[Look's like the AG's got some suckers to insert messages for the antis. Every group with an axe to grind, now will also want their messages included. All of course, to save us from the road to ruin.]





"Filmmakers join anti-smoking fight"

Associated Press

Published October 24 2006


"LOS ANGELES -- You've seen the no-smoking signs at neighborhood theaters. Get ready to install one in your TV set.

Beginning with the December release of "Clerks II," The Weinstein Co. will begin placing anti-smoking public service announcements in DVD releases of its films.


"As a former smoker, I feel like it's my responsibility to do everything I can to educate young people about the dangers of smoking," Harvey Weinstein said in a statement released Tuesday. "We really hope this initiative will have an impact with viewers across the country."

Weinstein and his brother Bob said they decided to start inserting the anti-smoking messages at the request of the attorneys general of more than 40 states, including Connecticut. The messages are being produced by the American Legacy Foundation, an organization created by a 1998 tobacco litigation agreement.

The attorneys general made their request in a letter delivered last month to 13 major motion picture companies. The Weinstein Co. was the first to respond.

"These message will fight false film images of healthy and hip smokers with the real hard truth of addiction and disease," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a written statement. "The Weinstein brothers are setting a model for responsible moviemaking."

The Avocate

As I read the commentary in the link provided, I see the brainwashing and the spread of lies continues its ugly, relentless assault............It will never cease to amaze me that, as recently as 1992, a mere 14 years ago, this would have been unthinkable.

Add Weinstein and Miramax films to your list of entities to boycott.

I smell some kind of threat toward Weinstein by the anti-smokers. Smoking is extremelyprevalent in many of his films.

Films. Man. Weinstein is so wrong for opening the floodgates for this.

I'll say it again: Despite the silence, this is the most important political and social issue on Earth, bar none, despite the lack of publicity.

It is quickly becoming a clear road to Totalitarianism and it is more dangerous because no one is paying attention to it. This is the same way it happened in the 30's in Germany. Orwell laid all of this out 50 years ago and everyone has conveniently forgotten.

Who was it that said "All that it takes for Evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"? Edmund Burke, I think.

There is no jumping off point for this. I don't know where to start or what website to go to or what village square to scream in. I'm sure it's not this post.

I think, though, that it may be high time for us to stop worrying about defending little white sticks and start realizing that people are going to start getting killed for eating candy bars and freedom, in all forms, is going to die, if this keeps up.

It isn't possible to drag everyone through a world history lesson, a lesson of Stalinism, Fascism and Nazism, an American history lesson, the works of Hoffer, Orwell, Rand, and Huxley, Psychology, Sociology, and Civil Rights to realize how dangerous this has become.

Someone, somewhere is going to have to step up to the plate on this whole issue, and I'm not talking about starting a petition or writing your congressman. I'm sure that someone will eventually and they are going to do something irrational. When that happens, my impulse will be to pump my fist, but I know that it is going to make things worse for us.

If you quit smoking, don't worry. Soon the arguments are going to start targetting the ex-smokers. This is riding a wave that has nothing to do with smoking anymore.

Just keep this in mind folks; people didn't stay in their Jewish neighborhoods until the Nazis were marching down the street because they were foreign, or dumb, or because it happened at a less enlightened time. They stayed because they never thought it would happen.

Very well said. I fear for the America my 10-year-old daughter will experience as an adult.

quote:

"These message will fight false film images of healthy and hip smokers with the real hard truth of addiction and disease," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said...

There are a ton of "healthy and hip" actors who smoke, so what's the false image? What a dumbass lying piece of ****.

quote:

Originally posted by Pat:
Very well said. I fear for the America my 10-year-old daughter will experience as an adult.

I hear you Pat, my daughter is 8.

And-unfortunately-unlike tapes-you can't fast forward this shit on disc. I would suggest that everybody who gets one on a rental complains-LOUDLY-when you take it back. Hell, try demanding your money back, raise hell, write letters, anything.

Try the Next Chapter button.

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
Add Weinstein and Miramax films to your list of entities to boycott.[QUOTE]

And this will achieve what from a libertarian point of view?

The words of JohnL
[QUOTE] We still have the same constitution, the system of government is still based on it, and the only one worth fighting for, sometimes, we get antis on this forum, they take awhile to catch on, most of the folk's that post on this forum, are not prosmokers, but, libertarian minded people, who just happen to smoke, though a few don't. It's the perspective, which most people are coming at you from. Smoking, is just the tip of the iceberg for them.

http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/2281075671

How is an ad pointing out to people that starting to smoke may not be a wise choice impinging on your civil rights?
Even RJR and BAT say they don't want kids to start smoking they just want a share of the existing market.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all,

quote:

How is an ad pointing out to people that starting to smoke may not be a wise choice impinging on your civil rights?

How did the ad end up on the DVD. Was it something truly voluntary or was it due to government coercion. When a group of folk's whose everyday job, is throwing people in prison at gun point and seeing some are executed, tell's you they want something added, it's rather hard to know, now isn't it.

Enforcing laws is their sphere, you don't have government officials leaning on people. It's the stuff the Mafia does. The AG's are not some private anti group or innocent social club.

It's none of government's business to tell you what they would like added or not. The only legitimate role of government is to protect people's rights.

I would like a "truth in advertising" law to hold DVD producers and distributors responsible if the buyer has to endure more than 60 seconds of propaganda (commercial, political or healthist) before being "allowed" to access the content they paid to see.

Clerks II - which will be the the first DVD to carry these anti ads is R-rated. So its not like the movie is intended for teenyboppers or impressionable young kids. (Though in the nannyist mind, anyone under 40 is considered a child).

quote:

If you quit smoking, don't worry. Soon the arguments are going to start targetting the ex-smokers. This is riding a wave that has nothing to do with smoking anymore.

I couldn't agree with you more Winston - in all fairness - they should have messages warning you about every aspect of the hip movie-star lifestyle. If you have gratuitous sex - show the consequences of unwanted pregnancy, STD's. If you cheat on your spouse - have an ad showing the financial and emotional cost of divorce. If you drive your car fast and recklessly - show an ad with a car wreck victim arriving at the trauma center - you get the idea...This is not at all about countering the hip and cool image of the smoking on screen, its another step towards prohibition (er- denormalization) - the ads, of course, won't do anything to curb smoking - so the next step will be the AGs pressuring film studios to ban any and all smoking scenes. Once this has been accomplished - the case can be made that seeing real-life smokers encourages kids to smoke so why not ban them too?

I know that you guys are speaking in hypotheticals (I hope), but asking for more and more laws for the sake of moral consistency is an invitation for more and more tyranny. We're never going to legislate our way out of this problem. Laws need to repealed, not created.

The first several ads of this type I had on home videos I purchased or rented, you COULD fast forward. NOW....you can't. They've done something to change it...but you CAN still mute the sound!

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
Clerks II - which will be the the first DVD to carry these anti ads is R-rated. So its not like the movie is intended for teenyboppers or impressionable young kids. (Though in the nannyist mind, anyone under 40 is considered a child).

I'm so disappointed in the director, Kevin Smith [who also plays Silent Bob] for bending over to the antis. He said he 'was' a smoker and when he smoked he didn't inhale (yeah right)

I'm surprised he bent over, and amazed; the guy is huge - obese even- does he have no clue that the movie industry could very well target his lard-butt and ban him from appearing in movies or the least make him alter his figure on screen to not offend impressionable viewers?

Oh, and Clerks 11 sucked, watch the original.

quote:

How is an ad pointing out to people that starting to smoke may not be a wise choice impinging on your civil rights?

Well, the way I see it, IF my right to smoke stops at your nose (general you); then your right to lecture me, advertise to me, ends when I lay out MY money for a film (either in the theater, on tape or disc). In other words, fixing an ad that I cannot fast forward through, IS forcing me to see and listen to something I don't want to see or hear.

Does THAT make sense now?