Responses

Download PDFPDF

What should be done about smoking in movies?
Free
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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.