The truth from the Motion Picture Association of America, Film Rating Board:
“Some have called for a ‘mandatory R’ rating on all films that contain any smoking. We do not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become heavily politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing this proposal are no doubt wellintentioned, it is important that there is an accurate understanding of the declining prevalence of smoking in non-R rated films. The rating board has comprehensively reviewed depictions of smoking in every rated film over the past several years. From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of those films, 75 percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’ http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20...
> The truth from the Motion Picture Association of America, Film Rating Board:
> “Some have called for a ‘mandatory R’ rating on all films that contain any smoking. We do > not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to > parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become > heavily politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing > this proposal are no doubt wellintentioned, it is important that there is an accurate > understanding of the declining prevalence of smoking in non-R rated films. The rating > board has comprehensively reviewed depictions of smoking in every rated film over the past > several years. From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a > fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of those films, 75 > percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that > contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20...
That is an interesting fact about the R-rating. In this case, 101 Dalmations should be R-Rated! Cruella was the heavy that wanted a dalmation fur coat. the movie showed wherever she went, big clouds of smoke were around - it made her look more like a villeness. The main character also smoked a pipe but you NEVER saw any smoke coming out of the pipe. Funny that with the name "Walt Disney" makes an r-rated move a perfect PG movie. Then I rember going to the movies before the smokeing ban. You would see clouds of smoke riseing against the light of the projector. Just shows what people had to breath in the good old days.
"Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, sex addicts are addicted to sex, food addicts are addicted to food or religion addicts are addicted to religion." - Robert, April 15, 2008
> "Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are > addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, sex addicts > are addicted to sex, food addicts are addicted to food or religion > addicts are addicted to religion." - Robert, April 15, 2008
Yeah, and they can stop any time they want without any side effects. That means they will not kick their dog, beat their wife, or kick in the TV set while they are going through withdrawl pangs.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:42:55 -0700 (PDT), a.en...@gmail.com wrote: >On May 15, 9:03 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote: >> Lie from an antismoking web site:
>> The truth from the Motion Picture Association of America, Film Rating Board:
>> “Some have called for a ‘mandatory R’ rating on all films that contain any smoking. We do >> not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to >> parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become >> heavily politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing >> this proposal are no doubt wellintentioned, it is important that there is an accurate >> understanding of the declining prevalence of smoking in non-R rated films. The rating >> board has comprehensively reviewed depictions of smoking in every rated film over the past >> several years. From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a >> fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of those films, 75 >> percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that >> contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20...
>That is an interesting fact about the R-rating. In this case, 101 >Dalmations should be R-Rated! >Cruella was the heavy that wanted a dalmation fur coat. the movie >showed wherever she went, big clouds of smoke were around - it made >her look more like a villeness. The main character also smoked a pipe >but you NEVER saw any smoke coming out of the pipe.
MPAA says (in the above link) it will rate a movie more restrictively because the movie glamorizes smoking, not just because there is smoiking in it. In many movies, smoking has become a symbol of bad guys. That's the opposite of glamorizing. Antismokers applaud any association of smoking with evil.
> Funny that with >the name "Walt Disney" makes an r-rated move a perfect PG movie.
Suppose they made a movie about a young girl (Snow White) living with seven middle-aged men. On wait .. they did and it got a G rating.
Well, suppose they made a movie about a career criminal (Captain Jack Sparrow) who talked like a druggie rock star (Keith Richards). Surely they'd have to release that under Miramax or Touchstone. Nope. It got a pass because Keira Knightley showed no skin. What the hell is going on?
>Then >I rember going to the movies before the smokeing ban. You would see >clouds of smoke riseing against the light of the projector. Just >shows what people had to breath in the good old days.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT), a.en...@gmail.com wrote: >On May 16, 3:09?pm, Malcolm <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote: >> On May 15, 8:03 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>> > Lie from an antismoking web site:
>> Lie from Robert:
>> "Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are >> addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, sex addicts >> are addicted to sex, food addicts are addicted to food or religion >> addicts are addicted to religion." - Robert, April 15, 2008
>Yeah, and they can stop any time they want without any side effects. >That means they will not kick their dog, beat their wife, or kick in >the TV set while they are going through withdrawl pangs.
Yes, they can easily stop .. not because they want to stop, but because they no longer want to continue. There's a big difference between the two. Physical effects are trivial and persist only a few hours. The alleged addiction is psychological, not physiological.
Ask how anyone can be chemically addicted to gambling, sex or religion when no chemicals are put into the body. There ARE chemicals involved, but they are internally synthesized. Smoking works through the smae pathways. The smoker isn't addicted to nicotine, he's addicted to the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is also stimulated by roller coasters, slasher movies, water parks and the 'runner's high'.
Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote: >On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT), a.en...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On May 16, 3:09?pm, Malcolm <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote: >>> On May 15, 8:03 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>> > Lie from an antismoking web site:
>>> Lie from Robert:
>>> "Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are >>> addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, sex addicts >>> are addicted to sex, food addicts are addicted to food or religion >>> addicts are addicted to religion." - Robert, April 15, 2008
>>Yeah, and they can stop any time they want without any side effects. >>That means they will not kick their dog, beat their wife, or kick in >>the TV set while they are going through withdrawl pangs.
>Yes, they can easily stop .. not because they want to stop, but because >they no longer >want to continue. There's a big difference between the two. Physical >effects are trivial >and persist only a few hours. The alleged addiction is psychological, >not physiological.
>Ask how anyone can be chemically addicted to gambling, sex or religion >when no chemicals >are put into the body. There ARE chemicals involved, but they are >internally synthesized. >Smoking works through the smae pathways. The smoker isn't addicted to >nicotine, he's >addicted to the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is also stimulated by >roller coasters, >slasher movies, water parks and the 'runner's high'.
Nicotine physically mimics the neurochemicals of the reward system in the brain.
Nicotine addiction cannot be compared to addiction to gambling, sex or religion. No external addicting drug is involved.
>>>On May 16, 3:09?pm, Malcolm <rbrone...@broughton.ca> wrote: >>>> On May 15, 8:03 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>>> > Lie from an antismoking web site:
>>>> Lie from Robert:
>>>> "Smokers are not addicted to nicotine any more than alcoholics are >>>> addicted to alcohol, gamblers are addicted to gambling, sex addicts >>>> are addicted to sex, food addicts are addicted to food or religion >>>> addicts are addicted to religion." - Robert, April 15, 2008
>>>Yeah, and they can stop any time they want without any side effects. >>>That means they will not kick their dog, beat their wife, or kick in >>>the TV set while they are going through withdrawl pangs.
>>Yes, they can easily stop .. not because they want to stop, but because >>they no longer >>want to continue. There's a big difference between the two. Physical >>effects are trivial >>and persist only a few hours. The alleged addiction is psychological, >>not physiological.
>>Ask how anyone can be chemically addicted to gambling, sex or religion >>when no chemicals >>are put into the body. There ARE chemicals involved, but they are >>internally synthesized. >>Smoking works through the smae pathways. The smoker isn't addicted to >>nicotine, he's >>addicted to the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is also stimulated by >>roller coasters, >>slasher movies, water parks and the 'runner's high'.
>Nicotine physically mimics the neurochemicals of the reward >system in the brain.
Nicotine bonds with acetylcholine receptors. That's not the reward system in the brain, that's the ligand-gated ion channel on the surface of CNS cells that controls osmotic pressure by allowing sodium and potassium to enter and leave.
Dopamine is the brain's reward system. Amphetamines mimic dopamine and cocaine prevents the reuptake of naturally produced dopamine. Nicotine doesn't react with dopamine receptors in any way, it INDIRECTLY stimulates CNS cells to produce dopamine. So do food, sex and psychological stimulii such as gambling and roller coasters.
>Nicotine addiction cannot be compared to addiction to gambling, >sex or religion. No external addicting drug is involved.
There's only one form of dopamine. Receptors don't know or care WHY it was produced.
