" har fikr ko dhueme udata chala gaya " Is a great song and has been hailed as a romantic philosophy of dev anand's life . looked at it holistically, it is great. The trouble is people take it literally and romanticise smoking. an old friend, pratap sharma , who passed away last week, suffered from lung infection of such severe nature that he had to carry a contraption with oxygen supply in his pocket. He once told me, “ bharat , with all your communications and persuasive skills, please try and convince people not to smoke . I am a living example of bad effects of smoking"
having done advertising campaigns for the Indian Cancer Society for many years, I have always been aware of the harmful effects of smoking. I'm also aware of the fact that smokers cannot be dissuaded from smoking in spite of their being aware of the harm it does. You tell a smoker that smoking is slow poisoning, and he says so who's in a hurry.
The cigarette lobby is extremely strong the world over and all the attempts to curtail smoking have always been resisted in every country. But in spite of all these pressures, many countries have been coming down heavily on smoking in public places etc. many countries have legislated to put scary cancer pictures on cigarette packs to dissuade people from smoking. But most smokers are either too weak or too dumb or too misled by the impression that smoking makes them look like studs (and/or whatever the female version of studs is ). And therefore unless they are forced to not smoke, which I have seen happening only when they have had to go through bypass surgeries or cancer treatments, they tend to disregard all good advice.
A shining corporate example of how to get people to stop smoking , is Godrej . at their vikroli plant , anybody who wishes to smoke, regardless of seniority, has to get out of his office, get into his car, drive out of the complex, park on the side of the highway and smoke. I know more people who have given up smoking rather than giving up working at Godrej .
that brings us to films .
The tobacco industry has long capitalized on the ability of the entertainment industry to create, reinforce, and normalize messages. The invaluable marketing advantage this creates for the tobacco companies has allowed them to overcome legislative restrictions on cigarette advertising since the late 1960s. In movies and on television, celebrities facilitate the normalization of cigarette smoking by increasing the perception that the behavior is commonplace and integral to everyday life. Capitalizing on this power, tobacco companies have frequently paid producers and actors to feature their cigarette brands. In Superman II, for instance, Phillip Morris paid $40,000 for the Marlboro brand name to appear some 40 times in the film.
in india , one constantly hears some dumb reactions from the film folk who -
a - say banning smoking scenes infringes on their right of freedom . ( this is as inane as fanatic groups beating up girls and saying they have a right to freedom of action that they deem fit . ridiculous !! in law we say " your fundamental right to swing your arm ends where the other man's cheek begins " )
b- we can't depict real characters if we don't show them smoking on screen . can we show Churchill without a cigar , they ask . ( no , you can't . but when was the last time they made a film on Churchill ? )
c- just because a star smokes on screen , it doesn't mean that the youth will ape them and start smoking . ( if that was true then why do advertisers pay them crores to show them drinking / wearing / driving their products ?. a superstar's obligation to the people who made them superstars doesn't end by photo ops with the downtrodden . they have to , as a serious social responsibility , ensure that they don't do anything wrong on screen or in life in front of their fans , that will inspire people to do wrong things . )
having done advertising campaigns for the Indian Cancer Society for many years, I have always been aware of the harmful effects of smoking. I'm also aware of the fact that smokers cannot be dissuaded from smoking in spite of their being aware of the harm it does. You tell a smoker that smoking is slow poisoning, and he says so who's in a hurry.
The cigarette lobby is extremely strong the world over and all the attempts to curtail smoking have always been resisted in every country. But in spite of all these pressures, many countries have been coming down heavily on smoking in public places etc. many countries have legislated to put scary cancer pictures on cigarette packs to dissuade people from smoking. But most smokers are either too weak or too dumb or too misled by the impression that smoking makes them look like studs (and/or whatever the female version of studs is ). And therefore unless they are forced to not smoke, which I have seen happening only when they have had to go through bypass surgeries or cancer treatments, they tend to disregard all good advice.
A shining corporate example of how to get people to stop smoking , is Godrej . at their vikroli plant , anybody who wishes to smoke, regardless of seniority, has to get out of his office, get into his car, drive out of the complex, park on the side of the highway and smoke. I know more people who have given up smoking rather than giving up working at Godrej .
that brings us to films .
The tobacco industry has long capitalized on the ability of the entertainment industry to create, reinforce, and normalize messages. The invaluable marketing advantage this creates for the tobacco companies has allowed them to overcome legislative restrictions on cigarette advertising since the late 1960s. In movies and on television, celebrities facilitate the normalization of cigarette smoking by increasing the perception that the behavior is commonplace and integral to everyday life. Capitalizing on this power, tobacco companies have frequently paid producers and actors to feature their cigarette brands. In Superman II, for instance, Phillip Morris paid $40,000 for the Marlboro brand name to appear some 40 times in the film.
in india , one constantly hears some dumb reactions from the film folk who -
a - say banning smoking scenes infringes on their right of freedom . ( this is as inane as fanatic groups beating up girls and saying they have a right to freedom of action that they deem fit . ridiculous !! in law we say " your fundamental right to swing your arm ends where the other man's cheek begins " )
b- we can't depict real characters if we don't show them smoking on screen . can we show Churchill without a cigar , they ask . ( no , you can't . but when was the last time they made a film on Churchill ? )
c- just because a star smokes on screen , it doesn't mean that the youth will ape them and start smoking . ( if that was true then why do advertisers pay them crores to show them drinking / wearing / driving their products ?. a superstar's obligation to the people who made them superstars doesn't end by photo ops with the downtrodden . they have to , as a serious social responsibility , ensure that they don't do anything wrong on screen or in life in front of their fans , that will inspire people to do wrong things . )
