Movie Reflection

 Thank You for Smoking

Even if I were offered $300k  year, I don't think I would be able to do  Nick Naylors job. Not only is it dangerous personally with him being kidnapped, but he's putting the lives of his friends, family, and close individuals at stake. I don't think a monetary value beyond a frankly ridiculous amount would be able to convince me to take his job. It would not only be rather morally reprehensible but also dangerous in a physical sense. Nick Naylor obviously smokes, as do the other members of his friend group, who are avid supporters and partakers of their vices.

It would be expected that I, too, would regularly and openly partake in whatever vice I'm advocating for, whether it be cigarettes or something like Zyns, which I would frankly never do. Nick had to testify that he advocates for this vice so much that if his son truly wanted it, he would buy him his first pack; he had to shake hands with a kid with terminal cancer, knowing full well it was a large part of his actions that had led to the loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives.

I know that engineering majors often say they'd use their knowledge for good, but then have the only job opportunities present be at military corporations like Lockheed Martin, like in this article that goes into how engineers are often faced with the moral dilemma of values vs what they ought to with the priority winning out in the end and the lesser priority being pushed aside. 

As for editing old movies, I would not advocate for that; I would issue a higher rating for a film based on whether they were smoking and greatly discourage it through various means with directors and producers. We see old films all the time with out-of-date things that have fallen out of time. The populace doesn't look at old films with high internal values and tends to relate more with newer films, if anything, making smoking seem old and outdated. Having them only be as common in older films seems like a much better idea, like reverse psychology. Yes, I fully believe her methods justified the means, although she has all intentions of ruining Nick's life, she genuinely used his own moral code against him. I'm not saying she stooped to his level. If I were Nick, and I was seeing an investigative reporter and telling her confidential information, it’s not much of a surprise when the reporter does her job, even if it's through less-than-professional pathways, her ends justified the means. 

In history, we learn that one of the very first things that the settlers traded with the native Americans was tobacco. Most of our economy is rooted in things we do for pleasure or leisure, luxury goods and resorts. For however bad some things are, once we start down the road of banning things that should be rightfully available, we leave our rights open for infringement.