cigarettes are code for proletarian

[Max Sawicky]

> . . .
> The history of the legal battles against narcotics has been shot through
> with class prejudice. Prohibition was not just a 'hysterical' reaction
> on the part of religious women as it is caricatured today. It was a
> component of the conflict between the Wasp elite of the early century
> and the growing urban immigrant working classes (yes, prejudice against
> the urban has a history, too). Drinking was an activity that came to
> symbolise the urban working classes, and, consequently, a target for
> anti-working class prejudice.
> 
> By targetting their habits - drink - the reformers shielded themselves
> from the charge of simple prejudice, moralising their class prejudices
> as a pretended aspiration to 'better' the workers. In Britain, retricted
> opening hours (only very recently lifted) were introduced in the war, to
> prevent absenteeism amongst 'dissipated' workers.
> . . .

This is only part of the story as far as the U.S. is
concerned.  See Mike Kazin's chapter on prohibitionism
in "The Populist Persuasion."  For a time the prohibi-
tionists were allied with the populists.  Drink was
characterized as a capitalist subterfuge of proletarian
family life, not unlike the way some more recent radical
movements have talked about drugs.  I'd even say there
was a kind of proto-feminism involved.  Women with axes,
chopping up male bar-rooms.

Note also the populists were not anti-labor and not,
in my view, particularly anti-urban.  There was a
religious stain you allude to in terms of rural
protestants (including evangelical types) and
the urban Catholic masses (particularly Irish).

In general I'm sympathetic to the critique of
anti-smoking, though I've never smoked (tobacco).
My father smoked like a stack, and it didn't do
his health any good.  But he knew that.

mbs