Keep Smoking Out of Films?
Reaction to my blog a couple weeks ago about Cape Regional Medical Center extending its smoking ban to include the hospital grounds, parking lots, company vehicles, vehicles parked in the lots and adjacent sidewalks surprised me.
Five who commented were upset, saying the hospital had gone too far and was inflicting its views on others. Only three celebrated the new rules. And one pleaded for security guards not to be blamed.
I wonder what will be the response to this: The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) could give a higher rating to new films that “glamorize” smoking.
Puffing on a Marlboro would be right up there with violence, sex, profanity and drug use as the MPAA determines what rating to use in advising parents or restricting admissions.
Many have had great fun with this. What’s next: meat, mink or Mr. Softee? asked Philadelphia Inquirer movie critic Steven Rea.
But Amy Jordan at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center says tobacco use has increased in films and too many teenagers continue to become addicted to it.
I detest smoking, but a part of me also resists censorship.
The argument that people should be allowed to make their own choices is philosophically persuasive. But without rules, and enforcement, how many would not fasten seatbelts or wear safety helmets as they ride motorcycles?
5 Comments:
Wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle should be the rider's call. Wearing seatbelts should be the individual's preference. Smoking or not should also be the individual's preference. Worshiping or not should be the individual's preference.
There are those who honestly and in good faith (sorry, had to say that) think that worship is harmful. They say that religious belief is what...opiate of the masses? So I think there might be a segment that would ban religious affiliation (Mao and Joe Stalin would fit right in with these "activists"), as easily as some justify a seatbelt law. As for a helmet; well, it’s my head, not yours.
Should the American Cancer Society be allowed to restrict the amount of time we spend in the sunlight? After all, it's for our own good, isn't it? Just as restricting our right to smoke is for our own good. As is wearing a helmet, seatbelt, etc.
Funny how the MPAA can decide that showing adults smoking is harmful to our youth, but illustrating abortion, indiscriminate sex, recreational drug use, or vengeance is part of an artform that can be socially redeeming.
Regulate your own life, and stay out of mine.
By all means let people be free to do anything they like WITH THEIR OWN BODIES AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. But no person has some "right" to inflict the cost of their choices on others without their consent.
Smoking affects others and affects them adversely. There is no such thing as secondhand helmetless motorcycle riding. And smoking is not a right - it's just a personal habit foolishlessly chosen.
Those who wish to smoke are welcome to go hide away in some closed room where their surrender to their addiction affects only each other, as in the opium dens of old Chinatown 100 years ago. Let the rest of society enjoy freedom from their nicotine pollution, in all public places.
Getting the cigarette junkies off hospital grounds is just a beginning - let them be banned from employment, as the World Health Organization has already done. Why should the rest of us pay increased health insurance premiums to cover the enormous medical expenses these addicts incur by their foolish choice?
Easy says...
Would I lose the scene of Paul Henreid lighting two cigarettes and giving one to Bette Davis-- whose Boston mother forbid her to smoke, wear lipstick, date men or grow up? Sin or not, puffs bring up the whole culture of pre-WWII Beacon Hill. I can see the plunge of sophistication into the wants of war, without becoming a smoker.
Let's ban all overweight people from employment since that unhealthy lifestyle costs us all in healthcare.
Let's ban all sun worshipers from employment since that unhealthy lifestyle costs us all in healthcare.
Let's ban all...
You see where this goes. Label it any way you like, it's still about controlling the lives of others.
But as one said, "... no person has some "right" to inflict the cost of their choices on others without their consent." So I guess I have the right of refusal on any one of YOUR choices that I deem unfit, unhealthy, unsavory, or just plain objectionable to me.
And the real question: Who decides when consent should be given?
The age-old question is: Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?
As autonomous individuals, we want to believe -- indeed, we choose to believe -- that art imitates life; but that simply isn't true -- as any observer of children can attest. Life imitates art, which springs from our imaginations.
Thus, the MPAA is considering forewarning consumers about cinematography depicting cigarette smoking.
There is nothing wrong with supplying this kind of information to the general public, particularly to parents -- in fact, it is commendable and should be supported.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home