Smoking = R

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
[B]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).

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.

---

I didn't say anything about violence, I said anything dangerous or against the law. I was thinking along the lines of various stunts which are certainly glamorized by movies, the same goes for breaking the law.

I think that that study is hokey!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
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.

---

Regardless of my own stance on the matter, I am very cautious of this line of argument. It's very easy to pick up some statistic and throw it around, and 99% of readers aren't even going to check out the web page for more information (that figure may be a little different on a web-based forums where it's just "click this link", but I think it's still fairly high). Someone has done a detailed study with lots of data, and then written up a number of conclusions. The final conclusion is then taken right out of context and used to support some argument (not necessarily the one that the original study was for).

Note, I'm not attacking _you_ here. I'm just extremely wary of throwing out statistics, as it's a much-abused technique.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
1) No, it isn't even close to being as dangerous.
[/B]

---

Odd, a friend of mine in her last year of training for her licence to practice medicine told me that the damage done from smoking up to forty a day will repair itself within the space of a decade, whereas the damage done to the body by diabetes for example the body will NEVER recover from.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
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."
[/B]

---

As I said in response to Kiania’s post, the point is that if people are such lemmings that the image of someone smoking on screen will influence them to follow suit then why stop at smoking? Why not give any film that contains images that, if carried out in real life, could have negative effects on one’s health, an R-rating? No more movies with kids drinking soda or eating candy until you’re 17. 16 year olds can no longer watch movies with car chases in them as in some states you can drive when you’re 16 and might be tempted to try and recreate the events you see on the screen yourself.

I understand that the health problems caused by smoking are not the same as those caused by the inability to put down the fucking cheeseburger and grab a salad every once in a while, consider going running or to the gym instead of watching The Simpsons re-runs, and so on. My point however is the same, why pick on smoking? Why not slap an R-rating on everything that contains behaviour that children may mimic. I chose Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because it’s a recent “family movie” that endorsed eating large amounts of candy, an action that can lead to diabetes and heart problems as serious as those that stem from smoking.

Then again, my feelings on the subject may also have something to do with the fact that I’m sick of people complaining about not wanting their taxes to pay for whatever surgery I may need as a result of my smoking, without realising that in England if you smoke twenty or more a day you pay more than three times the amount of tax as someone who doesn’t. Yet still I have to pay my taxes so people who’d rather go to McDonalds than go to the gym can have a gastric bypass because they refuse to admit they’re fucking fat and it’s their own fault.

If you want to put restrictions on what children can see in films then go ahead, all I’m asking for is that you be even handed and not pick on a habit you 1) don’t like, and 2) is easy for you to criticize as it’s far easier for you to tell your kids not to smoke than it is to take them jogging with you.

(N.B. None of this was directed at any specific person, other than the two posts that directly followed Aristotle’s posts, and those were responses to opinions, not peple)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion
Odd, a friend of mine in her last year of training for her licence to practice medicine told me that the damage done from smoking up to forty a day will repair itself within the space of a decade, whereas the damage done to the body by diabetes for example the body will NEVER recover from.

---

Please work on your analogies.

If you are talking diabetes, try comparing it to lung cancer.

You can't compare smoking to eating, since eating is necessary for life.

And comparing smoking to getting diabetes from massive overeating is even more outrageous. If you want to look at the worst case scenario ailment you can obtain from a given activity, you would have to compare diabetes to lung cancer, and once again, smoking would come out the clear loser.

But all of this is moot because eating is actually necessary for life, so right there it is never going to be valid to compare smoking with eating.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion
why stop at smoking?

---

Why stop at anything?

How about 5 mph speed limits so nobody ever dies in a car crash?

We draw lines in the sand every day and in every aspect of life.

Smoking has no redeeming qualities, and it is currently glorified in movies and television. This has a very obvious and understandable effect on pushing kids towards picking up the habit. If we can stop that, we've made a positive step forward.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion

Then again, my feelings on the subject may also have something to do with the fact that I’m sick of people complaining about not wanting their taxes to pay for whatever surgery I may need as a result of my smoking, without realising that in England if you smoke twenty or more a day you pay more than three times the amount of tax as someone who doesn’t. Yet still I have to pay my taxes so people who’d rather go to McDonalds than go to the gym can have a gastric bypass because they refuse to admit they’re fucking fat and it’s their own fault.

---

You really need to grasp the critical difference between the things you are very inappropriately drawing analogies between.

Smoking = no redeeming qualities. The first cigarette is bad.

Food = required for life. Only unhealthy in excess, just like oxygen, water, and many other things.

Trying to compare the two is always going to be an exercise in absurdity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion
I chose Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because it’s a recent “family movie” that endorsed eating large amounts of candy

---

I can tell you've never watched that movie. What happened to all the greedy little kids? They got kicked out. What happened to the skinny runt that didn't pig-out? He won a chocolate factory.

Ergo, endorses moderation, self control, and selflessness.

(Just adding this as a tack-on to Ari's statements above. I'd happily put my name to similar, but I can't be bothered to repeat it!)