Thread: Smoking in Films

Originally Posted by CaverD3

'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?

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.

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 . 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

Regards

Stevo

I never said it wasn't harmful. for the third time.
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.
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"

Originally Posted by CaverD3

I never said it wasn't harmful. for the third time.
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.
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.
This one is about stopping funding, not a ban

Originally Posted by stevo68

.... ..... ... 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.

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.

Originally Posted by CaverD3

..... ... ... ..
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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Can't argue with that.
I just can't visualize George Burns without his cigar- or Winston Churchill.