Did Titanic make us smoke? A recent history of public smoking

On New Year’s Day 1971 America woke up to find smoking advertisements gone from its TVs.
Even by 1971, the golden age of tobacco advertising was over. There really wasn’t ever any “good” tobacco advertising, but even the staunchest non-smokers must be nostalgic for the days when public announcements about cigarettes told us that “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” and that other brands were “Fresh as mountain air,” rather than the much less catchy “smoking causes heart disease and strokes.” 1955’s admirably conscientious “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a violinist?” hinted at a future of discretion in smoking, even if the violinist’s for-some-reason-unbuttoned top made no prediction of 1960’s feminism.
Plainly ridiculous, but amusing at least. Perhaps we should have quit while we were ahead. There may have been a TV ban in 1971, but lobbying from the tobacco industry managed to keep tobacco advertising right in our faces elsewhere. Outdoor, billboard, and public transportation ads were not banned until 1997, and astonishingly advertising cigarettes in magazines that don’t have a large youth readership is still permitted. If we do not notice many, then it is down to the discretion of the magazines rather than prohibitive laws.
Clearly, what restrictions there are have had an impact. Adult smoking rates fell from about 40 percent in the mid-1960s to about 18 percent in 2012, and Cancer.org estimates that “8 million deaths have been avoided through 50 years of stop-smoking efforts.”
A short visit to Japan, an economically equivalent country (smoking rates are increasing in developing  countries), will provide an observable reminder of a different world where smoking is far less controlled. It is hard to deny the link between the ubiquitous posters of ruggedly-handsome smoking men who look as if they’d headbutt lung cancer if it came anywhere near them, and the hazy bars and crowds of smokers huddled in office doorways.
Surely all of this gives us proof that action works (and that inaction is dangerous) and reminds us that anything more that can be done, should?
There is still plenty of work ahead. Even now, tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths, and for at least 30 percent of all cancer deaths. Can a further push in marketing-control result in another great surge in tobacco shunning?
Some of us may now be getting to an age where everyone on screen is much more attractive than us, but films with “cool” smokers are easily within movie memory. There are of course the anti-hero smokers – Fight Club’s Tyler Durden and Bob and Charlotte in Lost in Translation. But not only that; Leo smoked in Titanic, if you remember? That’s right, lovely Jack Dawson smoked. And Gandalf smokes. (Who was going to tell Peter Jackson that preventing heart disease was more important than his movies?)
It would be a pretty sad day if studios were told characters can’t smoke even if it’s vital to their essence. But should there be more caution when it comes to smoking in film? Is a chain smoking character really less worthy of a certain rating than a bit of nudity or a curse word?
Paid product placement in films has been prohibited for tobacco companies for the past 16 years, but while it may be true that people are no longer being attracted to specific brands through film, does it really matter, if they are still being exposed to the idea of smoking in general?
According to a 2014 article from the Independent – which lamented that “smoking on screen is sexy again” – the non-profit organization the Entertainment Industries Council “urges film-makers to consider whether smoking is really important to the story or just part of the scenery, pushing for more realistic portrayals of smoking.” As part of a drive for more responsibility towards social issues in film, they argue that characters who smoke should have stained teeth and hideous coughs.
Imagine if Jack had hacked up a big slimy blood-loogie into Rose’s hair when they are standing at the bow of the Titanic? Now that would have sent a strong message. That would have been taking action. The work that started in 1971 looks to be far from over.
—–
Feature Image: Thinkstock