smoking

Mike claimed: >The actual disease risks from sidestream smoke are extremely low, so low as to be almost negligible. Hi Mike. I'm going to take issue with you one again, on this new topic. Secondhand smoke has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent). Sidestream smoke poses enough of a significant health threat to warrant major procedural changes in our restaurants, pubs, & public places - often extending outside the building a certain distance from the entrance. Sidestream smoke does not pass through the filtering system most commercial cigarettes use to catch a portion of the cancer-causing chemicals discharged in their smoke. (There are 4000 chemicals identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, 250 of which are harmful, and 50 known to cause cancer..including arsenic, benzine, cadmium, and polonium...heavy metallic toxic chemicals, some of which give off known amounts of radiation) Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other evidence of secondhand smoke exposure have been found in the body fluids (blood, saliva, urine) of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke. And then there's the other environmental hazards like the acres of trees that are destroyed in the curing and drying process, and to make the papers and packaging. Yes, it's difficult to establish direct causal links between individual encounters with sidestream smoke and resultant disease. There are many governing factors, including the proximity, duration, repeated exposure, the health of the individual, etc. But it HAS been established as a contributing factor, and so the harm risks are therefore NOT negligible. Now I know you are opposed to any form of government intervention, but do you not agree that it ought to be unlawful to harm other people, even indirectly? Responding to others in this thread; it's not a valid argument to say 'second hand smoke takes ages to kill someone', or 'how on earth do they get on with car exhaust fumes out on the street..?'. The question isn't whether you actually die or not from the harm you receive; nor is it relevant to acknowledge that other things outside can also harm you. The fact is that the smoke inside onstage CAN potentially harm. The only question is, do we accept this? Someone else argued that 'tobacco is a herb..it is the smoke that causes health problems, which comes from wood fires, smoke machines...'. Just because something is a herb doesn't mean it's not toxic. Tobacco does not burn particularly well in its pure state - so cigarette tobacco is treated and enhanced with thousands of chemicals. Normal wood smoke is carcinogenic, but does not contain anywhere near the amount of toxic poisons. And 'smoke machines' are not smoke at all, but enhanced water vapour. (I don't know enough about the chemicals involved to say what kind of a risk they pose, but I am confident it is less toxins per cubic metre than cigarette smoke.) The only argument I have heard so far to justify depicting smoking onstage is that it can define the character and their status, or help represent a particular time and place in society. I don't disagree with this. But I think it's rarer that a smoking habit is the strongest or the only way to depict this status. In many plays it will be perfectly possible to convey the same things about a character without needing to include any reference to smoking. Also, showing someone smoking does not necessarily glamorize the habit...it could conceivably be used to do just the opposite and condemn it. So yes, if it REALLY is more problematic to remove the smoking from a play, it might just as well remain. But as far as actually lighting up (real or herbal) cigarettes onstage, I'm not convinced it is at all necessary or desirable. Ozzieparker suggested 'don't light it...just act like you're smoking'. And I think this is the best solution. Suspension of disbelief means that we all accept the actors are simply telling a story. We will accept that a change of lighting and the playing of a sound effect now means we are swimming in the ocean. We accept that we can travel backwards or forwards through time and geography. We accept that one minute a table can be a car, and the next minute it's a tree. We don't require that if someone shoots a gun, we need to see real bullets and blood. So when someone holds a cigarette, there's equally no real need to breathe their smoke. Give yourself more faith in suspension of disbelief, and the power of theatrical suggestion. Give the audience credit for being capable of using their imagination. And give them the respect of not subjecting them to discomfort and harm. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------