Poll results suggest 38% of Canadians are morons

[Pasi Nurminen]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070823.SMOKING23/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Movies/

I know the 38% overall figure isn't mentioned in that particular story, but I read the same story today in one of our city's crappy free papers that did quote the 38% nationwide figure in favour of such a ban.

Firstly, that's censorship of an important art form. If moviemakers want to put smoking characters in their films, you have no right to say no. Hard drug use isn't banned in films, or at least the depiction of it is not, so why cigarettes?

Secondly, any kid who does something just because he saw it in a movie is a certified Grade A idiot, and probably won't live too long anyways.

Discuss.

 

[Japanrocks12]

relevant stuff: the movie Thank You for Smoking was a classic that delved deep in the issue. Center to it was how people tend not to look at things rationally anymore, but rather based on their gut emotion.

However, you can't exactly deny that showing smoking in movies doesn't have an effect on societal views on smoking. It extends far beyond the little kids IMO. It shows smoking as socially acceptable. Normally I'm fine with that, but I'm a little more concerned about public health than I am about a censorship of free speech/expression.

I too don't believe that it should be completely banned. But there should be restrictions placed on it such that every movie doesn't turn into it.

 

[amadeus]

While I oppose this in principle, I can't help but imagine how better off the movie-going experience would be for me if I didn't have to see a bunch of whiny little brats there.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

relevant stuff: the movie Thank You for Smoking was a classic that delved deep in the issue. Center to it was how people tend not to look at things rationally anymore, but rather based on their gut emotion.

However, you can't exactly deny that showing smoking in movies doesn't have an effect on societal views on smoking. It extends far beyond the little kids IMO. It shows smoking as socially acceptable. Normally I'm fine with that, but I'm a little more concerned about public health than I am about a censorship of free speech/expression.

I too don't believe that it should be completely banned. But there should be restrictions placed on it such that every movie doesn't turn into it.

So what? If you're going to buy that, Hollywood also portrays wanton murder, extreme sexual promiscuity, drug use, and drinking. Are you going to ban those as well?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many movies these days do not contain smoking at all. There's no goddamn need for "restrictions" to be placed on it.

Ever seen the movie Trainspotting? If that crap can be allowed, why the hell not smoking?

 

[amadeus]

I too don't believe that it should be completely banned. But there should be restrictions placed on it such that every movie doesn't turn into it.

Why don't we restrict fat actors from being on screen too?

You know, a lot of people used to like Chris Farley and Jackie Gleason; don't you think it'd be better for the health of the populace if obese performers weren't given a forum to be looked up to?

Heart disease kills more people in the United States than smoking does.

 

[Masquerouge]

Meh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/10/12/wsmok12.html

 

[Japanrocks12]

So what? If you're going to buy that, Hollywood also portrays wanton murder, extreme sexual promiscuity, drug use, and drinking. Are you going to ban those as well?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many movies these days do not contain smoking at all. There's no goddamn need for "restrictions" to be placed on it.

Ever seen the movie Trainspotting? If that crap can be allowed, why the hell not smoking?

I didn't say I wanted a ban. I just said that I didn't want every movie to include it.

 

[warpus]

So what? If you're going to buy that, Hollywood also portrays wanton murder, extreme sexual promiscuity, drug use, and drinking. Are you going to ban those as well?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many movies these days do not contain smoking at all. There's no goddamn need for "restrictions" to be placed on it.

Ever seen the movie Trainspotting? If that crap can be allowed, why the hell not smoking?

Heroin was an integral part of the story.. Most characters on TV who smoke.. smoke without it really contributing to the story. They're given cigarettes to appear "cool", or whatever.

 

[amadeus]

I didn't say I wanted a ban. I just said that I didn't want every movie to include it.

No, but what you did say was that you wanted a "restriction."

A restriction is just a ban with a quota.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Heroin was an integral part of the story.. Most characters on TV who smoke.. smoke without it really contributing to the story. They're given cigarettes to appear "cool", or whatever.

Trainspotting had no story. The whole plot was "let's get super high off heroin and to hell with working, responsibilities, etc."

But anyways, who cares? Tobacco is a legal substance, and movies are a form of art. You have absolutely no right to censor it. Even if it weren't legal, movies routinely show illegal or immoral acts and make them to look cool. Are you going to ban violence, sexuality, and drinking from movies as well? Hollywood makes those look "cool" or whatever.

 

[amadeus]

The disgusting irony here is that the governments of the U.S. and Canada, in addition to wanting to ban smoking at every turn, also subsidize tobacco farmers!

The government is paying someone to grow a product they doesn't want you to use, but at the same time, they still want you to buy it. They want you to buy cigarettes (so long as no profits go to evil big tobacco, because then the legislature has to take those funds away!) and then throw them out!

In short: WTH?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The disgusting irony here is that the governments of the U.S. and Canada, in addition to wanting to ban smoking at every turn, also subsidize tobacco farmers!

The government is paying someone to grow a product they doesn't want you to use, but at the same time, they still want you to buy it. They want you to buy cigarettes (so long as no profits go to evil big tobacco, because then the legislature has to take those funds away!) and then throw them out!

In short: WTH?

It's a sweet deal they have. They get to appease the anti-smoking zealots while still enjoying the massive tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco products. In Canada tobacco related diseases only cost around 3.1 billion dollars a year, while I've estimated (a very conservative number, it's probably higher than this) that over 18 billion is generated in revenue from the sale of tobacco products. In short, not only do we smokers pay for our own healthcare, we subsidize it for the rest of the country.

They should be building goddamn statues to tobacco corporations and users.

 

[warpus]

Trainspotting had no story. The whole plot was "let's get super high off heroin and to hell with working, responsibilities, etc."

But anyways, who cares? Tobacco is a legal substance, and movies are a form of art. You have absolutely no right to censor it. Even if it weren't legal, movies routinely show illegal or immoral acts and make them to look cool. Are you going to ban violence, sexuality, and drinking from movies as well? Hollywood makes those look "cool" or whatever.

I don't think it should be banned, and my point stands, your confusion regarding Trainspotting notwithstanding.

 

[MobBoss]

Dang it....another misleading thread title. And here I thought we were gonna line up three canadians we know and vote to see who the moron was....

Anyway, I was under the impression that the smoking ban ala hollywood was more or less self imposed...? Is that incorrect? (I cant read the ops link for some reason).

 

[LucyDuke]

It shows smoking as socially acceptable.

Smoking is socially acceptable. It may not be socially embraced, but it's certainly socially acceptable. Unlike, say, murder (which is treated very lightly in many movies).

 

[Japanrocks12]

To clarify: I'm opposed to a ban on principles of free speech and expression, but I don't believe that this should amount to a mandate of showing people smoking in every movie and as much as possible. Unless people are naturally inclined to feature it in moderation, which is also acceptable.

 

[Urederra]

Why don't we restrict fat actors from being on screen too?

You know, a lot of people used to like Chris Farley and Jackie Gleason; don't you think it'd be better for the health of the populace if obese performers weren't given a forum to be looked up to?

Heart disease kills more people in the United States than smoking does.

Chris Farley used to drink and consume drugs too...

Trainspotting had no story. The whole plot was "let's get super high off heroin and to hell with working, responsibilities, etc."

oh. man, Trainspotting is one of the best movies EVER. There is a lot more plot that getting super high.

I watched it like 5 times.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Just give all the movies at least an R rating if they feature smoking. Then there will be fewer kids at those movies. I wonder, is your status as a smoker or nonsmoker pretty much settled by age 18?

 

[dh_epic]

I think advertising is powerful. There's a reason companies shell out literally millions of dollars in product placement. I think a ban on certain kinds of product placement in movies would have an effect, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. What's next -- banning guns in movies? Banning extra-marital sex in movies? Where do you draw the line? It's not really workable. I doubt that a ban would be constitutional.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I watch movies for pure entertainment and in no way do I let hollywood guide and teach me.

Its unfortunate that people copy movies, maybe they should leave a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen that constantly says you are an idiot if you imitate the things you see in this movie.