This proposal fails to take in to account any of the film’s other material and content. Think how ridiculous it would be if, for example, Disney’s ‘101 Dalmatians’ were to be given an 18 certificate. Hundreds of family movies would be hindered by this silly regulatory system. If the government feels that smoking is such an issue in films, why not just ‘airbrush’ or edit scenes where smoking can be seen? This is certainly technologically accomplishable. Surely this is much more realistic and frankly, less absurd.
Let’s stub that idea out, shall we?

Giving a film an 18 certificate protects youths under that age from being exposed to something that they probably would not see or experience from day to day, e.g. extreme violence, certain sexual acts, nudity etc. Smoking is something that under-18s are going to see from day to day on the streets anyway, whether it’s people having a cigarette walking to and from work, people taking a break from work or people socialising. In fact, young people are more likely to see smoking nowadays with the installation of the smoking ban as smokers are all relegated to smoke outside in full view of people rather than in the depths of a pub or bar. Putting an 18 certificate on a film is not going to make any difference to whether under 18s see smoking or not.
Filming is not necessarily irrelevant to a film. Smoking is often featured as part of a character. It can indicate that a person has a nervous habit, lives the sort of lifestyle where one smokes or, in the case of older films, enjoys a pipe or a cigar. It is part of a character portrayed on screen, just as some characters are always wearing certain clothes or holding a drink, some characters are having a smoke. It is completely subjective whether one thinks that is ‘cool’ or not. Under 18s are allowed to decide this for themselves. As mentioned above, the types of characters that do smoke are often villains, gangsters etc. In these cases, the question of showing smoking in a positive light reflects on whether the character is seen in a positive light, which brings up all manner of questions that we are not in a position to judge. It is bordering on fascistic censorship to say, ‘Ah, there’s smoking and it looks cool – they can’t see it.’ These certificates are in place to protect, not influence.
With regards to the influence of tobacco manufacturers in Hollywood, perhaps it is worth taking note of the film ‘Thank You For Smoking’. The protagonist, of course, is a morally dubious man, but in our capitalist world, that is the way of life and tobacco companies need to make money too. Many will argue against the influence of large corporate companies etc. That is irrelevant in this context. Surely, to slap a label on it, saying it is unsuitable for certain ages, implies that younger people do not have the strength of mind to decide that they do or don’t want to smoke for themselves. Just as prohibition made people drink even more, if people try and prevent teenagers from seeing smoking and what it does it will become even more alluring for them. Many would rather they were exposed to smoking and made the decision for themselves rather than be like one of the characters on the film that blames their cancer etc. solely on other people and sees themselves as a powerless victim. This is more a case of seizing your own power of choice and subverting the influence of large tobacco factories, rather than submitting to their influence.
Furthermore, it is deemed inappropriate to show those below the legal age of sexual consent to see graphic sex scenes. Smoking is prevalent on every street corner, by every bar, club and restaurant. Full-frontal sex, except in the dodgiest part of town, is less of an occurrence…

When a character smokes in a film it is usually the director’s way of saying this character is a rebel or is deep in thought or has a chip on their shoulder or is calming down or whatever it may be. Real people in real life smoke and art imitates life to some degree. The symbol of a cigarette is a director’s tool of subconsciously helping you the audience form an opinion of the character. You shouldn’t let your prejudices of those who smoke in real life get in the way of your enjoyment of a film or that of others. Film is a powerful tool of expression and a widely entertaining format so by restricting minors from witnessing someone smoking in a fictional environment you are creating restrictions on the director and the kinds of entertainment a young person has available, that is not to say people gain entertainment from witnessing film actors smoking of course. When people are denied things like this it tends to provoke them to do it anyway.

As the national age at which it is legal to smoke is 16, why should the films be classified as 18? 16 would be more appropriate.