203
I hope they succeed reserving it.
I have reservations about their intentions.
It's probably too late to reserve course now anyway.
Why do you want more people smoking?
OP is poking fun at the typo in the title. It's says "...reserve trend" not "reverse trend".
Typo in the headline
Miss a well made joke and haters just pour out.
Like McGregor's rule says, the fastest way to get the right answer is to say the wrong answer or whatever
There are too many people who get older and older.
That's not what that comment means
You can always tell if Philip Morris is sponsoring your media by how much smoking is in it. I recently watched Russian Doll on Netflix and it seemed like half the budget to make the show was from big tobacco. I almost had to stop watching because of it.
On the other hand, there are a lot of period pieces set in the 20th century where no one is smoking. I remember people smoking like chimneys back in the 1980s. You could smoke everywhere. You could smoke on airplanes. There were smoking sections in restaurants. There were smoking and non-smoking hotel rooms. A shit ton of people smoked.
So a modern show with people smoking, yeah, that's not the best idea... but a show taking place in 1960 and nobody's smoking? That's ridiculous. And yet I keep seeing movies like that. Smoking is bad, but so is erasing it from history.
If I had to guess, a period show or movie likely doesn't have smoking in it unless it's essential to the plot because of the health risks as well as the pain of editing it in post. I know that there are herbal cigarettes that actors can smoke that are not as risky but unless it's crucial to the shot, I can see directors just not even thinking of it.
Chekhov's cigarette if you will.
Maybe so, but I always notice it and it takes me out of the story. It won't bother younger people who don't know it was like that, but (for example) the show Umbrella Academy had a season where they went back to the 1960s and no one was smoking. It was ridiculous and it was harder for me to suspend my disbelief.
It also gives people a skewed, sanitized view of history.
Absolutely agreed. A similar problem I have is female characters who are extremely liberated women for the time they're in and, rather than literally every man telling her to shut up and know their place (or maybe even try to hit her), everyone accepts this. It's nonsense. We need to show how women were treated.
There was a fun short-lived animated sketch comedy show in the early 2000s called "Ahh! It's the Mr. Hell Show!" There was a sketch called 'Victorian Lady Detective' about a female detective who could never solve the crime either because men wouldn't let her or sometimes the sexist law wouldn't let her either. It always ended with her giving up and saying something like, "oh well, it's the Victorian era and I'm a woman." Exactly.
I'm sorry feminism didn't exist before 20th century, but it just didn't. There were a very small number of liberated women and very few of them got away with it for long.
Copious amounts of ethnicities also break the immersion for me. I'm 100% for modern inclusion, but if you're showing 17th century England and every other character is black or Asian, you pretty much have to be willfully ignoring history. That's not even getting into how others interact with the character, just the fact that those ethnicities would be rare in those times and locations.
I agree. Doctor Who recently had a South Asian actor play Isaac Newton. Please do all the diversity you want when it makes sense (I was fine with Death being black in the Sandman series even though people seemed to hate it), but that was just weird and didn't work.
The Canadian show Murdoch Mysteries is a perfect example of that. Set in 1900. They have a female morgue doctor that is free to do what she wants like accuse people of murder and such. Then they had her go to be a Psychiatrist at a mental hospital and another female doctor took over at the morgue. Like female doctors were rare but they seem to have two in the same city at the same time.
Fun fact, there are still hotels you can book at that have smoking rooms.
That show ran out of ideas after season 1 anyway. I did really enjoy that one season though!
I kept watching only because I was expecting a better answer. I did not get it. I like her, though! She was very entertaining.
Not sure if they still do it.
But the American government was paying people to stop growing domestically.
Tobacco farming is insanely regulated, you can only produce so many pounds. If you don't have it the authorization, you have to lease it from someone who does. And if you don't lease/sell as much as your allowed, they shrink your amount every year.
There hasn't been new sign ups for decades, it's all running off families who have been doing it for generations
I listen to vinyl and smoke analog nicotine because I'm cool like that.
Based on my walks through Europe this year, it hasn't lowered at all. Sooo many people smoke over there.
EDIT: Not saying it hasn't lowered, just that I wasn't able to notice much difference in my vacations to Europe compared to 15 years ago. I don't live there, so maybe it's only noticeable to people who see it everyday compared to me almost never seeing smokers in the US.
The cancer warnings on the box didn't help. How about you gotta talk to someone who has one of those throat vibrator devices on before approval for each purchase?
Or phuck a white bear. It's part of a joke, I thought it would be funny as a secondary option.
People too poor to afford that shit too
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
203 points (97.7% liked)
News
23275 readers
1340 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS