Should they ban smoking in movies?

2008-11-20 12:44:10

#26

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:
No, they shouldn't ban smoking from movies, but they should ban it from public places like outside of stores/restuarants. I was so glad when they banned smoking from inside public buildings in New York, I can actually go bowling now and not feel sick leaving.
If they ban smoking outside, then how would that apply to combustion engines?
Err... I forgot to add that they should smoke at least 20 feet away from the building. I hate walking in through the front doors of the mall or something and there's people standing right next to the door smoking. It's someones choice to smoke, but they should have some courtesy not to smoke right at the door.

I am a courteous smoker and I generally follow every no smoking law around and will never smoke near kids, but when I will get in a non smokers face is when some lady comes up to me and starts screaming at me how I am killing myself and the people around her. I had some hag do that to me I laughed at her and blew smoke in he face and went back into the bar.

Th whole smoking ban thing is bullshit, I do agree with no smoking in restaurants and places like that, but the no smoking in bars is stupid. It should be up to the bar owner if their is smoking or not. Before we had the ban here in MN bars used to be packed almost every night of the week, now, you are lucky to get a good crowd on the weekends. They say it has actually cost the state money to have the ban in place.

But what it all comes down to, if you don't like smoke don't go near it.

2008-11-20 12:47:24

#27

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

DrunkFace wrote:
jord wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
In regards to the spirit of this thread, no.

In the fact I think smoking at all should be banned, then yes.
Smoking should be banned in people's own homes?

Good job, China, go there.
Yes, the same as say.. cocaine is banned or child porn. They're all about as useful to society as each other.

Excellent comparison, good job.

2008-11-20 12:51:00

#28

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6775

They should ban life, everywhere.

Oh and expression, individuality and freedom should be banned unequivocally in all circumstances and artforms/mediums also.

Now get back to work you peons.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-11-20 12:51:43

#29

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Alcohol isn't useful to society, ban it.

2008-11-20 12:55:18

#30

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6775

jord wrote:
Alcohol isn't useful to society, ban it.

There are actually valid arguments to that I suppose...

I'd substitute alcohol and tobacco for the legalisation of mushrooms anyday, and I'm not even a 'drug-user' type. From a practical and rational perspective none of these widely-sold and legalised drugs have any real benefit or unique perk. Just a cash-sink for the government tax fund - financially profitable suicide, fiscally-regulated doping of the masses etc.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-11-20 12:59:56

#31

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6698|The Gem Saloon

Uzique wrote:
I'd substitute alcohol and tobacco for the legalisation of mushrooms anyday

that makes absolutely no sense at all.....in the slightest.

2008-11-20 13:02:45

#32

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Parker wrote:
Uzique wrote:
I'd substitute alcohol and tobacco for the legalisation of mushrooms anyday

that makes absolutely no sense at all.....in the slightest.

Shroomtacular?

2008-11-20 13:04:56

#33

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6775

Parker wrote:
Uzique wrote:
I'd substitute alcohol and tobacco for the legalisation of mushrooms anyday

that makes absolutely no sense at all.....in the slightest.

In terms of rational pros and cons, it certainly makes enough sense to me.

Government funds wouldn't be spending out in the millions each year to treat people with physical addictions and illnesses arising from alcohol and tobacco, and you almost certainly wouldn't have the same sort of 'necessary' expenditure to 'treat' the victims of mushroom abuse. The same argument can be made any other seemingly-more 'docile' substance... of course in a simplistic way it's all senseless logic, drugs are bad and that's that. But I mean if you're going to legalize and regulate a select few drugs in order to cream off tax money, at least choose some relatively harmless drugs!

No real point getting into a serious discussion on it, I was only being partly serious anyway... don't care for much for drugs or the 'causes' of the people who use them and support them. Plus, experiences with drugs are one of those 'Parker Themes' that seem to be mentioned in 33% of all your posts, so my own opinions and views on the matter would clearly be neglected .

Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-20 13:05:23)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-11-20 13:25:03

#34

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6698|The Gem Saloon

Uzique wrote:
No real point getting into a serious discussion on it, I was only being partly serious anyway... don't care for much for drugs or the 'causes' of the people who use them and support them.

i know, you would lose that debate....GG.

Uzique wrote:
Plus, experiences with drugs are one of those 'Parker Themes'

correct.
i am the only person at bf2s that has ever done drugs.

Uzique wrote:
that seem to be mentioned in 33% of all your posts

i mention something too much for you?
lol

Uzique wrote:
my University degree will give me

Uzique wrote:
I'm studying Creative writing currently under the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom's tutorage

Uzique wrote:
university

Uzique wrote:
my education

https://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

2008-11-20 13:30:35

#35

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6775

Pretty pathetic ad hominem attempt there... all quoted from one PM to you, quoted out of context (... typical) and forgetting to mention your initial message? Convenient, I won't stoop as low to mention something so completely off-topic and irrelevant .

Parker wrote:
i am the only person at bf2s that has ever done drugs.

... Bit of an audacious claim. I'm sure many people have experimented-- sure, perhaps not addiction or involvement in the drugs game, but since when did that give anyone any kudos or credibility anyway?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-11-20 13:37:27

#36

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6846|Texas - Bigger than France

SirSchloppy wrote:
Pug wrote:
If you smoke it's automatically at least a PG movie.
That should make it an 18 over here, that's the legal age for smoking.

If they don't ban it then they should only include it in 18 rated movies.

I think this sums it up - the answer is "not for young people", aka PG.

As far as I know, I haven't seen anyone smoking in a PG movie for a long time.

The answer is yes they DO ban smoking in movies aimed at youngsters. There is absolutely no basis for a complete ban in EVERY movie rating.

That make sense Uzi?

2008-11-20 13:52:01

#37

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6985|Disaster Free Zone

jord wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
jord wrote:

Smoking should be banned in people's own homes?

Good job, China, go there.
Yes, the same as say.. cocaine is banned or child porn. They're all about as useful to society as each other.
Excellent comparison, good job.

Well I could have used marijuana, but theres enough pot heads on these forums who want it legalised already so I went for something a little 'harder'.

jord wrote:
Alcohol isn't useful to society, ban it.

Unlike cigarettes and smoking, alcohol does provide some health benefits when consumed in moderation, reducing the chances of heart attacks and strokes, as well as red wine having a high source of antioxidants which can kill some cancer cells. Alcohol also has no ill effects unless its use is abused and is usually not a primary source of death and injury but rather a secondary enabler.

Smoking on the other hand is always directly harmful to those who are smoking and those who are nearby with no benefits at all. Unlike alcohol there is no moderate level of smoking which is beneficial or even healthy. Smoking is responsible for 6 times the number of deaths each year, even with a much lower percentage of the population smoking compared to drinking.

More education needs to be in place to stop binge drinking and harsher penalties need to be put in place for drink driving, but in no way is alcohol as socially harmful and destructive as smoking and cigarettes, and if used properly is even beneficial.

2008-11-20 21:03:51

#38

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6951

Movies made me smoke, McDonalds made me fat, and TV made me retarded. I say ban them before someone else makes me do something stupid.

2008-11-20 22:55:05

#39

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

No they should ban wanton and gratuitous violence.

I still don't understand why its acceptable to watch people being killed, dismembered, tortured, shot, reduced to pulp- whatever you can think of - all grossly unnatural acts - you can see it in any high street cinema any day of the week.

But if you want to see people naked or having sex you're considered a weirdo.

Fuck Israel

2008-11-21 10:50:37

#40

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6885|SE London

There should be less censorship full stop.

There is nothing wrong with sex/violence/nudity/drug abuse (which smoking kind of falls under)/crime/swearing in movies. Sometimes it can be taken too far, but that should be for the audience to decide - not a censorship authority.

2008-11-21 10:58:43

#41

Chou: Member; +737|7095

SirSchloppy wrote:
In the olden-days they used to smoke on screen, and a lot of people (including my grandparents) started smoking as it was "glamorised" by the movie stars.

Nowadays, with cancer, heart disease, and strokes attributed to smoking, do you think it would be a good idea to outlaw smoking in movies?

As long as they ban all the things that you enjoy, fine by me.

2008-11-21 11:20:13

#42

El Beardo: steel woolly mammoth; +150|6024|Gulf Coast

Does anyone think banning smoking in films would really have an effect? Banning smoking in a restaurant I can understand but movies?? I love when people rant about hating smokers and wish smoking would be banned by all buildings in/outside and complain about second hand smoke and blah blah blah. Of course some of these people also eat nothing but McDonalds, drink only coffee in the morning and soda all day, never exercise cause they are "logged in" 10 or more hours a day. Smoking has been banned in some bars around where i am.....WTF WHAT'S NEXT NO DRINKING OR TALKING?!?

Important

2008-11-22 11:54:36

#43

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6709|North Carolina

Don't ban anything from movies. We have a free press and it should fucking stay that way.

As for smoking, you can ban it from public property, but business owners should be able to determine their own smoking policies without government interference.

2008-11-22 12:26:29

#44

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6997

1st Amendment. GTFO censorship fags

x

2008-11-23 09:39:01

#45

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6797|Connecticut

Actually, from what I hear so far for an arguement that is even close to holding water is that smoking encourages impressionable audience members to take up the habit. The long term result is an addiction, ailments as a result and possibly death. If that is the case then I suppose we will have to film movies without any murder scenes, or any that imply wrongful death is taking place as a crucial plot point. Just throwing this out there but it sems to me that can kill you as quickly and as effectively as, I don't know, being killed. /facepalm/.

Malloy must go

2008-11-23 14:08:20

#46

some_random_panda: Flamesuit essential; +454|6695

Went to a cancer conference in Vienna - there were around ten European doctors around the door smoking.

I coughed/lol'd.

2008-12-01 21:51:56

#47

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7076|PNW

No. It should be up to the studios to decide, not the government, and if you like your freedom to play violent video games (where applicable), you'll agree.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-12-01 21:52:24)

2008-12-02 00:12:19

#48

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6797|N. Ireland

No - smoking is a personal choice and it should be left that way. Besides, it makes people cooler in movies anyway

BF2S Forums Should they ban smoking in movies?

Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

jord wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

jord wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Parker wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Parker wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Parker wrote:

SirSchloppy wrote:

Pug wrote:

jord wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

jord wrote:

jord wrote:

SirSchloppy wrote:

Board footer