[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Actually, unless I'm mis-reading things, the main point(s) are that kids aren't as influenced by media sources as much as they are their peers.....

I don't know if you're misreading anything since I've skimmed the previous posts and haven't read them thoroughly.

If you are saying that kids aren't influenced by media smoking images/film TODAY, than I would simply say you are wrong, and point to the millions of dollars spent on advertising as proof.

Two points:

1. I'm not making that statement in an "absolute" sense, as you're reflecting in your comment. It's not a case of kids being influenced or not, it's a matter of the degree of influence meaning media is a factor. The question is how much of a factor.
2. I haven't given my personal views on this, since I don't care about smoking in film.
3. Even though media covers TV, movies, music, and some aspects of the Internet, I think we're talking about film in this thread, not "the media" as a whole. Your point about advertising illustrates a fine, but important line which does exist. I would agree an advertisement featuring smoking could have an impact on someone's desire to smoke, but that's much different than seeing Bruce Willis light one up in Die Hard. In both cases we're talking about "media" but in very different ways. To NOT differentiate between the different forms of media and how they contribute or not to one's desire to smoke is a mistake, IMO.

Ok, so I can't count today... you can thank Windows 98 for that.

Peace...