Rongji He

Instructor: Althea Adlien-Wilks

Sociology 101
April.4 2015
"No smoking here"
Smoking has only been popularized for less than 400 years. Today,
smoking has become the leading cause of death worldwide; according to
World Health Organization's records, approximately 6 million people die
every year as result of direct tobacco or second-hand smoke(WHO, 2015).
While the shocking number of death marks smoking as one of the biggest
public health threats, records 187 countries shows that there are 967 million
smoker in 2012 compared with 721 million in 1980(BBC, 2012). Why, despite
the high chance of developing a lung cancer or oral disease, do people still
choose to smoke nevertheless? Fortunately, the public attitude towards
smoking has shifted from a position of indifference, sometimes even
encouragement, to a position of strong disapproval and discouragement. This
shift of attitude within our society over the last decades is a true reflection of
many social aspects; therefore, it should be examined by the three major the
functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, and the interactionist
perspective.
Functionalist perspective

From a functionalist perspective, the shift of attitude towards to

tobacco implies a higher level of technologies and the universalization of
high degree education, both of which help to maintain the stability of the
society. First, the last 100 to 200 years is a boom period of technologies and
ideas, two of the greatest powers that have been pushing our society
forward. The invention of new analytical techniques, binocular microscope,
for example, allow us to analyze chemical compounds at a molecular scale.
The toxic heavy metal has not been identified scientifically since 1920s, as
Alan Rodgman and Thomas A. Perfetti, two longtime researchers in tobacco
science, wrote:" The discovery of elements, isotopes and ions in tobacco
(and for that matter tobacco smoke) has only been limited by the discovery
and advancement of new analytical techniques( Rodgman and Perfetti,
1067)". Since then, followed by decades of clinical, biological, and medical
researches on tobacco, the harm of tobacco has arisen public awareness.
The 'technical changes', indeed, plays a significant role in the 'recognition of
the dangers of smoking and of inhaling secondhand smoke' which finally
leads to the 'restriction in public smoking'(Bracht, 34).
Second, education promotes the idea of

"no smoking". Back to the

time before 2000, when not enough forms of mass media were available to
general public, people acquired more knowledge from school (even we still
do today, but mass media shapes our behaviors a lot more than before)
"Education encourages healthy behaviors and pull together the healthy
elements from the lifestyles of various subpopulation (Mirowsky and Ross,

53)." A research conducted in 1990s shows that about 50% of those people
who only gone to high school smoke, compared to 20% of those who
graduated from university of college, and 13% of those who owned a PhD
(Mirowsky and Ross, 53). By making high degree education universal,

increasing number of people are exposed to the harmful truth of smoking,

hence, the number of smokers is greatly reduced, and the new social norms
and standards are established---we see the sign of "no smoking here" in the
almost every places we go, and before you smoke, if there is the presence of
others, you should ask:" do you mind if I smoke?"
Conflict perspective
It has been scientifically proved that smoking of cigarettes contains
over 7,000 toxic chemical, yet why Congress still makes the sales of
tobaccos

legitimate,

and

even

allow

tobacco

companies

advertize

themselves until few years ago? Functionalist perspective may only explain
some of the social implications of why people changes their minds about
cigarettes. However, the question of why government still allow the
existence of tobacco remain unanswered. Conflict theorist point out that it is
a contradiction between two interest group---the cigarette enterprises, allied
with an huge number of smoker, tobacco lobbyists and politician they
support financially, and the antitobacco advocates.
Undoubtedly, tobacco manufacture and selling is one of the 'largest'
and the most 'profitable' industries in the United Stated---an industry with a

$47.1 billion estimated value(Chambliss, 203)---paying enormous amount of

tax each year to the government. Robert Klitzman and Dr. Ronald Bayer has
given enough facts about tobacco's importance in terms of employment and
tax revenue in their famous book 'Unfiltered: Conflicts Over Tobacco Policy
and Public Health' :" In 1994, a study funded by the tobacco industry
calculated that some 1.8 million people were employed in tobacco-related
jobs, and that the state and federal tax revenues from the industry totaled
some $36 billion nationwidethe financial impact of the industry remains
substantialIn 1998, American growers produced some 1.5 billion pounds
of tobacco, valued at about $2.7 billion(Feldman and Dr. Bayer, 9)".
Moreover, tobacco companies have been constantly funding the candidates
for political offices---from 1979 to 1990, tobacco companies contributed $1
million to political action committees for elections to federal offices, this
number skyrocketed to 55 million between the 1995 and the 2000(Golden,
91). A perfect loop has completed: first tobacco industry generate incredible
revenue, then parts of the revenue are used to support candidates and the
tobacco lobby, and finally, once the candidates are elected as senators, they,
in turn, would tend to protect the profitability of tobacco companies.
However, the truth is that the antitobacco advocates win. Started from
1990s, States have passed a series of laws on in efforts of regulating tobacco
in public: 36 states restrict smoking in child day care centers, 43 states
restrict smoking in hospitals and other health facilities, 40 states have laws
on restricting the tobacco advertising, or the tobacco retailers(Shopland,

165-182), paralleling with the shrinking of the money tobacco companies use
for tobacco lobby from $65.3 million in 1998

to $22.4 million in

2014(opensecrets.org) and the invention of the smokeless cigarettes, which

can be seen as a support for Partnership for a Drug Free America. The power
of tobacco companies have undergone a dramatic decline since 2000 and it
seems that even the tobacco producer themselves have realized that their
product

is

threatening

public

health.

Nevertheless,

they

still

make

considerable profit today because they will always find a way to recruit new
smoker to replace those who die or quit. Thus, we are in a time when the war
of fighting with addictive drug has begun for decades, and it will continue for
even longer time.
Interactionist perspective
Unlike the two macro-theories, the functionalist perspective, and the
conflict perspective which both examine the issue at a system level, the
interactionist perspective in which emphasizes the daily behavior illuminates
how and why smokers learn smoke in the first place, even knowing smoking
now is generally unacceptable, with an unique explanation: cultural
transmission.
"Human learn how to behave in social situations, whether properly or
improperly (Schaefer, 159)". Cultural transmission, the idea in which is first
advanced by sociologist Edwin Sutherland, help to explain the similar
socialization process most the smokers shares. Because of the lack of the

risks of smoking and the knowledge of correct social norms, smoking, as an

easily-adapted behavior, is transmitted freely from peer to peer and from
father to son. As a result, a son learn how to smoke by simply imitating his
father behavior, and a boy learns how smoke by following other smokers in
his groups, because if he does not do so, he may face disapproval, loss of
friends, or being viewed as a loser or weirdo. A lot of teenagers learn smoke
from movies. The scenario that a popular movie star smokes usually appears
cool to young generations and the actions, believed by those young people,
can be used to arise attention from opposite sex. In addition, according to
the social disorganization theory, people learn smoke because of the
absence of formal social agencies of institutions(Schaefer, 161). Smokers are
generally highly frequent among orphans, children of families which cannot
afford the tuitions, and teenage workers; these young smokers collectively
lack the proper guide in their immature or premature period.

Overall, as science dominant people's minds over times, our society is

gradually moving to a drag-free world. In the not distant future, when nonaddictive substitutes come to save the smokers, less deaths will be caused
by oral cancers, and a smokeless America will be achieved.

Reference
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences
of Smoking50

Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General.

Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for

Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed

2015

Apr 4].
2. Roberts, Michelle. 'Smoker numbers edge close to one billion'. BBC News,
8 January 2014.

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25635121

3. Rodgman, Alan. Perfetti, Thomas. 'The Chemical Components of Tobacco

and Tobacco

Smoke, Second Edition'. Publisher: CRC Press, 2013.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?

id=77bmwlhTmYoC&pg=PA1069&dq=who+proof+tob
acco+is+toxic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jAEfVcPWGLWasQTVuYCIAQ&ved=0CEUQ6A
EwBg#v=on

epage&q=who%20proof%20tobacco%20is

%20toxic&f=false
4. Bracht, Neil. 'Health Promotion at the Community Level: New Advances'.
Publisher: SAGE

Publications, 1999. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?
id=SQpdkK6nLTwC&pg=PA34&dq=functionalist+persp
ective+on+smoking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zuodVeOTGJHdsATWyYGQAw&ved=0

CB0Q6AEwA

A#v=onepage&q=functionalist%20perspective%20on

%20smoking&f=false

5. Mirowsky, John. Ross, Catherine. ' Education, Social Status, and Health'.
Publisher:

Transaction Publishers. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?
id=_W1P0MvToTsC&pg=PA53&dq=smokers+are+usua
lly+poorly+educated&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KxIfVaWpDsefsAXk_oCQBw&ved=0C
D0Q6AEwBQ

#v=onepage&q=smokers%20are%20usually%20poorly

%20educated&f=false
6.

Chambliss, William. 'Discover Sociology'. Publisher: SAGE Publications,

2015. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?

id=uix3BgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1048&dq=functionalist+pers
pective+on+obesity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qegdVdXRNLLsASS5oDgDw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=functionalist
%20perspective%20on %20obesity&f=false
7. Feldman, Eric. Dr Bayer, Ronald. 'Unfiltered: Conflicts Over Tobacco Policy
and Public Health'.
at:

Publisher: Harvard University Press, 2009. Available

https://books.google.com/books?

id=fyjzNl7CW14C&printsec=frontcover&dq=conflict+p
erspective+on+smoking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yDsfVaDUOMyusAXy74KYBQ&ve

d=0CCMQ6A

EwAQ#v=onepage&q=conflict%20perspective%20on

%20smoking&f=false
8. Golden, Robert. 'The Truth about Smoking'. Publisher: Infobase Publishing,
2010. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?

id=ONMseRAm9hYC&pg=PT103&dq=tobacco+compa
nies+fund+candidate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S0AfVZOuLMPugwTAloSoCg&ved=0
CB0Q6AEwA

A#v=onepage&q=tobacco%20companies%20fund

%20candidate&f=false

9. Shopland, Donald. ' State and Local Legislative Action to Reduce Tobacco
Use'. Publisher:

DIANE Publishing, 2000. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?
id=oQBdZvvK9DIC&pg=PA67&dq=laws+of+restrict+to
bacco+advertising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sUwfVdKGDIfvsAX4_4KwAg&ved=0CC0
Q6AEwAQ#v

=onepage&q=laws%20of%20restrict%20tobacco

%20advertising&f=false
10. Opensecrets. 'Tobacco'. Data source: Senate Office of Public Records.
downloaded on

February 11, 2015. Available at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=a02&year=2014