Requiem For A Dream

When Requiem For A Dream came out in 1999, it was rated NC-17 for its unflinching look at addiction, especially drug addiction, and the damage it inflicts on people mind, body, and soul. The NC-17 rating made it virtually impossible for anybody under 17 to see the film in theaters, and makes it extremely difficult (I would imagine, anyway) for it to be shown in high-school or junior high. I'm being purposefully vague here, but I want to hear the opinion of others before I elaborate on my position. Should the MPAA take the potential social, civic, and moral value of a film into consideration when weighing a rating that would make it practically inaccessible to a portion of the population, especially a portion that could stand to benefit from it? What do people think could be shown in a film that would offset the aforementioned benefits for viewers? Does anybody here who's seen RFAD have an opinion on the above questions based on what they saw in the film?

Hello Everyone!
I would like to welcome everyone to the They Might Be Critics sister site! Recently we have been involved in discussions that have veered from the movie track. I would like to pose a question to fine assemblage we have here. I reviewed the movie Marie Atoinette a bit ago and was wondering if people think that artists have a right to turn history around to make their point, even if the history they present is wrong or do you think they should stick to historical facts? I would like to thank Wicked Little Critta for the idea for this question.