This angers me very much!

by **Jeffro** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:55 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_en_mo/film_hollywood_smoking_7

LOS ANGELES - If Nicolas Cage (news) lights a cigarette in a movie, Hollywood's ratings board should respond as if he used a profanity, according to authors of a new study that criticizes glamorous images of smoking in movies rated for children under 17.

People need to get a friggen grip! :mad:

Oh...I guess we should make a movie Rated-R because they is a drop of blood...

Stupid fundamentalist, moral happy, goody two-shoes, MORONS! :mad:

by **Murgatroyd** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:25 pm

I wonder who is *really* behind the anti-smoking legislation..

Every agenda has an angle, and I have yet to figure this one out.

by **LordShard** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:31 pm

Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
I wonder who is *really* behind the anti-smoking legislation..

Every agenda has an angle, and I have yet to figure this one out.

The alcohol companies so people can't smoke and drink! They just drink! :rotflmao:

by **Agent-Commando** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:18 pm

Originally posted by Jeffro

Stupid fundamentalist, moral happy, goody two-shoes, bible thumping MORONS!

As a bible thumping moron, I take that to offense Jeffro.

It's not the churches that go around saying smoking is bad, it's the cancer societies and groups that are against that. Honestly, when was the last time you knew or saw christians make a protest against something like this? Certainly not my church, certainly not me. You don't change people by force, whether physically or verbally.... that's our belief. We encourage but not stand directly in the way.

by **Evan** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:24 pm

Smoking is bad. End of story, hehe.

by **RCglider** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:28 pm

Originally posted by Jeffro

Stupid fundamentalist, moral happy, goody two-shoes, bible thumping MORONS!

Sorry, but it was the Leftist card carrying pinko commy, amoral, keep-God-out, bible hating, LIBERALS that pushed the anti-smoking laws through. Go to any predominantly Liberal city in the U.S. and it's there where all the stict anti-smoking laws are at.

If you guys can't figure out the angle to all this, it's fairly simple. MONEY. BILLIONS. It was just a slick way of raising taxes. Politicians (particularly Liberal politicians) never get enough of other people's money.

by **shockwave203** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:42 pm

I for one, fully support non-smoking laws in cities. I support not seeing smoking in movies, and anything else that helps smoking appear bad.

our society needs to start thinking 'up-stream' and stopping problems before they start. Treating the lung cancer that smokers get, and the lung cancer non-smokers get from breathing that crud in, isn't helping anything, because it's the downstream solution. It costs money, which os being spent on something that is PREVENTABLE. I'd much rather see the money being spent on lung cancer treatment go to schools or something.

smoking is bad, so I'm all for the anti-smoking programs, whatever they may be.

by **LordShard** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:53 pm

Ban tobbaco! it serves no purpose other than to take people's money through addiction and causes disease. WHY should we still allow tobacco?

by **Rand0m** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:03 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
Ban tobbaco! it serves no purpose other than to take people's money through addiction and causes disease. [b]WHY should we still allow tobacco? [/B]

The Government makes money from taxes on cigarettes, and if it causes cancer it leads to death and the world won't over croud. Wierd theory but could be true, or Im just a crack head.

by **LordShard** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:32 pm

Definatly toi much crack

no people= no mars colony!

by **flapjack** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:34 pm

_____________________________________________
Stupid fundamentalist, moral happy, goody two-shoes, bible thumping MORONS!
____________________________________________

___________________________________________
The study was funded by the charitable foundation The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the National Cancer Institute
___________________________________________

http://www.goldmanfund.org/news/recentgrant.phpx

Not your typical bible thumping fundamentalists

by **Ralph Wiggum** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:32 am

Jeffro, we realize you think you have a problem with right-wingers. Let me tell you though, most of the anti-smoking crown is pinko.

Edit

I just saw you pointed this out RC.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:47 am

Smoking can be very hazardous to your health.

Give me shit about my smoking and I'll show you:D

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:03 am

Fuck it, everyone should smoke, the world population is too high anyway. I used to smoke 30 m reds a day before I ran out of cash, fucking great it was too!

by **Colonel Savage** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:16 am

Originally posted by Rand0m
The Government makes money from taxes on cigarettes, and if it causes cancer it leads to death and the world won't over croud. Wierd theory but could be true, or Im just a crack head.

I'm all for thinning the herd. In fact, let's stop making the world such a safe, sterile place for everyone and see if we can't accelerate the process a little. Too much of people's stupidity is being held in check by rubber padding and rounded corners these days. Bring back lawn darts! Take the warning labels off of obviously named products (like Rat Poison)! No more training wheels for bicycles! Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!

Which brings me to smoking. If it were just that legions of smokers were dropping dead each year because of their choice to take up the habit (despite every fibre of common sense in their body screaming, "don't be an asshat!"), I wouldn't have a problem with it. Heck, make cigarettes MORE lethal. Put a bullet in each one that faces the filter and goes off when you're done. The freedom to choose to do horribly stupid things to yourself is worth protecting.

Unfortunately, smoking, in it's current form, also harms those who have wisely chosen not to partake. Debate the specifics if you will, but I'd say it's fairly obvious to even the casual observer that the burning by-product of something that was originally made with things like Benzene and Formaldehyde is pretty unhealthy for anyone catching a whiff of it.

The trick, then, is not to ban the idea of cigarettes, but rather change the form in which they appear. Take the combustion out of the equation. Have Phillip Morris churn out their product in pill form, or lickable stamps, or maybe a sporty looking I.V. unit, outfitted in some sort of beer-hat contraption. Let it replace Gatorade as a refreshing sports drink (now with more Arsenic!). I don't care - just so long as whatever method is employed poisons only the consumer, and not everyone in a 50 ft. radius from them.

What does this have to do with smoking in movies? Not a whole lot. Filmmakers should be free to portray anything they want in a film, with as minimal intrusion from the government as possible. But I can't resist a good rant, so here I am.

-end transmission-

This angers me very much!

This angers me very much!

Re: This angers me very much!

Re: This angers me very much!

Who is online