TXAGFAN said:
Brittmoore Car Club said:
fka ftc said:
Brittmoore Car Club said:
TxTarpon said:
IndividualFreedom said:
It obviously did not have fentanyl in it.
I think the movie takes place in the 1980s that was not a "thing" then.
Neither was little kids snorting cocaine.
Are they snorting it or did they simply poke around on it an inhale it?
Really though, we have the son of the current POTUS doing every kind of drug on camera and raping his underage niece.
For me, thats more important to address than a silly movie about a cocaine ravaged bear. Hunter is the gleaming example of the law not applying to privileged white kids. Thats more influential then a movie that is likely to bomb.
Not sure, but to me it's worded as if they knowingly use it. I get the "it's R rated" "just don't see it" takes. But I don't know, this seems pretty f-ing deviant and perverted in a way. I guess I'm just sick of Hollywood and the left constantly trying to tear away at the innocence of children.
Quote:
The R-rated film features a scene in which two kids (played by Brooklynn Prince and Christian Convery) stumble on abandoned cocaine in the woods and try it
So you're proposing what? More legislation on movie content? Punitive govt action for studios making movies you don't agree with?
Get real. Not everyone wants the government to be their daddy. It's a movie, if you don't want to support it then don't watch it, boycott the studio, etc. Wish you all the best in another failed conservative boycott.
I am not proposing such things, but I honestly don't think I'd have any problems with a law saying you cannot depict children using hard drugs for entertainment of others. I don't really see the "slippery slopes" others do when laws are centered around protecting children and their innocence.
Children high on cocaine, whether they snort it or inject it, is just very wrong to me...even if they somehow make it funny. Even introducing the real life child actors to this concept is wrong, and in a way, a form of weird grooming.