Ban movies that glamorise smoking?

BeQuiet

Today the BBC report that a guy jumped on to the new "plinth" in London city centre (this is a well publicised art installation I suppose you could call it). His aim was to publicise a call to "ban smoking", and stop movies showing smokers.
Dont think he will make much headway with getting a ban on smoking - that's a step too far for most people. But maybe us Irish could start thinking about banning movies that show smokers. Its a major (if not THE major) way that the tobacco industry creates demand worldwide. You only have to watch a movie with Nic Cage, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sharon Stone or John Travolta dragging on a ciggie to realise whats really going on. Google "Smoking by famous actors " to find out more.

Anyway- the occasional political initiative here in our little country did start something globally (even though sometimes we may not give ourselves enough credit for this ) - like the plastic bag tax.
So why not stir things up a bit by banning any movie which shows people smoking . Sounds radical right? And the film industry and the civil liberties lot would freak!... but it would get people talking about this whole issue. And the bottom line is that this causes people to start smoking, and eventually suffer and die from it.
The film and tobacco industries are in bed together for years now on this, and have been getting away with it.
Really the only way to stop them is at the state regulation level ...

big b

most appropriate username ever ^

pablomakaveli

They were on about this on Sky News a week ago when a councillor in Liverpool propsedthis idea.

Definitely one of the most ridiculous proposals i ever heard.

toiletduck

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sounds radical right?

Sure does.

So why not stir things up a bit by banning any movie which shows people smoking .

Because such a move would be moronic? People smoke/have smoked in the past. Films reflect this, just like they do with a whole host of other (what some people would see as) objectionable actions.

Why not go back, do a Speilberg and digitally get rid of fags in all movies. I look forward to Casablanca where all the cigarettes are replaced with lollipops...

Riskymove

toiletduck wrote: »

Because such a move would be moronic? People smoke/have smoked in the past. Films reflect this, just like they do with a whole host of other (what some people would see as) objectionable actions.

"Glamorise" is the relevant word here though isn't it.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind a film that showed smoking if it was about people getting cancer from it!

WindSock

Some of the best scenes in films have smoking in it. What the fck about artistic licensing? Do they want to ban all illegal activities in films too? Bloody idiotic.

senordingdong

toiletduck wrote: »

Why not go back, do a Speilberg and digitally get rid of fags in all movies. I look forward to Casablanca where all the cigarettes are replaced with lollipops...

Yeah, especially in twenty years when all the fatties and diabetics are trying to blame the film industry.

toiletduck

Riskymove wrote: »

I'm sure they wouldn't mind a film that showed smoking if it was about people getting cancer from it!

Perhaps Breakfast at Tiffanys could have a new ending. It would fast forward thirty or so years later with Audrey Hepburn on her death bed from cancer sticks. On blu-ray to be sure.

"Glamorise" is the relevant word here though isn't it.

I suppose, but that's not what the OP is suggesting. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any movie that glamorises smoking on its own, and not part of a wider glamorisation of a lifestyle/minset of a character(s).

Liam Byrne

Last time I looked, smoking wasn't illegal.

But both killing people and speeding/street-racing in souped-up cars are.....maybe we should ban those first ?

BeQuiet

toiletduck wrote: »

Perhaps Breakfast at Tiffanys could have a new ending. It would fast forward thirty or so years later with Audrey Hepburn on her death bed from cancer sticks. On blu-ray to be sure.



I suppose, but that's not what the OP is suggesting. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any movie that glamorises smoking on its own, and not part of a wider glamorisation of a lifestyle/minset of a character(s).

The tobacco industry spend millions on glamorising smoking in movies, and your reaction that you can't think of any movies that glamorise smoking is just what they would luv to hear. There are many many that do so .... not "on its own" - that would be meaningless, but as part of a lifestyle, and that is exactly what they want .

August 2008- The National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a report that reaches the US government's strongest conclusion to date that tobacco marketing and depictions of smoking in movies promote youth smoking. "There is now incontrovertible evidence that marketing of tobacco, and the depiction of smoking in the movies, promote youth smoking and can cause young people to begin smoking," said Loken, professor of marketing at the Carlson School of Management and one of the report's five scientific editors.

BeQuiet

WindSock wrote: »

Some of the best scenes in films have smoking in it. What the fck about artistic licensing? Do they want to ban all illegal activities in films too? Bloody idiotic.

Well ...am not talking about changing existing movies .... yes that would be ridiculous. Its a matter of changing attitudes of film makers when making movies so that they are not so quick to take the tobacco $$$$ dollars.
And thats all fine to talk about artistic license, but the tobacco industry have no interest in art ... they are out to make money , and they know what works.

A press release in 2001 by UK organisation ASH : “Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight, but smoking in films may be an incubator nurturing teenage smoking, and therefore a gateway to a long term and powerful addiction ­ which ultimately causes terrible damage. While we don't want smoking in films banned,there is a good case to upgrade the age classification to 15 if the film features smoking by aspirational role models ­such as megastar young actors.”

Liam Byrne

Ah, good old ASH - the voice of impartiality and reason "Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight"....

er.....YES, and on second sight, and third sight, etc.

Maybe the 15 classification isn't a bad idea, but then we'd have to have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime....maybe even driving....you're supposed to be 16 before you do that too, and it also kills people!

Like I said, look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal FIRST.

Then, bang goes "Grand Theft Auto", "Fast & Furious", etc.....oh, hang on, the GAMING industry....

Its a major (if not THE major) way that the tobacco gaming / car industry creates demand worldwide.

BroomBurner

Well, you can't retrospectively ban films with cigarettes in them for a start.

As for current films, I think there are two types of characters that are allowed to smoke now - the bad guy and the anti-hero. I would be up for stopping the anti-hero from smoking, because that's the one young people would want to emulate. Whether a ban on any film that has an anti-hero as a smoker would be the way forward, I'm not sure.

What they could work on though was the "glamourising" part, but then I think there are plenty of films that don't glamourise it, whether that me tobacco, or any other type of plant.

Eh, I guess if I was to actually make a point, it would be personally, I've never been influenced by someone doing something in a fictional film, so I don't think the benfits would be big enough for it to work.

OP, no.

darcy.jonny

well we could also ban films with violance , sex, bad language pritty much everything thats socially unacceptable as thay are all " glammorised " going by the way of your thinking ..........

what will we end up with then ,,,,,,,,,,,, an entire movie catalogue consisting of disney and bollywood movies which would make any normal person want to light up a smoke and beat the crap out od someone

BeQuiet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, good old ASH - the voice of impartiality and reason "Smoking may seem less troubling than sex and violence at first sight"....

er.....YES, and on second sight, and third sight, etc.
....

ASH - your sarcasm is misplaced methinks - they are actually a voice of reason !
Or maybe u are a smoker ?

Smoking seems MORE troubling to me than sex or violence in movies ... not less..., and that's on first sight !
Nothing wrong with a bit of sex or violence -- its real life ... but smoking - wrong, unneccessary, and very often a subliminal attempt to get young people addicted.

Dr Galen

more nany state nonsense. another proposal to protect us from ourselves. for gods sake someone stop.


people are going to smoke for the forseeable future. banning it from films would make no discerible difference in that number.

i propose a ban on people telling me what i can and can't do/watch/see as a grown man unless it is directly hurting someone else

BeQuiet

BroomBurner wrote: »

Well, you can't retrospectively ban films with cigarettes in them for a start.

As for current films, I think there are two types of characters that are allowed to smoke now - the bad guy and the anti-hero. I would be up for stopping the anti-hero from smoking, because that's the one young people would want to emulate. Whether a ban on any film that has an anti-hero as a smoker would be the way forward, I'm not sure.

What they could work on though was the "glamourising" part, but then I think there are plenty of films that don't glamourise it, whether that me tobacco, or any other type of plant.

Eh, I guess if I was to actually make a point, it would be personally, I've never been influenced by someone doing something in a fictional film, so I don't think the benfits would be big enough for it to work.

Interesting ... but I think most of the effects of watching someone like Brad Pitt dragging on a ciggie as he looks cool are sub conscious ... esp for most peope who watch movies in a state of acceptance / or non-critically anyway... if u see what i mean ? Next time ur watching one like this think about it - it can really affect peoples readiness to try something new - young impressionable people too - the tobacco industry target market.

BeQuiet

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

more nany state nonsense. another proposal to protect us from ourselves. for gods sake someone stop.


people are going to smoke for the forseeable future. banning it from films would make no discerible difference in that number.

i propose a ban on people telling me what i can and can't do/watch/see as a grown man unless it is directly hurting someone else

Am totally anti the Nanny state myself.... but this is to protect young people / kids ... and whats the downside of it ? .. that we cannot watch actors smoking - so what ?

darcy.jonny

they only way to stop kids smoking is ban them completly


ive never seen any young person see someone smoking in a movie and say jesus ild love to go out and buy a pack and start a habbit .

if u must know what will affect kids more will be parents and family that smoke , friends that smoke ..... as long as there is a social acceptance of smoking it will always be a problem . and add to that a lot of people that smoke in films these days the carachter is going to die of cancer etc. its more anti smoking anyway

BeQuiet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Maybe the 15 classification isn't a bad idea, but then we'd have to have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime....maybe even driving....you're supposed to be 16 before you do that too, and it also kills people!

Like I said, look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal FIRST.

Then, bang goes "Grand Theft Auto", "Fast & Furious", etc.....oh, hang on, the GAMING industry....

Why would we have to "have the same rules for films that involve sex, drinking, guns, crime" etc ... thats a big jump in logic... we are talking about trying to limit film industry making an addictive and dangerous habit appear to be attractive to impressionable people. Watching someone like Leonardo DiCaprio dragging on a ciggie looking cool does exactly that. Watching him shoot someone just does not have that effect. Not on most people anyway!
Its a matter of human psychology - the tobacco industry know what works... thats why they spend so much on this.

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

BeQuiet

darcy.jonny wrote: »

they only way to stop kids smoking is ban them completly

ive never seen any young person see someone smoking in a movie and say jesus ild love to go out and buy a pack and start a habbit .

if u must know what will affect kids more will be parents and family that smoke , friends that smoke ..... as long as there is a social acceptance of smoking it will always be a problem . and add to that a lot of people that smoke in films these days the carachter is going to die of cancer etc. its more anti smoking anyway

Not at all ... think about it next time ur watching a movie, and see someone smoking in it ... its extremely rare that you see them being sick / dying later in teh film.... i would guess at less than 1% ...

BeQuiet

darcy.jonny wrote: »

well we could also ban films with violance , sex, bad language pritty much everything thats socially unacceptable as thay are all " glammorised " going by the way of your thinking ..........

what will we end up with then ,,,,,,,,,,,, an entire movie catalogue consisting of disney and bollywood movies which would make any normal person want to light up a smoke and beat the crap out od someone

Sex, violence and bad language - there is a strong argument for having these in films .... but not for watching people smoking

StopTheDrugWar!

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

With a little harm reduction you could dramatically reduce the ill effects of smoking without treading all over people's freedom.

Censorship is never the way forward.
Tell me, does the word slippery slope mean anything to you?

jaffa20

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sex, violence and bad language - there is a strong argument for having these in films .... but not for watching people smoking

What is that then

turgon

If anyone dies of cancer due to taking up smoking because it looks glamorous in film, then they have only one person to blame and thats themselves.

zing zong

OP

I cant believe you are actually serious, it would start a snowball that would effectively lead to CENSORSHIP of any little thing that people find unhealthy

the majority of films made today that are for kids, or have an age rating that would allow kids to view them dont have smoking in them, and its not unreasonable to compare it to drink, sex, violence etc, in films.

the fact you think it is WORSE for kids than any of these in films is laughable.
advertising smoking is banned, it is RARELY if at all shown on daytime TV, unless it is a scene in an older film(which kids wont watch anyway), there is an age limit to buying smokes, and to top it off it is down to the parents to make sure their kids dont take up smoking, and solely down to them, the same as with drinking etc

so instead of painting ALL parents as incompetent, or ALL kids stupid enough to take up smoking (yes believe it or not they ARE aware of the dangers, they have classes on this at school) please dont waste your time and do something constructive i.e., if you see, hear about, or smell smokes from your kid or young family member, GIVE EM A SMACK

ChocolateSauce

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

Mario007

turgon wrote: »

If anyone dies of cancer due to taking up smoking because it looks glamorous in film, then they have only one person to blame and thats themselves.

i agree, 100%!

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

yes exactly, and ban drinking in films, speedy cars, shooting, drugs etc...

i really dont see what some people have with smoking, there are far more serious issues out there...besides from a political point of view, we need smokers for our budgetary purposes, the state takes around 6.5 euro for each pack of cigarettes...thats a huge boost to the budget!

ChocolateSauce

Mario007 wrote: »

besides from a political point of view, we need smokers for our budgetary purposes, the state takes around 6.5 euro for each pack of cigarettes...thats a huge boost to the budget!

Smoking costs the HSE more money than the tax brings in, and that's not even including productivity lost due to ill health.

zing zong

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why not ban movies that glamourise sex too? And violence. Violence kills more people than smoking, and unlike smoking it's usually forced on the victims.

agreed

the thing is tho, that all of these things including smoking are in films that aren't intented for children to begin with, so if kids do manage to see 'em its the parents fault, and no one else

halkar

BeQuiet wrote: »

...... Watching someone like Leonardo DiCaprio dragging on a ciggie looking cool does exactly that. Watching him shoot someone just does not have that effect. Not on most people anyway!
Its a matter of human psychology - the tobacco industry know what works... thats why they spend so much on this....

Watching Tom Cruise jumping off an high rise was veeeeery cool but I do not see many trying to do the same
What's next? Drug barons and pimps spending on movies to promote drugs and sex?
I can not wait for the next WW2 or Vietnam movie after cigs banned. Soldiers with lolies

Liam Byrne

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

BECAUSE they're illegal.

I'm not suggesting that we ban films, btw; just saying that if we're going to have a nanny state that doesn't let anyone do or see anything "wrong", then the obvious targets are the illegal stuff.

Would you propose banning Heineken's sponsorship of the top rugby competition too ?

There are loads of films that I'd ban simply because they're ****e and a waste of space, but some people watch them - it's called choice.

And I'd prefer to be around the 100 people who took up smoking as a result of some film star making it glamourous than be around the 1 scumbag who took up robbery, violence and murder - or even brian-dead celeb culture and Jackass style pranks.....

Mario007

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Smoking costs the HSE more money than the tax brings in, and that's not even including productivity lost due to ill health.

i would disagree, that argument is used mostly by people who are strongly anti smoking. many countries have smaller taxes on cigarettes and still dont show signs of being in minus figures in respect to the cost of curing smoking associated illnesses. in fact some countries have even allocate some of this tax money for cancer research...

zing zong

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There are loads of films that I'd ban simply because they're ****e and a waste of space, but some people watch them - it's called choice.

And I'd prefer to be around the 100 people who took up smoking as a result of some film star making it glamourous than be around the 1 scumbag who took up robbery, violence and murder - or even brian-dead celeb culture and Jackass style pranks.....

HERE HERE!! :pac:

Boskowski

The ideas people come up with regards to smoking become more ridiculous every day. Why don't we ban films were people are drinking or eat fatty foods.

In another post you say you don't like the nanny state idea either, but yet you propose something that could only be regarded as a nazi nanny idea.

Can we please just get a grip on ourselves, because if this sh1t continues, in - say - a hundred years we might just propose to cocoon ourselves into some sort of manmade matrix where everybody is like Ned Flanders times ten.

Nodin

BeQuiet wrote: »

Today the BBC report that a guy jumped on to the new "plinth" in London city centre (......)level ...

Waste of time and effort which could have been used to highlight a decent cause or goal.

Nodin

BeQuiet wrote: »

Sure - we should look into banning films that glamorise things that are actually illegal - but why "FIRST" ...

emmmm....no.

nesf

This is more suited to AH. Seriously. Heaven forbid that art should imitate life.

nesf

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Smoking costs the HSE more money than the tax brings in, and that's not even including productivity lost due to ill health.

Doubtful actually. Smokers generally die younger from nasty but short lived diseases like lung cancer. Non-smokers live much longer and tend to die in a more drawn out fashion, essentially costing the State far more than smokers who tend not to live long into retirement. From a cynical statistical point of view, smokers do cost less in the long run than non-smokers, but that's only if you can bring yourself to view early death costing the Government less money as a good thing and this is before considering the tax revenue from cigarettes!

TriceMarie

If there's a character that would smoke,then to not be able to because of a ban would be stupid and jeopardise the reality of a scene.
Because the reality is,people do smoke...&all the other things we mightened like our kids doing.
Film reflects reality.
It's almost like saying also a scene with an alcholic shoudn't be having a drink.

If people wanna smoke,they're gonna!
And I think (hope) there is very few people out there that would stupid enough and so easily led as to take up smoking because they see people doing it in films...

Daftendirekt

It saddens me to see that there are people in this country so lacking in personal responsibility, that they'd actually call for a crackdown on something as fundamental as freedom of expression, in a misguided, pathetic, and futile attempt to 'save' people from their own decisions.




Utter bollocks.

FTA69

darcy.jonny wrote: »

they only way to stop kids smoking is ban them completly

Yeah. The way people stopped taking drugs when they were made illegal... :rolleyes:

BeQuiet

StopTheDrugWar! wrote: »

With a little harm reduction you could dramatically reduce the ill effects of smoking without treading all over people's freedom.

Censorship is never the way forward.
Tell me, does the word slippery slope mean anything to you?

Censorship is fine with me ... in fact we all live with it every day.

And "slippery slope" - that implies to me that you want to talk about something else, rather than the issue at hand. The proposal is banning / restricting movies that glamorise smoking - not anything else.
And restricting what can be shown in movies - I dont really see that as "treading all over people's freedom"- that reaction is just a little bit hysterical !

The FACTs are
-the tobacco industry uses films to promote their addictive habit.
- tobacco usage INCREASES every year (most usage increases are in 3rd world countries)

So - how do you think tobacco usage should be reduced ... the same old solutions .. that have not worked, and will continue to fail ?
.... thats what the tobacco biz wants to happen !

BeQuiet

Daftendirekt wrote: »

It saddens me to see that there are people in this country so lacking in personal responsibility, that they'd actually call for a crackdown on something as fundamental as freedom of expression, in a misguided, pathetic, and futile attempt to 'save' people from their own decisions.

Utter bollocks.

Nice phrasing !! Classy !


And a logic flaw - you think its "lacking in personal responsibility" to call for a discussion on banning / restricting what can be shown in movies to protect people from smoking ... can you see your error ?

BeQuiet

TriceMarie wrote: »

If people wanna smoke,they're gonna!
And I think (hope) there is very few people out there that would stupid enough and so easily led as to take up smoking because they see people doing it in films...

Yes there are - large numbers of them... they just dont realise the reasons they started smoking .... but subliminal advertising methods like showing glamorous attractive people smoking in movies is one of the main ways this is done.

BeQuiet

halkar wrote: »

1 Watching Tom Cruise jumping off an high rise was veeeeery cool but I do not see many trying to do the same
2 What's next? Drug barons and pimps spending on movies to promote drugs and sex?
3 I can not wait for the next WW2 or Vietnam movie after cigs banned. Soldiers with lolies

1 No - most people are sane - they dont commit suicide... although smoking is a form of (very slow) suicide i suppose

2 No - they cant as thats illegal ... duh

3 .. or why not just soldiers not smoking ? .... may not be 100% factual as most did smoke, but movies are very rarely completely true to life.

StopTheDrugWar!

BeQuiet wrote: »

So - how do you think tobacco usage should be reduced ... the same old solutions .. that have not worked, and will continue to fail ?
.... thats what the tobacco biz wants to happen !

Allow regular shops to sell smokeless nicotine products alongside tobacco. Do not give them a sin tax and strongly encourage people to switch to them, educating them on the massive health benifits such a switch would have.

The government seem to be scared of nicotine containing products, i don't see why. Atm you can only get them in a pharmacy, you are only allowed take them if you are trying to give up tobacco and some products are only available on prescription.

Some die-hards will keep up tobacco, but i get the impression that most smokers would eventually make the switch to a product that suits them as these products increase in popularity (more research needs to be done into providing a greater range of products). It would feel a bit weird not smoking at first, but after a day or two most people would get used to it.

humanji

BeQuiet wrote: »

3 .. or why not just soldiers not smoking ? .... may not be 100% factual as most did smoke, but movies are very rarely completely true to life.

That's one of the problems. You're sacrificing reality because of stupidity. I can't imagine many people smoking because they saw it in a movie. Hell, there's not many movies that have people smoking in them these days (continuity is a nightmare when filming people smoke). As was said above, those smoking are generally bad guys, or people who are not looked up to.

You shrug off the "slippery slope" that was mentioned, but you don't like cigarettes and want them banned. Others don't like alcohol. What's to stop them campaigning against that being in films? What about people who don't want violence to be shown? You start banning movies for silly little reasons like someoen smoking, and you're setting a precedent that anyone can jump on in order to get anything they've something against, banned.

Proper education about smoking is what should be done. Not limiting peoples freedom because others are too stupid to think for themselves.

PeakOutput

educate dont regulate its a simple idea that politicians and pro removal of freedom protesters seem to have a really hard time understanding

big b

BeQuiet wrote: »

The FACTs are
-the tobacco industry uses films to promote their addictive habit.
- tobacco usage INCREASES every year (most usage increases are in 3rd world countries)

So Hollywood's pretty big in 3rd world countries then?
How are the figures in Ireland/USA/UK etc. Number of smokers on the increase?
I'd be interested to see some proof of that.