2006-08-23 02:53:54 · 25 answers · asked by bakken girl 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes.
2006-08-23 02:55:08 · answer #1 · answered by iamlsu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, apparently since TV is supposed to take care of kids these days instead of parents I could see why it would be necessary to remove smoking from cartoons. This way parents don't have to be bothered with the anti-smoking lectures or any questions coming from their kids about it. C'mon people! I'd much rather see a duck smoking a cigarette than the raunchy commercials they like to plaster all over TV lately! Explaining cigarettes to kids is a LOT easier than explaining sex!
2006-08-23 03:02:13 · answer #2 · answered by chamely_3 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think exposing children to smoking in a format they understand provides a great opportunity to explain what smoking is and how it is bad. The problem is actually that parents don't parent.
Are they going to put a rubber in the hand of every cartoon character who kisses, too? Will Bugs have to stop dressing up like Girl-Bunny?
2006-08-23 02:58:58 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, so they can shoot at each other, but a 50 year old cartoon can't show smoking. What about cartoons that show drinking alcohol? Ever seen Disney's Fantasia? It should a cartoon Dionysus, Greek god of wine, getting drunk and carousing with nymphs. Is this the sort of smut we want to expose our children to? lol
2006-08-23 03:03:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
many of the classic cartoons of the 1920s and 1930s show blacks, italians, poles and sometimes the irish as grotesque racial stereotypes.
(some of the cartoons made in germany show the americans as similarly despicable).
we no longer consider such cartoons suitable for children's entertainment because attitudes have changed over the last half-century and more.
smoking is drug abuse - it is no more and no less acceptable in itself than showing cocaine, heroin, ecstasy or heavy drinking in a program intended for children.
there is also the consideration that throughout the 1930s and 1940s many tobacco companies 'encouraged' stars and directors to present smoking favourably onscreen, as a normal part of their advertising. reshowing such material now is effectively continuing this advertising free.
i would prefer my children not to see smoking presented as 'cool' in the cartoons they watch. no drug abuse is 'cool'.
it isn't something i feel passionate about - but since there are thousands of cartoons which don't feature smoking i would prefer tv companies to favour such features.
and i would be more likely to subscribe to stations with such a policy.
2006-08-23 03:10:38 · answer #5 · answered by synopsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely. smoking is not one of the major causes of cancer, it's the polluted air we breath that's doing it, smoking is only a drop in the bucket but because it's visible it gets the blame. and the government and big business once again can pass the buck and away with polluting the world
2006-08-23 03:00:38 · answer #6 · answered by crsstar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am amazed that such a thing as not having smoking in old cartoons should adversely affect ANYONE.
2006-08-23 02:59:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's almost as stupid as air brushing the cigarette out of Robert Johnson's mouth. Political correct thought control at work.
2006-08-23 03:22:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No more than putting cartoons (avatar) in Yahoo answers, and expecting serious replies...
2006-08-23 03:01:30 · answer #9 · answered by 345Grasshopper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it's politically correct to do so.
All the folks who screamed "censorship" over the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident should be just as upset at this.
But we all pick and choose what offends us. and we're ALL SO OFFENDED!
2006-08-23 02:56:56 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋