The war on tobacco has taken a back seat to recent social politics, but the World Health Organization has brought smoking back to the table with its request to extend Restricted ratings to films depicting tobacco use. The idea is all on the basis that movies encourage young’uns to light up when they’re older.
But imagine waiting until you’re 17 to see “One Hundred and One Dalmatians” just because of Cruella de Vil. Even common caricatures of Frosty the Snowman with his corn cob pipe, or the whimsical hookah-smoking Caterpillar in “Alice in Wonderland” are just a few novelty tobacco references most of us probably never gave a second thought to while vegging before the boob tube.
Regulating cinematic exposure to cigarettes will be just as effective as discouraging any kind of “adult activity” in the movies. The difference is that smoking isn’t really illegal like public drunkenness or fornication.
Sure it’s regulated in certain public areas, but the truth is that smoking happens. Assuming that the most effective way to take care of the problem is to rob audiences of entertaining novelty and character mannerisms is simply unrealistic and just another form of unnecessary censorship, like schools’ banned book lists.
The Motion Picture Association of America states on its website “an R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously.” OK, smoking could technically fall under an adult activity because U.S. citizens can’t buy cigarettes or tobacco products until they’re 18 years old.
While the involuntary health implications that smoking has on those around a lit cigarette is a serious matter, it’s important to recognize that smoking is perfectly legal and not something that will go away with whining. Not to mention, asking for a light is a classic Hollywood pick-up line and characteristic of the suave womanizer or the bad boy lead. Ultimately, the depiction of smoking on the silver screen is a harmless and important propellant of plot.
Smoking is clearly controversial, and public smoking is being regulated all over the world, even at ASU — an issue student governments voted on last semester at the four campuses and met with ambiguous results.
One in six ASU students smoke, according to data from ASU’s Health Services. Smoking, while clearly unhealthy for smokers and those around them, is more common than not. So the question of if smoking is a marketing loophole in the entertainment business or an accurate portrayal of real life is a moot point to raise. We’re inclined to believe the latter, but only 52 percent of children between the ages of 12 and 17 are expected to be affected by movie imagery like smoking, according to WHO. The 50-50 odds really aren’t as threatening as any other possibility for a good or bad decision.
Smoking is a novelty and an important depiction of certain addictive mannerisms or historical contexts. Would we really want to restrict the viewership of biopics of Albert Einstein or John F. Kennedy, who were both chain smokers?
Once something like this is out on film, there’s no way to regulate household exposure, which is why matters of taste should be left to individual discretion. There are so many non-smoking campaigns and educational programs that children will either get the drift or they won’t. Let’s just do our part to make a real change and leave Hollywood to its pipe dreams and obscene smoke machines.
