Smoking: Rated R

I'm going to try not to get either too indignant or preachy, but to put it as simply as possible, here's what these non-smoking groups want: if a character is seen in a movie using a tobacco product, and is not shown suffering any ill effects of said use, that movie should be rated R. Seeing as movies are already given R ratings for certain degrees of language, sex, violence, and drug use, why not do the same for smoking, right? I'll tell you why not; there's no point.

The intention of groups like Smoke Free Movies (click the title for a link to their 'Solution') is not so much to increase the number of R-rated movies, but to give filmmakers and movie studios a reason not to include smoking in their films. Generally speaking, PG-13 movies make more money than R movies. If a studio has a choice between losing a lot of box office cash or editing out a shot of an actor lighting a cigarette...easy choice. I'll buy that. What I won't buy is that any kid or teenager who sees a movie, of any rating or content, anywhere, will start smoking due to the influence of that movie over any other factor in his/her life. And as much as these groups and their studies claim to have data to back up their position, I can't find any instance in which they actually produce it.

I read an article stating "...smoking in PG-13 movies rose 50 percent in 1999-2000..." Okay...what movies? What characters, what scenes? For that matter, how many movies? Honestly; how many PG-13 movies could there be from one year to the next in which characters are smoking? Two or three? Where's your evidence? For that matter, what is the individual demographic information for each and every kid who saw those movies and took up smoking and made several sworn statements and testimonials that he or she started smoking because it was in those movies? There's no direct correlation. Even if there is smoking in those movies, and even if more kids who saw those movies started smoking than kids who didn't...that's only statistical correlation. They're just numbers. It's basically meaningless.

And I've got news for you: kids know how to lie. They're not going to say "My buddy Jimmy stole a pack of cigarettes and we smoked them when my parents weren't home." They won't tell you "I just wanted to know what it was like" or "I just bought 'em to see if my fake ID worked and figured I might as well smoke 'em." And they certainly won't tell you "All my friends smoke and I didn't want them to make fun of me." When you talk to a bunch of kids who smoke, about movies with characters who smoke, and ask if they started smoking after watching those movies...DUH! What do you think they're going to say?

The problem I have with these groups...sure, what they're suggesting isn't such a bad thing, because it doesn't really hurt anybody, and tobacco products do seem to kill a lot of people...it's not their reasoning, it's their reasons. The whole big REASON they want this? To keep kids from smoking. You know what? Talk to the damn kids, then! It's got nothing to do with the movies! I don't care what kind of studies they've done; the film industry is not a marketing tool for the tobacco companies. Either intentional or unintentional, directly or subliminally - movies simply do not cause kids to start smoking.

I defy anyone to show me a direct correlation for even one kid - someone who saw a movie, thought smoking was cool, and decided to have a cigarette with no other decisive influence pushing him to light up. Just one! Won't happen. Because in the end, aside from all the various influences, it's still up to that one kid to decide what to do. His life is his own, as is each of ours. And there's no way to hold any unrelated group of people responsible for the decisions and actions of a lone individual, unless they're explicitly and persistently attempting to influence behavior in precisely that manner. Good luck convincing anyone that's the case.

Just so no one tries to extend this argument to other areas of controversy, such as movie violence or racism, or other things of that nature: smoking may be bad for you, but it isn't wrong. Pulling out a gun and shooting people is wrong, whether it happens in the movies or out here in the world. Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but smoking on film isn't actually wrong, and shooting people is. How these actions are represented on film can be put up for debate another day.

If you're worried about kids and tobacco - address the kids directly, instead of treating them like empty vessels who do nothing but react to whatever influence forces itself upon them. If teenage smoking is a problem for you, deal with the teenagers, not the movies the teenagers are watching. Am I seriously the only one who finds that kind of thinking offensive and inhumane? This idea that we must stop people from giving kids bad ideas because that means our kids will do those bad things? That they can't help it? That it wouldn't be better to help our kids be informed and intelligent and able to make decisions on their own or consult us when they need to and know they can always talk to us about these things? No, let's just keep tobacco out of the movies they watch, so they'll never even think of smoking and always be perfect little angels.

Give me a break.


Here's a fun link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705898/