{"title":"Winning the War on Tobacco-and Public Cynicism, Too.","authors":"J. Cohn","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"O ne of my favorite scenes from “All The President’s Men,” the 1976 dramatization of Watergate and The Washington Post, comes early in the film—when the Post’s Bob Woodward (played by Robert Redford) confronts his colleague Carl Bernstein (played by Dustin Hoffman) for surreptitiously rewriting an article. When I saw that clip recently, I saw something I’d never really noticed before. Bernstein is sitting at his desk and taking drags from a cigarette. You wouldn’t see anything like that today—not in the real-life Washington Post newsroom and not in almost any other public indoor environment around the country. That’s because local, state, and federal governments have eradicated indoor smoking from just about everywhere except bars and restaurants. It’s only a matter of time before smoking is gone from those places, too. Roughly two-thirds of US states have already banned smoking in eating and drinking establishments, and within the outliers, which are mostly in the deep South, big cities are taking action on their own. The spread of indoor smoking bans is just one visible byproduct of America’s war on tobacco, a war that has been going on for more than 50 years. By any reasonable account, the forces fighting tobacco have been winning. As of 2014, just 16.8% of American adults smoked, down from 42.4% in 1965.1 All signs point to that number going down more in the future. Of course this war is far from over. Smoking is still more prevalent among the poor. In many developing countries, where US companies are increasingly focusing their efforts, smoking is actually on the rise. Big Tobacco has to look abroad precisely because selling cigarettes here has become harder and harder. It’s an excellent case study in the efficacy of public health campaigns, and maybe in the efficacy of government itself. And yet it gets","PeriodicalId":78777,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","volume":"56 1","pages":"704-707"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
O ne of my favorite scenes from “All The President’s Men,” the 1976 dramatization of Watergate and The Washington Post, comes early in the film—when the Post’s Bob Woodward (played by Robert Redford) confronts his colleague Carl Bernstein (played by Dustin Hoffman) for surreptitiously rewriting an article. When I saw that clip recently, I saw something I’d never really noticed before. Bernstein is sitting at his desk and taking drags from a cigarette. You wouldn’t see anything like that today—not in the real-life Washington Post newsroom and not in almost any other public indoor environment around the country. That’s because local, state, and federal governments have eradicated indoor smoking from just about everywhere except bars and restaurants. It’s only a matter of time before smoking is gone from those places, too. Roughly two-thirds of US states have already banned smoking in eating and drinking establishments, and within the outliers, which are mostly in the deep South, big cities are taking action on their own. The spread of indoor smoking bans is just one visible byproduct of America’s war on tobacco, a war that has been going on for more than 50 years. By any reasonable account, the forces fighting tobacco have been winning. As of 2014, just 16.8% of American adults smoked, down from 42.4% in 1965.1 All signs point to that number going down more in the future. Of course this war is far from over. Smoking is still more prevalent among the poor. In many developing countries, where US companies are increasingly focusing their efforts, smoking is actually on the rise. Big Tobacco has to look abroad precisely because selling cigarettes here has become harder and harder. It’s an excellent case study in the efficacy of public health campaigns, and maybe in the efficacy of government itself. And yet it gets
1976年改编自水门事件和《华盛顿邮报》(The Washington Post)的电影《总统亲信》(All The President’s Men)中,我最喜欢的一幕出现在电影开头:《华盛顿邮报》的鲍勃·伍德沃德(Robert Redford饰)与同事卡尔·伯恩斯坦(Carl Bernstein饰)对峙,原因是后者偷偷改写了一篇文章。当我最近看到这个片段时,我看到了一些我以前从未真正注意到的东西。伯恩斯坦正坐在办公桌前吸着几口烟。你今天不会看到这样的事情——在现实生活中的《华盛顿邮报》编辑部和全国几乎任何其他公共室内环境中都不会看到。这是因为地方、州和联邦政府已经禁止了除了酒吧和餐馆以外的几乎所有地方的室内吸烟。在这些地方禁烟只是时间问题。美国大约三分之二的州已经禁止在餐饮场所吸烟,而在一些例外情况下(主要是在南方腹地),大城市也在自行采取行动。室内禁烟令的推广只是美国反烟草战争的一个可见副产品,这场战争已经持续了50多年。从任何合理的角度来看,反对烟草的力量都取得了胜利。截至2014年,只有16.8%的美国成年人吸烟,低于1965年的42.4%。所有迹象都表明,这一数字未来还会进一步下降。当然,这场战争远未结束。吸烟在穷人中更为普遍。在许多发展中国家,吸烟实际上呈上升趋势,而美国公司正越来越多地把精力集中在这些国家。大型烟草公司不得不把目光投向国外,正是因为在这里销售香烟变得越来越难。这是一个很好的研究公共卫生运动有效性的案例,也许也是研究政府本身有效性的案例。然而它得到了