TheDoyler23 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/ Saw this the other day, and its great! I'm suprised that there wasn't a thread about it before. I guess its cause it just got its wide release after playing in indie theaters for the past month or so. Aaron Eckhart plays a tobacco lobbyist, who talks for a living and has a "B.S. in kicking ass and taking names." Its comedy and satire at its best, especially when he and his lobbyist friends (guns and booze) talk about mortality rates, or how they dupe the public. Funny film! (unless you're a rabid anti-smoker with no sense of humor). Anybody else seen it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Haven't seen it, but i want to. The previews look pretty funny. Weird thing is i don't smoke, but i'm very pro-smokers rights. I feel that it should be up to the resturant whether or not they want to have a smoking section - though i would agree to have closed of sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Haven't seen it, but i want to. The previews look pretty funny. Weird thing is i don't smoke, but i'm very pro-smokers rights. I feel that it should be up to the resturant whether or not they want to have a smoking section - though i would agree to have closed of sections. i agree they have rights. but i have a right not to breath in their 2nd hand smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 i agree they have rights. but i have a right not to breath in their 2nd hand smoke. I can agree to that,however where is the line where you can restrict access in public areas? The fact I am allergic to certain perfumes does not grant me the power to restrict the use of it in public,yet smoke doesn't bother me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinva Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Great movie...a lot funnier than I expected it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 The book is hysterical. Highly recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 This thread is making me crave a cig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I can agree to that,however where is the line where you can restrict access in public areas?The fact I am allergic to certain perfumes does not grant me the power to restrict the use of it in public,yet smoke doesn't bother me at all. I think the clear difference here is that cigarette smoke, primary or second hand, causes cancer...in everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I saw the previews for it... still REALLY want to go see it but I'm not really near a decent movie theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I think the clear difference here is that cigarette smoke, primary or second hand, causes cancer...in everyone. BUZZZZZZZZ... False Carginogens A 'carcinogen' is something that can help to cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is a powerful carcinogen. But not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. So there must be other factors at work. http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=119 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 BUZZZZZZZZ... FalseCarginogens A 'carcinogen' is something that can help to cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is a powerful carcinogen. But not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. So there must be other factors at work. http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=119 Why did you change the first post? Okay, since it doesn't cause cancer in everyone... Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder (see Question 1). Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year (see Question 2). Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemical agents, including over 60 substances that are known to cause cancer (see Question 3). The risk of developing smoking-related cancers, as well as noncancerous diseases, increases with total lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke (see Question 4)....I coldn't find similar statistics for perfume... Feel better now? Enjoy your cancer stick...I mean cigarette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I think the clear difference here is that cigarette smoke, primary or second hand, causes cancer...in everyone. I'm not advocating smoking, but there has never been a single documented case of someone getting cancer from second hand smoke. That line of argument is bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Why did you change the first post? Okay, since it doesn't cause cancer in everyone... Feel better now? Enjoy your cancer stick...I mean cigarette [/left] I have no doubt it causes cancer, I have a problem with the EVERYONE statement. BTW I think I will enjoy a cig now.. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Just FYI, but smoking bans in businesses have nothing to do with you unless you're an employee. Un-safe working envoirnment... sorry :ot: Movie does look funny; I'll have to check it out. Didn't know it was a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I'm not advocating smoking, but there has never been a single documented case of someone getting cancer from second hand smoke. That line of argument is bogus. My post above...click on (see question 2)...you might want to let the National Cancer Institute know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/lobbysit (sic) friends (guns and booze) talk about mortality rates, or how they dupe the public. Booooooooooooooooooooo. Cigarettes are manifestly different from the other two (while both substances are vastly different from firearms) And mortality rates, in terms of accidents, for firearms are the lowest they've been since they recorded those numbers. More babies drown in bucket-sized amounts of water than children are 'accidentally' killed by firearms. Far, FAR more die in pools. They have any scenes of pool industry lobbyists? Oh no? Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 They have any scenes of pool industry lobbyists? Oh no? Ok. Pools don't kill people, water does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I'm not going to hate on the movie just because of that but I hate how an industry that is actually NOT known for deceptive practices and actively promotes safety and training and proper knowledge and respect of its product is compared to an industry that IS known for deceptive and misleading advertisements, research and slick marketing. Like that stupid "Runaway Jury" crap. Nothing but libby hate on firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I can agree to that,however where is the line where you can restrict access in public areas?The fact I am allergic to certain perfumes does not grant me the power to restrict the use of it in public,yet smoke doesn't bother me at all. not a lot of people are allergic to certain perfumes, and perfumes don't permeate a whole room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Booooooooooooooooooooo. Cgarettes are manifestly different from the other two (while both substances are vastly different from f1rearms) And mortality rates, in terms of accidents, for firearms are the lowest they've been since they recorded those numbers.More babies drown in bucket-sized amounts of water than children are 'accidentally' k1lled by f1rearms. Far, FAR more d1e in pools. They have any scenes of pool industry lobbyists? Oh no? Ok. Wait a second - you say that Cigs are manifestly different than f1rearms, yet you compare the death rate of f1rearms to pool deaths???? I think the manifest difference there is that only one of the two items is designed with harm (up to and including death) as its main objective. Take a guess at which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Booooooooooooooooooooo. Cigarettes are manifestly different from the other two (while both substances are vastly different from firearms) And mortality rates, in terms of accidents, for firearms are the lowest they've been since they recorded those numbers.More babies drown in bucket-sized amounts of water than children are 'accidentally' killed by firearms. Far, FAR more die in pools. They have any scenes of pool industry lobbyists? Oh no? Ok. I didn't know there was an active swimming pool lobby in Washington. Of the products that kill people, numbers 1-3 on the depth chart are cigs, booze and guns. It's a natural fit that his lobbyist friends would represent those products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Wait a second - you say that Cigs are manifestly different than f1rearms, yet you compare the death rate of f1rearms to pool deaths????I think the manifest difference there is that only one of the two items is designed with harm (up to and including death) as its main objective. Take a guess at which one. I compared pools and firearms because of the difference in perception vs. reality (and because the scene involves discussion of mortality rates.) TheDoyler--I know there's no active swimming pool lobby. The reason there's a 'gun lobby' (composed of citizen groups and companies) is because they've consistently been targets of government action and legislation and social demonization by a relative few 'activists.' Just like doctors have begun to organize... As for the second point you make--who cares? An industry that falsifies research, even if it's for doilies, is different than one that designs weapons. There is a product for any aspect of life. You get a car, there's a whole new line of products you can potentially buy. You live and work and want to be safe and protect your family or provide food for them (for those that hunt and fish to do this) and there are guns, bows, fishing hooks, bats, knives, tasers and brass knuckles. Self-defense is a right, dude. And I'm not going to villify knife-makers or anyone else for providing those products. ------------Thread diversion ended----- I'm just making a comment on a specific scene you mentioned TheDoyler. That this brings up a controversial (for some) issue is beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I compared pools and firearms because of the difference in perception vs. reality (and because the scene involves discussion of mortality rates.) TheDoyler--I know there's no active swimming pool lobby. The reason there's a 'gun lobby' (composed of citizen groups and companies) is because they've consistently been targets of government action and legislation and social demonization by a relative few 'activists.' Just like doctors have begun to organize... As for the second point you make--who cares? An industry that falsifies research, even if it's for doilies, is different than one that designs weapons. There is a product for any aspect of life. You get a car, there's a whole new line of products you can potentially buy. You live and work and want to be safe and protect your family or provide food for them (for those that hunt and fish to do this) and there are quns, bows, fishing hooks, bats, knives, tasers and brass knuckles. Self-defense is a right, dude. And I'm not going to villify knife-makers or anyone else for providing those products. Well i'm not going to defend the t0bacco industry (even though i think the people at 'truth.com' are just as evil). But, my point was i don't think saying guns are safe because more people d1e in pool accidents is a misleading and off-base comparison. edit: I really hate participating in these types of threads while at work, as i have to tiptoe around my filters. Pain in the ass. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I'm not going to hate on the movie just And judging by many libertarian reviewers, you shouldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Sounds to me like Ghost just got done reading his copy of 'Freakenomics'. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.