|
MW Voice FEATURE Letters to the Editor War
Victories Mama's Health News Did You Know? Corporate War on the People Youth/ Disabled/ Gay news Resistance in the War OTHER SUMMER 2007 ARTICLES
|
Classism and the War On Smokers I recently met a fellow author who is extremely talented. I would venture to say that his creative genius is rare. He is active on the issue of smoking bans. He has done a tremendous amount of research on this highly controversial topic. I have yet to find anything that can disprove his claims in his book "Dissecting Anti-smokers Brains". I read his entire book of almost 400 pages in 24 hours. But I noticed that something obvious was missing. That the denormalizing, and even criminalizing of smoking, smacks of elitism.
The majority of the upper-middle and upper classes do not smoke. And the poor are Americans' favorite whipping post. Everyone looks down on the "undeserving" poor. In fact, even the "deserving" poor get very little sympathy. Any unfavorable personal trait seems to be ascribed or assigned to those on the lower economic rungs of society. That apparently now also includes smoking. Strivers and middle class status seekers do not want anyone to think ill of them as they pursue success in the race for social prizes. So many quit smoking under much social pressure to do so. You won't stand a chance for that promotion to bank vice-president if you have a low-class image. As for ducking out to your BMW to sneak a quick puff - you may avoid being seen, but not smelled. If suspected of engaging in any behavior that is stereotypical of the lower classes, you are "not a good fit" within the corporate hierarchy. Losing one's socioeconomic position and being bumped down several rungs is a fate worse than death to most upper-middle and affluent classes. (Smoking seems to have a positive effect on seratonin levels. And now many upper-middle and upper class ex-smokers have resorted to taking anti-depressants. But this fact is overlooked). Smoking is one of the very few vices available to the poor and working classes. Studies have shown that smoking reduces anxiety and depression as seratonin levels are boosted. This may not be the healthiest way to relieve the stress of poverty and classism. But it does make one wonder…Is the war on smokers really a war on the poor? Is all the hoopla really about health dangers of second-hand smoke and public health? Or is it a cop-out, a crutch to justify penalizing the poor just for being poor? One cannot help but become suspicious. After all, the "haves" and "have-mores" of this country have never cared about the health of those at the bottom. I would go further to say they have always held those at the bottom in contempt. Is public health really such a big issue to the ruling class? Hardly. They have careened down a one-way path since the 1980's of eviscerating workers' rights laws, fighting living wage legislation, destroying Americans' jobs, and gutting the social programs established under President L.B. Johnson. This is also the same greedy bunch that wants to privatize social security. They would leave poor seniors out in the cold! So the ruling class's sudden concern for "public health" in the second-hand smoke issue is very suspicious. Abusing prescription medication, alcohol abuse and gambling addictions seem to be vices of choice for the well-off. Wealthy, successful celebrities addicted to pain killers or alcohol are rarely castigated publicly for being "selfish addicts" who "lack self-control." But these are popular accusations and epithets hurled at smokers. Alcohol vapors emanating from their $10 martinis are far more carcinogenic than exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. This leads me to question the validity of the health claims asserting that second-hand smoke is as dangerous as actually smoking. Moreover, it leads me to question motives behind the claims. A day doesn't go by where my email inbox isn't inundated with commercials for Viagra, penis implants (as a woman I do not find such devices useful ) and smoking cessation drugs. Now, most quasi-effective smoking cessation drugs are those only available by prescription. Hmm...now there's something to think about. Who stands to profiteer off of the demonizing of smokers and pushing for sweeping smoking bans? More to the point, who is being taxed the most in order to pay for Medicaid, CHIP and Blue Cross's Adult Basic? Not the wealthy. They have enjoyed record-breaking increases in their wealth from tax cuts given to them—all to the detriment of programs that helped the middle class and the poor (which have been gutted). The largesse of taxes supporting Medicaid, CHIP and Blue Cross Adult Basic are from the Master Settlement Agreement . This was passed by the tobacco companies onto their customers. The states added their own "sin" taxes on top of that. The working class and the poor are paying more in taxes to support what is left of threadbare social safety net programs. AND they are being treated as second-class citizens as smokers. They are denied the right to enjoy their unpopular, but legal, product anywhere. They are even banned at outdoor coffee shops where lattes and lungs are invaded by exhaust fumes from city buses, cars and trucks. This is far more detrimental than the annoying occasional wisp of tobacco smoke from somebody's cigarette. Enacting sweeping smoking bans is tantamount to the taking away of personal liberties and freedom. If this is really due to health dangers from second-hand smoke, then it is only right for the government to find an alternative tax source. This would be more equitable and fair. Instead they play the hypocrite by enriching their coffers off the backs of smokers - most who are from the working and poor classes.
Jacqueline S. Homan
| |
| Back to Top | ||
Summer
2007
They don't like that particular vice. So they don't want anyone else to like it either. In the whole smoker vs. anti-smoker debate, the "de-normalizing" of smoking equates smoking with poor people, poor whites in particular.