February 25, 2016
Ever since we launched the Smoke Free Movies campaign in March 2001, I have been wondering when there would be a lawsuit against the MPAA and the major studios it represents for continuing to allow smoking in movies it rates as suitable for youth.
On February 25, 2016 the inevitable happened.
A national class-action lawsuit was filed against the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Disney (NYSE: DIS), Paramount (NASDAQ: VIAB), Sony (NYSE: SNE), Fox (NASDAQ: FOX), Universal (NASDAQ: CMCSA), Warner Bros. (NYSE: TWX) and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), on the grounds that these companies and trade groups negligently awarded youth-ratings (G, PG, PG-13) to top-grossing films with tobacco imagery.
The lawsuit states that the defendants misrepresented these films as suitable and appropriate for children and adolescents despite having been informed repeatedly since 2003 that films with tobacco recruit large numbers of U.S. children to smoke and that R-rating future films with tobacco imagery would avert as many as one million tobacco deaths in this generation of U.S. children.
February 14, 2016
New Smoke Free Movies ad running in Variety this week publicizes the new WHO report Smoke Free Movies: From Evidence to Action (available in English and Spanish).
February 14, 2016
The Sacramento Bee posted a video of its February 11, 2016 meeting with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom on his support for the Adult Use of Marijuana Act marijuana legalization initiative.
In that interview Newsom dismissed the public health analysis of the two leading marijuana legalization initiatives released by UCSF’s Rachel Barry and Dr. Stanton Glantz the week before, on February 2, 2016. Here is a link to the UCSF press release that provides an excellent summary of the key points of the analysis.
Rachel Barry, lead author of that analysis, responded to the Gavin Newsom interview in the following blog post, which is reproduced here.
In the interview Newsom states:
“Regulation is not a one day event on an election day in November. It is a dynamic process that unfolds over many years”
February 14, 2016
Matthis Morgenstern and colleagues just published “Did limits on payments for tobacco placements in US movies affect how movies are made?” in Tobacco Control. They answered the question “yes.”
Specifically, they found that there was a big drop in screen time devoted to smoking after the state attorneys general included smoking in movies in the Master Settlement Agreement between the states and the tobacco companies. (It is important to keep in mind that Hollywood is not a party to the MSA, so its strictures do not apply directly to the studios.)
This evidence also supports the view that smoking in movies is commercial speech rather than artistic speech. As they note, “an abrupt drop in movie brand placements and amount of screen time devoted to smoking depictions in Hollywood movies coincided with the implementation of externally enforced restrictions on paid cigarette product placement in movies by State Attorneys General. Given that such a large share of the smoking depicted may have been commercial in nature, the smoking scene (or any other scene with product placement elements) should be interpreted and regulated as if it is commercial, not artistic speech.”
February 14, 2016
While Hillary and Bernie are working hard to distinguish themselves from each other – and there are legitimate differences – the reality is that they agree way more than they disagree, especially when comparing their positions to the Republican candidates.
Bernie and Hillary have both also behaved reasonably well towards each other and avoided the kind of nasty and divisive language that have characterized the Republican debates. This is very important for keeping Democratic voters engaged, which will be very important in the general election. The worst thing that could happen for those of us who support a progressive agenda would be for the Democratic primary fight to turn nasty and leave supporters of one or the other candidates angry and bitter so that they stay home this November.
Equally important, as I listen to the two of them I see complementary strengths and weaknesses. Hillary has an exceptional body of experience, most recently in the area of foreign affairs, which is one of Bernie’s weaknesses. Bernie is much more believable when he says that he will work implement tax and regulatory policies that will reign in Wall Street and take real steps to address income inequality.
Hillary and Bernie could avoid the first problem and turn the second into an opportunity by pledging now to run as a ticket.