May contain adult scenes....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I have four children, ...

You too? I didn't think that such insanity was that common.

Anyway, I have yet another reason to ban the viewing of Peter Jackson's LotR (besides the obvious murder of Gandalf's character in RotK...). This would extend to the books as well, but who reads anymore?

But what about mushrooms? Tolkien clearly does not warn readers that most mushrooms found in the wild, regardless of what they are served with, if eaten are deadly.

How irresponsible of Jackson and Tolkien.

Then, regarding the films, besides 'smoke' there are fireworks. Do you know how many children lose fingers or experience serious burns due to these devices which Jackson treats as nothing more than plot devices (actually, I don't know, and was hoping someone could do the leg work on that)?

Anyway, seriously, it's my job as my children's parent to keep them safe. If I screw that up, it's obviously going to weed my genes out of the pool. My kids know that smoking is bad, and yet they've watched all three movies. My kids know that their grandfather died due to too much smoke. No Wizard or Hobbit is going to change their minds on that one.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Anyway, seriously, it's my job as my children's parent to keep them safe. If I screw that up, it's obviously going to weed my genes out of the pool. My kids know that smoking is bad, and yet they've watched all three movies. My kids know that their grandfather died due to too much smoke. No Wizard or Hobbit is going to change their minds on that one.

I'm reminded of CS Lewis words

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

These councillors are exactly that - moral busybodies (though as yet not quite omnipotent). Smoking is harmful, but, as Chesterton pointed out, it is not immoral, & certainly not illegal for adults. Therefore banning children from seeing adults smoking in a film seems just wrong. As others have pointed out, the kids (though actually we're talking about anyone under the age of 18 here!) will be able to see many other things in films which are far more dangerous. And it seems to me therefore that the councillors are actually indulging in a moral crusade against tobacco - otherwise they would ban under 18's from seeing anything that was in any way potentially dangerous. I think Chesterton got it right - Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. - nasty, smelly, dirty, dangerous & expensive yes, but morally wrong - no. What would worry me, though- if I lived in the city - is what would they target next if they get away with this one? 'unacceptable' images tend to go first, then 'unacceptable' ideas tend to follow. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions .....

[Hakon]

I am surprised that what I am about to say has yet to be mentioned yet. Weather this happens or not the kids will still see people smoking. These kids could have parents who smoke or they could just see someone on the street who is smoking. Preventing them from seeing it in movies is not preventing them from seeing it at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hakon

Preventing them from seeing it in movies is not preventing them from seeing it at all.

No - but the point is that the councillors seem to believe they have a right (actually, no, its worse than that, an obligation) to control what people see, & probably also what they experience. Actually, they are elected to make sure the bins get emptied & the street lighting works, not to be the 'moral guardians' of the whole city.

Can't help thinking about the episode in Lorien between Sam & Galdriel: "I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights... You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work."

"I would," Galadriel tells Sam. "That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!"

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

And it seems to me therefore that the councillors are actually indulging in a moral crusade against tobacco - otherwise they would ban under 18's from seeing anything that was in any way potentially dangerous. I think Chesterton got it right - Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. - nasty, smelly, dirty, dangerous & expensive yes, but morally wrong - no. What would worry me, though- if I lived in the city - is what would they target next if they get away with this one? 'unacceptable' images tend to go first, then 'unacceptable' ideas tend to follow. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions .....

I think political decisions like this one is best understood in term of economics, although morality also is a factor. The reasoning is that kids who watch cool people smoke on a big screen associate smoking with being cool, and then pick up the habit to be like their role-model. If more kids start smoking, more of them also carry on with the habit as grown ups and more go on to develop life-threatening smoking-related diseases statistically. And this consists of a loss for the state/city council, both in a pure monetary sense and in terms of political achievement, as saving lives (statistically) is a good thing from the perspective of the democratically elected government. Therefore the state/city council will want to implement regulations they think will stop young kids from smoking (or adults from doing all the things they are dying to do but is deemed harmful).

Whereas Johnny Depp might get kids into smoking fags, Gandalf probably won't, but bureaucratic regulations can't distinguish between such subtleties.

Still, we live in democratic societies, and if the voting public thinks that these regulations are a threat to their personal freedom rather than a good way of saving lives they would not vote for the political party who wants to implement them. Here we can talk about morality. Watching violence for entertainment in movies is okay but smoking (or sex) is not. But the moral judgement comes from the voting public I believe, and not from the politicians (although they can try to influence the former). The question is: do you want to make your own decisions, or do you prefer to relinquish this responsibility to the state/city council? Many people these days seem to prefer the latter and that is why more and more details in ours lives are being monitored, regulated and controlled.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The reasoning is that kids who watch cool people smoke on a big screen associate smoking with being cool, and then pick up the habit to be like their role-model. If more kids start smoking, more of them also carry on with the habit as grown ups and more go on to develop life-threatening smoking-related diseases statistically. And this consists of a loss for the state/city council, both in a pure monetary sense and in terms of political achievement, as saving lives (statistically) is a good thing from the perspective of the democratically elected government. Whereas Johnny Depp might get kids into smoking fags, Gandalf probably won't, but bureaucratic regulations can't distinguish between such subtleties.

The lifelong cynic in me is generally unwilling to grant those wishing to exercise such authority any altruistic motivations when it come to things like this. They may say that's where they're coming from in order to justify it, but do statistics really indicate children learn to smoke by watching people do it in movies?
From my own experience it seems teenagers mostly pick up the habit because their friends do it, and the friends usually had parents who smoked. It doesn't appear to me watching a movie character smoke during the film has much of an influence. It never did for me, at any rate, and the war on smoking was not even in full force when I was a child. I remember buying candy cigarettes from the store. I had a friend or two that smoked cigarettes in my teenage years, but most of my exposure to it was at home. I had a grandfather who smoked cigarettes, and my father has been a pipe smoker as long as I can remember. Had I chosen to pick up the habit, I believe pipe smoking is what it would have been.
My wife was a smoker when we met, though she later quit. She says her associates were the most influential factor in her starting.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The lifelong cynic in me is generally unwilling to grant those wishing to exercise such authority any altruistic motivations when it come to things like this.

Agreed. That's why I said the issue is better understood in terms of economics (self-interest basically) than in terms of morality.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

They may say that's where they're coming from in order to justify it, but do statistics really indicate children learn to smoke by watching people do it in movies?

Personally I'm convinced they do, to a degree. Now I don't smoke (much) but when I started in my teens the main reason was social I think, trying to build a self-image I was happy with. Images from movies, music videos etc. probably played a major part influencing me. Friends, parents, idols did so too.

But if that justifies censorship is an altogether different question. I certainly don't think so. If we can't make our own life decisions, life's quite pointless.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I think political decisions like this one is best understood in term of economics, .

That equation doesn't work for me, as smoking is very heavily taxed. Given that most smokers don't die until they are past 70 - if you smoked a pack a day for 50 years then the govt would have picked up at least 50,000 pounds in tax. Not all smokers actually die of smoking related diseases anyway.

Driving can be bad for you too ... lots of people die on the roads every year - and children aren't allowed to drive anyway, so clearly (using the same logic) all movies showing people driving should be banned to stop children from being influenced to drive.

The fact that one standard is applied to the depiction of smoking ... and a different standard applied to the depiction of other harmful activities. This just shows that this is a "moral" issue as far as the do-gooders are considered. They clearly think that smoking is not only potentially life-shortening but that it is an "evil" that should be stamped out.

However, a double standard applies. Smoking will never be banned as long as the government can reap enormous taxes from the sale of tobacco. Yes, the same government that tells us how perfectly dreadful smoking is.

If it's really that bad (and I'm not saying that it isn't) - then just ban it. All of the moral handwringing about a legal activity is just .... repellent. Screwtape would be proud.

[skip spence]

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly. I might have erred with the terminology as well. Unless I'm mistaken, all economic theory is based on the supposition that all players act in what they deem as their own best interest. What I mean by economic terms as opposed to moralistic terms, is therefore not only the money-factor but also that the politicians who decide on smoking policies make a more or less rational assessment based on which action they think serves their party, and more importantly themselves, best.

Oh man, I have to run, will explain later...

[alatar]

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine. Most smokers are respectful of my air space. My only gripe is the disposal of the cigarette butts, which, for some reason, unlike any other piece of trash/rubbish, can, and seemingly MUST! be thrown on the ground/in the gutter.

Please be a little more responsible...You smokers do realize that your DNA is easily recovered from the spent cigarette, don't you? Welcome to your country's DNA database.

Anyway, I'm not sure why this product is singled out so in movies, especially in a movie trilogy like LotR, where it's all fantasy. Not sure if my kids, when they watched Bilbo and Gandalf puffing away, understood that pipeweed exists in their world as well as in Middle Earth. The characters in ME have and use weapons, drink ale and wine, overeat, suggest cannibalism, murder (even children), pillage, don't practice oral hygiene, etc - a multitude of sins, poor choices, unhealthy habits and bad behaviour.

And some smoke!

What I find annoying is, like many have said, why, if the product is so bad for health, it remains legal. Actually, the real question is how anyone can say with a straight face why it is so bad and yet so legal.

What a deal! Heavily tax a physically addictive substance, pretend to ban the advertising of it (thereby making it more exclusive), subsidize its production, and cry over its cost to the health system. When you're having this much fun, you know that government is involved...

Why not allow people to make their own choices, and also be responsible for their own actions? A life insurance company, knowing that tobacco users have better odds of 'cashing in,' increase premiums for users. If you want to smoke - fine - but it may cost you more, but that's your thing.

An aside: The other night we're driving home on a larger four lane highway. We're driving with traffic, and so traveling at about 50 mph (80 kph). It's getting darker. There's a motorcyclist in front of me, and the guy isn't wearing a helmet, but that's his choice.

Anyway, he slowed a bit, and pulled somewhat to the side of his lane, yet maintained speed and continued along. Me, wanting to get away from this organ donor in training, passed him on his left. When we came level with him, his odd behaviour was now explained.

He was using his left hand to text on his cell phone!

Gandalf and Bilbo smoked, but they also showed wisdom.

If only we could ban stupidity...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly.

Perhaps, but only slightly. Even so, it doesn't matter how the ill-effects of smoking are evaluated ... the fact remains that smoking is still legally permitted and yet morally disapproved - by the same authorities who permit it.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine.

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish - they are often expected to smoke outside in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

I disagree. I don't have a scientific study to back up what I write, so you'll just have to believe me.

My one point of evidence is my neighbor who throws his cigarette butts in his own yard. I've seen him with other non-edible consumables, but not *one* of these other items has ever hit the grass. Every evening, though, there's one more butt on the lawn.

He lives upwind, and it smolders...

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish

I hard trouble reading this through my tears...can't we have some kind of fundraiser?

...they are often expected to smoke outside

I use this to teach my kids what addiction means:

"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away.

That's addiction."

in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

I could upload a picture of all of the butts outside of the bins. And we would need to install them on the doors of cars as well.

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

Agreed. Smoke'em if you got em, or not if you rather not. But don't blame Gandalf for it.