as a former smoker I think the Ad is perfect. I quit smoking 3 years ago after seeing my dad in a medically enduce dieing as a direct result of his 40+year smoking habit. I decided I wasn't going to have my children see me that way. I made the choice to quit it wasn't easy but I did it. I smoked for 20 years and quit cold turkey. My husband did the same a month later.

I agree 100%. The commercial speaks for itself. He is REALLY crying not a joke, so that is exactly how a child would feel if he or she lost their parent only for a minute. What about a lifetime?

You can call me harsh if you'd like, but (and I have three kids) I think many of these concerns and comments over the boy's psychological state are ridiculous! We Americans are breeding a bunch of sissies. Highs and lows are a normal part of life. This was completely fabricated and the boy (whether he knew it or not) was never in any harm.

Are you kidding me??  The ad is outrageous - how can you torment a child into crying to make a point?  There are many ways to make the same point without invoking the fear of God into a child.  Not to mention, my child happened to be watching TV when the commercial came on and he started crying and asking about the little boy.  If this were a scientific study in the US where the investigation lead tormented children like this they would be put in jail!  I don't need to see a child's look of absolute fear to get their message.   The commerical is completely inappropriate.  Ironically the anti-smoking group criticizes the tobacco industry for manipulating children, but then this group not only manipulates a child, but makes a commercial out of it and plays it around the world?  What is wrong with people????  What happened to our ethics and morals??

I lost my mother to lung cancer when I was 26 and she was only 47. It had nothing to do with smoking. So many young mothers are losing their lives to lung cancer and everyone is blaming smoking. I do not agree with this ad. Using the grief of children who have lost parents to this horrible disease is not the way to get your point across. Would they have a commercial like this but saying "Your mommy died of aids because she slept around and didn't use condoms?" Its just as bad. Get off it!

I saw the ad and my initial thought was how mean it was to the child. The little boy might not be traumatized on the outside but I bet he will get upset every time he loses sight of his mom in the future. So it will always be there. Appreciate the message of the commercial but they should go in a different direction instead of making little kids cry!!!!!!

It's disturbing and that director should feel ashamed at what she put that little boy through. "He's a great little actor," she says, but he's four. Four year olds are frightened when their mom's leave; it's horrible. I don't smoke, and I honestly don't think ads like that are going to make any difference. If we want smokers to quit then raise the rates and limit where they can smoke. If they choose to continue to smoke then leave them alone and stop bothering me, a non-smoker, with horrible ads.

My great grandmother was a 2-3 packs per day "8-80" smoker: she did NOT have ANY cancer at all and smoking was NOT related to her cause of death. My mother's side of the family has been cancer free for more generations than we can trace back, and a good number of them have been smokers. Smoking does not CAUSE cancer, but if you have cancer, smoking can cause it to become worse than if you didn't smoke.

Second-hand smoke will only cause harm if you are subjected to doses that would kill you. The doses that lab rats/mice are subjected to to show the harmful effects are 10x the amount that it would take to kill a human adult. Doses that simulate what we are exposed to in a environment such as a bar did not cause any significant harm to lab rats/mice.

The anti-smoking zealots take only the part of a report that furthers their cause, skipping over the qualifying factors, which show that smoking in of itself is not very harmful.

Alcohol is 5x more harmful to the human body than smoking, yet you don't see ads like this, only DWI ones. Alcohol use can kill you (alcohol poisoning, liver/kidney damage, falling [especially from heights], etc.), yet you don't see ads about that. Smoking has never been cited as the one and only cause of death, it is always a contributing factor.

Smoking is a smelly, nasty habit, discoloring thing its residue settles on and certainly is not good for you, but it is not anywhere as bad as the zealots make it out to be.

As for this specific ad, the lady Matt interviewed specifically stated that the child was really crying because he did not know where his mother went and he was terrified being left alone in that crowded place with all those strangers. That child was traumatized for the sake of a misleading commercial. Would you think that commercial was OK if it was Duracell doing it (like the one in the park and the mom loses sight of her child)?

I was separated from my dad at a amusement park around that age and I can still remember how terrified I was that I wouldn't see him again. I also remember a time that I was 3 and I hid under the fold-down seat in the car and my older brother and sister told my mom that I went into the store looking for her. My mom (who knew I was hiding in the car) said that was too bad and she was leaving. That terrified me also. That was nearly 40 years ago, so don't tell me no harm was done to that child. He will always remember that moment, and it was done to him on purpose for a TV commercial.

The question is not about cigarettes, it is about whether or not this child was mistreated.  I hate cigarettes, I've never smoked.  I'm VERY anti-smoking, but this ad campaign went WAY over the line! 

First the defense is that the little boy only cried in one take.  Then the defense is that the director only wanted to do this one take.  YET, the article states clearly that the scenes was "rehearsed" and that the boy didn't cry in any of the other scenes.  In other words, they did the scene over and over UNTIL the boy gave them the reaction they wanted!!  Yes, the child was immediately reunited with his mother, but this is a bad precedent to set regarding child actors.  Of course the mother was okay with it, she's a stage mom.  The child wasn't physically harmed, but there is no way to know what the psychological trauma will be.  It is usually a small incident that impacts a child for life, not a large one.  A parent can say something one time that can impact a child for life- something seemingly insignificant. 

I think it is outrageous to have a child portray such fear and confusion due to something he /she cannot control.

I don't think it is effective, I think it is cruel.

Absolutely! I only felt for that child's fear and not on the intended "purpose " of the ad. If that child wasn't acting,which I think is the case, he will never forget that minute for the rest of his life. Shame on the advertiser.

I couldn't agree with you more. I, too, only felt for that child's fear . . . it had nothing to do with smoking. A similar situation happened to me when I was a youngster. I'm in my late 40s today and I still vividly remember those few moments of fear and tears. I grew up with both my parents smoking, I don't smoke, yet it's the boy I'm worried about here. But not for smoking.

I agree with the two of you. What has leaving a child in a crowd of strangers got to do with smoking and POSSIBLY dying while your children are young?

Talk about dense ... and they even explained the ANALOGY at the end of the commercial for you.

Kids get scared and upset when they loose you even for just a minute. How the hell do you think they feel when they loose you forever?

Not that hard to figure out here people ...

The child was acting, I think he just got overwhelmed towards the end. I've seen parents do more damage to make a child cry and this was just for the better good.

To TTL and the others who approve of this ad. I'm retired from "the business" of show business. Sharkie's explanation is b.s. Yes, children cry frequently. But Sharkie and her company INTENTIONALLY set up a situation to frighten that little boy and make him cry. Some people saw fear in his eyes. I also saw confusion. If he'd been rehearsed and knew what was about to happen, as Sharkie said, there would have been no confusion. Very simply - he WASN'T acting. He was intentionally lost, and made to be afraid. And that's child abuse.

Sharkie also said that in order to make the child cry, they purposely had his mother disappear into the crowd. She set that child up in a situation that she (and the others there) knew would make him cry. He may be an "actor", but he had no idea what was going on at that moment, all he knew was his mother was gone and he was in the middle of a bunch of strangers.

Sharkie more or less said that the child's mother leaving him alone was not rehearsed. What was rehearsed was for him to stand there and cry, and he was told it was for make-believe. That child was NOT make-believe crying, he was terrified. The director wanted it done in one take and the only way they could make sure the child cried in a believable way was to actually put him in a situation they knew would make him really cry. He was NOT acting, but reacting like any child left alone in a big place around a bunch of strangers.

Capn, it isn't that we don't understand the intent and purpose of the ad, and you'd be dense to think that is the case. Yes, the ad may get the intended point across, but we feel it could have been done as effectively without traumatizing this child. Frightening this child just to make a point is wrong, period. The end does not justify the means. In this day and age, this point could have been done without traumatizing a child.

They are all so concerned with their "rights" as a smoker that they never stop to think about the damage they are doing to children, to pets, to their friends, family, and coworkers, or even to the environment.

As cigarettes are still legal, and will be for quite some time, smokers have every right to think of their own rights. Obese people have the right to hit the drive-thru, alcohols reserve the right to down a six-pack, and smokers can freakin' smoke. They can't do it indoors anymore (at least, not here in Chicago), but they have every right to smoke if they so choose.

And as far as smokers' children go -- some parents expose their kids to a lot worse than cigarette smoke. And pets? Really? Pets? I hardly believe you're genuinely concerned about the evil smoker's golden retriever.

Smokers' friends, family and coworkers can decide for themselves whether or not they want to be around smoke (there people go, exercising that crazy freedom to choose thing again!)

And - the environment? Yes, *cigarettes* are destroying the planet. Not automobiles, not careless energy policy... no, you're right... it's cigarettes.

As for your final point, yes!!! Smokers want to keep smoking without guilt! It's a legal habit that they choose to practice. They *should* be able to smoke without guilt...... in the same way you and I can drink a beer, cuss out the driver who cuts us off and enjoy a Big Mac without the moral police hunting us down.

Thank you..... I'm so tired of feeling like a minority... I really am a courteous smoker, I don't smoke in my home, my car and I always ask the people around me if this will bother them. But I'm so tired of being told what we can and can't do. The world is a changing and I'm pretty sure it's not for the good......

Alpo999- You are obviously a smoker. I feel for you that you truly think you are making a conscious choice because you are not. You have been chemically addicted via the choices of companies that have been allowed to put chemicals into your body that force you to continue to use their products. Big macs do not have a chemical in them that makes me wake up at 2am to run down to my local McDonald's for my fix. Nor do I need a Big Mac after I get done with a good meal. I don't honestly understand how it is that our government has allowed this to be done but I imagine this is what happens when special interests are allowed to influence the vast majority of people. You've been chemically poisoned and no, I do not believe for a minute that you make any decisions when you decide to keep smoking, you shouldn't either.

As for the environment, cigarettes are not the cause of our environmental problems but all the butts laying around the parking lot at my local grocery store when they have all those little butt cans sure are ugly looking but then again so are the fast food wrappers too.

My mother is a smoker and as a child I couldn't stand it. I remember complaining about it in the car as a very small child. I protect my children from exposure anytime that I can.

I still go back to the fact that I cannot believe that our government has allowed this to happen to us. Smoking is a tax on the poor and uneducated. The vast majority of smokers fit into these categories, I realize not all but a large percentage. It was originally a thing the elite did but has become a way for big companies and the government to make a ton of money off of us. Tax the snot out us and all they have to do is shave a few years off the end of our lives....no big deal to them, oh by the way you did not get to choose that option did you?

The arrogance of some of you non-smokers is absolutely staggering. If you smoke, you obviously don't know what's happening to you, you're obviously uneducated. You can't believe the government has allowed this? Really? Seriously? Look around you. What about the drug companies feeding everyone their crap, often with side-effects worse than what they're treating. When was the last time you saw a cure for anything? At best they'll come up with something you can take to live with it, that's how a drug dealer makes his money, keep you coming back, and the government is up to their ears in it. Alcohol? I suppose that's alright, huh? How many lives has that garbage destroyed? How many innocent lives? But yeah, cigerettes are destroying our country, our culture, our lives. How could they allow such a thing?

PLEASE.

Oh yeah, not to mention all the crap that polutes our airwaves, all the time I hear the word God being bleeped out while the profanity remains. There's a hell of a lot more wrong with this country than smoking.

Scott-1007208 As a childless Chicago smoker who is willing to pay over $8 per pack of cigarettes – almost $5 of which is tax going directly to the Chicago public schools – I am tired of the condescension. You express concerns for the children? Really? In addition to my property tax, I am sending $2000 annually in vice tax directly 'to the children'. The Chicago public school system is desperately underfunded so all of you anti-smokers so very concerned about my welfare need to make up your mind – do you want our money or not. If we do quit smoking (as appears to be the intent) everyone else will be subjected to a tax increase to compensate for smokers' dollars. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency just released a study re: Chicago air quality and the determination – pollutants in Chicago made living and breathing in Chicago equivalent to living with a 2-pack per day smoker. So as you drive your children to their latest activity secure in your gas guzzling SUV, lamenting your mother's indifference to your respiratory system, please know that you are contributing far more to the pollution problem than I. If you want to avoid smoke – go indoors – one place you know I will not be smoking by law and decide - are you more concerned about my informed vice and health ramifications or my money and it's positive impact on YOUR children.

To alpo and other smokers, I do NOT support smoking, and I have worked to help others to stop. However, it IS your choice, but it isn't your children's choice. You do have to take the responsibility of what impact your choice may on your children, your family, and your friends. I watched my grandfather die an agonizing death from emphysema. My mother has been diagnosed with emphysema and has finally broken her smoking addiction. But emphysema isn't cured, it kills. And the impact on health insurance is not just born by smokers.

That said, I defend your right to smoke because it is still LEGAL. I have dear friends who still smoke. I know they won't quit until THEY WANT to quit, and even then it is difficult. The bolus of nictone hits your brain in seven seconds after inhalation making it the fastest delivery system of a drug, period. And it is done over and over and over. I don't 'preach' to my smoking friends, I don't wave away their smoke nor make coughing sounds. But I have told each of them that I'll help in any way possible if and when they want to quit. There's no need for me to tell them again, they know. And we've sat in both smoking and non-smoking sections together, I value their friendship and would never think less of them for smoking. Heaven knows I have plenty of faults for which they could think less of me!!!! It isn't my place to judge. It IS my place to try to help children, and that is what the question asked. It asked if what happened with this child in the ad was wrong. I believe it was VERY wrong to have traumatized a child even if just for a few moments, no matter what the purpose.

PS I also believe the new cigarette tax is wrong!!! I don't believe in such sin taxes, or whatever they want to call it. If every dime of the money were used for the health of those strickened with diseases as the result of smoking, it would still be wrong. You would have those who didn't get sick paying for those who did. We need personal responsibility in this country. The government should not be "Big Brother" but that is where we are headed. No, not headed, we have arrived; we are now just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

The problem is that the child was NOT acting. He could not see his mother and was terrified by that. He is 4 years old and could not understand being left alone in a strange place.

Sharkie and the rest of the crew knew that to make that ad in one take they had to make sure the kid cried, so they had the mother sneak away from him. ALl the child knew is his mother left him alone in a scary place.

I was seperated from my dad at an amusement park when I was around 4. I could not see my dad and I was terrified. I don't remember the fun we must have had that day because of the terror I felt for maybe 2 minutes or so.

If NY was really concerned about people, they would pull this ad because of the trauma the child was put through to make it.

This ad will do very little to encourage people to stop smoking, especially compared to the tax hike. And I bet you a pack of smokes that it was timed to air with the tax hike so they could say that the commercial made people quit, instead of it being the tax hike.

The boy was scared for a couple seconds, hardly traumatic. I believe he will feel proud as he gets older for saving even one life.

Beth, do you realize the precedent this ad sets? It is okay to traumatize a child (who is not old enough to make the decision nor to comprehend what is occurring) to make a point. Who decides what points are important enough? Who decides how much trauma is okay? I think it was wrong to do this to a child, but I blame the stage mother and to a degree, the director, but not Australia's government. Each of us needs to start making better personal decisions and taking responsibility for our choices and failures.

I agree with this person.

I watched the commercial and I thought it was for leaving your child unattended.

You can use the commerial for pretty much anything.

There needs to be a lot more discussion on this matter, I've known people getting disability with nothing more wrong with them than being a drunk. I have Primary Progressive M.S., and I had to fight tooth and nail for over a year for it. Drunken stupidity seems to be perfectly acceptable in this country, but don't smoke. I remember being repeatedly punched in the face one night when I was 10, because my father, ( whom I hadn't seen in about a year), wanted his girlfriend to stop and get him a bottle, and she kept saying no, (like he needed it). People die every day because of alcohol, many of them innocent, but where the hell is the campaign to rid us of alcohol? Okay, prohibition didn't work, right? The war on drugs isn't working either, do you see them making those drugs legal? It's all quite pathetic if you ask me.

Anybody remember the 18th amendment?

I have to agree with you. Alcoholism is a much bigger issue. A drunk driver killed my 3rd grade teacher, my 2nd cousin killed himself drunk driving - went off a cliff so no one else was injured or killed. Start taxing alcohol to gain the funds to make up the difference for what seems to be our governments lack of budgeting skills. Send those tax dollars into another program, claiming it is for children, that doesn't work. Or better yet, send me proof that the funds obtained through the tax hike are really being spent where you say they are! Oh, and the little boy - that is torture for a child whether it is for a second or an hour...ya, get the point of the commercial...but REALLY!?!?!?! Is it necessary?

There was this thing could Prohibition, and the people rioted, killing each other to get some. Maybe this is why alcohol is not targeted by the government for high taxes and make people quit using it with horrible commercials.

Alcohol in of itself has killed millions, smoking in of itself has not killed anyone. Second-hand smoke MAY contribute to health problems, alcohol has killed people who have never drank. Which one is worse?

doncorneo, actually, smoking has killed millions, directly and indirectly. Cigarettes have caused forest fires, burned down homes with people dying in them, caused wrecks from inattentive smokers, and caused a variety of diseases which have killed. Just as drunk parents have hit their kids, abusive parents have burned their kids with cigarettes. Alcohol has caused liver disease, and people who are drunk have made poor decisions that have ended in the death of others through car accidents, bar fights, etc. Health insurance rates for EVERYONE are rising because of both smoking and drinking. More smokers have serious health problems than drinkers, but the point is that this isn't a "smokers against drinkers" or "drinkers get away with it, why can't I as a smoker" situation. It is all about personal responsibility.

By the way, there IS huge outrage over alcohol. There have been numerous campaigns against drunk driving for decades, and they are ongoing.

The bottom line is that we should all take responsibility for our decisions and how they impact others as well as ourselves. I don't want the government running my life nor yours, making my personal decisions, nor yours, for us. Next, the government will be looking at the grocery list of the obese, telling establishments not to sell ice cream cones to someone who appears to be overweight just as establishments selling liquor must monitor patrons or risk being held liable if a patron drives away, is in a accident and is found to have an alcohol percentage in the bloodstream that is deemed to much to be behind the wheel.

While I want to be able to eat in a smoke free atmosphere, I believe that if a bar owner wants to allow smoking, it is his choice, and I have the choice to patronize elsewhere. I do feel that hospitals, airplanes, schools, etc., should be smoke free or have areas designated for smoking. I don't like the government being Big Brother. You can't legislate away stupidity nor poor decisions, if you could, Washington DC would be a ghost town. I have the right to be stupid without the government requiring others to pay for my stupidity so that I can continue being stupid! If I choose to be lazy and fat, others should not have to pay for my health care costs, my rent, my food, etc., when I lose my job and end up diabetic and obese. It is all about personal responsibility.

Right on!!! Preach on sister. I love your take on this whole thing. People just need to get over themselves and move on.

Kellsta, I believe that cell phones in cars, unprotected sex, etc. are all being addressed. I am sorry that your attempts at smoking cessation have not been successful. The problem lies in that YOU are your most effective method, not another crutch. Smoking is a chemical addiction with a very fast delivery system of nicotine to the brain. You CAN beat that addiction, but it won't be easy. My mother tried every method imagineable. She tried every program, gum, meds, depression meds, patches, therapy, you name it. But I am happy to say she is now a non-smoker. She had sat and watched my grandfather die a horrible death from emphysema. For years, she had x-rays showing healthy lungs. Then one day when she was 79 and still a chain smoker, the doctor walked in to her hospital room as she lay sick with pnuemonia, and mentioned her emphysema. She never has smoked another cigarette, after 65 years of chain smoking. She still has emphysema, it will only get worse. She waited too late to find what would motivate her enough to truly quit. She wanted to quit for us, her kids, she wanted to quit while watching my grandfather die, she wanted to quit when my father's lung collapsed, and so many other times. But it wasn't judy the physical addiction that kept her smoking, it was also the mental. Smoking is a "crutch", it is a drug of choice. It helped take the edge off when my mother was stressed or anxious, it was an old friend when she was happy, and it consoled her when she was sad, it was her aperitif after a meal, etc. Quitting any addiction is never easy, I hope and pray you find the motivation that will work for you. For my grandfather, it was when a friend told him that a little tiny, thin piece of paper rolled around some leaves was controlling a grown man's life, a man with a wonderful family, good job, leader in the community, etc. Yet, he was totally controlled by that little cigarette. They were fishing, my grandfather threw his pack in the fire and never smoked again.

STOP smoking and stop whining! It's been 20+ years since I've quit and can actually run without stopping every 50ft for a breath. If you don't like the ads give them a reason not to show them....quit smoking and there won't be a need for the ads.

You must have below average lung capacity. I too smoke, about a pack a day and, I can run just fine. In fact, not too long ago, I ran a 7.5 mile race - called "Bloomsday" where upwards of 30,000 people participate. I finished in the top 2,500. I'll be 49 this summer.

No advertisment ever made will make me do something I don't want to do.

As a matter of fact, generally speaking, I find most all TV ads to be offensive. Rather than inspiring me to purchase your product, what is happening is that I make it a point NOT to buy what you're advertising SPECIFICALLY because I find your point of view (emphisized by your advertisments) to be rude, condescending or, morally objectionable.

After my dad died and no one smoked in my house for a while, I didn't really notice that it was easier for me to breath, until I started spending time with my uncle's fiancee, who is a heavy smoker, like my dad was. I actually had to go to the doctor over it, because I felt like I was going to have an asthma attack every time I was around her, just like when I was around my dad when he smoked. But when our lives stopped coinciding, and I stopped breathing the noxious fumes from her cigarettes, then I stopped having so much of a problem with my breathing.

Carl Erikson, I have in fact already submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the NYC Dept. of Health asking for the cost of this campaign and its companions on radio and in print in newspapers.

As an associated aside, I can't help but question why the NYC Dept. of Health is taking credit as the prime sponsor for these ads when, at most, it is a joint operation with the State Dept. of Health. The credits at the end of each commercial display "Call 311" [for help quitting] (which is NYC-specific) but more importantly include "NYS Dept. of Health" on the final line with a number to their quit-line and web site. Other than "311" nowhere do the words "NYC" appear.

The media seems unwilling to or incapable of digging deeper than the surface. Perhaps in their ignorance they believe there can't possibly be anything more to this than a "worthy message." That would explain their failure to seek comment from established organizations -- instead of the uninformed "man on the street smoker" -- that object to the entire anti-smoker movement and who are more knowledgeable about the issue from behind its scenes. There are more factual things wrong with these commercials that I will endeavor to expose.

Speaking of which... Hey Matt Lauer, how about some equal time?

Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

That is exactly what I think too. NYS and NYC claim that they want people to quit smoking, but yet if everyone who lived here quit all at the same time they would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue. I hope it happens. I hope the retarded governor of NY gets his way and gets to tax soda then it won't be long before he's taxing anything that he and the other liberals deem "no good" for you. THEN all of you will wake up.

for sure!

Just how I feel. It's all over, not just New York. All states and the federal government are taxing smokers out of existence. When are they going to realize just how much money they're losing?

I absolutely, totally agree with you! It's appalling what the media is doing to children

I've been ranting about the child abuse that I see on TV and in movies for years. Those little babies and children under 3 are crying for a reason. Those babies aren't "acting", they're crying for real. Do you remember the little baby in "A Beautiful Mind"? The baby is lying down in the bathtub with the water coming up over his ears and he's too small to get himself up. The look of terror on his face ruined the rest of the movie for me. I see babies crying on soap operas frequently (at least whenever I watch them, which is rare). It used to be that the productions had to use baby dolls. I would be happy if they would go back to that, and let's all wait until children reach the age where they really can act--and not be made to cry because it makes money or even if it is "for a good cause".

In addition, this more than a rant about child abuse, it's a cry of dismay for our society. Our sensibilities become deadened by hearing babies cry all the time on tv, for example, the previous comment that "Babies cry all the time for no reason." It's a built-in human reaction to react to a baby's cry but if a person hears them cry all the time, he/she becomes immune to their cries--ask any nursery worker. They have trained themselves not to react emotionally. Do we want our society to become deadened to the cries of children. "Oh, well, it's for a just cause."

Too many people got off the topic--they went into rants about smoking vs. non-smoking. What about the little boy? and good for Matt for giving that gal a hard time! He's a dad who is not immune to the cries of children.

CHILD ABUSE? You spoiled bratty selfish Americans. CHILD ABUSE? Because some kid CRIED?

Those people in that ad, if you would read the article, were ALL actors. He was not in a NY subway with pedophiles druggies and strangers. It was a completely controlled environment.

I hardly can understand where we've come to such a place in our society that you think a kid crying is appalling, abusive, and tormenting.

Why don't you people go to some third world country where hundreds of children die every day from hunger - from simply not be FED. F O O D. The most basic of human needs - and you people want to bitch and complain about a kid crying? These are the things that are wrong with us as Americans. If that little boy ends up on a shrink's couch in 20 years because he lost sight of his mother 1) I would challenge him to grow some balls 2) I would tell him to go to Africa. This is simply NOT important enough to be taken as seriously as you all have treated it. THINGS LIKE THIS DO NOT MATTER.

My, the things that seem so important when nothing but pettiness is available to critique. I would hate to see how you people react if you were put into a truly abusive, terrifying situation.

Blaster Girl, you are proof that we, as a society, are losing our senses and compassion. Do your really believe that those who feel the child was traumatized do not also feel for the hungry children in third world countries? How absurd! Compassion isn't selective, you feel for ALL those unfortunate and helpless.

You see, BlasterGirl, if you take care of small problems, you avoid most large problems!!! It is the small grains of sand in your shoes, not the big hill you climb.....remember that little sage advice? Adopting the perception that "that is no big deal, don't worry about it" merely allows for more of the same to grow. Let me ask you this, what would have been "too much" trauma in your view? Pinching the boy to make him cry? Having the mom out of site for 5 minutes, ten minutes? Telling him his dog died to make him cry? Those are all 'small' things, but it isn't just what is being done to the child, it is the idea that we, as a society, would sink to such levels to make an ad. With all the current technology to make a man look like he has lost a leg in Forest Gump, to make a colliseum appear full of people, to make the waters of a sea part, you don't think they could have done this ad without frightening this little child?

When I was young, I thought all children cried. No big deal. As an adult and parent, I know better.

So if we quit do we all get rooms in your ivory tower?

The anti smoking Nazis better have a plan to replace all that tax revenue if they make smoking illegal. It's literally billions. I have no problem removing smoking from restraunts and work and other crowded public places, other than that it's none of your F'n business what I do. As far as traumatizing children for the sake of an ad, the ends dont justify the means. These anti smoking Nazis are as self righteous as the PETA sickos. They're as screwed up as Stalin and Hitler, and the FLDS and any other a-hole who thinks he can impose his will and morals on someone else. No one else wants to smell your farts on a crowded bus or a pressurized airliner but they dont have much choice do they?