An anti-smoking group has recently published a report which argues that PG-13 films which depict characters smoking should be given an "R" rating in order to prevent children from viewing such images. The report, which nearly made me vomit, raised concerns about the number of PG-13 films last year (80) that contained scenes where characters smoked. From the article:He'd like to see more PG-13 movies that feature smoking - like "Matchstick Men," "Seabiscuit" and the Oscar-winning "Chicago" - get slapped with an R rating
Note that two of the above films where set in a time and place where smoking was both widespread and acceptable. The group said it would be willing to grant exemptions to films which depict historical figures, who actually smoked, smoking. So at least we wouldn't have to see a movie where Winston Churchill sits in his bathtub downing packs of M&M's.
You know, there are legitiment criticisms to be hurled at the tobacco industry. It's likely that they kept the negative side-effects of smoking a secret for a long time. It's also likely that they did, at one time, aim advertising at children. But is there a mad rash of children lighting up because they saw Chicago? (Why, I'd think you'd be more concerned with children getting ideas about murdering abusive husbands, but I guess that's just me.) This isn't about protecting children, it's about legislating against bad habits. And it's really fucking scary.
It seems to never fail that every time I read a newspaper there is an article like this one. Obviously there are free speech conerns out the ying-yang here, but that's not what's bothering me today. Every day, in every corner of this country, armed with what I can only imagine is a fistful of government dollars, activist groups are going out of their way to limit our personal freedoms and seek to put the burden of child-rearing where they feel it should belong: on the elite that knows best.
Smoking is just the beginning. Soon, Baby Boomers will realize that they can no longer eat the way the want to. And, they'll go about making sure everybody's life is as miserable as theirs by legislating and litigating against "Big Fat." You can already see the seeds of this movement. Today's Washington Post, in fact, has an article about a recent study saying that obesity is rapidly approaching smoking as the number one cause of preventable death. Don't think for a second that the same people who waged the war against smoking aren't gearing up for a battle against Big Macs and Twinkies. A "fat tax" anyone?
Is smoking bad for you? Certainly. Is over-eating and not exercising a sure-fire way to an early grave? Without a doubt. Is it the government's place, (or anybody's place, for that matter) to tell me what substances I can put inside my own body? It certainly seems that way.
And the worst part is, this isn't even a debate. There are no pro-smoking lobbies. There are no organizations dedicated to making sure the public can eat at McDonalds. Outside of maybe NORML, there are no organizations dedicated to protecting bad habits. (In the course of researching this article I did find a website against the numerous public smoking bans. www.bantheban.org, but I think they were more concerned with the economic impact of the smoking ban, rather than the infrigement on personal freedom)Plus, the demographics of this debate suggest that the game is already played and won. Boomers are reaching the height of their power, and there will be no stopping them.
First it was restaurants. Now bars. Could apartment buildings be next? Or how about bus stops? Surely a second-hand smoke argument can be made here.
I'll tell ya, I don't think of myself as a "gloom and doom" kinda guy, but this is going to be a really scary country in another twenty years or so.
Tony
