The tobacco industry has long used movies to reinforce the glamorous image of smoking. Historically, the industry spent millions to have on-screen heroes and sex symbols smoke their brands. For example, Philip Morris paid $42,000 to have their Marlboro brand shown in Superman II (Warner Brothers, 1980),1 and paid $350,000 to have one of their new brands, Lark, smoked and the box used as a secret weapon inJames Bond: License to Kill (MGM Studios, 1989).2
And even though the tobacco industry was banned in 1998 from paying to have cigarettes shown in movies,smoking in movies has increased. In fact, just two years after the ban, smoking in youth-rated films increased by 50 percent.3
An R rating for movies with smoking will:3
In 2002, 68.5 percent of youth-rated movies (G, PG, PG-13) had smoking, and 83 percent of R-rated movies showed smoking. A study published in 2003 by Dartmouth Medical School found that over 52 percent of teens who start smoking attribute it to seeing smoking in movies.4
Film is better than any commercial that has been run on television or in any magazine, because the audience is totally unaware of any sponsor involvement.
-Hollywood Public Relations Firm, 19725
In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, after reviewing the scientific evidence, recommended that anti-tobacco ads be run before movies with smoking. Its conclusion: “The increased risk for smoking initiation as a result of exposure to smoking in the movies can be reduced by anti-smoking ads.”6
In 2008, the California Department of Public Health partnered with six major movie studios to place California’s anti-smoking television commercials on millions of DVDs of movies rated G, PG or PG-13 that show tobacco use. Since the agreement was made, the ads have been placed on DVDs of more than 80 movies, with over 115 million copies sold.