smoking on scree and TV- paid for?

[DrDeth]

@Miller

Addressing the OP more broadly: as fun as it is to mock the quality of the cites you provided, the cites are really besides the point. I don’t think anyone questions the idea that tobacco companies have paid for product placement in the past. And I doubt anyone would be particularly surprised to learn that tobacco companies were skirting -or outright breaking - laws about tobacco advertising in movies. But you presented the idea that the title character in Lucifer smoking was the result of paid product placement as an established fact. As far as I can see, you have precisely zero evidence that this particular instance of someone smoking on TV was the result of anything other than a creative choice on behalf of the show’s creators. So, I’m wondering, given the lack of evidence for your claim in this particular regard - do you think that there are any instances of smoking in films or on TV that isn’t bought and paid for? Are there any instances where a writer could just think, “It makes sense for this particular character to be a smoker,” without any further motive?

And if there are such instances, why are you so dead certain that Lucifer - a show about the literal devil - isn’t one of them?

I think* all* depictions of smoking are paid for.

It is interesting that many posters seem to trust Big Tobacco, the people known for lying over and over and over.