You claim the study is “dogshit”. Based upon what? Were you one of the peers that reviewed it? Have you written a study that proves the opposite? Can you even link to a study that proves the opposite?
They did the study and came up with results. They then repeated the study (with later films) and got similar results. Thus, it is even repeatable. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that if they did the study a third time, with more recent films, the results would be different? Or, perhaps- you don’t want the study to be true.?
Somehow, do you think that Big Tobacco, the people who deliberately lied for decades about smoking and lung cancer have suddenly turned altruistic? The dudes who kill 400-500 Americans each year? That number is huge.
It does, there are two studies that show that trend. Do you have a link to a study that show different? That is how science works. Sure , papers and studies can became outdated, then you know what? Science comes around and shows that the two prior studies are now wrong.
Big Tobacco spends millions of $$ each year on studies by bought and paid for scientists, often in their own facilities. If they could disprove those studies, you’d see them putting them out. But they haven’t.
And it is not “my claim”. It is a fact of science. You are arguing with science, not me.
Your cites don’t support your claim. In particular, they in no way compare smoking in films today to smoking in films in the heyday of smoking. They didn’t study either today or the heyday of smoking. Your cites are simply not relevant.
And the more recent of the cites you provided is still over 25 years old. It doesn’t support your claim that “smoking is today [emphasis mine] more prevalent in film that it was in the heyday of smoking.”
Perhaps it is. Maybe no studies have been done on it recently. The tobacco industry has indeed done a lot of slimy things, and they may well, in the present day, still be quietly encouraging depictions of smoking in film. But, your cites still don’t back up that specific claim.
That doesn’t make any difference. Two scientific studies have proved it. Most of the studies proving smoking causes lung cancer are older, but that doesn’t mean that smoking today doesn’t cause lung cancer.
In order to think that Big Tobacco isn’t using this valuable tool to ensnare more teen smokers you would have to either have some solid cites or be terribly naive.
They proved that it was going on up through the 1990s, at least.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that the tobacco companies are still doing so today (and I said as much in my previous post). But, no one here has provided a solid, scientific cite to either (a) demonstrate that appearances of smoking in films has continued at a similar pace as it had been up through the 1990s, or (b) it hasn’t.
Again – is it still widely going on today, at a similar sort of rate that it was 20 or 30 years ago? It’s entirely possible, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true. But, no one in this thread has demonstrated this.
I will get jumped on with both feet by many of you for saying this, but…every smoker I know is poor (lower middle class or actually poor) and/or has some mental problems. A couple of them told me they work side jobs just to be able to afford cigarettes. They will take back bottles at the bottle return to scrape up money for a pack ($11 here now) and make pilgrimages to The Rez, even in a blizzard, for a half-price carton of no-names. (I smoked myself for decades, quit years ago and now I am one of those annoying people who can’t bear the smell. I also ballooned up between that and prescription medications). Most of my smoker friends are 50-ish, the younger ones do the vaping.
I may regret pursuing this, but which scientific studies support your claim that “smoking is today more prevalent in film than it was in the heyday of smoking”?
Surely the existence of the outdated studies, while not establishing anything about current trends one way or the other, puts the burden of proof on the person claiming it is NOT happening? Either:
The practice continues, with little or no change
or
The practice continues only with major changes
or
The practice does not continue
Occam’s razor: the most likely explanation is #1. While #2 and #3 are possible, there should be evidence of a change (a new law, for example).
Cigarette smoking does not cause relaxation or pleasure. Smokers, that feeling you get when you light one up? That’s how nonsmokers feel all the time. What you’re feeling is the removal of the misery from the withdrawal symptoms.
Well, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement says the tobacco companies may not pay for tobacco placement in movies and TV shows. Is that enough of a change? I still await an explanation or cite from @DrDeth to support his claim that “smoking is today more prevalent in film than it was in the heyday of smoking”.
It’s certainly enough for a strong hypothesis. But for an argument, you need evidence. Comparing the top five films of 1996 to those of 2000 should be feasible, and would either refute the hypothesis or strengthen it.
It doesn’t. It only addresses the issue of complaining about the antiquity of the studies showing that, at the end of the 20th century, smoking was more prevalent in film than it was in reality.
My own opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that smoking was also inflated in mid-20th century film and television, in part because it gave actors something to do and in part for marketing reasons, so to do this properly you’d have to establish baseline smoking rates, which clearly vary by geography, gender, and class as well as time, and then establish a separate baseline for media depictions. That’s because “more prevalent” has to compare apples to apples: more smoking in film now than then, more smoking in film in relation to actual use now than then, or what?
I remember the film Chicago (2002), which struck me at the time as having an excessive amount of smoking, unrealistic even for the very smoky time period in which it was set. I couldn’t decide if that was sneaky marketing or lazy scene-setting.
Anyway, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so I’ll go back to lurking.
I was a smoker once, and I’ve been a nonsmoker for a lot longer since giving up. I disagree with this analysis - or at least, it’s way too much of a simplification.
I won’t dispute the nature of addiction and withdrawal being more or less what you state, but not all of the pleasure of smoking was from the nicotine. I used to enjoy the ritual of rolling a cigarette, the aroma of the tobacco and (although I hate it now) the flavour of the smoke and the various sensations of smoking. It was a pleasaurable activity in its own way.
And even though the nicotine thing can be described as a return to normality, I’m not even sure that’s quite a correct point, since humans experience pleasure in the gradients of various changes - for example when a nagging headache subsides as painkillers kick in, even though that’s only a return to ‘normal’, the perception of the absence of pain, following pain, is (momentarily) better than ‘normality’.
This might sound like it’s an argument in support of smoking. It’s not. Smoking is stupid and I am glad I gave up years and years ago, but I do not agree with the statements about there being no pleasure in it.
I took up smoking as I had two chain smoking parents, and was addicted myself at a fairly young age. I would actually go into withdrawal while at school. When I finally started smoking on my own, I was able to relieve those symptoms.
I really don’t know how you can say that with such an attempt at authority. It does cause relaxation and pleasure. If it didn’t, then people wouldn’t do it. When I would be fairly worked up emotionally, a cigarette would calm me down, and just about everything about the process is pleasurable.
And what part of that is not relaxing and pleasurable? Say you have a splinter stuck in your toe, would you not find relaxation and pleasure in having that splinter removed? Just because now your toe feels the same as people without splinters in their toes feel all the time doesn’t mean that leaving the splinter in is preferable.
I remember when my dad would try to quit. He’s always been a bit of an ass, but when he was quitting he was just a ball of rage and anger, set off by anything. About once every couple years he’d go through the cycle again and again, it was not a pleasant experience for anyone around him, and it probably wasn’t all that pleasant for him either.
Every time I tried to quit, I’d be on edge until I smoked again. I’ve quit for as long as two years, and never stopped thinking about smoking, that misery that giving into the nicotine addiction alleviates was always there.
I did kinda quit smoking cigarettes a number of years back, I still vape, but not all that much, for some reason, it’s been much easier to cut back on vaping than it ever was to cut back on cigarettes.
As far as I can tell, no one is claiming that it is not happening.
@DrDeth claimed, “smoking is today more prevalent in film than it was in the heyday of smoking”. Other posters are pointing out that the the studies he is citing studied neither the heyday of smoking nor today. His cites do not support, and certainly don’t prove, his claim.
Wow. I finally looked at @DrDeth 's first cite even though it doesn’t study the proper time period.
The study claims that people smoke in films at a higher rate than they do in real life. The study does not claim that smoking in films is increasing. Here’s the closest it comes to addressing the issue…
There was no significant decline in overall tobacco use over the years 1960 through 1990, but changes in tobacco presentation were found.
The study, on top of not being relevant, does not even make the claim that @DrDeth says it does. There is no trend that scientifically ‘proves’ his claim.
Check out figure one in this pdf of the study or read the whole thing. It’s quite short. Link to pdf.