NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard from Rush Limbaugh and from other posters here on NSG that most smokers are poor. I had never heard about this before there were some discussions here about tobacco taxes.

My first thought was that this cannot be true since tobacco is a luxury item and you would think that as such it would be something enjoyed more often by the middle class and the wealthy.

However, when I heard El Rushbo say it, I of course believed it to be true. Yet it still leaves me curious as to why it is true.

One hypothesis is that tobacco use is not correlated to income, but there are simply more poor people than middle and upper class folks. However, it is my understanding that poor folks are sort of a dying breed and that most people are middle class. If this is true than this goes against that hypothesis.

Another hypothesis is that people are poor because they smoke. Since they spend their money on tobacco that others would save and invest, they are poor and they are smokers. This makes sense except that often when you here about poor and middle class folks what seems to make them poor or middle class is their incomes and not their net worth.

Another hypothesis is that smoking is a stupid thing to do. Therefore stupid people tend to be smokers. Stupid people also tend to be poor because they make stupid financial decisions.

Another hypothesis is that smokers tend to be younger and younger people tend to be poorer than middle aged folks.

So NSG, do you believe that smoking is more common among the poor? If so, then why is this the case?

Rush is full of shit. You can tell by the turd-like structures he places between his lips and sets on fire. :p

Probably this one: "Another hypothesis is that smoking is a stupid thing to do. Therefore stupid people tend to be smokers. Stupid people also tend to be poor because they make stupid financial decisions."

more so than the others anyway. I'm pretty certain that poor people are more likely to be smokers, I'm not sure about the relative amount of them though.

EDIT: one google search later
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/Among-Americans-Smoking-Decreases-Income-Increases.aspx

everyone smokes it breaks class and cultural barriers in much the same way as alchohol

also it makes you look cool which is always a plus

I've found, from personal experience, that in Europe smoking is, cool, sociable and fashionable, more so in some places than others, while in America, smoking is ugly, unhealthy, anti-social and done mostly by the lower class in order to make themselves feel better.

Lovely people the poor, haven't got two pennies to rub together, but they can enjoy the simple pleasure of showing their awareness of a certain Russian American philosopher

"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."

also it makes you look cool which is always a plus

Nah, it really doesn't.

Rush is full of shit. You can tell by the turd-like structures he places between his lips and sets on fire. :p

I think he quit smoking. He refers to his formerly nicotine stained fingers a lot.

Well, the report is from 2001, but the CDC reports that education shows a more distinct difference in use than does income. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_ISSN_0163-4089/ai_75171026/


Economic status and level of education also influence the likelihood of smoking, according to the report. For instance, 32 percent of people who live below the poverty line smoke, compared with 24 percent of those who are not poor. People with less than a high school education are far more likely to smoke than those who are college educated, by a margin of 37 percent to 11.3 percent. These statistics have shown little change in the past decade.

Poor people smoke because it is a cheap luxury. Cigarettes have always been a working class vice.

Now I'll grant that there are fancy tobacco places too, but that's just clever marketing.

EDIT: one google search later
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/Among-Americans-Smoking-Decreases-Income-Increases.aspx

It seems that you have demonstrated pretty well that at least in the USA, income is inversely correlated to smoking.

Poor people smoke because it is a cheap luxury. Cigarettes have always been a working class vice.

Now I'll grant that there are fancy tobacco places too, but that's just clever marketing.

I do not think that tobacco is cheap. I think it is pretty dear. It used to be a lot cheaper though.

Does anybody have any other hypotheses about why poor people are more likely to smoke than other people?

Nah, it really doesn't.

oh look its white upper middle class

Does anybody have any other hypotheses about why poor people are more likely to smoke than other people?

fag breaks and its something to do sometimes especially if your waiting for a bus

oh look its white upper middle class

Actually I'm lower-middle, but whatever.

If you look cool, you look cool. If you don't, you don't. A cigarette in your hand is insufficient to change that.

You are more likely to see tobacco advertising in low income areas than high income areas.

If you look cool, you look cool. If you don't, you don't. A cigarette in your hand is insufficient to change that.

I take it you also hold to the logic that dressing yourself correctly also has no impact on how you look

Considering that here it's $8 for a pack of cigs... I thought they were poor because of smoking...

I take it you also hold to the logic that dressing yourself correctly also has no impact on how you look

Of course it does, but there's a logical reason it does so.

A well dressed person is a symbol of a well collected person who takes care of him/herself and is therefore seen as a better person to trust and be around. We have come to see such persons as "cool". A cigarette is a symbol of nothing except an addiction and/or a wanton desire to spend money in order to smell bad.

Does anybody have any other hypotheses about why poor people are more likely to smoke than other people?

Unfortunately, many poor people spend their entire lives poor. Those that live in "the projects" or poorer areas are more likely to be exposed to such drugs, and violence, being trapped in the viscious cycle for much, if not all their life. If poor people smoke for the aforementioned reasons, it would probably lead to people in such areas adopting the practice.

I do not think that tobacco is cheap. I think it is pretty dear. It used to be a lot cheaper though.

Sure it is. It's like what, $5-6 a pack most places. Price of a happy meal.

I'm not particularly poor.

Sure it is. It's like what, $5-6 a pack most places. Price of a happy meal.
That's the price for non-smokers. The price for smokers is way lower. I've seen a website (cheap-24h.com, but it seems to be down now) selling them for $6 a carton (10 packs).

Considering how much cigarettes cost (in UK at least), I probably would be poor if I smoked.

Another possible hypothesis is that poor people have shittier lives in general, and are more likely to smoke to deal with the stress.

If you look cool, you look cool. If you don't, you don't. A cigarette in your hand is insufficient to change that.
History proves you wrong.

History proves you wrong.

History said that this

http://dallasvintageshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/70s_disco_king_and_queen.jpg

was cool too. Smoking was cool. It isn't anymore. It simply is.

Time changes things.

History said that this was cool too.
I'd regard that as cool due to the fact that it's tongue in cheek yet a ballsy move.

I'm not particularly poor.

but are you Sssmmmmok'in?

I'd regard that as cool due to the fact that it's tongue in cheek yet a ballsy move.

Are you sure it's tongue in cheek?

People used to actually dress like that, you know. A lot of people here can attest to seeing dozens of people dressed like that - and not as satire.

Are you sure it's tongue in cheek?
Oh please. Could you wear glitter trousers unironically?

Oh please. Could you wear glitter trousers unironically?

Point.

However, lots of people dressed that way in the past. It was actually considered cool to do that back then. Do you not remember the disco years?

Of course, there were always...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/1578329554_a92301c81c_o.png

Point.

However, lots of people dressed that way in the past. It was actually considered cool to do that back then.
Ballsy moves which you know have a smug smile behind them are cool. Fact.
Do you not remember the disco years?
Not personally, but my dad has loads of vinyl from that time, which has much flares on the covers.
Of course, there were always...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/1578329554_a92301c81c_o.png
Could you live through the late 1980s into the mid-late 1990s unironically?

Ballsy moves which you know have a smug smile behind them are cool. Fact.

Not personally, but my dad has loads of vinyl from that time, which has much flares on the covers.

Could you live through the late 1980s into the mid-late 1990s unironically?

Well, if you think parachute pants and disco were both cool, I really have nothing left to say on the subject. I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Therefore, when you say cigarettes make you cooler, I will coolly point to what has been presented.

Well, if you think parachute pants and disco were both cool, I really have nothing left to say on the subject. I believe the evidence speaks for itself.
They had their time :)
Therefore, when you say cigarettes make you cooler, I will coolly point to what has been presented.
Och :(

It depends on how you define "smoking". Different forms of tobacco are consumed by different segments of the population. You're not going to see a minimum-wage worker puffing away on a Cohiba...

Now, this most recent tax hike will likely hit the poor disproportionately because it is heaviest on cigarettes; of course, the inherent injustice of increasing the tax in order to fund a program unrelated to tobacco use is a whole problem in and of itself. Things would be entirely different if the money were going to cover the costs borne by the government for health problems related to tobacco consumption, but this "tax someone else" mentality is going to end up backfiring and does nothing but continue the trend of rewarding Philip Morris that all tobacco-related legislation has done in recent years. The anti-smoking movement has planted the seeds of its own destruction and will likely collapse as the evidence of corruption, scientific malfeasance and utter disregard for common sense and rational policies eat away at its credibility.

The truth is, negative reinforcement will not reduce or eliminate tobacco use. It has never worked with any societal "vice" in the history of mankind and never will. The more you marginalize it and make it in to something elusive, the more likely people are to use it, especially kids. If people want to really mitigate the cost of tobacco to the government, they need not only to abandon the "quit or die" approach but make a serious effort to develop harm minimalization techniques that lower or mitigate the health risks of tobacco. Banning additives and restricting the use of vermiculite in tobacco cultivation would be a good start, as would the promotion of generally safe tobacco products like snus as an alternative to cigarettes.

An interesting fact: the most effective smoking cessation programs are those that don't judge smokers as "bad" or "stupid" or "irresponsible" but instead treat them with respect and allow them to make the decision to quit on their own with the help of positive reinforcement.

I also want to add that I don't smoke because it's "cool", nor did I start before I was legally old enough to purchase tobacco. I enjoy the sensory pleasure of a good, quality smoke and the time it gives me to relax. I'm polite with my smoking and never litter, something I can't really say about other smokers nor something I can say about nonsmokers who whine about smoking but have no qualms throwing their trash everywhere or polluting the air with their gas-guzzling SUVs.

Common decency, respect, and politeness are all that's needed here. Let public buildings and private businesses decide how they want to deal with the issue, provide appropriate taxes to cover the costs of smoking to the government and let the issue die there.

as would the promotion of generally safe tobacco products like snus as an alternative to cigarettes.

I refuse to beleive that snus is healthy

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/snus.jpg

I refuse to beleive that snus is healthy
Ah those crazy swedes :D

I refuse to beleive that snus is healthy

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/snus.jpg

Last weekend, a guy that looked like that pissed on some car in the parking lot near my dorm. Point taken.

Gregory Peck smoked. Gregory Peck was fucking cool. End of discussion in re cool and smoking.

Gregory Peck smoked. Gregory Peck was fucking cool. End of discussion in re cool and smoking.

He also lived to be 87.

He also lived to be 87.

Do you think Gregory Peck was scared of cigarettes? No. Cigarettes were scared of Gregory Peck.

Does anybody have any other hypotheses about why poor people are more likely to smoke than other people?

Factory work and the army, where you have specific cigarette breaks.

Once it's 'accepted' in a certain strata of society, it's that much harder to shake off since it's pervasive.

I'd say the richer have simply declined far quicker than the poor over the last 50 years.

Do you think Gregory Peck was scared of cigarettes? No. Cigarettes were scared of Gregory Peck.

Anybody who's on Richard Nixon's shitlist is pretty badass in my book.

I'd say the richer have simply declined far quicker than the poor over the last 50 years.

No doubt the coke and cigar boom of the 1980's and 1990's played a role. Who needs cigarettes when you've got them?

Anybody who's on Richard Nixon's shitlist is pretty badass in my book.

Nixon was a crying girl compared to Gregory Peck.

Nixon was a crying girl compared to Gregory Peck.

Hell, even Marlon Brando had no chance against his unstoppable might.

Our esteemed President is not poor, but he smokes.

Besides, people should be allowed to smoke if they choose; let's not have another round of Prohibition.

Yes poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people, cigarette taxes hurt the poor. And given that it's addictive, smokers are less price sensitive than buyers of other products, so taxes upon them are not as effective at discouraging cigarrette purchases as taxes upon other goods.

Yes poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people, cigarette taxes hurt the poor. And given that it's addictive, smokers are less price sensitive than buyers of other products, so taxes upon them are not as effective at discouraging cigarrette purchases as taxes upon other goods.

And, in addition, people may be more likely to start. If the government's taxing, restricting and banning something to hell, what better way to get back at the nanny state than to do that very thing? Now, I can't honestly say smoking means much more than a relaxing moment to me, but I can definitely see who some people might view it as an act of rebellion against an increasingly intrusive and pseudoscientific health-industrial complex.

The current approach is completely ineffective and will never do a thing to really dent long-term tobacco consumption.

However, when I heard El Rushbo say it, I of course believed it to be true.

Mistake.

Mistake.

Except, that, ya know, it is true. I mean, maybe taking anyone's word for it is a mistake, but just cuz someone you don't like says it doesn't mean you should disregard it.

I suppose people who smoke 100$ cigars are poor too.

I heard from Rush Limbaugh and from other posters here on NSG that most smokers are poor. I had never heard about this before there were some discussions here about tobacco taxes.


Limbaugh didn't say that "poor people are more likely to be smokers than rich people". He said that "most smokers are poor" - so he's just hinting that poor people are poor because they waste money (he's exploiting the average public's lack of logics).

Same would go for people who wear clothes. In the whole world, most people who wear clothes earn less than 1000 $ / year. Hence, wearing clothes makes you poor.

Same would go for people who eat food. In the whole world, most people who eat foor earn less than 1000 $ / year. Hence, eating food makes you poor.

Heh.

Of course there are more poor people smoking (by the way, how does he define "poor"?) than rich people: that's because there are more poor people than rich people.
On the other hand, my own personal experience tells me that there is about the same percentage of smokers in every social class.
(Though there's a professional category of people who smoke like crazy: MDs. I know precious few MDs who don't smoke. Isn't that ironic?)

It's just that:
1.correlation =/= cause
2.statistics can be interpreted so much that they can become actually misleading factoids

I do not think that tobacco is cheap. I think it is pretty dear. It used to be a lot cheaper though.

It is though cheaper than say a 3lb lobster yes. Poor people smoke because it is a cheap luxury, this is true.

idiots like limbo have a vested intrest in brainwashing people into equating poverty with stupidity. i haven't looked into it that closely myself, but just on general prinicipals i seriously doubt there's any close corrilation between any of the three. (smoking, poverty, mental imparement)

idiots like limbo have a vested intrest in brainwashing people into equating poverty with stupidity. i haven't looked into it that closely myself, but just on general prinicipals i seriously doubt there's any close corrilation between any of the three. (smoking, poverty, mental imparement)

Poverty and stupidity are not related at all, it is umm stupid to suggest it is. So I guess Rush is stupid?:D

Does anybody have any other hypotheses about why poor people are more likely to smoke than other people?

Rich people are better at lying?

Rich people are better at lying?

Or I refer you to Post #55.

Poverty and stupidity are not related at all, it is umm stupid to suggest it is. So I guess Rush is stupid?:D
prejudice and stupidity on the other hand, it doesn't really take all that much rocket science to see that they are.

Poverty and stupidity are not related at all, it is umm stupid to suggest it is. So I guess Rush is stupid?:D

'Stupidity' might not be the right word but there's certainly links between poverty and education levels and smoking has declined more among college educated people than non-college educated people - in those countries that measure it - Gallup does an annual survey on smoking broken down by demographics if you want to go look for it.

Or I refer you to Post #55.
It lacks a punchline, therefore I'll just dismiss it.


Anyways, I'm leaning on social pressure for hiding filthy habits rather than actual drop in cigarette, cigar or joint use...

...or alternatively the moar intelligence, less wisdom reason eg. "I don't smoke, I'm not on fire now!" ie the I has an excuse now! -way.

prejudice and stupidity on the other hand, it doesn't really take all that much rocket science to see that they are.

Prejudice I would have said is a function of ignorance rather than stupidity. Heh but there I go with my glass is half full again.

So does Rush have any opinions on a connection between abusing prescription drugs and socio-economic status?

So does Rush have any opinions on a connection between abusing prescription drugs and socio-economic status?
Obviously he does. In his opinion there is a perfect negative correlation, because whatever the upper class does is right and good, and therefore cannot possibly be viewed as "abuse."

One possibility that is that rich people have more investment in the future. If you're already poor, given the short end of the stick by society and probably will live your entire life in a ghetto working minimum wage, who the fuck cares about whether you live to be 60 or not?
On the other hand, if you're looking forward to retiring with a substantial nest egg, pension and health plan from the company where you served as a CEO, then living to be 100 starts sounding like a pretty goddamn good deal.

Another possibility is that rich guys just have access to better drugs. Legal ones (Valium, etc), and illegal ones (all the cocaine you can fit in your nose at any given moment).

all the cocaine you can fit in your nose at any given moment.

Which is precisely what your avatar looks like he was given. Zing! :p

Which is precisely what your avatar looks like he was given. Zing! :p
What's to zing? I love my new avatar, his shit-eating grin and all the disturbing glory it possesses.

smoking is not just a poor thing or a cool thing as some nations or people claim it to be. Smoking makes you feel good just like being addicted to alcohol. Dont believe me? then let me expalin. If you are a smoker it dosent mean that you are poor, medium, or rich, if you think that the world is stressful enough to have an "deep inhale" then you would think smoking is cool. Because of that relaxing inhale, it shows that you can be more powerful then usual. however, this is not always the case. Some people Smoke amongst culture influence. if you like someone and think there super awesome and there smoking then they would like to be with there mentor. as for the most of the theories, i think that they are just some goverment related thing and mayb on a biased sampling scale.

Lastly, people are entitled to there opinions. if you wanna smoke because of "whatever" or think the world is so "Stressful" or your "Addicted then i say you are a weak minded indivual who can not take life by the reigns. Just like all you alcohols, You think life is stressful? well, i say it is time to open yourself up to the world instead of hiding from your problems, acting "COOL" or just being a weak minded fool controled by no one except for the people who tell you without giving yourself a second thought.

Free your mind and think for yourself!

You are more likely to see tobacco advertising in low income areas than high income areas.

This may be so but all this means is that cigarette advertisers know the right places to put their ads to attract the sort of people most likely to use their products.

http://dallasvintageshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/70s_disco_king_and_queen.jpg


His pants are awesome!

His pants are awesome!

*sigh*

Disco... why won't you die? why?

Nixon was a crying girl compared to Gregory Peck.

Nixon was a badass in his own way. He wore suits when he was awake 99% of the time or so. Plus he was a drunken lunatic.

Limbaugh didn't say that "poor people are more likely to be smokers than rich people". He said that "most smokers are poor" - so he's just hinting that poor people are poor because they waste money (he's exploiting the average public's lack of logics).

Same would go for people who wear clothes. In the whole world, most people who wear clothes earn less than 1000 $ / year. Hence, wearing clothes makes you poor.

Same would go for people who eat food. In the whole world, most people who eat foor earn less than 1000 $ / year. Hence, eating food makes you poor.

Heh.

Of course there are more poor people smoking (by the way, how does he define "poor"?) than rich people: that's because there are more poor people than rich people.
On the other hand, my own personal experience tells me that there is about the same percentage of smokers in every social class.
(Though there's a professional category of people who smoke like crazy: MDs. I know precious few MDs who don't smoke. Isn't that ironic?)

It's just that:
1.correlation =/= cause
2.statistics can be interpreted so much that they can become actually misleading factoids

No. You should take a look at the gallup poll on page 1 of this thread. I wondered about those points earlier but the gallup poll pretty much ruled that out.

*sigh*

Disco... why won't you die? why?

I like disco. It is funky.

I like disco. It is funky.

I don't like you anymore.

I don't like you anymore.
You liked people in the first place? I was unaware that you were so able. Now, I dislike you.

You liked people in the first place? I was unaware that you were so able. Now, I dislike you.

Well I like you!

I still liked your old avatar better though...

I like disco. It is funky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jR_3JbcH10 Bernard's got the funk :D