Cigarette smoking in Cinema has been banned in India, freedom of expression anyone?

Question

Are you "FOR" or "AGAINST" this move?

Not in cinema halls!! In the movie itself by actors!!

Answer 1

You have to be more specific in your questions. It seem people are thinking of movie halls rather than in the screen. To be more specific, cigarette smoking by any character in a movie like hero, heroine, villian on screen has been banned. I am against it. Eventhough i am not a smoker and don't like smokers, but sometimes it is inevitable in some scenes.. So censor should come into play and they edit those scenes if found unnecessary.

Answer 2

Cigarette smoking has been banned in Canada in all public places. Second hand smoke is causing more and more lung cancer cases every year. If people that want to smoke want to poison their own lungs, that is there choice, it is unfair to make others suffer as well. As an asthmatic, let me tell you, it is very hard to go to places full of smoke, knowing I won't be able to stay if I wish to live.... As to your added comment, I think that having the actors not smoking is good as well. In most countries, teens and younger make up a HUGE amount of the percentage of movie goers. Let's face it, we were all more easily influenced when we were younger. Young people want someone to look up to, there are so few role models around now a days. Smoking is a bad practice to take up, and if it is influencing people at all, then yes, I would say take it out. I'd love to see all films with non smokers, then again, I'd love to see drunkeness taken out as well, and I don't forsee that happening soon.

Answer 3

Why do we have to ban everything? People KNOW the dangers of smoking. If you don't, you've clearly been living under a rock for the last five decades. Why should the government need to intervene and ban smoking in films (or even worse, as one responder said, ban the ciggie companies)? Whatever happened to freedom of expression and freedom of person? Why is a large government entity better qualified to tell me what to do with my own body than me?? In case you couldn't tell, I am totally against this on all levels.

Answer 4

I'm for banning smoking in theaters.

I'm a smoker but I don't enjoy trying to watch a movie through clouds of smoke any more-so than anyone else.

Answer 5

I'm for this move. As a non-smoker I hate breathing in other people's smoke. It irritates my eyes, my throat, my lungs. My daughter has Asthma, it pisses me off when someone smokes near her, in fact when anyone smokes near any kid. Everyone calls for smoker's rights. Screw that. You have the right to smoke, but you don't have the right to subject others to the dangerous side effects of your nasty, stinky second-hand smoke.
Okay, I just read what you added to the question. I think that's a good move too. Sometimes young people may think that movie stars look glamourous while smoking and this may make them want to smoke.

Answer 6

I certainly don't believe so. Second hand smoke is just as dangerous to the non smoker. I am living proof of that. I chose not to smoke, but I have a lung disease caused by others smoking around me. What rights does smoker a have to expose non smokers to a harmful substance?

Answer 7

They banned smoking in cinemas in the UK a long time ago. Non-smokers don't want to see the film through a haze of smoke *grins*

Answer 8

As a 3 pack a day smoker who quit over 20 years ago I like the idea, seeing the actors smoke on screen sends the wrong message to young people, just as sports figures using drugs does.

Answer 9

Sounds good. Sure people have the freedom to do what they like (apparently), but cigarette smoke doesn't have the control to stay around the smoker.

Answer 10

No freedom of expression requires u not to infringe on other peoples rights. By smoking in closed quarters you are effecting other peoples state of mind.