NEW YORK -- A study on why teenage girls smoke shows that the HBO TV show "Sex in the City" has a major impact on their decision whether to light up, according to the health department.

The study by the New York City Health Department found that nearly every respondent mentioned the TV show.

The health department said 11 percent of teens report smoking.

link

To recap:

Nearly every respondent mentioned the TV show.

11 percent of teens report smoking.

Maybe it's bad reporting and they meant just smokers, but if they mean what they said and nearly everyone mentioned the show, well, that's when you'd rule it out.

This could have been just as easily written as, Sex in the City keeps most teenage girls from smoking.

BTW, while the city of New York health dept was pissing away money on this survey I wonder if they bothered to ask if SEX in the City caused these girls to have sex?

quote:

BTW, while the city of New York health dept was pissing away money on this survey I wonder if they bothered to ask if SEX in the City caused these girls to have sex?

Squeezer, the antis could give a damn about teenagers having sex - its all about smoking...They also fail to mention that Sex in the City has a mature audience rating, and that 11% of teenagers smoking is much less than the adult smoking rate, the antis are struggling to stay relevant, or maybe Stan Glantz is hoping he'll get to star on an episode of the show.

"The survey found white teenage girls were five times more likely to smoke than black girls. And they were three times more likely to smoke than Hispanic girls."

Algebra time. Who can tell me how many white, black and Hispanic girls took part in this survey?

Just kidding.

The above quote came from the first article I read. The article also said this survey did not represent all teenagers. I think I know why: Its size.

In another article on this survey (link) was this:

"Researchers ventured into a private high school and asked more than 30 middle and high school girls between the ages of 13 and 18 about smoking."

More than 30. They really knocked themselves out on this one. My Kindergarten class had more than 30 students. (Remember those class photos?)

"One of the things all the girls - smokers and nonsmokers alike - agreed on was that they don't want to be preached to by adults about the issue."

Once again it's mentioned that this survey included nonsmokers.

"About 11% of teenagers smoke, according to the Health Department. The highest rates, about 35%, are among white girls."

If this survey was taken only by white girls, and the 35% figure holds true here, this survey found maybe 11 smokers. But there were white, black, and Hispanic girls. The number of smokers then would only be less. In fact, it could be far less.

If there were 20 blacks, 1.3 of them would smoke.

3 whites would yield 1 smoker and 9 Hispanics would yield the same, 1 smoker.

Rounded up that's 4 smokers surveyed (out of an estimated 32) which they based their conclusions on.

Whether the actual number was 4 or less, or 11, this survey cannot possibly tell us anything, especially when as I pointed out earlier, nearly every respondent was said to have mentioned the show anyway.

I take that back. This survey does tell us something. It says newspapers will print anything. It says anti-smokers will try to get anything out to the public. And even if this only cost 16 bucks to do it says the NYC health department has more money than it needs.

I suppose they'll survey teenage boys next. What show? I don't know. What difference would it make. It's all crap anyway.

I have never watched the show even though it is currently in on other stations now.

I would ask the girls if any of them aspire to the lifestyle depicted in the show? How many of them expect to make enough money to live in New York? How many of them expect to have the wardrobe used by the actors? How many of them realise the ages of the actors?

I remember similiar shows when I was in my 20's and found it to be a fantasy. I could afford an apartment in Indianapolis, but I was wearing the same wardrobe I had accumulated in high school and walking or riding the bus to work.

There was no money for trips to the pub or bar, and eating out was something I enjoyed when my parents paid the bill. I worked at least 70 hours a week to afford what I had. I was in the sun on sundays after church.

TV shows depicted my peers living in multistory townhouses, driving new cars, and dressing like fashion models. Something to aspire to, but not reality. I do not remember Susan St. James smoking, but she may have.

No one I knew lived like Donna Reed's family, or the Cleavers either.

Squeezer, all the survey tells me, in addition to your observation of too much money in the hands of the NYC Health Department, is girls in private schools in NYC lie as much today as they did when I was in private school in NYC in the 60s and 70s.

Think about what the claim of the survey is, EVERYONE surveyed mentioned the show Sex in the City. It's not that I find the claim false, what I question is the underlying reason for the mention of it.........primarily by the surveyors to begin with?

I didn't watch soap operas as a teenager, but many of my friends did, few of them knew I didn't watch because between the conversations in school and the weekly recaps in the paper, I knew enough to participate in the ocnversations. I wasn't admitting I didn't watch them, although I never said I did, either.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabz:

Think about what the claim of the survey is, EVERYONE surveyed mentioned the show Sex in the City. It's not that I find the claim false, what I question is the underlying reason for the mention of it.........primarily by the surveyors to begin with?

I considered the same question. Several as a matter of fact.

Why Sex in the City?
Why a private school?
Why do this study at all?

Last question first. This survey was taken so a paid member of anti-tobacco could call up her buddies at the various news agencies and get another story out to the public on the dangers of seeing smokers smoke. As we know they churn out garbage upon garbage to keep the tobacco story alive, even recycling old studies as new. I believe the NCI has suggestions on how to freshen up old studies to make them look new. No news is bad news to them.

A private school was used because?:

A. A friend either teaches or runs that school.

B. It has the kind of students they were looking for: Either a good kid's school or one for troubled youth. More than likely a rich girl's school.

C. I had a C but forgot what it was. (LOL)

Sex in the City was used because some member in tobacco control has watched the show and seen the smoking in it and decided to build upon the Dartmouth study and Glantz's smoke-free movie crap. Where else would someone get the idea to ask kids if they've seen that show and turn it into ammo for anti-tobacco?

Besides UCSF bullshit, there is this man from India, Hemant Goswami making a lot of noise and pushing a lot of bullshit. The Indian government is sane enough and thinking to make the laws banning tobaco in movies a history. India will never implement these rules.

But this man, Hemant Goswami is lobbying to pressurize the government. Check out his bull-shit at http://www.burningbrain.org/tobaccoinmovies/ and at http://www.burningbrain.org/newsletters.htm.

Got to get him on the track and show him the real world. I think he is already getting thousands of spam everday ;-)JUST GUESSED

The funniest thing I've seen lately is driving by miles of anti-smoking billboards in New York, then seeing one for "Sex in the City".

Nothing like seeing one of those on a family outing. Maybe they should be covered in a brown paper wrapper?

And don't forget those evil cartoons...........

From Reuters:

They chase each other at high speed wielding axes and hammers. But the famous cartoon duo of Tom and Jerry are in trouble for smoking on screen.

Media regulator Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer who took offence at two episodes involving smoking.

In one, "Texas Tom", the hapless cat Tom tries to impress a feline female by rolling a cigarette, lighting it and smoking it with one hand. In the other, "Tennis Chumps", Tom's opponent in a match smokes a large cigar.

In a bulletin posted online, Ofcom noted "concerns that smoking on television may normalise smoking", and said that the Turner company, licensee for Boomerang which aired the cartoons, had agreed to edit some smoking scenes out of Tom and Jerry.

"The licensee has ... proposed editing any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorised or where it might encourage imitation," Ofcom said, adding that "Texas Tom" was one such example.

But it would not cut all smoking scenes, it added.

Ofcom said it recognised smoking was more generally accepted when cartoons were produced in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, but noted that the threshhold for including such scenes when the audience is predominately young should be high.

quote:

concerns that smoking on television may normalise smoking

This goes to show you how divorced from reality the antis are (of course, we all know that in this forum). If one were to follow their logic, they should also censor any scenes from TV or movies that depict social drinking, high-speed car chases, extra-marital affairs, promiscuos sex, etc. Why don't Glantz and his cronies move to Iran or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan where their censorship advocacy will find a more sympathetic audience.

Good grief, Nick.........if they censored all of those things there would be nothing on TV (not that there is all that much) or in the movies (ditto)....

They have censored it and that is why we have reality TV - keep their hands busy so they can't smoke.

You will not see any shows on TV with smoking. I take that back I have recently Andy Griffith smoke while in Mayberry on occation, but always on the front porch.

Lucy was seen smoking and caught her fake nose on fire once. The episode has probably been removed from the archive.

I am surprised they are not running recorded radio shows on TV because you could not actually see smoking.

How often have you seen WC Fields on TV lately?

Or William Holden, Betty Davis, Clark Gable, they no longer exist - what more has society lost to the antis?