Smoking in Movies

Forum Index > Smokers Rights > Smoking in Movies > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:46 am

I was worried that would happen. It becomes a logical conclusion when the antis mean to prohibit smoking in cars when your own children are passengers.

In the States, that should be a cause of unreasonable search and seizure by preemption, but what the antis will try to do of course is argue that the children are not in the home as of yet at the time of the prohibition, and they will do so in order to circumvent a charge of unreasonable search and seizure. It is certainly that after the children are placed, so the antis will fight to prevent it ahead of time.

If it does happen here, then I would love to see the antis lose big time in court...please.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:49 am

I wonder how they feel about medical marijuana now that the State of Cali has listed pot smoke as carcinogenic? Is there medical marijuana in England? Will medical marijuana users be banned from adopting children?

EDIT: A pot forum I just checked says in England your doctor has to turn you in to the police and you could lose your driver's license if you confide to the doctor that you use pot, medicinally or otherwise. They also inform your employer over there. Doesn't sound like they allow it.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

by libertarian99 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:42 pm

gilster wrote:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/07/25/smokers-care-ban-row-91466-24235304/

Smokers care ban row
Jul 25 2009 by Samantha Mendez, South Wales Echo

SMOKERS have been banned from fostering or adopting children in one area of South Wales, prompting outrage.

The controversial no smoking policy, approved by councillors in Merthyr Tydfil, says: “No foster carers or adopters who smoke will be recruited for children under five and no children under five will be placed with adopters who smoke.”

And if the prospective adoptive parents or foster carers give up smoking, a child under five cannot be placed with them for at least a year. Roslyn Rees, the council’s head of operational children’s services, said in a report: “The health, safety and wellbeing of children and young people are at the heart of policies and practice related to children.”

That rule will have its own built-in punishment. What will happen is there will be fewer people applying to foster or adopt. A few will quit smoking, but many smokers will be so offended by the rule, they will find some other way to become parents, such as surrogacy, in vitro, etc. Others will feel so ashamed, they will give up the idea of parenting at all, convinced they really are evil and don't deserve to have a family.

The new rule will do nothing to encourage more non-smokers to adopt, so the net result will be fewer people who are willing to parent these children.

After that situation goes on awhile and it starts to get expensive taking care of all those extra children who can't be placed, the rules will have to be relaxed for non-smokers, and whoever oversees the placement and care of these children will have to start looking the other way when they see signs of potential and/or actual abuse. They will be quite reluctant to remove foster children from any home because they simply won't have any place else to put them, and no money left to take them back.

As time goes on, more instances of child molestation and abuse in the foster care system will be reported in the newspapers, possibly involving some deaths because the caseworkers will be overloaded and reluctant to remove children from any non-smoking home, even if the parent is a pedophile. People can be remarkably blind that way when necessity demands it.

At any rate, the rule will eventually backfire, just like the celibacy rule backfired for the Catholic Church. When normal people are turned away because they're not willing or can't adhere to unnecessarily tight restrictions on their behavior, it creates a great opportunity for truly weird people who appear normal and can "pass the test" long enough to get their foot in the door at the candy shop.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:47 pm

No. What will probably happen is that the government will hike tobacco taxes for the care of the orphans.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

by Smoker Sympathizer on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:56 pm

gilster wrote:

I guess by the anti's counts I should be severely disabled or dead, considering I lived in a smoking home for the first half of my childhood. Guess what? I have an undergraduate degree, two graduate degrees and am healthy as a horse. Policies like this are why I have such contempt for the anti's. I really don't know how they live with themselves. I'm not into lawsuits; I think they are one of the root causes of what is wrong in the modern day US. However, it would be interesting if a smoker were passed over to be a foster parent and the child that would have been placed with them were placed in a more "dysfunctional" setting. Would that child have a right to sue? Would any lawyer take the case. I'm guessing not. The anti's are all for blame and "accountability" when it's not directed at them. Why is no one with the power to do something seeing through their sham?

Smoker Sympathizer Toker

Toker Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Posts: 86

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:16 pm

Yes, our governments are corrupt.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

by Smoker Sympathizer on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:20 pm

Slearwig wrote:

Are you in the movie industry, or doing school research, or?

I wasn't sure if this question was directed at me, but I wanted to answer it. Unfortunately, I'm not in anything as glamorous as the movie industry, and I'm not in school. I'm a writer. I work at it a lot but haven't had anything published yet. As a writer I am hypersensitive to things that seem to be in a book/movie for the sake of a message and don't stem organically from the character. I notice cheap shots and propaganda, and unfortunately when you know it's there, it makes a movie predictable and I despise that. For example, I don't want to get off topic, but I've noticed in recent years that whenever a man and woman are in competition, the woman always seems to get the upper hand and men tend to get portrayed disproportionately as either dumb or greedy (a giant disclaimer, I know this doesn't apply to everything and I am generalizing; it's just an observation). I don't think it stems from the characters themselves; I think it stems from moviemaker's fear of being labeled anti-feminist. As a woman this offends me greatly. As a writer it offends me even more. We look to entertainment to not only escape, but to evaluate and interpret life (at least I do). Done right it can elevate us; done poorly, it can debase us. That's why I believe writers and artists have a duty to be honest.

Two movies where smoking was prevalant and there was no judgement made about it were Brokeback Mountain and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. These are some of my favorite films. I realize they were able to get away with it because of "historical" context, but it was just a breath of fresh air not to have to wait for the obligatory "smoking is bad-you have to quit" scene.

Smoker Sympathizer Toker

Toker Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Posts: 86

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:35 pm

I'm not officially or technically in the business myself, but I know the movies are often designed strictly as a device of manipulation, almost like a radio spot that encourages listeners to play the lottery.

Sometimes it's not so well hidden, as in the case of Rob Reiner and his last film, "The Bucket List". Mr. Reiner championed a cigarette tax of $0.50 a pack some 11 years ago with the intents of doing so to discourage the habit.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

by gilster on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:35 pm

Smoker Sympathizer wrote:

For example, I don't want to get off topic, but I've noticed in recent years that whenever a man and woman are in competition, the woman always seems to get the upper hand and men tend to get portrayed disproportionately as either dumb or greedy

Heck, that's been going on for eons, 'The Honeymooners' used that playbook - it is a working model for comedy. I notice when a comedy has been on for years, if it had not had the model of the smart wife/dumb husband in the first seasons it ends up in the latter seasons right back to the Honeymooners scenario.

I've seen it with 'home improvement', 'everyone loves raymond' and 'cosby'
Heck, if it was studied a bit I bet the Honeymooners first seasons weren't as 'dumb husband' as the later seasons.

So back to smoking movies, the antis have a website that rates movies based on smoking scenes - I check it once in a while looking for decent movies with smoking scenes...lol.

http://www.scenesmoking.org/frame.htm
They rate movies based on tobacco use/seen in the movie.
From pink to black lung rating - it's all there.

gilster

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Apr 19, 2006 Posts: 1214

by Slearwig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:51 pm

But notice how I Love Lucy played it opposite, always better off as the homebound wifey after all, and then after the breakup Lucile Ball returned with The Lucy Show where she played the smart one, and yet it is I Love Lucy that is regarded as the classic show.

Slearwig

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 213

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Smoking Lobby Smokers Rights Forum Index ~ Smokers Rights

Smoking Lobby Forum for Smokers Rights