# Thank you anti-smoking league for saving our movies

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [October 31, 2002, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709 "2002-10-31T15:12:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/21 "2002-11-01T13:51:26Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by El Elvis Rojo \*  
> \*\*
> 
> I don’t see what your link has to do with anything, or how it “proves I’m wrong.” The majority of my friends in college were film students…I spent three years on a sketch comedy show for my college…never once did my group, or any of my friends get paid by big cigarrette companies to put any brand of cigs in our shit.  
> \*\*

You said earlier "… but the spokesman interviewed that I saw claimed that cigarrettes are in movies because “Big tabacco companies pay filmakers to put them in to help sponsor their brands.”

I don’t think that the spokesman was referring to product placement in small indie movies that **children** probably won’t ever see. (hence my link mentioning big budget movies) You’re wrong in your claim that tobacco companies don’t pay film makers for product placement.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Big Tabacco doesn’t control the media.  
> \*\*

I don’t recall any anti smoking group claiming that they **controlled** film media, but that they have a strong influence on the media content…which in some cases it seems that they do. (BTW, the word is spelled “tobacco”)

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> And I don’t recall ever claiming product placement doesn’t work. I was an advertising major, I know all about that shit. Read the post before you start claiming what’s wrong with what it’s saying. \*\*

Well you **did** say "…so where the hell do they get off thinking that all forms of television/movie/media are such a strong influence on children that the simplest mention of something “bad for them” should deem immediate censorship? "

Is the “mentioning of something bad for them” often a form of product placement?

So which is it…product placement never works on influencing consumer behavior, or product placement (including the “mentioning of something bad for them”) **does** significantly influence consumer behavior?

If you admit to the latter, you seem to be running contrary to your earlier statement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/22 "2002-11-01T14:25:07Z")

</div>

Welcome to the insanity of Washington, DC.

There are, literally, thousands of these little one-issue groups in Washington (actually, most of the small one’s are located across the river in Alexandria, VA, seemingly).

By making these sort of press releases and demands they affect the discussion in ‘official’ Washington. They don’t actually expect their demands to come true, but they give their issue a bump in the Washington Post and get a little national play by being as inflammatory as possible.

You want something that WILL eventually work to bring down levels of smoking? Taxes. As cigarette taxes start spiraling upward (they have for several years, now) eventually smoking might become like cocaine in the early 80s. Only the rich will be able to smoke.

Hell, that would work with almost ANY sort of prohibition. Banning alcohol for moral purposes didn’t work, true. But making a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 cost $30 sure would.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/23 "2002-11-01T16:21:51Z")

</div>

Don’t mess with my Mad Dog.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/24 "2002-11-01T16:49:43Z")

</div>

I don’t know if it’s just the fact I haen’t been to bed since yesturday morning, but **beagledave** , I have no idea how your posts are supposed to flow or fit into anything.

The rant is not about the effectiveness of product placement, it’s about how fucking stupid I think it is that some group feels that media is so impactful that the simple suggestion that a character smokes should be hidden away from society “for the children’s sake.”

You will find that, within the advertising world itself, many people feel the impact advertising has is nothing more than a prompt. It’s there to help give you an idea that “if you’re going to do something, you’ve got options, our’s is best,” but lacks the power to influence someone to do something they have no intention of trying. If you’re not hungry, it doesn’t matter how many times I throw images of a Big Mac in your face, you’re not going to buy one. So, although it does have the power to sway, showing characters on stage smoking is not going to suddenly make little children think “Hey, I’m going to go buy a pack of cigarrettes right now and start smoking.” For life impacting decisions like that, family, friends, and peers are the solid influences, and the media is no where there.

As for the product placement issue, the way these people made it sound, they seemed to believe Marlboro reads a script and tells a company “Hey, if you make this guy smoke, and only smoke our brands, we’ll give you money.” That’s horse shit. Paying a studio to have Superman thrown through a Camel billboard and paying them to change the script to promote your product are two completely different things. And paying to have specific cigs smoked on screen…well, honestly, when was the last time you noticed what brand of cigs someone smoked in a movie? Especially something like James Bond? The character has been smoking since he was conceived (anyone who has that much sex, it’d be blasphemy if he didn’t). He also smokes from a cigarrette case, if I’m not mistaken, as does everyone else who smokes in that film. I don’t recall them making any special notice that the missle cig was a Lucky Brand Missle Cig. Unless you’re a hardcore smoker and that’s your brand, I doubt anyone would notice or even care.

But again, this is all off topic. I’m just sick of people constantly trying to censor everything thinking that society has become so touchy about everything. It’s like Spielburgh editing out the guns in **E.T.**. How is it the children of today are so sensitive to violence, yet the children of the early 80’s could handle close ups of shotguns being cocked and aimed at little Eliot’s face? Pretty soon, someone’s going to lobby that any movie with alcohol in any form should be rated R, and then what? Any form of public affection could be misconstrued as telling our kids it’s okay to start fucking at age 12, so that obviously must be kept from their view. And anyone drinking coffee is obvously teaching our kids bad habits, because that much caffine isn’t good for young ones, so we’ll have to censor that as well.

It’s horseshit. It’s overreacting, and people need to realize that yes, whereas the media does help to set societal norms, it’s also a reflection of them and it’s impact on children is not so severe that we need to provide our children with nothing but “educational” programing, or shit so bad it makes our kids want to gougue out their eyes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/25 "2002-11-01T17:31:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by El Elvis Rojo \*  
> \*\*  
> You will find that, within the advertising world itself, many people feel the impact advertising has is nothing more than a prompt. It’s there to help give you an idea that “if you’re going to do something, you’ve got options, our’s is best,” but lacks the power to influence someone to do something they have no intention of trying. If you’re not hungry, it doesn’t matter how many times I throw images of a Big Mac in your face, you’re not going to buy one. So, although it does have the power to sway, showing characters on stage smoking is not going to suddenly make little children think “Hey, I’m going to go buy a pack of cigarrettes right now and start smoking.” For life impacting decisions like that, family, friends, and peers are the solid influences, and the media is no where there.  
> \*\*/

For smoking decisions, advertisement and product placement play a HUGE role in that choice. The vast majority of smokers begin before 18, and the tobacco companies know this. In the past, they have claimed that their ads are only designed to build brand loyalty, and NOT to increase smoking rates. Past internal company documents show that they have lied:

[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tobacco/tobacco.html](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tobacco/tobacco.html)

Furthermore, research establishes a significant link between ad exposure and the rate of teen smoking

[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/research/tobacco/tobacco%20notes%20archive/tobacco\_notes\_10\_639\_1999.pdf](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/research/tobacco/tobacco%20notes%20archive/tobacco_notes_10_639_1999.pdf)

and

[http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=09health.h15](http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=09health.h15)

> [@](#):
>
> Advertising by tobacco companies has a greater effect than peer pressure or family influence on whether some adolescents take up smoking, according to a study of California youths.
> 
> Nonsmoking adolescents who are very aware of tobacco advertising are twice as likely to be at risk of taking up smoking as those whose family members and peers are smokers, the study found.
> 
> Its authors say their findings challenge the claim by tobacco companies that marketing has far less of an impact on adolescent smoking than social factors.

and [http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v279n7/abs/joc71624.html](http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v279n7/abs/joc71624.html)

Long story short, you’re wrong about your claim that tobacco ads play a **small** role in the decision of teens to smoke.

Like I said earlier, it’s legitimate to debate whether there should be further restrictions on ads or product placements. There is a legitimate question about how far government should push in the public health arena, in terms of mandating certain behaviors or becoming what some refer to as a “nanny state”. That is a **different** argument than pointing out that tobacco companies have traditionally marketed their products toward teens, and that product placement has been one of the tools (among many others, like the Joe Camel merchandise) used in that effort.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/26 "2002-11-01T18:14:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by robertliguori_  
> **Hey! What about Vetinari? Vimes? The uber-mathematician? William de Worde?**

Yeah, but Vimes is a smoker! You see, it all ties together!

How, I’m not entirely sure…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/27 "2002-11-01T18:14:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by robertliguori_  
> **Hey! What about Vetinari? Vimes? The uber-mathematician? William de Worde?**

Yeah, but Vimes is a smoker! You see, it all ties together!

How, I’m not entirely sure…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/28 "2002-11-01T18:31:05Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by beagledave \*  
> \*\*  
> "Advertising by tobacco companies has a greater effect than peer pressure or family influence on whether _some_ adolescents take up smoking, according to a study of California youths. "
> 
> snip
> 
> Long story short, you’re wrong about your claim that tobacco ads play a **small** role in the decision of teens to smoke.\*\*

Okay, so these tests prove that “some” adolescents are influenced heavily by cig ads. What about those that aren’t influenced by the ads? And in those places where the ad to teen smoking rates are higher, what are the other influences in their lives in those regions? What’s the percentage on non-teen smoking? Look, you can throw any number of sites and tests out there, but like with anything, you can always find sites to prove what you’re trying to prove, and tests that do the same. If I gave enough of a shit about it, I’m sure I could find some contradictory sites, but I don’t care. I’ve been bombarded by the same signals and media as my smoking friends, and I haven’t been influenced to smoke, and thier decision to smoke comes from sources other than advertising through media. They started due to personal interractions. That’s my experience with the situation, and that’s the knowledge I carry with me. Instead of looking at tests developed to get desired results, ask the smokers around you why they decided to smoke and why they chose what brands they use. I’m pretty damn sure not one of them will tell you they picked it up because those Joe Camel billboards are just sooo damn cool.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/29 "2002-11-01T18:58:55Z")

</div>

Let me get this straight…

1. You first claim tobacco advertising has little impact on teen decision choices about smoking.

2. I provide several independent cites (out of many…do a google search on “tobacco advertising teens” ) that illustrate that advertising DOES correlate with increased teen smoking.

3. You say…but umm yeah, what about the kids who don’t smoke because of the advertising…and ummm there are “probably” cites that disprove my point…and umm then you provide personal anecdotal evidence that smoking ads don’t work on you or your friends?

Oh…and that the research from JAMA et al consists of “tests developed to get desired results”

Wow.

Huh.

I really don’t know how to top “the knowledge I carry with me”.

:rolleyes:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![red\_dragon60](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@red\_dragon60](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/red_dragon60)\
**Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/30 "2002-11-01T20:04:47Z")

</div>

R means that someone who is under 17 cannot see the movie without parents present. So this means that they can’t see someone smoke until they are 17? Should they ban people from smoking outside of a doorway unless they make sure no children might see them?

BS.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fionn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fionn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fionn)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/31 "2002-11-02T08:22:14Z")

</div>

The bold quoted sections are from **beagledave’s** edweek article.

\*\*Its authors say their findings challenge the claim by tobacco companies that marketing has far less of an impact on adolescent smoking than social factors. \*\*

No doubt they challenge them. Why would they conduct the study if they didn’t want to challenge them?

\*\*Key factors in that susceptibility, the researchers found, were peer pressure, advertising, and family influence. \*\*

Shouldn’t anti-smoking zealots lobby for laws preventing kids from hanging out with bad-news friends, or watching Mom and Dad light up after dinner?

**Exposure to at least one best friend who smoked, for example, increased susceptibility by 90 percent, the researchers found.**

I would imagine that exposure to a best friend increases susceptibility to a great many things, from shooting up heroin to running for student council.

\*\*To measure the effects of advertising, the researchers created an index of awareness based on such factors as whether youths could name a brand name of cigarettes. \*\*

How much does brand awareness matter? As mentioned earlier, desires exist independently from advertisements. I could reel off cigarette brands at an early age, but this was merely from standing in line at the drugstore. Shouldn’t kids be banned from any store that sells cigarettes?

I find the anti-smoking measure proposed in the OP ridiculous. If a kid hates the idea of reeking of smoke and breathing dragon breath while effectively setting fire to money, then watching a movie character light up won’t sway them. If a kid considers the whole smoke-reek-dragon-breath-burning-money deal and says “OK!” then they’re beyond the point where keeping away pictures will help.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/32 "2002-11-02T12:37:36Z")

</div>

See, I told you someone with more intelligence than me would come along and find some information to the contrary, **beagledave** , and even from your own posts.

And here’s something else:  
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=142211](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=142211)

It’s a thread from MPSIMS. One person makes reference to being influenced by media in the fact that all characters from movies and books that they enjoyed smoked. But not from advertisements. Everyone else seems to be influenced by family and friends. See, I did a test all my own, and look what I found.

I’ve conducted the type of tests you posted about in college, I know how to phrase questions and annalyse the information to get the desired results. So yes, I can look at your sites and tell you “that information still really doesn’t prove anything.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/33 "2002-11-02T13:12:50Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jarbabyj \*  
> \*\*…I am joining the fucking terrorists.  
> \*\*

Ok, now that’s the kind of terrorism I can support.

😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PhiloVance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e19adc/32.png) [@PhiloVance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhiloVance)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/34 "2002-11-02T17:13:48Z")

</div>

I’ll bet beagledave is a non-smoker or a former smoker with an attitude. :;

As a former smoker, it was peer pressure (it was soooo 🆒 ) that got me started. I coughed and hacked at first, but eventually got the hang of it. Been off the weed for 1.5 years now and glad of it. Managed to buy a new car with the money saved. Well, the down payment anyway. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/35 "2002-11-02T18:00:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by carrot \*  
> Yeah, but Vimes is a smoker! You see, it all ties together!

But Vimes is trying to quit 😛

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/36 "2002-11-02T18:06:03Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fionn \*  
> No doubt they challenge them. Why would they conduct the study if they didn’t want to challenge them?

How the study turns out is quite another matter.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fionn \*  
> Shouldn’t anti-smoking zealots lobby for laws preventing kids from hanging out with bad-news friends, or watching Mom and Dad light up after dinner?

Oh lovely. People who are against smoking are not zealots. On second thought, that means we won.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fionn \*  
> I would imagine that exposure to a best friend increases susceptibility to a great many things, from shooting up heroin to running for student council.

Red herring, anyone?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fionn \*  
> How much does brand awareness matter? As mentioned earlier, desires exist independently from advertisements.

It does? Cite?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fionn \*  
> I find the anti-smoking measure proposed in the OP ridiculous. If a kid hates the idea of reeking of smoke and breathing dragon breath while effectively setting fire to money, then watching a movie character light up won’t sway them.

Where do you think they get the idea of “smoking is cool,” at least in part, from?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/37 "2002-11-02T21:01:00Z")

</div>

Geez…let’s recap, shall we ?

OP disputes the claim that "Again, I don’t have the quote verbatim, but the spokesman interviewed that I saw claimed that cigarrettes are in movies because “Big tabacco companies pay filmakers to put them in to help sponsor their brands.”

I provide cites to show that he is wrong. Does he admit he was wrong? Nope, instead he talks about independent films made by college students, as if **those** kind of films are the ones that would attract product placement moola. Giggle.

He further claims that …

> [@](#):
>
> You will find that, within the advertising world itself, many people feel the impact advertising has is nothing more than a prompt. It’s there to help give you an idea that “if you’re going to do something, you’ve got options, our’s is best,” but lacks the power to influence someone to do something they have no intention of trying. If you’re not hungry, it doesn’t matter how many times I throw images of a Big Mac in your face, you’re not going to buy one. So, although it does have the power to sway, showing characters on stage smoking is not going to suddenly make little children think “Hey, I’m going to go buy a pack of cigarrettes right now and start smoking.” For life impacting decisions like that, family, friends, and peers are the solid influences, and the media is no where there.

I provide cites to disprove **that** notion as well (three different cites). I **also** provided cites via the Smoking Gun that show that (at least in the past) tobacco companies aggresively marketed cigs to teenagers. (Gee, are they THAT stupid to pay for advertising, that according to the OP, doesn’t work?)

Does he admit he was wrong then? Why no, he says that it didn’t work on he or his friends…and then later does a mini poll in MPSIMS where gosh-a-rootie, **nobody** admits to starting to smoke because of advertising. WOW. Was I shocked!!! I’ll be sure to forward the results of that fantastic study to JAMA for some peer review.

I’ll be sure to forward your astonishing results to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute …

[http://www.smokefreekids.com/ads.htm](http://www.smokefreekids.com/ads.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> When young people in California were studied, researchers found that tobacco company advertising was a far greater motivator for teenage smoking than either peer pressure or family influence on whether some adolescents take up smoking, according to a study of California youths. According to the survey, a teenager who does not smoke who is very aware of the advertising is twice as likely to become a smoker than is another teenager who lives in a smoking family but is not aware of the advertising. According to the survey authors, this challenges the claim by tobacco companies that social factors rather than marketing are the key components of a young person’s decision to smoke.

I’ll also pass on your wisdom to the folks at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

[http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/024413.htm](http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/024413.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> Tobacco marketing is one environmental variable that is associated with becoming susceptible to smoking. The study concluded that smoking susceptibility is a valid measure for predicting future smoking behavior and documented that adolescent smoking initiation can be linked historically to cigarette marketing campaigns and promotions.

While I’m at it…I’ll forward your groundbreaking research to the good folks at the American Lung Association.

[http://www.ritobaccocontrolnet.com/teengirl.htm](http://www.ritobaccocontrolnet.com/teengirl.htm)  
I also better pass on your results to Guy Smith, former public relations dude at Phillip Morris

[http://www.louisville.edu/~tapfan01/Issue.htm](http://www.louisville.edu/~tapfan01/Issue.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> Guy Smith, Phillip Morris public relations executive said, “ Our studies and antismoker research say the top three reasons that people start smoking are:
> 
> ```
> 1. Advertising
> 
> 2. Friends smoke
> 
> 3. Family members smoke
> 
> ```

:rolleyes:  
FTR, without knowing the specifics of the statements alluded to in the OP, I don’t have a specific response to the idea about resticting cig content in movies to adult viewing. In general, I think there are probably more effective avenues at lowering the rate of teen smoking. Teens are especially price sensitive to cigs, raising taxes is probably one of the more effective ways to reduce teen smoking rates.

[http://www.inform.umd.edu/newsdesk/releases/1998/98077r.html](http://www.inform.umd.edu/newsdesk/releases/1998/98077r.html)

and

[http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April98/smoking.taxes.ssl.html](http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April98/smoking.taxes.ssl.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/38 "2002-11-02T21:09:01Z")

</div>

I should have mentioned that the last link I provided was one that **questioned** the degree of smoking reduction in teens as a result of tax increase.

I do agree with Jonathan Chance, that tax increases are probably are a first step for those who want to curb the rate of teen smoking.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PhiloVance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e19adc/32.png) [@PhiloVance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhiloVance)\
**Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/39 "2002-11-03T02:53:22Z")

</div>

Well, I found the following links using Google search terms ‘anti smoking movies’:

[http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/index.html](http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/index.html)

and this:

[http://staging3.stoneground.com/smokefreemovies/solution/anti\_tobacco\_ads.html](http://staging3.stoneground.com/smokefreemovies/solution/anti_tobacco_ads.html)

The first is from the University of California at San Francisco, and the info ‘about us’ is here:

[http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/about.html](http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/about.html)

I didn’t bother with the second, but it looks like a copycat as their ‘about us’ goes to the same link.

It appears to be some professor at UCSF with an agenda.

FTR they do have anti smoking ads in California and they are really stupid. If I were a kid viewing these ads, I would hardly be convinced. Heck the way I quit was through total willpower and a crutch (the patch).

Also FTR, beagledave, hate to burst your bubble about the American Lung Association, but I believe they are only there for the funding they receive. As I recall a few years ago (no, I don’t have a cite, sorry), they awarded the local **Non-Polluter of the year** award, or whatever they call it to a professor at Cal State, who actually (get this) “rode the bus _once a week_ to work”. I guess the other four days he rode his Expedition or Escalade.

Also, don’t be too sure about taxes doing the job. You know what they say about necessity, don’t you. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PhiloVance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e19adc/32.png) [@PhiloVance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhiloVance)\
**Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709/40 "2002-11-03T03:48:06Z")

</div>

Began looking for some web links for cheap cigarettes, and wow!, there are a bunch.

[http://www.indiansmokesonline.com/](http://www.indiansmokesonline.com/)

[http://www.budgetsmokers.com/](http://www.budgetsmokers.com/)

[http://www.smokes-spirits.com/store/index.asp?source=findwhat](http://www.smokes-spirits.com/store/index.asp?source=findwhat)

[http://www.aasmokes.com/cgi-bin/ccp5/cp-app.cgi](http://www.aasmokes.com/cgi-bin/ccp5/cp-app.cgi)

[http://web-cigarettes.com/](http://web-cigarettes.com/)

[http://www.abaloneweb.com/stores/abwtobacco.html-ssi](http://www.abaloneweb.com/stores/abwtobacco.html-ssi)

[http://www.buycigarettesatgoodprices.com/](http://www.buycigarettesatgoodprices.com/)

[http://www.cheap-discount.com/indian\_reservation\_cigarettes.html](http://www.cheap-discount.com/indian_reservation_cigarettes.html)

And some news items about the web phenomena:

[http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/01/10/onlinecig10.shtml](http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/01/10/onlinecig10.shtml)

> **[Shakeout Can't Put Out Web Tobacco Sales](https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/7625.html)**
>
> Despite the shakeout that has led to the closure of Web sites selling 
> furniture, garden supplies and pet food, there's another e-tail 
> sector that is on fire: 
> Web-based tobacco sales. The online merchants are 
> apparently thriving, but the budding...

[http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,23102,3403001,00.html](http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,23102,3403001,00.html)

But this is what you may experience if you try to start a cigarette web site:

[http://www.hairyeyeball.net/blog/archives/000722.html](http://www.hairyeyeball.net/blog/archives/000722.html)

> **[NewsFactor](https://newsfactor.com)**
>
> NewsFactor | CIO Today | Top Tech News | Sci-Tech Today

But, remember what I said about necessity?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-anti-smoking-league-for-saving-our-movies/134709.md?page=3)