Smoking Ban

[Richie Stan]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07082006/344/mel-drop s-cigar-scene.html

Why do the media make such a fuss.

As stated a "realistic alternatives" could be used for the purposes of theatre shows. After all I am sure that most if not all the other props, clothing and set are realistic alternatives.

[Gef]

What is a realistic alternative to lighting a cigar? The ban has taken things too far.

[Richie Stan]

When actors take drugs on stage they dont really inject. And when they have sex on stage they dont really have sex. So why use real smoke.

A fake cigar, clever lighting and a smoke generator to give the impression of a smoky room, I thought these prop guys where inventive.

[ll_billym]

The fuss isn't about whether a man smokes a cigar on a stage, the fuss is about the fact that another man will lose his livelyhood if this happens.

A classic example of how well meaning and sensible laws, when enforced by anals and control freaks, are used to serve no purpose other than to, at best stop people having a good time, and at worst thrown in jail.

The point is that the only reason the theatre couldn't let the actor smoke is because it is against the law, not because it goes against the reason that the law was created in the first place, i.e. to protect public health.

Imagine the meeting of the sad suits sat around the table discussing this case "Nope, we definately can't have this actor smoke a single cigar.... it's against the law, we're going in...." And you Richie, would be sat there agreeing with every word.

[ianess]

The one really great thing that devolution in Scotland has brought is that it is now illegal to smoke in a public enclosed space. Apart from bringing relief to many non-smokers, who in general do not object to smoking as such, but who simply do not want to be forced to inhale someone else's smoke, there is another important fact that is often overlooked.
Under the Health and Safety at Work regulations which apply throughout the UK, there is a legal requirement on <everyone> not to expose anyone to anything liable to cause danger or injury to health.
In other words an actor cannot inflict carcinogenic fumes onto his audience, and likewise a publican cannot force his bar staff to breathe in secondhand smoke.
We [ie a largish minority] may not like it but the laws in theirselves are only sensible.
It really is a pity that the same effort is not put into enforcing many other laws.

[anotheoldgit]

Oh dear, oh dear what a commosion over nothing. It is frightning how far things are going down hill in this once "Land of the Free", it is getting more like Nazi Germany when the Gestapo could strike at any moment. What would good old Winston Churchill have thought? But then he was a real politician not like the "Nandy Pandy" ones we now have. It would be interesting to know the likelyhood of a member of an audience dying from a passive smoking illness brought on from an actor smoking a cigar on stage.