| thoughts from a cunning linguist | |
One of the things that struck me throughout my weekend in Stellarton was the frankness with which people would discuss smoking. The conference facilitators would casually tell people that if they wanted to take a break to use the washroom or have a smoke, that this was the time to do it. The phrase "have a smoke" was used quite freely. It jumped out at me because I can't rememeber the last time I noticed anyone who was officially in charge of anything being so casual about mentioning smoking. It's become taboo to do so.
It's impossible not to know these days that "smoking is bad for you." The propaganda is everywhere and is supported increasingly by legislation. We're told it's also supported by research. I don't disbelieve the research. I have a long-time smoking mother who bears out the ill effects of long-term smoking. Her chronic cough is one the reasons I have chosen not to smoke myself.
But the way smoking is becoming both stigmatized and policed is quite frightening. There was a time when smoking was a sign of luxury and a mark of sophisitication. This is no more. Instead, smokers often get depicted as villains in films and generally have the reputation of being subtle murderers (poisoning the entire world with second-hand smoke). This is crazy. Smoking is not just portrayed as a health rish; it is heralded as a moral issue. For no other issue do we blame people for making themselves sick. Even a drunk driver who arrives in an Emergency Room after causing an accident gets less judgmental treatment than a smoker who arrives at a doctor's with lung cancer.
And smoking is a very peculiar workplace issue. It affects many working class people in particular ways.
Now, for instance, as I learned in Stellarton, employers can lurk around bathroom stalls and spy on employees to ensure that they do not smoke in bathrooms. Some employers can also insist (a) that no employee leave the premises of a workplace for the duration of a shift (usually 8 hours) and (b) that no smoking can occur on those premises.
Smoking is an addiction. Is it not a form of torture to confine an employee in a "cold turkey" withdrawal fashion? It's not as if a person chooses to smoke for the first time. all over again, each time she has a cigaratte.
The thing about this group of employees at the conference is that most are working class people. They work blue-collar jobs (in fish plants, factories, dockyards, airport runways and garages). A large percentage of them are smokers. It's not that they don't know any better. They get the same cigarette packages and see the same television ads as everyone else.
I find it very curious, though, that the discourse circulating among blue-collar workers readily acknowledges the fact that people smoke. They don't pussy-foot around it. But they also don't celebrate it. They point out that some employers put incentives in place to help them quit. They talk freely about how often they've tried to quit themselves. But what they neve do is assume that a smoker is a "bad person." Now isn't that remarkably humane? Imagine treating a health risk as a health risk and not a moral disorder.
Posted by Bush Whacker at May 5, 2003 11:24 PMYour analysis is dead on except on one point: the drunk driver landing in an ER after causing an accident would get an equally judgemental reception. I think there's a widespread attempt to apply the same judgement of moral deficiency to smokers. While it's always dangerous to try to grade which "wrong" is worst, I can't bring myself to make the same equation to the two because they're so different. That quibble aside, I understand (and agree with) your point that smoking has become in large part a judgement of a socioeconomic class.
Posted by: Maurice on May 6, 2003 12:35 AMMy point about the drunk driver is that this driver is definitely wrong. And his or her injuries are caused by their own actions. But in spite of this direct link, if an ambulance rolls into an ER, the focus is on fixing the health problem, first. The questions get asked later. When it comes to smoking-related diseases, though, the questions are part of the treatment and diagnosis, I think. Perhaps the comparison is not the best one, but in a climate where I've heard it suggested that smokers *pay* for health costs associated with smoking-related diseases, I think there are some double-standards to be accounted for. The bottom line is that no one actively chooses to be sick.
Posted by: Bush Whacker on May 6, 2003 10:32 AMI can completely relate Bush Whacker. My 90 year old Grandfather, who was a heavy smoker up until 15 years ago, has just been diagnosed with lung cancer. When my family talks about it they say things like, 'that's what happens when you smoke as long as he did, isn't it a shame'. Excuse me, he's 90 years old, we should be so lucky! I can't help thinking if it were any other kind of cancer they would say, 'well, he is 90 after all'.
Reading this reminded me of when I used to do factory work. I worked at a plastic factory and a hickory chip place (I don't think it qualified as a factory). My first day at the plastic factory the lady showing me the ropes told me we get three "smoke breaks". And sure enough every couple of hours this horn would blow and everyone would stop what they were doing, pile into the break room and smoke. This was about twelve years ago and I smoked too back then. The only place I've worked that specifically forbid it on company grounds was an insurance company. Everywhere else just made you go outside. I agree it borders on torture to force people not to smoke for 8 or 12 hours or however long your shift is. I guess this is a long way of saying I agree with your assessment. :-)
Posted by: Stephanie on May 7, 2003 09:38 PM