Smoker, Non-smoker, or Ex-smoker?

A year or so back, an article in the Independent by seventy-something Joan Bakewell raised a question in my mind that has never quite gone away. The title of the article was:

If I feel like having a cigarette, why shouldn’t I?

Oh, right, I thought, on reading that. Joan Bakewell must be a smoker. I read on:

I am going to start stockpiling cigarettes. I feel the need to have a small cache hidden around the house. I shall distribute them in out-of-the-way places in different rooms. I don’t think it’s appropriate to start putting them under the floorboards just yet. But the time may come… By the way, I’m a non-smoker!

I came to halt, a little confused. Why on earth should a non-smoker demand the right to smoke cigarettes, and propose stockpiling cigarettes all around her house, including quite possibly under the floorboards? Anyway, if she says she’s a non-smoker, she must know what she’s talking about. Oh, I know, she’s keeping this stash of tobacco for people who still smoke. How thoughtful of her!

I continued reading the article, until I came to this:

The fact is that as a non-smoker I do enjoy an occasional cigarette. And there have been circumstances when I relapsed completely. When my father was dying and the distress was very great, I found that smoking really relieved the tension. Likewise, when my marriage ended. The comfort of nicotine became suddenly important.

So this non-smoker occasionally smoked. My confusion deepened.And does someone smoke an “occasional” cigarette when someone is dying, or when a marriage ends? Wouldn’t it be more like chainsmoking the whole way through the traumatic event?

What no one dares mention is the sheer pleasure of smoking. I am quite nostalgic for the paraphernalia: ashtrays; cigarette lighters – from slick American Zippos to those heavy Wedgewood ones that popped up on wedding present lists

She’s nostalgic? She surely must once have been a smoker to be nostalgic for such things?

It took another article by Joan Bakewell in another newspaper for me to discover that she had indeed once been a smoker. She’d been a 40-a-day smoker from the age of 17 to 40.

The question I was left with was this: is Joan Bakewell a smoker or a non-smoker or an ex-smoker?

There doesn’t seem an obvious answer to this. Clearly she thinks she’s a non-smoker. She said so twice. I’d be more inclined to call her an ex-smoker. But is someone an ex-smoker, if they will promptly start smoking again as soon as they encounter one of life’s periodic storms? And what counts as a storm? A large tax bill? A missed appointment? Would an ex-smoker or non-smoker really stock up with cigarettes the way Bakewell does? She is really someone who calls herself a non-smoker, but who is in fact an ex-smoker who’ll start smoking again at the drop of a hat. i.e. a smoker.

It reminds me of what Mark Twain once said. “Giving up smoking is easy. I’ve done it hundreds of times.”

And when asked whether she’s a smoker or not, Joan Bakewell doubtless always replies that she’s a non-smoker. And since this is how smoking incidence is measured, by phoning people or knocking on their doors and asking them if they’re smokers, Joan Bakewell would declare to such pollsters that she was a non-smoker, even though her house was bulging with packs of cigarettes, its ashtrays unemptied since the last crisis or trauma. One has to wonder: how accurate are estimates of smoking incidence likely to be, if everyone who answers a telephone poll is a Joan Bakewell?

It may simply mean that there are no such things as smokers, non-smokers, and ex-smokers. They are illusory categories into which nobody ever completely fits. A non-smoker can become a smoker at a moment’s notice, and an ex-smoker shortly after that. I could quite honestly say that I am a non-smoker while I am typing this sentence, but have taken up smoking in the next sentence, and have become an ex-smoker in the sentence after that – and so on, 40 times a day. If anyone ever asks me, I’ll say that I’m a smoker. And even if I haven’t smoked a cigarette for 10 years, I’ll probably still call myself a smoker. And an Englishman even if I’ve not lived in England for 20 years. And a Roxy Music fan, even though the last time I saw them was in 1979.

We are not things. We are not this or that. We are not smokers or non-smokers or ex-smokers.  We are transient beings, who are always becoming something, ceasing to be something else. We are not here or there, but everywhere. We cannot be fixed, like butterflies pinned into display cases.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Smoker, Non-smoker, or Ex-smoker?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Very nice story.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I think that many people – now that smoking is seen as such a “naughty” thing to do, don’t class themselves as smokers unless they do it every day. Hence the new category of “social smoker” – whatever that is when it’s at home.
    It’s one of the problems with all those “spousal” smoking studies which were carried out in the early days in the US when it was first infected with the anti-smoking virus. Because admitting to being a smoker was such a shameful thing, even people who smoked – whether regularly, occasionally, or like Joan B. “at times of crisis” – many people denied that they ever smoked at all. It was, of course, compounded by the private health insurance system in the US, which was already heavily penalising people who admitted to being smokers. So, for fear of being “caught out,” many people who smoked ticked the “non-smoking” category in the requisite box. Needless to say, those completing the studies never bothered to check the truthfulness of the respondents’ answers. As a result, of course, the results served the useful purpose of fuelling the antis’ propaganda that such-and-such a percentage of cancers/heart disease/whatever was caused by “passive smoking” when in fact (always assuming that tobacco smoke was the cause of these ailments in the first place), it was their own smoking which caused their illnesses, not breathing in other people’s.

  3. Frank Davis says:

    My mother was a ‘social smoker’. She’d smoke to ‘join in’ with other people who were smokers. Otherwise she didn’t smoke at all.
    And I find it impossible to believe the figures for smoking incidence that are given, for the reasons you give. Who is going to admit that they are smokers in the present climate? The current UK figure of 22% is probably a considerable underestimate.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Very eloquently put, if I may say so.
    I worked with a biochemist once, who was as prone to a bit of a tipple as myself, and we spent many a drunken evening in a pub called the Prince of Wales in Aberdeen (don’t ask, the answer makes no sense). While drinking, he would puff his way through a pack of twenty. We are talking ancient times, of course, when people could smoke in pubs and nobody minded. About 20 years back.
    Back then, we could also smoke in the common room at work, but he didn’t smoke at all when he wasn’t boozed up. Not at all. That was the start of my ‘this addiction stuff is bollocks’ revelation. I’ve met more like him since.
    We don’t smoke because we have to. We smoke because we like it.
    And when I pass through that gate into departures, or cross the line that separates reality from a railway platform, I will call myself a non-smoker if asked. I can’t smoke there so I’m not smoking and therefore I am a non-smoker.
    Now, and for the next few minutes at least, I am a smoker.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Arse. I thought I was signed in but I have two browsers open and I signed in on the other one.
    That was me, Leg-iron.
    http://leg-iron.livejournal.com/

  6. Anonymous says:

    …and I might have had one or two small whiskies… Small ones. Not pints.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Just re-read my previous post and your reply and realised that ” … whatever a ‘social smoker’ is when it’s at home” probably just indicates how confused I am about all these self-defined categories!
    Philosophy question number 1: “Is a social smoker, when at home, a non-smoker?” Discuss.

  8. Frank Davis says:

    I believe you.
    I really, really, really do.

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Well, my understanding is that a ‘social smoker’ is someone who only smokes when in the company of smokers, in order to fit in, or go with the flow, and not be left out. So, no, in the privacy of their own homes they wouldn’t smoke. Unless they were practising how to be social smokers.
    I suppose a ‘social drinker’ would be someone who only drinks at pubs, and never touches the stuff otherwise.

  10. Pingback: Nice Work If You Can Get It | Frank Davis

  11. Pingback: Life At The Top | Frank Davis

  12. Pingback: NHS Stop Smoking Stalling | Frank Davis

  13. Pingback: 17,410,742 UK Smokers | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s