Guidelines for the film analysis paper:
 “Thank You for Not Smoking.”

Due Date: April 19th

Answer questions one-ten below in a typed (10-12 point standard font; 1 inch margins on all sides) 2-3 page paper. You may single or double space the paper.

Before you answer the questions below, you may wish to learn some interesting facts, however. These items may appear on your final exam.

 Facts and Figures Regarding Tobacco Use and Promotion:

Around the world 11,000 people die each day from a tobacco related illness resulting in 430,000 per year, according to du Pre’ (2005, Communicating about Health: Current Issues and Perspectives).

Smokers cut their life expectancy by 13 or 14 years (du Pre’, 2005).

Smoking cost $150 billion dollars between 1995 and 1999 in terms of medical expenses and loss of productivity. Therefore, some companies now refuse to hire smokers. Similarly, insurance companies offer discounts to people who do not smoke (du Pre’, 2005).

J. B. Tye (1991) identified 43 movies that involved “covert smoking” such as in Beverly Hills Cop II where Eddie Murphy held up a pack of Lucky Strikes and said “There are very popular cigarettes with the children” (as cited in Barrett, S., London, M., Baratz, R., & Kroger, M.,in Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions, 2007).

The AMA has called for a complete ban on cigarette smoking. In 1995 the Journal for the American Medical Association revealed the contents of secret Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation documents related to the dangers of smoking. The documents described how the company’s public relations had maintained that cigarettes were neither dangerous nor addictive even though the company’s own research found otherwise (as cited in Barrett et al., 2007).

H.R. 1108, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: According to Representative Henry Waxman’s website, on February 15, 2007, Rep. Waxman joined with Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Davis, Rep. Frank Pallone, and Sen. John Cornyn to introduce the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1108). This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs 1) to prevent tobacco advertising that targets children, 2) to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, 3) to help smokers overcome their addiction, 4) to identify and reduce the toxic constituents of tobacco products and tobacco smoke for those who continue to be exposed to them, 5) to regulate claims about reduced risk tobacco products, and 6) to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

According to Tobacco Lawsuits in wikipedia.com, lawsuits have been filed against tobacco companies. Here are some examples:

• June, 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the     company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R. J. Reynold's Tobacco)
   

• June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Phillip Morris)
   

• October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Phillip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock     vs. Phillip Morris)
   

• 2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)

Assignment Questions:

Answer the following questions pertaining to the movie we watched in class, “Thank You for Not Smoking.” Be specific and detailed in your answers and use examples from the film where appropriate.

1. Do you consider Nick Naylor to be an immoral person because he chooses to work as a tobacco lobbyist? Why or why not? Give specific examples from the movie.

2. In the movie, Nick says his job requires a “moral flexibility” that is beyond most people. What do you think Nick meant by that? What is your reaction to that statement? Does that mean he is an immoral person? Why or why not?

3. In the film, Nicks says that his job is defending the defenseless, protecting the disenfranchised corporations that have been abandoned by their very own consumers: the logger, the sweatshop foreman, the oil driller, the land mine developer, the baby seal poacher. Given what you know about the dangers of smoking and evidence that tobacco companies have lied/mislead the American people about the dangers of smoking, do you think the tobacco industry “deserves” a person like Nick to defend them? Why or why not?

4.  Are some of Nick’s statements/arguments unfair, inappropriate, or downright unethical? Why or why not? Any examples beyond the one below? Consider the following dialogue from the movie:

Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking kills.
Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?

5. Should the Marlboro Man have taken the money from the tobacco company? Why or why not?

6. Do you think it is immoral to deliberately feature cigarette smoking in movies in order to boost tobacco sales as depicted in the film? Why or why not?

7. In the movie, Nicks says “That is the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you are never wrong.” How is it possible to argue for cigarette smoking in light of what we know about the dangers of smoking? Consider the following:

Nick Naylor and his son arguing about ice cream:

Joey: So what happens when you're wrong?
Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey: But what if you are wrong?
Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream, you'd say. . .?
Joey: No, chocolate is
Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you. So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.
Joey: But. . .you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right.
Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

8. What is your reaction to Nick’s statement that he would buy his son a pack of cigarettes on his 18^th birthday if he wanted to smoke?

9. Would it be a good idea to do as Senator Finnister suggested in the film—that is, feature a picture of a skull and crossbones on tobacco products? Why or why not?

10. Do you think Nick had a good point when he told Senator Finnister that Vermont cheddar cheese should carry a skull and crossbones because it potentially leads to high cholesterol? Why or why not? What about other products that can cause danger to people?

Questions to Consider: You do NOT need to answer these questions but they are offered here for you to consider.

1. Should it be against the law to sell or advertise products known to have a high health risk such as tobacco products? Does it matter if such products are addictive? Why or why not?

2. Should smoking be grounds for denying or limiting health benefits? Why or why not?

3. Should smokers be able to smoke in public at all? If yes, what restrictions should apply? If no, why not?

4. Should companies have to right to deny jobs to smokers or fire employees who smoke? Why or why not?

5. Is it acceptable for tobacco companies to engage in deception (deliberately lying about or suppressing evidence about the dangers of smoking) in order to sell their products? Why or why not?

6. Are smoke free environments (e.g., smoke free restaurants; smoke free states) or restrictions on smoking (e.g., not being able to smoke within 20 feet of a door to a public facility) infringing upon smokers’ right? Why or why not?

This website is maintained by Marceline Thompson Hayes, mhayes@astate.edu

This page last updated August 21, 2007

Arkansas State University