I would add strong warning before movies that show unprotected sex, talking to police without an attorney present, selling and taking narcotic drugs, and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.

It not a movie but I watch a TV soap that I like "Man Men". I get to see plenty of smoking, excessive drinking, so forth as in a Hollywood movie.

Is it just me, or is this another thing that PARENTS should be talking to their children about?

Yes, parents need to start advising their children about which cigarette brands are good, and which are bad. They should bring about the prices of cigarettes and note how they do not always correlate with a good smoke. They should teach their toddlers that certain brands of Camel, while appealing, are in fact still inferior to most Marlboros'. Lastly, parents need to teach their children on how many cigarettes are too many. 1/2 a pack is an acceptable level to start off with.

Is it just me, or is this another thing that PARENTS should be talking to their children about?

awww man!

I was really hoping I could let the film industry raise my kids until I saw your impressive and condescending use of majiscule.

Who, besides people with a strange fetish, watch movies and actually look out and count people smoking?

Pumbaa171: Your suggestion about warning people that talking to the cops without an attorney present is an excellent suggestion, and it would also be educational in that it would provide a civics lesson.

Especially for kids' movies, there should be a warning that dogs don't talk, fly or slam-dunk basketballs. We wouldn't want Junior throwing Fido across the driveway in hopes that he'll slam-dunk the ball ala "Air Bud."

Don't even get me started on the warnings (for adults as well as children) that they should air before "news" programs on television.

If this article is a feeble attempt to suggest that Hollywood censor the content of movies, I suggest that these authors lead by example and censor themselves first. There's no honor in asking people to do things you're not willing to do yourselves. By the standards being latently suggested by these authors, this article should have never been written, for it mentions smoking cigarettes. The CDC should lose any government funding that they receive, as government money should not be spent on anything even approaching censorship or the inference thereof.

Who, besides people with a strange fetish, watch movies and actually look out and count people smoking?

sociologists, researchers from the CDC, I'd imagine it's of interest to those who make and sell cigarettes as well.

I can understand watching for it if you are looking to maximize profit. But the "research" thing sounds more to me like a straw man. Kind of like when Pete Townshend was caught "doing research" by looking at child porn.

Yeeeeaaaahhh...research....

That people in society use tobacco products is a fact of life and banning depictions of tobacco use in film is censorship and counterproductive.

I know of no one who disputes the harmful effects of smoking or using tobacco in any form but am appalled by those who advocate this censorship as it is attempted behavior modification.

Those that do this know full well the dastardly thing they’re doing but justify it in their minds as “the greater good”, and that people are too stupid to figure this out for themselves so we need to step in and manipulate them. In other words, the end justifies the means.

Another example of censorship and people trying to take the rights away from others. Whats next? Prohibition of alcohol? Oh wait, that DID NOT work! If it doesnt affect you personally, then mind your own effin business!

I can understand watching for it if you are looking to maximize profit. But the "research" thing sounds more to me like a straw man

so...the fact that the CDC put out a report based on research and we're discussing an article about it means what then?

That's not the point and you know it.

or talking on the cell phone when driving. Police chase? phone rings... what to do??? Just heard of a young man in a coma due to a car accident involving a cell phone.

Really? Where did you get that idea? I guess you don't watch sci-fi, etc. Movies have nothing to do with reality much of the time.

I do not believe I would have started smokeing , just from seeing it on tv, or in a movie.I started smoking because most of my friends kept offering them to me.

not to let research get in the way of your belief that your personal perspective is universal or anything, but:

"Exposure to onscreen smoking in movies increases the probability that youths will start smoking. Youths who are heavily exposed to onscreen smoking are approximately two to three times more likely to begin smoking than youths who are lightly exposed," the CDC report reads.

there are laws against riding without a helmet, underage drinking, speeding, and public profanity.

There are also laws against buying cigarettes and smoking if you aren't 18. So what's your point?

There are laws against riding a bike without a helmet? That's news to me. Site your sources Randy.

Wouldn't it be swell if people were intelligent enough to tell the difference between a movie and actual real life?

Some states have helmet laws, some don't.

I think there needs to be a warning before Justin Beiber videos because kids may think that helmet hair will protect their heads from bottles being thrown, etc.

I don't see anyone supporting it. I just see people wondering "what's the big deal?" I've since quit, but I didn't get any bright ideas to start smoking because of Joe Camel, coolness, or anything Hollywood did to promote it. I swiped one from my parents when i was 14. Frankly, all the talk about how bad it was and how you should never do it intrigued me to try it. Teenagers think that way sometimes.

Randy, if I were to put aside the fact that your incomplete contrarian arguments clearly identify you as a troll, I would say that the reason people are shrugging their shoulders is because the type of suggestive ciggerette placement in movies that could acutally be seen as concerning just isn't very prevalent anymore. Back in the day everyothe character was smoking like a chimney in the house, in hospitals, in their kids faces...characters were asking for a last cigarrette, were bumming them off each other in war movies. It's just not as big a deal now. Growing up in the 80's if all it took was suggestive movies to make me smoke, I would be a smoker now. But my father quit when I was 5 (cold turkey, he saw me pretending to smoke) and my mom always said she'd beat the __— out of me if she caught me smoking cigarretes. Active parents trump generalized social pressure every time.

The fact is that these are MOVIES, not real life....and it is a parent's responsibility to teach their children the difference.

Movies should be able to show whatever they want for entertainment value only, not for people to get out a pen and paper and live their lives in parallel to them.

Movies, while not actually being real life, are a generalised depiction of real life. In real life you do have smokers. So why not in the movies? Do our kids have a higher tendency to smoke seeing it on the street?

Randy, your argument is what people call a "red herring."

Fail.

Thanks for giving me a laugh!!! I agree with your comment!

We did. This "study" was conducted by the federally funded CDC.

I find it offensive that we paid to have a bunch of government employees with smoking fetishes get off and fund a something used to latently suggest un-American behavior, such as censorship.

The University of California and the CDC should lose any government funding they receive for this kind of behavior.

"fiinoccs"? Could you spell that phonetically? I must not be up on my insult slang.

don't forget 'different races being depicted as their common culture appears in society may be offensive to some viewers who are members of those races.'.

ohh you also cannot have robots with any type of accent or it will be deemed racist. we cannot just limmit it to humans.

Oh OH Oh Evidence is showing that drinking from refillable plastics effect your hormones and cause puberty to present earlier. Must drink from glass or metal. Except from Shrek glasses at McD's. lol

I'd like a Liberal view of you being @!$%#ed in the ass. I would find that permissible.

What we will all start seeing more of within any movie is product placement. More brand names displayed. That has already been occurring, but it will grow into a higher percentage as clever marketting schemes help offset the cost of production.

Smokes are a stress relief for many people.

If you choose to accept it or not that is your problem. In the movie she is in a high stress environment and smokes some sigs.. BIG FREAKIN DEAL..

If you think smoking in movies, in any matter shape or form, infulence kids to start smoking your living in a bubble. High School their friends and the lack of real parents are what does it.

Sigourney Weaver used to smoke. I don't know if she still does. There was an interview once where she said she picked up the habit during the shooting of the Aliens movies to relieve the stress and have an excuse to go on breaks.

In regards to Sigourney Weaver smoking in Avatar - I thought it helped portray the character's make-up better. It seemed to lend itself to the personna of one who would be considered 'Old School' in a obviously futuristic setting. Nothing more than that though. I certainly didn't perceive it to be a cigarette endorsement of any kind. Leave that kind of symbolism to symbol-minded people.

Will the alfalfa sprouts, the beans and the rice be organic? Will they be grown and distributed without the use of petroleum products (no irrigation, plowing, packaging in plastic, storage, walked to market, etc.)? Will the laborers be rewarded in accordance with "Fair Trade" practices? Will they get benefits? Will they be in the country of product origin legally? Does it matter?

Sell the tobacco companies short.....you'll make a killing.

While I have no love for the tobacco companies, having had more than one relative die from smoking related illnesses, the success of lawsuits such as you are promoting would deal a blow to personal responsibility. That is if any personal responsibilty still remains. Every coffee too hot, fast food made me fat, I didn't know smoking was bad for me regardless of the Surgeon General's Warning on every pack, lawsuit that succeeds diminishes the capacity and expectations that humans are rational and intelligent beings. Even if those movies did popularize smoking in their time, there is now a preponderance of evidence and social awareness to fight that pop-culture effect. For goodness sakes just grow up, kick the habit and make sure your kids stay away from cigarettes!

Because smoking cigarettes is a personal choice. If you choose to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer...guess what? It's your fault...not James Dean's. Allowing people to sue Hollywood studios or individual actors because those people "made me start smoking" would do away with all personal responsibility. Then what? Sue Burger King for making me fat?

Naked people smoking and drinking outside are more susceptible to skin cancers than those who remain indoors. We should not be exposed to this without appropriate warning.