A warm welcome for Stanton Glantz
Friday, June 19, 2009 Last night I received the following information. Our old friend Stanton Glantz is back in town ... for the 2009 UK National Smoking Cessation Conference which takes place in Liverpool this weekend:
Liverpool is now on the way to becoming the first city in the country to use its licensing powers to classify films according to their smoking content, and a major conference in London on June 22/23 will focus on the effects of smoking in movies.
Liverpool City Council is about to start a three-month consultation on local rating of 'smoking movies', having heard evidence that suggests that smoking in films is the single biggest influence on young people to start smoking.
Public health experts in the city estimate that 5,300 under-18s smoke in the city - far more than the national norm, and that around 2,700 of them do so because of the influence of the movies. Already, more than 5,000 Liverpool people have backed the campaign.
And Prof Stanton Glantz, one of the leading figures globally in the smokefree movement, will be citing Liverpool as an example to other cities, when he addresses the National Smoking Cessation Conference on June 22. Prof Glantz, from San Francisco, will also be revealing the results of new English research into youth exposure to smoking in movies.
Prof Glantz will be delighted to meet you either pre- or post- conference, to talk about the global issues, and the likely effects of Liverpool's proposed action.
I was asked to comment on this story and I had to laugh. The idea of Liverpool unilaterally classifying films according to their smoking content is rather funny. In fact, part of me welcomes this initiative. Re-classifying films according to how often people are seen smoking on screen is right up there with some of the more ridiculous anti-smoking initiatives revealed in Christopher Snowdon's new book Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Antismoking. (Have I mentioned that Velvet Glove is published on Monday and that it's available to order HERE?)
For years the anti-smoking movement has been pushing on an open door, helped by a compliant media and politicians who were too busy filling in their expense forms to read the evidence or engage in proper debate.
If they carry on with proposals like this, however, the antismoking community will appear ridiculous and dangerously intolerant not only to the majority of smokers but to most non-smokers as well.
As for "Prof" Glantz, I hope he visits the UK more often so people can see for themselves what a hardline antismoking activist is really like. (Compared to Glantz, my friend Deborah Arnott is an absolute pussycat.)
So, on behalf of the readers of Taking Liberties, I'd like to offer Stanton Glantz a suitably warm welcome to sunny Britain. You may like to add your own comments. Nothing libellous, please, just a few home truths.
Reader Comments (21)
I agree. Let him come and let Liverpool classify 101 Dalmations as an 18. Let them ban the old Pathe news stories with Churchill puffing away on a cigar. It might attract some comment from the mainstream media who are hardly likely to support it and may make the point that Liverpool should concentrate on becoming a heroin free city before it turns it's attention and the council tax payers' money on James Bond.
I wonder, rhetorically, why the people of Liverpool are more easily influenced than the rest of us?
ps Am looking forward to meeting you on Monday!
Simon, please see my comment below under "The Goerlitz Tapes."
Perhaps you could ask this conman,what he is going to do about the 2 million deaths in the US from 'non-smoking related diseases' each year?
THe fact that there is somebody in the Liverpool council who wanted this clown to come over here is bewildering. It just shows how fanatical they have become, or do they just want him to teach them how to get rich, as he has done from the scam, now that their finances are so public.
smoking in films is the single biggest influence on young people to start smoking.
Another single biggest influence? Along with tobacco displays and vending machines?
I find this rather funny. For years, film-makers have been dropping in the odd swear word to ensure a more 'dangerous' film rating. Now they just have to have one cig being smoked and they've hit the jackpot. 18 films intrigue adults more than 15 or 12 ones do.
"Professor" Stanton Glantz's qualifications are in mechanical engineering, while Professor James Enstrom's citation reads. I know who I prefer for my epidemiological advice:
"Enstrom received his B.S.(Physics) in 1965 from Harvey Mudd College; his Ph.D.(Physics) in 1970 from Stanford University under the doctoral supervision of Nobel Laureate Melvin Schwartz; and his M.P.H. and Postdoctoral Certification in Epidemiology in 1976 from the University of California, Los Angeles. He has been a faculty member at UCLA since 1976 and Fellow, American College of Epidemiology since 1981"
Please ask Glantz one simple question. Why, considering our large elderly population were drenched with tobacco smoke from birth onwards, is there one single person left alive over the age of 50?
Demand an answer.
Ask him-"So how does it feel to walk in Hitler's footsteps?"
A demonstration against Glantz is a good idea.
I would however like to ask where the demonstrations against the Tobacco Display Ban are.
So many Organisations have given evidence against it, both at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, yet those same people seem incapable or unwilling to form a Coalition against the ban and present a united front.
The Anti-Smoking lobby use a divide and rule tactic, it is time for those against smoking related bans to do the same.
Do you want to take the lead on this Simon?
I see Glaxo, Pfizer, McNeil and Nicotinell are all involved. Quel Surprise.
http://www.uknscc.org/2009_UKNSCC/programme.html
Who has the b***s to bite the bullet and form a Coalition against the Tobacco Display Ban and organise a demonstration at both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament.
Will Forest take the lead on this Simon?
Ask him why the oldest living man in the world, Henry Allingham, is a smoker or was until recently.
You don't need to ask this man anything Chas. People like this thrive on being controversial and having people getting angry at them. Ask him nothing, either ignore him or laugh at him. He will hate this much more than all the name calling and shouting.
If you want to expose him, do so to other people, to the papers, and on blogs like this, but please don't question him unless you really value what he has got to say, and I for one certainly don't, do you?
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?f=173601742&a=tpc&m=7541044041&s=757607732&cdra=Y
Bill from Reading, you'll find mention of the mice experiment here of which 60% survived
I'm sorry I cannot at this time find the source which I originally read, a few years ago, but I will continue to try, but it certainly exists.
I have no reason to lie, and I do not appreciate being called a liar,and especially from someone who pre-judges before you even have the facts.
As Einstein said, 'condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance.'
I went to see the movie Watchmen the other day, being a fan of the comic, and was amused by a particular scene in this somewhat violent movie where the character Rorschach is shown as a child beating up two bullies. I say 'beaten up' he bites a chunk out of the other kid's cheek - in the comic book one of the bullies is smoking and Rorschach grabs the cigarette and stubs it in the bully's eye. Not so in the film - a film that is happy to portray an attempted rape and numerous grisly deaths in graphic detail, but smoking would clearly be a step too far!
If they carry on with proposals like this, however, the antismoking community will appear ridiculous and dangerously intolerant not only to the majority of smokers but to most non-smokers as well.
This and other similar comments were made in the US when the idea was presented there. The anti-smoking community gained again and got some changes.
S Glantz wrote a paper in 2005 --> Smoking in the Movies Increases Adolescent Smoking: A Review
Quote:Conclusions. Strong empirical evidence indicates that smoking in movies increases adolescent smoking initiation. Amending the movie-rating system to rate movies containing smoking as "R" should reduce adolescent exposure to smoking and subsequent smoking.
R rating similar to 18 Rating. (Maybe 15)
There is a smoke free movies site giving further info --> Smoke Free Movies This is from the UCSF (Dr Glantz's Uni?) It includes a section on objections and how to refute them.
The MPAA (US equivalent of the BBFC) from 2007 now take into consideration smoking as a factor in rating a film --> MPAA Addresses the Issue of Smoking in Films
Quote The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) announced a major change to the movie rating system today. In order to better provide parents with information on smoking in films, the MPAA has expanded their current system of ranking movies in which characters are shown smoking. The MPAA has always factored in teen smoking when awarding a rating, however now the organization has opened up its ruling to include adults smoking as well as scenes which glamorize smoking.
Also this coincides with the WHO's statement (June 1st 2009) --> WHO calls for enforceable policies to restrict smoking in movies
Liverpool is floating the idea but it may well gain traction as the groundwork has already been done.
Those in Liverpool who are enamoured of this idea are truly stupid. No Point mincing words.
First, do they seriously think this will have any effect
as young people will still see people smoking in the street and at home? In addition, they will be able to watch the same movies at home too and consequently, all this attention will make smoking even more attractive to them.
Secondly, we can probably expect our witless politicians to jump on this bandwagon to show how "with it" they are. However, this will create serious contradictions in our laws and views of how young people may behave. At sixteen, for example, you can get married. You can also join the army as a junior soldier and at seventeen and a half you enter the army proper and can fight for your country. Lastly, Brown wants to bring the voting age down to sixteen. If that happens, then you will also be able to decide who runs the country and to all intents and purposes be an adult. Following on from this, it will be completely fatuous to declare that sixteen year olds may not watch films with smoking in them.
Soooo, those bloody fools who think this is a great idea are in for one hell of a disappointment. Honestly, there is only one word to describe them and it rhymes with "bankers".
Well what I would say to the proposal to ban smoking in film or ban or edit film that has smoking scenes.
It has parallels with Nazis burning books they thought were contrary to their doctrine.
The Marx brothers will turn in their graves.
Especially Groucho.
Imagine for example what a Marx brothers film would look like after Mr Glantz's editing.
Its cultural vandalism.
I think the film industry needs to fight this one to the death.
Once they start with movies, it logically follows that books will be next. I wonder what would happen if Anti demands that The Lord of the Rings and the Sherlock Holmes novels be moved to the ‘adult’ section of the public library.
Would that be the eyeopener the general public need?
Year ago, when the voting age was 21, so was the age for drinking; when the voting age was reduced to 18, around that time so was the age for drinking.
If Brown reduces the voting age to 16 then does it not follow that if these youngsters are old enough to vote for the government they want they should also be allowed to drink, smoke and watch what movies they choose?
They can't be adults one moment and children again the next! Of course Brown wants children to vote, it is the only way he feels he has a cat in hells chance of regaining some of what he lost in the recent elections! Children are more malleable and gullible, promise them the right things and they will swallow the lies hook, line and sinker; oh the disappointment when they realise a few years down the line how they were taken for mugs and not used, but also abused by government and politicians in general!
A couple from me Simon, how many diney films will have to be 18s only, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, will have to be one, and really, what adult would want to watch that. How many children have tried the swimming "under the sea" very dangerous activity? given it's so called "smoking" influence to children.
As he is the "no safe level man" ask why J&J are allowed "formaldehyde" babies? Given their obvious interest with RWJF.
Thank you