Teen
Smoking: Stopping the Epidemic
Sara
Sandrik
Teenage smoking is an issue which has been
examined by many different groups for several years, primarily in the hopes of
stopping, or at least slowing the epidemic.
Efforts are constantly being made, yet no improvement can be seen at
this point. In fact, the numbers of
teenage smokers continue to rise to unbelievable heights. Each year one million teenagers begin
smoking, and monthly cigarette use rose to a shocking 35 percent among senior
high students, and annual usage of cigarettes is up to 52.4 percent of twelfth
graders. Despite efforts to the
contrary, more teenagers lit up last year than at any time in the past ten
years (Action on Smoking and Health).
These numbers are tragic, considering the fact that more than 435,000
people die each year from smoking related illnesses, making it the single most
preventable cause of death in the U.S.
The average age for initiating smoking continues to drop and is
currently between twelve and fourteen (Children’s Access to Tobacco). It is important to understand the reasons
why the youth of today smoke, as well as to fully comprehend why past
strategies have failed in order to make any progress in reversing this deadly
trend.
The reasons teens smoke fall into a very
wide range, making it difficult to direct anti-smoking campaigns at any one
cause. Many people believe that it is
because tobacco companies directly focus advertisements toward the youth. However, as Alan Brody, a marketing
journalist, and author of “Cigarette Seduction” explains, “Adults tend to have
a poor memory of their own youth and why they themselves became smokers. It wasn’t because the tobacco companies
marketed to them. It was because they
marketed to adults, and as teenagers, they desperately wanted to be
adults.” Back in the 1930’s, 40’s, and
50’s, smoking was glamorized in movies by such admired actors as James Cagney,
Jimmy Stewart, Marlon Brando, Catherine Hepburn, and James Dean. This element of glamour is maintained now in
advertisements for cigarettes which often depict very sophisticated
individuals. This seems to be the
primary reason for most adolescents today to start the habit. Brody also offers the concept of cigarettes’
“spirit power.” He explains that since
our society lacks any coming of age rituals common in other cultures, the
cigarette industry has come to occupy this role. Teens seek the path to adulthood, and cigarettes offer danger
along with a sense of belonging in adult society. He adds, “That they are about life and death only adds to their
‘spirit power.’” Brody also claims that
the magic of cigarettes is that they sell a mild legal drug imbued with the
possibility of self destruction and societal controversy. This powerful attraction to the forbidden
along with the “psychological palliatives” that cigarettes offer are the key
factors in the strong appeal of smoking to teens (Brody). Along these same lines is the idea that
smoking is viewed as rebellious, and teens feel invincible. “They [teens] see a world of violence, drug
abuse and absentee parents--a world where they think they are more likely to be
shot or get AIDS than die of cancer” (Increase in teen smoking not caused by
ignorance). They are able to
rationalize that a little nicotine really won’t make that much of a difference
in the outcome of their lives. Another
serious reason behind teen smoking that applies primarily to females is that of
weight loss. Not only are they
convinced that cigarettes have some chemical ability to keep them from gaining
weight, but they feel that as long as a cigarette is in their mouth, food won’t
be. In a society that places physical
perfection on a pedestal and idolizes anorexic looking models, the willingness
to do just about anything to be thin is a real concern. This is another way in which advertisements do
have some influence. Cigarette ads that
feature thin, beautiful women have a serious impact on teenage girls who are
striving to attain that impossible ideal.
Movies have similarly been shown to contribute to teen smoking according
to a study done at UC Irvine. In 1996,
research revealed that “teenagers are more likely to think smoking is ‘cool’
after they’ve watched their Hollywood idols light up on screen - unless they’ve
just seen an advertisement reminding them of the dangers of smoking” (UCI News). Other various reasons for starting smoking
that have been given are stress reduction and to aid depression. Although these reasons are based on false
concepts, they still encourage some teens to light up for the first time. One teenage girl even claims she was a non
smoker until she watched a talk show citing depression as one reason why teens
smoke. “So that’s what you do!” said the girl, who had been feeling
depressed, and she then started smoking (Brody). Once they have initiated the habit, nicotine, the primary
psychoactive ingredient in tobacco, takes control. Nicotine is considered by many medical authorities to be more
addictive than alcohol or cocaine, and is labeled as a gateway to drugs. This makes it very difficult to stop the
habit once it is started. This is one
area in which teens significantly underestimate effects. Less than five percent of smoking high
school seniors think that they will be smoking in five years. However, follow up studies show that in
actuality, 73 percent of daily smoking high schoolers are still daily smokers
eight years later. The power of the
addiction is frightening, particularly considering that it is a habit which
shortens the life span of the smoker by approximately 25 years (Children’s
Access to Tobacco).
As mentioned before, several steps have
been taken against the teen smoking trend.
However, as evidenced by the constantly increasing statistics, they have
all ultimately failed. One common
belief that advertising and marketing are responsible for selling tobacco, has
been partially disproved. “The absence
of advertising in Finland and, for awhile, in Italy showed that cigarettes sell
just fine without ads” (Brody). Brody
also asserts that teens aren’t responding to ads nearly as much as they are
acting on their own demands in an effort to adjust to the tribulations of
growing up. And even if the industry is
targeted, the tobacco companies have already proven that they can survive a
hostile media situation. Over a six
year period when media hostility toward the industry was at a peak, smoking
actually rose 30 percent. “Newspapers,
TV networks and even magazines that once quivered at the thought of losing
cigarette dollars now thumb their noses, knowing drug companies with
antismoking products are lining up to take their places. Tobacco has moved from ad reliance to a
potent combination of billboards, merchandising and point-of-purchase
awareness” (Brody). Therefore, reducing
or eliminating advertisements does not prove as effective as supporters of the
movement had hoped. Another tactic that
many see as promising is to simply raise the prices of cigarettes. While this may at first seem like a logical
idea, in reality it simply doesn’t show lasting effects. The European experience has previously shown
that raising prices does work, but only for awhile. Then teens have a remarkable way of readjusting. This also raises the fear that if you make
cigarettes unaffordable, teens will simply move on to other drugs (Brody). Anti-smoking advocates are also calling for
stricter regulation of the product, a ban on unattended vending machines, and
larger warning labels to fight the problem.
This may seem logical as well, considering the fact that over two-thirds
of students said cigarettes were fairly easy or very easy to get (ASH). However, all of these solutions share one
common flaw. They do not address the
primary reason why teens smoke, which is to be more like adults. This generation of teens knows that smoking
causes cancer, but as mentioned before, they simply do not consider it a
significant risk compared to other aspects of their lives. Therefore, heavy regulations are not likely
to keep adolescents from smoking. As
one author puts it, “Teens smoke for reasons that cannot be legislatively removed”
(Increase in teen smoking not caused by ignorance). This is similar to the argument which was made by the State
Treasurer of Pennsylvania, Barbara Hafer against House Bill 1472. In a letter to legislators, she called the
bill, which would make it a criminal offense for teens to smoke or possess
tobacco products, “well-intentioned,” however she agreed with leading public
health officials that it would do nothing to reduce the level of teen
smoking. She acknowledged that the
teens who use tobacco are victims of an addiction to nicotine, and prosecuting
them will not change that, but rather put the problem in the lap of the police
and district judges. As a result, it
would add thousands of new cases to the “already overburdened criminal justice
system” (News From Treasurer Barbara Hafer).
So, if none of these attempts have proven
effective, is there a possible solution?
One feasible answer lies in targeting smaller groups. To decide which group to focus on, considerations
must be taken of which specific population is most negatively affected by
smoking. In addition to long term
effects which may seem too abstract to the young adults of today, the immediate
concerns should be focused upon. One of
these immediate problems is the simple fact that smoking causes lung damage
which makes it difficult to breathe, particularly while putting the body under
some type of aerobic stress. With this
in mind, the obvious focus group would have to be athletes. The next step is in deciding how to go about
discouraging athletes against smoking.
As the study of the effect of movies on teens’ opinions of smoking has
already proven, role models do influence the impressionable minds of
adolescents. Therefore, one possible
solution would be for athletic departments in schools around the country to
hire famous professional athletes to be spokesmen against smoking. They could also be used in anti-smoking
advertisements. They could emphasize
that you simply cannot smoke and be any type of serious athlete. The pressure and competition for college
scholarships along with the desire many young athletes have to excel at their
sport would most likely be enough to curb them away from ever starting
smoking.
In order to make this possible,
considerable funding is needed. Most
professional athletes these days charge heavy fees for any type of spokesmen
work, and even those who would do the actual work for free would still leave
the athletic departments and anti-smoking organizations with various other
significant costs. The answer to this
problem of finances is found in the very organization which originated the
outdated phrase, “Just Say No.” The
D.A.R.E. program, which has grown into the USA’s number one drug program,
reaching over five million fifth-graders in 60% of school districts, has recently come under considerable
suspicion. Over the past several years,
numerous studies have been performed and the results show time and time again
that D.A.R.E. is simply not effective.
In fact, since 1987, studies have been conducted at 36 Illinois schools,
31 Kentucky schools, 20 North Carolina schools, 11 South Carolina schools, and
11 Canadian schools. The conclusions
were all similar. The 1991 Kentucky
study found “no statistically significant differences between experimental
groups and control groups in the percentage of new users of...cigarettes,
smokeless tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana” (Cauchon). In September 1994, the official report of the prestigious
Research Triangle Group (RTI), which was hired by the research wing of the
Justice Department to analyze the studies on D.A.R.E. and determine the bottom
line, was finished. “It concluded that,
while D.A.R.E. was loved by teachers and participants, it had no effect on drug
(including cigarettes) use” (Glass). It
then went a step further to say that other programs work better. Several other studies’ results have even
shown the dreaded boomerang effect in that D.A.R.E. graduates are actually more
likely to smoke marijuana (Glass). So,
if all of these studies have come back with similar results, then why is the
program still receiving $750 million, of which some $600 million comes from
federal, state, and local governments?
And why is it the only drug education program specifically sanctioned
for funding under the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act when other
programs have already been proven to work better? (Glass) There are no acceptable answers for these questions.
This money could be better spent if
portions of it were given to athletic departments in order to finance the afore
mentioned plan. If professional athlete
spokespeople were able to significantly reduce the number of teen athlete
smokers, then this would likely have a snowball effect within schools and communities. Athletes are known to be looked up to, and
often considered ‘cool’ by fellow classmates.
Their actions would likely have an effect on their classmates and peers
as well. Of course, athletes are not
necessarily the only target group. The
fact that many teenage girls starve themselves in order to look like the
impossibly skinny models they see in magazines proves that these models have a
serious impact on the young female population.
If a similar technique as that of the athletes could be applied to them,
results would surely be expected. For
example, if Claudia Schiffer and Tyra Banks could participate in an
advertisement saying that smoking ruins your appearance by staining teeth and
causing wrinkles around the mouth, and furthermore that you could never smoke
and be top model, it would undoubtedly have some positive effect. While teen girls are not exactly a small
target group, it is possible to focus on their direct concerns with image. This idea can be carried over into several
different groups as well. Music
departments could hire famous blues musicians to say that you can’t smoke and
be a great saxophone player, and so on and so on. In other words, rather than giving those billions of dollars to
uniformed police officers, who aren’t exactly the epitome of cool in junior
high, to stand in front of a class and lecture about the hazards of smoking and
other drugs, the money should be spread out among departments which can focus
realistically on teens’ specific concerns.
These programs could even be part of the D.A.R.E. program since it is
already an established presence in schools.
This is one way in which attention could be focused on “showing
America’s youth what they have to live for, not what can kill them” (Increase
in teen smoking not caused by ignorance).
The deadly epidemic of teen smoking is of
obvious concern to our society as a whole.
The various reasons make it a difficult problem to control, and the
number of failed attempts can seem disheartening. However, the fact remains that it is necessary to cut the skyrocketing
numbers for the sake of the teenagers’ health, as well as American
society. The Secretary of the U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services recently estimated that tobacco related
health care costs exceed $52 billion per year nationally (Children’s Access to
Tobacco Kills). With numbers such as
this, we cannot afford to sit back and watch the problem grow. If the former techniques, such as D.A.R.E.
have failed, then it is time to explore new options. Focusing on certain smaller groups is just one promising
possibility.
Works Cited
Brody, Alan.
“Big Tobacco Can’t Cut Teen Smoking.” NY Newsday. http://www.tobacco.org/News/980501bigtob.html (22 Feb. 1999).
Cauchon,
Dennis. “D.A.R.E. doesn’t work.” USA Today. http://turnpike.net/~jnr/dareart.htm (22 Feb. 1999).
“Children’s
Access to Tobacco.” Teen Smoking. http://www.angelfire.com/on2/BeSmartDontStart/teen.html
(9 March 1999).
Glass,
Stephen. “Don’t You D.A.R.E.” The
New Republic. http://www.pdxnorml.org/NR_DARE_03097/.html
(22 Feb. 1999).
“Increase in
teen smoking not caused by ignorance.” Oregon Daily Emerald. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ode/archive/v97/0/950801/
080195.edit2.html (22 Feb. 1999).
“Movies may
be contributing to rise in teen smoking, UC Irvine
study shows.” UCI News. http://www.uci.edu/~inform/releases/131sa96.html
(22 Feb. 99).
“New Study of
Teen Smoking.” Action on Smoking and Health. http:// ash.org/oct97/10-29-97-2.html (22 Feb. 99).
“News From
Treasurer Barbara Hafer.” Pennsylvania Treasury Department. http://www.treasury.state.pa.us/NR30Apr98.html
(22 Feb. 99).