May contain adult scenes....

[Morthoron]

"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Rudyard Kipling

Ah, puritanical revisionism, the innate need for certain folk to impress their missionary zeal on the public! Amusingly, they do not mention prohibiting teens from watching beheadings with swords or gun-toting maniacs spraying crowds with bullets. Even more interstingly, I did not notice a cultural phenomenon such as masses of teens smoking tobacco in pipes after the release of the LotR movies. Perhaps it is because the tobacco companies did not market clay pipes, churchwardens, calabashes or Meerschaums to the teen demographic. They obviously missed out on a product tie-in bonanza.

I still have a churchwarden with a twelve-inch stem I bought in my teens (during the era when pipes were used to smoke anything but tobacco in). I haven't used it for decades, but it looks good on the mantle.

Ummm...what were we talking about again?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Of course... the creation of life is dirty... the destruction of it is OK...

I'm convinced, and have been for a while, that people who equate violence to sex are comparing apples to oranges.

Violence is much easier to explain to children and for them to understand, especially when one views it in terms of self-defense. That's one of the reasons we take children to martial arts class, isn't it? I have four children, and I tell them all of the time that "It's wrong to start a fight, but you're nobody's punching bag, either."

Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature.

[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...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So it's an idea being considered. Who would have thought that Daily Mail readers need their daily fix of teeth-gnashing,

Children are highly restricted in most aspects of life anyway; what matter if they're denied a couple of extra films? They'll still have many things to complain about.

[davem]

There's anoher article about the controversy here - which adds nothing new but is worth linking to because of the author's name http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDisci...smoking-films/

[Lush]

Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature.

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

I still disagree to an extent. Now that I'm 40, I realize that when I was 18 I knew only two things about life, and one of them was jack.

Even at 18, those who know what love really is are so few as to be practically negligible. And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

In any event, I still say that violence and sex are apples and oranges.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

Less harm than violence whether justified or not. And loving, committed sexual content less harmful still. More embarrassing to explain but very young children are probably just going to say eww!

I was amazed at how many very young children were taken to see the LOTR films in the cinema. Personally I though it was irresponsible but I wasn't going to be the one coping with the nightmares.

Yes care should be taken about what children are exposed to especially in films/ on tv - books are to an extent "safer" because a child is less likely to have the capacity to read something that is much too old for it. The decision on what should not be based on parental prudishness - kids who live in the country are going to work it out soon enough - even if you throw the TV away. Eventually they will work out that those bullocks are not playing piggy back.

Noone is going to suggest swapping the telly tubbies for Antichrist but it seems bizarre to me that very mild sex scenes or nudity even in a non sexual context is seen as more damaging than violence. A lot of violence and sex in films is gratuitous and forgets that what is suggested is often more scary or erotic than that which is shown but if they are "apples and oranges" then the violence is worse. If you take a film such as Peter Weir's Witness where scenes of sex and violence are used in a way that is essential to the plot, is it really the tender. beautifully and discreetly shot love scenes that are going to be hard to explain and potentially damaging, or the murder and shoot out?

[Lush]

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

As someone who's done it enough times without any love whatsoever, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you there. I'd like to teach my brother (and any future children) that it's certainly a good thing to be in love, but that it doesn't always happen that way and that there isn't anything inherently wrong about that, as long as you're not being a total idiot. Such is life. In fact, sometimes love hurts us way more than any casual relationship. So better get into it with eyes wide open.

On the other hand, as someone who's also experienced very serious violence, I think that it was way more damaging than any casual fling. That's why I find violence in movies - while stylistically gorgeous at times - a way more complicated issue than sex, for a kid in particular. Not that I think they mindlessly replicate that stuff either.

I think that something like smoking, on the other hand, while harmful to the body, is much more of a conscious issue, you know? It's not nearly as primal as any of this other stuff (am not saying that sex and violence are totally primal, of course). That's why I don't fret if my brother watches a scene with smoking. I fret way more when it's one of his friends smoking on the balcony and encouraging him to join in.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I still have a churchwarden with a twelve-inch stem I bought in my teens (during the era when pipes were used to smoke anything but tobacco in). I haven't used it for decades, but it looks good on the mantle.

Ummm...what were we talking about again?

Decades, eh?