Cigarettes in Movies Debate

[Mason]

Hi all. This is my first actual topic. I have to get some opinion on this. On my local news last night, a segment was aired about how movies which have actors smoking (shows picture of Sacha Baron Cohen smoking in Talladega Nights) cause 33,000 teens to try tobacco a year..

I have to call bs on this due to no proof. The segment of "news" offered no scientific or rational evidence of this occuring. Than I thought about it. WOuld you be asking each kid as he leaves the movie theatre if they are going to smoke? Of course not.

And the fact they chose Talladega Nights to prove thier point was ludicrous. Cohen played a Frenchman (French are famous for thier love of cigs) who was kind of the villian of the movie...in a wierd way. But he was also homosexual. Does that mean 33,000 kids a year or for that matter, anyone who watched brokeback mountain will turn gay?

We all know cigs are bad, we all wonder why they are still legal ($not really$), but that little thing that used to happen could go a long way...what was it.....oh yeah, PARENTING.

In the end, this segment basically stated a war against the motion piucture review board. They want any movie with smoking in it to be "R" rated.

What is your opinion?

[phoenix_fire]

The worst thing they can do is make smoking R-rated. Then kids will definitely think it's cool. The problem with these people is that they think an R-rating will absolutely stop kids from watching. The best way to get kids to do something is to tell them that they can't or to try to hide it from them. Tons of kids, while entirely uninterested in actually having sex, will try to do all the "research" into it that they can if they have grown up in households where it has been absolutely taboo.

As far as smoking in movies, I think it is a bad idea to have imitable heroes smoking. I make this distinction because there are ways that it can be done that will probably not encourage kids to light up. Like "Constantine" for example. The whole movie reads like an anti-smoking ad.

[abub]

it's not like kids don't regularly see other heroes (cops, firefighters, parents) smoking cigarettes. smoking in movies is really the only direct way for tobacco companies to advertise their products anymore. i don't see a problem with it.

[Milton Bradley]

I call BS as well.


This is just another attempt by the Thought Police to squash free thinking, or freedom of expression.


If there is really an issue to be brought into the debate, it's what movies are you letting your children view. But that would advocate parental responsibility, and they couldn't support that philosophy.

[Praxius]

Jeez.... should they ban Trainspotting for all the Heroin they used in the movie? Sure made me want to do it.

What about movies with gangsters and robbers?

Idiot propaganda is what it is. You make a 1.5 - 2 hour long movie, and in that movie there might be about 15 seconds of someone smoking..... OMG! Stop the movie...... it's about smoking!!!

Kids are impressionable.... but kids are not brain dead and drones.... (for the most part)

You have a movie about crack heads, rape, murder, etc. but one person smoking a cig..... LOOK OUT!

Somebody's got their priorities stuck up their arse here.

[Milton Bradley]

Paxius's post made me think of my favorite quote...

Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters. -Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949

[Praxius]

You get a point and a sticker for that one.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Praxius Yo get a point and a sticker for that one.

Oooo goody, when can I expect my sticker?


Truly though, I think that quote can be used in multiple different topics, because it paints such a complete picture of the abuses of power, and the tactics they use to achieve those ends.


Thank you for your support.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Oooo goody, when can I expect my sticker?

Sorry, I don't have any stickers.... I lied.

[Milton Bradley]

[ Bottom lip display. ]

It's not BS. Smoking in movies encourages young people to smoke.

See
Smoke Free Movies.

Movies are so effective at encouraging young people to smoke that tobacco companies pay for product placements.

"In 2002, 2004, 2005, and again in 2006, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named tobacco in the movies a major factor in teen smoking. The research explains why:

• Nonsmoking teens whose favorite stars frequently smoke on screen are sixteen times more likely to have positive attitudes about smoking in the future.

• Smoking in movies is the most powerful pro-tobacco influence on kids today, accounting for 52% of adolescents who start smoking, an effect even stronger than cigarette advertising.

• Taking all other factors into account — such as whether their parents smoke — seeing a lot of smoking in movies tripled the odds that teens would try smoking.

• More important, exposure to smoking in the movies quadrupled the chance that nonsmokers’ kids would start.

Big Tobacco's marketing experts and independent researchers agree. Moving stories with charismatic actors are a powerful way to attract new smokers and keep current smokers.

That's why TV advertising of tobacco brands was banned in 1970. Tobacco companies turned to Hollywood to place their brands on screen without the audience knowing. Today, movies that show a tobacco brand are also more likely to include smoking in their TV ads, undercutting the 1970 ban."

FYI, I did a major analysis for the Ontario government on this issue. I know where of I speak.

Regards
S.

[phoenix_fire]

Some jack*ss was smoking at the movie I went to see last night. I nearly stood up right in the middle and gave him a piece of my mind. I hate cigarette smoke. It ended up giving me a migraine.

[Technosoul]

Smoking has always be connected to the idea of being "cool". Even way back in the days of James Dean and Bogart.

The anti-smoking concept started off in the Reagan years (when he gave up smoking and had a jar of jelly beans on his desk) and that resulted when industry wanted to find a way to stop environmentalists from regulating industry through the poltical system. By shifting the blame for "bad air" and cancer onto cigarette smokers and away from industry and "oil" sources of polution. The Reagan plan worked well as they kept repeating the idea over and over until even the environmentalists got on that bandwagon. At first they could find no research companies that found a link between smoking and cancer, but then one company made a study and found that many cancer victims also smoked, and using that data they as their scientific data they began the anit-smoking advertising and "public education" momentum, as time continued companies that do research soon found out they would not get governement grants unless their research showed a link between smoking and some illness. Soon they came up with reasons why smoking causes heart attacks and a wide range of other health problems. None of the studies acturally based on "real science" but on the kinds of studies as related above. And they added 2nd hand smoke to the agenda. All this was done to distract people away from other causes for cancer and heart attacks, such as job-related stress, and polutions from cars and industry.
And from some production chemicals and of course - nuclear and x-ray sources. And even our eating habits have some responsiblity.

Meanwhile global warming and the greenhouse gasses were overlooked as needing "more study" because the mainstream population was caught up in preventing smoking as the cure all. By using private organizations they could air TV ads that contained falsehoods and missleading information.

And like all repeated brainwashing people gobbled it up, hook line and sinker.

All this being done when it is also a known fact that people who do not smoke and are not living with a smoker can get cancer and heart attacks.

And this likewise done when it is a direct attack on our Native American religion where the "peace pipe" and tobacco is concidered as "sacred".
And where tobacco is viewed as a medicene that can reduce the effects of stress, and stress is the number one "killer" relative to our health.

Doctors are allowed to "charge" an insurence company for time used to provide a patient with anit-smoking advise. However beyond that no insurence company will cover any of the treatments that can help someone overcome a smoking habit. The reason insurence companies do not cover anti-smoking treatments is because they do not feel it will save them money later on if that person gets cancer or some other disease - because they checked it out and found no evidence based on real science to make that link an absolute fact.

This lastest A.M.A. idea to make Hollywood movie producers to ban smoking from a script is just part of the "smoke screen" to hoodwink Amreicans. As they are not seeking an R rating where actors are drinking wine, or when actors are seen driving a car in a careless way. Or when a movie shows people eating junk food. The fact they are just concentrating on smokers is a sure sign that there is more to it then just protecting the health of Ameircans or "teenagers".

[Mia]

This is ludicrous. There are far worse things to worry about in movies besides smoking.

On the other hand, what is the hard in making it 'R' rated for that shows drinking and smoking and drugs as we already do for violence and sexual content?

Parents can scan every movie to see if it has this content, that's the purpose for the rating.

There is some truth to identifying with a character and his/her habits.

The less exposure that kids have to dangerous things the better.

NO WAY would I have picked up smoking as an educated adult with the knowledge of morbidity.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Some jack*ss was smoking at the movie I went to see last night. I nearly stood up right in the middle and gave him a piece of my mind. I hate cigarette smoke. It ended up giving me a migraine.

That is so damn rude!

Would he like it if I sat next to him farting out nasty squishy stinky rotten-bean farts all through the movie? No, he would think that was rude because it grosses him out and distracts from the movie. Well, his smoking during the movie is exactly the same.

I think the best way to handle it is to just tell an usher, and let them handle it. Confrontations can be fun, but they also create a big distraction for other movie goers.

[phoenix_fire]

Unfortunately, there wasn't one around. It was the cheapo movies.

[Praxius]

I fart and I don't care... it's everybody else's problem not mine

[phoenix_fire]

Well, flatulence is a little more difficult to entirely control than smoking.


Hmm...uncontrolled flatulence, next to a guy who is lighting up...

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Praxius I fart and I don't care... it's everybody else's problem not mine

I know you are joking...

But that is the rude mentality of smokers who smoke in movie theaters - tell hell with everyone else!

[Osborn F Enready]

Phoenix said: Some jack*ss was smoking at the movie I went to see last night. I nearly stood up right in the middle and gave him a piece of my mind. I hate cigarette smoke. It ended up giving me a migraine.

Wouldn't it be better if they could just "have their own theater"?!?

Damn smokers....

Maybe we should segregate them into their own bathrooms and fountains too, eh?

The reason they were smoking in that theater, is because the NAZIS making the laws won't let them HAVE their own theaters.

Now we can all suffer....just like they want us too, pissed at each other, ignoring them while they diddle your money, and spend it on more wars, and programs you don't endorse or approve of.


GREAT JOB!
BRAVO!

ENCORE, ENCORE!!


If you tolerate anti-smoking laws, you deserve the migraine it caused.