Researcher: R rating for movie smoking?

artman @_@artman @_@
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
smoke 'em if you got 'em...



"The study was funded by the charitable foundation The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the National Cancer Institute.



Glantz singled out The Walt Disney Co. for smoking in the PG-rated "Holes" and G-rated "102 Dalmatians," Time Warner for its PG "Secondhand Lions" and "What a Girl Wants" and Sony Pictures Entertainment for its PG "Master of Disguise."



Ugh, Why don't you rate every ****ing film made between 1910 - 2004 with an R rating and get it over with asshole.



Better yet...use those brain cells to topple tobacco companies instead. Loser.



Smoking? How about drinking? To baffled to continue...



Lights a godammn cigarette





Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    First thought: "Oh for *god's sake*, c'mon..."



    Second thought: "Well, it does put it on the same footing as other drug use, and the rational there is that 'it protects the children'"



    So yeah, I'm behind this, if for no other reason than to show the hypocrisy of the current double standard.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    seems very stupid to me. in part, because i am a smoker. but also because they mention an exemption for historical smokers (like churchill). shouldn't kids be looking up to such figures more so than random fictional characters? i mean, images of churchill didn't themselves convince me to smoke cigars, but if they are purporting that such imagery does have an effect, and they restrict smoking in accessible movies to only respectible historical figures, than kids may be more likely to smoke [assuming we believe that kids are affected by this imagery]. "i wanna be cool like wyatt earp. what? its dangerous and illegal to shoot people? ok, i'll smoke some cigars, then i'll be like him."
  • Reply 3 of 14
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    It's choice. Don't be sheep. We are losing our POWER of choice (decision).



    "No! Let ME tell you what's wrong or right! Leave us assholes to choose for you, or what you eat, smoke, drink, read, hear, think or see!"



    **** them. Don't be a sheep. Choose for your self and educate others about the choices whether good or bad. But if we lose our freedom of choice (I guess thinking is involved here...right?)



    Freedom is dead. God Damn America.



  • Reply 4 of 14
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Bingo.



    Which is why I support this move - the bigger the furor over it, the more it'll point attention at the entire culture that's been created of "Don't think for yourself, just listen to us, and do as we say." Why is alcohol legal, and pot isn't? Why is pot smoking 'dirty', but tobacco smoking is a right? This kind of stuff just irritates the hell out of me.



    Educate, then get the hell out of the way and let people make their own decisions, and *accept their own consequences*.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    This is what happens when idiots think they need to change the world.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Argento

    This is what happens when idiots think they need to change the world.



    While some see them as the crazy ones,

    we see genius.



    Because the people who are crazy enough to think

    they can change the world, are the ones who do.



  • Reply 7 of 14
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    Hmmm, maybe we should rate all the James Bond movies "R" because he shoots people, and kids clearly shouldn't see people being shot.



    [rant]

    Please. I see little kids smoke outside the theater all the time. Kids that look no older than 11. Do they smoke because they see Cruella De Ville smokeing? No, they smoke cuz they are soooo "badass" or their stupid heroin addicted whore of a mother doesn't give a flying f*^k about 'em.

    [/rant]



    If I don't want my kids to see a movie where the characters smoke, I won't take them to that movie!



    [rant]

    Another thing that pisses me off are the dads who take like 11 12 year-olds to "R" rated movies like Old School. I'm trying to enjoy the movie, but two rows behind me 11 boys get all excited and squeal over "Boobies! Yea!"

    [/rant]



    The problem in society is that we have morons and moron parents. Someone sees a moron doing or seeing something the moron shouldn't normaly see, stuff like this happens. Why don't these people realize that the majority of people can make a good choice?
  • Reply 8 of 14
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murbot

    While some see them as the crazy ones,

    we see genius.



    Because the people who are crazy enough to think

    they can change the world, are the ones who do.







    That's not funny!
  • Reply 9 of 14
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Crusader

    "Boobies! Yea!"



    heh. he said "boobies". teehee
  • Reply 10 of 14
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    No more absurd that suing McD's over the size of one's postierior.

    No more absurd than taxpayers paying for a crucifix in a jar of urine.



    We have the freedom to be stupid. Not blame others for our stupidity.



    It's a slippery slope, folks.



    The "R" Rating thing reeks of Rob Reiner. And talk about reek.

  • Reply 11 of 14
    audiopollutionaudiopollution Posts: 3,226member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    No more absurd than taxpayers paying for a crucifix in a jar of urine.



    Off-topic:



    It's not Serrano's fault that you don't get it. Nor is it the fault of any curator who deems to exhibit it (with government funding, or not). You'd get along well with my father ... you could stand in front of a Rothko, wonder why it's worth $4,000,000, and say things like, "I could paint that".



    Your subjective view of art is just that: yours.



    'Piss Christ' was a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine, by the way. As far as I know, the original jar and figurine were never exhibited anywhere.



    [Serrano is speaking at Ryerson University, in Toronto, tomorrow night (March 12th) if anyone is interested.]
  • Reply 12 of 14
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    We have the freedom to be stupid. Not blame others for our stupidity.



    I agree, but try telling that to the tobacco companies.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    The only sin the tobacco companies performed, in my book, was *knowingly* sitting on research data and information that their product was harmful.



    I'm hooked on caffeine. Majorly. I suck down several cups a day.



    But I don't believe that Starbuck's (ew) is collaborating with the other coffee providers to bury medical research that shows that their product is harmful, nor do I believe that they are then adding ingredients to *increase* that risk factor without informing the consumer.



    If the tobacco companies had released that info, and simply said "Yeah, it's harmful, but people want it... go talk to them..." I wouldn't have a problem with them, the onus would have been shifted to the consumers completely. But they didn't, so screw 'em.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@





    Freedom is dead. God Damn America.







    Vote Libertarian.



    Quote:

    It's not Serrano's fault that you don't get it. Nor is it the fault of any curator who deems to exhibit it (with government funding, or not). You'd get along well with my father ... you could stand in front of a Rothko, wonder why it's worth $4,000,000, and say things like, "I could paint that".



    Serrano is more than Rothko could fathom. As something of an art critic with no credentials, there's really nothing to Rothko. Nothing. Someone bought on, and monkey-see monkey-do did the rest. But many pieces of Serrano's work, from a purely aesthetic point of view, are so bizarre and interesting. Take the Blood and Semen series. Upon inspection, it's just a huge mystery. Rothko is entirely absent of the thing that makes humans special: brain power.



    End of rant.
Sign In or Register to comment.