Since I started taking snuff, about three months ago, this question has bothered me. In the 18th Century snuff shops were commonplace in Europe. They were called Snuff Shops not tobacconists. In the late 19th Century cigarettes begin to appear. By the 1930s (time of black and white films) everybody is smoking cigarettes and nobody appears to be taking snuff.

ironically part of it is that Swedish match was making really good matches.

Can’t help but laugh at that @bob

actually just some years before the cigarette the cigar became popular. Here in Holland we have the town of Kampen, that began to be important in the cigar industry around 1880. There were around 40 cigar factories in the small town around 1920! Nearly half of the inhabitants found a job in the cigar production. The cigar was just something new compared to snuff and due to mass production it became affordable for the common man. Also with cigarettes hughe marketing was done on the product. Young people took up the habit and the oldies still taking it became extinct. But I too now wonder about this. You can make a lot of snuff from the tobacco where only 1 cigar is composed of.

This article is more about the rise of cigarettes than the decline of snuff, but it has some interesting stuff in it: http://cigarhistory.info/Cigarette_items/Cigarette-History.html

In Spain, Galicia was always a quite backwards region, so that made things happen more slowly here. The bad thing? Remnants of feudal social structures, oppression and an inability to talk for ourselves and demand coverage for our needs. Te good thing? On an old magazine I found that covered the census, import/export and other accountant/enterpreneur stuff for the province of Lugo, as late as the year 1887 (I think) snuff consumption fairly outnumbered that of smoke tobacco. Then, twentieth century happened, and not a single grandfather knows what snuff is but most of them had smoked a fair share of shitty, cheap RYO tobacco as it was the manliest of things. The wonders of progress, you know.

Smoking a cigarette is much more convenient than taking snuff and delivers nicotine the most effectively. It’s like the crack cocaine of tobacco. I think this is a big part of why it became so popular while other forms of tobacco use declined.

I can’t comment on the switch but nowadays cigs are packed full of thousands of additives to make it the most effective delivery of nicotine. I suppose cigs on Indian reservations are pure tobacco but ones like I enjoy ( newports ) are far more addictive personally than any other form of tobacco and I don’t think I’m alone in this ideology Also I don’t know why, but if I drink then smoke a newport I’ll feel more buzzed, same with smoking grass. Commercial cigs in general have this effect on me The cigarette companies in my opinion engineer their product much more precisely than say a snuff or cigar company would. Much more dangerous too obviously and much more addictive.

Good snuff is made from tobacco. Period. Of course there are scenting systems but there aren’t all the “better living through chemistry” additives that commercial cigarettes have; pg to make them “fresh”, nitrates to help them burn because the pg is a fire retardant/hygroscopic water lover, and a bunch of other shit that I can’t remember from Chem 101. A pinch of salt, a bit of alkaline and some scenting goodies and snuff is served. No need for all that other crap. @Cigshurtmylungs‌ watch those Newports/Kools, etc. I consider you a good friend, and all those menthol crystals are crazy addictive, to say nothing about the other shit. Try a few Camel Nons and a hooter full of Red Bull until you wean yourself off those menthol cigs. I be speaking from a few decades of experience here and I’m worried about you. I went from three a day Kools to half a day Camel Nons with a few grams of Rumney’s Mentholyptus and never looked back. Menthol has a weird quality that acts as a constrictor; after the fun is gone…another and another and another just so you can breathe. You damn sure ain’t alone. Just do it for me 'cuz I’m fond of you, okay? Otherwise I’ll have to put you over my knee… O:-) :)) =)) right before you kick my ass.

I have to agree witn all of you to some degree, but now, the elevator has reached the top floor and with a ding the war on tobacco has begun, along with every other liberty being whittled away till your left with literally, a swedish match.

I suppose cigs on Indian reservations are pure tobacco but ones like I enjoy ( newports ) are far more addictive personally than any other form of tobacco and I don’t think I’m alone in this ideology

It would be nice to think that they’re more pure, but I suspect they’re the same cigs they sell to everyone else, minus the oppressive taxation. This still makes them more desirable to many.

Menthol has a weird quality that acts as a constrictor; after the fun is gone…another and another and another just so you can breathe.

I agree with you here. I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely say it again… It’s my opinion that cigarettes open up your lungs… for about 2-3 minutes. Then they close back up, worse than before, making you want another just so you can breath again. With cigarettes you become dependent on them to breath more than you become dependent on nicotine. I’m not saying that nicotine isn’t addictive, but more that oxygen is way more addictive than nicotine. I’ve never met a single person in the world that wasn’t compulsively addicted to oxygen.

@puffpuff: I think that’s insightful on the mechanisms of addiction… I’ve once read a quote from I don’t know what reputable person that said that there were no nicotine addicts, just smoked tobacco addicts. He (or she) argued that he had never heard of anybody hooked on nicotine gum: they either left the habit or relapsed, but nobody stuck with those unpleasant little gums (he might never had heard about chew, TSNA and other stuff we’re used to, but anyway…). It could be that the deeper inhalations and the temperature of smoke help getting the lungs opened and give a sense of liberty and well-being that coupled with the easy and huge nicotine intake creates that feel-good rush we all know… only to close the lungs again by way of: 1. Irritation due to heat, acidity, and strangeness to the body and 2: residual accumulation of all kinds of debris in each poor alveolus. I remember the oppressive shortness of breath that followed me everywhere I went when I smoked regularly, and you’re right, it seemed to disappear every time I grabbed a cig. Cool thing, ha? And I think that seeing the mechanisms of smoked tobacco addiction, it’s kind of clear why people switched from snuff to cigs: easy to use, store and transport, apparently cleaner (it was more acceptable to bear brown lungs than brown noses), dirt cheap to produce in most cases (cheapo chems sprinkled over a mix of leaf, stem and who-knows-what, all finely shredded) and wrapped in a white paper that was both pretty and concealing (mechanically rolled cigarettes, unlike RYO, pipe tobacco and of course snuff, can vary wildly in color and mill and almost none would notice). I’m pretty sure tobacconists everywhere doubled and tripled their profits when cigarettes became a widespread trend, so I’m sure they tried their best to keep the newer generations smoking instead of sniffing. As I said before, the progress of economy, friends! >:)

WWI & WWII caused the great increase in cigarette smoking. For the first time women started to smoke in great numbers too (factory workers) as well as the soldiers. The soldiers were always well stocked by cigarettes from the Government/War office.

This really misses the point of my question, Why did women take up smoking rather than snuff taking? Why did the governments keep soldiers well supplied with cigarettes rather than snuff? Lighting a cigarette on a dark night will give away your position to the enemy. This suggest (but does not prove) that by 1914 cigarette smoking was already much more popular than snuff.

Smoking a cigarette is much more convenient than taking snuff and delivers nicotine the most effectively. It’s like the crack cocaine of tobacco. I think this is a big part of why it became so popular while other forms of tobacco use declined.

I’m not sure that smoking cigarettes is more convenient. In 1900 you needed both cigarettes and a box of matches. Try lighting a cigarette with a match when on board a small boat or out in the wind and rain (most people worked outdoors in 1900). Modern cigarettes do deliver nicotine more effectively but this is largely due to additives which did not exist in the cigarettes of 1900.

WWI & WWII caused the great increase in cigarette smoking. For the first time women started to smoke in great numbers too (factory workers) as well as the soldiers. The soldiers were always well stocked by cigarettes from the Government/War office.

This really misses the point of my question, Why did women take up smoking rather than snuff taking? Why did the governments keep soldiers well supplied with cigarettes rather than snuff? Lighting a cigarette on a dark night will give away your position to the enemy. This suggest (but does not prove) that by 1914 cigarette smoking was already much more popular than snuff.

Anecdotal but I believe women took up smoking over snuff because of the times. Smoking cigarettes were the “rage” and everyone did it, and I would proffer that when cigarettes hit the scene it was (and remains) “easier” to smoke a cigarette than it is to take snuff. Smoking for women was a socially liberating activity, with cigarettes themselves and a bevy of accessories designed just for women. It was marketed to them, where snuff was likely not. As for soldiers and snuff- it could have been an environmental link. The conditions were likely not conducive to snuff. And WWI was not the battle space of WWII or more modern wars; WWI was a trench war, with troops hunkered down for days, weeks or months at a time, in wet and dirty conditions. Here also it was likely marketing and its being subsidized by the government/military. I don’t know if snuff makers were sending packets to the lines, but you know the cigarette companies were and in massive quantities. Heck, by WWII lifeboats included cigarettes in the survival gear.

actually just some years before the cigarette the cigar became popular. Here in Holland we have the town of Kampen, that began to be important in the cigar industry around 1880. There were around 40 cigar factories in the small town around 1920! Nearly half of the inhabitants found a job in the cigar production. The cigar was just something new compared to snuff and due to mass production it became affordable for the common man. Also with cigarettes hughe marketing was done on the product. Young people took up the habit and the oldies still taking it became extinct. But I too now wonder about this. You can make a lot of snuff from the tobacco where only 1 cigar is composed of.

I think it very likely that cigars played a big part in the rise of cigarettes over snuff. They are called “cigar-ettes” - little cigars. In the 19th cigars tended to have a ritual, after dinner, quality to them. “lets leave the gentlemen to their cigars”. Perhaps they had a snob appeal. Only the rich could afford a cigar. Then they became cheaper, and poorer people smoked them in order to imitate the rich. Then they became even cheaper and we ended up with cigarettes. With regard to the Low Countries, it is interesting to note that at the time of the Napoleonic Wars everybody in Flushing smoked a pipe, even young children. It was considered essential for health. Smoking in the Low Countries seems to have always been more popular than in other parts of Europe.

dirt cheap to produce in most cases (cheapo chems sprinkled over a mix of leaf, stem and who-knows-what, all finely shredded) and wrapped in a white paper that was both pretty and concealing (mechanically rolled cigarettes, unlike RYO, pipe tobacco and of course snuff, can vary wildly in color and mill and almost none would notice). I’m pretty sure tobacconists everywhere doubled and tripled their profits when cigarettes became a widespread trend, so I’m sure they tried their best to keep the newer generations smoking instead of sniffing. As I said before, the progress of economy, friends! >:)

Cigarettes cheaper to produce than snuff? That never occurred to me. If true, this is probably a large part of the explanation.

@MarvinLapsus has given me the idea for a theory. Remember Cornflakes. These were a waste product of the corn oil industry only suitable for animal feed. Then mad Mr Kellogg decided that people could eat them for breakfast. Vigorous advertising (a new industry) made them so popular that by the 1960 farmers were grown maize for cornflakes and sending the corn oil to the animal feed industry. In the late 19th there was already a small market for expensive hand-made cigarettes (Sherlock Holmes smoked some). Perhaps somebody came up with the idea of using tobacco waste (leaves that could not be used for snuff, cigars or pipe tobacco) to make cheap cigarettes. These were vigorously promoted by the advertising industry. By 1910 farmers were growing nasty tobacco just for the cigarette industry, and the cultivation of good leaf had become a secondary industry. Plausible??

This article is more about the rise of cigarettes than the decline of snuff, but it has some interesting stuff in it: http://cigarhistory.info/Cigarette_items/Cigarette-History.html

This tells us that machine made cigarettes were selling for 5 American cents for ten in 1890. Obviously a lot cheaper than cigars and, I would guess, pipe tobacco. But what about snuff? How much did that cost in 1890? Anybody know?

I would also add that it is important that snuff had close associative ties with two of the waning (in America and Western Europe) forces of the 20th Century; the Catholic Church and European Aristocracy.

I’ve heard from some sources that in some respects, the tobacco used for snuff can be of LOWER quality than for other products, because you can use the crumbs and crushed leftovers. And the quantity of tobacco used for snuff is lower. So this idea that ciggies were a cheaper alternative doesn’t seem to work. As for the additives in cigs, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was fairly recent. The classic old Indonesian brands still go out if you don’t draw on them, because they don’t have saltpetre in them, and so on. Regarding cigars being more expensive than cigs, they certainly are now. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea that cigars are a premium product is also fairly recent. And Thomas Hardy novels are filled with pipe-smoking English agricultural laborers who presumably earned subsistence wages.

Anecdotal but I believe women took up smoking over snuff because of the times. Smoking cigarettes were the “rage” and everyone did it Yes, it was the “rage” and everybody did it. But why was it the rage? Because of advertising and marketing? Yes, but why did the big tobacco companies advertise cigarettes rather than snuff (they seems to have a controlling interest in both).

I’ve heard from some sources that in some respects, the tobacco used for snuff can be of LOWER quality than for other products, because you can use the crumbs and crushed leftovers. And the quantity of tobacco used for snuff is lower. So this idea that ciggies were a cheaper alternative doesn’t seem to work…

Difficult to say for sure. You can make cigarettes out of leftovers provided you mix in a little long strand tobacco to hold it together (that is how I used to make mine). If you break up a modern cigarette all you get is tiny tobacco bits (no sign of a leaf at all) presumably it is held together by some form of glue. I really don’t know whether you can make snuff out of poor quality tobacco without the customer noticing. For the moment I going to stick to my Cornflake theory.

I believe the change came by way of machine made cigarettes. Hand rolling or hand rolled cigs were used for many years before machine production made them cheaper, more accessible and easier to carry. Tobacco consumption was transitioning to smoked forms from smokeless for years before that. Snuff had transitioned from the Aristocracy to the lower income users and cigs ere used by the high class. Add to that aggressive marketing of this “novel” way of getting nicotine, free cigs for soldiers and the cool factor…all the celebs were smoking expensive hand made cigs, now the little people could approximate that style. Snuff was what the old timers did, kids wanted to rebel and show how different and enlightened they were. I have also heard that in the early days cigarettes were not inhaled , but smoked like a pipe or cigar. The argument went along the lines of lung cancer from cigs didn’t really start until we started inhaling the smoke deep into our lungs. My two pennies of thought. Take them and $2.50 you get a decent cup of coffee.

I really don’t know whether you can make snuff out of poor quality tobacco without the customer noticing.

Cover it with menthol and artificial raspberry flavour and hope they don’t notice (naming no particular brands). Maybe if it was more of a mass market product, you’d get more cheaper, lower quality tobacco brands, with good brands for connoisseurs. As it is, seems like most people who use snuff are tobacco enthusiasts. Or maybe that’s just snuffhouse members, I don’t know.

I really don’t know whether you can make snuff out of poor quality tobacco without the customer noticing.

Cover it with menthol and artificial raspberry flavour and hope they don’t notice (naming no particular brands). Maybe if it was more of a mass market product, you’d get more cheaper, lower quality tobacco brands, with good brands for connoisseurs. As it is, seems like most people who use snuff are tobacco enthusiasts. Or maybe that’s just snuffhouse members, I don’t know.

Good point, I suppose if big tobacco had wanted everybody to take snuff they could have done that. But if we throw out my Cornflake theory we do not have much left. “People changed from snuff to cigarettes because they wanted to”. Not much of an explanation is it?

This article is more about the rise of cigarettes than the decline of snuff, but it has some interesting stuff in it: http://cigarhistory.info/Cigarette_items/Cigarette-History.html

This tells us that machine made cigarettes were selling for 5 American cents for ten in 1890. Obviously a lot cheaper than cigars and, I would guess, pipe tobacco. But what about snuff? How much did that cost in 1890? Anybody know?

Here’s some prices from 1901: http://snuffhouse.org/discussion/9266/snuff-selection-in-the-1901-sears-roebuck-co-catalogue

I believe the change came by way of machine made cigarettes.

Yes! I should have added that. While even cheap or bad quality snuff (and even cigars and pipe tobacco, for the most part) is still made in an almost artisan way, the machinery to make cigarettes works nowadays (and since quite a long time) without almost any need of human interaction and with lightly processed tobaccos (no saucing, no smoking: just lightly cured tobacco). And it was researched because people consume more tobacco by way of smoking heavily during a month than snuffing like crazy for one year: businessmen surely noticed that. So there you’ve got it, in my opinion: technological evolution to make the production of a more addictive and profitable product and loads of marketing, fashion and zeitgeist (almost everyone began reading newspapers or, at least, have some basic literacy at the time when cigarettes started getting popular). The (originally just for ladies) filter tip began making cigarettes both more fashionable and more palatable for the unenthusiastic user without the acquired taste: a stick of smoke with no depth of flavor, something that cigars or pipe tobacco were not, was turned into the easiest way into nicotine intake.

Smoking a cigarette is much more convenient than taking snuff and delivers nicotine the most effectively. It’s like the crack cocaine of tobacco. I think this is a big part of why it became so popular while other forms of tobacco use declined.

I’m not sure that smoking cigarettes is more convenient. In 1900 you needed both cigarettes and a box of matches. Try lighting a cigarette with a match when on board a small boat or out in the wind and rain (most people worked outdoors in 1900). Modern cigarettes do deliver nicotine more effectively but this is largely due to additives which did not exist in the cigarettes of 1900.

Not much wind inside and when one is working outdoors there are several effective ways to light a smoke besides matches. Nobody spent every hour of every day outdoors even then. Besides, it’s easy enough to find a sheltered spot to light a cig with a match, and you can even do it with your own two hands in windy conditions. Even pure tobacco cigarettes without all the crap added will deliver nicotine more effectively if inhaled compared to other forms of tobacco as the nicotine is absorbed though the lungs rather than through the mucous membranes.

Here’s some prices from 1901: http://snuffhouse.org/discussion/9266/snuff-selection-in-the-1901-sears-roebuck-co-catalogue

At 6 cents an ounce looks like snuff was cheaper than cigarettes at 5 cents for 10

Oops, re. previous entry Jari_T did not say that, I did. I must improve my HTML editing skills.

Anecdotal but I believe women took up smoking over snuff because of the times. Smoking cigarettes were the “rage” and everyone did it

Yes, it was the “rage” and everybody did it. But why was it the rage? Because of advertising and marketing? Yes, but why did the big tobacco companies advertise cigarettes rather than snuff (they seems to have a controlling interest in both). Just as today, they likely did market research and sampled consumers to determine what to invest in. I propose that the research pointed to cigarettes being a better route with the greatest return on investment. An aside, but related- years ago I was looking at a career change and was approached by a friend who wanted to break into the liquor market with of all things- flavored vodka. He had all sorts of crazy ideas and was sure he and his colleagues strategies to market both flavored and straight vodka to a wide swath of the market was a sure thing. I, like an idiot scoffed at the idea. For I was a drinker of vodka- on the rocks or occasionally with cranberry juice, and at my age then I was an oddball since everyone in my circles drank beer or whiskey. I lacked the vision and obviously missed the viability of the idea. He did his market research, sampled various age groups, consulted with bartenders, financial experts, investors, AD men, producers, chemists and distillers. All pointed to a viable investment in this novel idea. I stayed in my vocation and he ended up taking expensive vacations. This is most likely the same story that could be told of a fellow who was deciding if he should convert from snuff to cigarette production.

This is a complex question, with no single answer. This topic is covered in just about every history of tobacco ever written, usually in much more detail than is feasible to go into here. The short answer is that snuff declined in popularity, initially, because people preferred smoking tobacco in a pipe. Pipe smoking and cigar smoking were the dominant forms of tobacco use up until the late 19th century, when several developments paved the way for cigarettes to become king. These included: 1) the development of burley tobacco, a relatively high in nicotine, yet largely neutral in flavor form of tobacco which doesn’t bite the tongue the way that virginia tobacco tends to do. 2) new curing techniques which made it much easier to inhale tobacco without coughing one’s lungs up (ever tried to inhale a cigar?) 3) industrial manufacturing techniques (cigarette rolling machines) which made the mass production of ready made cigarettes easy, and allowed for them to be sold for much less than previous ready mades, which were hand rolled, and mainly marketed to customers of means. These are the main technological factors. There are also additional factors, including the rise of the tobacco trust in the States, as well as, of course, marketing. To this one must add, that most people, both now and in the past, who have consumed tobacco were not particularly concerned with quality, flavor, or the nuances appreciated by enthusiasts such as those on this forum. Most consumers of tobacco have viewed it as, more or less, a drug. Much as most people who drink coffee just want an efficient delivery mechanism for caffeine, without caring too much about flavor, most people who use tobacco just want an easy, relatively hassle-free way to get nicotine into their system. Cigarettes are, without a doubt, the most convenient and efficient way to achieve this. Stick one end into your mouth, light the other, and inhale. No fussing about with maintaining proper humidification, no worrying about tamping, proper smoking speed, or technique. No worrying about having to blow one’s nose or where to store one’s snuffbox. Just light, inhale, and, about seven seconds later, feel the effects of nicotine. In short, by 1900 the conditions were right for cigarettes to be mass produced, readily available and cheap. This, in combination with the fact that they provided the people with what they wanted caused them to be wildly successful.

I think we can partially explain the growth of the American cigarette market in terms of the decline in chewing tobacco. In 1900 Tuberculosis was rife and its spread was connected with spitting. I think there must have been a public health campaign against it. So Mr Cowboy found himself unable to use the spittoon at the Silver Dollar Saloon, cigarettes offered a practical alternative to his chew. However, the same argument does not apply to snuff or to Europe (where, I believe, chewing tobacco was quite rare). There is another point I should make, and that is my question was “why did people change from snuff to cigarettes…” but its not evident that they did. It is conceivable that existing snuff takers stayed with snuff for the rest of their lives but a new generation of tobacco users started with cigarettes.

The fact that cigarettes are more expensive, because the average user goes through a much larger amount of tobacco, might have played a role. It might have motivated marketing people to encourage smoking as a cool alternative, because they could make more money from it. Rising incomes in the early 20th century might have played a part, too. Just as declining incomes – and increased taxes – now are encouraging a resurgence in snuff.

In addition to all of the other causes listed above, there is a correlation (perhaps not a causation) between the decline in farm work and the rise of factory work at the exact era of the rise of the pre-made cigarette, viz the farmer worked no set hours, had no set brake times and thus a pipe or a sniff at any time he pleased suited him just fine while the factory worker has a rigidly set schedule and must keep his work space free of dust, debris and combustable material, so for his purposes a cigarette he didn’t have to roll that took the same amount of time(more or less) to smoke during his regimented breaks would be a natural “fit”.

In addition to all of the other causes listed above, there is a correlation (perhaps not a causation) between the decline in farm work and the rise of factory work at the exact era of the rise of the pre-made cigarette, viz the farmer worked no set hours, had no set brake times and thus a pipe or a sniff at any time he pleased suited him just fine while the factory worker has a rigidly set schedule and must keep his work space free of dust, debris and combustable material, so for his purposes a cigarette he didn’t have to roll that took the same amount of time(more or less) to smoke during his regimented breaks would be a natural “fit”.

Yes, I remember that “a cigarette” used to be a unit of time. The foreman says “you can have a cigarette break now”, 15 minutes later, when the workers are stubbing out their fags, Foreman says “back to work”. There is no comparable time factor with pipes, chews or snuff. Suppose you are working a loom. You can not use snuff because you need both hands, you can not smoke your pipe because its banned as a fire hazard, you can not have your chew because spitting it banned as a health risk. After a two hour shift you are desperate for nicotine. A cigarette fits perfectly into the 15 minute break before the next shift. Given the 15 minute window, a cigarette is definitely the most efficient delivery system.

Yes, I remember that “a cigarette” used to be a unit of time. The foreman says “you can have a cigarette break now”, 15 minutes later, when the workers are stubbing out their fags, Foreman says “back to work”. There is no comparable time factor with pipes, chews or snuff.

I believe it was in WW2 era military survival manuals that I read of cigarettes being a time keeping method. An unfiltered cigarette would burn for 7 minutes. Which is exactly where I believe the old bit about smoking a cig takes 7 minutes off your life span came from.

Yes, I remember that “a cigarette” used to be a unit of time. The foreman says “you can have a cigarette break now”, 15 minutes later, when the workers are stubbing out their fags, Foreman says “back to work”. There is no comparable time factor with pipes, chews or snuff.

I believe it was in WW2 era military survival manuals that I read of cigarettes being a time keeping method. An unfiltered cigarette would burn for 7 minutes. Which is exactly where I believe the old bit about smoking a cig takes 7 minutes off your life span came from.

Escape, evasion and sabotage manuals relied on cigarettes for a host of nasty business that could be undertaken whilst on the run from the enemy; i.e., using a cigarette as a time delay for explosives, to start fires, and as a place to hide secret notes. Not that any of this has anything to do with why the trend was/is, just a historical anecdote. On another note- cigarettes were and continue to serve as a commodity and opener in various situations. While a person may not themselves smoke, it was/is safe to assume a cigarette offered would not be turned down. It could be tucked away and used, sold or traded later. Not sure you could do that with a pinch of snuff.

Hmmm, Regarding women smoking. Look at the movies of the 20’s and 30’s. Smoking a cigarette was a VERY sophisticated thing for ‘upper class’ women to do. Upper class and a bit daring. By WWII women were in the factories, and that cigarette break that men had got for some years, but if a woman didn’t smoke shr didn’t ‘fit in with the girls.’ At the same time, in the 40’s ‘decent women’ did not smoke in public without criticism. FWIW, before the big add campaign in the 60’s, Marlboros were a failing brand marketed to women. Real men smoked Luckies, Camels. Phillip Morris or Chesterfields… unfiltered! Regards, …

I think because they liked it & thought it was a game…