Murder (Smoking) on the Dancefloor

[ducasi]

The default position is no whistling. There is never any question about whistling until a whistler comes along. Therefore, it must be the whistler who seeks a licence from all others present as to whether she can whistle. One vote no settles the question.

I hate whistling!

[ducasi]

To that extent, I see it as being rather jobsworth.

I see it as enforcing the law.

[straycat]

I hate whistling!

()

[ducasi]

()

[straycat]

?

[ducasi]

?

[straycat]

!

[ducasi]

!

[Dreadful Scathe]

The object of the law is to protect people in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoking. I don't see that preventing performers from smoking is going to have any affect on the health of the employees of the theatre, and patrons may simply not attend if they so wish.

To that extent, I see it as being rather jobsworth.

What he said he was going to do is illegal. How is it "jobsworth" to complain about that? Are there any other illegal things that would be acceptable on stage do you think ?

Its the attitude of "patrons may simply not attend if they so wish" that brought about the law in the first place. Sure its true, but its unacceptable.

Everyone I know, including all the smokers, love the new uncontaminated air we get indoors now. Maybe there are some that dont like it, havent heard of any so far!

[Barry Shnikov]

What about people attending the theatre (esp. in the front row?) Are you going to stick a 'performers will be smoking' warning on all the advertising, so people know to stay away?

They're going to get serious diseases (or indeed, any diseases) due to second-hand smoke after one visit to the theatre?

The threat may sound a bit daft, but it also sounds daft that Mr Smith couldn't just refrain from lighting the cigar - I seriously doubt that would have done any harm to the performance.

In many cases, I would probably agree with you. And if the actor playing Churchill was a non-smoker, then the director would be in difficulty. But I think that the play is the thing, and absent serious threats to health - which I say are not to be found here - threatening sturm und drang is unnecessary.

What if somebody was making a film of, I don't know, coal miners in the 1960s. Should the technical staff be able to bring the production to a halt unless the director agrees there is to be no smoking, no matter how unreal that would make the film?

[Barry Shnikov]

The default position is no whistling. There is never any question about whistling until a whistler comes along. Therefore, it must be the whistler who seeks a licence from all others present as to whether she can whistle. One vote no settles the question.

Wow. Well that certainly destroyed my argument on smoking, and no question!

Strewth, what a debater!

[Barry Shnikov]

What he said he was going to do is illegal. How is it "jobsworth" to complain about that? Are there any other illegal things that would be acceptable on stage do you think ?

Its the attitude of "patrons may simply not attend if they so wish" that brought about the law in the first place. Sure its true, but its unacceptable.

Everyone I know, including all the smokers, love the new uncontaminated air we get indoors now. Maybe there are some that dont like it, havent heard of any so far!

I'm complaining about the attitude being jobsworth. Smoking isn't illegal; smoking in workplaces is illegal. You can smoke immediately outside the theatre, and anyone in the queue would have absolutely no right to complain.

I don't know the wording of the statute, but if it was designed to prevent smoking as part of an actor's performance, then so much the stupider those who framed the law.

And the law is not about protecting patrons (at least, as I understand it) of entertainment venues, it is about protecting the employees. My point about patrons is that either you want to see a portrayal of a man who was in inveterate chain smoker of cigars, or you want to see something else.

[straycat]

They're going to get serious diseases (or indeed, any diseases) due to second-hand smoke after one visit to the theatre?

They may actually detest the smell of cigar smoke. I certainly do, and did even when I smoked ciggies. Makes me feel sick.

[ducasi]

What if somebody was making a film of, I don't know, coal miners in the 1960s. Should the technical staff be able to bring the production to a halt unless the director agrees there is to be no smoking, no matter how unreal that would make the film?

Yes, and if they don't the police and local council (as first line enforcers) will.

I don't know the wording of the statute, but if it was designed to prevent smoking as part of an actor's performance, then so much the stupider those who framed the law.

It deliberately does not exclude acting. There are legal alternatives – filming outside, or using fake cigarettes.

And the law is not about protecting patrons (at least, as I understand it)

The law is there to protect anyone who would otherwise have to put up with second-hand smoke.

[ShinyWeeStar]

They may actually detest the smell of cigar smoke. I certainly do, and did even when I smoked ciggies. Makes me feel sick.

Funny, I'm the other way around. I hate cigarette smoke, but don't mind the smell of cigars...

The default position is no whistling. There is never any question about whistling until a whistler comes along. Therefore, it must be the whistler who seeks a licence from all others present as to whether she can whistle. One vote no settles the question.

Great analogy!

The law is there to protect anyone who would otherwise have to put up with second-hand smoke.

Like I said, I hate cigarette smoke; both having to breathe it in and the smell of it. So many places are so much the better for banning smoking and I haven't heard all that many smokers complain. I was out for dinner recently with a group of smokers/recent quitters who all commented on how much nicer the air inside is and that it's helping them to cut down or stay off the cigarettes.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm complaining about the attitude being jobsworth. Smoking isn't illegal; smoking in workplaces is illegal.

No, smoking in ANY enclosed public space is. That even includes bus shelters.

I don't know the wording of the statute, but if it was designed to prevent smoking as part of an actor's performance, then so much the stupider those who framed the law.

It was designed to improve the health of the nation, it just happens to prevent actors smoking as part of that.

And the law is not about protecting patrons (at least, as I understand it) of entertainment venues, it is about protecting the employees. My point about patrons is that either you want to see a portrayal of a man who was in inveterate chain smoker of cigars, or you want to see something else.

Indeed and whats to stop the actor pretending to smoke? He would no doubt pretend to beat up his wife, shoot up heroin, plant a bomb if the play/show required it - anything else it taking it a little too far

[Barry Shnikov]

They may actually detest the smell of cigar smoke. I certainly do, and did even when I smoked ciggies. Makes me feel sick.

...then don't go!!

See a play about Mother Teresa instead.

[Barry Shnikov]

Great analogy!

...why? Noise is part of the natural environment. Cigarette smoke isn't. If he was talking about libraries, e.g., that would be different.

[Barry Shnikov]

No, smoking in ANY enclosed public space is. That even includes bus shelters.

It would appear that the Scottish law may be different from the one planned here.

It was designed to improve the health of the nation, it just happens to prevent actors smoking as part of that.

I'm in favour of that design, and I am especially in favour of making pubs, restaurants and so forth like cinemas - places you can go to without feeling sick and having your eyes water. I'm not sure that preventing what might be considered 'legitimate' use of smoking as part of theatrical performances is 'proportionate'.

Indeed and whats to stop the actor pretending to smoke? He would no doubt pretend to beat up his wife, shoot up heroin, plant a bomb if the play/show required it - anything else it taking it a little too far

If there are ways of faking the smoking, then I'm all in favour of it. Anyone who can come up with a realistic fake cigar would be genius!
One day, of course, there are going to be hardly any actors who smoke. So artificial props will be an absolute necessity.

[straycat]

...then don't go!!

See a play about Mother Teresa instead.

Way ahead of you. Already offloaded the tickets
Will start writing the Mother Teresa play tomorrow.