The Fashionable and the Unfashionable

I was trying to think this morning what had happened to get lots of people to get scared not just of smoking, but also scared of tobacco smoke.

It was something that happened very slowly, in my experience. I lived for many years in a shared flat. And nobody was bothered by my smoking until towards the end of my time there. My landlady, who was also a good friend of mine, used to regularly come up to visit me and bum a roll-up off me. When I first knew her she smoked, but most of the time I knew her she never bought cigarettes. And in fact over the 30+ years I knew her, she gradually changed from being a smoker to an antismoker. Towards the end, when she came up to get a roll-up off me, it would be apologetically, and saying out loud, “I really shouldn’t.” And then shouldn’t became didn’t. And then didn’t turned into banning smoking at the dinner parties she used to throw. I was present at the first one, held in her flat, when she steadfastly refused to allow anyone to smoke, and half the guests walked out to smoke on the landing. Sometime around the same time I remember her long time ex-smoking boyfriend lighting up a cigarette at one of her dinner parties, and she expressed shock that he’d done it.

“Haven’t you stopped smoking?” she asked him incredulously.

“Yes, I have,” he said as he puffed away. “But a cigarette every now and then doesn’t matter.”

And she looked rather cross and confused.

Other people were also gradually banning smoking in their own homes. And becoming vegetarians. But it was all very gradual. It didn’t happen overnight. In many ways, the 2007 UK smoking ban was the culmination of a cultural change that had been taking place for decades.

Not like the arrival of pot in the 1960s. That happened, in my personal experience, literally overnight, in late June 1968. I was living in a university hall of residence, and I had a whole bunch of friends there. I’d gone off to Zurich for a week with the entire class on some school outing, and when I got back all my friends were having fits of giggles, and sitting on the floor. I was shocked. I wouldn’t touch whatever the stuff was that they’d started smoking. I didn’t want to become a Drug Addict. I thought they’d all gone mad. But the madness never went away. When they returned to the university at the end of the summer, they were still smoking the stuff, but over the summer they’d also grown their hair long. And they’d stop playing squash like they used to do. And they’d begun to change the way they dressed, becoming more and more outlandish.

At that time, two distinct cultures emerged. One was the old ‘straight’ culture, in which nobody smoked pot, or sported long hair, or dressed at all outrageously. The other was the new, pot-smoking, long-hair, ‘hip’ culture. About half the students (usually in the science faculty) belonged to the old culture, and the other half (usually in the arts faculty) to the new culture. They lived separate lives. But they co-existed perfectly amicably.

And five or six years later, after getting gradually disenchanted with the crazy ‘hip’ culture, I gradually started returning to the old ‘straight’ culture. I got back into science, and also into computing. And I got into it because it wasn’t crazy. I’d got thoroughly sick of bad craziness. And have stayed sick of it ever since.

Looking back, I think that both the pot smoking wave of the 1960s and the antismoking wave of the 1990s were both driven by fashion. It was fashionable in the 1960s to smoke pot and grow your hair long and wear beads and bell-bottoms. And it was also fashionable in the 1990s to ban smoking in your own home, and become a vegetarian. Maybe if you were really ahead of the game in the 1990s, you’d also start fashionably believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming. It showed that you were one of the cool kids.

In the 1960s I was fashion-conscious, and doing the fashionable thing. But by the 1990s I was doing the unfashionable thing. And in the process I’d switched from arts to sciences. And from left to right.

And maybe that’s the essential difference between left and right: the left is fashionable, and the right is unfashionable. The left is new, and the right is old.  The left is the future, and the right is the past. Being “with it” means staying fashionable. And staying fashionable is a full time job, if you want to avoid being caught wearing last year’s shoes/trousers/jackets/ties.

Maybe Marx and Lenin were the “in” thing in the late 19th and early 20th century? You had to have read them if you were to stay abreast of the current fashion. You had to have Das Kapital open on your kitchen table, full of bookmarks, for your friends to go “Wow! Cool!” By the 1960s, it was Marcuse you were supposed to read. It didn’t matter if it was unreadable. You just had to look like you’d been reading it. Fashion is all about appearances, never substance.

Maybe everything is fashion. Communism. Smoking. Antismoking. Environmentalism. Global warming. The EU.

And maybe when Michael Bloomberg banned smoking in New York City it was simply a fashion statement by him, to make himself and NYC fashion leaders, and take the initiative away from the west coast.

And Donald Trump is so very unfashionable. It’s so uncool to write your name in big letters on the buildings you erect. And always wear suits and ties. Or red baseball caps with “Make America Great Again” written on them. And sport orange hair. Who is this dork? How the hell did he get elected? Why is he still there in the White House?

If you’re someone like Hillary Clinton, you’re always having to keep up with the latest political fashion. She was an early opinion leader with the antismoking fashion. And (unlike Britain’s David Cameron) a late follower with the same-sex-marriage fad.

I found myself wondering this morning whether paedophilia and rape are also just The Latest Fashion. Hillary Clinton seems to have turned a blind eye to Bill’s rapes (he has numerous accusers, including Juanita Broaddrick. There’s even a whole Wikipedia entry devoted to allegations of sexual misconduct). What if Harvey Weinstein has been doing what everybody does, out on the progressive left? You don’t woo the ladies any more: you just tear the clothes straight off them.

If antismoking is a fashion, then one day it’ll become yesterday’s fashion. And it’ll become as unfashionable as it once was fashionable. One day the opinion leaders will start to row back on it all, and there’ll be a rush to follow suit. And, not wanting to be left out, Hillary Clinton and Michael Bloomberg will declare that they always liked the scent of good Havana cigars.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Fashionable and the Unfashionable

  1. George Speller says:

    A brief glance at outmoded Victorian medical beliefs tells you all you need to know.

  2. Vinny Gracchus says:

    Antismoking is bound to go out of fashion. Indeed smoking may already be coming back in Vogue. I see many younger hidden smokers in the alleys and parking lots these days.

    • nisakiman says:

      There doesn’t look to me to have been any great reduction of smoking judging by the British tourists I used to see in Corfu. It seemed like most of them were smokers. And a lot of young people smoking, too.

      I seem to have got into a bit of a spat with someone from the American Council on Science and Health about the fact that anti-smoking is reaching the end of the line and running out of ideas.

      Feel free to add your opinion if you feel so inclined. I’m sure this chap from the American Council on Science and Health would just love to have someone else to chat to! :)

      • Barry Homan says:

        I read it. Nicely put, nisaki. Others should chime in.

      • waltc says:

        I now forget what the “smoking-related” subject was, but about a month ago I got into an arguement over an article with someone at ACSH who threatened to bar me if I ever argued with him again, though my arguements were both cogent and factual. Oh, and he also called me (that facebook favorite) an idiot. Getting in my last licks in response to that, I also assured him I’d never darken ACSHs door again so I’m afraid I can’t join you except in spirit. . There seems to have been a big change of management over there and suddenly patronizing zealotry prevails. Still, I’d urge others to jump in though with zero hope you can budge His Smugness.

        • waltc says:

          Speaking of smugness, I begin to wonder if that in itself won’t be the cause of their eventual downfall. I recall attending a debate on global warming about…12? years ago. Michael Crichton and a partner were on the It’s Hype side vs–also with a partner–, the guy who invented the hockey stick (Hansen?) who argued Gasp! It’s the End of the World. But even though the audience was NYC Liberals, they voted that the Hype side won by a lot and it occurred to me at the time that part of the reason was simply that Warmists were so fucking arrogant, snide and dismissive.

        • Barry Homan says:

          Pride goeth before a fall, Walt.

      • Tony says:

        Well said Nisakiman and nice one RooBeeDoo!
        Added my penny worth too.

      • Vinny Gracchus says:

        You’re right, he doesn’t like being disagreed with and prefers ridicule to discussion. Check out his latest outbreaks. He must either have a fragile ego or knows that tobacco control’s lies and exaggerations are a vulnerable point.

        • nisakiman says:

          Yes, he’s very touchy, isn’t he? And so far he hasn’t even attempted to produce any evidence to back up what he asserts, but rather, pours scorn and ridicule on anyone who disagrees with him. And I’m afraid he typifies the denizens of Tobacco Control. They don’t like debate; they believe they should be able to tell people what to think without argument.

      • Tony says:

        Thanks for the defence RBD. I was going to reply but I not sure he’s worth responding to. So far, his much vaunted scientific case has been a matter of hurling insults. Amongst other things, he’s so far called us:
        1. “pro-death” – which is hardly rational since none of us have said anything in favour of death.
        2. “deniers” – with the highly offensive implication that we are Nazi defenders who deny the holocaust.
        3 “the Harvey Weinstein of alternative epidemiology” – presumably to label us as sexual predators and rapists, although interestingly, Weinstein has not been convicted of any offence as yet which perhaps gives an insight into his understanding of “evidence” and “proof”, even in judicial terms rather than scientific ones.

  3. Fredrik Eich says:


    The fallout hypothesis just gets stronger!

    I have finally found a country where cigarettes became popular after the lung cancer epidemic that cigarettes were suppose to cause , Norway.

    So in this case we are led to believe that effect comes before cause! But more interestingly, Sir Harold Himsworth (Who was Dolls boss at the Medical Research Council) chaired a report to the UK government in 1956 in which it stated that nuclear fall out could cause lung cancer in “some people” but failed to say how many people some people is!

    The only conditions in which an increased incidence of lung tumours
    has been observed in association with radiation are those, in which there is
    an increased risk of inhaling radon and the other daughter-products of
    radium. In theory, however, the inhalation of radioactive material in particulate form, either as a result of fall-out from nuclear weapon explosions or in the vicinity of nuclear reactors, could lead to the accumulation of a high radiation dose within the lungs. Such particles would not be uniformly distributed within the lungs but would tend to aggregate on discrete small areas of the bronchi, which would thus be subjected to a high radiation dose, with the result that in the long run lung cancers might be produced in some people.

    And they knew that fallout would come down in the rain

    227. “The radioactive fall-out is cleared, sooner or later, from the air by deposition. Rain contains the bulk of deposited activity and continuing measurements have been made since 1951 of the radioactivity of rain water collected from specially treated roofs. Any radioactive dust deposited on the roofs in spells of dry weather is washed off and included with the next sample of rainwater. From these measurements the amount of radioactivity deposited per square mile can be determined for each explosion.”

    It was Sir Harold Himsworth that warned Richard Doll that he could ruin his career if he linked fallout to leukaemia! I wonder if anyone warned Sir Harold about linking nuclear fallout to lung cancer?!

  4. Vinny Gracchus says:

    An interesting report at RFE: “In The Balkans, Smoking Habits Buck Global Trend” discusses the rise of resistance against smoking bans in Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia. Of course it contains Tobacco Control/WHO propaganda countering the resistance (and no comments allowed). Check it out:

No need to log in

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.