Should the Motion Picture Association of America retroactively slap an "R" rating upon To Have and Have Not (1944)? After all, the classic film famously depicts silver-screen debutante Lauren Bacall and future husband Humphrey Bogart--gasp!--smoking. The American Medical Association Alliance demands that films featuring smoking characters be given an "R" rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA already takes into consideration the tobacco habits of celluloid characters in determining a film's rating. The AMAA's demand would take that consideration from the MPAA, automatically assigning an "R" to any film depicting an ordinary, everyday activity normally conducted in the open when the cameras aren't rolling. The ACLU hasn't voiced objection, but what about Margot Tenenbaum? The Smoking Man? The Man with No Name?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxIGcpas_wk
- try it at 3:07.

More politically correct ridiculousness from the people who are ever so concerned about what everybody else is doing. Unless one happens to decide to rip a live healthy baby out of a woman and kill it.

Smokers are a dying bread, literally. And smoking in public places is a dying sensation, thankfully.
Yes you may think that you have a "right" to smoke but really is that one to fight over?

Yeah the art of proper spelling is falling by the wayside too. I did spell breed wrong, sorry.

1984 is coming fast and furious. Not only are the government tentacles grasping at every aspect of our lives but now they've convinced everyday citizens that they too should be social activists.

When the lemmings step in line to decide what their fellow citizens can't and can't do, we are are getting closer to Soviet and beyond baby!

Smokers are a dying breed, granted, and even as a smoker who is desparate to quit...yes, it is a fight worth having. Slippery slopes and all...the next fight appears to be sugar. Do we really want the government telling (or taxing) us into behaviour they consider appropriate?