Simply ridiculous.

[Rejected]

So I'm watching the idiot box the other night before I go to bed and there is a segment on some news network about a proposition for film makers to automatically give a movie a "R" rating if it depicts any of the actors smoking.

It stated that the industry did not want to glorify smoking to younger audiences. Does anybody else think this is just a little silly, or is it me?

 

[Booko]

So I'm watching the idiot box the other night before I go to bed and there is a segment on some news network about a proposition for film makers to automatically give a movie a "R" rating if it depicts any of the actors smoking.

It stated that the industry did not want to glorify smoking to younger audiences. Does anybody else think this is just a little silly, or is it me?

So, that means that a movie that occurs in a period where it was pretty normal for most adults to smoke (Thinking about "Good Night and Good Luck), it would get an R rating?

Hm

Yeah, I think the thread title pretty much sums it up.

We really don't have to go to such lengths to prevent smoking. There are plenty of other ways.

Besides, last I noticed, teens really don't have a tough time getting into R movies.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Well, I think the rating system in general is a bit screwed up. Is smoking, or a little nudity, for that matter, just as "bad" as gory graphic gratuitous violence such that any of the 3 earn an "R"?

I found a few articles from a few years ago but didn't find anything recent about the move to brand movies with smoking.

I wonder if that would include cartoon smoking like Cruelle Deville in 101 Dalmations, Gaston in Beauty and the Beast, and others that don't come to mind this early in the morning.

BTW....just because Rejected, Booko, and I are from the Peach State doesn't mean other folks can't jump in here.

 

[kateyes]

I think putting an R rating on a movie for smoking is idiotic. I think the US pays alot of lip service to the whole issue of smoking--but is too chicken to do the 1 thing that would put a stop to it. Ban the manufacture of cigarettes. There are a variety of products over the years that the Government/FDA whatever have banned including lead in paint, asbestos, cloroflorocarbons--why not cigarettes?

 

[michel]

I think putting an R rating on a movie for smoking is idiotic. I think the US pays alot of lip service to the whole issue of smoking--but is too chicken to do the 1 thing that would put a stop to it. Ban the manufacture of cigarettes. There are a variety of products over the years that the Government/FDA whatever have banned including lead in paint, asbestos, cloroflorocarbons--why not cigarettes?

Think of the unemployment, the loss of revenue in taxes, if smoking was to be banned. Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

As an asside, from next year, in England, smoking where food is served will be illegal. My wife and I walked into a bar the other day (while shopping, we needed a quick snack lunch). We saw ashtrays, and my wife asked the landlord where the non-smoking area was; he replied "There isn't one in here" (a bit unusual, most bars have a smoke free area).

Of course, my wife being who she is, retorted "Well, there will have to be next year". I thought it politic not to eat there.

 

[Booko]

I think putting an R rating on a movie for smoking is idiotic. I think the US pays alot of lip service to the whole issue of smoking--but is too chicken to do the 1 thing that would put a stop to it. Ban the manufacture of cigarettes. There are a variety of products over the years that the Government/FDA whatever have banned including lead in paint, asbestos, cloroflorocarbons--why not cigarettes?

What's even crazier is the "top secret" list of ingredients that only Congress has access to -- and then not everyone in Congress has.

Isn't it strange to have a product that's so demonstrably dangerous out there, and there are no labeling requirements so you know what you're ingesting?

 

[Booko]

Think of the unemployment, the loss of revenue in taxes, if smoking was to be banned. Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

As an asside, from next year, in England, smoking where food is served will be illegal. My wife and I walked into a bar the other day (while shopping, we needed a quick snack lunch). We saw ashtrays, and my wife asked the landlord where the non-smoking area was; he replied "There isn't one in here" (a bit unusual, most bars have a smoke free area).

Of course, my wife being who she is, retorted "Well, there will have to be next year". I thought it politic not to eat there.

We started out in my county with a ban on smoking on restauants. That was so successful, they moved on to bars. There was a lot of noise about business falling off, but it actually picked up. Neighboring counties noticed this, and followed suit. The entire state noticed, and now all GA has bans on smoking in restaurants and such.

I have always thought it rather insulting to have to listen to the rants of smokers on their "rights" to smoke in these areas.

While they're smoking, I can't even enter the building, or I get a migraine usually for the rest of the day.

So exactly who's rights are being trampled on? Shouldn't I have a right to go out to a restaurant and get dinner like they do?

As a final note, I think the nail in the smoking coffin here in the US is the growing danger of wait staff succeeding in lawsuits over being exposed to secondhand smoke.

American business may not give a flip about people's health, but they sure do pay attention to legal fees. :sarcastic

 

[standing_alone]

I have always thought it rather insulting to have to listen to the rants of smokers on their "rights" to smoke in these areas.

And I've always found it annoying (to say the least), that non-smokers think they need to make every single establishment smoke-free. That's fine if some (hell,even most) establishments are smoke-free, but we don't need go overboard and make every single one smoke-free (I personally think privately-owned bars and other places where alcoholic beverages are the main sale should have it up to the owner whether there is smoking allowed or not). It's fine that you have your smoke-free establishments so you need not worry your head over smoke, but I think that I should be able to have the choice to go to a place that allows smoking, just as you can choose to go to a place that does not allow smoking.

So exactly who's rights are being trampled on? Shouldn't I have a right to go out to a restaurant and get dinner like they do?

And shouldn't I be able to at least have some places that allow smoking so I can enjoy a smoke after supper?

You can go to one of the many smoke-free establishments that already exist. Leave some places where we can smoke in peace.


BUT GOING BACK TO THE OP NOW :

It stated that the industry did not want to glorify smoking to younger audiences. Does anybody else think this is just a little silly, or is it me?

I think it's stupid. Like kids never seen an adult smoke before. It's smoking a cigarrette, not freaking pornographic sex!

 

[evearael]

The R rating is a bit much. To be honest, I don't pay attention to the rating system anyway. I feel it fascilitates parental disengagement. I would much rather review media myself in order to make an informed decision about whether the contents are appropriate for my child.

 

[standing_alone]

I would much rather review media myself in order to make an informed decision about whether the contents are appropriate for my child.

And that is indeed the best way for any parent to go about it. Parents need to carry responsibility for what their children watch, not a ratings system - though I have no problem having a ratings system to aid parents in that process (just don't like it when it gets ridiculous).

 

[Booko]

And I've always found it annoying (to say the least), that non-smokers think they need to make every single establishment smoke-free. That's fine if some (hell,even most) establishments are smoke-free, but we don't need go overboard and make every single one smoke-free (I personally think privately-owned bars and other places where alcoholic beverages are the main sale should have it up to the owner whether there is smoking allowed or not). It's fine that you have your smoke-free establishments so you need not worry your head over smoke, but I think that I should be able to have the choice to go to a place that allows smoking, just as you can choose to go to a place that does not allow smoking.

I don't "worry my head" over smoke, SA. It puts me in a migrane for 24 hours or more with no medicine that will touch it. That's from one whiff. And I'm not unique in this.

Smoking, unlike breathing and eating, is a pastime that is completely optional.

Please don't expect me to have a shred of sympathy for you on this topic.

And shouldn't I be able to at least have some places that allow smoking so I can enjoy a smoke after supper?

Gee, I dunno. Should I have to curtail whatever I do because you choose to ingest poison? When you can keep your smoking around your head -- fine.

I have yet to find a restaurant that had a smoking section set up that would actually prevent the smoke from wafting over in my direction. If you want to demand separate rooms with special air filters or something, I say go for it. But the restauranteurs will complain, as I've heard them before, that it's just too expensive to do all that, blah blah blah. Which means we are left with two choices. We can all go to restaurants, or only some of us can.

You can go to one of the many smoke-free establishments that already exist. Leave some places where we can smoke in peace.

Uh huh. Please give me a list of them so I know where I can stop to eat when I'm traveling.

Oh, btw, please make sure they have food I can actually eat:

No dairy
No shortening
No MSG

Hm...that rules out most restaurants right off the bat.

Gee, d'ya think maybe you might *allow* me maybe one or two places I can actually eat, especially when I'm traveling?

You can smoke in peace in many places. Your home. Your car. Outside. Have at it. I have nothing to say about that, nor would I ever try.

I have never, ever been rude about someone's smoking in public, nor will I. Rudeness doesn't help the situation. And frankly, I am not particularly tolerant of non-smokers who think it's their mission to make smokers quit. People get to choose for themselves.

I think it's stupid. Like kids never seen an adult smoke before. It's smoking a cigarrette, not freaking pornographic sex!

Even worse, like seeing someone do something means they'll just run off and do it.

This can be shown by the fact that kids toss themselves off of cliffs regularly after watching Road Runner cartoons. :sarcastic

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know tdifferent groups have been pushing a R rating for smoking for years.

 

[Booko]

I know tdifferent groups have been pushing a R rating for smoking for years.

What's their reason for doing that? I don't mean just that they want to "keep kids from smoking" or anything like that.

I mean what are their real motivations, do you think?

 

[Draka]

So I'm watching the idiot box the other night before I go to bed and there is a segment on some news network about a proposition for film makers to automatically give a movie a "R" rating if it depicts any of the actors smoking.

It stated that the industry did not want to glorify smoking to younger audiences. Does anybody else think this is just a little silly, or is it me?

Okay, your thread title just answers all of your questions accurately. This is ridiculous. Censor movies for showing smoking? Do we censor for the occassional drink? What about comedies where a person has a beer? For crying out loud. This goes above and beyond. Why censor something in movies that you can see out your window while driving? Kids see people smoking on the street/sidewalk, in restaurants(where still legal), even in their own homes. Slapping an "R" rating on a movie for cigarettes kind of goes beyond. Until you can find a way for children to NEVER see it anyway, why keep them from seeing it in a movie that is otherwise geared for children?

 

[ch'ang]

I have always thought it rather insulting to have to listen to the rants of smokers on their "rights" to smoke in these areas.

It's the owner of the bar's decsion as to whether or not to allow smoking, they should not be forced to cater to your nor anyone elses needs.

I have yet to find a restaurant that had a smoking section set up that would actually prevent the smoke from wafting over in my direction.

Then dont go to resteraunts where you know there will be smoking, it seems to me you go to a place you know people will be smoking then get mad that you have to put with it.

 

[standing_alone]

Please don't expect me to have a shred of sympathy for you on this topic.

And please don't expect me to have a shred of sympathy for you on this topic, either. There are plenty of smoke-free establishments (I don't know how it is in your part of the country, but here, the vast majority are smoke-free) you can go to, pick one. You don't need to turn every establishment smoke-free. Let people have a choice. Seems the anti-smoking campaign doesn't care about choice, though. They'd just rather impose their will on everyone. All I say is have smoke-free establishments and some establishments that allow smoking - that way people could make a choice as to where they want to go.

Should I have to curtail whatever I do because you choose to ingest poison?

No. Go to a smoke-free establishment - they're everywhere. Should I not be allowed to have a few smoker-friendly establishments just because you don't like smoking and may or may not stop in there some time?

Which means we are left with two choices. We can all go to restaurants, or only some of us can.

Or there could be resteraunts that don't allow smoking at all and a few that have the sections set aside for smoking. Doesn't seem a difficult concept.

Gee, d'ya think maybe you might *allow* me maybe one or two places I can actually eat, especially when I'm traveling?

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Most resteraunts (at least in my area) are smoke-free. I'm sure it's not that hard to find smoke-free establishments.

Gee, d'ya think maybe I could be *allowed* a few places where smoking is allowed so I can enjoy a cigarrette after supper? See, I can play this game, too!

You can smoke in peace in many places. Your home. Your car. Outside. Have at it. I have nothing to say about that, nor would I ever try.

You can eat in peace in many places. Most resteraunts. Your home. Your car. Outside. Have at it. Oooh, this is kind of fun!

People get to choose for themselves

And that's precisely what I'm advocating with establishments. Have ones that don't allow smoking at all and then a handful where smoking is allowed. That way, non-smokers can go to places that don't allow smoking and smokers can go some place where they can smoke indoors - I mean, in my part of the country, it can get awfully cold in winter. I don't even care if the vast majority of establishments remain smoke-free. Just leave some places where I can go and smoke if I want to.

But that's enough of this...

This can be shown by the fact that kids toss themselves off of cliffs regularly after watching Road Runner cartoons.

Please don't remind me of the Road Runner cartoons! When I was but a child, I dropped an anvil on one of my little friends, only to learn that people do not get up afterwards and walk all accordian-like. It was a tough lesson to learn.

 

[mr.guy]

It's the owner of the bar's decsion as to whether or not to allow smoking, they should not be forced to cater to your nor anyone elses needs.

Should it also be the owner's decision as to what degree of risk his/her employees undertake whilst working?

That's right, it shouldn't.

 

[Rejected]

Should it also be the owner's decision as to what degree of risk his/her employees undertake whilst working?

That's right, it shouldn't.

In that case the employer, if he/she allows smoking in their establishment, should have any potential employees sign a waiver that acknowledges the presence of second-hand smoke and excludes any associated health risk liabilities.

No one is forcing these people to work in those conditions.

 

[mr.guy]

In that case the employer, if he/she allows smoking in their establishment, should have any potential employees sign a waiver that acknowledges the presence of second-hand smoke and excludes any associated health risk liabilities.

What a refreshingly mature approach to labour safety laws! Kudos.