Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,389|3934

Earlier this year, Stanton A. Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and James Cameron, director of the science-fiction thriller Avatar, got into a public sparring match over Hollywood and cigarettes. Glantz, who has been furiously campaigning against smoking in PG-13 movies since he launched the Smoke Free Movies project in 2001, told The New York Times in January that scenes in Avatar depicting an environmental scientist puffing away on a cigarette were comparable to someone putting “a bunch of plutonium in the water supply.” In an e-mailed statement to the Times, Cameron shot back that Grace Augustine, played by Sigourney Weaver, was never intended to be a role model for teenagers. Smoking is a filthy habit, he wrote, but “I don’t believe in the dogmatic idea that no one in a movie should smoke. Movies should reflect reality.”

Now, nearly eight months later, Glantz is back on the attack against Avatar and every other Hollywood flick showcasing cigarettes. And this time he’s got the backing of the U.S. government. On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published new data compiled by Glantz that tracks smoking in top-grossing movies between 1991 and 2009. The study, appearing in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), shows that the number of tobacco incidents (defined as “the use or implied use of a tobacco product by an actor” onscreen) has dropped significantly in recent years—from a peak of almost 4,000 in 2005 to just under 2,000 last year. But 54 percent of PG-13 films released in 2009 still featured smoking. “We really need to fix this once and for all,” says Glantz.

But what he and other public-health authorities—including the World Health Organization—really want is zero smoking in kid-rated movies, and an R rating if cigarettes do appear onscreen. “It’s like frontal nudity or foul language,” not an all-out ban on cinematic smoking, says Glantz. “You can do it, but not in movies for kids.” If that standard were applied, movies like Eat Pray Love, Salt, and Dinner for Schmucks would shift from PG-13 to R. But the policy provides an exception for depictions of historical smokers, like Edward R. Murrow, who puffed away in the 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck. Glantz says changing the rating system would cut total youth exposure to smoking in movies by about half. And there’d be an economic incentive not to feature cigarettes for the industry, too: a 2005 study on movie profitability found that the return on investment for R-rated movies is 29 percent, compared with 44 percent for PG-13 movies and 73 percent for PG movies.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/figh … ovies.html

I had my first smoke when I was 14 in high school. I started smoking because my friends and the girls I liked did. I didn't start smoking because I saw a movie character smoke a cigarette while killing some Russians.

Anyway, wouldn't trying to stop this
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/47545/images.jpg
seem more important then morally crusading against cigarettes in movies?
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.
I don't smoke really but who the fuck is influenced to smoke from movies? There was a ruckus when that "smokin aces" came out. The general populace is idiotic, what can ya do?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|4877|Global Command
I could have done without the picture of the starving kid tbh.

Smoking in movies does glamorize it. There is nothing cool about lung cancer.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England
People have too much time on their hands.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.

[email protected] wrote:

People have too much time on their hands.
You don't know the half of it.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

I thought this thread was going to be about people smoking in theaters. Instead, I was ambushed with one of the most stupid complaints in modern arts history: fictional characters smoking cigarettes.

[Glantz] told The New York Times in January that scenes in Avatar depicting an environmental scientist puffing away on a cigarette were comparable to someone putting “a bunch of plutonium in the water supply." [...]
What? Get real, Glantz. Tobacco addiction was a character flaw in Avatar. I don't know what he's talking about. She had to have her cigs, and was more disagreeable than usual if she didn't get them. Besides which, it's sci-fi. How the fuck do we know that's even a cigarette as we know it?
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|3585|Cleveland, Ohio
tobacco kills more people than anything(avoidable deaths) and drives up healthcare costs yet nobody really cares.  it kills people who dont even smoke ffs.  plus all the butts all over the fucking place.  not saying ban them in movies cuz it may influence someone i am saying ban them outright.  and what do you mean they wont influence anyone?  to say that is just stupid.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-08-21 17:28:33)

jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

tobacco kills more people than anything and drives up healthcare costs yet nobody really cares.  it kills people who dont even smoke ffs.  plus all the butts all over the fucking place.  not saying ban them in movies cuz it may influence someone i am saying ban them outright.  and what do you mean they wont influence anyone?  to say that is just stupid.
It's not really. Anyone who takes up smoking because they saw it in a movie deserves what comes their way.

Anyway I am an each to their own kinda guy.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

I think you were replying to jord, but the depiction of illegal substances, murder, rape and other crime isn't banned in film, so why should tobacco be singled out?

And if tobacco itself is banned, should alcohol follow?
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,615|5085|Oxferd

jord wrote:

Anyone who takes up smoking because they saw it in a movie deserves what comes their way.
this, if its a kid then get the parents involved in blame
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/6644/Xj4f2.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

RTHKI wrote:

jord wrote:

Anyone who takes up smoking because they saw it in a movie deserves what comes their way.
this, if its a kid then get the parents involved in blame
Some measure of blame has to be placed on the kids' shoulders. Parents can be as awesome and reasonable as they come, and still wind up with a smoking or drinking kid despite 'preventative talks.'
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

tobacco kills more people than anything
False.

and drives up healthcare costs
Smokers pay higher premiums to offset the increased cost they create.

yet nobody really cares.
Plenty of people care

it kills people who dont even smoke ffs.
Sure, if you're exposed to it 24/7 in an indoor environment. How many people live in an environment like this? Do you?

plus all the butts all over the fucking place.
Street cleaners clean the streets anyway. No additional cost incurred.

not saying ban them in movies cuz it they influence someone i am saying ban them outright.
Cool, so can I write my Congressman and ask him to write a law requiring you to shove a dildo up your ass? Oh, that would be forcing you to do something you don't want to do.

and what do you mean they wont influence anyone?
There are a billion kinds of peer pressure, what actors do in movies is way down the list of things that influence people.

to say that is just stupid.
Thanks for sharing. Where do I sign up for one of these groovy fascist parties that you obviously attend? I want to learn how to be nosy, worry about what other people do, and attempt to control their behavior when I don't agree with them. So, where can I sign up?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|3585|Cleveland, Ohio
not gonna even read that block of shit.  what the hell is that?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

[email protected] wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

it kills people who dont even smoke ffs.
Sure, if you're exposed to it 24/7 in an indoor environment. How many people live in an environment like this? Do you?
What? An actual smoker doesn't need to be exposed to it 24/7 to get cancer.

[email protected] wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

plus all the butts all over the fucking place.
Street cleaners clean the streets anyway. No additional cost incurred.
Plenty incurred when you consider the extra costs for cleaning up the walkways on business property and for the fires caused smoldering butts chucked into bushes and bark dust.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

it kills people who dont even smoke ffs.
Sure, if you're exposed to it 24/7 in an indoor environment. How many people live in an environment like this? Do you?
What? An actual smoker doesn't need to be exposed to it 24/7 to get cancer.
Sure, but we're talking about second hand smoke. A shitload more of it is required to injure someone than firsthand smoke.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

not gonna even read that block of shit.  what the hell is that?
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

[email protected] wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Sure, if you're exposed to it 24/7 in an indoor environment. How many people live in an environment like this? Do you?
What? An actual smoker doesn't need to be exposed to it 24/7 to get cancer.
Sure, but we're talking about second hand smoke. A shitload more of it is required to injure someone than firsthand smoke.
That's like saying that I should be fine being exposed to arsenic as long as somebody had it in their ear first. Doesn't make the notion any more comforting, nor does smoke being secondhand do anything to make it less stinky or keep me from coughing or feeling slightly sick around it.

Misery is also also being cooped up in a truck with a bunch of smokers who, even long after they put that shit out, still make your eyes cross with their close smell.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|3585|Cleveland, Ohio

[email protected] wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

not gonna even read that block of shit.  what the hell is that?
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me.
what is your fucking problem?  i aint lowing so dont play your stupid fucking games with me.
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.
My mother has smoked for the last 20 years indoors around me and I don't mind the smell, the miniscule effects or the smokey air.

I think the majority of 2nd hand smoke lawsuits are largely falsified for the sake of the £$.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|3585|Cleveland, Ohio

jord wrote:

My mother has smoked for the last 20 years indoors around me and I don't mind the smell, the miniscule effects or the smokey air.

I think the majority of 2nd hand smoke lawsuits are largely falsified for the sake of the £$.
dude...when you used to be able to smoke on planes when they would change the air filters they would be heavy as shit and look disgusting.  that is what you are breathing in all day.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Plenty incurred when you consider the extra costs for cleaning up the walkways on business property and for the fires caused smoldering butts chucked into bushes and bark dust.
Yeah? Businesses sweep up their walkway anyway.

Cigarettes have special paper that makes them go out if they're not puffed on within a minute or so. This is specifically to prevent forest fires and people setting their mattress on fire if smoking in bed. Go light a cigarette, toss it in a pile of dry leaves and see if it produces fire. I guarantee 100% that it does not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|3585|Cleveland, Ohio
WHO said secondhand smoking kills about 600,000 people every year.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3706|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

not gonna even read that block of shit.  what the hell is that?
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me.
what is your fucking problem?  i aint lowing so dont play your stupid fucking games with me.
Who's playing games? You made a list of stupid statements and I called you out on them. You then refused to respond. So are you, or are you not, a fascist? Because you sure talk like one.

11 Bravo wrote:

WHO said secondhand smoking kills about 600,000 people every year.
WHO is a bunch of ultra liberal fools. No one takes anything they ever say seriously or without a Jupiter sized grain of salt.

Last edited by [email protected] (2010-08-21 16:56:15)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

My mother has smoked for the last 20 years indoors around me and I don't mind the smell, the miniscule effects or the smokey air.

I think the majority of 2nd hand smoke lawsuits are largely falsified for the sake of the £$.
dude...when you used to be able to smoke on planes when they would change the air filters they would be heavy as shit and look disgusting.  that is what you are breathing in all day.
I don't know, if I cared about that I'd have to care about the effects of cars/bikes/trains/the nearby power plant/etc. Air isn't pure and I'm over that. Apathy is my defence.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5120|USA

[email protected] wrote:

a Jupiter sized grain of salt.
/that's a big Twinkie.

[email protected] wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Plenty incurred when you consider the extra costs for cleaning up the walkways on business property and for the fires caused smoldering butts chucked into bushes and bark dust.
Yeah? Businesses sweep up their walkway anyway.

Cigarettes have special paper that makes them go out if they're not puffed on within a minute or so. This is specifically to prevent forest fires and people setting their mattress on fire if smoking in bed. Go light a cigarette, toss it in a pile of dry leaves and see if it produces fire. I guarantee 100% that it does not.
At additional cost, since they have to do it more often. Also, explain the shit I put out in a garden island last week with a fresh cigarette at its core. Could it be that it wasn't a fire-safe cig? Oops...

But back to the point: I hate cigs and being around smokers, not their depiction in movies.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard