I am going to (re)post and expand on a comment I made over on CJ's blog WWST concerning smoking. Like so many hot button issues nicotine addiction is rarely examined for functional reasons, it is far more often used as marker for an "us and them" social discrimination line. And in actual fact this is not an inaccurate indicator, but the politically correct reasons given are not the reality of the situation.
September 28, 2010: I smoked for some 25 of my 55 years, and I will agree in principle with Mr. Pease's prime assessment, and expand on it: cigarette smoking is a very reliable marker of a life emotionally compromised. In final assessment (of myself, and many others I've known who also smoked) the most ubiquitous attitude we all share(d) is that of being compelled (in one way or another) to allow ourselves to be emotionally used, the subtly psychoactive nicotine as common a marker for those forms of abuse as is obesity a common marker among sexually molested children*. Having quit smoking not once but thrice I can say with absolute conviction the secret to walking away from the addiction is to identify the element(s) in your life the addiction is set to counterbalance, a work of introspection pure and simple.
* By far the most prevalent form of emotional abuse associated to smoking (both witnessed and endured) is the "it's OK to dump on the smokers, they don't want to live long anyway," social justification for any number of abuses ranging from the emotionally weak who assume without thought those they count on to compensate their inadequacies do not pay a price for the strength they give (a strength the recipient is unable to return in kind) to the discriminations found in employment between those who work the safe, clean environments and those of us who called ourselve troglodytes, exposed to toxins and dangers far beyond tobacco smoke crewing the industries which provide the foundations of modern comfort. Of course the question is never asked, it would be incredibly bad form to enquire if the troglodytes would be smokers if they were not well convinced from early in life the only role allowed them was a life of servitude for those who will at best be ignoring them to continuously mocking them at worst. I've never seen, would be amazed to see, any statistical study of tobacco use broken out along the lines of social provider-social consumer. I think the correlation would be rather high... the providers a much higher percentage of smokers, the induction of the toxin a hedge to shorten the time of servitude.
Until that set of associations is open and deprived of power, disenfranchised, the nicotine addiction is fierce to compare to heroin (that from those who would know, I've never made a habit of heavy opiates), and if the nicotine is removed by force without the appropriate understandings in place the consequences are usually a migration to some other and even more dangerous behavior to serve as counterbalance**. Under those circumstances you're probably better off smoking than a great many of the alternatives you'd be risking in it's place.** In the modern world to smoke is to mark yourself as a member of an ill-defined yet distinct segment of the population. But smoking is not the only such marker in service for those who feel themselves fated to be the lower and lesser, the current explosion of piercing and heavy tattooing are very much in the same vein, a visible and self inflicted deformation reflecting the individual's assumptions of their society's opinion of their self.
If you don't know why you started smoking you won't be able to stop, and contrary to the common assumptions of those who have never lived such a mode of life things like peer pressure and social demands are not often even minor players, not really*. That someone you love and trust might compel you to take some ridiculous social demand seriously as a condition of them returning or validating your relationship would be the sort of thing a nicotine addiction might be set to balance, but the problem is not the societal element, in point of fact society can be blown off pretty much at will in this day and age, the problem is an unfair demand leveraged back against a captive heart. I invite all who might read this comment to reach out to those you know well who are smokers, continuously imbibing, look at what you know of their lives and test my theory.
To summarize, smoking is like many other things, not a disease but a symptom. If society actually gave a damn about the health and well being of its' members it would acknowledge this rather obvious fact and work to remove the underlying motivations producing the problem. But... that's not likely to happen. Society needs its' troglodytes, and it needs those troglodytes to know their proper place in society. Fixing the problem isn't likely to happen, at least not before some idiot pops off a quip to go down in history alongside "let them eat cake" and the resulting carnage demands that for simple survival such issues are openly addressed by light of day.
Look and see if you can't identify the element they're balancing against the smoke. If you can clearly see some mechanism of their life that might fit such a profile mention it to them ONCE only, hide and watch. If you were correct there will be a very good chance the smoking will greatly decrease or even vanish.
I have begun to observe exactly this in one or two friends who smoke, or who drink habitually and to excess (as opposed to those who drink moderately, or smoke premium tobacco moderately). The compulsive behavior is indeed a symptom of the scarring left by emotional abuse--yet who has not suffered some form of emotional abuse?
ReplyDeleteOne "symptom of the symptom" I've observed is that the most-addicted smokers are often faithful to one mass-market brand, not even the best but perhaps one that does the most advertising: Winston, Kool, or Marlboro rather than, say, Players or American Spirit; and to factory-made cigarettes in particular rather than pipes, cigars or hand-rolled cigarettes. Even in their choice of stimulant they denigrate themselves. In the same way, true alcoholics tend to drink one cheap drink like Jagermeister, Southern Comfort or Pabst Blue Ribbon rather than premium wines, beers or liquors. (Of course, they couldn't afford to get really plastered regularly on Macallen's or even Jack Daniel's.)
You've seen the movie Metropolis? As fine a piece of social criticism as I've ever seen in a movie. In it the lines between the Troglodytes and the Leaders are clearly drawn; yet once the impulse to rise up takes the trogs, it's easy for it to lead to mere destruction. It seems to take a Maria (a natural Leader, and naturally good) and a Freder (a trained Leader whose conscience is suddenly awakened) to lead the impulse toward rebuilding. I don't recall seeing anyone smoke (except maybe John Fredersen, the main Leader) in this movie, but what you say about troglodytes made me think of it. Smoking, in such a world, might serve much the same function as Brave New World's universal drug "soma": to keep the populace "happy" and controlled. Kind of like television advertising...
No, I haven't seen the movie "Metropolis"... but it is now on my list for the next trip to the video store.
ReplyDeleteThe brand loyalities are indeed most likely advertising based, tapping the common stereotypes, or say more properly the common collective entity definitions, and in that perspective yes indeed the advertising industry needs to step up and be a bit more honest in how they promote their products. The first step for most to win their freedom is to acquire the minimum self knowledge needed to begin understanding what the "fix" of the moment is actually intended to be a substitute for. I could design television ad campaigns for cigarettes that would look like an honest attempt to sell more of the product and yet cut sales by fifty percent over a few years. But, (HUGE) but, if the public ever became aware such tactics can be used in one venue they'd know such tactics just might work in other areas of life as well, and two thirds of conventional political manipulations would simply evaporate into impotence...
...which might mean a government that actually responded to its citizens! But, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
ReplyDelete