Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

I remember when I drove a city bus --- the coaches with cigarette advertising signs on the side would be assigned on routes passing many schools. I remember grabbing a coach for my shift and the garage manager said in the Gilly room one day "Take coach 1069 instead of 1044, that one we use on routes by schools. 1044 had cig ads while the coach I was grabbing had none.

The practiced ended when the municipality but a ban on smoking ads on the busses.

[Stephanie Misfit]

I am very glad that the portrayal of smoking in TV, advertising and movies is not a thing anymore. I started smoking at 11, and continued for almost 30 years, smoking 40 cigarettes a day by the time I quit. When I started smoking it was a normal thing to do, everyone did it. Now it is not normalised at all, and I know hardly any smokers. That's really great.

As for the image that triggered this thread, well there are some things to consider - artistic freedom, the fact that it is a virtual representation, and the matter of SL being an adult environment. I have no issue with "virtual smoking".

 

[Shiera Kealoha]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Nalates opened this thread and thus provide the topic of this thread.  Yes, it is based on the comments by Ayeeleon, but for THIS THREAD, the topic is as stated by Nalates.  

Well, no one wants their freedom of expression infringed upon. I think we can all agree with that. Censorship is a big no no.

[Blaise Glendevon]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So even worse but in any case, to someone wanting psilocybin, any mushroom can trigger the craving for more. 

[Citation Needed]

The villainization of psychedelics use is one of the most damaging relics of the Cold War, if you ask me. 

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Can it?  Do you have personal experience with this?

Not specifically mushrooms as my last experience with them resulted in a telephone pole jumping in front of my car but certainly had a liking for psychedelics in general so can certainly relate to those I have known that did like the shroom.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So even worse but in any case, to someone wanting psilocybin, any mushroom can trigger the craving for more. 

[Citation Needed]

The villainization of psychedelics use is one of the most damaging relics of the Cold War, if you ask me. 

They have been showing great promise therapeutically in recent years.

[Luna Bliss]

Ok so it's settled, microdosing is the way to stop smoking, and we should depict the practice in all our art.

[Shiera Kealoha]

8 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Are you another alt of the person that made the original comment?  If not, how do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?'

 

I am myself, thank you very much. And he can correct me if I am wrong about my interpretation.

9 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

To me, that implies that we should self-censor and not post such pictures.

 

And to me, that is just another question to gage people's thoughts.

Might as well not argue, considering that we both interpret this differently. 

[Rowan Amore]

Rowan pauses the thread to pass out cigarettes, alcohol, weed and assorted mind altering drugs.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Rowan pauses the thread to pass out cigarettes, alcohol, weed and assorted mind altering drugs.

 

[Rowan Amore]

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, xLunaea said:

Might as well not argue, considering that we both interpret this differently. 

I'd venture to say that based on most of the comments in this thread, the majority of folks posting interpreted it the way I did.

If most people interpret something in a way that is different than what the poster intended, then I'd say the poster did not formulate their comment very well.

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

[Citation Needed]

The villainization of psychedelics use is one of the most damaging relics of the Cold War, if you ask me. 

Well personally I think that may have been a good thing. The step from pot to psychedelics is harder then it is from psychedelics to speed, heroin, opioids and the like. Some don't even consider there to be a difference between any of the chemicals anyway so to my mind, the various problems that resulted from those would have come a lot sooner than it did. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Rowan pauses the thread to pass out cigarettes, alcohol, weed and assorted mind altering drugs.

Can I get my weed in the form of gummies?  I'm in need of an extreme sugar fix while we are all poisoning our bodies.

[Shiera Kealoha]

14 minutes ago, Catrie said:

Oh. so now we're taking sides here? Nope. I don't play that game.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the person who originally started the original discussion and how smoking is where the line seems to be drawn.  Especially since the original post in this thread states " The question isn’t so much should the creative use of smoking in an artistic image be restricted, as whether the audience here is so programmable we should infringe on the artist’s freedom of expression? " 

I bolded that part, because it clearly leads the question further.   It's not just about smoking, it's about everything else as well.

All I'm getting, when asking why the other vices aren't covered is "Because."  "Because" isn't a valid answer.  It's what a parent tells a 5 year old when they want candy right before bedtime. 

Because The topic is about smoking.

Also, taking sides is stupid. People need to stop being sassy towards one another, and that includes me. I don't think any one of us needs to be "enemies" over a discussion like this. Which is what it feels like. This was supposed to be a discussion, nothing more. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, xLunaea said:

Because The topic is about smoking.

Also, taking sides is stupid. People need to stop being sassy towards one another, and that includes me. I don't think any one of us needs to be "enemies" over a discussion like this. Which is what it feels like. This was supposed to be a discussion, nothing more. 

The topic is literally about self censorship in art. She just used that persons smoking quote as an example. 

 

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Can I get my weed in the form of gummies?  I'm in need of an extreme sugar fix while we are all poisoning our bodies.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

6 minutes ago, xLunaea said:

Might as well not argue, considering that we both interpret this differently. 

I'd venture to say that based on most of the comments in this thread, the majority of folks posting interpreted it the way I did.

If most people interpret something in a way that is different than what the poster intended, then I'd say the poster did not formulate their comment very well.

Not on this forum.

[Shiera Kealoha]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

The topic is literally about self censorship in art. She just used that persons smoking quote as an example. 

 

And I think that, before this really devolved, everyone was in agreement that censorship isn't a good thing. Maybe I am missing a few comments that I did not see. But I did see quite a few say that censorship is not good. 

[Nick0678]

55 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Many of the ex smokers I have known over the years wound up gaining quite a bit of weight or became addicted in general to sweets of one form or another.  Quit or not smoking in general by itself is not the answer but points out a need to dig deeper to uncover and recover what lies at the root of it. Some articles I have read over the years for example, mention that smoking is an anger suppressant and if a smoker does quit, they are still prone to that. Those anger issues can manifest themselves in heart disease, diabetes and obesity and can kill or impair the ex and wannabe smokers just as easily. 

Each person will experience quitting differently. For example i quit smoking back in January and haven't smoked not even a single cigarette since then. In regards to my weight it dropped from 78kg to 76kg and anger issues only lasted for the first 7-10 days and was nothings serious , just less tolerant to peoples nonsense

So it really depends on the persons activities and character. In regards  to sweets ... never liked sweets.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Nick0678

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, xLunaea said:

And I think that, before this really devolved, everyone was in agreement that censorship isn't a good thing. Maybe I am missing a few comments that I did not see. But I did see quite a few say that censorship is not good. 

I guess just having the opinion that glamorizing smoking is not a good thing because it kills 8 million people yearly worldwide is some sort of horrid censorship for these freedom lovers!

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, xLunaea said:

And I think that, before this really devolved, everyone was in agreement that censorship isn't a good thing. Maybe I am missing a few comments that I did not see. But I did see quite a few say that censorship is not good. 

Let me try to word this right. By telling people they are influecing someone to do something, IE gluttony, addiction through art. You are practically telling them that they shouldn't put it in there. Then to top it all off, by saying we shouldn't glamorize smoking. Basically it means take all that out of your picture or that you need to somehow give warning to what is in the picture and explain why it is bad. So either we censor ourselves or we put a warning label. 

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, xLunaea said:

And I think that, before this really devolved, everyone was in agreement that censorship isn't a good thing. Maybe I am missing a few comments that I did not see. But I did see quite a few say that censorship is not good. 

Luna was promoting the idea of censorship, hence the longish thread even though most others are in disagreement with her.

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Luna was promoting the idea of censorship, hence the longish thread even though most others are in disagreement with her.

I self-censor, yes. I don't want what is supposed to be a beautiful art piece tarnished by a destructive habit which kills so many people each year.

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I guess just having the opinion that glamorizing smoking is not a good thing because it kills 8 million people yearly worldwide is some sort of horrid censorship for these freedom lovers!

You might as well censor all other vices or anything that could have a bad influence on all people too. And well we have a right to freedom of expression, that comes hand in hand with freedom of speech. Meaning we are unhindered in what we say or depict. I mean if it is hate speech and it incites violence. Then it is wrong. But depicting smoking in an SL pic is not classified as hate speech nor does it incite violence.