Thank you. I thought you were going to be doing one of those programs which supported the efforts of the censors. Not one person that I know that smokes started smoking because of the movies. Most of the smokers I know started smoking because of peer presure. Most of them started to smoke as teens due to peer presure. Hollywood censors, grow up. Smoking is still a fact of life. And not only amoung "bad" people. Your guest is right.

Sharon Christiansen
Tallahassee, FL
WFSU

Sent by Sharon Christiansen | 2:54 PM ET | 05-22-2007

You should watch the video Common Sense. Dating from 1982 and starring Michael Conrad of Hill Street Blues, thefilm is a piece of propoganda funded by the tobacco industry to argue against the notion that second-hand smoke is dangerous, and that banning smoking from public spaces interferes is unnecessary governmental heavy-handedness. The film features several hilarious skits in which smokers' rights are violated and nonsmokers act as all-around nudniks.

As for Michael Conrad, he died of cancer about a year after he made this film.

The video is now in the public domain; I've got a copy of it on my blog.

Sent by andy carvin | 2:57 PM ET | 05-22-2007

Cigarettes don't just hurt the smoker's health; they hurt the health of the whole society. We all have to pay for the effects of smoking through taxes for public health programs. We all have to protect our clarity of mind from the denial and justification that skews smokers' feelings. People who have a broad perspective and clarity of feeling choose adult pleasures that benefit themselves and other people. These types of pleasures do exist if people can find and foster good situations. I don't like censorship, but we should try to model a balanced perspective by making choices for our lives that strive to not harm other people.

Sent by Irene C | 3:13 PM ET | 05-22-2007

I just listened to the discussion about smoking in the movies. One suggestion that the guest referred to again and again is the idea that smoking is sexy. I couldn't disagree more. There is Nothing sexy about onscreen characters of either gender smoking. It's plain repulsive. I'm not at all enticed by that. Also if actors are any good at all they can find other ways to express their inner psychological situation.

Sent by Steve R | 3:16 PM ET | 05-22-2007

I am a former smoker and a former film student.

There are many more devices that convey mood besides cigarette smoking. Although such devices are not all created equal, it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that the use of lighting, costumes, musical score, and others of a myriad of directorial choices are incapable of communicating mood. As a film student at the Academy of Arts in Howell, NJ, formerly called FPAC, my class's first project was to create a short film without dialogue to describe a particular mood. To my knowledge, none of our characters were smoking and all of us were successful in our endeavors.

That being said, I am strongly opposed to the MPAA ratings. I do not appreciate any group or individual thinking for me and making my decisions. Online critic sites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Yahoo-Movies offer viewers hints as to what a movie is about. Film companies themselves create trailers to inform the public of the content of their films. It is wholly unnecessary, intrusive, and wrong to infringe on our right to choose what we will and will not watch!

Sent by Jessica Sullivan | 3:17 PM ET | 05-22-2007

I was disappointed by the lack of challenge to the guest's comments about smoking being 'sexy'. That may be his opinion, and parts of society may view them that way, but a big piece of the sexiness of smoking is due to how they've been portrayed in the movies, ads, etc.

I, myself, can think of nothing less sexy than the thought of kissing a mouth that tastes and smells like a dirty ashtray. The biggest thing that anyone can do to turn me off is to light up. That one action can take a '10' down to a '2' in no time flat.

I do agree that the whole censorship idea is ridiculous, and it's appropriate for us to oppose that effort, it is irresponsible of us to allow the statement that smoking is 'sexy' to go unchallenged.

By the way, there are many 'adult pleasures' that are appropriate for people to practice, and that don't harm the practicer OR the people surrounding them. There are many that are not. Comparing smoking to things like marijuana, sex, etc, was specious at best.

I think it's informative that your 'expert' in this case is a French professor, an interesting credential for the subject, and disappointing that you appeared to consider the potential health impacts as humorous.

I highly recommend anyone considering smoking listen to David Wilcox's "The Advertising Man". The take home message is wonderful -- "well crack will kill you quickly, that's why it's got to go, they'll get more of your money if they kill you nice and slow".

Sent by Mark Terry | 4:10 PM ET | 05-22-2007

I used to smoke. I think smokers tend to block out the undesirable effects of smoking from their minds. Once I opened up and let the undesirable effects exist in my mind, I didn't want to smoke anymore. I'm not sure censorship opens people's minds so they can see the connection between causes and consequences. When they see this connection, they realize that doing good things brings good to them, and so they naturally want to do good. That's why, ironically, opening up the desire to do good means opening up to letting things be. But some things are opposed; how can we let opposition be? The debate about censorship, for example, represents an opposition between different paths to morality. One path is force, which brings about a counterforce that entrenches each side of the opposition, strengthening the battle. Another path is letting smokers be, which brings about natural learning from pain. I think an open mind sees that both approaches ultimately follow the same path, just in different ways and on different timelines. Opening the mind to thinking about pain brings a very strong desire to avoid it, so this is a very quick way to bypass the battles of opposition and progress. Does this mean I support censorship? Maybe not when installed by force, but perhaps I support films that reveal the connections between real causes and consequences. Such inconvenient truths can be incredibly convenient. For example, if electric cars were the norm now, I would not have to crimp my activities but could cruise about cleanly. Increasing the MPG standard by 1 per year is a ridiculous insult to life on this planet. Where is my electric car?! How does this relate to smoking and censorship? Our cars are addicts! Let's let that stuff censor itself by making electricity accessible! The best way to defeat what is bad, it is said, is to make progress in what is good.

Sent by Irene C | 5:02 PM ET | 05-22-2007

I am an ex-smoker and of all of the different triggers that I had to deal with when quitting, the one I was most surprised by was seeing someone smoke in a movie. It's a struggle to deal with smelling someone else's cigarette for the first time, or walking by where you used to buy cigarettes - all these things activate the addiction. But when I saw someone smoking in a movie, I had to leave. It really got me. Thankfully I didn't relapse, but I know am of the opinion that anything we can do to eliminate triggers for people trying to quit and stay quit is worth at least thinking about or just warn people.

Sent by Kelly | 11:29 AM ET | 05-23-2007

I cannot believe how stupid this show made NPR look. Yeah, smoking is SEXY. Even sexier was the gigantic stitches across my Nana's chest and back where they had to hack her open to get the lung cancer out. Oh and then a couple of years later, those sexy sexy stitches on her skull where they had to cut her open to get the cancer out of her brain, where it had spread from her lungs. SEXY! THAT IS SO HOT! When she died a few years later, that was REALLY sexy.

Please!

Yes I am a former smoker. I quit not long ago. And absolutely I started smoking because I thought it was what cool, introspective, indie kids like those in Reality bites DID.

Totally brainwashed. Cig companies are psyched that 12 yr old kids with an attitude think that. Get them in with images of coolness and then once you grow up and realize it's disgusting, hey, sweet, they are addicted!
I am totally against basing ratings on whether there is smoking in a movie or not. Artistic license should not be compromised. But, to promote the idea that smoking is sexy is like promoting the idea that binge drinking is COOL, or cocaine is glamorous. And besides, using cigarettes to get a point across is just lazy writing or directing. It's just SO obvious. Why not just give all bad guys capes and eyepatches? Grow up and get past Film Making 101.

This program did not include nearly enough challenges to the basic premise that "Smoking is Sexy." That point just seemed to be accepted. Bad hosting on Neal's part.

Sent by Jessica | 1:13 PM ET | 05-23-2007

Count me among those who found the "smoking is sexy" (*so* not) segment completely stunning for its sycophantic idiocy, as well as Conan's utter lack of intelligent response to the guest.

For those decrying censorship: the proposal is to apply "R" ratings to films depicting smoking. For the adults among the audience, this should prove no bar. Let's remember that it's portrayals of products which is sought to influence people, and among the most sought-after groups in any market (let alone one that's actively engaged in killing its customers) are the "tween", tween, and young adult populations. "Customers for life", regardless of how short and/or disease-ridden that life may be. Closing down a loophole through which the tobacco industry's trucks of teen propaganda are being driving gains my wholehearted support.

Regards any social images of smoking, realize that these are images devoloped over two centuries, and hundreds of billions of dollars of advertising, product placement (literally into the hands of GIs and students in earlier years, except in other countries in which it still occurs). To suggest that this is somehow a natural cultural association is completely false.

I continued listening to the segment in hopes that either the host or guests would introduce any modicum of intelligenct criticism to the commentary. Nope. Instead, Conan simply let the guest ramble for several minutes, spouting sophistries, repeating himself, while invoking the fig leaf of noting that smoking is bad for your health. Damned straight.

The only thing "smoking" after this segment is the ashes of TOTN's credibility and worth.

Sent by Karsten M. Self | 5:55 PM ET | 05-27-2007