Universal billed it as a family film!

[deleted]

Most little kids would have been asleep within 30 min. of the beginning...too ceribral! Look That up in your Funk & Wagnals...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

efs2: "...I think many if not most or practically all of us would rather reduce that number."

I couldn't care less what other people do for pleasure. It's none of my business.

efs2: "To cite a particular example: Blade Runner is one of my all-time favorite movies. I think it is just gorgeous. And one of the most visually mesmerizing scenes involves a woman smoking while answering a detective's questions... But, for me, the cost-to-benefit ratio definitely favors axing the cigarettes."

And for me it doesn't, precisely for the aesthetic reason you cited. It creates an ambiance that is not achievable any other way. It looks fabulous on film.

There are groups that want to remove all of the violence from films too, and all of the sex, and whatever else they find objectionable. They use the same logic you do: "It encourages violence! It encourages drug use! It encourages sex! It encourages drinking/smoking/whatever!" I'm sick of it.

We've gone down this road before. The Comics Code turned comic books into pabulum for about three decades, just as the EC line was turning them into high art. Special interest groups turned animated cartoons into absolute crap from the 'sixties through the 'eighties—we had a vast wasteland between Bugs Bunny and Animaniacs. Keep your grubby hands off my art.

This is of special interest to me because I'm an animator. The female character in this piece, http://bit.ly/8YMyof, smokes through part of it. I did that for at least three reasons: the character is mimicking what my voice actress was really doing during the take; in the story that character is from, she's a smoker, and I like the look. I like the edge it gives to the character's personality. Tell me not to use it, and I'll tell you to mind your own business. Go produce your own animation. Go slam out some Care Bears or My Little Ponies. Knock yourself out.

efs2: "Still, as I asked before, does anyone disagree with the idea that we'd be better off if smoking just disappeared?"

Yes, I disagree with it, because many people find it so pleasurable and aesthetically attractive that they do it in spite of the risks. You might find pleasure, ambiance and aesthetics disposable, but I don't. In any event, for those reasons and those reasons only, people do it. You're not going to stop it without the force of law... excuse me: you're not going to stop it even with the force of law because that hasn't stopped pot use, opiate use, the use of hallucinogens or anything else. In fact, pot is more popular now than it was in 1937, when it was banned through a tricky use of tax stamps (the government required a tax stamp, then simply did not issue them).

Wanna-be social engineers have done as much or more damage to this country than any other factor.

efs2: "One area where I disagree with you, I think, is on the significance of the question of whether second-hand smoke causes significant harm to health in maintaining the truce between smokers and non-smokers. That is an important question, but not the only one."

It is not an important question, and here's why: private property rights trump it. When you go down that road, you can use it as a precedent for anything. Keep your hands off my property, and keep your hands off my body.

It's time we ended the stupid War on Drugs. The anti-tobacco movement is only the thin end of the wedge for adding another substance to it. Again, get your hands off my body and property. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you don't like what's happening on someone else's property, leave. Mind your own business.

efs2: "There is also the question of annoyance, or whatever word would be appropriate."

Annoyance. Ben Franklin wrote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Now Americans are such wimps, they'll give up liberty not only for safety, but merely because they're annoyed!

Do you see the problem with that? Perhaps you don't, but many of us do and we're sick of it.

I stand by my observation that you're a Nazi. You're following the same logical path that all fascists use. You're simply at the rational-sounding end of the spectrum, one step over the line so to speak—again, the thin end of the wedge. At the other end there are the howling lunatics. Both ends are necessary for social change (for the worse or for the better; for less freedom or more) and you are arguing for more restriction whether you realize it or not.

efs2: "One person's choice to do the things that cause him or her to be obese does not include forcing me to do them also."

The "experts" disagree with you: http://bit.ly/cbCoI

In fact, the second-hand smoke studies are completely bogus. They arose from a Rand Corporation study that showed the anti-smoking movement had gone as far as it could go by trying to scare smokers. For further success, studies would have to "prove" that smoking was harmful to those anywhere near it. So, the EPA was the first to jump aboard (it's findings were proven bogus, vacated by a federal judge, then reinstated on a legal technicality—they were "never intended to influence policy"—hah!) then other so-called experts jumped on the gravy boat. "Proving" the dangers of second-hand (and now "third-hand," believe it or not) smoke has become a bleeding industry.

If you want to "prove" something, all it takes is money. A vast number of unscrupulous PhDs will line up for the grants.

This is now called "The Tobacco Model for Social Control," and it's going to be used again and again. As the link I provided shows, they're already spinning "second-hand fat." They'll use it for anything, and idiots will believe it. Again, it's "For the Children." Who could disagree with such a noble cause, eh?

Most people will believe anything that confirms their prejudices.

efs2: "More appropriate is this analogy, I think: if I want to sit and enjoy my lunch alone with my thoughts or while having a conversation with a friend, but the guy at the next table wants to bust mad rhymes at high volume on his boombox, what would be more appropriate, making me choose between putting up with it and leaving, or making him choose between turning it off and leaving?"

That depends. What does the owner encourage on his property? If you're in a coffee house where most of the customers are 18 to 21 years old and they're all up and dancing to the guy's boom box, and you're sitting there with your laptop trying to get some work done on the owner's WiFi, fuming, you should get up and leave.

It's really very simple: property rights trump everything else. The only time law enforcement should become involved is if somebody is dragged onto the property and forced to participate in something against their will.

Otherwise, it's none of your business.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am not an anti-smoking fanatic, but I generally support the voluntary effort of filmmakers to remove smoking from movies.

Let's define just what "voluntary" means here. The IRS, for example, claims with a perfectly straight face that I am able to pay taxes "voluntarily" when I am doing nothing of the kind; there is a very definite threat of negative sanctions being held over the heads of taxpayers.

So, for myself, when someone is performing an action voluntarily, they are doing it of their own free will, with no outside interference, pressure, or threat of negative sanctions.

If my definition matches yours, then filmmakers can currently be said to be excercising their right to include/not include smoking in their films voluntarily. That is, each filmmaker is making the decision on his/her own. Is this not a satisfactory arrangement?

OTOH, if some kind of pressure group steps in and threatens to, say, boycott filmmaker X's films because they depict smoking, then any kind of "voluntary" action has gone out the window. The filmmaker in that case, should they decide to give in, is merely succumbing to the threat of negative sanctions.

My take on it is that the portrayal of smoking in movies almost certainly contributes to some degree to the number of people who start smoking each year.

While I think it's great that you have your own personal "take" on the matter, I would ask that there be 2-3 double-blind scientific studies done that allow us to assign some hard numbers as to just how bad the problem is (or isn't).

Speaking for myself, most of the films I've taken in over the half-decade are pre-1960 ones. That being the case, I've been exposed to quite of bit of screen-time smoking. Yet, despite this almost non-stop exposure to cinematic smoking, I haven't been tempted to head over to the tobacconists after seeing a film like M.

And I think many if not most or practically all of us would rather reduce that number.

Okay, here's the deal:

If you want to talk about what you yourself do and don't like, I'm all for that.

However, you have no way of knowing the exact wants and desires of other folks without, at the very least, conducting some sort of poll with a) a meaningful sampling size and b) value-neutral questions (e.g. no asking "Do you believe that cigarettes should be depicted in films, despite the fact that merely opening a pack of cigarettes can result in instant death or disfigurement?).

So while I can understand and appreciate that you yourself might not be an advocate of smoking being depicted in films, your saying "I think many if not most or practically all of us would rather...." is you trying to impose your own set of values and beliefs on other folks. Folks who not only might be unfamiliar with them, but who might be in vehement disagreement with them/you if they only knew what you are declaring that "they" are thinking.

IOW: you're projecting here. While you're certainly free to speak for yourself, purporting to speak for others is something with which I am not okay.

One area where I disagree with you, I think, is on the significance of the question of whether second-hand smoke causes significant harm to health in maintaining the truce between smokers and non-smokers. That is an important question, but not the only one.

I agree that this is indeed an important question. Unfortunately, as near as I can make out, it's one that still has not been answered conclusively. Anti-smoking advocates are fond of quoting the EPA's 1993 report to support their position. However, the report apparently says that a nonsmoker living with a smoker for 30 to 40 years would have better than a 99.9% chance of not getting lung cancer from such long-term and constant exposure (based upon the claimed 19% increase over the base rate of .4%).

If this is indeed the case (and if there aren't any more recent studies to help us decide one way or the other) the numbers butressing the anti-smoking position don't appear to be all that impressive.

There is also the question of annoyance, or whatever word would be appropriate. In my case, breathing cigarette smoke is very unpleasant. Enough of it gives me a headache and makes me nauseous. I'm old enough that I grew up when people smoked everywhere, and non-smokers just had to put up with it. So I generally don't complain but rather avoid places where there is smoking, or likely to be smoking. And that is true of many other non-smokers as well. Nonetheless, I think the argument that someone else's right to smoke does not include the right to make me smoke applies regardless of whether second-hand smoke causes cancer or emphysema or no significant health problems.

Okay, well, this would appear to be a question of property rights.

Are these headaches you get obtained when you are standing on private property (i.e. you're in/near a restaurant)? Or are they gotten when you are standing in some sort of "public area" that is not privately-owned? In the former case, the property owner may have decided for his/herself that they are going to allow smoking on their property which, it being their property, it is their right to decide.

OTOH, if you're standing on, say, a publicly-owned sidewalk and are hit with a whiff of smoke, it's not unreasonable to ask you to prove that it is the smoke (and not, say, loud car horns) that is giving you the headache.

I agree that no one should have the right to give you a headache or make you sick. However, I can make the same claim to getting a headache/becoming nauseous whenever I am exposed to "rap" music.

This does not, however, make a strong case for the banning of "rap" music.

Likewise, perhaps you know (or worse, work with) people who angrily insist on drenching themselves in perfume or cologne. I have friends who complain, as you do, of headaches and nausea after being exposed to such, um, scent enthusiasts. Who gets to decide what level of cologne or perfume is publicly acceptable?

Also, this is where I think the slippery-slope argument - i.e., the "War On Obesity" is next - fails.

I suppose that all depends on the view you happen to take of human nature. My own view, which is borne out by the legislative record here in the US, is that the world is filled with people who are perfectly comfortable making choices for other people, despite those choices actually being none of their business.

For instance, my personal intake of soft drinks does not impact your own happiness in any way. Yet, despite this, there have, apparently, been calls in some parts of the US for some sort of punitive tax to be placed on "sugary drinks" in order to discourage their consumption. IOW: despite the fact that my neighbor's intake of soda cannot be said to effect me, there are politicians out there who are more than happy to levy punitive taxes against folks who drink lots of soda.

So, yes, the whole "slippery slope" argument might not hold up in the Real World; we will have to wait and see if it does. However, human nature being what it is, I'm willing to make a Gentlemens' Bet that something like soft drink consumption (or salt intake) is going to legislated against in the near-future, simply because it is claimed to be "bad for you" and not because it has an impact on the happiness (or property rights) of others.

Again, such legislation has less to do with a legitimate concern for one's fellow human beings and more to do with people who get off on making decisions for others, despite their being entirely unqualified to make such decisions.

One person's choice to do the things that cause him or her to be obese does not include forcing me to do them also.

Well, as I've tried to point out, the evidence that I'm familiar with that supports the claim that being exposed to second-hand smoke is just the same as you taking up smoking yourself seems sketchy at best. [shrugs]

More appropriate is this analogy, I think: if I want to sit and enjoy my lunch alone with my thoughts or while having a conversation with a friend, but the guy at the next table wants to bust mad rhymes at high volume on his boombox, what would be more appropriate, making me choose between putting up with it and leaving, or making him choose between turning it off and leaving?

Actually, the problem you're presenting isn't that difficult to work out.

Restaurants generally being on private property, (I don't know of any "public restaurants" myself) the question to ask here is: what does the owner of the restaurant have to say about this? Is the customer with the boombox, perhaps, a Big Spender and, as a result, is allowed to play his boombox as loud as he likes?

Or is he, instead, a nuisance that is going to drive away other customers and, by doing so, deprive the restaurant owner of badly-needed income?

IOW: it's up to the person who owns (or manages) the restaurant to make the call. You can change "guy with a boombox" to "guy who farts loudly and often" and the decision-making process is still going to be largely the same.

Believe it or don't, I go through a variation of the problem you've presented quite often: a restaurant I frequent is on a busy streetcorner. That being the case, some....person.....with a painfully loud car stero typically cruises by several times an hour. We're talking about a main thoroughfare here, so such happenings really aren't all that surprising.

My choice is simple: I can either continue to eat there (i.e. not lose my rag over some moron who confuses noise with music) or find another restaurant that doesn't have street sounds penetrating into it.

Alas, the public roadway being the public roadway, busting people with overly-loud car stereos is hard to do. The fact that these folks are only there for a minute or two at most (e.g. stopped at a stoplight at the intersection) makes calling the cops impractical; by the time the cops would show up, the dipstick with the car stereo would have long since moved on. It's irritating, certainly, (and upsetting to my digestion, probably) but not much can be done about this problem on a practical level.

Since we're talking about real-world-type problems, I think it's only fair to point out that smokers in some cities now have no place to go to smoke thanks to anti-smoking ordinances. So while I feel for you being annoyed, (as I point out above, I know the feeling) it's only fair to ask if, perhaps, the existence of "smoking only" restaurants might help alleviate the problem of your encountering smokers during mealtimes?

To be clear: I can understand why you might have hard feelings against someone lighting up, say, on a public sidewalk. However, I am less clear on why state and local governments feel that they have the right to decide what does and does not happen on private property between consenting adults. "Smoking only" restaurants and bars would seem to go a long way toward solving the problem, but anti-smoking legislation is, as near as I can make out, an all-or-nothing kind of deal and does not make such allowances.





Edit: clarification of example

reply share

add reply

formatting help