Should Movies with Smoking Be "R" Rated?

SmokeFreeMovies.com claims that, "Smoking on screen is the #1 recruiter of new adolescent smokers in the United States — 390,000 kids a year, of whom 120,000 will die from tobacco-caused diseases. That’s more Americans than die from drunk driving, criminal violence, illicit drugs, and HIV/AIDS combined."

Oddly enough, they single out the movie, Fight Club, as an example of brand placement. Almost going as far as saying that Brad Pitt is paid to smoke Marlboro and that, "Any smoking in the movies sells adolescents on tobacco."

SmokeFreeMovies.com writes, "It violates the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) for a tobacco company to display its trademarks in venues and entertainment accessible to young people under 18. But the movie studios are not a party to the MSA. And both sides deny that they now cooperate in any way. It just “happens.”"

There is one major flaw in their argument against Fight Club:

Fight Club is already "R" Rated "for disturbing and graphic depiction of violent anti-social behavior, sexuality and language." It is an adult movie for an adult audience. There aren't any adolescents watching the movie. So what is the problem with Fight Club? The movie isn't even violating SmokeFreeMovies illogical proposals.

Smoking is a legal adult activity. As adults, we should be allowed to watch whatever we choose. Attacking adult activities under the subterfuge of saving children is hardly going to fool anyone.

If Donald Duck was selling cigarettes to 2 year olds on Saturday morning cartoons, Smokefreemovies might have something to complain about.

For Money or Health?

Health seems to be the fallacy most commonly used by Anti-Smoking forces to rationalize smoking bans and smoking sin taxes.

In reality, politicians are not burdening smokers with such hardship causing sin taxes to save us from cancer. We are being taxed to balance the faultering, badly run state governments. Simply said, "They need the money."

Nobody really cares if a smoker gets cancer or not. The issue is money and the logic justifying the sin tax is false. Taxing a smoker to alter his/her behavioral decisions, is a total violation of that smoker's civil liberties. It is not the governments job to determine what is or is not a correct life style. The government is going beyond its role and it is lying to people.

Health is not the issue. It is about money!

For Example...

Should gays be give a AIDS tax because anal sex has a higher risk of passing the HIV virus? Should extreme sport enthusiasts be taxed for the obvious health risk to the participants. Should women who have children at a later age be taxed to cover the increased rate of ovarian cancer?

Should there be bad eating taxes, loud music taxes, late night with no sleep taxes, more than one glass of wine at dinner taxes? All of these taxes would save the health care systems money. Our health would improve if we were good little communists, ate three meals a day with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, exercised regularly, went to bed at 8 PM and gave up all of our vices.

Health would prevail. But what a shitty place to live.

Take the Case of Women.

Let's take the rationale for taxing smokers and apply it to women who don't get pregnant. Would anyone really agree with this?

-----------

It is generally believed that women who have children before the age of 30 are less likely to get cancer. Therefore, it could be argued, women who choose not to have children before 30 are purposely choosing a dangerous lifestyle and putting the common good at risk. America does not have a health care system. Many of these women will get cancer without private insurance. Tax payers will end up paying the bill for these careless acts.

In order to compensate for this wanton act of refusing to get pregnant at the appropriate age, women who do not have children before the age of 30 should be taxed heavily.

By creating this non-pregnancy tax, more women will get pregnant before the age of 30 and their risk of cancer will decrease. We have the moral authority to take these steps, because they may die of cancer if we don't. Cancer is a horrible death. We are therefore taxing them to save them from their own stupidity.

We can also use this tax money, to shore up state budget deficits. We can also use this money to clean polluted waterways and to initiate city improvement programs.

-----------

That's insane. That's a total violation of the rights of women. And it is the exact same thinking that is being used against smokers.

Non-Smokers Wake Up

Don't be fooled. The smoking issue is just the beginning. After it is impossible to be free to smoke and it has been banned out of existance, the money generated by cigarettes will need to be found somewhere. Another issue will be found with the same, illogical, emotional rationale. Who will be next? Will it be an excessive weight tax? An alcohol tax? A no baby before 30 tax?

I am not sure. The only thing I am sure about is that it will be non-smokers who pay then. There won't be any smokers left to pay the bill for you.

The War Against Smokers

Are snide comments from non-smokers getting you down? Are cigarette sin taxes too high to pay? Do you feel like a second class citizen amongst your non-smoking peers? Don't get frustrated, get angry!

Leave a statement here about what you think of the "War Against Smokers".

All those prepared to use their voice and their vote, actually have the freedom to do so.

The time for stoic silence is long over.

Judge Not, You Ignorant Fascist

Over the last few weeks, we have received more hate-posts from non-smokers, than any other type of comment. Generally speaking, these comments are badly written and filled with spelling and grammatical errors. This must be because non-smokers are slower thinkers. It is already proven that smoking increases the alpha activity in the brain. That means a smoker is mentally faster than their non-smoking counterparts. Yet, we allow them to exist anyhow.

Take this post for example --

"smoking is a horrible habit and i shouldnt have to suffer physically because your dumbass. You smokers are to retarted to think of anyone but yourselves and all non-smokers are suffering for your ignorance" [sic]

Where did you learn how to write, friend? If you are going to get on-line and say that people are retarded, you have to learn how to spell the word first. There are at least 8 mistakes in your post. That's one mistake for each point of your IQ. Hell, you are almost as smart as a palm meadow bug . That's not bad for someone with lower alpha wave activity.

Friend, you need help. Wishing people to suffer is evil. It doesn't matter who they are, wishing pain upon people shows the true state of your soul. You're a fascist proclaiming your own jaundiced ignorance. I bet you beat animals when nobody is around to watch. Get some therapy before we have to watch you on the news after you break.

If you are going to post hatred, at least be brave enough to post with your name. Anonymous hate-posts are for cowards like you. If you have something to say, stand up and be counted.

Non-Smokers surely have some complaints. Cigarette butts tossed on the ground are nasty to say the least. As smokers, we should fix this type of behavior. We would have fewer problems.

Nevertheless, we are Americans. We deserve the freedom to choose our own way of life, just as everyone else does. Non-smokers have no moral authority over us.

My smoking is not a sin.

My smoking is not a crime.

My smoking is none of your damn business.

Our Freedom

(Editor's Note - The following comment is from a site visitor)

"I would like to say that I am sick to death of all the harrassment I have taken by non-smoker, especially the ones that quit smoking and now they think they are better then those of us that still want to smoke.

I also don't appreciate all the Doctors who continually throw their "medical" verbage at us.
Then the Credit Card companies, private shipping companies, and even McDonald's and K.F.C. are starting.

What I would like to see is all the smokers bocotting those establishments that are a party to removing one step at a time, OUR FREEDOM. Sure, today it's the smoker, but who will it be next? These people do not realize that taking my rights away makes it easier to take theirs. Stupid is as Stupid does."

(Editor - McDonald's is hardly in a position to talk about health. Their food barely has the right to be called food. The number one killer in the USA is obesity. The fast food culture definitely hasn't helped this problem. Smoking cigarettes has!! Why? That's obvious. Smoker's eat less. Non-Smoker's eat more. Therefore, smoking keeps you thin and saves you from heart attack.If it comes between smoking some chemical free Smokin Joes cigarettes and eating a Big Fat Mac, I think I will take the safer way and go with the Native American Smokes.)

Taxes & Health

As we all know, cigarette taxes are not about health.

Government officials claiming to tax smokers for their own good are lying. They know they are being deceptive and so do we.

In trying to increase their budgets on the backs of smokers, state officials are turning ordinarily law abiding citizens into criminals. That's also true. If the taxes weren't so ridiculously high, the online cheap cigarette companies would disappear. Nobody would buy cigarettes online if they could afford to buy them locally. This situation has been created exclusively by badly run state governments.

CNN Money wrote in a recent article,

"Many states have been hiking cigarette taxes for years, claiming that they discourage smoking and contribute much-needed tax revenues to state coffers.

But critics say that starkly higher tax rates have created a prohibition-like environment that fosters black markets and encourages otherwise law-abiding citizens to skirt the law.

What's more, according to one recent study, they don't raise nearly as much tax revenue as one might expect."

Nobody is claiming that tax money isn't needed to support the American way of life. All those public streets and services have to be paid for by somebody. Instead of making smokers pay for these services, wouldn't it be honest and fair just to tax everyone?