CLOUDS OF SMOKE HANG OVER ACADEMY AWARDS

While moviegoers are watching breathlessly to see who will win the Oscars at tonight's Academy Awards ceremonies, antismoking activists are wondering which if any movies have violated federal law and may earn their makers fines of $10,000 for featuring hidden þ and illegal þ cigarette ads.

Ever since the producers of "License to Kill" were forced to include a health warning because Philip Morris paid $350,000 to get cigarettes featured in this James Bond movie, antismoking groups have been gathering evidence suggesting that many current moviemakers may still be violating a federal law which prohibits any cigarette advertising not bearing a required health warning.

For example, a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health showed that current movie heroes are three times more likely to smoke than the real-life role models of American society. The study also showed that smoking on the silver screen did not decline over the decades, even though the percentage of adults who smoke dwindled from 42.4% in 1964 to 25.5% in 1990.

Moreover, the number of young adults smoking on camera more than doubled from 21% in the 1960s to 45% in the 1980s þ compared to only 26% in current society. And although only 19% of Americans of high socioeconomic status still smoke, 57% of their counterparts in movies puff away, often seemingly for no reason related to the plot or the mood of the scene.

All this suggests to organizations like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) that the tobacco industry is still paying money to get smoking shown in movies, often in a favorable or at least an acceptable light.

If so, says law professor John Banzhaf, ASH's Executive Director, anyone in the movie industry cooperating with them may be engaged in a conspiracy to commit a federal crime, and subject to a 10,000 fine.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ruled that paying money to feature a message favorable to a product constitutes an "advertisement," even if it doesn't even mention or even show a particular brand.

More recently the Justice Department concluded that placing cigarette signs and even logos in stadiums where they are likely to be picked up by TV cameras likewise constituted advertising, and a major tobacco company was forced to withdraw such "ads."

An example of how insidious these hidden ads can be, says Banzhaf, is provided by a letter from Sylvester Stallone in which, in return for $500,000, he says "I guarantee that I will use Brown & Williamson tobacco products in no less than five feature films."

Although his recent movie "Demolition Man" features smoking only in the opening scenes, dialogue throughout the movie associates smoking with independence, adult activities, freedom from social control, and sex.

Other dialogue tends to trivialize the dangers of smoking, lumping it together with everything from chocolate, contact sports, gasoline, and even spicy foods. In the movie, those who would protect others from tobacco smoke are belittled, and labeled fascists.

Coming from an actor known for his almost fanatical concern with health and physical fitness, these messages can have a very telling impact on young boys who look up to actors like Stallone.

A similar problem occurs when actresses likewise seen in fitness roles smoke. A recent example is Linda Hamilton, who worked out especially to develop hard and clearly visible muscles for her strenuous role in "Terminator 2," and then smoked during several scenes.

Another is Jane Fonda, well known for her workout videos, who smokes in movies like "Agnes of God," "Morning After," and others.

Particularly insidious, says Banzhaf, is when film makers accept money to feature cigarettes and smoking in movies clearly designed to appeal to young children. Documented examples include a Liggett Group Inc. payment of $30,000 to have its Eve cigarette brand appear in the movie "Supergirl," and a payment of $40,000 for Marlboro to be featured extensively in "Superman II."

"The Academy Awards demonstrate how strongly movies influence society," says Banzhaf, "and it is time Hollywood brought its tremendous influence to bear on America's number one preventable health problem, and the country's most deadly and addictive drug."

"If they are unwilling to include antismoking messages in movies, the least they can do is to present smoking as it honestly is today þ a practice increasingly banned in homes, offices, and public places, and largely confined to lower socio-economic classes þ rather than glamorizing it and showing it as acceptable or a practice to be envied or copied by young people," he says.

ASH -ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH 2013H Street, NW / Washington, DC 20006 / (202) 659-4310