“Single-Source Essay First Draft”
In the US, a increasing number of medical and public agents are advocating for movies smoking scenes to be adult- rated (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). This advocacy is confronted with four arguments (i.e. two are methodological, one is practical and last one is on principle) erecting from the following questions:-
• Does a smoking scene in movies induce youth into smoking habit?
• Are all of the teenagers likely to fall prey to smoking habits?
• Is this proposal effective or efficient in restricting youth from exposure to adult-rated content?
• What kind of impact does this proposal has to the society?
The arguments are pointed out by the questions above as follows:
Does a smoking scene in movies induce youth into smoking habit?
(Chapman & Farrelly, 2011)Research studies claim to observe a relationship between movie smoking exposure and smoking uptake in youths. But the proposal do not control for large-scale confounding of the independent variables (i.e. smoking in movies). Therefore, a teenager at risk of smoking will self-select to watch particular kind of movies which may well contain more smoking scenes. To an extend this may influence the teenager uptake smoking habit (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). However, this is highly dependable on factors that are associated with social lifestyle, parental factor, and psychological factors such as self-assessment (“rebellious or not”) and risk-taking (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011).
Are all of the teenagers likely to fall prey to smoking habit?
Not all of the teenagers are likely to fall prey to smoking habit. This is because teenagers have varying attributes (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). Those teenagers, who possess traits such as rebelliousness, care-free attitude and so on, are likely to be more attracted to watching movies with smoking scenes and subsequently influencing them to smoking (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011).
Is this policy advocacy effective or efficient in restricting youth from exposure to adult-rated content?
The policy advocacy that assumes that film classification will actually prevent the youth from accessing movies with smoking scene is naïve since the youth have frequent access to adult-rated movies via friends and internet (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). For instance, in US 2008, an estimated 10.397 million children aged between 12-17 watched a movie on the internet of which others were pornography. This nullifies the workable solution restricting cinemas viewing of smoking to adults due to the exponential changes to technology and internet (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011).
From the argument, it is clear that this policy advocacy is neither effective nor efficient.
What kind of impact does this policy advocacy has to the society?
Here, the argument arise from the concern about the assumption that advocates for any cause should feel it reasonable that the state should regulate cultural products like movies, books, art and theatre in the service of their issue. If this were to take effect then the society would feel deprived of their freedom and free-will and of which it may retaliate. In open societies, the role of movies involves far more than being simply a means of mass communicate healthy role models. It is also be a means of depicting the social problems and bad behaviors and smoking in movies mirrors the prevalence of smoking in population. Thus, movies touch on the core issues of the society and portray them in a creative and entertaining manner. (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011)
Conclusion
All the four arguments against adult-rated movie with smoking scene put down by the authors are logically sound, credible and passionate.
References
Chapman, S., & Farrelly, C. M. (2011, August 3). FOUR Arguments against the Adult-Rated Movie with Smoking Scenes.
