MPAA vs Smoking

I think people who say teens are going to smoke, drink, have sex, and whatnot just because they see it in the media are ignorant. We are capable of thinking for our selves, and making decisions. I think there's a fine line between it just being there, and actually promoting it, and as long as it isn't crossed, there's not a problem.

 

I think the MPAA is just trying to get even worse publicity. Its all part of their strategy to get the world to hate them.

 

i think its totally stupid that the media gets blamed for ANYTHING.
we have our own free willl. we have our minds. let us make our desicions.

and jerr. everything you said up there was totally right.
heh. im sure not gonna bury a toddler that got run over by a semi just cause i seen that movie. hehe.

 

That was one of the best Loops in a while I think, especially when the guy would pwn that woman and all she could say was "Well 70% of parents agree with me" which i dont believe. He made a lot of good points tho, like that lots of kids are over weight so should they ban fastfood from movies?

I think it's just stupid that they're trying to ban smoking in movies, it's pushing to far into censorship IMO. Whats next? Are they gonna ban car chases from movies and say thats the reason for all of the teen car crashes these days? Yea I think they're cool in spy movies but just because something is cool in a movie doesn't mean I want to imitate it in real life.

When it comes down to it, people, not just teens, are gonna do what they're gonna do whether they see it in a movie or not.

 

I just dont get it. PG-13 movies can have fake sex scenes, but god forbid if someone smokes. Which is worse for a 10 year old to see? Heck. A year ago (we have a clean air act in seattle now) i could have walked downtown and seen a bunch of people smoking.

 

It's far worse for a 10yo to see smoking glorified than it is to see sex. Sex is cool and pleasurable and, barring STIs, exceptionally healthy. It's not gonna kill you and damage the health of those around you.

As for my thoughts, I think "monkey see, monkey do..." and most people are far less intelligent than monkeys.

Yes, some people are surrounded by something completely and choose not to engage in it--but trust me, those are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule. And free will only works as an argument when you grow up in a society that encourages you to exercise it and teaches you how to think critically, which is not what's happening with most people in most Western democracies these days, especially in the US, which is where this is happening.

Can this sort of thing be taken too far? Sure. You could say that if people ban the depiction of smoking from movies because smoking is incredibly unhealthy, then what's to stop people from claiming that being gay in incredibly unhealthy? Of course, last I heard being gay didn't cause cancer, despite the desperate claims of those right-wing fundies during the opening decade of the AIDS epidemic.

Smoking's been pretty much absent from a lot of movies in the last decade and has only now started to make a comeback. I don't really think it's terribly coincidental that smoking rates have dropped in the last while. If you normalise something, fewer and fewer people will stay away from it. Look at being gay post-Ellen.

And as a perfect counterargument to people having free will and media not influencing us (of course media doesn't mind-control us directly but if you think it doesn't influence us, all of us, you're nuts), why would tobacco industries literally have gameplans for getting smoking widely and publicly glamourised if they didn't believe that would encourage more people to smoke? And who do you think has spent the most money on studies to determine if a positive portrayal of smoking positively influences smoking rates?

I think maybe some people are positioning this issue in a particular way to garner a certain response. It sounds like it's being played up as "teens are weak-willed so they can't resist the pressure to smoke," which of course, go figure, is going to be a stance resisted by teens because really, who's going to admit they're weak-willed? But really this is not a youth-vs.-age issue: everyone is succeptible to advertising to some degree or another or trust me, it wouldn't be so omnipresent. So really it might get played as a "protect the incredibly vulnerable and weak children" issue but it's more like "get your manipulative little paws off our minds" where "our" is basically EVERYONE, not just those who are young.

Of course a much better approach would be present tobacco as a drug with very damaging effects... but that would cost the government billions of dollars in taxes, so that's unlikely until the health costs seriously start cutting into governments' budgets (which they are starting to do).

 

yes! exactly!

also, as much as i hate cigarettes and junk, i feel that the rights of cigarette smokers is being violated. like, i'd expect to see smokers in a bar, yet it's banned in a lot of cities now. and like, i dunno if this is true or not, but it's also banned from some outdoor places, which is fuckin retarded.

and no, i've never touched a cigarette in my life. now, pot, on the other hand...haha

 

Smokers have no rights. There's no right to pollute the atmosphere that everyone else has to breathe. That's exactly why smoking has been banned in many indoor public places and a lot of outdoor ones, because workers especially have no choice about being in those environments and shouldn't have to suffer the ill effects of second-hand smoke just to make a living.

That's the same way drunk drivers have no right to drive drunk. Fine, if they want to endanger themselves, that's their choice. But when you're driving, you're potentially dangerous to others, and I'm sorry but other people don't have a right to endanger me with their stupid behaviour.

There's a saying: "your rights end where mine begin." I think it applies pretty profoundly in the case of smoking.

 

but why is it banned outdoors? i think it's a little cold to say that smokers deserve no rights. it's kinda like saying gays deserve no rights because it offends some people

 

Like I said before, I haven't heard of any studies linking taking offense to developing cancer or other health conditions.

Banned outdoors: because non-smokers like to enjoy the outdoors too. And some people are allergic.

And I don't know about where you are but it's not terribly banned outdoors here--about the only places they're talking about banning it outdoors is outdoor restaurant patios, probably because they figure non-smokers should be able to enjoy dining outdoors too.

Now if only they'd ban cellphones in movies and babies and young children from restaurants. But that's a WHOLE other story.

 

Personally, I'd like to see them just ban cigarettes and be done with it. I don't feel it's within a smoker's right to pollute the air that I breathe or cost ME money in tax dollars because they decide they want to slowly kill themselves then become a drain on the health care system. Sure, the U.S. doesn't have socialized health care, but I still have to pay health insurance and taxes for the people who do get government help.

 

because a little stick of tobacco being burned is gonna pollute the ENTIRE atmosphere...?
give me a break. there are bigger things to be worrying about than smokers when it comes to polluting the atomosphere.

and i think it goes too far when the bar/restaurant can no longer decide if they want to allow smoking in their own building... and then if non-smokers cant stand it, they can no longer go there.
i think, if you dont like it. go away.
especially bars, ALOT of people who go to bars are also smokers, and if they arent allowed to smoke they probably arent going to go to the bar anymore because they could stay home and drink AND smoke.

wait? i thought smokers had no rights? ^^^

then they should... uhh... go somewhere else. the outdoors is a pretty darn big place. im sorry, but thats what i believe.


and honestly, i dont think going to a restaurant/bar and breathing a little smoke for an hour or two, when you could also go to a non-smoking part which most/all restaurants used to have before it was banned, is going to endanger your health all too much.

 

i hope someday smoking is allowed in bars AT LEAST if the owner wants it to be.

personally, i like the smell and atmosphere it gave bars and restaurants. heh. but thats just me. good childhood memories at least.

 

Did I say the entire atmosphere? No. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words to dismiss my argument? Yes. You knew what I meant.

So tell me how you determine that it's non-smokers, who aren't endangering either their own or other people's health by smoking, who are the ones who have to avoid certain places?

That's funny because that's exactly how I feel about people who have problems with non-smoking laws.

Good... then they can stay home. And just for the record, they banned smoking in bars and restaurants here in my city around 1999 and even earlier in the entire state of California and last I heard, neither the bar nor the restaurant industry had collapsed from lack of patrons.

People have rights. People have the right to smoke (if they choose to be so stupid). But when their right to smoke impinges on other people's right to enjoy their environment and not be exposed to carcinogens and other poisons, then that right has to be constrained.

And just in case you're still confused, what I mean is that people have rights on the basis of being people, not on the basis of being smokers or belonging to the group of people who smoke.

Maybe your non-smoking sections were super-sophisticated or something but the way I remember it, a non-smoking section at a restaurant was simply a collection of tables you weren't allowed to smoke at... sadly that didn't take into account the fact that smoke is, you know, airborne and mindless and doesn't really seem interested in obeying the law by staying in its area of the restaurant.

 

I've put it in Health - it seems to be the best fit there.