|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
And oh yes, some people are mean spirited in Hollywood. As we already know, some people raised the California cigarette taxes $0.50 about 11 years ago, somebody that used to be fun to watch who was known as the "Meathead" on t.v. and he did so to deprive the habit. Other Hollywood folks are pure murder when they decide not to be nice to people.
And some people are mean spirited enough that they have again hacked the smokersclubinternational forums site again today, or it looks like it. That site is again offline. |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 209
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by garhkal
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
Smoker Sympathizer wrote:
Angels and Demons (one character a smoker, passes out before a non-smoker when deprived of air, and the smoking was brought up too, just smacks of anti tinkering)
It seems like every movie made within the past few years that involves smoking has to have some kind of negative comment on it. It really irritates me.
I actually agreed with how angles and demons handled it. BUT i do agree, many seem to show it negatively these days.. Heck, remember constantine. He was saved from death cause of smoking.
Quote: That character irritated me, too. It wasn't realistic because if someone was that opposed to smoking based on their personal history of losing a parent, they would never even date a smoker, much less marry one. It didn't make sense unless the point was to portray the wife as a neurotic, illogical loon.
Agreed. I know several anti smokers who married smokers, BUT they are not as virulent as some are...
Quote: Why can't smokers be good characters? If cinema is a reflection of life, there are many good people who happen to be smokers. Why can't human life be portrayed honestly instead of twisted to make a propaganda point for the people in charge?
That's just it. IT is being used as propganda by the anti brigade, which is why now a days you only see non smokers being the good guys. THough what gets me, is look at bond. A womanizing drinking killer as a good guy, but a smoker is bad? It is almost like saying killing someone, is better than smoking.
Quote: Of those films, 75 percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’
Did they list what other factors were in those making them R? |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:56 pm |
|
| Yeah. In that .pdf it actually said that 75% of the movies that had even a brief smoking scene were already "R-rated" because of other non-smoking content, so the upshot is that 25% of those movies between 2004 and 2006 received an "R" because of smoking. |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 209
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 209
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
I don't remember ever being influenced by advertising or the movies when I started smoking as a teenager. I had two siblings who smoked, so stealing a cigarette from them every once in awhile seemed like the ultimate rebellion. The fact that I wasn't supposed to do it is exactly what made it appealing.
That's the thing about rating movies R just for smoking. When teenagers figure out that adults are trying to keep something away from them, it only makes the taboo activity more appealing as a form of rebellion. For the most part, the last thing any teenager wants to do is conform to their parents' value system. |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Smoker Sympathizer
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:17 am |
|
I would think that by spewing such outrageous lies and hyperbole that the anti's would be running out of credibility by now, but they just keep steamrolling along unchecked. I think that's where the propaganda aspect comes into play. They can afford to make increasingly absurd and unprovable claims because theirs is the only side of the story being told. This is evidenced when they can dictate what points of view are acceptable and not acceptable in movies. If they don't like what's on the screen why can't they write their own stories, instead of trying to dictate how others write theirs?
The new fascism seems to be not about putting people in prison but about putting the prison into people (paraphrased quote from "The Scarlet Letter" movie), which is a much more effective weapon. I think its symbol can be identified as a red circle with a line through it. |
|
|
Smoker Sympathizer
Toker
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Pete Gatti
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:25 am |
|
Smoker Sympathizer wrote:
It seems like every movie made within the past few years that involves smoking has to have some kind of negative comment on it. It really irritates me.
Same here. Such scenes are just a reminder of how the control freaks have taken over everything.
In contrast, been watching moon landing docs celebrating the 40th anniversary of first man on the moon. I wonder what "the children" think when they see command personal smoking at their station. I know the anti's are having a conniption that those scenes weren't cut which delights me to no end. Yes in deed, smoker's helped put the first man on the moon. |
|
|
Pete Gatti
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 26, 2009
Posts: 217
Location: Dade City, Florida
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by garhkal
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:48 am |
|
| Nearly every major figure from the 1900s that accomplished something big were smokers, from patton, to eisenhour, to clint.... |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Smoker Sympathizer
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:17 am |
|
Pete Gatti wrote: Smoker Sympathizer wrote:
It seems like every movie made within the past few years that involves smoking has to have some kind of negative comment on it. It really irritates me.
Same here. Such scenes are just a reminder of how the control freaks have taken over everything.
In contrast, been watching moon landing docs celebrating the 40th anniversary of first man on the moon. I wonder what "the children" think when they see command personal smoking at their station. I know the anti's are having a conniption that those scenes weren't cut which delights me to no end. Yes in deed, smoker's helped put the first man on the moon.
Well said Pete,
And imagine the horror of the children seeing that non-smoking coworkers weren't rioting to stop those evil smokers. Imagine them watching people with different outlooks on life getting along. We can't have that. We can't have the children believing in such nightmarish stuff as tolerance and compromise. They might actually start to practice it in their lives if they see it enough and that would be extremely detrimental to the anti's mission to raise a generation who whines and sues whenever they don't get their own way.
The above was tongue-in-cheek, but what I'm about to say is not. It might even be a little controversial but it's what I truly believe. I believe overprotecting children is as harmful as underprotecting them. Let me first start off by saying that I have no children and thus no firsthand experience. I know in my heart though that the vast vast majority of parents love their children more than anything and genuinely want to do right by them. However, the fact that there are even people out there who think smoking around a child constitutes child abuse, makes me wonder how far off the rails we've gone as a society. Now do I advocate sitting a child down in an enclosed area and blowing smoking in his/her face? Of course not. But I really don't see anything wrong with a smoking parent smoking in his/her own home with a child present in the same room. My grandfather did that with me in the next chair and I turned out fine, more than fine actually. I'm just afraid that one day there will be a law that a parent can not smoke in the house if a child is present. The last thing we need is more laws telling us how to live our lives, with the government thinking it can make better decisions about children's lives than parents can. Sorry this last paragraph was kind of off topic and please feel free to disagree. As a non-smoker, I'm not sure if the issue has been debated by smokers. |
|
|
Smoker Sympathizer
Toker
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:20 am |
|
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.”
~snip~
Quote: The last thing we need is more laws telling us how to live our lives, with the government thinking it can make better decisions about children's lives than parents can.
Coming to a Neighborhood near you..... |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1207
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
