Erm, longtime lurker coming out of the shadows for this one. At first glance, it might seem to be a nanny state, but it is a bit more complicated than that.
First, studies have shown that adolescents watching movies with smoking are far more likely to try a smoke. This is regardless of what a great kid they are, or if the parents of said paragon are smokers. Studies have also shown that a “warning” helps to blunt this effect to some degree.
Second, the tobacco companies have largely been thwarted in marketing to children. This is unfortunate for them, because if they can get them hooked by 18, they’ve got them hooked for life. 80% of longtime smokers begin before the age of 18. Tobacco companies have begun to purchase product placement in movies and tv in lieu of traditional marketing. I’d agree warnings are excessive if the filmmakers could certify they’re not being paid off.
Finally, I’d like to remind you “small state” lovers that smokers actually cost us all around $8.00 per pack in associated health care costs, and are killing around 50,000 people a year just in second hand smoke alone. This nanny state ain’t free.
I don’t know that warnings are the answer, but then again, I’m not sure rolling over and playing mark for the tobacco companies is the answer, either.
There’s one called CleanFilms, that sells and rents movies censored for “family” audiences, and Blockbuster offers censored movies too. I seem to recall reading about a number of lawsuits filed by the studios or directors, claiming that selling the censored versions is a copyright violation. Not sure if Wal-Mart sells censored versions or not as I’ve only set foot into a Wal-Mart once in my life (and that was under duress) and didn’t hit the video section, but Wal-Mart does occasionally ban books, CDs and I assume DVDs from its stores because of content some mid-management asshole deems “objectionable.”
And for every net cost cite you find for smokers, I can find a net gain:
And who cares about how children are affected by movies with smoking in them? If a child is influenced by a film, then the parents need to take the blame for raising a moron, not the movie companies. Kids are bound to see people smoking in public. Should we ban smoking in public? Not allow parents with young children to smoke? The best way to stop people from smoking certainly appears to be educating them, not beating an already well known fact over their head.
Hey, that warning said not to smoke but Vin Diesel was doing it and he is SOOOOOO cool OMFG I’M A MORON LETS GO GET THE NEW JIMMY EAT WORLD CD!
Get the fuck out with your commie bullshit, internet explorer, or should I say, TROTSKY!!!
Or note the (admittedly small) flap having to do with the USPS’ stamp of legendary blues guitarist Robert Johnson. His cigarette had been edited out of the picture for the sake of “political correctness”.
Even if teens are influenced to smoke by movies, why does there have to be a special warning just for smoking (and video pirating) at the beginning? Why not make it mandatory to tack on warnings about STDs, admonishments to abstain until marriage, don’t drink underage, don’t drink and drive, don’t do drugs or you support terrorists and will end up killing someone and ruining your life forever, don’t drive without a seatbelt, don’t jump off a bridge if your friends do it, don’t binge and purge, don’t disrespect your parents, don’t drop out of school…
I understand the FBI warning, even though I bet it doesn’t do much of anything concrete. Adding the “omg don’t smoke!” warning just irritates consumers and will almost certainly only make teens roll their eyes.
Man, that guy called me a Commie. I’m not sure I can look at life the same way again. Damn. He’s right. And too bad my call to reality came from an idiot named “BabaBooey.” Just the name inspires confidence. Speaking of confidence, Baba- my numbers come from the CDC, where do yours come from? Reading closely doesn’t seem to come as easily to you as your marble-sharp quips. Adolescents watching movies start smoking at a higher rate ** regardless of what their parents teach ** Smoking kids turn into smoking adults. Smoking adults cost us all money. We all pay- either through publicly funded health care or higher insurance premiums, or higher hospital rates, from POOR people smoking who can’t pay their medical bills.
And Miller- since we’ve vanquished the tobacco companies, I guess tobacco being the #1 cause of preventable death- more than all the others combined- is over. Oops, maybe not. Not to mention they’ve moved into third world countries to peddle their wares, where they can sell to children out in the open. Gotta give 'em something for thinking outside the box!
I am waiting for the inevitable “bad diet and lack of exercise causes obesity, etc.” warning. And that would be even more relevant than the cigarrette warning.
Vincent and Jules are driving along when suddenly-BANG!
[Announcer voice]:If Vincent had remembered to apply all of the rules regarding the safe use and handling of firearms, he wouldn’t have to clean a dead guy’s brains from the back of the car…[/voice]
Is that a fact? I’d like to see more evidence for it than your say-so.
Which is a really valid point in a thread about warnings on DVDs being sold in North America.
Look, you’ve got a hard-on for Big Tobacco. Fine. They’re a bunch of bastards. Take 'em out in the street and shoot 'em, for all I care. Just keep your fucking agenda off the DVDs I’m buying, m’kay? Not every single thing in this culture has to be about how much smoking sucks.
Here’s what I don’t get- from a public health perspective. If you can see that a subset of people are particularly effected by a message, and you can counter that negative message with a simple statement, why is that so offensive? It isn’t infringing on your “rights”, you can avert your eyes if you don’t like it whatever- but if it works, why not do it? Because it might annoy you for 15 seconds? What if that 15 seconds has a measurable effect on American morbidity and the cost of disease or lengthens life-spans? At what point does your 15 seconds of annoyance become worth it? We do all sorts of annoying shit in the name of public health. You’re just not used to this one yet. You’ll get over it.
Most of the time in media, risky behaviors are countered with a consequence. Drunk drivers get in accidents or in jail. Risky sex results in pregnancy/disease/or heartbreak. The incidence of smoking in movies has not decreased with the decrease in smoking in the general population, and rarely if ever shows the natural consequence of smoking- sickness and eventual chronic disease.
Thanks for the link. Of course, the fact that the health risks of smoking are uniformly long term does sort of shoots your argument in the foot, doesn’t it? The people dying of smoking related illnesses today started smoking before the endless procession of lawsuits against the tobacco companies, the wave of anti-smoking legislation outlawing it in most public places, and the general ghettoization of smokers as a group. So you really haven’t shown that tobacco represents a significant, present threat to America, only that we haven’t yet finished tallying up the effects of wide-spread tobacco use over the last century. Why do we need these stupid warning labels on DVDs again?
Okay, so why stop at smoking? Why not obesity? Drunk driving? Drug use? Child neglect? Spousal abuse? Rape? Murder? Double parking? How many more warnings do you want to cram onto a DVD before you’re happy? Can’t I just watch my movie without having to be reminded about every fucked up thing in society? Goddamn it, I don’t smoke. I’m not going to start. Stop fucking shoving your goddamn anti-smoking fetish in my face every ten minutes. I’m sick of it, and the more I see of it, the sicker I get. I’m not going to get used to it, I’m going to get more and more fed up until I start opposing anti-smoking measures out of sheer spite for people like you. At some point, you’re going to have to face the fact that your tactics are pissing off more people than they’re convincing.
Thank you for demonstrating the essential uselessness of these warning without my help. Smoking in real life is dropping at a far greater rate than smoking in movies. Why, then, do we need these warnings in the first place, if people are already stopping smoking despite seeing all these horrible, horrible cigarettes in the movies?
I just said this yesterday at work, actually: why can’t we just outlaw smoking and get it overwith? That way, all of the stupid anti-smoking warnings we see would be replaced by occasional “smoking gives money to terrorists” ads from the government, and we’d all probably have to deal with less annoyance. :rolleyes:
This incident sort of ties into the OP. My husband and I went to see the Harry Potter movie yesterday. Since we arrived early, we were subjected to those lovely local slide-show commercials. One was for anti-smoking. I can’t remember the exact wording but it was something to the effect of “smoke-free homes and cars”. My husband and I both smoke. We don’t smoke in our house (even though it’s just the two of us here most of the time. Oh, we do have a dog. If we smoked in the house, would PETA be all over our asses? Anyway, I digress…), we smoke outside. We both smoke in our cars. We’ve been lambasted for our foul habit at every turn and I while I have no cites, I’m pretty sure that smoking in cars will soon be considered vile and immoral. And now you’re telling me that the DVDs we purchase will subject us to more and more messages about how disgusting we are?
I’m fully aware of how harmful smoking is (who the hell DOESN’T at this point?) not to mention expensive. We both want to quit and have tried countless times. Does beating us about the head and shoulders about how horrible we are for smoking really help?
It’s shit like this which makes me glad I can only watch DVDs on my PC at the moment (I’ve got software installed which allows me to skip all the crap that you’re not allowed to skip when you watch it on a standalone player ). I wish I could find a copy of it on the web to link to, but John Waters did a hysterical anti-smoking PSA, that this description doesn’t do justice to at all. If they put that in front of DVDs, no one would be offended by it (but I bet a lot more folks would start smoking!).
One of the best local theaters here in Baltimore, The Charles, plays that John Waters clip before most of its films. It always has the audience in fits of laughter, helped by the fact that Waters is a hometown boy here in Charm City.
Because, at this point, the only practical effects of the Tobacco lawsuits were to set up a huge set of bribes to government to keep tobacco sales legal, and to provide a windfall to a number of legal firms. Tobacco will never be made illegal as long as tobacco sales are seen as a way to raise money for the government without actually raising taxes.
This plan is a ‘do nothing’ plan that will have no cost for government, and frankly all the costs will be shouldered by the consumer, anyways. (Yes, I know we’re talking about pennies, or less, per DVD - but the principle is what annoys me.)
). I wish I could find a copy of it on the web to link to, but John Waters did a hysterical anti-smoking PSA, that 