Printable View
Using that logic everything semi dangerous should get an R, as well as any kind of criminal activity.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
We're also not discussing a ban on movies that contain smoking; they might simply be inappropriate for kids. Children are inarguably influenced by the portrayal of 'cool' people smoking in popular culture. So I don't think it's unreasonable that movies that feature a lot of smoking, sometimes to the point of glorifying the act, shouldn't be viewed by children.
Excuse my cheekiness, but if smokers cared about their safety, wouldn't they have already quit smoking?Quote:
Originally posted by Daryonn
The end result is non-smokers are less exposed to second hand smoke however safety concerns of other kinds have vastly increased.
I don't think a business should have to endure this cost just so smokers have a place to do drugs easily and simply. I think the more we treat smoking as an unacceptable thing to be ashamed of, the less people will do it and the less socially acceptable it will become.Quote:
Originally posted by Daryonn
I would have rather seen the bill say that while the work place is a smoke free environment they must establish a place on premises that smokers can go that will not cause second hand smoke to reach anyone not willing to be exposed.
I don't think so. I don't believe the link between watching violence in movies and committing violence is actually very high among children, or any other group. However, I'll agree that movies with extreme violence should be restricted to viewers of higher age (which they are).Quote:
Originally posted by Blog
Using that logic everything semi dangerous should get an R, as well as any kind of criminal activity.
However, a study conducted by the Dartmouth Medical School finds that 52.2% of smoking initiation in adolescents can be attributed to exposure to smoking in movies.
More information on the study can be found here (link)
Flawed logic. The enchilada actually has some inherent benefits. People need food to eat. It is only excess that is unhealthy. Smoking is unhealthy from the very first puff, and it is also unhealthy for innocent bystanders.Quote:
Originally posted by anthson
So if you're going to be consistent, let's outlaw giving your toddler enchiladas every night for dinner.
Actually, it doesn't take care of some things very well. It tends towards allowing and accepting everything, and it makes it very difficult for anyone to be the "first" to take a stand.Quote:
Originally posted by anthson
It cuts both ways. The free market takes care of things very easily that way.
The best example of this is child labor. Manufacturers all over the country were fed up with child labor and despised it morally and ethically. However, none of them could afford to be the first business to willingly get rid of child labor. They couldn't take the competitive hit in the short term in order to ride out the benefits in the long term. So businesses lobbied Congress to outlaw child labor for everyone so they would all do it at the same time.
The short term hit from losing smokers instantly is too great for most restaurants and similar businesses to wait for the non-smokers to learn about their stance and start to flock there. Most restaurants cannot handle even a few days of bad business - much less the weeks or months it would take for word to get out that they had banned smoking. For example, it is a well known thing in the restaurant industry that if you get busted for serving alcohol to underage kids, a 3 day ban from the ABC is disastrous, and a week ban on serving alcohol can very easily put the restaurant straight out of business. The ABC knows this and rarely has to threaten to revoke a license. The 3 or 7 day ban will pretty much kill all but the most successful restaurants. That is how close to the margins most restaurants operate.
Oh, they are going to ban movies with smoking in them? I thought they only got an R rating...Quote:
Originally posted by Veddillion
And back to the real topic – WTF? Seriously, it’s detrimental to celluloid art. Can you imagine Clint Eastwood’s “Man with no name” looking the same without a roll-up hanging out of the corner of his mouth while he sneers, revolver in hand at the screen? What about the classic rebel characters? James Dean? Humphrey Bogart? Hell, even Sean Connery as James Bond!
None of the above movies or scenes wouldn't have happened. They just would have an appropriate rating.
1) No, it isn't even close to being as dangerous.Quote:
Originally posted by Veddillion
How about making movies with scenes of people over-eating R-rated as well? Obesity jus just as dangerous and prominent as smoking-related diseases these days, perhaps even more so.
2) Another bad analogy. Food is only unhealthy in excess. By the way, so is oxygen. As I already stated, smoking cigarettes is bad from the first puff.
I really wish people would stop trotting out this pointless canard. It is not even close to an appropriate analogy. It reminds me of the similarly bogus "I don't piss in public so you shouldn't breastfeed in public."
Exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
We're also not discussing a ban on movies that contain smoking; they might simply be inappropriate for kids. Children are inarguably influenced by the portrayal of 'cool' people smoking in popular culture. So I don't think it's unreasonable that movies that feature a lot of smoking, sometimes to the point of glorifying the act, shouldn't be viewed by children.
And being fat, overeating, etc. is certainly not something Hollywood has a problem with glorifying.
I hail from the great state of North Carolina which is the largest cultivator of tobacco in the world and home of most of America's tobacco companies. I have relatives, friends and associates who are tobacco farmers. I say ban cigarettes. If cigarettes are illegal then having them on screen would be no different than any other illegal act on screen...and it would actually solve the problem that everyone is dancing around. Second-hand smoke.
Restaurants are smoke free so their staff and non-smoking patrons don't have to deal with it. This is great, but it doesn't stop the problem. It only relocates it to a highly congested smaller area.
Eliminate cigarettes and you eliminate the problem.
My friends, family and associates will make do. There's plenty of other crops that can be grown in place of tobacco. Tobacco might pay the bills (as is a popular phrase thrown around) but soybeans, corn and a variety of other things pay them just as well.
I've read about a number of tobacco fields being converted into vineyards, actually. I always thought that was a pretty cool switch.Quote:
Originally posted by Gromgor
I hail from the great state of North Carolina which is the largest cultivator of tobacco in the world and home of most of America's tobacco companies. I have relatives, friends and associates who are tobacco farmers. I say ban cigarettes. If cigarettes are illegal then having them on screen would be no different than any other illegal act on screen...and it would actually solve the problem that everyone is dancing around. Second-hand smoke.
Restaurants are smoke free so their staff and non-smoking patrons don't have to deal with it. This is great, but it doesn't stop the problem. It only relocates it to a highly congested smaller area.
Eliminate cigarettes and you eliminate the problem.
My friends, family and associates will make do. There's plenty of other crops that can be grown in place of tobacco. Tobacco might pay the bills (as is a popular phrase thrown around) but soybeans, corn and a variety of other things pay them just as well.
I agreeQuote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Excuse my cheekiness, but if smokers cared about their safety, wouldn't they have already quit smoking?
Clarification of what I meant
I was talking of the people traveling down the highway that have to dodge 2000 people parked on the berm smoking at lunch time not the smokers that are parked.
Kids are copycats. They are learning as they grow what is/isn't appropriate, cool, acceptable, etc. They learn by observing other human beings, and yes, that includes those inside movies. How is it parents and other people suddenly can understand this when it comes to smoking? For ages, I've observed parents ignorant to this fact about everything else objectionable in movies and (especially) television.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
We're also not discussing a ban on movies that contain smoking; they might simply be inappropriate for kids. Children are inarguably influenced by the portrayal of 'cool' people smoking in popular culture. So I don't think it's unreasonable that movies that feature a lot of smoking, sometimes to the point of glorifying the act, shouldn't be viewed by children.
Should smoking be R? I really don't give two shits. That kind of stuff is for people that are parenting on autopilot, letting the school, government, ESRB, and MPAA decide what their kids see. I'm just stunned people suddenly think movies influence developing children.