Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Mel Smith flicks V at smoking ban



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
16 July 2006
HE SHALL light up on the beaches, in the fields and... the Assembly Rooms. He shall never surrender.
Mel Smith, the comedian, actor and director, has flashed a giant Churchillian V-sign at the Scottish Parliament by threatening to smoke on stage at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.

Smith, who plays the cigar-chomping wartime leader in the play Allegiance, claims the smoking ban "would have delighted Adolf Hitler".

Saying he only smokes a third of a cigar during the show, Smith states he would be "amazed" if anyone tried to stop him and challenges the authorities to "extradite" him if he does.

Smoking in any enclosed public space was made an offence in March this year and dozens of people have already been fined or cautioned.

This year's Fringe is the first since the ban was introduced and several other venues are threatening to break the law in what they insist are the interests of artistic integrity.

Smith's play, which is considered one of the must-see shows of the Fringe, is inspired by Irish rebel Michael Collins' real-life visit to London in 1921. The play is based on the fiction that, over the course of one night, Churchill and Collins meet and become friends.

Smith told Scotland on Sunday: "Who knows, maybe I'll light it [the cigar]. Maybe I won't. But maybe I will. I mean, what are they going to do to me? Are they going to extradite me?

"I would imagine that literally a third of a Romeo & Julietta [cigar] is all that gets smoked. On that basis, I would be amazed if anybody had the gall to try and stop me doing it.

"Maybe we should just say to people, 'Please be warned: Mel Smith does smoke a third of a Romeo & Julietta cigar in this show. If you fear for your health, don't come.'

"It's very funny, because I don't know why theatrically you're not allowed to."

The comedian went on to slam the Scottish Parliament, and made scathing comparisons between the originators of the bill and anti-smoking obsessive Adolf Hitler.

Smith, who has ruled out using a fake cigar, added: "I will not have people protecting me from myself. That's the whole problem with this country.

"I've often wondered what the Scottish Parliament does. Maybe this is an opportunity for me to find out. The thing I would like to say about it is that it would have delighted Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, as you know, was anti-smoking. You couldn't smoke at Adolf Hitler's dining table, so he'd be pleased, wouldn't he? Congratulations Scotland."

Edwina Lunn, general manager of the Assembly Rooms, was relaxed in her response, even though they could be fined for allowing Smith to smoke.

She said: "We will be taking any breaking of the smoking ban very seriously and so will be providing Mel Smith with a month's supply of fake cigars and a Groucho Marx mask."

Smith is not the only act to have been affected by the ban. In the past few months, demands have mounted for the legislation to be revisited.

Hill Street Theatre manager Tomek Borkowy has vowed to defy the ban during the Fringe, branding it "communist censorship". He said that he would actively encourage actors to smoke on stage as part of their The Visitor production in August.

"The play in question is about a meeting between Sigmund Freud and God. Freud was a big smoker. It would be ridiculous not to show that because of a brainless piece of legislation."

The law as it stands imposes a £50 fine for those flouting the ban and a £200 penalty for the manager or owner of any premises which allows smoking.

Borkowy has written an open letter to the Scottish Parliament asking for the law to be changed.

He told Scotland on Sunday: "As a non-smoker I am not opposed to the ban totally, but it simply should not affect the theatre in this way. I hope they will see that their stupidity on this has been enormous. I will not pay any fine imposed on me and I will go to jail if I have to have my point heard."

The producers of Bill Hicks: Slight Return, about the comedian and chain smoker who died of cancer, have said they will bring back their show "in defiance of the smoking ban".

The show will return to Edinburgh after two sell-out years. In the past, the show's star, Chas Early, was seen smoking throughout. However, the company has already had a warning from city council chiefs. As a result, Early's Hicks character will step outside the Pleasance to smoke while the audience watches a TV projection.

Unprotected, which will run at the Traverse in August, is a drama about prostitutes being murdered and features smoking. The show's director, Nina Raine, said that while the ban is "outrageous" she will replace smoking with cups of tea during the performances to adhere with legislation.

Maureen Moore, chief executive of anti-smoking group Ash Scotland, had no sympathy for any actors wanting to smoke on stage. She said: "The theatre is a workplace. This law was brought in to protect people in the workplace. It is the law in Scotland and an actor is not above the law. While he or she is here they just have to adhere to it.

"When actors take drugs on stage they don't really inject. And when they have sex on stage they don't really have sex. So why use real smoke when there's a real health risk to actors and the audience?"

A Scottish Executive spokesman said: "The smoking legislation aims to protect the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This applies equally to actors, performers and theatrical audiences, as it does to other workers and members of the public. If smoking requires to be represented in film, TV and theatre performances, realistic alternatives can be used or developed."

Edinburgh City Council said any premises flouting the ban would be open to investigation.

The full article contains 1036 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Yonthing,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 06:43:25

I've always been a strong supporter of the smoking ban, and I think it has had a very positive impact on our public spaces. However I do think the authorities have a duty to consider the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. Art reflects society, and many of our historic figures were smokers - why should art be forced to take an unrealistic view of history. There are ways for shows to obtain and use firearms that are banned elsewhere, so why can't something be done for smoking. Maybe the nanny state makes the theatre put up warnings - they already do it - "This show contains scenes of a sexual nature", "This show contains violence", "This show contains smoking". Seriously Scotland - get back to the spirit of the law and don't make us look like idiots.

2

Johnni,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 07:08:49

While I am happy with a non-smoking ban in public places where food is consumed ... The Scot Ec have really done no-one ANY favours. They've taken away people's fundamental right to choose!! How democratic was that?? I agree that theatres need to be exempt ... as do non-food pubs. But really ... surely they should have banned the product from being sold in the country ... though it would then the way of drug supply. Nah, ill thought out legislation as usual.

3

S'me,

16/07/2006 07:26:16

Pro the ban but theatres should be exempt.. will it extend to films made in Scotland?

4

Ronnie,

Dalkeith 16/07/2006 07:47:12

Sorry but why should I share Mel's cigar smoke? I have never smoked and i dont intend to smoke a cigar so why should I suffer his if i go along to the performance? I dont think its absolutely necessary that he has to smoke the cigar during the performance. He can use it as a prop for sure but why light the blasted thing. The law was designed to stop smoking in enclosed places which is fine cos people now smoke outside and walking around the place. Consequently the cigarette butts are piling up. I think its pathetic that they are so addicted to nicotine that smokers have to stand outside in all weathers just to get another fix instead of staying in the pub relaxing.

5

The Word,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 07:48:24

Is that smoke I smell, or is it a bid for free publicity? Mel Smith, the old trouper, has come up with some neat rhetoric - Churchill the smoker versus Hitler the non-smoker, eh? Very good!

I imagine he understands better than he makes out: that the point is neither to save him from himself, nor to stop him puffing smoke rings at the audience, but to protect those who work backstage night after night. That said, a third of a cigar seems unlikely to harm anyone much, especially if the ventilation is good. Surely the law could be reframed?

People used to kipper themselves en masse. Worse than that, they were racist and sexist, forced their heirs into marriage, drowned 'witches' and burnt heretics. We tut-tut at these things now, but woe betide us if we rewrite history to fit our orthodoxy. It is precisely because the past was different that we can learn from it. If we cut ourselves off from it, we step out over the Orwellian abyss.

So people must be able to light up on stage or in film (how could Holmes solve a three-pipe problem without a pipe?), but perhaps they need to do it less often than we might imagine. No-one lights up in 'Thank You for Smoking'. Personally, I did not even notice that till after I'd left the cinema.

6

Cant use my name anymore-Alex,

16/07/2006 07:54:12

I dont see how you can having a smoking ban and then exempt the performing arts from it. Performers can pretend to smoke, lets be reasonable here, theatre is ALL about pretending anyway so to say that any smoking is needed for artistic integrity is just nonsense. None of this means of course that I support the ban, I dont. I just dont like governments penchants for banning things. Its easy politics and its only a matter of time before everyone is affected and something they like doing is banned.

7

Black Five,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 08:39:01

I think this is not about smoking it`s Mel Smith trying to be the prat he always is.

8

Copper,

West Lothian 16/07/2006 08:52:19

The argument that theatrical productions are above the law is ridiculous and shows nothing but contempt for the Festival and Scotland. Next thing they will maintain that if a character is murdered in a play that he/she must actually die to make it authentic. I thought that acting was all about pretence not authenticity. We can do without precious 'luvvies' at the fringe there are plenty of good actors who can convey their message with or without props.

9

Robert E,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 09:34:17

In the 19th century, with limited technology, it was possible to produce 'ghosts' on stage. Is it beyond the wit of present-day theatrical producers to present the illusion of someone smoking? And would Mel Smith be so rebellious if he were proposing to flaunt a Westiminster law?

10

Petro,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 09:39:23

Sadly Messers Smith, Borkowy and Raine are exposing how out of touch they are with public opinion. This has been one of the most popular pieces of legislation the Scottish Parliament has passed in its short life.

Why should actors be above the law? When the text calls for someone to be shot the don't kill each other with real bullets. It is surely not beyond the wit of theatres which can transpose us to anywhere in the world to make us think that Churchill is puffing on a cigar without actually harming anyones health?

11

Funlovingfee,

West Lothianhttp 16/07/2006 10:08:26

Just a big publicity stunt in my opinion by Mr Smth. True what the others are saying, does artistic licence allow murder, rape, torure on stage, I think not. So why in a country where smoking is banned in public places should we allow artists to openly flaunt the law.

12

John V,

Chester 16/07/2006 10:14:33

Well said Mel, and I hope you mean it!

What is disturbing however is that whilst some of the posters on this string are sensible and pragmatic about Mel's decision others have commented in a way that shows a total lack of common sense. In addition, after conversations with Scots I know, I'm not sure the smoking ban is the most "popular pieces of legislation the Scottish Parliament has passed during its short life" either. However, reason and a sense of balance are obviously beyond some people.

As the poet Schiller once remarked:

"Mit der Dummeheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"

Even the Gods wage war vainly with stupidity.

13

alex paterson,

lochend edinburgh 16/07/2006 10:26:34

Mel Smith is poor comic so he will do anything for attention,If he does light up on stage i hope the theatre firemen soak him.

14

A J,

England 16/07/2006 10:34:09

I just hope the ban will soon become law in England - there is nothing worse than going into a pub and being doused with someone else's waste product (exhaled smoke!!).

Don't even get me started on restaurants that allow smoking - I just don't go into them.

An actor should be able to act as if they are smoking - if it is necessary for the script - they don't actually have to light the thing. Acting is supposed to be their profession after all and their is no need to choke the audience who, ironically, aren't allowed to smoke.

15

sharon,

16/07/2006 10:43:03

Well done for providing that big headed em.... man some not very well deserved free publicity. There is a smoking ban in enclosed spaces end of story. I work as a councilor for traumatised individuals who are no longer allowed to smoke when im working with them (something i allowed to lessen their stess as they deal with some very painful memories) and if they can do it so can some trumped up past it man who lets face it - is well past his best and is certainly not above the law. I say throw the book at him if he does smoke his cancer stick - but remember not to write about it afterwards!

16

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 10:57:42

Mel Smith's acting abilities are not the issue. Theatre is a matter not of 'pretending' but performing and creating illusion, and this is a matter worked out between actor, director, stage management and technical staff. I don't know where Jack McConnell comes into it.

The amounts of cigarette smoke seeping up into the auditorium ceiling during a smoking scene are tiny, and most of cigarette smoke is ordinary air anyway. Many of us lived through an era where most of the audience smoked through the performance.

The smoking ban law is a house of cards, and if some people feel that exemptions for any group are impossible this is because they might cause the whole edifice to collapse, as it should. In my youth we used to disapprove of people who rewrote history. Now we are applauding it and this is entirely wrong.

17

Phil Button,

Basingstoke, Hampshire. 16/07/2006 11:06:28

Petty and specious. Not Mel Smith but the Scottish Law. The law flies in the face of common sense and facts. It is forced on you by the arguments of a cult (The anti-smoking lobby) and its gullible followers (The Scottish Parliament).

Mel Smith is both a funny man and a citizen with a sensible position. He defends the freedom of expression of the performing arts and his individual freedoms. I say here, here and what a star. I sincerely hope he has the fortitude to carry out his threat.

The ignorance of the anti-smoking lobby and anyone who has been taken in by it must surely be exposed.

18

desparate,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 11:13:35

Yes just a publicity stunt for Mel smith. Where can you get press advertising for free like this.
If he smokes on stage the authorities will obviously charge him and the the theatre for allowing him to do so.
So Mel, we have a ban on smoking in Scotland so just abide by the rules when you are here.

19

Iain Inverness,

Inverness 16/07/2006 11:37:36

So, an actor is to smoke a cigar on stage eh? what villainy!!
In the year 2006 this is now classed as a news story due to an unwanted and extremist ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in Scotland.

What will we be reading in 2010?

Actor arrested for suspected possesion of cigarettes in his home?

Good on Mel, time people stood up to these clueless Hollyrood tyrants and showed them that their law is an ass.

20

John V,

Chester 16/07/2006 11:41:27

Response to AJ from England.

But we are always inhaling other people's waste products AJ and that includes the air expelled from their lungs and all the substances it contains, and likewise, via their breath, the food they've eaten plus their exhaled alcohol. And yes, there is indeed second hand alcohol the active ingredient of which is ethyl alcohol - a class A carcinogen.

In addition, let's consider too all the other things we inhale: car exhaust fumes, bonfire, barbecue and coal fire smoke plus the emissions from gas fires and the molecules given off from countless other substances including paints, detergeants and more.

The only reason you and others make a big deal of even the faintest whisps of tobacco smoke, and they would be faint wisps coming from Smith's cigar - a long way away from the audience on the stage - is because you hve beeen well taken in by nonsense.

Lastly, it is interesting to read how some people are so ready to be prissy and puritannical. Indeed, John Knox is alive and well in Scotland and soon his mean minded ideology of suppression will be spread to England!

21

Davy,

16/07/2006 12:29:17

It is about time this bully boy ban was stopped.
We now have gangs of people hanging about the streets smoking. We never had that before.
I am not a smoker.
I am for reversing that stupid new law made by stupid people for small minded individuals who would love to create a police state.
I fear what the future beholds.
What are our MPs going to think up next?
It makes you shudder.

22

Come on, are you serious....,

New Jersey 16/07/2006 13:33:18

I say Mel Smith should take his show back to England and smoke all he wants. The law is the law! Once again is a fat head englishman trying to tell the Scottish what to do. If he doesn't like the rules then don't go to Scotland, Ireland, New York, New Jersey or anywhere else that has a smoking ban.

Looking at his profile; http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0809321/
he hasn't really done much since I left the UK 15 years ago so maybe he need the publicity.

23

Come on, are you serious....,

New Jersey 16/07/2006 13:34:48

I say Mel Smith should take his show back to England and smoke all he wants. The law is the law! Once again we have an englishman trying to tell the Scottish what to do. If he doesn't like the rules then don't go to Scotland, Ireland, New York, New Jersey or anywhere else that has a smoking ban.

Looking at his profile; http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0809321/
he hasn't really done much since I left the UK 15 years ago so maybe he need the publicity.

24

Alison,

England 16/07/2006 13:44:41

Grow up Mickey, this isn't a Scots versus English war - much as you might be trying to make it one. It's about smoking for goodness sake. You, might, if you opened your mind enough realise that there are plenty of people in England who are anti-smoking.

25

Foo Foo,

Boston 16/07/2006 13:48:34

If Mel Smith does not agree with Scottish law then Mel Smith should remain in England. I am sure another actor could easily be found to take his place. Such arrogance from 'so called' celebrities are giving the youth of Scotland the wrong message. Dump him and find a Scot who will live by the rules.

26

A J,

England 16/07/2006 13:52:07

"The only reason you and others make a big deal of even the faintest whisps of tobacco smoke, and they would be faint wisps coming from Smith's cigar - a long way away from the audience on the stage - is because you hve beeen well taken in by nonsense."

Surely, that depends on the size of the theatre - there are plenty of small theatres around in the provinces where it is even more obnoxious if the 'actors' are smoking. Of course, there are also the backstage people and the other actors to be considered - non-smokers have rights too and are actually in the majority now.

Smoking stinks, and is a disgusting habit - the sooner it is banned in public places in England the better!!!

27

Tom,

London 16/07/2006 14:30:03

Let's get back to the matter at hand: rather than clogging up the comments section with endless arguments and stats (stop it wayne!) about the wider ban on smoking in public, can we please concentrate on the lack of exemption of smoking on stage, as this is the real issue.

Whether or not you support the ban on smoking in public places in Scotland, a case must be made for the exemption of smoking on stage. Theatre shows must already warn against strobe lighting effects and loud pyrotechnic effects, so why not make it compulsory for theatres to warn that there will be smoking on stage rather than an outright ban? This way audiences would be able to make a choice as to whether they wished to expose themselves to a relatively small risk. Incidentally there is already strict legislation in place regarding fire hazards (all cigarettes must be accounted for and certified as having been extinguished by stage management, who must also ensure that a fire officer watches the lit cigarette at all times and is on standby with a fire extinguisher).

The comparison between representation of injection of drugs is unfair, as it is possible to represent this realistically without using real narcotics - the same cannot be said for smoking. And comparing asking actors to have real sex on stage to asking actors to smoke on stage is similarly silly.

I agree with the public ban, I agree with the ban in pubs, workplaces, and in the audience and backstage at a theatre, but on stage? No.

28

mr chips,

glasgow 16/07/2006 14:47:00

paranoia is rife within the non smoking hypocondriacts.WELL DONE MEL SMITH ,KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

29

Gobbledegook the III,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 14:54:08

For the "Scottish Rulers" to worry about a theatrical production is really rerrifying. Since bringing in the smoking ban the areas outside "Public Houses" now have an odour and smog hanging about their entrances the street areas are littered with cigarette ends and non smokers are abused if they try and sit in the "Smokers area". They should be taking action against these areas as opposed to an entertaining reflection on history.

30

damocles,

London, Ontario 16/07/2006 15:12:35

And just how old was Winston Churchill when he died?
Alec

31

John V,

Chester 16/07/2006 15:22:52

2nd Reply to AJ

I'm afriad AJ that if we all lived life in your mode goodness knows how many things would be banned.
So what, some people don't like the smell of tobacco smoke? Let's move on then and do what New York is now doing which is to discuss an ordinance banning perfume in all government buildings? Why not, after all, some people don't like the smell? Or maybe, we should ban the smells of any food we don't like or other people's music? Or, let's ban my own pet hate which is garlic - the stink of it makes me want to vomit and I am far from alone.

Also, you say non-smokers have rights. Indeed they do as do smokers, but whereas you are keen that yours are observed you are not prepared to extend the same consideration to others. I think this is called double standard logic and selfishness, and that's putting it politely.

My, if the bottom line with you, and that's the way it clearly appears to be, is: "ban it because I don't like the smell and I'm part of the majority so we can so there" then I have to say society would just generally be healthier if we simply banned people like you.

Reply to Tom.

Tom, your position is inconsistent. If you agree with banning smoking everywhere, then why not the stage too? After all, as has been pointed out, people can always fake smoking on stage and even though it may not be particularly convincing the public can always suspend disbelief.

32

Ned,

Californa 16/07/2006 15:40:56

Winston Churchill was, I believe, 91 when he died. Is that relevant?

33

Ned,

Californa 16/07/2006 15:51:05

Wayne, by the way, is right. The 2nd-hand smoke scare is and has always been, well, smoke and mirrors. There is no link between ordinary 2nd-hand smoke (as opposed to forcing gales of smoke into a tiny box with a rat in it for 60 days on a level that no one would ever be subjected to in a lifetime of living with a smoker, never mind simply breathing in the occasional whiff from someone smoking onstage) and cancer. This is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the public. What the lawmakers should say, to be honest (har!), is, we hate the smell of smoke, therefore we're banning it. That would be honest. Other than its being a filthy stink, it is not a threat to public safety. Plus which the ban itself should be more odious than the smoke to civil libertarians everywhere.

P.S. I don't smoke.

34

A J,

England 16/07/2006 15:59:13

Wayne,

I'm not on about health issues - if you read my posts............ I just think smoking is a disgusting habit and it stinks and you can bang on about anything else you like but I won't be changing my mind.

I'll simply support the ban when it comes............as it will!

35

John V,

Chester 16/07/2006 16:29:24

It's okay AJ you are well sussed. You are a person who has allowed your own personal prediliction and obsession to override all other aspects of your judgement.

Enough said.

36

A J,

England 16/07/2006 16:33:25

If I'm obsessed - I'm certainly not the only one on this blog...................

37

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 16/07/2006 17:15:17

I am the spokesperson for Freedom to Choose that Wayne mentioned. I could of course provide links to over a hundred of pieces of research that shows passive smoking is a fallacy. I could also show you evidence that modern ventilation/filtration can remove even The DEADLY Avian flu Virus and the cost under a thousand pounds. I could show you copies of letters from the British Heart Foundation apologising for lying about the level of 'passive smoking deaths'. I couldd show the transcripts of the debates on smoking in the UK Parliament where Ministers, and other Politicians have lied to both Parliament. But I won't do any of that I will simply remind the people of Scotland that when asked at the consultation stage. 76% of you said you wanted choice, smoking, no smoking and improved ventilation. Did Jack McConnell acede to the wishes of the Scottish People?. Only last week the ONS yearly survey on Attitudes to Smoking on Health for the DoH showed oce again that 65% of all those surveyed still remained keen on choice, with only 33% in favour of a total ban. This is the most authoritive Survey done, which is why HMG delayed it's release until aftert the Lords vote. Of Mel Smith, he's put lots of bums on seats. But he is right Bans are morally, socially and legally wrong. It took threats to Alan Bowes by the Scottish Executive to get Swallows legal challenge abandoned. Swallow/Edinburgh Inns are selling properties whole sale in Scotland as a result. So more Scottish jobs are probably down the pan

38

Meg,

Glenrothes 16/07/2006 17:51:51

The folowing quote fom this discussion is silly. "Maybe the nanny state makes the theatre put up warnings - they already do it - "This show contains scenes of a sexual nature", "This show contains violence", "This show contains smoking". " If the violence concerned the audience being assaulted, this would be banned. If the sex involved spreading STD around then this would be banned. come on folks, smoking has been banned from public places and workplaces for good reason. Me Gibson is simply being arrogant. He cares neither for his audience or theatre staff.
Report as unsuitable

39

Donal McCarthy,

Cork Ireland 16/07/2006 17:52:34

Let's take that as an admission then A.J. It is indeed a noble gesture to admit in such a public forum that you are obsessive about your own closely-held neurotic fears - to the extent you feel they should be enshrined in law - and it is a probable first step towards releasing you from them and the damage they do to you.

Obsession concerning freedom of choice in a democracy - which you seem think equates in esteem to your own take on things - is, on the other hand, a value most highly prized and one which most normal thinking people respect and support.

You should thank those who speak up for your freeedom. If you support a blatant abuse of political power that sets precedent for further abuses in the future, then what will you do when they come for you?? Laws of this kind depend on quashing the rights of some to uphold the rights of others - something which diminishes us all.

I salute Mel Smith for his stance, as well as all of those pro-choice contributors here. We should all be made well aware that our respective democracies are plunging to destruction at a rapid rate.

40

A J,

England 16/07/2006 17:55:04

Wayne,

I am the stereotypical ex-smoker (stopped 9 years ago) who now hates smoking ---- maybe it's sour grapes because I don't smoke anymore .......but I can say one thing from experience - I feel better for not smoking!! I am not some zealot who wants to force people to give up but it is obnoxious to non smokers and I never used to realise that when I smoked.

41

A J,

England 16/07/2006 17:55:52

Blaggarde @ 47

Ever heard of sarcasm?

42

Donal McCarthy,

Cork Ireland 16/07/2006 18:11:36

A.J. @ 50


Read it again AJ - slowly.

43

Davy,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 18:25:22

I agree with all people who hate the boring, non smokers. They have totally wrecked thousands of people’s social lives. I also hate our MPs for introducing that law, with a vengeance.
The pub now is not a happy place any more.
My self and thousands like me are now prisoners in our own homes because of all you boring non smokers cum the revolution things will be different.
Smoking will be compulsory, non smokers will be hunted down with dogs and then deported to Australia
Our cousins in Australia will keep them in check, by using them as slaves.

44

A J,

England 16/07/2006 18:27:28

Blaggarde

I didn't mean your comment was sarcastic - I meant mine @ 43 was .............. it seems that non-smokers do not have a monopoly re: obsession on this issue. If smokers have a freedom of choice to smoke then non smokers have a freedom of choice to object. In any case as you point out this is a democracy and it is likely that the majority will prevail on the smoking ban.
Although, I take Wayne's point about the English not taking it lying down - as the Poll Tax riots proved, but that was some time ago, whether people feel as strongly about smoking - only time will tell. There will most likely be a compromise reached here ....

45

Davy,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 18:48:00

The English will not take it lying down they have bottle.
As you mentioned the poll tax. AJ.
We Scots are not happy unless our political masters are trying to screw us. If we lived in a proper democracy this would never have been past into law. That goes for all countries who have introduced that irritating school bully law.
I agree with Willie and Davy, life now sucks.
Respect to the English with bottle.
But glad your football team didn’t win the big trophy that would have been unbearable.

46

Meg,

Glenrothes 16/07/2006 18:57:34

Re. comment 47. Apologies Mel Gibson - meant arrogant Mel Smith.

47

Donal McCarthy,

Cork Ireland 16/07/2006 19:10:54

The whole point about freedom of choice in a democracy AJ., is to ensure that provision is made for all, and, in the tradition of democracy, minorities are protected. The law, which you support, is a writ which you say must run in all places at all times to uphold your rights. That is either communism or fascism - take your pick.

Put another way, you support a monopoly of rights for anti-smokers like yourself (most non-smokers couldn't care less either way) and you cannot seem to see the basic flaw in your argument.

The further point is that a blanket ban was NOT endorsed by any majority - all the polls including your governments' own clearly sought compromise. And even on this point, I do not see it as a function of a democratic government to create a new precedent concerning the use of a legal product in private premises (all pubs are private premises).

I don't think your comment at 43 was sarcastic at all; rather it was a subconscious leak, a plea for help. By your own admission you "hate smoking" and beyond that are blinkered to the reality for others. There is none so pure as a converted hoor!

48

A J,

England 16/07/2006 19:12:01

"But glad your football team didn’t win the big trophy that would have been unbearable."

Yes, Rab, I reckon that would have made all those Scots who have given up or never smoked - take it up due to stress!!

Not that it was ever likely - except in the fantasies of the media!

49

Davy,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 19:12:52

Why can’t smokers have member’s only places?
You join a theatre or a club etc as a smoker all the staff that work in the place are only employed if they join as smokers. Now that is too simple. They would be packed out by smokers and non smokers. The clubs etc would be guaranteed a full house nearly every night.

Why won’t it work?

Why it can’t happen all those boring places that are now more than half empty would close down. There customers would flock in the thousands to join the smoking establishments and the owners would be screaming to be able to allow smoking on there own premises. Then we would be back to being happy Scotsmen and women.
Alas our political master would never let that happen as it would be seen as a defeat to them.
They would rather we all suffered and were miserable.

50

A J,

England 16/07/2006 19:18:16

Read it whichever way you want Blaggarde..... .you sound a bit blinkered yourself to be honest.

My last post on this subject now - we're going round in circles and I think I've wasted enough space on here! So fume away in more ways than one if you want to.

51

Toronto Tam,

Toronto 16/07/2006 19:27:37

Those (like Wayne) who oppose the smoking ban in public places using the argument that there are much worse hazards that we are exposed to and those who argue against it based on some misguided libertarian opposition to any type of government legislation are (in my humble opinion) totally out to lunch. For Wayne to say that there have never been any examples of 2nd hand smoke related deaths is totally wrong. The Canadian Cancer Society recently ran a series of ads that featured a woman (non-smoker) who had lung cancer and who in fact recently died from the disease. She had been a waitress for 35 years and had been exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis. Yes Wayne there are many chemicals in the air which are toxic to us and all other life forms but that does not mean that we should not tackle the hazards associated with tobacco smoke. Using the argument that the ban will greate hardships for small business people is also a blatant obfuscation of the truth. These arguments were made here in Toronto years ago when the ban was first introduced and yet the last time I checked (last night) Toronto still has a very vibrant pub and club scene. The cleaner air in restuarants and bars actually improves business since non smokers and former smokers like myself (incidently I loved to smoke) are more likely to go out and spend money and we don't wake up in the morning feeling like crap. Since non-smokers are in the majority this also makes sense from a business perspective.
Those who oppose any type of legislation remind me of the anecdotal arguments that were used both here in Canada and back in Scotland when the seat belt legislation was first introduced. Everyone knew of "somebody's" uncle's cousin who was thrown clear of a car wreck and landed in some soft mud and was told by the rescue workers that had he been wearing a set belt he would surely have been killed, since the car flew off a cliff, burst into flames and then plunged into the oc

52

Davy,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 19:29:07

Respect to Mell Smith. No names mentioned T in the Park artist who stuck two fingers up, at the hated no smoking law by having a fag. We hate the no smoking law
We are not proud to be Scottish.
Our SMPs have seen to that

53

dennistoun,

16/07/2006 19:30:12

The ban on smoking on stage in Scotland is not much more than an administrative cock-up, and one for which the Scottish theatre community must take a good deal of responsibility. Whereas an exemption has already been written into the forthcoming legislation in England (it's coming yet for a' that, by the way, before you all get too smug down south), according to the culture minister in Scotland - and this is first hand, I heard it from her own mouth - not one single representation on the issue was made to her during the passage of the Scottish legislation. So, unsurprisingly, no amendment was moved.

R

PS I write as a life long non-smoker who finds the ban (the general one, not just the theatre one) an authoritarian bridge too far. Though going to the pub is a lot nicer these days.

54

Julia 73,

Aberystwyth 16/07/2006 19:32:18

Peter (No. 10 posting) uses the snuff film argument to support his position that acting is about pretending. Yes, Peter, actors CAN pretend to kill each other in films. They can pretend to have sex, they can pretend a lot of things but pretend smoking looks stupid at close range and theatre practitioners know this.

Besides, the argument here is not whether or not actors can pretend (we know they can and thank you for the acting lesson), but whether the government has a right to TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO.

I just saw Dame Judi Dench and the company of Hay Fever light up repeatedly and hilariously in the West End. Noel Coward without cigarettes? Unimaginable! (They may well have been smoking something other than tobacco...something herbal and less toxic, but they WERE smoking).

55

Toronto Tam,

Toronto 16/07/2006 19:34:27

Blaggarde,
You said,
"a new precedent concerning the use of a legal product in private premises (all pubs are private premises)."

The word "Pub" is short for "Public House" meaning it is open to all members of the public who are of legal age to be there. Therefore by definition pubs do not fall into the category of private premises.
Sorry!
Tam the Bam

56

Donal McCarthy,

Cork Ireland 16/07/2006 19:39:08

On the contrary AJ, as is clear from my posts I fully support freedom of choice for all - and that includes your good self.

All that is needed is a certain degree of goodwill and tolerance to bring such a situation about.

All the best.

57

Davy,

Edinburgh 16/07/2006 19:49:07

Tam the Bam
Is Toronto a nick name for some housing scheme on the west cost? If not why are you so concerned with what is happening in Jock land. The land of the oppressed, the bullied and exploited.

58

Donal McCarthy,

Cork Ireland 16/07/2006 19:53:07

Tom, I don't know how things run in Toronto, But in both Britain and Ireland the term "Public House" is a coloquial name for a licenced premises, privately owned, where admission of members of the public as well as service to customers is SOLELY at the discretion of the landlord/owner. People may be refused at the discretion of the owner/landlord.

It is not a "public" place where the public has a right to assemble, and the term "public house" does not confer these rights. There are no state-owned facilities along these lines, but if there were, then it would be at the discretion of the state, and the perfect right of the state to declare non-smoking.

I'm afraid therefore, your argument is undermined.

59

Davy,

Aberdeen 16/07/2006 20:00:47

Good on you Mell
Englishmen have bottle

60

David,

lockerbie 16/07/2006 20:04:00

Publicity stunt

61

Mark j,

fifer expat returning to edinburgh 16/07/2006 20:08:05

It isnt about England vs Scotland. Its about an English man playing an English man who loved cigars. The actor wants to skirt Scottish law inorder to do as he pleases. Arrogance!!!!
He can think what he likes about Scottish law.
It is the law, I hope if he acts against it he doesnt get fined or imprisioned. The hasbeen actor already has had too much publicity, for free. The cigar can be present, it neednt be lit during the performance. If the actor played Van Gog, would he lop of his lug. If he played a leper would he go and get the disease. If he Play Jesus Christ would he have nails inserted in his limbs. If he was playing a murderer would he actually need to kill someone on stage. NO.

62

Davy,

Aberdeen 16/07/2006 20:15:04

David, Lockerbie

That comment is out of order were you at T in the Park.
The people you would have seen and what I had seen
You would never have made that comment
You should write to Mell and apologise.

63

Henry Clarson,

Invergordon 16/07/2006 21:10:25

Firstly, a complete ban on smoking in public places was not supported by the majority in our "democratic" state. Our elected representatives deliberately ignored the clearly expressed majority wish for a partial smoking ban.
Secondly, would somebody explain this to me. We, the people, have been deemed to be responsible and informed enough to cast our votes on who should run the country, what reforms to the UK constitution were required, whether we should have joined the Common Market and then whether we should have stayed in it. There may soon come a time when we shall be invited to consider all the economic and geo-political ramifications of European currency integration before we cast our votes in a referendum. Howbeit, then, that if my smoking co-writer wants to light up in a rehearsal room where only he and I are present, we are held to be criminally irresponsible and unfit to decide for ourselves.
Thirdly, will the vote be withdrawn from people who make decisions that offend the Labour party?
Finally, the debate is really less about smoking and more about intolerance. The smugness with which some people have greeted this legislation is disappointing. It would have been perfectly possible for provision to be made for both smokers and non-smokers to socialise separately in their preferred environments. Sadly, that would have been too close to the will of the majority for a Labour administration that long ago abandoned democracy. Heil McConnell!!

64

Lynn,

Madison, Wisconsin, USA 16/07/2006 21:28:57

I have a question. In the above article (um, y'all DO remember the article you're supposedly commenting on?), it quotes Maureen Moore, "When actors take drugs on stage they don't really inject. And when they have sex on stage they don't really have sex." How does she know? I mean, is she up there on the stage watching every move made, with binoculars? I've personally seen a couple of shows where the actors really DID have sex, and no, it wasn't a porno piece of theatre! So, I repeat, how does she know? And therefore, how can she continue on with her statement, "So why use real smoke when there's a real health risk to actors and the audience?" with a straight face? And yes, I am a non-smoker, and yes, my city does have anti-smoking legislation on the books, and yes, it's worked out well for the most part, so if it can work here in one of the most liberal, free-thinking cities in the US, it can work in Scotland. There are other, better things to get your knickers twisted about. Do so.

65

mwernimont,

Minneapolis 16/07/2006 22:34:06

Sorry, Lynn but smoking bans do not work. Here in Mpls./ St. Paul 76 hospitality businesses have closed their doors since the smoking bans a year ago. Yet in 2004, the year prior to smoking ban, only 15 bars & restaurants closed.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/11/updated-henne...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-against-...

And in light of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies who fund smoking bans have lied to lawmakers to get smoking bands passed(J & J needs smoking bans to increase sales of their Nicoderm products)....illuminates the reason that this type of legislation needs to be fought.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/07/american-canc...

Cheers to all.....and don't stop fighting until the truth is circulated to all lawmakers...we can reverse any and all of these smoking bans, if only you will forward these facts to your local lawmakers.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

66

Mark j,

fifer expat returning to edinburgh 16/07/2006 22:48:33

I was at a play in NYC recently in which the actors smoked. NYC has a smoking ban. If i knew that smoke would be released into my lungs, I would not have gone. I wasnt fore warned. I avoid active smokers at all cost. I have reactive airway disease. The issue is my healthcare. Now in NY and Scotland I can enjoy a pint and go almost anywhere with out being physicaly assaulted by a dangerous cancer causing substance entering my lungs without my consent.
I believe in rights of people, rights begin and end at the tip of our noses. I think anyone should be able to smoke anywhere as long as they donot exhale. Smokers have had their way for so long that there had to be legislation against smoking just like there is legislation against littering. What we are talking about here is littering common air space of others. If they were polite and refrained from smoking when asked or when someone was actually bothered by it. There would not have been a need to protect public air space from smokers littering others' lungs.

67

boomerang,

New Zealand 16/07/2006 22:48:58

We also have SMOKING BAN,anyone breaking it is fined regardless,why should Mell be allowed to break Scottish laws,someone said we English have bottle,ya right,so tell us why you English are not bringing in the same law until next year,good old Scots,THE ENGLISH HAD TO WAIT FOR THEM TO LEAD THEY WAY.
Now what was that again about having bottle?/

68

Hilander,

Western Australia 16/07/2006 22:52:38

I agree with Robert 18, what a great Idea Mel Smith has for free Publicity, the answer is if he lights up on stage drop the curtain on his act and give him more publicity, Is this Actor above the Law, I doubt it, but he appears to think he is ??

69

Iain Inverness,

Inverness 16/07/2006 22:55:59

Tam the Bam, @60 do you know the name of the woman who died and appeared in those Canadian Cancer Society adverts ?

70

mandyv,

England 16/07/2006 23:22:47

What is so wrong with Mel and his cigar-the commoners like us, are or will be banned, but the MSP have their own smoking space as will ours, if that is democracy it stinks far worse than ciggies.
Not everyone is paranoid, you all know now what horrific scenes you will endure during this play.
Then go some where else for your night out, as you have everywhere else at your disposal.
I hate the smell of fish so I stay away from fishy restaurants, easy isn't it

71

AlanE,

Perth (Scotland), 16/07/2006 23:24:36

Although a non-smoker, I am bitter with the erosion of my personal choices. A breath of the cocktail of fumes from both petrol / diesel engines cuts more than a minute from your life. Did you know postmen are not allowed to smoke whilst in uniform? Are we sure Hitler died in that bunker?

72

mwernimont,

16/07/2006 23:29:38

Sorry pro-smoking ban activists. The fact is that smoking bans are a scam perpetrated and funded by Nicoderm and the Johnson & Johnson Company.....for profit, not your health.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be...

And the fact that even the American Cancer Society testing proves secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality regulations.....means an end to this scam is at hand.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-canc...

You may be offended by the smell of smoke ....but that is no justification for government action.

Further, non-smokers never frequented smoky bars without knowledge and consent.....and once a ban goes into place non-smokers don't frequent the bars enough to keep them in business.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/11/updated-henne...

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm

PS. I am a non-smoker and I have asthma. But I believe in the free market and private property rights.

73

John V,

Chester 17/07/2006 00:08:57

Reply to Mark J.

Mark, I am sorry that you have a problem. However, that is no reason whatsoever why everywhere should have to cater for it. With a little bit of sense and tolerance we could all get what we want.

Do you have no comprehension of the ideas of compromise and give and take or are you just extremely selfish and want the whole world to revolve around you?

So okay, the circumstances have not met your needs to date and you consider no doubt that they have not been fair. Fine, but why do you think a suitable response is that of draconian excess?

It is interesting too, that since second hand smoke mania has hit our shores more people have suddenly developed sensitivities they never previously had. Now I am not saying this is true in your case but it has certainly become fashionable for others to become over sensitive to tobacco smoke despite the fact their senses are regularly "physicaslly asaulted" by many things far, far worse. I'd curb such emotive language too, mate, as its not impressive. Statements such as "rights begin at the tips of people's noses" are cichés and sound silly and can be easily countered with "well don't put your nose in the way then."

With regard to the notion that second hand smoke is a deadly carcinogenic substance this is baloney. It is not and it constitutes the biggest scam of the past 30 years. Moreover, the whole programme of prohibition that accompanies it is riddled with and supported by corruption and medical fraud of the first and most dangerous rank. It will be exposed make no mistake about that - so in the meantime, sensitive or not, don't be a dummy and don't fall for it!

74

John V,

Chester 17/07/2006 00:31:44

Hello marcus aurelius. You have a cracking blog and some of those posting here should definitely visit it. Moreover, contrary to the nonsense spoken by ASH et al, modern ventilation systems can be amazing and good for all sorts of places including theatres - irrespective of whether people are smoking or not.

Also, since the Scottish Executive has invested in them as well as departments of the government in Westminster they should know better than to pretend they know nothing of their benefits. But then, what can we expect since, and as commented on above, ministers from the Scottish Executive have been paying into a pension firm that has £126 million invested in the world's biggest cigarette company. Yes, something stinks alright and it isn't the smokers!

75

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia, PA USA 17/07/2006 01:49:23

The Antismoking extremists have gone beyond being merely neurotic and have progressed into outright psychopathy. Anyone familiar with the stage will tell you that the temperature onstage is enormously higher than that out in the audience and that 99.9% of any airborne substance onstage gets immediately sucked up and out exhaust vents.

Now if 1,000th of that stage cigar or cigarette actually DID make its way out into the audience, and if 1,000 people in that audience somehow managed to perform the superhuman feat of sucking in every last gram of air in the theater with greedly little SuperLungs... they'd still only be getting 1/1,000,000th of a cigarette per person.

Thus, if a person attended the theater 7 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the next 391 years, he or she would have inhaled the equivalent of 1 cigarette... and that's assuming that they super-hyper-ventilated throughout each and every entire performance.

The risk they'd have of contracting a fatal skin-cancer from attending a play in the park on a fairly cloudy day would probably be about a million times greater.

People need to be educated on science, as opposed to the politics, of smoking bans.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antsmokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com

76

mwernimont,

Watertown, MN. USA 17/07/2006 01:51:22

Thank you John, Chester;

Regarding ventilation and the pro-smoking ban activists, I should like to tell you about the threats the activist groups are known for. Below is an incident where the RWJF funded organization, the American Non Smokers Rights Group, attempts to extort (defn. obtain by coercion) my cooperation to stop marketing air filtration as a means of reducing the hazards of secondhand smoke read the links below. These groups will resort to any means possible, and threats are just the beginning:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/if-non-profit...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/not-that-i-ne...

77

Roy,

louisiana 17/07/2006 02:07:22

Can anyone tell me what is going to happen if the price of cigarettes keeps going up? I feel this is what will happen.
Besides getting people to quit because they cannot afford it, it will cause more people to start stealing them. Or stealing anything they can to sell to buy a pack.
Is this what the Federal, State, and Local governments are banking on? That way they will be able to put more people in jail and collect on the fines and fees. So they will have more "trustees' " to pick up trash on the side the roads?
You sure don't hear them talking about going up on the tax for alcohol and that kills more people than smoking!
I have been emailing Senators and Representatives for a long time now and none of them EVER answer my questions.
Maybe someone can shed some light on my concerns.

78

Roy,

louisiana 17/07/2006 02:16:03

I will never understand why the majority cannot be morally and civilly correct. There is too much corruption in all forms of our government and you know it. If the government can take the upper hand over the people who voted them in to begin with, they will do it.
Again, my complaining about the smoking issue is not whether smoking is good or bad for you, it's our freedom being taken away from us to smoke where we choose. With the exception of common courtesy.
I still cannot get anyone to answer one main question I have with this ban. Who will give the police officers, parish workers, or their friends, etc. a ticket if they don't follow the laws. I know they don't abide by the seat belt law.
Now maybe my wife will die of phenomonia because she has to go where she is unprotected from the cold wind and rain to smoke at work. Then what? Where is the smokers rights?
If you want to take away the smokers rights, then take away the taxes they have to pay.

79

Roy,

louisiana 17/07/2006 02:19:46

This my answer to
Mr Thibodeaux
----- Original Message -----
From:To: wayne
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re:


My point is that they died an early death, too early. And it wasn't caused by smoking.
why haven't you answered my question about who will give the cops, government employees or their friends a ticket if they get caught "breaking the law".
Again if smoking and second hand smoke is soooooooo dangerous, why isn't it banned completely?
Just an example, the State Troopers were checking insurance and licenses the other day. when I stopped to show them my license and insurance card I jokingly said "I didn't do it." The officer said "If I said you did it, it would be your word against mine". My point, if they stop someone from smoking in "public", near an enterance, and they complain, the officer will be able to write them up for anything they want, and it will be their word against ours.
Like I said, ya'll are making law abiding citizens into criminals

80

Roy,

louisiana 17/07/2006 02:24:23

I like you people to know how much parish Government cares about us.
Not one of them came to see if we needed any thing, We had 5 feet of water 3 foot of it was in my house we lost alot but still not one of them came.
The only thing the Parish cares about is money.
We just got flooded and the only thing they can think of is more money and how can they get there hands on it.
They are looking for us to pay more taxes so they
can fix the levees, not better them, just fix them.
So now when you people that smokes comes to louisiana better make sure to say 10 feet away from any buisness door opening or you will get a fine. They didn't think of anything better to do with there time so they think of how to jack us over in fines and more taxes.
They can use our tax money for cell phones, buy new trucks, a trip to Hawaii, millions of dollars on buildings, and football teams.
and a lot of other things. But when we need something we have to pay more taxes. What is it going to take to wake you people up?
They send our kids to fight for other peoples freedom
but at same time are looking to take away ours and profit from it at the same time.

81

Roy,

louisiana 17/07/2006 02:25:43

I like to let you people know that I don't smoke.

82

Mark j,

17/07/2006 03:06:08

re:82 JOhn CHester

I'm sorry for other folks' addictions to a substance which can cause harm to others. I'm not the selfish one. I dont ask for much. Just that the air around me be clean as possible so i and others can breathe.
If you read my post you'd have seen that I avoid smokers while using their cigar/ettes. I've avoided many places because of smoke.
What has happened due to the smoking ban is nonsmokers' choices of breathing in smokeless air have increased and smokers' choices have decreased. It used to be near impossible to be anywhere without a cigarette being lite up. Noone is told to stop smoking entirely. I say fully enjoy your fag. I'll avoid the smoke. But there is a time and a place for everything. I've made a necessary choice. It is that or difficulty breathing.
The smoking ban has come about mostly due to employees rights not to be exposed to hazardous materials. I think the ban also came about due to the attitudes of addictive smokers not willing to curtail their habit upon request or dispose of their fag ends or butts properly when they are finished enjoying it. I think bad smokers made it bad for themselves actually. I've never smoked. Just never understood it, nor any other addiction. To each their own.

83

mwernimont,

MN. USA 17/07/2006 03:29:41

"The smoking ban has come about mostly due to employees rights..."

Well, if employees' health were really the issue; government officials would rely on Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) regulations. And the fact is that secondhand smoke, according to the American Cancer Society, is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-canc...

84

john,

Texas 17/07/2006 03:45:15

Mr. Smith should consult with Mr. Clinton, maybe he could find better use of his cigar than smoking it!

85

English Geeza,

Bromley, Kent 17/07/2006 07:59:32

Just how far are we going to let the nanny state 'sanitise' art and history?

We have Enid Blyton's Famous Five books being brought 'up to date' to make them more politically correct. Bring back Dick and Fanny!!!

What next? Jack the Ripper - the serial litter lout? Hannibal Lecter - the deep fried Mars Bar gourmet?

86

Moyasta,

17/07/2006 08:47:37

Elections to the Scottish Parliament will be held on Thursday 3rd May 2007. The Scottish voters alone (not celebrities from other countries) will decide - if the electorate wishes to elect MSPs who will overturn the smoking ban that is our right. Personally, I strongly support the smoking ban - well done MSPs!

87

Numpty Heid,

Kirkcudbright 17/07/2006 08:56:58

Fact 1. Actors pretend.
Fact 2. Churchill didn't always have his cigar lit when in public.
Fact 3. Churchill smoked.
So what?
I agree with the smoking ban but fully understand the addictive nature of smoking. I finally became free of the weed 7 years ago. Even my friends that still smoke will always say that I was the most considerate smoker they ever knew. Never at the dinner table or in the car with anyone or in front of my children or any place that I knew non-smokers to be. I always asked in the presence of strangers.
I urge anyone who goes to this play to ask Smith to 'put that fag out'! if they feel offended.
P.S. Roy, post 87. What's Phenomonia?

88

David,

Edinburgh 17/07/2006 09:16:00

Sorry, but why should it be necessary to smoke on stage? Has he not heard of 'acting'?

89

RogueMark,

17/07/2006 09:39:24

If those are offended by his smoking do not attend the show. That is called freedom of choice unlike the nanny laws that are enforced on the public at large.

Of course once no smokes any more and the taxes imposed on tobacco products dry up the government shall seek other items to tax till banned then on to the next tax till either nothing is left to tax or everything is, even the air you breath.

Seems like the government is more interested in using the police against illicit smokers while real crime is secondary. But it is always easier to go against a typical law-abiding citizen protesting a law seen as unjust than to go after hardened criminals.

90

Lynn,

Madison, Wisconsin, USA 17/07/2006 16:35:53

In answer to marcus aurelius (What's with the lack of capital letters in all of these comments? Not just the ones for this articles, but for most of the commented articles. Bad grammer.), in re #74: Keep in mind that the Twin Cities metropolitan area is significantly larger than that of Madison. Therefore, it follows logically that more hospitality establishments will have closed in the same period than will have here. For the record, only ONE bar closed due to the smoking ban, and it was on the edge before the ban went into effect. For the other bars &/or restaurants that have closed since the ban, NONE of them closed solely because of it. In fact, some of them even stated that it had nothing to do with their closures. And yes, I too have asthma. Not only that, when a informational referendum was on the ballot as to whether to enact a smoking ban here, voter turnout was higher than it had been in years, and the referendum passed with a wide majority. Don't inflict your views on us.

For Pete McClelland, #96: I believe Roy means pneumonia, which can be acquired in the southern states, even though it is thought of as a cold-weather disease.

91

Toronto Tam,

Toronto 17/07/2006 17:24:49

Response to Blaggarde,

On the contrary, my argument is still sound. While I understand that the owner/landlord or more precisely the "Publican" has the discretionary right to refuse to serve any member of the public that comes into his/her premises (my nephew was once refused another pint of Guinness in a small pub on the west coast of Ireland for "fornication", he was kissing his wife) Although the premises are privately owned they do not fall into the same category as a private club, they are open to and supported by the public.
When the smoking ban was first introduced here, some pubs tried to sell "memberships' for a nominal fee in an attempt to circumvent the law, needless to say, it did not fly. Those same businesses that tried this and who were predicting doom and gloom are still doing a trhiving business, despite the ban.
The other issue of course is that of the employees in bars, they should have the same rights to a smoke free workplace as workers in other sectors, a right that has been denied them for years.
Argument sustained!

92

Toronto Tam,

Toronto 17/07/2006 17:42:31

Reply to Willie at #66

Nice one Willie!
I could say that since Scotland is finally shaking off the influence of the wicked step-father to the south but is not quite mature enough yet to go it alone in the big bad world, she still needs the paternal interest of her cousins and uncles in N.America!!!!!!!
But I won't.
Suffice to say that I still have an interest in what transpires in "Jockland" especially when it involves smoking. I have seen many friends and relatives suffer and die as a result of their addiction to tobacco.

As to your statement below, all I can say is, that is simply a state of mind and a load of keech!!!!

The land of the oppressed, the bullied and exploited.

93

I. M.,

USA 17/07/2006 17:59:39

It's too bad that some actors are so totally lacking in talent, imagination, and creativity that they cannot even protray smoking without actually doing it. One wonders what they would do in a scene that portrayed war, crime, murder, suicide, or required the actor to appear to have lost an eye, a leg, an arm, or broken same. They are substituting talent in favor of making the audience air a toxic waste dump. Come on guys -- either you are actors, or you are not. Real actors don't need addiction crutches. And Scotland's law needs NO exemptions. Only the tobacco industry wins that round. You don't suppose these actors are working for the tobacco industry?

94

Donal McCarthy,

Cork, Ireland 17/07/2006 20:52:22

Toronto Tom,

A privately owned premises is a privately owned premises. A legal product is a legal product. Government interference is government interference.

Government interference concerning the use of a legal product in privately owned premises is either communism or fascism - take your pick. But it certainly is not democratic, violating as it does the ownership rights of private property owners.

Neither has a democratic state a right to "nationalise" the rights of private property owners in this manner, and you need look no further to find an example of new precedent and the encroachment of state control in a democracy.

Perhaps when they come around to look in your windows, you might begin to see my point.

Argument closed.

95

big white,

edin 17/07/2006 21:16:41

to all you english,american and god knows who else,,will you all just shut up about smoking,,,the revenue comming from the sales of tobaco in this country keeps the health service afloat what with the vat on cigs,,if it was,nt for us smokers your income tax would rice at least 3p in the pound,,everyone says smokers are clogging up the health service,,, bull****,,its us smokers that are funding the health service,,so stop your moaning and go out and buy a packet of fags,,...

96

John V,

Chester 17/07/2006 22:12:24

I.M. USA, these actors working for the tobacco companies? You cannot be serious. Who are you working for: Big Pharma?

97

Mike,

Pennsylvania 18/07/2006 05:16:15

Joe Jackson recently wrote a great song on the stupidity of smoking bans. It's such a geat tune. That's four things I love...Joe Jackson, Mel Smith, Winston Churchill, and a great BIG cigar!

98

mwernimont,

MN. USA 18/07/2006 14:30:46

Completely off topic folks...But as you may have noticed I haven't been commenting here much. I have instead been emailing lawmakers around the country the air quality facts which contradict the pro-smoking ban activists' lies.

Pick 10 - 20 lawmakers around the country and email a different group every day. city councils, county commissions, and state lawmakers. 20 of us emailing 20 per day means we reach 400 per day or 12,000 per month. It may give you personal satisfaction to respond to this posts....but that does nothing to inform lawmakers about the facts they don't otherwise read.

Let's get to it, we've the entire mainstream media to overcome.....and though we don't have the big pharmaceutical funding....we have the drive and determination.

Some ideas to email or mail to lawmakers:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-against-...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-canc...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/07/american-canc...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-n...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be...

Obviously there are other sources of facts, choose those that you are most comfortable with and start emailing.

Another idea, check Godshall's announcements here:

http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno.

99

Pointmade,

Glasgow 18/07/2006 22:36:27

I'm a non-smoker. I don't agree with this law. I think it is the start of something much bigger. I think there is encroachment on peoples' free choice. Yes, I do agree that where people who eat are non-smokers, then there should not be smoking allowed. Especially where young children will eat. If pubs want to serve food and procaim themselves as a smoking pub or club, then those who chose to go there do so at their own risk and choice. Also declaring a pub as a smokog pub gives people the choice. I know alot of non-smakers, myself included at one time, didn't mind sitting in a pub filled with smoke. Again, it's a choice thing. I think it's disgusting seeing people out in the streets smoking. I have to pass by and inhale the smoke from the street. I never had to do this before. It was kept inside the premises. Now babies and children going by with their parents are being exposed to smoke they don't need or want. This law is really stupid and won't help people come off fags. My son is a smoker and soon the law will change, making the legal age to smoke go up to 18. This means he won't be able to buy fags any more, or to lie about his age, or to get someone else fetch him his fags and maybe even at a cost. Also these folk out on the streets are more visible to young folk who wouldn't normally go into a pub and some think they look cool!!! Some will even go up and 'tap' them for a fag. Something they couldn't do before, because it was kept indoors. The whole thing's a bloody mess. Even in public places. I work with mentally ill people and they have a designated smoking area. If they move out of this area when smoking we're supposed to tell them not to. If they persist, as they always do, then the nurse in charge can be held accountable if there is a complaint, and liable to be fined, despite having tried to tell them. How do you prove liability? Alcohol prohibition created a massive criminal system in the US and it didn't work. More people died. Outlawing street d

100

george toot toot,

France (ex-Pat) 20/07/2006 16:00:08

I note that some people refer to "independent" sites - maybe, but they are not impartial. I too can put on line a site that proves that the moon is made of green cheese.
I have seen reports that show that passive smoking quadruples the risk of cancer.
The majority of Brits is non-smoking, why should a minority force their habit on those who disagree with them.
The term "nanny state" is often used to protect those who seek to profit from others.
To those who would force everyone to accept being a passive smoker - go and watch someone die from lung or mouth or throat cancer.

101

mwernimont,

MN. USA 22/07/2006 14:09:31

#99 Lynn states: "Keep in mind that the Twin Cities metropolitan area is significantly larger than that of Madison. Therefore, it follows logically that more hospitality establishments will have closed in the same period than will have here"

Typical pro-smoking ban activist argument.....ignore the facts that I point out and redirect.

It doesn't matter how many more hospitalty organizations closed here in the Twin Cities vs. a socialist town like Madison, WI. The point is that the smoking bans are so bad for business they forced 76 establishments to go bankrupt within a year.....while compared to the previous year when there were no smoking bans only 15 closed.

Anybody who tells you smoking bans do not financially devastate bars and restaurants are flat out lying. During public testimony here doctors, activists and other RWJF, (pharmaceutical nicotine funded) organiztions stood before lawmakers and said a smoking ban would be good for business.......they're not saying that anymore.....at least not here.

102

mwernimont,

MN. USA 22/07/2006 14:20:34

Link for proof of previous statement:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/11/updated-henne...

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm

Stay informed, keep fighting, and remember the free market is the great equalizer.....while unnecessary government action is a sign of socialist dictatorship, consider the socialist Nazi party was the first to enact a smoking ban.....and let's not forget our good comrade Fidel Castro banned smoking in all of Cuba.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.