curb, stay home. Like, as a child of the 70s, I was trained not to complain about smelly pipes or cigars. It would be like commenting on someone’s coffee whether they were smelly or not. All the accommodations, or a lot of them, were geared towards being more normative. That’s why my non-smoking parents also had ashtrays - you accommodated what was “normal.” Sometimes in really dark ways like my friend’s parents pretendingthey would spank her later.
One thing I’ve found interesting in Toronto with legalization of cannabis is that the subway and busses got smelly again. It does remind me of the past.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:51 PM on January 3
As a simple example - there were drinking fountains and garden hoses and if completely desperate, asking for a glass of water - but no one carried bottles around and as a kid, there were plenty of hours you were just thirsty, and the adults around you told you to stop complaining. There wasn’t the ADA until 1990 and if you couldn’t get up the curb, stay home. Like, as a child of the 70s, I was trained not to complain about smelly pipes or cigars. It would be like commenting on someone’s coffee whether they were smelly or not. All the accommodations, or a lot of them, were geared towards being more normative. That’s why my non-smoking parents also had ashtrays - you accommodated what was “normal.” Sometimes in really dark ways like my friend’s parents pretendingthey would spank her later.
One thing I’ve found interesting in Toronto with legalization of cannabis is that the subway and busses got smelly again. It does remind me of the past.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:51 PM on January 3
This discussion is interesting to me. My parents both smoked, and my mom didn’t really ever quit. Supposedly, my dad did, but who knows. I smoked on and off from 1997-2011. They were still smoking in the house when I left for college in 2001. In high school, the teachers smoked in the lounges and students in their cars or out at The Wall in front of the auditorium. We’d go to the mall because you could smoke there, too. When I took driver's ed in…January 1998, the guy assigned with me and our in-car instructor were chain smokers. With the windows rolled up, heat blasting, in that little white govt Chevy sedan. I miss smoking with a passion. Out of all of my vices ever, that’s the only one I really miss/missed. I still utilize nicotine and tobacco products, but don’t smoke and don’t vape (wtf at least I *know* the dangers of smoking cigarettes). Some of my current coworkers still smoke, and I guess it doesn’t bother me? Maybe it’s still comforting because it’s familiar or because I miss it for me. I’m not really sure I understand the newer negative perception of the act of smoking, especially when everyone is walking and riding around with pot smoke all over the place. I *do* understand the anger at Big Tobacco and feel that it’s warranted, from a purely public health standpoint (similar to how I feel about fossil fuel energy companies and climate change), but in that vein I’m not like, angry at people driving cars. I don’t really think anything about smoking in media; I mean, it just is. I’m probably more confused as to how the shift occurred so quickly and vehemently.
I was also very unaware of the negative connotations of “using caffeine” or am I misreading this conversation? Because that seems a little excessive?
posted by sara is disenchanted at 4:19 PM on January 3
I was also very unaware of the negative connotations of “using caffeine” or am I misreading this conversation? Because that seems a little excessive?
posted by sara is disenchanted at 4:19 PM on January 3
I was also very unaware of the negative connotations of “using caffeine” or am I misreading this conversation? Because that seems a little excessive?
I think the point is that a lot of us think about coffee, socially and for health reasons, perhaps similarly to how folks a few decades ago thought about cigarettes.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:30 PM on January 3
I think the point is that a lot of us think about coffee, socially and for health reasons, perhaps similarly to how folks a few decades ago thought about cigarettes.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:30 PM on January 3
OP, is this the scene you were referring to in the Birds:
Tippi Hedren & Suzanne Pleshette smoking – "The Birds" (1963) yt
Yeah, if that's the scene - and I think it is - then the smoking and cigarettes are almost irrelevant. You could literally literally literally substitute "glass of water" for "cigarettes", and it wouldn't change the dynamic. It's just part of a surface level social interaction between two strangers (who are both sort of fishing for information from each other without being obvious about it - Tippi (the blonde) has just shown up out of nowhere basically stalking Suzanne's ex; Tippi's looking for more info on him & his family, Suzanne's trying to figure out who the hell the glamorous blonde is & what she's doing in small town California.)
I'm dead serious about the "glass of water" thing - like, if that scene started with Suzanne pouring herself a glass of water, of course she would offer one to Tippi as a visitor, that's just basic common courtesy. Well, same for cigarettes - Suzanne broke one out, of course she offers one to Tippi.
The actual verbatim phrase from Suzanne is, "You know, I've been wanting a cigarette for the last 20 minutes? I just couldn't convince myself to stop. This tilling of the soil can become compulsive, y'know." She could just as easily have said, "You know, I've been kinda thirsty and wanting a glass of water for the last 20 minutes." and it would have been the same. It's not that she NEEDED to drop something she loved (gardening) to have a cigarette, it's that she was so involved in gardening that she forgot about taking a break, and smoking was a totally unremarkable thing to do when you took a break from physical labor, whether a hobby or a job.
It's just a minor bit of characterization, Suzanne got so involved in gardening that she delayed a minor physical urge until Tippi interrupted her. Hitchcock wasn't making any sort of judgement or mockery regarding cigarettes or smoking or addiction, or indulging in something pointless, it was just the attitude of the day where having a cigarette was a small physical pleasure you could indulge in as you felt like it. (In many ways less remarkable or important than a glass of water, because of course you can pass out or die without water, but if Suzanne had put off having a cigarette for another 20 minutes, or an hour, or until the next morning? *shrug* No big deal.)
posted by soundguy99 at 6:15 PM on January 3
Tippi Hedren & Suzanne Pleshette smoking – "The Birds" (1963) yt
Yeah, if that's the scene - and I think it is - then the smoking and cigarettes are almost irrelevant. You could literally literally literally substitute "glass of water" for "cigarettes", and it wouldn't change the dynamic. It's just part of a surface level social interaction between two strangers (who are both sort of fishing for information from each other without being obvious about it - Tippi (the blonde) has just shown up out of nowhere basically stalking Suzanne's ex; Tippi's looking for more info on him & his family, Suzanne's trying to figure out who the hell the glamorous blonde is & what she's doing in small town California.)
I'm dead serious about the "glass of water" thing - like, if that scene started with Suzanne pouring herself a glass of water, of course she would offer one to Tippi as a visitor, that's just basic common courtesy. Well, same for cigarettes - Suzanne broke one out, of course she offers one to Tippi.
The actual verbatim phrase from Suzanne is, "You know, I've been wanting a cigarette for the last 20 minutes? I just couldn't convince myself to stop. This tilling of the soil can become compulsive, y'know." She could just as easily have said, "You know, I've been kinda thirsty and wanting a glass of water for the last 20 minutes." and it would have been the same. It's not that she NEEDED to drop something she loved (gardening) to have a cigarette, it's that she was so involved in gardening that she forgot about taking a break, and smoking was a totally unremarkable thing to do when you took a break from physical labor, whether a hobby or a job.
It's just a minor bit of characterization, Suzanne got so involved in gardening that she delayed a minor physical urge until Tippi interrupted her. Hitchcock wasn't making any sort of judgement or mockery regarding cigarettes or smoking or addiction, or indulging in something pointless, it was just the attitude of the day where having a cigarette was a small physical pleasure you could indulge in as you felt like it. (In many ways less remarkable or important than a glass of water, because of course you can pass out or die without water, but if Suzanne had put off having a cigarette for another 20 minutes, or an hour, or until the next morning? *shrug* No big deal.)
posted by soundguy99 at 6:15 PM on January 3
Yeah, I'm also finding this conversation fascinating in part because of the incomprehension. This was normalized in New York City at least even into the 80s. I remember very vividly my mother, who didn't like cigarette smoke, being considered weird and controlling for not letting people smoke in the house - people vocally used it as evidence of what a bad wife she was because she wouldn't let anyone smoke in the house after I came along, even my father. She was kind of the person that you're wondering about - the person who was actively opposing cigarette smoke - and it caused her a *lot* of social problems. She stopped someone from smoking a cigar at her own wedding and it was family gossip for the next ten years about "how crazy" she was. If she even coughed around heavy cigarette smoke it was perceived as incredibly rude. So many people smoked, all the time - almost no one thought of themselves as 'addicts' or had shame around smoking. I don't recall anyone ever expressing shame about smoking, in fact, until the 1990s. And that bar cigarette ban in 2003 was a huge deal - people were outraged and literally up in arms about being asked to go outside to smoke.
There were some people who didn't approve of their boyfriends/girlfriends smoking, but it was specifically about the taste of cigarettes - the considerate thing to do was to use a mint. *Everyone* had Altoids or some kind of gum or TicTacs or whatever, because our breaths were all horrible.
posted by corb at 9:10 PM on January 3
There were some people who didn't approve of their boyfriends/girlfriends smoking, but it was specifically about the taste of cigarettes - the considerate thing to do was to use a mint. *Everyone* had Altoids or some kind of gum or TicTacs or whatever, because our breaths were all horrible.
posted by corb at 9:10 PM on January 3
My own recollections are that the movement against smoking started much earlier than most of the posts here suggest. I recall it started with the Surgeon General's Report on Smoking in 1964. It was the heyday of cigarette advertising, but that Report said unequivocally that cigarettes cause cancer. It was headline news, and impressed a lot of people. My own father, a heavy smoker, quit cold turkey shortly after it appeared.
Then in the 1970s, I recall signs that said "Thank you for not smoking" were posted in many offices and even shops. They were practically a cliche of the 70s. At least once I saw the variant, "Fuck you for smoking".
posted by JonJacky at 9:43 PM on January 3
Then in the 1970s, I recall signs that said "Thank you for not smoking" were posted in many offices and even shops. They were practically a cliche of the 70s. At least once I saw the variant, "Fuck you for smoking".
posted by JonJacky at 9:43 PM on January 3
You have to understand the absolutely demonic genius of tobacco marketing and the tobacco lobby ....
Yes. It goes back at least to Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations" and his 1929 campaign to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist "Torches of Freedom". A similar strategy was used to market Virginia Slims cigarettes in the 1960s and later.
posted by JonJacky at 10:10 PM on January 3
Yes. It goes back at least to Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations" and his 1929 campaign to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist "Torches of Freedom". A similar strategy was used to market Virginia Slims cigarettes in the 1960s and later.
posted by JonJacky at 10:10 PM on January 3
In the years right before 1971, when cigarette advertising was banned from TV in the US, marketing aimed at specific groups flourished. Besides young women, there was a campaign aimed at teen boys, with the slogan: "Lucky separates the men from the boys --- but not from the girls!" and youthful models. I recall a high school teacher saying to our class that the pitch aimed at us was so blatantly obvious that we were too smart to be taken in.
posted by JonJacky at 10:44 PM on January 3
posted by JonJacky at 10:44 PM on January 3
@soundguy99
Yes, that's the scene and your interpretation makes sense. Still seems very strange to me that her character perceives tilling the soil as the "compulsive" activity and not the desire for a cigarette.
Before I rewatched the movie, I saw a Youtube clip of Camille Paglia analyzing another scene of Tippi smoking on a bench and Paglia thought the smoking was a core image for understanding the movie, so that primed me for other instances where smoking seemed to be highlighted.
posted by Jon44 at 5:07 AM on January 4
Yes, that's the scene and your interpretation makes sense. Still seems very strange to me that her character perceives tilling the soil as the "compulsive" activity and not the desire for a cigarette.
Before I rewatched the movie, I saw a Youtube clip of Camille Paglia analyzing another scene of Tippi smoking on a bench and Paglia thought the smoking was a core image for understanding the movie, so that primed me for other instances where smoking seemed to be highlighted.
posted by Jon44 at 5:07 AM on January 4
Before I rewatched the movie, I saw a Youtube clip of Camille Paglia analyzing another scene of Tippi smoking on a bench and Paglia thought the smoking was a core image for understanding the movie, so that primed me for other instances where smoking seemed to be highlighted.
Camile Paglia is known for having some..."unique" ideas on several matters, so I wouldn't necessarily consider her to be a mainstream authority. An interesting alternate perspective, perhaps - "oh, huh, that's interesting, I hadn't considered that angle" kind of ideas - but not necessarily the "mainstream" idea.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:16 AM on January 4
Camile Paglia is known for having some..."unique" ideas on several matters, so I wouldn't necessarily consider her to be a mainstream authority. An interesting alternate perspective, perhaps - "oh, huh, that's interesting, I hadn't considered that angle" kind of ideas - but not necessarily the "mainstream" idea.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:16 AM on January 4
Still seems very strange to me that her character perceives tilling the soil as the "compulsive" activity and not the desire for a cigarette.
Because you're still looking through a 21st century lense. If she had been wanting a glass of water, you wouldn't read this as her being addicted or compulsively drawn to water, because water is a normal human need, not an addiction. Back then, smoking was a normal human need as well, not an addiction. I know it sounds weird, but it was what it was.
I guarantee there's going to be a moment in the future when you are explaining some current mind set to a youngster who is also going to be mystified at how bizarre and benighted we were back in the 2020s. ("They really put toxic PFAS in everything and no one stopped them? Vitamins and supplements weren't regulated but you took them anyway? Everyone still thought it was normal to drink alcohol?" Etc.) The zeitgeist moves on, until it becomes unfathomably weird to the next generation.
posted by ananci at 5:39 AM on January 4
Because you're still looking through a 21st century lense. If she had been wanting a glass of water, you wouldn't read this as her being addicted or compulsively drawn to water, because water is a normal human need, not an addiction. Back then, smoking was a normal human need as well, not an addiction. I know it sounds weird, but it was what it was.
I guarantee there's going to be a moment in the future when you are explaining some current mind set to a youngster who is also going to be mystified at how bizarre and benighted we were back in the 2020s. ("They really put toxic PFAS in everything and no one stopped them? Vitamins and supplements weren't regulated but you took them anyway? Everyone still thought it was normal to drink alcohol?" Etc.) The zeitgeist moves on, until it becomes unfathomably weird to the next generation.
posted by ananci at 5:39 AM on January 4
I guarantee there's going to be a moment in the future when you are explaining some current mind set to a youngster who is also going to be mystified at how bizarre and benighted we were back in the 2020s. ("They really put toxic PFAS in everything and no one stopped them? Vitamins and supplements weren't regulated but you took them anyway? Everyone still thought it was normal to drink alcohol?" Etc.) The zeitgeist moves on, until it becomes unfathomably weird to the next generation.
Oh, god yes.
I'm 54 now and I've been thinking this exact same thing for maybe the past two years. I hear young adults grousing about X, Y, and Z — all things that were considered normal and not notable when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s — and I can't help but think, "Wait thirty years until your kids begin to complain about whatever it is you think is innocuous today." It's hard to even imagine what those things will be because I guarantee they're all concepts or ideas or habits that you take for granted today, consider unremarkable and harmless. But in thirty years, society will shift and you'll be left baffled as to why young people are upset at certain things. (And the mirror: You'll watch in awe as things that used to be considered taboo become normalized.)
Doesn't matter whether you're religious or non-religious, liberal or conservative, whatever. It's going to happen. And when it does, you'll be humbled. You'll look back at the authority figures of your youth (i.e. today) with greater sympathy because you'll understand what they were going through.
https://tenor.com/search/old-man-yells-at-cloud-gifs
posted by jdroth at 8:49 AM on January 4
Oh, god yes.
I'm 54 now and I've been thinking this exact same thing for maybe the past two years. I hear young adults grousing about X, Y, and Z — all things that were considered normal and not notable when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s — and I can't help but think, "Wait thirty years until your kids begin to complain about whatever it is you think is innocuous today." It's hard to even imagine what those things will be because I guarantee they're all concepts or ideas or habits that you take for granted today, consider unremarkable and harmless. But in thirty years, society will shift and you'll be left baffled as to why young people are upset at certain things. (And the mirror: You'll watch in awe as things that used to be considered taboo become normalized.)
Doesn't matter whether you're religious or non-religious, liberal or conservative, whatever. It's going to happen. And when it does, you'll be humbled. You'll look back at the authority figures of your youth (i.e. today) with greater sympathy because you'll understand what they were going through.
https://tenor.com/search/old-man-yells-at-cloud-gifs
posted by jdroth at 8:49 AM on January 4
I know this isn't a place for back and forth discussion, but one more clarification is in order. Zeitgeists change, but people aren't blank slates and there is an underlying truth: in this case, water=meets healthy core need, smoking=fun, doesn't meet a core need. Even when smoking was at its height, there were some people who knew that, so the oddness remains that someone couldn't recognize that their innate emotions were telling them that gardening was more rewarding than smoking. (Cultivation, doing productive work could also be seen as meeting a core human need.)
posted by Jon44 at 8:59 AM on January 4
posted by Jon44 at 8:59 AM on January 4
@Jon44
Several people have mentioned alcohol in this thread, and I think it's a good parallel. People know that alcohol isn't good for them, yet they drink anyway. (Hell, I drink far more than I should.) Any time you're confused about the smoking thing — as in The Birds — mentally substitute a beer or a glass of wine. "I felt like a [glass of wine] 20 minutes ago but got so caught up in the gardening". I can relate to this 100%. Maybe you can too.
Alcohol doesn't cause second-hand smoke, so you might dismiss it. Don't. Drunk people are the alcohol equivalent of second-hand smoke. In fact, usually I'd rather be around second-hand smoke than drunk people. (I actually kind of miss the smell of cigarette smoke in public places. I know, I know, I'm weird.)
I was born in 1969. Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, smoking was generally considered a matter of personal preference. Some people don't like cauliflower. Some people don't like smoking. Sure, there were some downsides to health but there are downsides to lots of things that people enjoy. In my era, I wouldn't say that "most people" smoked but many did. I can't remember anyone ever just lighting up in a house without asking for permission. Many (most?) people didn't allow it in their houses. It was kind of like how some people ask you to take their shoes off when you come indoors. But public spaces? In the 1970s, at least, it was usually fine to smoke anywhere.
In high school (1983-1987), I remember kids writing essays about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but it wasn't a huge concern for most folks. Still, the anti-smoking movement was burgeoning. In 1984, Garrison Keillor wrote a funny story for The New Yorker about the last smokers: "The End of the Trail", so it was clearly a part of the conversation in society.
In college, I waited tables. My restaurant at the time still had smoking and non-smoking sections (1989-90). It wasn't until maybe the 1990s that restaurants began to go 100% non-smoking IIRC. Actually, I've been watching a lot of movies lately, and I've noticed that people still sometimes smoke in public places even into the early 2000s.
Again, I think the alcohol parallel is very strong here. Alcohol is bad for you. No matter how many articles are published to purport supposed benefits, the underlying truth is that it is a net negative for your health. We know that. Most of us just don't fucking care. That's how smoking was back in the day. It may be hard for you to wrap your head around, but it's the truth.
p.s. I just reviewed your post history (I love your variety of questions — favorite is about Bond henchmen haha), and I see that you're roughly the same age I am: mid fifties. Do you not have similar recollections? Your question reads as somebody in their twenties, not in their fifties. Not trying to be negative here. Just asking for clarification.
posted by jdroth at 9:28 AM on January 4
Several people have mentioned alcohol in this thread, and I think it's a good parallel. People know that alcohol isn't good for them, yet they drink anyway. (Hell, I drink far more than I should.) Any time you're confused about the smoking thing — as in The Birds — mentally substitute a beer or a glass of wine. "I felt like a [glass of wine] 20 minutes ago but got so caught up in the gardening". I can relate to this 100%. Maybe you can too.
Alcohol doesn't cause second-hand smoke, so you might dismiss it. Don't. Drunk people are the alcohol equivalent of second-hand smoke. In fact, usually I'd rather be around second-hand smoke than drunk people. (I actually kind of miss the smell of cigarette smoke in public places. I know, I know, I'm weird.)
I was born in 1969. Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, smoking was generally considered a matter of personal preference. Some people don't like cauliflower. Some people don't like smoking. Sure, there were some downsides to health but there are downsides to lots of things that people enjoy. In my era, I wouldn't say that "most people" smoked but many did. I can't remember anyone ever just lighting up in a house without asking for permission. Many (most?) people didn't allow it in their houses. It was kind of like how some people ask you to take their shoes off when you come indoors. But public spaces? In the 1970s, at least, it was usually fine to smoke anywhere.
In high school (1983-1987), I remember kids writing essays about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but it wasn't a huge concern for most folks. Still, the anti-smoking movement was burgeoning. In 1984, Garrison Keillor wrote a funny story for The New Yorker about the last smokers: "The End of the Trail", so it was clearly a part of the conversation in society.
In college, I waited tables. My restaurant at the time still had smoking and non-smoking sections (1989-90). It wasn't until maybe the 1990s that restaurants began to go 100% non-smoking IIRC. Actually, I've been watching a lot of movies lately, and I've noticed that people still sometimes smoke in public places even into the early 2000s.
Again, I think the alcohol parallel is very strong here. Alcohol is bad for you. No matter how many articles are published to purport supposed benefits, the underlying truth is that it is a net negative for your health. We know that. Most of us just don't fucking care. That's how smoking was back in the day. It may be hard for you to wrap your head around, but it's the truth.
p.s. I just reviewed your post history (I love your variety of questions — favorite is about Bond henchmen haha), and I see that you're roughly the same age I am: mid fifties. Do you not have similar recollections? Your question reads as somebody in their twenties, not in their fifties. Not trying to be negative here. Just asking for clarification.
posted by jdroth at 9:28 AM on January 4
Zeitgeists change, but people aren't blank slates and there is an underlying truth: in this case, water=meets healthy core need, smoking=fun, doesn't meet a core need.
Setting aside the health aspects, both do meet a need. Smokers need the nicotine in cigarettes.
There isn't a perfect 21st century analogy for how smoking was treated by western societies in mid-20th century. Yes it absolutely looks weird now, but the point everyone is making is that it really didn't at the time and the position you are taking today about smoking would have been very much an outlier one then.
posted by plonkee at 6:18 AM on January 5
Setting aside the health aspects, both do meet a need. Smokers need the nicotine in cigarettes.
There isn't a perfect 21st century analogy for how smoking was treated by western societies in mid-20th century. Yes it absolutely looks weird now, but the point everyone is making is that it really didn't at the time and the position you are taking today about smoking would have been very much an outlier one then.
posted by plonkee at 6:18 AM on January 5
Yeah, smoking isn't "fun". I mean, putting my smoker's hat back on for a minute, it's amazing, fulfilling, soothing, you DO often end up having the most interesting conversations while stepping out for a smoke, and in general I loved smoking.
Because it's a wildly unregulated Over The Counter anxiety treatment (not a perfect one, but widely available!) that is highly chemically addictive and also - because of all of the above - psychologically addictive as a deeply comforting ritual.
But it is a need. These days, my escitalopram is (probably? as far as we know?) safer and a fuckload cheaper, but I have to be frank: it's not very effective compared to nicotine.
And in any case, we all do stuff all the time that we know is bad for us, and if it's remarked upon at all it's generally in the tone of "yeah, I know this isn't great but neither is basically anything else I do". Smokers absolutely said stuff to each other like, "hey, bum me a cancer stick?" or "I'll be back in a minute, I gotta go take 3 minutes off my life" in pretty much the same way I routinely say "this much cheese cannot be good for my heart, but it's good for my soul" or do all the known-dangerous but capitalism-driven shit like drive a car, suffer crushing work stress, breathe air, or go out in public among people who aren't vaxed and masked.
I don't know why some specific movie is representing the whole of all attitudes to you, OP. Depending on what school of film criticism and analysis you subscribe to, smoking in movies is always about fucking so actually this person would rather get laid than plow the field (which was probably also symbolic of maybe less interesting fucking) but this was less true (though not entirely untrue) in the lives of the general smoking public.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:39 AM on January 5
Because it's a wildly unregulated Over The Counter anxiety treatment (not a perfect one, but widely available!) that is highly chemically addictive and also - because of all of the above - psychologically addictive as a deeply comforting ritual.
But it is a need. These days, my escitalopram is (probably? as far as we know?) safer and a fuckload cheaper, but I have to be frank: it's not very effective compared to nicotine.
And in any case, we all do stuff all the time that we know is bad for us, and if it's remarked upon at all it's generally in the tone of "yeah, I know this isn't great but neither is basically anything else I do". Smokers absolutely said stuff to each other like, "hey, bum me a cancer stick?" or "I'll be back in a minute, I gotta go take 3 minutes off my life" in pretty much the same way I routinely say "this much cheese cannot be good for my heart, but it's good for my soul" or do all the known-dangerous but capitalism-driven shit like drive a car, suffer crushing work stress, breathe air, or go out in public among people who aren't vaxed and masked.
I don't know why some specific movie is representing the whole of all attitudes to you, OP. Depending on what school of film criticism and analysis you subscribe to, smoking in movies is always about fucking so actually this person would rather get laid than plow the field (which was probably also symbolic of maybe less interesting fucking) but this was less true (though not entirely untrue) in the lives of the general smoking public.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:39 AM on January 5
I mean, if it makes you feel better or understand the history of smoking in the US, I found The Changing Public Image of Smoking in the United States: 1964–2014, a paper from the National Library of Medicine website, run by the US government agency the National Institute of Health.
Which provides some history (including the efforts to promote smoking by tobacco companies) and notes that the time right around the release of The Birds (1963) was probably the high point of smoking in the US - in 1965 only 42% of the public were smokers (52% of men, 34% of women), and the numbers have been going down ever since. So even though smoking was common and society was set up to accommodate smokers, most people didn't smoke.
The paper also credits the Surgeon General's Report of 1988 with widely establishing and popularizing the physically & chemically addictive properties of nicotine. IOW, we're less than 30 years from when the Big Guns of public health came out and said, "yeah, smoking is for real an addiction, and here's the proof."
So, yeah, I don't think the characters in The Birds would have considered themselves addicted or that Hitchcock was making some kind of textual/subtextual statement about needs and addictions - at the time the idea that smoking was actually physically addictive was at best buried in obscure medical research, if it was even considered at all. (My strong suspicion is that medical research around smoking in the early 60's was still focused on trying to draw incontrovertible connections between smoking and physical health impacts.)
posted by soundguy99 at 7:28 AM on January 5
Which provides some history (including the efforts to promote smoking by tobacco companies) and notes that the time right around the release of The Birds (1963) was probably the high point of smoking in the US - in 1965 only 42% of the public were smokers (52% of men, 34% of women), and the numbers have been going down ever since. So even though smoking was common and society was set up to accommodate smokers, most people didn't smoke.
The paper also credits the Surgeon General's Report of 1988 with widely establishing and popularizing the physically & chemically addictive properties of nicotine. IOW, we're less than 30 years from when the Big Guns of public health came out and said, "yeah, smoking is for real an addiction, and here's the proof."
So, yeah, I don't think the characters in The Birds would have considered themselves addicted or that Hitchcock was making some kind of textual/subtextual statement about needs and addictions - at the time the idea that smoking was actually physically addictive was at best buried in obscure medical research, if it was even considered at all. (My strong suspicion is that medical research around smoking in the early 60's was still focused on trying to draw incontrovertible connections between smoking and physical health impacts.)
posted by soundguy99 at 7:28 AM on January 5
1988 was 36 years ago, not <30.
posted by inexorably_forward at 1:30 AM on February 19
posted by inexorably_forward at 1:30 AM on February 19
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Compare this to drinking. You may know someone who really doesn't drink themselves just...because, but when they have a party they have some wine or some other alcoholic stuff on hand because they know that most people would expect it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on January 3