By MARK BISGEIER

To the Editor:

The editorial "Butt Out" (Daily Variety, Sept. 3) asserts that "evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between young viewers and what is onscreen is not compelling."

Why isn't it compelling? There is now statistically valid, overwhelmingly powerful proof of the direct causal connection between kids watching smoking in films and kids starting to smoke. What kind of evidence is needed to make the case "compelling" enough to do something about it?

This connection is the whole reason for the effort to limit onscreen smoking to R-rated films. Adults should be able to see what they want; but with kids and tobacco it's a very different and infinitely more dangerous equation.

You say "trying to dictate content crosses a dangerous line." Are you advocating elimination of the rating system? Why not use the ratings to reasonably restrict something really dangerous that actually kills people?

To repeat what everyone knows, tobacco use in a kid-rated film doesn't sell the film. But it does sell tobacco -- to kids. I find that compelling.

Mark Bisgeier
(The author is an entertainment attorney.)
 
© 2003 Variety, Inc.