Some Good News About Smoking
Bob Schieffer On How An Exhibit Of Old Cigarette Ads Shows How Far We Have Come From The Habit
-
Photo
An exhibit at the New York Public Library features cigarette ads from the 1920s through the '50s when the tobacco industry used trustworthy figures and cultural icons to suggest that smoking was harmless. (AP Photo/New York Public Library)
-
Photo Essay
Smoking Bans
Some breathe deeply while others fume as tough anti-smoking rules catch on.
I actually found a little good news this week. It wasn't easy.
It wasn't on the front page, of course, but deep inside yesterday's New York Times there was a story about a new exhibit at the New York Public Library that tells how successful the tobacco industry has been over the years at conning us into smoking.
That is good news, yes, because we have come to understand what a con it was - and how far the industry was willing to go to convince us to smoke.
The exhibit gave an example: In 1929, when only "loose women" were thought to smoke, the industry put a PR man named Edward Bernaise on the case and convinced ten genteel ladies to smoke cigarettes while marching down Fifth Avenue in the Easter Parade.
The newspapers ate it up, and pictures appeared across the country.
Suddenly it was acceptable for ladies to smoke outdoors. And, of course, they did.
Today, one fifth of all American women still smoke, and they have come full circle - in most places they can only smoke outdoors, and the young of both sexes crowd the sidewalks of our big cities.
The heartening thing is that smoking is not nearly as popular as it once was, and most of us have figured it out - that smoking is the single most preventable cause of death, that the third of all cancer deaths are caused by smoking.
But what a con it was.
And what saps we were to buy it for so long.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from Face The Nation
- Latest in Face The Nation
- Separating Icons From Heroes
- A Guide To A Successful Father's Day
- Remembering Tim Russert




In your words...
''How long we have been conned and what saps we were.''
We still have a long way to go in stopping false and deliberately misleading adverting, though. Political candidates, junk food, alcoholic beverages, and many other products besides tobacco are still marketed improperly. It''s almost impossible for humans to discern and eliminate all the improper ads.
Tobacco advertisements were found so powerful, they induced people into doing destructive things to themselves; to the point where people ignored the cancer risk, smell, and reduced lung capacity. The same is true for the debt risk people were willing to run in order to have the lives TV, magazines and newspapers and radio said we were supposed to have.
Even our programs of the ''70s and early 80''s, the modest living "All in the Family, Good Times, Happy Days" were replaced by the Cosby''s, Dallas, Beverly hills 90210"
The tobacco settlement set a precedent in the way we looked at media. That media does indeed influence us into making bad decisions. Maybe we need to apply it elsewhere.
????????????
And just what is it that makes you try that first cigarette knowing that it gives you bad breath, makes your clothes and hair stink, makes you cough, makes you out of breath faster, increases your chance of getting cancer and emphezema and is taxed so heavily that it''s a very expensive habit. You have people on the street that smell you coming and give you the cold shoulder just because you smoke.
As somebody who after 25 years, quit a 2.5 pack a day habit 3 years ago, i can see you''re in denial. There are no redeeming benefits to smoking, only a downside, yet the tobacco companies got you to believe that it was a cool thing for your to start and then they have you addicted to their product. Admit it or not, you''re smoking because you were influenced by somebody that was not looking out for your best interests and this is the same as we''re seeing in many other aspects of our society.
-
by lauriegobama
October 14, 2008 7:53 PM PDT
- 2008 Presidential Debate question for John McCain
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 16 CommentsWebster''s New World Dictionary defines "MAVERICK"in two ways;
1. one who takes an independent stand, as in politics
2. a lost calf
It has become increasingly clear to me that Sarah Palin''s participation in this presidential election can be defined, at best (using Webster''s verbiage) a lost calf.
Senator McCain you''ve stated the most important decision a United States Presidential Candidate makes is their choice of Vice President and that he/she be ready to Serve as President on Day One.
Can you tonight, in front of 70+ million television viewers, share why the American people should be comforted, and not afraid, with a potential Sarah Palin presidency?