Historical Smoking tidbit for the day.

[El Presidente]

Which was the first country in the world to foster in Anti-Tobacco policies?  

The first country to: 

• Link tobacco with lung cancer.
• Ban tobacco advertising
• Ban smoking in government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces.
• Coined the term "passive smoking"
• Levied  huge taxes on cigarettes.
• Warned that smoking caused impotence
• Warned about smoking and pregnancy

 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

…….Germany from 1930  to 1945 

* a pet program of Hitler from 1933

[PapaDisco]

Hang on, hang on . . . you sure about all that?  I thought Hitler was appointed big cheese by Hindenburg in 1933?

Totally weird if true . . . 

[mkz]

I thought you were going to say Sweden...

[El Presidente]

13 minutes ago, PapaDisco said:

Hang on, hang on . . . you sure about all that?  I thought Hitler was appointed big cheese by Hindenburg in 1933?

Totally weird if true . . . 

I was a little loose. 

started 1930 but ramped up by the Nazi's from 1933.  Will edit 

Plenty of articles on it. Many fascinating. 

From Wiki

Nazi Germany started a strong anti-tobacco movement[1] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[2] Anti-tobacco movements grew in many countries from the beginning of the 20th century. But all these had little success. The only exception was Germany where it was supported by the government after the Nazis came to power.[3] It was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world in the 1930s and early 1940s.[4] The Nazi leaders opposed smoking[5] and some of them openly said what is wrong with tobacco consumption.[4] Research on smoking and its effects on health got better under Nazi rule

[NSXCIGAR]

50 minutes ago, too far gone said:

For a country with so little regard for human life I'm surprised to learn that. Now when people refer to their governments stance on smoking as being Nazi like, at least they'll be telling the truth!

They certainly had a very high regard for their own lives, but little for the lives of millions of others. And yes, the term "smoking Nazi" apparently is more accurate than we ever thought!

I know the first "western" government to attempt widespread anti-smoking measures was the UK, specifically England in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It was a total failure as rates of smoking--which had been rapidly declining since the early 1960s--slowed and in some cases even increased (as is the case with almost all government interventions).

In the US, the rates of tobacco consumption were declining at a steady rate from before 1964 right up until 1990 when the wave of anti-smoking measures (primarily tobacco taxes) took hold on a state level. From 1990 on, the rate of decline slowed significantly, and use among youth absolutely skyrocketed between 1993 and 1998 coinciding with many states' bans on indoor smoking and further tax hikes, and the first piece of federal regulation in 1994--the "Pro-Children Act". Since then, the rates of decline in tobacco use have slowed to a near crawl, never again coming close to the rates of decline seen between 1963-1990 when virtually no tobacco legislation existed in the US and taxes were next to nothing. 

[JohnS]

Adolf Hitler certainly had a disdain for smoking, but surely someone dear and near could have told him that chewing on cyanide was far more dangerous!

[Fugu]

3 hours ago, PapaDisco said:

Hang on, hang on . . . you sure about all that?  I thought Hitler was appointed big cheese by Hindenburg in 1933?

Papa, Adolf had been Secretary of State for Health at that time...
That's why the term anti-tobacco Nazi...
 

[Fugu]

4 hours ago, too far gone said:

For a country with so little regard for human life I'm surprised to learn that.

I guess you'd want to reword your statement to "...regime with little regard for human life..."

1 hour ago, too far gone said:

Well I don't think anyone has actually proved Hitler died in Germany. Certainly a lot of Nazi's made it out to other countries. I do believe they have recently found a huge stash of Nazi property in Argentina.

Personally I don't think Hitler was the suicide type. I don't think we'll ever find the real truth though.

?

[Fuzz]

Yep, Hitler escaped worn-torn Germany, via Paraguay and Argentina, to eventually live happily on an Brazilian beach with his black girlfriend Cutinga.

[oliverdst]

He was a vegetarian, he didnt smoke, he didnt drink... Hitler was hipster!!!

[Nino]

7 hours ago, Fugu said:

Papa, Adolf had been Secretary of State for Health at that time...
That's why the term anti-tobacco Nazi...
 

 

4 hours ago, oliverdst said:

He was a vegetarian, he didnt smoke, he didnt drink... Hitler was hipster!!!

Hahahaha, Oliver, you beat to me it ... yes, he was a hip sober vegetarian and loved dogs ...

But he hated smoke ...

Good thing he is ashes now

[NSXCIGAR]

5 hours ago, Hutch said:

As usage of anything declines the relative rate of decrease automatically declines. That's how numbers work  

The rate of decline was consistent and linear for nearly 20 years, and has slowed consistently since then hitting more than a few plateaus in periods far shorter than 20 years. The graph is striking. 

So if the rate of decrease stayed consistent that should indicate that the rate of decrease would have to have been accelerating from 1963 to 1990.

 

[PigFish]

Bwana I have brought up National Socialism and the tendency for those that run these types of governments, their groupthink, tyranny, and these 'national healthcare' systems and tendencies here before. Typically, the lefties run out of their caves and quote "Godwin's" law to me and claim some moral victory!!! Now they can blame you... -LOL

This is interesting reading and I have several Nazi anti-smoking campaign posters saved around here somewhere. This is more the collective over the individual mindset at work. Grab your statistics, and once you have the power simply execute it over people. What makes them different today? The mindset I mean, not the death camps... okay!

AH had some problems however. The German people, and all those folks in uniform loved tobacco. Frankly, he could not afford to drive them to hate the 'state' for trivial matters. He was already asking them the die for it... Like many of these nuts that believe in the purification of the human species, the perfection of it, he followed an ideological path attempting force humanity to his view of perfection.

This is why I love history, and detest blind ideological following!

The left today vilifies first! First you need a majority to hate it. Use anything to get to the goal. Science, pseudo science, experts, the left love their experts... Then, under the auspices of democracy, you can tax it out of existence, with public support. People just don't get it... The game is the same, they just change the rules and make the field longer.

Cheers! -Piggy

[mwaller]

6 hours ago, oliverdst said:

He was a vegetarian, he didnt smoke, he didnt drink... Hitler was hipster!!!

Perhaps... cocaine and opiates were more his style.  

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/07/518986612/author-says-hitler-was-blitzed-on-cocaine-and-opiates-during-the-war

 

[Hayden]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The rate of decline was consistent and linear for nearly 20 years, and has slowed consistently since then hitting more than a few plateaus in periods far shorter than 20 years. The graph is striking. 

 

So if the rate of decrease stayed consistent that should indicate that the rate of decrease would have to have been accelerating from 1963 to 1990.

 

The student rate certainly is interesting but alone I would be hard pressed to deduce anything from the adult curve (green). Plenty of exponential data sets can be fit with linear functions in certain ranges. 

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, Hayden said:

Plenty of exponential data sets can be fit with linear functions in certain ranges. 

Which sounds like a very highfalutin' way of saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics" ....

Do also note that this data was derived from a survey.  When I was at school and later at university (back in the last millennium), I did encounter the question "do you smoke" a few times -- sometimes by the GP, sometimes by a clipboard-carrying Nosey Parker -- and I can truthfully say that I never answered it honestly.  The same goes for any drinking, drug-taking and sexual activities I may or may not have engaged in (*) -- I was always of the firm opinion that it was none of their damn business who I slept with, how often I gave grief to my liver or what chemicals I ingested (**).  My own quick and entirely unscientific survey on these questions conducted with colleagues, friends and other strangers I met down the pub consistently came up with the answer that most of them did exactly he same I did.  In other words, whenever we were asked, we lied through our back teeth.  I am sure the clever clogs at the NDFPYHWYWON (***) did their best to correct for those of us who gave false information, but I fail to see how they could possibly have avoided all of the resulting distortion in the data.

These days, of course, I find that I cannot give correct information even if I wanted to, since all tobacco-related questions are strictly about cigarette smoking.  Cigars, let alone premium cigars, do not figure as boxes to be ticked.  Which is just as well, since it means I can stop telling porkies.

 

(*) and which I am inclined to take the fifth amendment on, yeronner.

(**) see first footnote.

(***) NDFPHWYWON -- National Directorate For the Protection of Your Health Whether You Want it Or Not.

 

[Fuzz]

6 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

(***) NDFPHWYWON -- National Directorate For the Protection of Your Health Whether You Want it Or Not.

 

Thanks for that definition. I got as far as the National Darts Federation of the Philippines...

[First Lady]

1 hour ago, Fuzz said:

Thanks for that definition. I got as far as the National Darts Federation of the Philippines...

You twit

[Fuzz]

30 minutes ago, First Lady said:

You twit

Thank you for the compliment!

TWIT - Totally Witty & Interesting Tycoon

[First Lady]

3 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

Thank you for the compliment!

TWIT - Totally Witty & Interesting Tycoon

 you knucklehead

[Lotusguy]

Cheers! -Piggy

Uncalled-for, off-topic political rant deleted above.

Of course you had to find a way to make this about your political conspiracy theories again.

Comparing the nazis with "the left" is a mind-boggling leap, even for you, Ray.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Which sounds like a very highfalutin' way of saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics" ....

Do also note that this data was derived from a survey.

Yes, that's always an issue, and of course societal pressures and legality of the behaviors greatly affect the participants' responses. Never going to be perfect but I've seen other data sets that closely correlate with this one, although this one was the easiest to locate. 

The most peculiar thing to me is the tremendous spike in the student smoking rates. I tend to think that here, something else is at play. Either students were denying smoking prior to 1992 or so or they felt more comfortable admitting to it after 1993. But it's a wild spike that seems bizarre indeed. There's nothing earth-shattering that occurred in 1992-1993 that would explain youth picking up cigarettes at a nearly 50% higher rate in a 4-5 year period. Also of note is that the data on students only goes back to about 1990. Perhaps the students that first received the survey in 1990 were startled by it and, fearing repercussions from admitting smoking, lied, but after 2 of 3 years of seeing the same survey and assessing it as harmless, they started to become more honest. At least half the students taking the survey in 1992 would have also taken it in 1990. 

[maxcjs0101]

The best Nazi is the Soup Nazi

[gweilgi]

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, that's always an issue, and of course societal pressures and legality of the behaviors greatly affect the participants' responses. Never going to be perfect but I've seen other data sets that closely correlate with this one, although this one was the easiest to locate. 

The most peculiar thing to me is the tremendous spike in the student smoking rates. I tend to think that here, something else is at play. Either students were denying smoking prior to 1992 or so or they felt more comfortable admitting to it after 1993. But it's a wild spike that seems bizarre indeed. There's nothing earth-shattering that occurred in 1992-1993 that would explain youth picking up cigarettes at a nearly 50% higher rate in a 4-5 year period. Also of note is that the data on students only goes back to about 1990. Perhaps the students that first received the survey in 1990 were startled by it and, fearing repercussions from admitting smoking, lied, but after 2 of 3 years of seeing the same survey and assessing it as harmless, they started to become more honest. At least half the students taking the survey in 1992 would have also taken it in 1990. 

Also never underestimate the power of fashions, fads and idols.  All it takes to see a spike in any sort of behaviour among young people is one of those weird fashions that spring up out of nowhere and disappear again rather quickly, or for a cultural icon/role model of the time to be seen to engage in (or even promote) a specific fad.  Remember the thankfully short-lived idiocy of vandalising VWs and Mercs so they could hang the corporate decal round their necks on thick chains?  All down to a few soon forgotten rap stars who sported that "look".

Another issue to look at would be the specific nature and parameters of the surveys.  Were the questions or manner of collecting answers changed around that time?  All it would take to change the responses would be to hire cute young people (fellow students?) to ask the questions, rather than grown-up researchers or civil servants.  

And then there is my perennial favourite: changing the parameters.  When it comes to surveys and studies, the devil is not in the detail or in the small print ... the devil is in the definition used.  People very rarely look at those.  They figure they have a handle on the questions and issues, and tend not to bother with pesky nitpickery such as asking after the precise definition of "smoker" or "non-smoker".  Thus, a survey among students may get exactly the same answers in 1993 as in 1990 but if the definition of a smoker is changed to, say, "someone who has smoked at least one cigarette within the last year", then the result is going to look very different.  

 

 

[Fugu]

All very good points, gweilgi. Those are the typical flaws of such surveys, too often too carelessly neglegted. It may already start with whether a question is being expressed positively or negatively. Designing a meaningful survey is an art, or putting it the other way round, you may quite easily control the results by asking the right questions....