Smoking in Films

[vnx205]

In another thread, the issue of smoking in movies has been raised.

In the hope of stimulating some healthy debate, I would like to say that I believe there is a problem and that something needs to be done.

What is the evidence that there is a problem?
I would hope that there is no-one who is going to deny that smoking kills, so hopefully we can take that as proven beyond all shadow of a doubt.

In a recent survey teenagers were asked what percentage of adults they believed were smokers. Something like three quarters of them said that over half of adults smoked.
The correct figure is 24%.

So why do so many young people think that the majority of adults smoke?
There is strong evidence that it is because movies show so many people smoking that young people believe it is the norm.

For those who doubt the ability of movies to give an impression about what is normal or socially acceptable, how do you explain the huge drop in the sale of singlets when Errol Flynn was seen in a movie removing his shirt and horror of horrors, he wasn't wearing a singlet.

I believe that movies contribute to the false impression that smokers are in the majority.

I do not believe that censorship is the answer.
There has been a call from some medical source recently for gov't funding to be withheld from movies that promote smoking.

This may be the answer.
It is not censorship. Directors will still be free to make movies that show people smoking. Audiences will still be free to watch movies in which characters smoke. They will not be censored.

Under the proposal, the only difference will be that public money will no longer be available to promote the idea that smoking is common and socially acceptable. No longer will gov't funds be used to promote an activity which adds enormously to the public health bill.

Private investors frequently make decisions to withhold funds from projects because of some problems they have with the politics or philosophy of the promoters. Why shouldn't the gov't and therefore we the public have the same right to deny funding to an activity that adds so much to the cost of public health?

Let those who think it is a good idea for young people to be led to believe that smoking is common and acceptable provide the funding for films where characters smoke.

[mike 90 RR]

Firstly .. I smoke

What i don't get is .. Why in todays age and all the opportunities available, would anyone want to Own or Invest in a cigarette company

& where do kids get the money to actually buy the product

[moose]

Now just stand back and wait for the inevitable comparison between smokers and drinkers. ;)
I'm a non smoker, my wife smokes and while it irritates me, I'm not pushing it on her to quit, firstly because it would be counter-productive and probably get me in the bad books, secondly because I drink and I'm not about to quit that.:D

[Rosco]

I may well be wrong, but it's my understanding the gov makes more out of tobacco taxes than it costs them in consequential health related issues .... go figure .. :angel::wasntme:

[hiline]

I may well be wrong, but it's my understanding the gov makes more out of tobacco taxes than it costs them in consequential health related issues .... go figure .. :angel::wasntme:

commonly known as the SIN taxes ;)

[ladas]

Devils advocate :o:D

Firstly I smoke like a chimney !!!!:(

So if smoking in films causes young people to smoke,

What does shooting people in films do

What does fornicating in films do;)

What does any other evil, dangerous, or illegal act in films do - be it simple speeding, using illegal drugs, murder, robbery etc., etc.,

Sorry but the theory just doesn't cut it with me

[FenianEel]

So....it'll receive gov't funding if it has bad language, car chases, jokes degrading women, racist remarks, punch ups, random meaningless sex scenes, graffiti of the local church, arson of the local school and armed robbery - but no smoking?

C'mon get real :wasntme:

p.s. I'm not a smoker and agree with current bans on smoking in public places etc.

[stevo68]

Devils advocate :o:D

Firstly I smoke like a chimney !!!!:(

So if smoking in films causes young people to smoke,

What does shooting people in films do

What does fornicating in films do;)

What does any other evil, dangerous, or illegal act in films do - be it simple speeding, using illegal drugs, murder, robbery etc., etc.,

Sorry but the theory just doesn't cut it with me Firstly I concur, secondly I am also trying to quit as well. I would also disagree with there being a huge amount of smoking in movies. I am a DVD addict and would say it is pretty rare to see someone smoking in a movie, in fact I actually notice it if someone is smoking.

To me its a bit like the whole supposed binge drinking epidemic amongst our youths........like derr. I remember at age 16/17 emptying out half a 2 litre coke bottle and topping it up with JD, or before a Mentals as Anything concert, my mates and I mixing Bacardi and coke in our mouths as we had no cups. Seriously....what has changed?

Could some people take up smoking because they saw it in a movie, most likely yes. Many may try, like a lot of people due to experimentation. Out of all my mates I grew up with, I'm the only one who smoked and smoking in movies back then ie 20+ yrs ago was a lot more prevalent as was the advertising of smoking. Good topic though :D,

Regards

Stevo

[Xavie]

But movies like Pulp Fiction would never become anything without a ciggie and a syringe. And if it wasn't for pulp fiction I would reclaim at least 24 hours of my life and possibly more in the future. Maybe it is how it is portrayed though. Like, when you watch Pulp Fiction it is put in to your mind that smoking is cool, it is sexy. And that's where the damage is.

The best one was Thank you for smoking and it did not have any one light up a ciggie- very impressive.

However- I do agree that smoking in certain areas is influencing kids badly but maybe we should just get parents to stop and then the kids won't take it up either. :wasntme:

Xav

[FenianEel]

If they still showed ads like this and the Malboro Man - I'm sure plenty more people would give up.
Hoges Winny ads would get everyone started again though :p


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/06/543.jpg

[vnx205]

Devils advocate :o:D

Firstly I smoke like a chimney !!!!:(

So if smoking in films causes young people to smoke,

What does shooting people in films do

What does fornicating in films do;)

What does any other evil, dangerous, or illegal act in films do - be it simple speeding, using illegal drugs, murder, robbery etc., etc.,

Sorry but the theory just doesn't cut it with me

There is actually evidence that regular exposure to all those things you mention encourages people to accept them. That may be why there are guidelines about how some of those things may be presented in movies. One example is that movies are not supposed to have someone commit murder and then escape justice by committing suicide.

Shooting people in movies is usually not shown as being normal behaviour or socially acceptable.

There is strong evidence that repeated exposure to violent video games tends to encourage those who already have a propensity to behave that way.

So the facts don't support your objection to the theory.

[vnx205]

Now just stand back and wait for the inevitable comparison between smokers and drinkers. ;)
I'm a non smoker, my wife smokes and while it irritates me, I'm not pushing it on her to quit, firstly because it would be counter-productive and probably get me in the bad books, secondly because I drink and I'm not about to quit that.:D
I suppose someone will bring up the comparison with drinking.
However it is not a valid comparison.
It is possible to drink responsibly with no adverse health effects.
There is no such thing as a safe level of smoking.
Every cigarette is doing you harm.

[vnx205]

So....it'll receive gov't funding if it has bad language, car chases, jokes degrading women, racist remarks, punch ups, random meaningless sex scenes, graffiti of the local church, arson of the local school and armed robbery - but no smoking?

C'mon get real :wasntme:

p.s. I'm not a smoker and agree with current bans on smoking in public places etc.
If someone provides convincing evidence that bad language in films is one of the biggest contributors to preventable health problems, I will start to campaign against that too.

I can only assume that you are unaware of the enormity of the problems caused by smoking.

[JDNSW]

So....it'll receive gov't funding if it has bad language, car chases, jokes degrading women, racist remarks, punch ups, random meaningless sex scenes, graffiti of the local church, arson of the local school and armed robbery - but no smoking?

C'mon get real :wasntme:

p.s. I'm not a smoker and agree with current bans on smoking in public places etc.

I agree entirely. Why single out smoking for a "ban"? (Actually there is a significant reason - it is the largest single cause of preventable death in Australia today)

If you want films to portray a realistic range of cultures, then some smoking is inevitable in them.

However, in spite of all, the level of smoking in Australian society is steadily decreasing - it is less than half what it was only twenty years ago.

While I do not want to support smoking in any way I think this sort of proposed censorship is ridiculous. A more sensible but very unlikely plan would be to simply put tobacco on the same legal footing as heroin, although that too would have its problems.

The biggest problem with smoking is that it seems to be so hard to stop. I remember my wife spent her last month in the respiratory ward at one of Australia's largest hospital. Most of the patients in the ward would not leave alive, and she was one of the minority who was not there as a direct result of smoking. And every nurse in the ward, without exception, admitted to being a heavy smoker who wanted to but was unable to quit! (although not on duty).

John

[vnx205]

But movies like Pulp Fiction would never become anything without a ciggie and a syringe. And if it wasn't for pulp fiction I would reclaim at least 24 hours of my life and possibly more in the future. Maybe it is how it is portrayed though. Like, when you watch Pulp Fiction it is put in to your mind that smoking is cool, it is sexy. And that's where the damage is.

The best one was Thank you for smoking and it did not have any one light up a ciggie- very impressive.

However- I do agree that smoking in certain areas is influencing kids badly but maybe we should just get parents to stop and then the kids won't take it up either. :wasntme:

Xav

Movies like "Pulp Fiction" will still be made. It's just that they will be made without gov't funding.

I thought "Thank You for Smoking " was a great movie.:D

[vnx205]

I agree entirely. Why single out smoking for a "ban"? (Actually there is a significant reason - it is the largest single cause of preventable death in Australia today)

If you want films to portray a realistic range of cultures, then some smoking is inevitable in them.

However, in spite of all, the level of smoking in Australian society is steadily decreasing - it is less than half what it was only twenty years ago.

While I do not want to support smoking in any way I think this sort of proposed censorship is ridiculous. A more sensible but very unlikely plan would be to simply put tobacco on the same legal footing as heroin, although that too would have its problems.

The biggest problem with smoking is that it seems to be so hard to stop. I remember my wife spent her last month in the respiratory ward at one of Australia's largest hospital. Most of the patients in the ward would not leave alive, and she was one of the minority who was not there as a direct result of smoking. And every nurse in the ward, without exception, admitted to being a heavy smoker who wanted to but was unable to quit! (although not on duty).

John
I am not talking about censorship.
I think there is a difference between calling for a ban on smoking in movies and calling for an end to gov't funding for such films.

[ladas]

There is actually evidence that regular exposure to all those things you mention encourages people to accept them. That may be why there are guidelines about how some of those things may be presented in movies. One example is that movies are not supposed to have someone commit murder and then escape justice by committing suicide.

Shooting people in movies is usually not shown as being normal behaviour or socially acceptable.

There is strong evidence that repeated exposure to violent video games tends to encourage those who already have a propensity to behave that way.

So the fact don't support your objection to the theory.

No you misunderstood my point -

My point is should we then ban all these unsavory acts from films

If you agree that watching all these other antisocial bahavioral this also causes the youth of today to 'stray from the straight and narrow' -

Then we must ban any film - with almost anything in it -

People who have a perpensity to violence could be influenced by film/tv, so could a latent rapist or a apprentice shoplifter..........

My point is - no we can't do it - so why just pick on the one thing - smoking - in my view (but of course I am biased) smoking is a lesser evil than some other things shown on films

...............unless of course you support the totalitarian state

[vnx205]

There is actually evidence that regular exposure to all those things you mention encourages people to accept them. That may be why there are guidelines about how some of those things may be presented in movies. One example is that movies are not supposed to have someone commit murder and then escape justice by committing suicide.

Shooting people in movies is usually not shown as being normal behaviour or socially acceptable.

There is strong evidence that repeated exposure to violent video games tends to encourage those who already have a propensity to behave that way.
I don't want to ban anything. (At least not at the moment.)
So the fact don't support your objection to the theory.

No you misunderstood my point -

My point is should we then ban all these unsavory acts from films

If you agree that watching all these other antisocial bahavioral this also causes the youth of today to 'stray from the straight and narrow' -

Then we must ban any film - with almost anything in it -

People who have a perpensity to violence could be influenced by film/tv, so could a latent rapist or a apprentice shoplifter..........

My point is - no we can't do it - so why just pick on the one thing - smoking - in my view (but of course I am biased) smoking is a lesser evil than some other things shown on films

...............unless of course you support the totalitarian state

I was trying to make the point that the things you listed are usually not shown as being common or socially acceptable, or at least not acceptable in certain situations.
The point is that smoking is made to look common, normal and quite acceptable.
Surely that is an important difference.

I have tried to make the point a few times that I don't think censorship is a good idea and that I don't see this as censorship.

[stevo68]

There is actually evidence that regular exposure to all those things you mention encourages people to accept them. That may be why there are guidelines about how some of those things may be presented in movies. One example is that movies are not supposed to have someone commit murder and then escape justice by committing suicide.

Shooting people in movies is usually not shown as being normal behaviour or socially acceptable.

There is strong evidence that repeated exposure to violent video games tends to encourage those who already have a propensity to behave that way.

So the facts don't support your objection to the theory.Hmm have to disagree there (bolded parts), if we are talking say movies...even dvds, how often would the average person watch them, even more so with smoking in it? If anything regular exposure would be day in day out for the average person, not through movies and DVDs.

I like to watch action movies, there tends to be plenty of shooting and it is shown as normal. Cop blowing away the baddie, war movie, your side obliterating the opposition. Revenge..think The Crow ie obviously socially acceptable...otherwise wouldnt be in the movie. Your highly unlikely to find x rated type material in your average movie.

So despite that I have repeated exposure to all sorts of manner in movies, dvds and TV, I am yet to arm up and go get me some :twisted:,

Regards

Stevo

[DustyDisco]

I used to smoke, funny, but I quit while watching a movie,made the decision in my chair, walked out of the cinema and have never smoked since.

They did smoke in that movie, they all looked cool doing it, I was finding it hard to breathe and decided to quit.

So please, please don't rob me of living vicariously through my on screen hero, as he draws back on a marlboro after getting the girl and the money and racing away in a hummer.

Otherwise, he may end up with his boyfriend, sucking on a lolipop and racing away in a prius.... and that just wouldn't be fair...it might even start me smoking again.

[Panda]

I agree with Stevo on this one, it is incredibly rare to see someone smoking on TV or in movies these days, & as Stevo says, when you actually do see someone smoking, you notice. I do however seriously doubt it would make a blind bit of difference as to people actually starting to smoke because they see somebody on TV doing it.


Firstly I concur, secondly I am also trying to quit as well. I would also disagree with there being a huge amount of smoking in movies. I am a DVD addict and would say it is pretty rare to see someone smoking in a movie, in fact I actually notice it if someone is smoking.

To me its a bit like the whole supposed binge drinking epidemic amongst our youths........like derr. I remember at age 16/17 emptying out half a 2 litre coke bottle and topping it up with JD, or before a Mentals as Anything concert, my mates and I mixing Bacardi and coke in our mouths as we had no cups. Seriously....what has changed?

Could some people take up smoking because they saw it in a movie, most likely yes. Many may try, like a lot of people due to experimentation. Out of all my mates I grew up with, I'm the only one who smoked and smoking in movies back then ie 20+ yrs ago was a lot more prevalent as was the advertising of smoking. Good topic though :D,

Regards

Stevo

[LandyAndy]

Did you know.
Under Worksafe laws smoking is illegal in ALL workplaces.
There is only 1 exception,and that is for actors whilst on the set only,TRUE STORY!!!!
Andrew

[rangieman]

Devils advocate :o:D

Firstly I smoke like a chimney !!!!:(

So if smoking in films causes young people to smoke,

What does shooting people in films do

What does fornicating in films do;)

What does any other evil, dangerous, or illegal act in films do - be it simple speeding, using illegal drugs, murder, robbery etc., etc.,

Sorry but the theory just doesn't cut it with me
x 10 :BigThumb:

[stevo68]

I may be wrong but...

I think you'll find that Aust films and TV shows rarely show smoking anymore as compared to same shows back in the 60's & 70's
Pommy TV and movies have not quite caught up with Aust standards. I think more Poms still smoke and the anti-smoking laws over there are not as strict, so in Pommie TV you see more smoking

so....just watch Aust shows
OK...so you'll miss the best TV shows ever...but...what the heck :D


and...good on anyone who gives up smoking
You increase survival by a huge %. Guess that's cold comfort if you don't fancy living to a ripe old age Grumpy Old Men..UK Show.. which for some reason I am relating to more and more as the days go by :D, very often features the "subjects" smoking whilst conversing with the narrator,

Regards

Stevo

[JDNSW]

I am not talking about censorship.
I think there is a difference between calling for a ban on smoking in movies and calling for an end to gov't funding for such films.

Yes there is a difference, but it is a difference in degree, not character - it is using a government's powers (in this case money) to affect the content of films.

For that matter, I've never really been too happy about government (my) money subsidising films anyway, but that is not the question under discussion.

John

[vnx205]

Yes there is a difference, but it is a difference in degree, not character - it is using a government's powers (in this case money) to affect the content of films.

For that matter, I've never really been too happy about government (my) money subsidising films anyway, but that is not the question under discussion.

John
I don't accept your first point about the content of films being affected. Those films, or at least the more commercial ones, will still be made. I have acknowledged that all along.

The Fed Gov has a role to play in public health through education programs designed to discourage unhealthy behaviour.

Would some one please explain to me why it makes sense for the gov't on the one hand to be spending money discouraging people from smoking and on the other hand providing money for films which give a false impression about how common and socially acceptable smoking is.
Does it make sense for the govt to provide funds to encourage as well as discourage smoking?

Perhaps someone could also provide a reasonable alternative explanation for why so many young people believe that the majority of adults smoke when the real figure is 24%.
I have suggested that films have helped create that impression. I am willing to listen to other sensible explanations for that common misconception.

[vnx205]

I may be wrong but...

I think you'll find that Aust films and TV shows rarely show smoking anymore as compared to same shows back in the 60's & 70's
Pommy TV and movies have not quite caught up with Aust standards. I think more Poms still smoke and the anti-smoking laws over there are not as strict, so in Pommie TV you see more smoking
.....
...
...

You may be right. I was under the impression that some Australian groups, including some medical bodies were concerned that the prevalence of smoking in films was on the increase again.
They may be wrong.
And so might I.

Which leads me to another point.
Someone (on TV, not on this forum) tried to argue that taking the smoking out of films would be as unrealistic as taking the rough language out of a pub scene.
Surely there are now few enclosed public places where smoking in permitted.
So a film set in Aus in 2008 could easily have a lot of scenes where it would be unrealistic to have the characters smoking.

[Panda]

Would some one please explain to me why it makes sense for the gov't on the one hand to be spending money discouraging people from smoking and on the other hand providing money for films which give a false impression about how common and socially acceptable smoking is.
Does it make sense for the govt to provide funds to encourage as well as discourage smoking?


What movies are we talking about? For the life of me, I can't think of one Australian film that portrays people smoking (other than way, way back before smoking in movies/tv became an issue). Maybe I don't watch enough Australian movies!:(

[Xavie]

Movies like "Pulp Fiction" will still be made. It's just that they will be made without gov't funding.

I thought "Thank You for Smoking " was a great movie.:D

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said in your first post and re-read it... my mistake.

Xav

[vnx205]

The answers to some people's questions and objections can be found here:
The NSW Public Health Bulletin May-June 2004: Promoting tobacco to the young in the age of advertising bans (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2004/mayjune04html/article7p104.htm)
Film is arguably the most influential medium among the young. There is strong evidence that seeing smoking in film encourages children to smoke. One study found that non-smoking teenagers whose favourite film stars smoked on screen are up to 16 times more likely to view smoking favourably.

... and here:
ASH Australia media release: Oscars tobacco 2004 movie smoking films (http://www.ashaust.org.au/mediareleases/mr_20040228.htm)

A study published this month in the American Journal of Public Health* shows the incidence of smoking scenes in randomly-selected movies, after falling in the early 80s, had risen again since the 1990s to levels observed in 1950 – when smoking rates were twice as high.

... and here:
The Cancer Council New South Wales :: Reeling Them In - Smoking in movies (http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=717)

Out of the top ten non-animated movies at the Australian box-office in 2006 , seven contained smoking.


I will leave you to read them if you are interested.

If you google "smoking in films" on Australian sites, you will find several others.

NB. Some of these sites are advocating a ban.
I am not.
I am just suggesting that the gov't stops spending money on promoting smoking at the same time as it spends money aimed at discouraging people.

[Staminus]

I have to say I'm a bit silly like this, when I see people drinking in a movie I'm always tempted to have a beer or 2. :D:D

Not sure if it is applicable to smoking for some people but I guess it could be. :D

[stevo68]

The answers to some people's questions and objections can be found here:
The NSW Public Health Bulletin May-June 2004: Promoting tobacco to the young in the age of advertising bans (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2004/mayjune04html/article7p104.htm)
Film is arguably the most influential medium among the young. There is strong evidence that seeing smoking in film encourages children to smoke. One study found that non-smoking teenagers whose favourite film stars smoked on screen are up to 16 times more likely to view smoking favourably.

... and here:
ASH Australia media release: Oscars tobacco 2004 movie smoking films (http://www.ashaust.org.au/mediareleases/mr_20040228.htm)

A study published this month in the American Journal of Public Health* shows the incidence of smoking scenes in randomly-selected movies, after falling in the early 80s, had risen again since the 1990s to levels observed in 1950 – when smoking rates were twice as high.

... and here:
The Cancer Council New South Wales :: Reeling Them In - Smoking in movies (http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=717)

Out of the top ten non-animated movies at the Australian box-office in 2006 , seven contained smoking.


I will leave you to read them if you are interested.

If you google "smoking in films" on Australian sites, you will find several others.

NB. Some of these sites are advocating a ban.
I am not.
I am just suggesting that the gov't stops spending money on promoting smoking at the same time as it spends money aimed at discouraging people. Some interesting stuff in those links, however wherever smoking is......it is normal.........its not illegal.......people know the risks. If you saw somebody shooting up on your way to work, it would make you stop in your tracks..so to speak. To see someone light up a smoke is a bit like watching a car drive past.

Lets just say that it was banned in the handful if that of Aust movies, what about the predominant overseas industry?

Regards

Stevo

[vnx205]

Some interesting stuff in those links, however wherever smoking is......it is normal.........its not illegal.......people know the risks. If you saw somebody shooting up on your way to work, it would make you stop in your tracks..so to speak. To see someone light up a smoke is a bit like watching a car drive past.

Lets just say that it was banned in the handful if that of Aust movies, what about the predominant overseas industry?

Regards

Stevo
That's right, and that is why it is not relevant to compare it with shooting people and other illegal activities in films that some people have mentioned.

I have not advocated a ban.
I have just suggested that the government should stop providing funds for something which appears to encourage young people to begin smoking.

[stevo68]

That's right, and that is why it is not relevant to compare it with shooting people and other illegal activities in films that some people have mentioned.

I have not advocated a ban.
I have just suggested that the government should stop providing funds for something which appears to encourage young people to begin smoking. Funds for what though? The very few Australian movies that they may provide funding for, where there maybe a couple of minutes all up in a 2hr movie of somebody having a legal smoke. The same ciggies that the govt makes a $$ out of? I'm not saying I disagree, but I cannot see what result it would have. Lets say for arguments sake that they did stop providing funds to Aust movies as that seems to be your target. Who's to say that the film makers don't source funds from elsewhere. Problem is not solved.

Also, where does self responsibility fall? When I was 16 odd, it was my choice to pick up a ciggie and smoke. It wasn't cool because of a movie, it was cool because I wasnt allowed to do it....just like drinking some booze. As stated before, I'm trying to quit at the moment, probably why I am a bit tetchy of late. This is my 4th attempt in 24mths, whose fault is that....mine and mine alone. Fast food is prevalent in many movies, obesity is becoming a major problem in many countries, it also is not illegal. Is a "teen" who becomes a fatty boomba, become that way due to a movie or because they see it in day to day life. A teen will see far more smoking in day to day life than they ever would in a movie. I would also be interested to know of these Aust smoking movies, I watch a lot of movies, Rogue for one the other day....not one ciggie in the movie.

Regards

Stevo

[CaverD3]

I thought "Thank You for Smoking " was a great movie.:D

I guess you thought "An Inconvenient Truth" was a good movie too.
Both movies were made in peddle a particular moral point. A marketing exercise if you like.

'Smoking kills" easy to say but not true. Smoking may kill, or smoking is likely to lead to an earlier death would be true.
'One cigarette is too many': Wood smoke puts out more carcingens than tobacco, how many camp fires have you sat around?
I am not saying it is good for you but bans reduce our freedom, the majority think smoking is wrong and some pressure groups want it banned.
The same is true of 4WDrives.:(
And there are some health pressure groups wanting a ban on alcahol, because one drink is doing you harm.:angel:
I do not smoke but have socially smoked in the past. If smoking kills I should die of a smoking related illness....................I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[vnx205]

I guess you thought "An Inconvenient Truth" was a good movie too.
Yes I did. Not because just assumed that it was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but because I believed it did a good job of making a lot of people look more seriously at the issue.
Actually I don't really see it as a good movie. It doesn't really have a lot of cinematic qualities. I think of it as a good message.


Both movies were made in peddle a particular moral point. A marketing exercise if you like.
Of course, but a lot of other excellent movies also promote a particular moral point. "Dr Strangelove or how.... .... " springs to mind as a recent example.


'Smoking kills" easy to say but not true. Smoking may kill, or smoking is likely to lead to an earlier death would be true.
'One cigarette is too many': Wood smoke puts out more carcingens than tobacco, how many camp fires have you sat around?
I am not saying it is good for you but bans reduce our freedom, the majority think smoking is wrong and some pressure groups want it banned.
I agree. bans reduce our freedoms. That is probably why I am not advocating a ban.
If the gov't spent taxpayers money giving people the impression that it was a good idea to breathe in campfire smoke and at the same time spent money telling people that campfire smoke was a health hazard, I would probably find that a bit odd too.

The same is true of 4WDrives.:(
And there are some health pressure groups wanting a ban on alcahol, because one drink is doing you harm.:angel:
I do not smoke but have socially smoked in the past. If smoking kills I should die of a smoking related illness....................I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Surely you are not claiming that there is no health risk associated with smoking just because you smoke and are still alive!
I had a great uncle who was part of the Gallipoli landing and he lived to be almost 90. Does that prove that there was no risk associated with being part on the Gallipoli offensive? Of course not. No more than your being alive proves that smoking is safe.

[CaverD3]

Never said it was not bad for you:


'Smoking kills" easy to say but not true. Smoking may kill, or smoking is likely to lead to an earlier death would be true.
'One cigarette is too many': Wood smoke puts out more carcingens than tobacco, how many camp fires have you sat around?
I am not saying it is good

Just some general statements about smoking are an exageration.
I think all is relative and there is only one thing guaranteed to lead to death...............................being born.:D

[vnx205]

Funds for what though? The very few Australian movies that they may provide funding for, where there maybe a couple of minutes all up in a 2hr movie of somebody having a legal smoke. The same ciggies that the govt makes a $$ out of? I'm not saying I disagree, but I cannot see what result it would have. Lets say for arguments sake that they did stop providing funds to Aust movies as that seems to be your target. Who's to say that the film makers don't source funds from elsewhere. Problem is not solved.

Also, where does self responsibility fall? When I was 16 odd, it was my choice to pick up a ciggie and smoke. It wasn't cool because of a movie, it was cool because I wasnt allowed to do it....just like drinking some booze. As stated before, I'm trying to quit at the moment, probably why I am a bit tetchy of late. This is my 4th attempt in 24mths, whose fault is that....mine and mine alone. Fast food is prevalent in many movies, obesity is becoming a major problem in many countries, it also is not illegal. Is a "teen" who becomes a fatty boomba, become that way due to a movie or because they see it in day to day life. A teen will see far more smoking in day to day life than they ever would in a movie. I would also be interested to know of these Aust smoking movies, I watch a lot of movies, Rogue for one the other day....not one ciggie in the movie.

Regards

Stevo
I hope I don't appear argumentative in responding to your points.
I read your post as a series of considered comments and genuine questions, so I will try to reply in the same vein.

I think I agree with pretty much everything you say about other influences and taking responsibility for your own decisions.
I also agree with your comment that film makers will source other funds. I said something like that in the first post and have repeated it a couple of time since.

However that does not mean there is no point in cutting gov't fund to those films.

Sometimes it is worth doing something because it draws attention to the issue, like Earth Hour or whatever it was called when people turned off their lights for a while. The energy saved was minuscule, but it did raise awareness of the issue.

The publicity which I assume would accompany such a withdrawal of funds (not a ban) might even do more than the current health campaign to raise the public's awareness of the issue of tobacco companies trying to make smoking seem attractive to young people. After all they are desperate to get new customers; all their old ones are dropping dead.:p

Surely it would also make it easier for the gov't to appear serious about encouraging people to avoid smoking.

I think your point about seeing more smoking in real life than in movies is debatable. How else do you explain the enormous discrepancy between the actual % of smokers (24%) and the belief of young people that the majority of adult smoke.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that seeing your favourite actor smoke has a greater impact than seeing you neighbour smoke.

My suggestion (Actually it is not my suggestion. it came from some medical body like the AMA) will not solve the problem.
It will not keep smoking out of movies.
It will not stop every teenager from taking up the habit.
However given the enormous cost of smoking, surely even a small step in the right direction is worth taking.
It would also eliminate the current situation where gov't funds are used for contradictory purposes.

[vnx205]

Never said it was not bad for you:


Just some general statements about smoking are an exaggeration.
I think all is relative and there is only one thing guaranteed to lead to deat...............................being born.:D
Which ones?

[CaverD3]

Read my prevoius post again.
"Smoking Kills" and "one cigarette is too many"

[vnx205]

Read my prevoius post again.
"Smoking Kills" and "one cigarette is too many"
Apart from the fact that you seem to want to interpret the first one as "Every single person who smokes even one cigarette will drop dead on the spot", why do you think those two are exaggerations?
Your previous post didn't convince me because it doesn't fit the results I have seen of medical research.
Being shot or run over by a car also kills but that does not mean no-one ever survives them.

[vnx205]

'One cigarette is too many': Wood smoke puts out more carcingens than tobacco, how many camp fires have you sat around?
Re-reading you post has made me even less convinced.
How is the harm done by campfire smoke proof that a cigarette is not harmful?

[stevo68]

I hope I don't appear argumentative in responding to your points.
I read your post as a series of considered comments and genuine questions, so I will try to reply in the same vein.

I think I agree with pretty much everything you say about other influences and taking responsibility for your own decisions.
I also agree with your comment that film makers will source other funds. I said something like that in the first post and have repeated it a couple of time since.

However that does not mean there is no point in cutting gov't fund to those films.

Sometimes it is worth doing something because it draws attention to the issue, like Earth Hour or whatever it was called when people turned off their lights for a while. The energy saved was minuscule, but it did raise awareness of the issue.

The publicity which I assume would accompany such a withdrawal of funds (not a ban) might even do more than the current health campaign to raise the public's awareness of the issue of tobacco companies trying to make smoking seem attractive to young people. After all they are desperate to get new customers; all their old ones are dropping dead.:p

Surely it would also make it easier for the gov't to appear serious about encouraging people to avoid smoking.

I think your point about seeing more smoking in real life than in movies is debatable. How else do you explain the enormous discrepancy between the actual % of smokers (24%) and the belief of young people that the majority of adult smoke.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that seeing your favourite actor smoke has a greater impact than seeing you neighbour smoke.

My suggestion (Actually it is not my suggestion. it came from some medical body like the AMA) will not solve the problem.
It will not keep smoking out of movies.
It will not stop every teenager from taking up the habit.
However given the enormous cost of smoking, surely even a small step in the right direction is worth taking.
It would also eliminate the current situation where gov't funds are used for contradictory purposes.Nope not argumentative at all, I would be in agreeance with the majority of what you are saying but also noting the unfortunate pointlessness of it all as well. As for the stats, how many young people were interviewed, what area's ie can't remember where I heard it, but the general thinking is that smoking is highest amongst the poor, the black and the stupid........Im in the 3rd category :angel:. Mind you, overall smoking has reduced in the circles I am in, where once there were quite a few, now I tend to be one of 2 at the most, hmmm time for a ciggie :o

Regards

Stevo

[CaverD3]

I never said it wasn't harmful. for the third time.:confused:
I am not using wood smoke to say smoking tobacco is good for you just that tobacco is not the only thing you can harm you. W do not see a call for ban on campfires incase someone inhales the smoke.
We were sitting around fire one of those still nights with the smoke moving round the circle to everyone, all had watering eyes. Then someone li a cigarette and you should have heard the abuse he copped from an ex smoker.:o
Let's no get hysterical over smoking, if folks wish to do something that is risky and they know it, that is their affair. I think this goes for many activities including 4WDriving. Do it it a way that does not put others at risk, that's common sense and good manners.
"Smoking Kills" is an easy catch cry, you may mean: 'It may kill you' but it is often used to imply "if you smoke you will die from it" hense the "one cigarettte is too many" it ain't necessarily so.:)
Lets have a big advertising campagn "Bee stings kill"

[vnx205]

I never said it wasn't harmful. for the third time.:confused:
I am not using wood smoke to say smoking tobacco is good for you just that tobacco is not the only thing you can harm you. W do not see a call for ban on campfires incase someone inhales the smoke.
We were sitting around fire one of those still nights with the smoke moving round the circle to everyone, all had watering eyes. Then someone li a cigarette and you should have heard the abuse he copped from an ex smoker.:o
Let's no get hysterical over smoking, if folks wish to do something that is risky and they know it, that is their affair. I think this goes for many activities including 4WDriving. Do it it a way that does not put others at risk, that's common sense and good manners.
"Smoking Kills" is an easy catch cry, you may mean: 'It may kill you' but it is often used to imply "if you smoke you will die from it" hense the "one cigarettte is too many" it ain't necessarily so.:)
Lets have a big advertising campagn "Bee stings kill"

Why is (almost) everyone else talking about a ban.
I'm not.
If you want to talk about a ban, start your own thread.:p
This one is about stopping funding, not a ban

[vnx205]

.... ..... ... I can't remember where I heard it, but the general thinking is that smoking is highest amongst the poor, the black and the stupid........

Regards

Stevo
I'm sure you're right and I'm also pretty sure that the tobacco companies are deliberately targeting those people because better educated people are either quitting or not taking up the habit.

I believe that they are making an enormous effort to build their market in third world countries, and that they are having a lot of success there.

[CaverD3]

Fair comment we are getting off the topic that started this.:)

I wil say that i think there is a difference between gratuitous smoking in movies (and plays for that matter) and even worse deliberate placement of cigarettes possibly for payment and smoking for artistic and historical accuracy. To sanise the past i do not think is a good move, not funding a movie because it has smoking in it's correct historical context would not be a good way to go.
I saw an ad for a finance company selling retirement products using George Burns image, they had photoshoped out the cigar. If they want to use the image of George Burns who was afamous a cigar smoker, fine if they didn't like the image of him smoking they shouldn't use it.
So if someone made a film of the life of Whiston Chirchill and he was never shown with a cigar it would be less than honest.
Context is difficult to regulate.

[vnx205]

..... ... ... ..
Let's no get hysterical over smoking, if folks wish to do something that is risky and they know it, that is their affair. I think this goes for many activities including 4WDriving.... .. ... ..

I'm not sure how far I can take this particular point, but I'll have ago anyway.:p

I don't think it is as simple as saying that everyone should be free to take risks and that it is their affair.
Sometimes the community has to bear the cost of the individual's decision, so then it becomes my affair and yours too.
I believe that the marine authorities tried very hard to persuade Andrew McAuley not to set out for NZ alone in a kayak and were only prepared to let him attempt the Tasman crossing after he had convinced them that he was well prepared.
That seems reasonable to me. I don't think it makes sense to argue that someone with no kayaking experience should be allowed to set off to cross the Pacific just because they seem to know the risk they are taking.
Surely that is the implication of your statement, "if folks wish to do something that is risky and they know it, that is their affair".

As far as other risky activities like mountain climbing or motorcycle racing or 4WDing go, if any one of them ever becomes the biggest single cause of preventable heath problems, then I (and I suspect a lot of others) will speak out against them too.

I think some people are being a bit dismissive about the extent of the dangers of smoking and the cost to the community.
None of the other risky activities that people have mentioned even come close.

[vnx205]

Fair comment we are getting off the topic that started this.:)

I wil say that i think there is a difference between gratuitous smoking in movies (and plays for that matter) and even worse deliberate placement of cigarettes possibly for payment and smoking for artistic and historical accuracy. To sanise the past i do not think is a good move, not funding a movie because it has smoking in it's correct historical context would not be a good way to go.
I saw an ad for a finance company selling retirement products using George Burns image, they had photoshoped out the cigar. If they want to use the image of George Burns who was afamous a cigar smoker, fine if they didn't like the image of him smoking they shouldn't use it.
So if someone made a film of the life of Whiston Chirchill and he was never shown with a cigar it would be less than honest.
Context is difficult to regulate.
Can't argue with that.
I just can't visualize George Burns without his cigar- or Winston Churchill.

[vnx205]

Thanks NM.
Maybe this one would have worried some people more.:p

Smoking Can Lead to Erectile Dysfunction (http://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/news/20030307/smoking-can-lead-to-erectile-dysfunction)
Men who smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily had a 60% higher risk of erectile dysfunction, compared to men who never smoked.
15% of the past and present smokers had experienced erectile dysfunction.
Men who currently - and formerly -- smoked were about 30% more likely to suffer from impotence.
Among men who had never smoked, 12% had erection problems.

[vnx205]

Considering everything is affected by something else in the human body, one (ie me) wonders how much of the 60% of erectile dysfunction in smokers is linked to prostate cancer. And of course there is also the urinary incontinence...that alone would scare the socks of a bloke (having to wear a nappy that is :D ) women tend to take that as a given for themselves :D
I have the impression that the smokers who were not convinced earlier that smoking was such a serious problem that any step that might reduce it is worth considering, have suddenly gone a bit quiet since your couple of frightening posts.:D

On the other hand they might have just briefly popped outside for a quick fag.:p