Ban movies that glamorise smoking?

BeQuiet

Today the BBC report that a guy jumped on to the new "plinth" in London city centre (this is a well publicised art installation I suppose you could call it). His aim was to publicise a call to "ban smoking", and stop movies showing smokers.
Dont think he will make much headway with getting a ban on smoking - that's a step too far for most people. But maybe us Irish could start thinking about banning movies that show smokers. Its a major (if not THE major) way that the tobacco industry creates demand worldwide. You only have to watch a movie with Nic Cage, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sharon Stone or John Travolta dragging on a ciggie to realise whats really going on. Google "Smoking by famous actors " to find out more.

Anyway- the occasional political initiative here in our little country did start something globally (even though sometimes we may not give ourselves enough credit for this ) - like the plastic bag tax.
So why not stir things up a bit by banning any movie which shows people smoking . Sounds radical right? And the film industry and the civil liberties lot would freak!... but it would get people talking about this whole issue. And the bottom line is that this causes people to start smoking, and eventually suffer and die from it.
The film and tobacco industries are in bed together for years now on this, and have been getting away with it.
Really the only way to stop them is at the state regulation level ...

big b

most appropriate username ever ^

pablomakaveli

They were on about this on Sky News a week ago when a councillor in Liverpool propsedthis idea.

Definitely one of the most ridiculous proposals i ever heard.

toiletduck

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sounds radical right?

Sure does.

So why not stir things up a bit by banning any movie which shows people smoking .

Because such a move would be moronic? People smoke/have smoked in the past. Films reflect this, just like they do with a whole host of other (what some people would see as) objectionable actions.

Why not go back, do a Speilberg and digitally get rid of fags in all movies. I look forward to Casablanca where all the cigarettes are replaced with lollipops...

Riskymove

toiletduck wrote: »

Because such a move would be moronic? People smoke/have smoked in the past. Films reflect this, just like they do with a whole host of other (what some people would see as) objectionable actions.

"Glamorise" is the relevant word here though isn't it.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind a film that showed smoking if it was about people getting cancer from it!

WindSock

Some of the best scenes in films have smoking in it. What the fck about artistic licensing? Do they want to ban all illegal activities in films too? Bloody idiotic.

senordingdong

toiletduck wrote: »

Why not go back, do a Speilberg and digitally get rid of fags in all movies. I look forward to Casablanca where all the cigarettes are replaced with lollipops...

Yeah, especially in twenty years when all the fatties and diabetics are trying to blame the film industry.

toiletduck

Riskymove wrote: »

I'm sure they wouldn't mind a film that showed smoking if it was about people getting cancer from it!

Perhaps Breakfast at Tiffanys could have a new ending. It would fast forward thirty or so years later with Audrey Hepburn on her death bed from cancer sticks. On blu-ray to be sure.

"Glamorise" is the relevant word here though isn't it.

I suppose, but that's not what the OP is suggesting. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any movie that glamorises smoking on its own, and not part of a wider glamorisation of a lifestyle/minset of a character(s).

Liam Byrne

Last time I looked, smoking wasn't illegal.

But both killing people and speeding/street-racing in souped-up cars are.....maybe we should ban those first ?

BeQuiet

toiletduck wrote: »

Perhaps Breakfast at Tiffanys could have a new ending. It would fast forward thirty or so years later with Audrey Hepburn on her death bed from cancer sticks. On blu-ray to be sure.



I suppose, but that's not what the OP is suggesting. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any movie that glamorises smoking on its own, and not part of a wider glamorisation of a lifestyle/minset of a character(s).

The tobacco industry spend millions on glamorising smoking in movies, and your reaction that you can't think of any movies that glamorise smoking is just what they would luv to hear. There are many many that do so .... not "on its own" - that would be meaningless, but as part of a lifestyle, and that is exactly what they want .

August 2008- The National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a report that reaches the US government's strongest conclusion to date that tobacco marketing and depictions of smoking in movies promote youth smoking. "There is now incontrovertible evidence that marketing of tobacco, and the depiction of smoking in the movies, promote youth smoking and can cause young people to begin smoking," said Loken, professor of marketing at the Carlson School of Management and one of the report's five scientific editors.

BeQuiet

WindSock wrote: »

Some of the best scenes in films have smoking in it. What the fck about artistic licensing? Do they want to ban all illegal activities in films too? Bloody idiotic.

Well ...am not talking about changing existing movies .... yes that would be ridiculous. Its a matter of changing attitudes of film makers when making movies so that they are not so quick to take the tobacco $$$$ dollars.
And thats all fine to talk about artistic license, but the tobacco industry have no interest in art ... they are out to make money , and they know what works.

A press release in 2001 by UK organisation ASH : “Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight, but smoking in films may be an incubator nurturing teenage smoking, and therefore a gateway to a long term and powerful addiction ­ which ultimately causes terrible damage. While we don't want smoking in films banned,there is a good case to upgrade the age classification to 15 if the film features smoking by aspirational role models ­such as megastar young actors.”

Liam Byrne

Ah, good old ASH - the voice of impartiality and reason "Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight"....

er.....YES, and on second sight, and third sight, etc.

Maybe the 15 classification isn't a bad idea, but then we'd have to have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime....maybe even driving....you're supposed to be 16 before you do that too, and it also kills people!

Like I said, look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal FIRST.

Then, bang goes "Grand Theft Auto", "Fast & Furious", etc.....oh, hang on, the GAMING industry....

Its a major (if not THE major) way that the tobacco gaming / car industry creates demand worldwide.

BroomBurner

Well, you can't retrospectively ban films with cigarettes in them for a start.

As for current films, I think there are two types of characters that are allowed to smoke now - the bad guy and the anti-hero. I would be up for stopping the anti-hero from smoking, because that's the one young people would want to emulate. Whether a ban on any film that has an anti-hero as a smoker would be the way forward, I'm not sure.

What they could work on though was the "glamourising" part, but then I think there are plenty of films that don't glamourise it, whether that me tobacco, or any other type of plant.

Eh, I guess if I was to actually make a point, it would be personally, I've never been influenced by someone doing something in a fictional film, so I don't think the benfits would be big enough for it to work.

OP, no.

darcy.jonny

well we could also ban films with violance , sex, bad language pritty much everything thats socially unacceptable as thay are all " glammorised " going by the way of your thinking ..........

what will we end up with then ,,,,,,,,,,,, an entire movie catalogue consisting of disney and bollywood movies which would make any normal person want to light up a smoke and beat the crap out od someone

BeQuiet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, good old ASH - the voice of impartiality and reason "Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight"....

er.....YES, and on second sight, and third sight, etc.
....

ASH - your sarcasm is misplaced methinks - they are actually a voice of reason !
Or maybe u are a smoker ?

Smoking seems MORE troubling to me than sex or violence in movies ... not less..., and that's on first sight !
Nothing wrong with a bit of sex or violence -- its real life ... but smoking - wrong, unneccessary, and very often a subliminal attempt to get young people addicted.

Dr Galen

more nany state nonsense. another proposal to protect us from ourselves. for gods sake someone stop.


people are going to smoke for the forseeable future. banning it from films would make no discerible difference in that number.

i propose a ban on people telling me what i can and can't do/watch/see as a grown man unless it is directly hurting someone else

BeQuiet

BroomBurner wrote: »

Well, you can't retrospectively ban films with cigarettes in them for a start.

As for current films, I think there are two types of characters that are allowed to smoke now - the bad guy and the anti-hero. I would be up for stopping the anti-hero from smoking, because that's the one young people would want to emulate. Whether a ban on any film that has an anti-hero as a smoker would be the way forward, I'm not sure.

What they could work on though was the "glamourising" part, but then I think there are plenty of films that don't glamourise it, whether that me tobacco, or any other type of plant.

Eh, I guess if I was to actually make a point, it would be personally, I've never been influenced by someone doing something in a fictional film, so I don't think the benfits would be big enough for it to work.

Interesting ... but I think most of the effects of watching someone like Brad Pitt dragging on a ciggie as he looks cool are sub conscious ... esp for most peope who watch movies in a state of acceptance / or non-critically anyway... if u see what i mean ? Next time ur watching one like this think about it - it can really affect peoples readiness to try something new - young impressionable people too - the tobacco industry target market.

BeQuiet

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

more nany state nonsense. another proposal to protect us from ourselves. for gods sake someone stop.


people are going to smoke for the forseeable future. banning it from films would make no discerible difference in that number.

i propose a ban on people telling me what i can and can't do/watch/see as a grown man unless it is directly hurting someone else

Am totally anti the Nanny state myself.... but this is to protect young people / kids ... and whats the downside of it ? .. that we cannot watch actors smoking - so what ?

darcy.jonny

they only way to stop kids smoking is ban them completly


ive never seen any young person see someone smoking in a movie and say jesus ild love to go out and buy a pack and start a habbit .

if u must know what will affect kids more will be parents and family that smoke , friends that smoke ..... as long as there is a social acceptance of smoking it will always be a problem . and add to that a lot of people that smoke in films these days the carachter is going to die of cancer etc. its more anti smoking anyway

BeQuiet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Maybe the 15 classification isn't a bad idea, but then we'd have to have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime....maybe even driving....you're supposed to be 16 before you do that too, and it also kills people!

Like I said, look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal FIRST.

Then, bang goes "Grand Theft Auto", "Fast & Furious", etc.....oh, hang on, the GAMING industry....

Why would we have to "have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime" etc ... thats a big jump in logic... we are talking about trying to limit film industry making an addictive and dangerous habit appear to be attractive to impressionable people. Watching someone like Leonardo DiCaprio dragging on a ciggie looking cool does exactly that. Watching him shoot someone just does not have that effect. Not on most people anyway!
Its a matter of human psychology - the tobacco industry know what works... thats why they spend so much on this.

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

BeQuiet

darcy.jonny wrote: »

they only way to stop kids smoking is ban them completly

ive never seen any young person see someone smoking in a movie and say jesus ild love to go out and buy a pack and start a habbit .

if u must know what will affect kids more will be parents and family that smoke , friends that smoke ..... as long as there is a social acceptance of smoking it will always be a problem . and add to that a lot of people that smoke in films these days the carachter is going to die of cancer etc. its more anti smoking anyway

Not at all ... think about it next time ur watching a movie, and see someone smoking in it ... its extremely rare that you see them being sick / dying later in teh film.... i would guess at less than 1% ...

BeQuiet

darcy.jonny wrote: »

well we could also ban films with violance , sex, bad language pritty much everything thats socially unacceptable as thay are all " glammorised " going by the way of your thinking ..........

what will we end up with then ,,,,,,,,,,,, an entire movie catalogue consisting of disney and bollywood movies which would make any normal person want to light up a smoke and beat the crap out od someone

Sex, violence and bad language - there is a strong argument for having these in films .... but not for watching people smoking

StopTheDrugWar!

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

With a little harm reduction you could dramatically reduce the ill effects of smoking without treading all over people's freedom.

Censorship is never the way forward.
Tell me, does the word slippery slope mean anything to you?

jaffa20

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sex, violence and bad language - there is a strong argument for having these in films .... but not for watching people smoking

What is that then

turgon

If anyone dies of cancer due to taking up smoking because it looks glamorous in film, then they have only one person to blame and thats themselves.

zing zong

OP

I cant believe you are actually serious, it would start a snowball that would effectively lead to CENSORSHIP of any little thing that people find unhealthy

the majority of films made today that are for kids, or have an age rating that would allow kids to view them dont have smoking in them, and its not unreasonable to compare it to drink, sex, violence etc, in films.

the fact you think it is WORSE for kids than any of these in films is laughable.
advertising smoking is banned, it is RARELY if at all shown on daytime TV, unless it is a scene in an older film(which kids wont watch anyway), there is an age limit to buying smokes, and to top it off it is down to the parents to make sure their kids dont take up smoking, and solely down to them, the same as with drinking etc

so instead of painting ALL parents as incompetent, or ALL kids stupid enough to take up smoking (yes believe it or not they ARE aware of the dangers, they have classes on this at school) please dont waste your time and do something constructive i.e., if you see, hear about, or smell smokes from your kid or young family member, GIVE EM A SMACK

ChocolateSauce

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

Mario007

turgon wrote: »

If anyone dies of cancer due to taking up smoking because it looks glamorous in film, then they have only one person to blame and thats themselves.

i agree, 100%!

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

yes exactly, and ban drinking in films, speedy cars, shooting, drugs etc...

i really dont see what some people have with smoking, there are far more serious issues out there...besides from a political point of view, we need smokers for our budgetary purposes, the state takes around 6.5 euro for each pack of cigarettes...thats a huge boost to the budget!

ChocolateSauce

Mario007 wrote: »

besides from a political point of view, we need smokers for our budgetary purposes, the state takes around 6.5 euro for each pack of cigarettes...thats a huge boost to the budget!

Smoking costs the HSE more money than the tax brings in, and that's not even including productivity lost due to ill health.

zing zong

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

agreed

the thing is tho, that all of these things including smoking are in films that aren't intented for children to begin with, so if kids do manage to see 'em its the parents fault, and no one else