Smoking Should Only be in 'R' Rated Films?

[Aberinkula]

[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]On the bus ride to school, there's always this ad pn the radio for an ant-smoking group in St. Lawerence County, NY. Some people want cigarettes and all forms of smoking to only be in R rated movies, because it might influence people to smoke. For example: kids.

Honeslty I don't think this should be supported. WTF is doing this going to change? Kids still see it in their everyday life. And hoenslty it's like saying no one smokes period. Plus, if it's isolated to movies, the same should be done to TV. This also causes a problem, imo. If you've ever watched [B]That's 70's Show[/B], you'll know that they smoke pot. But really, saying that if a movie has smoking it sould be rated R? I think it's a stupid thing and it's hardly going to make a difference in the long run.

So do you agree with this? Or do you disagree?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I disagree with bad spelling. But whatever.

I think personal responsibility is the issue here. If parents can't educate their children on smoking, then why should the government have to do it for them? Let the people smoke, let them drink, let them have extramarrital sex. Just remember, it's not the responsibility of the policy wonks to do this sort of thing. But they sure wish it was.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Aberinkula'][FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]On the bus ride to school, there's always this ad pn the radio for an ant-smoking group in St. Lawerence County, NY. Some people want cigarettes and all forms of smoking to only be in R rated movies, because it might influence people to smoke. For example: kids.

Honeslty I don't think this should be supported. WTF is doing this going to change? Kids still see it in their everyday life. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Well I think it should be supported. Why? One has to be a similar age to even purchase cigarettes. But that's not all, Hollywood, like the tobacco industry, likes to denounce criticism as ?censorship? and to shield its business with the ?free speech? protections of the First Amendment. Certainly, no one wants the government regulating what?s in movies.

But R-rating tobacco promotion on screen has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The reason is simple. The First Amendment limits the government?s power to interfere with content. It has nothing to do with Hollywood?s voluntarily rating its own products.

And, let?s face it, there is more than a little hypocrisy in studios claiming to be guardians of artistic freedom:

* Studios do a billion-dollar business in product placement whether the screenwriter or director likes it or not.

* Studios order screenplays re-written. Studios, not directors, control the final cut of motion pictures.

* Producers have even given tobacco companies script approval.

R-rating tobacco protects film makers against commercial pressure, a far more immediate, pervasive and persistent threat to creative independence than anything the First Amendment addresses.

And yes I borrowed that from a site supporting the change, but since it's how I feel, I used it. Hehe.[quote name='Aberinkula'][FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]And hoenslty it's like saying no one smokes period. Plus, if it's isolated to movies, the same should be done to TV. This also causes a problem, imo. If you've ever watched [B]That's 70's Show[/B], you'll know that they smoke pot. But really, saying that if a movie has smoking it sould be rated R? I think it's a stupid thing and it's hardly going to make a difference in the long run.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]No it's not, it's saying that like certain levels of violence/sex/other material. There are some things that are regulated to being required to be an adult in order to view them.[/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Seems like we already had a [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=57058"][COLOR="Blue"]thread[/COLOR][/URL] on this.

My opinion stands. Doesn't really matter either way; kinda useless, actually.[/FONT]

[Aberinkula]

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][FONT="Century Gothic"]Yeah, sorry about thr spelling Raiha, I sort of forgot the 'h', but it was from the second time I named the thread, I thought I improved the title, guess not. :animeswea

Anyways, I do think that they should at least have a warning that there is smoking in a movie, they warn us about alcohol use in video games and movies, so they should warn us about smoking too. But if one measly cigarette ups a movie's rating to 'R,' than that is sort of stupid.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[The Spectacular Professor]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a needless procedure. Like Raiha said, If parents don't raise their kids, then the government shouldn't have to for them. My dad's a teacher, and the public school system is basically being treated like a tax-funded daycare by a lot of people. I disagree with smoking, but as a kid, I don't remember ever thinking how cool Bugs Bunny was every time he blew Elmer Fudd's face off with an exploding cigar.

These people are also overlooking the fact that smoking in film can actually be a learning experience for kids. For example, watch [I]Muppets from Space.[/I] You'll know th part when you see it, but here it is: The characters walk by 2 guards while invisible. Noticing a cigarette in one of the guards' mouths, one Muppet remarks that smoking is very bad for you. In response, the guard turns to the other guard, says "Thanks! I didn't know you cared," and tosses his butt.

Now, of course, this scene was meant as a gag, but the fact remains that they outright told the guy what he was doing could potentially harm him somewhere down the line. I think that counts for something.

Finally, here's a thought: Currently, R-rated movies are defined as such by having loads of violence, sex, swearing and partial nudity, or at least more so than one is typically exposed to. Is there really a point to restricting something to keeping that kind of company if it's more or less commonly in public view every day?

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Aberinkula'][SIZE="1"][COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][FONT="Century Gothic"]Anyways, I do think that they should at least have a warning that there is smoking in a movie, they warn us about alcohol use in video games and movies, so they should warn us about smoking too. But if one measly cigarette ups a movie's rating to 'R,' than that is sort of stupid.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]Warnings would be a good compromise in my opinion. I may think harder ratings is in order, but hey, I'm also all for meeting halfway. Especially if it's a movie where out of that two hours you see it only once. A full out R rating would be kind of overkill for that type of situation.[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]My opinion hasn't changed since the last thread, kids learn bad habits way more from the people around them than what they see in movies, at least as far as smoking goes in my experience. My two younger sibling both smoked, one of whom still does and I can safely say they started it because of their friends than because they saw it in a cinema.

Overall it's rather pointless, well intentioned, but rather pointless. Education for kids on smoking really needs to start closer to home than Universal's latest.[/SIZE]

[Mr. Maul]

[center][IMG]http://www.babble.com/CS/photos/strollerderbyjul2007/images/32295/original.aspx[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/entertainment/rough_edge/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cruela.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/mickey-mouse-smoking.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.disneyshorts.org/characters/graphics/timber.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v360/killerv/caterpillar-disney-3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.frederatorblogs.com/media/inline/3394.jpg[/IMG][/center]

[Rachmaninoff]

It's one's parents job to do that sort of thing, teach about smoking. But if they want to put warnings on it or rather make sure it's part of the description as to what's in it. That works in my opinion. Beyond that, I see no need to change anything really.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Mr. Maul][center][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v360/killerv/caterpillar-disney-3.jpg[/IMG'][/center][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Couldn't have said it better myself.[/FONT]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Mr. Maul'][center][IMG]http://www.babble.com/CS/photos/strollerderbyjul2007/images/32295/original.aspx[/IMG]


...


etc.
[IMG]http://www.frederatorblogs.com/media/inline/3394.jpg[/IMG][/center][/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n72/Aceburner85/gant-wahahaa.gif[/IMG]

Well played, good sir. Well played.

Sometimes I think people in charge of entertainment just don't want us to have awesome childhoods like they did.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="tahoma"]XD Those pictures are hilarious! :catgirl: Oh how we are all so corrupt! Hehe!

We are beyond redemption! Forever lost! [I]*shot*[/I]

And I'll be shutting up now. Hehe.[/FONT]

[[Sound_Nin]]

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Book Antiqua]I think it's insane. Once you get started with censorship, it never ends.

An anti-smoking group, eh? What kind of people have nothing better to do than hate cigarettes and rant about it? And you [I]know[/I] that if it was up to them, cigarettes would be outlawed altogether. Do these people have a shared religious affiliation? (Don't get offended, religious folks. Just a question. :] )

Yes, cigarettes kill you. But how much CRIME is influenced by cigarettes? I certainly can't see how it could even compare to drinking, but that's a different topic.

And I'm done with my rant! Thanks for tolerating it.

Now where'd those cigarettes go...
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

Though I do not think it's not necessary to rate films based on smoking... I can see why people would even consider it. I have to wonder if any of you kids really understand the significance of those pictures you posted. It may look like a contradiction, but that was before it was firmly established just how harmful smoking really is, which is why most children's cartoons and programing no longer has such stuff in it.

And I'm referring to the truly kiddy stuff not anime which is more like regular television programming. Seriously, try learning a bit before you get off being smart since all you're really doing is making yourselves look ignorant. Prior to World War I, lung cancer was considered to be a rare disease, which most physicians would never see during their career. With the postwar rise in popularity of cigarette smoking, however, came a virtual epidemic of lung cancer.

Further research linking the two together didn't come about until in the 1950's and since then the last half a century has been one of learning even more as to how dangerous smoking is. Seeing it in cartoons when it was still heavily debated as to whether or not the claims it caused health issues was true or not... is laughable at best. It's no argument at all, other than one of perhaps proving that many of you are ignorant of the history surrounding how the public at that time was largely ignorant of what it does.

It wasn't a better childhood for those directors or whatever, it was one of ignorance, of thinking nothing of it. In the end, I think it's a parents responsiblity to set a good example and teach their children about harmful substances instead of relying on censoring in television and movies to do our job.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The problem with all of those images of smoking in cartoons is that the cartoons were released decades ago. At that time, obviously, public knowledge about the dangers of smoking wasn't nearly as clear or nuanced as it is now.

My feeling is that limiting smoking to R-rated films [i]is[/i] censorship, although I would not mind a warning on the label as a compromise.

I suppose the question then becomes, how many things do you warn about in a film? If you follow the logic to its conclusion, you realize that you'll have a DVD cover with warnings all over it and nothing else.

So, you know, I'm very much in favour of seeing parents be good parents rather than seeing the regular interventions of a Nanny State.[/font]