Thread: Smoking in Films

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

[quote=vnx205;761301]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.[/quote]

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

[quote=ladas;761315]

Originally Posted by 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.[/quote]

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.

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 ,

Regards

Stevo