sdbest

It's not a joke. In an earlier post about the effects of smoking in movies on young people taking up smoking, a number of responders, without reading the research I provided, objected to the premises being offered. Moreover they made various comments about child protection. Disparaging attempts by the "nanny state" to protect them or organizations, influenced by government, like the MPAA doing the same.

The purpose of this thread was to see how far these libertarians and smokers are willing to go in forgoing protection for children. It is well documented that tobacco companies target children in their advertising and they encourage, even pay for, the use of tobacco in films. If it's not appropriate to control that corporate behavior, where's the line, or is there any line?

So far, it seems few of my smoking detractors in the previous thread have cared to respond. They don't want an NC-17 rating on films that depict smoking, but can't tell me if giving free cigarettes to 6 years olds is a problem, and if it is why is it. And, if it is a problem, where's the line for the state or trade organizations between protecting kids from smoking and leaving them to their own misadventures.

Regards
S.