Democracy in Peril

By Steve Sebelius

WHERE THERE'S SMOKE...: We must have won the war on terror, as U.S. Sen. John Ensign has found time...to rid the movies of smoking?

Not smoking in the theaters, of course. That's been banned for years.

No, we're talking about on-screen smoking. Ensign has a study that shows impressionable kids who watch movie heroes lighting up tend to adopt the habit themselves. So this week he was scheduled to chair a Commerce Committee hearing aimed at getting producers to "curtail on-screen smoking."

In a news release, Ensign mentioned one possible cure for what he seems to consider a pressing problem: Why not list smoking in the Motion Picture Association of America rating's box along with warnings of sex, violence, drug use or--most dangerous of all to developing young people--the presence of Pauly Shore in the film?

Why, that's not a bad idea. Because while alert parents use those guides to decide which movies their kids shouldn't see, kids use those guides as a way to determine where their moviegoing dollars are best spent.

But seriously, folks, are we really going to occupy the Commerce Committee's time with this?

Yes, says the good senator. "The link between movie characters smoking and young children being influenced by that behavior is unquestionable," Ensign says. "The goal of this hearing is to determine the best way to empower parents to deal with that situation as they see fit."

No, the purpose of the hearing is to put not-so-subtle pressure on the film industry to do something it ordinarily wouldn't, the very definition of government sticking its nose into a private business' business. Didn't Republicans used to oppose that kind of thing?

Sure, some kids will see smoking on screen, and then start doing it themselves, the way some kids laid down in the middle of a road when they saw other kids doing it in a movie. Those real-life kids ended up dying, in a process some scientists refer to as "natural selection."

The worst thing about the hearing isn't the obvious chilling effect it could have on producers and directors. They'll bow and scrape and vow to do better. No, the worst thing is the missed opportunity.

Wouldn't it be great--for once--to get a defiant studio head to speak to Ensign's committee, and say this: "We understand your concern. But we are in the business of producing works of art. And art, if it's to have any meaning at all, must reflect life, in all of its various permutations. Smoking, for good or ill, is part of life. Therefore, we're going to go right on producing movies where characters may smoke. And any attempt by Congress to interfere with that is not only inappropriate, but a clear violation of the First Amendment. So, as taxpayers, we'd like to ask you to move on to more important issues, such as the mess in Iraq, fixing Social Security and balancing the budget, thank you very much."

We can dream, can't we?