Responses

PDF

What should be done about smoking in movies?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re:Smoking imagery in movies requires action now

    Most of us know the people who control Hollywood. Well, the Movie Industry is controlled in a similar manner, by their Cousins. They assist in the production of the films by, having their cancer causing product portrayed as a natural thing that your favorite stars do, so why aren't you? Films should have NO tobacco products in them whatsoever!!! If I had my way, I'd stop all tobacco production. If You want to smoke, grow...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Response so far

    Jim Sargent says I support business as usual for Hollywood. What I emphatically and unapologetically do support is business as usual for consistency. R-rating of any scene of smoking invites unavoidable questions about parallel controls on a wide range of activity that an equally wide range of interest groups would wish to see implemented in the name of health, religion or morality. Jonathan Klein implies that because ni...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    blunt instraments for a nuanced issue

    I do support R ratings (actually M15, as this is roughly the Australian equivalent to an American R) for films that decidedly glamourise or blatantly promote smoking. I do however believe that smoking can be shown in films in ways that do not promote the product - without having to be a hit-you-over-the-head health message.

    While I agree the current system of ratings for films has to be considered in any realist...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Missing the Point

    The responses so far to Dr. Chapman's article have missed the fundamental point of his argument: that a policy requiring an R-rating for any movie which depicts smoking is a narrow-minded one that treats smoking differently than other dangerous health behaviors depicted in films and which fails to address the overall public health problem of the media portrayal of unhealthy behaviors.

    In order to defend the polic...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Business as Usual

    Simon Chapman's editorial supports business as usual for Hollywood. By considering only the commercial element of paid product placement, he ignores that making films in Hollywood is a business. Free artistic speech is a fundamental right that everyone in Western societies supports, but Hollywood uses it as a mantra to avoid changing how they do business. Movies are a combination of art and business, just like many othe...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Smoking imagery in movies requires action now

    Simon Chapman’s recent commentary on smoking in movies misses several important points with regard to the influence of media portrayal of tobacco on children’s health (1). Chapman fails to recognize the ease with which other socially questionable behavior is rated R in US films. Using the Motion Picture Association of America voluntary ratings system (2), use of the 'F' word as an exclamation twice, or once in a sexu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Late to the Party

    I would have written Simon Chapman's editorial 15 years ago, when I first joined behind-the-scenes discussions in Hollywood to advocate the same "solutions" he is now. Serious and sustained efforts by many organizations (sometimes at substantial cost) to pursue the ideas Chapman is now proposing repeatedly failed. Indeed, the amount of smoking onscreen actually increased during this time. We only developed the Smoke...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.