Prevalent Rhetoric

The string of graphic ads released by CBS, as shown in the video above, summarizes the nature of anti-smoking rhetoric that does the rounds via public broadcasting channels. But here's the paradox, up front: there is enough convincing and dramatized (and correctly so) information in the general media, in terms of anti-smoking advertisements, non-profit group messages, documentaries, news columns, etc; yet, 20% of all Americans choose to smoke -- choose to dig their own graves, one cigarette packet at a time (at $7, that's top dollar).

In the quest to understand this madman mentality, it will be interesting to look at some of the present day media campaigns that have successfully created a negative narrative around smoking. What has made these campaigns so successful? Success notwithstanding, what has been the missing X factor that has prevented them from being a cent percent successful?

At the outset, the very act of labeling on cigarette packets carries powerful rhetoric force. It appeals to both logic and emotion (logos and pathos, predominantly the former). For instance, inscriptions in bold such as "Surgeon's warning: Smoking kills," or "SMOKERS DIE YOUNGER" act as tremendous repellents to potential consumers. I was at the Mumbai airport three weeks ago, and cartons of 200 Benson & Hedges cigarettes each were being sold for only $11 at the duty free store. Had it not been for the strongly worded labels, I would have probably succumbed to the temptation of smoking those cigarettes (as well as perhaps the low prices).

On another tangent, in one of the initial scenes of the 2002 New Zealand classic "The Whale Rider," a bunch of older women are shown sitting playing bridge on a dining table, smoking cigarettes. The young protagonist, barely 10 years old, walks in and reprimands her seniors for smoking. "Maori women have got to stop smoking," she fusses, "it's going to kill you all." 

The references to both the "Mumbai aiport" and the "Whale Rider" have an implicit connotation. In that the anti-tobacco rhetoric is not only prevalent in places like New York State (where smoking rates are lowest in the country), Maryland, or somewhere in Europe, but is "global" in every sense. People all over the world have understood that smoking is necessarily a "bad" activity. Whether they avoid the "bad" habit is another issue, but on the whole, the level of awareness speaks volumes for the coordinated effort to reach out to people world over.

The theme of these campaigns is mostly similar: graphic visuals, horrific stories, verified facts and earnest morals. In particular, the use of disturbing imagery is common and, as is apparent from the reaction of people, effective. In fact, the director of the Center for Disease Control recently launched a nation-wide $54 million dollar ad campaign to propagate disturbingly true visuals of ex-smokers destroyed lives (which was a result of smoking), as part of an anti-smoking rhetoric. The campaigns are so disgusting that they'll probably top "jeez-i'm-grossed-out" rankings (if such indexes existed). When Children’s rights and educationists called this move a badly judged one, stressing that the visuals negatively harmed the psyche of young minds, the Director of CDC, Thomas Friedan, vehemently defended himself. “That is exactly the point,” he emphasized, “I think it is important young people below the age of fifteen be exposed to material such as this; after all, nine in ten smokers begin smoking during their teens.” Even though I was all "jeez-i'm-grossed-out" at the ads, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Friedan.  Good job, Director.

Ethos, Logos and Pathos

The success of anti-smoking campaigns depends on the deployment of all the above rhetorical strategies in some combination or the other. "Suffer" is perhaps the key element: emotions (who wants to suffer?), logic (really, who wants to suffer?) and regard for reputation (when your favorite actor tells you not to smoke because you may suffer, you might actually fancy not smoking).

Why not completely successful?
Maybe, it is the imperfect nature of this world -- outliers and exceptions will always exist. Nothing will ever be 100% correct or 100% pure. Hoping that a product -- as destructive as cigarettes -- is eradicated completely off the face of  this Earth, is rather too idealistic.

Cigarette Smoking is Injurious

Cigarette smoking, apart from its core service of the ingestion of tobacco, presents a few subtle and implicit conundrums at the societal scale. Numerous studies have been undertaken since the second half of the 20th century that consistently conclude that tobacco consumed in most addictive forms is harmful to the human body. This evidence is not only confined to the results of laboratory-based studies, but can be apparent to us through the world around us (if we choose to open our eyes). We all know someone, or at least someone who knows someone, who has died as the result of cigarette smoking. From various kinds of cancers, to early death, asthma, bronchitis, fatigue, loss of hair, (even loss of sperm count for men, and a number of reproductive implications for women), medical records across geographies and time scales have erased all doubt: Cigarette smoking is injurious to health.

Why do we still smoke? Generation after generation? Why do we lavishly (and how!) pave the road to our own grave?

I have a disclosure to make: I started smoking this summer and loved the experience. At the same time, I also know its horrible. I’ve felt fatigued and unhealthy. And I want to quit already — before it becomes a serious addiction. I’ve read so much about the harmful effects; and my genetics don’t support me either (my grandparents and father are all patients of asthma).

My situation confuses me. I’m educated. And most of things I’ve done have been sensible demonstrating constructive use of resources and time. Even someone like me, relatively not as addicted and, as I would like to believe, a person of reason, while at a 7 Eleven, will try to convince my own-self why I should buy that pack of potentially ill-fated Marlboros: from “only this one last time,” “oh come on, big deal, the scientific evidence is all a damned hoax,” to something as absurd and illogical as “I’m a ghost rider and I don’t fear death.” (That, luckily, has not been my chosen line of reasoning for more than one occasion).

Only now, after falling prey myself, can I empathize with those who have been sucked into the quicksand of addiction. Before I tried a few myself, I was heavily judgmental about smokers. It seemed like a losing proposition only madmen (and women) would risk indulging in.

That was a micro perspective. Zoom out, and you’ll see millions of such perspectives aggregating into the macro debate. Smokers argue that it is their choice to do what they want and that a governing institution cannot impose itself on them, while the other side touts for the savings in health costs, and all the consequential benefits to the community at-large that flow as a result.

Look at our own campus. The University of Maryland has banned all smoking activity on campus. My smoker friends are outraged. Non-smokers don’t really care (but, hey, second-hand smoke is also a big deal they’ll be spared of). To be honest, that Anand somewhere inside me is elated. I won’t feel tempted to indulge every time I see someone lighting up.

In conclusion, the debate around cigarette smoking is a very intriguing societal issue. Even though the negative effects are so apparent — so much so that all cigarette packets come with dire warnings addressed to potential consumers — tobacco companies netted about $35 billion in annual profits globally (out of $350 billion of annual revenue) in 2010. That’s a lot of money, folks. It’ll be interesting to go over the minute facets of this issue, and see why people get possessed with a killing addiction — even though most of them, sane people, know its ‘bad’ in every sense. Our question for the day (rather, semester): Why do you do something — repeatedly — that is bad for you?

PS. Initially, I thought about writing on “Immigration and Entrepreneurship” as my theme; now I think this endeavor is more appropriate given the audience, the college setting, and that inspiration I need myself to come out of this poorly judged habit.