Smoking in books

[dallas]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

When deleting smoking ruins the historical perspective it's a darned shame. Neil

Bingo. Watching movies and TV shows from the 50's and 60's it is amazing how many people smoked. I remember when there were ashtrays in the factory I worked in 10 years ago. I don't notice characters who smoke so much in books, but I do come across them now and then. To remove something, even if it is "for the greater good", from a story because it is now actively discouraged or no longer considered the norm is a shame, it really detracts from the authenticity of the work.

[ProfCrash]

I could careless if characters in books smoke or not. I rarely notice if smoking is mentioned in a book when I am reading. Smoking doesn't it bothers me if I see it in a movie.

There is a great scene in The King's Speech dealing with smoking. Bertie's speech therapist removes a cigarette from his mouth during their first session. Bertie tells him that his other therapists had instructed him to smoke when speaking because it loosened the larynx (sp) and would decrease his stutter.

I laughed because it was probably actual advice given to stutterers by Doctors that would be complete BS. Would you tell a 6 year old with a stutter to smoke? And there was plenty of smoking in the movie even though a fair amount of time Bertie would end up losing his cigarette.

I don't like smoking because my Grandfather died of lung cancer, he was a heavy smoker, and my Mom is fighting lung cancer, she smoked for a couple of years 40 years ago. I don't like inhaling other peoples smoke because it smells awful and I am concerned that their choice of bad habit increasing my already elevated risk of developing lung cancer. I have seen what it does to people and it is awful.

You are free to do what you want as long as it does not hurt me. I don't fully buy that second hand smoke is as dangerous as people say it is, but I am going to error on the side of caution and say keep your smoke out of my lungs. That is not political correctness, it is self preservation.

Not to mention, it smells awful. I don't want to leave a bar smelling like smoke because it smells bad. I don't want to eat at a restaurant where I have to smell the smoke because it inhibits my ability to enjoy my meal. Just like I don't want to go to a movie and listen to the people around me talk on cell phones or with each other because their conversation inhibits my enjoyment of the movie.

[Freeshadow]

ProfCrash: it's not as much BS as you think - in fact AFAIR nicotine serves a a light muscle anaestetic by docking to their nervs ends and thus blocking the actual transmitter (acetylcholine) the perception of nicotine as a relaxant is not entirely psyche-based or imaginative.

Would you tell a 6 year old with a stutter to smoke?

No, but thats rather pointless - since there is a lot of other things too I wouldn't tell a 6 year old - like offering a coffee or a glass of wine for better digestion.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I agree with others who have commented regarding the silliness of those trying to erase smoking from history.

Who cares about smoking? What about the way they changed my childhood?!

Spielberg became more sensitive about the scene where gun-wielding federal agents threaten Elliott and his escaping friends; he digitally replaced the guns with walkie-talkies.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by screwballl

First, if I ever end up somewhere here in the US that tries to tell me I cannot smoke in a public place, outdoors, I will fight it. That is illegal and I hope the courts start to step up and fight it as a freedom.

What about freedom to enjoy smoke-free air? Who is infringing on who's "rights"?

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

What people enjoy doesn't seem to matter much when someone else decides that it's his absolute right to deprive you of that enjoyment because he disagrees with it.

I enjoy smoke-free air. But I guess that doesn't matter when someone decides it's a "right" to deprive me of the enjoyment of breathing fresh air.

[nashira]

Originally Posted by queentess

Who cares about smoking? What about the way they changed my childhood?!

...Wait they changed E.T.?!?!?!?!? What blasphemy is this?!

[Freeshadow]

well they even replaced the vader "spirit" in star wars with the younger one wich is even more stupid since obi wan remained as the aged one - kind of as much impact as the e.t. change

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by screwballl

First, if I ever end up somewhere here in the US that tries to tell me I cannot smoke in a public place, outdoors, I will fight it. That is illegal and I hope the courts start to step up and fight it as a freedom.

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

What people enjoy doesn't seem to matter much when someone else decides that it's his absolute right to deprive you of that enjoyment because he disagrees with it. Political Correctness is the DRM of society: it has no effectiveness, is a royal pain in the butt, and those who hate it ignore it.

Unfortunately (and unlike other habits that some people enjoy, others don't like, and are still permitted in public), smoking is also a health hazard, to those around smokers as well as the smokers themselves, and contributing significantly to the ill health of Americans and the high costs of our medical and support infrastructure.

So, accept it or not, there's actually a logic behind smoking bans and controls that effectively supercedes the perception of "freedom." If there were no health hazard, people would still be smoking everywhere. Let's be fair: It's not that people are purposefully taking others' freedoms away; it's a matter of public health.

[CWatkinsNash]

First of all, about ET - holy cow. Especially since the majority of people probably never gave a thought to the guns - until they were removed.

Originally Posted by queentess

What about freedom to enjoy smoke-free air? Who is infringing on who's "rights"?

I enjoy smoke-free air. But I guess that doesn't matter when someone decides it's a "right" to deprive me of the enjoyment of breathing fresh air.

I smoke, but I agree with you on this one. That's why I like what we've done locally. In Nashville there's no real distinction (legislatively) between bars and restaurants, mostly because in order to serve liquor you have to offer a minimum of food. This also means that minors can be allowed into what would, in other places, be considered bars. What they did here was pass a law stating that if you allowed those under 21 in your establishment at any time, then NO SMOKING. When the dust settled, the majority of establishments were non-smoking, but with enough places for smokers to go to make most people happy.

I'm quite happy with this solution. First of all, it protects those who can't control where their parents take them. (Thanks to my parents, I visited a lot of Maryland bars before I was old enough to walk, let alone drink.) Second, it gives people options without making anyone feel like a second-class citizen. Also, as a business person, I appreciate the fact that it gave bar owners an option too, and they were able to choose what they felt would work best for them.

Of course, being a tourist town, we will occasionally have non-smokers from other areas accidentally wander into a smoking establishment and accuse Nashville of being "backward" and uncivilized compared to other cities, and we just point across the street and recommend a place or three that they might find more pleasant. Most people aren't that brash but it happens often enough to be notable.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

There was a Dutch children's movie that won't be sold in the US for now: people smoke in it (pipe) and a child is riding a bike without a helmet...

Heh. It would be bared from children in the UK too.

[Nyssa]

I can't say whether I notice it much while reading, but I do remember being surprised by and remarking on how it seemed that everyone smoked while watching the first episode of Mad Men.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by screwballl View Post
First, if I ever end up somewhere here in the US that tries to tell me I cannot smoke in a public place, outdoors, I will fight it. That is illegal and I hope the courts start to step up and fight it as a freedom.

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy View Post
What people enjoy doesn't seem to matter much when someone else decides that it's his absolute right to deprive you of that enjoyment because he disagrees with it.

Originally Posted by queentess

What about freedom to enjoy smoke-free air? Who is infringing on who's "rights"?



I enjoy smoke-free air. But I guess that doesn't matter when someone decides it's a "right" to deprive me of the enjoyment of breathing fresh air.

I have the freedom to smoke, I choose to smoke, I have the right to smoke. By making it illegal for me to smoke in public open air, those laws therefore deprive me of my rights to life, liberty and freedom. My smoke does NOT impinge on others rights, freedoms or liberty (and impinging on life is debatable so I will not get into that). The only complaints against smoking are just that, complaints and inconveniences, not infringement of rights or freedoms.
I have a right and the freedom to smoke and live my life how I choose, however you do NOT have any right to tell me how I am to live.

Also this Wikipedia page shows there is NO state law in California about banning smoking. There are individual towns with specific laws but nothing statewide. If I was visiting or living there, I would carry around a copy of the Constitution, especially the 5th and 14th Amendments.


As a side note, I do not like but I understand the need for restricting it from certain restaurants, and I agree with the ban indoors at your workplace... but bars? Come on its ok to kill your liver but not your lungs? That has to be one of the STUPIDEST bans I have ever heard of.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by screwballl

I have the freedom to smoke, I choose to smoke, I have the right to smoke. By making it illegal for me to smoke in public open air, those laws therefore deprive me of my rights to life, liberty and freedom. My smoke does NOT impinge on others rights, freedoms or liberty (and impinging on life is debatable so I will not get into that). The only complaints against smoking are just that, complaints and inconveniences, not infringement of rights or freedoms.
I have a right and the freedom to smoke and live my life how I choose, however you do NOT have any right to tell me how I am to live.

Also this Wikipedia page shows there is NO state law in California about banning smoking. There are individual towns with specific laws but nothing statewide. If I was visiting or living there, I would carry around a copy of the Constitution, especially the 5th and 14th Amendments.

And I have the right to breath air that is not full of smoke. Smoke all the want at your home, in your car, any place where I am not. Have at it. But I should not have to inhale your cigarette, pipe, or cigar smoke. Pollute your lungs all that you want just don't pollute mine.

[screwballl]

You have the ABILITY to breathe, I have the RIGHT to smoke, it is 2 different animals.

[Freeshadow]

And I have the right to breath air that is not full of smoke.

well so either we ban fire, cars, a lot of factories and tobacco, OR nothing of it.
since everything of it makes life more convenient from the users point of view while still polluting air with smoke.