It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: India Bans Smoking in Films

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Sadly, there is no outrage here because America didn't place the ban, or a member of the Bush family.

Remember the outcry a week or so ago of a private theater deciding not to show a film by Fonda? Ooh, all sorts of nasty accusations of censorship. Because it was in America. A foreign government body commits a state sanctioned censorship, and it's acceptable.


What could this possibly have to do with this topic?

Keep American politics to US threads.

:shk:




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Yeah. Bad analogy. Anyways, the only person who thought that the "banning" of the Fonda movie was "censorship" was marg.

The thread consisted of everyone arguing against marg. Everyone but marg thought that the theatre owner could show or not show whatever he wanted because he was a free American theatre owner.

Zip



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It amazes me how people can claim their rights are being infringed when the government legislates something that is good for peoples health.

Should we still have the "right" to install asbestos in our roofs? What about no crumple zones in our cars? How about not treat our tap water with chemicals?

After all isnt that government legislated nannying? You have no "right" to install asbestos in your home if you wished.

There is a time and a place for "nannying" and the government should be used to make these kind of laws.

If the government tried to fob off a law that says you cannot protest any more due to health reasons i.e. they'll shoot you. Then you could complain about it. But crying foul because your rights to do something that is going harm you and end up costing the tax payer is out of order.

[edit on 2/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
subz, you are way outta the park here.

We're talkin about freakin' banning cigarettes from movies.

Zip



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   


It amazes me how people can claim their rights are being infringed when the government legislates something that is good for peoples health

Don't even go there man. That's a complicated issue. Smoking is a personal choice that can be avoided. The goverment is already legislating many things on smoking...California for example. Look at thier laws.

But this is about India, not the US. Many people smoke thier anyways, smoke is everywhere, signs, people, movies, TV. Everywhere you look someone is smoking.....that is the advertisement for thier version of PMorris.

Anyways, If you are gonna decide to smoke and make that choice.....a movie will not make or break that for you....that applies to all countries.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   


www.guardian.co.uk...
The ban, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, will outlaw shots showing cigarette packs and advertising hoardings. Foreign movies and serials, increasingly popular especially when dubbed into local Indian languages, will have the offending images electronically blurred.

The ministry of health said that films predating the ban with offending scenes would need to a run a series of health warnings across the bottom of the screen.


I want to know how exactly this will happen? what about all the earlier versions of dvds etc, that already show smoking scenes, does the Indian govt plan on recalling them to blur out the scene or put the health warnings on????

Btw Bollywood will survive with or without smoking in films imo, it will just be more challenging for the directors and actors that's all.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
subz, you are way outta the park here.

We're talkin about freakin' banning cigarettes from movies.

Zip

You might be just talking about banning cigarettes from movies but my post was in reference to the following:


Originally posted by Djarums
Hmm...


People cry about any National ID program, or the right of the government to monitor things...

But they have no problem with a government body, American, Indian, whoever, telling people what they can and can't do, and where they can and can't do it.

How interesting!



Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Yay, another instance of Government Knows Best, to force changes on expression and symbology because it's "good for the children".

Let's all push harder for international laws in America, so when even more countries pass such "we know what's good for you" laws, then the US can follow suit!

Next up, banning visuals of civil unrest or rioting, makes people all nervous and causes more violence....or visuals of governmental corruption, because it causes people to distrust government...

The road to Hell is paved with good (or justifiable) intentions. Nopthing like Public Safety to create justification for censorhip.

(I wish I could remember the title of a series, sci-fi, that had as it's overbearing, dictatorial government, an Office of Public Safety.)

The discussion has diversified and I dont think I was "way outta the park" here when commenting that not all government legislation that limits our rights for saftey reasons are bad. This pertains to the cigarettes being banned from Indian movies as well. Can I continue?


Originally posted by SportyMB
Don't even go there man. That's a complicated issue.

I think I can handle it, me ams got brains



Originally posted by SportyMB
But this is about India, not the US.

I didnt say I was talking about the United States. I was refering to the knee jerk reaction that some people have when any government legislates a health saftey law. There are people that reject these laws due to their rights of choice being infringed upon. The same argument could be leveld at asbestos. If you argue for the right to smoke you should argue the right to put asbestos in your home but you cant, its illegal. Does that mean your rights have suffered a mortal blow? If you cant see the connection then thats your problem, not mine.

The same kind of argument can be used with regards to the British Doctors advice to ban long sharp ended knives. People ridiculed that proposed ban because they say we should have the right to make our own decisions. Right ok then, would you argue that we should be able to make our own decisions with other health affecting legislation? Should you have the choice of buying a car without any saftey features? Or should car manufacturers be forced by law to include them? Where is your right to choose here? Where is the manufacturers right to make an unsafe car if they want to?

Where you draw the line between personal rights to choose and legislating public saftey is a gray area inwhich making blanket statments like "they shouldnt tell us what to do, we have the freedom to do what ever we want" is flawed.

Your opinion on a health saftey law should be based on its merrits and on a case-by-case basis i.e. does it greatly infringe on your rights? Is the saftey gained from the law outweighed by other factors? Im not saying you should accept all saftey laws, im arguing that blanket statements that governments have no right telling us what we can and cant do with regards to our health and saftey is wrong.

[edit on 2/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I think the real question being considered these days when it comes to obscure laws like this is...

Can they sue us for it? Is it a liability?

The McDonald's coffee is hot...Cigarettes cause cancer....And yes - If you eat enough Oreos, YOU WILL GET FAT!

Common sense has derailed into the Twilight Zone.....

Every bozo for themselves I say....



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
subz, drawing the line is precisely what this is all about. The line between asbestos-laden insulated attics and the depiction of cigarette smoking in motion pictures is much clearer than the line between asbestos-laden insulated walls and side-impact vehicular airbags. Everyone can agree on this. It is not a question.

Everyone here gets your point. You need not extend your tentacles of comparison. We realize that you are comparing two points of public safety.

Two other items of public safety include a gun-safety-mechanism and a bulletproof vest, no? These are quite arguably apples and oranges.

This is completely beside the concept of art. Art is boundless. If a man so believes that certain art will harm him or his family then he can take measures to avoid it. In this case, he can quite specifically not pay money to endure what he believes will influence and harm him.

In passing by spraypainted freeway tags, he can contact the city and have the art removed from his view.

Zip



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It is of course the right of the Indian government to address whatever problem they see fit.
In a nation whose population has I believe has recently or soon will top a BILLION....where colorful locales such as the "Black Hole" of Calcutta dot the landscape...........where Hindu Nuclear arms are pointed at it's hated Muslim nemesis Pakistan to the north over a worthless outcropping of stones called Kashmir..... I'm so glad to see the issue of second hand smoke being brought to the forefront of national concerns.

GIVE ME A BREAK !



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Uh, for some reason I can't edit, but to add to my above post -- in case it wasn't clear, and I don't think it is, but the thing about the spraypaint on the freeway was an example of free harmful art to contrast the purchased harmful art that is in the movie.

Sometimes my arguements are convoluted, I know.


Zip







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join