Debate and Discussion

Smoking equals R-rated
SarahN at 5:01PM, Feb. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/128/117047.htm
All opinions on smoking aside, I think this is just ridiculous, especially the fact that many people are supporting this! (Or so I've heard…) Maybe it doesn't really matter that much…but you're telling me a perfectly tame movie with a little bit of smoking will automatically get an R rating while The Ring still remains PG-13?

If cigarettes than why not movies with alchohal? Or other drugs? Or guns? Why don't we just skip the whole Restricted crap and make it all NC-17? That'll teach those tobacco companies.

I guess this means a lot of Looney Tunes episodes will become R-rated now.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:12PM, Feb. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
People like that are suprisingly good at shifting blame. Instead of saying “maybe we should talk to our kids about not smoking, nah screw that lets blame it on someone else”.

Thats all thats happening. If someone is swayed by Brad Pitt smoking on screen to start themselfs they are incredibly weak minded and should get help.

“Why? Every year, nearly 400,000 kids start smoking due to the influence of movies. The finding was highlighted at this week's meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held Oct. 7-10 in Atlanta”
Ok….do they show proof of this?

“Since 1996, Sargent and colleagues have analyzed movies for smoking content. They've also been finding out which movies kids have seen, and whether they smoke.

After accounting for factors linked to smoking behavior and moviegoing frequency, they find that kids who see the most onscreen smoking are more than 2.5 times more likely to start smoking than kids who see the least onscreen smoking”
GASP. people watch movies with smoking in them are smokers themselfs!? Well i never…

factor in that MOST MOVIES have smoking in them to begin with their proof is horribly flawed. Next their going to make any movie with homosexual content “R” rated because people who watch it are compelled to crave weiner.


last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
hat at 8:08PM, Feb. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 449
joined: 8-27-2006
I just heard about it on the news.
Does it matter? Alot of kids are already viewing R movies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
Kristen Gudsnuk at 8:48PM, Feb. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 10-4-2006
this is the most idiotic story I've heard in a while. My favorite movie of all time is Rushmore, and there's lots of smoking in that. And it's used symbolically in the movie, meaning that cutting that part out would be damaging to the movie's quality. Anyway, I don't smoke, even though I've seen Rushmore a million times. There ya go, there's proof for you. Honestly, I have to question their statistics. Who HASN'T seen movies where people smoke?? It happens all the time! People smoke in movies, people smoke in real life, KIDS ARE GOING TO SEE CIGARETTES! Although advertising and stuff DOES affect young, malleable minds quite a bit, by the time a person's old enough to acquire cigarettes (generally speaking, generally speaking..) he or she can make a rational, logical decision whether to smoke or not!!
This all reeks of unnecessary censorship (although when is censorship necessary, really?) to me, and come on, kids are much more brainwashed against smoking than for it. Countless TV ads, countless assemblies from kindergarten till senior year, graphic photos of charred lungs… for god's sake, we get it! smoking is bad!
This kind of stuff annoys me so much that I really need to cool my nerves with a Lucky Strike ™.
Honestly, all of this fervent censorship of smoking will make it more of a forbidden fruit than anything else.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:22PM
Vagabond at 10:34PM, Feb. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
That's like… just very, very, very bad science. I question the “Academy” and its credentials, because even as someone who's only taken 2 statistics courses, I can find at least 20 things wrong with their process.


… And only about 1 actually involved knowing stats, because the rest are just simple dispelling bullshit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
Aurora Moon at 12:42AM, Feb. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I pretty much agree with you guys on this. it's the stupidest shit I've ever heard.

I actually find half the stuff in looney tunes pretty much violent and senseless… how come that isn't adult content? (only semi-serious here).

and then they're cocerned over a little smoking in movies? pfft.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
gpcrocker at 8:40AM, Feb. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 5
joined: 6-23-2006
Smoking Rated R?

God the World is turning wussy.
___________________
*Smoke-my-lungs*
____________________

*False.Enigma*-link.
http://www.drunkduck.com/False_Enigma/
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:38PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 9:45AM, Feb. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
That reminds me of this. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2773792&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
SpANG at 10:14AM, Feb. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
This is excellent news! I won't have to deal with kids under 18 in the theatres ever again!

Just Kidding… kinda.

So people are looking to the entertainment industry to educate our youth? Bra-vo. That's the right road to go down. You realize if PARENTS were doing their actual jobs, then stupid things like this wouldn't even need to be considered.

It does raise an interesting question, though. How many times are smoking scenes even necessary? It really is a legal advert, isn't it? Cigarette industry reaps the rewards, too. Nice.

Oh, dear. The X-files is now not approved for children.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
SarahN at 11:39AM, Feb. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
Aurora Moon
I actually find half the stuff in looney tunes pretty much violent and senseless… how come that isn't adult content? (only semi-serious here).
Looney Tunes came from the days when children weren't considered morons. lol!

Yes, I'm DYING to know who is REALLY coming up with all these statistics and numbers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
Phantom Penguin at 1:57PM, Feb. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
SarahN
Aurora Moon
I actually find half the stuff in looney tunes pretty much violent and senseless… how come that isn't adult content? (only semi-serious here).
Looney Tunes came from the days when children weren't considered morons. lol!

Yes, I'm DYING to know who is REALLY coming up with all these statistics and numbers.

Probably the same guy who came up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 2:14PM, Feb. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
…Debate, discuss, don't just link things and quote each other with a couple of smart comments added… I'll move this to the general area.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Aurora Moon at 7:05PM, Feb. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
SarahN
Aurora Moon
I actually find half the stuff in looney tunes pretty much violent and senseless… how come that isn't adult content? (only semi-serious here).
Looney Tunes came from the days when children weren't considered morons. lol!

Yes, I'm DYING to know who is REALLY coming up with all these statistics and numbers.

well, looney tunes comes from the era that's pretty much close to “my era” (the 80's to early 90's)…. and even when I was a kid I found it stupid and senseless, and didn't watch much of it.

in a way, I kinda conidsered other kids who were competely hooked on looney tunes to be morons, even if they didn't go out and injure other people because of what they watched. After all, looney tunes uses one fucking same gag over and over, over and over.. again and again…..
that one gag is to trick each other, beat each other senseless, try to harm each other….. for no reason at all expect to be “funny”.

I couldn't understand even as a kid why people were so cavpitated by the looney tunes and laughed hysterically every time they ever repeated one of the same old gags, even twice or three times in a row in the same “epodise”.

so yes, people still can be compete morons even if they don't go out and do something they saw in a movie or on TV.

just my opinion.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
isukun at 9:57PM, Feb. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
well, looney tunes comes from the era that's pretty much close to “my era” (the 80's to early 90's)

I guess it really is a testament to how well the cartoons have held up over the years that people think that.

As for rating movies with cigarettes R, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm 28 and most of my friends are well above the drinking age, so I don't think getting into the theater will be a problem. It's not like most G and PG movies have smoking or even much drinking in them, anyway.

The testing they've done to link smoking with movie viewing isn't on the mark. Kids who are going to see the higher rated films are the kids who are trying to prove their maturity. It isn't the movie that makes them smoke, it's the sort of environment they come from. It's like when I look at my own friends. I have several who smoke and even more who don't. I've noticed one thing in common between all of my friends who smoke, though, they come urban areas and lower middle class families, often where the parents are divorced. These are the people who had less restrictions placed upon them by their parents and who lived in areas where kids could easily get theri hands on things like cigarettes and alcohol.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:37PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
“Movies that portray smoking should be rated ”R.“
Movies should certify that they received nothing of value from anyone in exchange for portraying tobacco use or tobacco products.
Movies should run strong antismoking ads before any film that portrays smoking or tobacco products.
Movies should ban the display of any brand of tobacco.”

These rules don't even go together. If it's R why do they need to show nonsmoking ads? And now they can't get money off of tobacco ads? Furthermore, If they have to ban tobacco, what purpose does the first or second rule serve? This whole thing is so completely retarded.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Crazy Dutchman at 5:49AM, Feb. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 558
joined: 2-6-2006
I'm totally against it for the fact that some kids can't go to see movies in the theatres just because someone lights up a cigarette in the film. I mean, I remember 2 years ago the stupid cinema-people didn't let me in to go see Sin City, bacause I was under age (even tough I had someone with me who WAS older). I mean, your simply stealing their fun that way! I got really angry and began downloading it the firts second I got home. But I just wanted to see it on the big screen ya know! It's now one of my favorite movies….
This just means there are coming even more movies kids can't go to see because of a few stupid rules.

This just leaves them to their imagination, wich can be a lot tougher than the actual movie material. And they already know smoking is bad… what makes them think teenagers will NOT smoke right now? Now it's gotton even more bad-ass and cool then before!

I don't know. It's just….stupid!
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:48AM
Lsnewton at 8:14AM, Feb. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 37
joined: 6-30-2006
God, crap like this is cropping up at an alarming rate. Guess what guys, shielding your kids from any mention of smoking isn't going to do squat. How about devoting your time to school, parent and advertising based education and awareness, instead. Remember those?

Christ, the South Park guys summed it up best in “Blame Canada”:
"We must blame them,
and cause a fuss,
before somebody thinks of blaming US!
"
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:48PM
Tundra at 11:53PM, Feb. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 198
joined: 6-29-2006
That's insanity.
http://www.notebookinhand.com Forum for artists, writers, and other creative types.
http://www.drunkduck.com/Notebook
http://www.notnegativenews.com Get positive news here! Improve your day. Share your links.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:35PM
lothar at 2:27PM, Feb. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
oh no !!! now my avatar is R rated !!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Vagabond at 7:49PM, Feb. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
Looney Tunes was definitely from the 40's, 50's, and 60's… and was and still is pretty damn awesome. Ah man, great times of my childhood.

But if someone can explain how this statement even makes sense…

Kids who watched very few movies hardly smoked at all. But among the 5% of kids who saw the most onscreen smoking, 40% had started smoking themselves.

Because all that really says is that from the nonrandom sample that they picked, they took an even smaller, even less nonrandom percentage, and noticed a (gasp) similarity! 40% can mean something like 4 out of 10 of the kids they wanted to prove their point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
ccs1989 at 3:53PM, Feb. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
This kind of crap has been going on ever since entertainment started becoming grittier. The question really is “Does entertainment reflect society, or does society reflect entertainment?” That's a question that you can have an opinion on, but there's no concrete facts to support either, although there is evidence.

http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Neilsama at 1:07AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
Personally, I've always found the movie rating system to be completely ass-backwards. The conditions for rating a movie are completely arbitrary and are totally without logic. I mean, not to get entirely off-topic here, but we live in a society that thinks that it's more dangerous for a child to see sex than it is to see violence.

Furthermore, we have such standards for content that are merely imposed by our own phobias of said content. Swear words, anyone? Here's an idea. Let's just stop caring about cuss words! Maybe if we didn't react hysterically to the F-word, kids won't be inclined to repeat it! Ya think!? It's just a sound with syntax. Nobody died from a cuss.

I think they need to first overhaul the entire rating system and then back off a little. There is some content that, while setting a poor example for children, are not things that are going to cause them damage. Let the parents decide what to allow their children to watch rather than some arbitrary “standard”. And if parents don't want to do their jobs, that's too bad. Don't have children.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
Aurora Moon at 2:06AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
well said, neilsama! I couldn't had said it better myself. ;)
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
reconjsh at 9:18AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
I actually support this R-rating proposal. Maybe this will help end smoking in general - which I support.

Smoking should be outlawed and forever banned. I can't stand being near a smoker when they're smoking. I want to enjoy a long and lung cancer-free life. Not to mention trying to breathe around a smoker is like trying to eat just one Pringle (you can't do it). Smoking and specifically most smokers are rude, inconsiderate and, quite honestly, smelly people.In my lifetime, we'll see the outlawing of cigarette smoking… I guarentee this. Look at New York for example… it's illegal to smoke in city limits except for very strict designated areas.

As for sensoring movies with heavier restrictions on ratings… I'm for that too. The rating system is designed to inform viewers on content and whether the viewer is able to rationally make good decisions based on what they've just seen. This means, that a cartoon smashing an anvil on someone's head is fine… most people under 13 see that as a wrong behavior and thus PG is fine. However, with smoking, most people under 18 AREN'T properly educated on smoking and will thus not see a connection between smoking and death like they would anvil on head and death. Argue that point if you feel, but really, if you teenagers COULD make that connection (and similar ones like firearms, saftey belts, drugs, etc) then the number of people making bad decisions wouldn't be so high.

End point: teenagers are easily influenced and this rating system, although it'll be completely ignored since they see plenty of R movies anyways, is a just step.

Enjoy flamming me =)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Neilsama at 10:12AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
reconjsh
I actually support this R-rating proposal. Maybe this will help end smoking in general - which I support.

Smoking should be outlawed and forever banned. I can't stand being near a smoker when they're smoking. I want to enjoy a long and lung cancer-free life. Not to mention trying to breathe around a smoker is like trying to eat just one Pringle (you can't do it). Smoking and specifically most smokers are rude, inconsiderate and, quite honestly, smelly people.
While smokers are indeed rude with their smoking, it's also equally rude to insist that the entire world change because some of us don't like the smell of smoke. On one hand, I can understand the princple of banning smoking in state and federal buildings, but making laws to force businesses to become smoke-free environments is a human rights violation. For business owners that cater to smokers, that is an advantage that is unfairly being taken away from them.

I hate smoking as much as anyone, and I'm pretty opinionated, but even I don't think that the world needs to bow at my feet wherever I go.

reconjsh
In my lifetime, we'll see the outlawing of cigarette smoking… I guarentee this. Look at New York for example… it's illegal to smoke in city limits except for very strict designated areas.
And then they'll just go away forever. Just like alcohol back in the twenties and drugs. Prohibition is very effective.

reconjsh
As for sensoring movies with heavier restrictions on ratings… I'm for that too. The rating system is designed to inform viewers on content and whether the viewer is able to rationally make good decisions based on what they've just seen. This means, that a cartoon smashing an anvil on someone's head is fine… most people under 13 see that as a wrong behavior and thus PG is fine. However, with smoking, most people under 18 AREN'T properly educated on smoking and will thus not see a connection between smoking and death like they would anvil on head and death. Argue that point if you feel, but really, if you teenagers COULD make that connection (and similar ones like firearms, saftey belts, drugs, etc) then the number of people making bad decisions wouldn't be so high.
Um… what? let me ask you something. Are you in favor of abstinance-only programs in sex education? Are you seriously suggesting that the solution to the smoking problem is to just tell kids “no” and deny any access to materials that might glorify activities you don't want them partaking in? Do you realize how ineffective that sort of strategy is?

Prohibiting something does not stop children from obtaining it. Just look at drugs… Oh, and alcohol. …And pornography. If you think you can block all channels between these things and your children, you're sadly mistaken. Kids can and will find avenues to these things, no matter how many roadblocks you put up.

The solution to improper education is… um… education. Despite your patronizing view of children, they do possess the capacity to understand that lung cancer kills you and act rationally based on this information. The responsibility to inform the children falls on the parent. If the parents don't want to do their job, then they shouldn't have children. I'm sick and tired of child advocasy groups trying to make the world one big soft and squishy place where everyone's safe. The world is not made of Nerf!

You are not helping a child prepare for his or her place in the world if all you do is restrict their access to media that you deem inappropriate.

reconjsh
End point: teenagers are easily influenced and this rating system, although it'll be completely ignored since they see plenty of R movies anyways, is a just step.
In other words, you're admitting that it's largely pointless and ineffective. Um… yep.

reconjsh
Enjoy flamming me =)
Pointing out the flaws in your argument does not constitute as flaming.

ian_feverdream
I expect mortgage companies to get involved soon. You cannot smoke in the house while you have a mortgage, because if you default, the residual smoke will lower the value of the house.
Damn! And here I thought that at least they'd always have the right to smoke in their own homes. That wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that happening.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
reconjsh at 10:33AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Neilsama
While smokers are indeed rude with their smoking, it's also equally rude to insist that the entire world change because some of us don't like the smell of smoke. On one hand, I can understand the princple of banning smoking in state and federal buildings, but making laws to force businesses to become smoke-free environments is a human rights violation. For business owners that cater to smokers, that is an advantage that is unfairly being taken away from them.

I hate smoking as much as anyone, and I'm pretty opinionated, but even I don't think that the world needs to bow at my feet wherever I go.

It's not a matter of banning because of rudeness… it's a matter of banning because it kills people. Specifically, I'm a non-smoker, yet others who smoke around me are choosing death FOR ME. Smoke all you want… just don't smoke someplace where I can die from it… i.e. just about everywhere. And making smoking less public, like restricting movies may be a good small step in the big picture to ending this.

Neilsama
And then they'll just go away forever. Just like alcohol back in the twenties and drugs. Prohibition is very effective.

The end of prohibition had less to do with law enforcement potential and more to do with lost governmental revenue. I digress this point for a new thread.

Just because something is ineffective, doesn't making outlawing it wrong. Sure, drugs exist… but because of laws, it's being somewhat controlled. I mean, you can fire a doper employee and you can go to prison for a long time for drug related crimes. Drugs, like cigarettes, aren't victimless crimes. 2nd hand smoke kills. Illegal drugs cause people to hurt or kill other people. It's the right thing to do to make them illegal.

Neilsama
Um… what? let me ask you something. Are you in favor of abstinance-only programs in sex education? The solution to improper education is… um… education. The responsibility to inform the children falls on the parent. If the parents don't want to do their job, then they shouldn't have children. I'm sick and tired of child advocasy groups trying to make the world one big soft and squishy place where everyone's safe. The world is not made of Nerf!"]

Parent's SHOULD be responsible and educate kids, else not have them… however, this is not the case. I do support registration for child birthing however and if you start a new thread, I'll be glad to discuss that there too.

I'm not talking about censoring sex from sex-ed. The parents DO HAVE TO consent to their kids taking sex-ed… just like parents have to consent (technically) to kids seeing R rated movies. Without parental consent, kids are violating laws watching sex-ed and R rated movies.

Neilsama
You are not helping a child prepare for his or her place in the world if all you do is restrict their access to media that you deem inappropriate.

The alternative, as it seems you suggest, is to allow them complete access and let their poorly educated minds decode everything on their own? Naw… won't work. Someone should step in, like this R rating thing, and help filter what kids do and don't see.

Neilsama
In other words, you're admitting that it's largely pointless and ineffective. Um… yep.
Ineffective, yes. Pointless, no. It will help some… and even if it doesn't work, it's still the right thing to do.


IAN: pot, yes… keep banned. Insense and smelly candles - no. There has been no link (that i could find) that links strong smelling candles and such to death. Smoking however - including second hand smoking - has been proven to cause death. I don't want to die from 2nd hand smoke, thanks.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
reconjsh at 10:51AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
ian_feverdream
Someone
Smoking should be outlawed and forever banned.
But given human nature, banning smoking is like banning alcohol or drugs. People want what they want. A small amount will want to smoke. If you hate the smell, would you ban pot and incense and bad perfume and those god awful candles too?
I doubt smoking will never be completely outlawed. Just made very very VERY inconvenient. I expect mortgage companies to get involved soon. You cannot smoke in the house while you have a mortgage, because if you default, the residual smoke will lower the value of the house.


good point about mortagage companies…


As we dream and approach becoming an advanced civilization, we should expect a shift in human nature. Gradually, people will make less destructive decisions; be less decadant; and love one another in a well-informed, educated society. Clearly this will take a long time, but if we look at human nature and the time it will take to change this and choose not to act at all, we're destined for failure as a race. Thus, we should always make choices that are right based on merit rather than potential for success. Ending smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc is a natural evolution for our society because they hurt us, as a society, in a very large variety of ways.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
OutlawHero at 3:29PM, March 28, 2007
(online)
posts: 5
joined: 2-8-2006
If a PG-13 movie can keep its rated despite saying the F word once then I think it's okay to have smoking in the film.
Deviantart|
I have two sides of my soul. Eternal Light, a soul of a kind angel and Eternal Darkness, a demon of Terror, Destruction, Chaos and Death.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 4:01PM, March 28, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Words are only offensive because we're taught to be offended by them. The same goes for mostly every thing we censor.



Are you going to attempt this now? Of course you're not.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
WingNut at 5:00PM, March 28, 2007
(offline)
posts: 747
joined: 10-13-2006
As far as making any movie with cigarettes an “R” rating, if I was a tobacco company, I couldn't be happier. Think about it, cig's were once cool because they were forbidden, sure, but then you learned that lung cancer kills and all kinds of fun stuff happens. Cigarettes have no longer become forbidden, but simply unhealthy. But, with this new restriction, kids are smart, and they're gonna think there is something we're not telling them. Everyone remember the first ‘R’ rated movie you saw? It's something almost everyone remembers, the first time you heard the f-word, the first time you saw a topless woman during a movie. Now that kind of sensationalism is going to be surrounding cigarettes again. A powerful draw, no?

Personally, I'm all for education about the topic. With me, my parents adopted a calvin and hobbes teaching method for me, by letting me try cigarettes when I was young. I learned (very quickly) that they were one of the single grossest creations in recent history. Simply making it forbidden and ignoring the issue is not effective, children (as i said earlier) are very smart, and they need to be treated as such.

No sugar coating here kids, in the real world you're held accountable.

-W
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:50PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved