Ban movies that glamorise smoking?

pug_

Daftendirekt wrote: »

More to the point, why is addiction the only health risk worth protecting our kids from? A taste for fast food and chocolate developed early in childhood could leave the child obese and unhealthy. A taste for extreme sports or even violence (something found in plentiful supply in children's movies), could render him her disabled. Are these things not equally as harmful to a child's well being, or even more harmful?

Last time I checked fast food and chocolate were not illegal for kids. Maybe the fact that smoking is illegal for kids is a good indication that parents don't generally want their kids exposed to it? I'm also pretty sure that violence is already considered a bad thing in kids films, unless of course you're going to try the argument that you don't see the difference between scooby doo and say the latest Rambo movie?

Acacia

No. Such silliness. *shakes head*

Acacia

Stokes wrote: »

We could just superimpose lollipops over cigarettes.

Then again the dentristry lobby might have something to say...

There is an anime (Japanese cartoon) called 'Cowboy Bebop' in which they did just that (replaced cigarettes with lollipops) when they re-made the series for American audiences.

Woops, Sorry for the the double-post.

conchubhar1

jesus, where is freedom to speak, and choose gone in this fecking god for saken country (should she exist)

SeanW

After doing certain research, I am under no illusions about product placement in movies and mass-media by various legal drug pushers such as fast food giants, drug drink makers like the fizzy drinks outfits and coffee chains, and so on. Just so we're clear I do know what the OP is on about and (feebly) trying to ameliorate.

Clearly however, banning or censoring movies because of these is a move in the wrong direction which should be opposed by any freedom loving person who does not want to live under the jackboot of a Nanny state.

That all being said, if there is any evidence that the tobacco companies are using product placements to hook in new customers, I would support rating new movies M or R on that basis. I would not oppose more severe ratings for movies etc (up to an including Mature or Restricted ratings) that had product placements for cigarettes, alcohol, fast food or caffinated/sugared drinks.
Certainly if there any demonstratable causality between such placements and the use of these products, then definately give such movies a "health warning."

I don't smoke or drink and I've recently kicked a sugar addiction. And no, I don't want to be told what I can and can't watch based on some censors finding that "she's smoking, he's drinking, and that cool kid is drinking Pepsi ..."

The OPs plan is probably the most frightening and irresponsible suggestion I've read on these boards, up there with some guy on Commuting and Transport who wants to put Orwellian tracking devices in everyone's car.

Hookey

BeQuiet wrote: »

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

And there you have it; the mindset that says "we know best and you plebs can't be trusted to think for yourselves".

If a kid wants to smoke, I don't care. If a kid thinks smoking will make him (or her) look cool, I don't care. If the thought police decide to doctor my entertainment to "protect the children" I do care. Allow people to draw their own conclusions in life; if they're too stupid to work it out for themselves, tough.

pug_

And thus spoke some people who probably read the first few posts and decided to jump right in without reading what's actually been said in the thread.

Nobody bar the OP was ever in any way advocating or promoting censorship in any way shape or form of anything, and even the OP has realised that position is a non runner some days ago.

The last few pages have been about whether it's acceptable or necessary to have characters that smoke in children's films, but sure what does that matter when it's so easy to jump on the sensationalist bandwagon and show off how liberal minded people are by being against censorship.

BeQuiet

Hookey wrote: »

And there you have it; the mindset that says "we know best and you plebs can't be trusted to think for yourselves".

If a kid wants to smoke, I don't care. If a kid thinks smoking will make him (or her) look cool, I don't care. If the thought police decide to doctor my entertainment to "protect the children" I do care. Allow people to draw their own conclusions in life; if they're too stupid to work it out for themselves, tough.

There is a philosophical difference here all right - between those of us who care about other people - and those who do not and whose main preoccupation is a vague concern about their own "freedoms", which is really just a resentment of moden life and its essential laws that govern us all.
Its understandable really as there are more and more rules and regulations brought in each year, and people naturally resent this. But that doesnt mean that they are a bad thing, or that they should all be opposed on principle because they are part of a "nanny state" or some other cliched excuse.

If a kid wants to smoke - I DO care. You dont.
You caught the essence of this argument there all right- that is the difference between the 2 sides here in a nutshell.

BeQuiet

SeanW wrote: »

After doing certain research, I am under no illusions about product placement in movies and mass-media by various legal drug pushers such as fast food giants, drug drink makers like the fizzy drinks outfits and coffee chains, and so on. Just so we're clear I do know what the OP is on about and (feebly) trying to ameliorate.


The OPs plan is probably the most frightening and irresponsible suggestion I've read on these boards, up there with some guy on Commuting and Transport who wants to put Orwellian tracking devices in everyone's car.

Well - OK you disagree with me on the original discussion point of banning movies etc ... but you do see the point on the issue of the need to fight product placement in movies and mass-media , so we are partly on the same side. In fact we are probably very much in agreement really on the point of some kind of restrictions placed on this type of marketing short of a ban .

One of the positives of an outright ban by a small country would be the huge publicity it would get worldwide, and the consequent awareness of this whole issue - that alone would be worth bringing in a ban like this (I expect though that many posters here will disagree!) . Even if a ban was only short lived, it could be a useful thing in fighting mass media promotion of cancer causing products

One other thing - u see my suggestion as "irresponsible" - i would have thought it the opposite.

Re ur last point on "tracking devices in everyone's car" : I thought that one was a great idea - you and I are evidently on different sides of the fence in terms of public health as I see it , or "personal freedoms" as you see it.

Good to debate it though ...

PeakOutput

i care about weather or not children smoke but there is no need for further censorship

education, warnings, higher taxes, stricter punishment for selling or buying for under age smokers are all things that need to get way way better if we are going to stop underage smoking and eventually smoking at all

zing zong

BeQuiet wrote: »

Stanton Glantz, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and founder of the Smoke-free Movies Action Network (smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu) : "No tobacco company, he notes, has asked for a smoking ban in movies rated PG or PG-13 movies, which teenagers favor. Meanwhile, a mandatory R rating for movies that feature smoking has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association among other groups. And earlier this year (2007), 41 US state attorneys general again wrote motion picture studios renewing their call for anti-smoking ads on any DVD or movie that includes smoking. "

and?

it doesnt change the fact that the majority of films intended for kids dont have smoking in them (a choice made by the filmmakers, nothing to do with tobacco companies, sure why the hell would they ask)

if a kid has seen smoking in a film it would be in a film not intended for kids, and therefore an act of bad parenting. why should my enjoyment of a film be ruined because some parents cant do the job?

and even after all that, the censor board here would have it cut out if a film maker did slip up

can you show me a film that is intended for kids that has smoking in it?

SeanW

zing zong wrote: »

can you show me a film that is intended for kids that has smoking in it?

That's something I would like to know too.

pug_

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61080929&postcount=80

Corkfeen

1984 the entire world, we obviously can't make our own decisions :pac: .
If a director decides to make a movie that glamorises smoking within and it gets released, its their art, don't censor it. Theres plenty of movies that endorse illegal acts but its part of freedom.
To the OP, I think you've esentially entered a losing battle but no one will stop you from saying what you think. Thats freedom.