smoking

Hi Gordon,, You are not the only person pondering the inclusion of smoking on stage or screen. Recently the AMA attempted to gain some support for a governmental clamp down on smoking in Australian shows as they felt it had the potential to glamourise smoking and perhaps encourage people to take up the habit. The AMA proposed that any films or stage plays that depicted smoking should not be eligable for government funding. Naturally a spirited and well argued response came from Equity and actors alike protesting this proposal and the logic behind it. I have never had experience with fake cigarettes on stage so I cannot give you any opinion regarding their odour, authenticity or taste. I am also a non smoker. However, I believe that if a character has been written as a smoker or this trait is justified in a character, then smoking is a completely legitimate inclusion. Omitting smoking, in my opinion, is like omitting foul language, cultural and geographic references, or 'toning down' things like nudity, drug use or controversial subject matter just to keep the conservatives in the audience happy. Our language, clothing, habits and opinions tell the world about who we are, where we've been, what we believe in and our status in the world. If the play and the character calls for it, then light up I say! Tulipa

Yep, I think political correctness can go too far and this is one of those instances. I remember watching Peter Clark light up onstage time and again in that play where he appeared as Oscar Wilde (name escapes me - very good it was) and he looked so at home smoking away. More importantly it was part of the character so why be po-faced? Smoking was very much a feature of cultured society until the latter decades of the 20th century so what are we to do - bin all scripts depicting it or excise any mention of same?

If there is a concern that the depiction of smoking in a play may glamourise the habit, then, as Tulipa notes, we should take note of other attributes of society that are viewed unfavourably, and we would have to question the use and depiction of guns, swearing, violence, foodfights, promiscuity, alcohol and so on. If we sought to do something about this, we would end up with, in effect, content-free plays . . . depicting some weird Edenesque world that bears little resemblance to reality.

Probably a relevant warning needs to be displayed, such as when strobe lighting is used.

That particular gentleman was a Finley Adjudicator (one down three to go!) Apparently he was allergic to any kind of smoke. None of the actors in this play- and I think you're refering to "Streetcar" - actually smoke. They chose the herbal cigs because they don't have nicotine. I'm reassured that they are smoking less and there is an extraction fan in the "kitchen" area of the stage.

One further point to this is that herbal cigarettes actually taste better than they smell, an important consideration if using this on the stage :)

Of course, the difference is that smoking on stage may put the health of the performers and audience at risk - swearing and staged fighting doesn't generally do that. I'm not a smoker, don't plan to smoke, don't plan on promoting smoking even peripherally, and wouldn't write a play with smoking or perform a role that required me to smoke. But that's just me and my choice. I certainly think there needs to be prominent notice of smoking in a play if it's going to be there - both in publicity materials (small print somewhere near the number for bookings) and in the theatre foyer.

Of course, the difference is that smoking on stage may put the health of the performers and audience at risk - swearing and staged fighting doesn't generally do that. I'm not a smoker, don't plan to smoke, don't plan on promoting smoking even peripherally, and wouldn't write a play with smoking or perform a role that required me to smoke. But that's just me and my choice. I certainly think there needs to be prominent notice of smoking in a play if it's going to be there - both in publicity materials (small print somewhere near the number for bookings) and in the theatre foyer.

A warning is displayed, unfortunately it was not included in the programme. however there is a large notice clearly displayed at the ticket desk, and now a announcement is being made before the show commences.

We have managed to stage very successful seasons of "The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll" and "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" without the smoking. As Class Act traditionally has large school audiences (not lately, mind you) we have a policy of not depicting smoking on stage. Personally, I am very allergic to cigarette smoke and the latest resurgance (sp.?)of smoking onstage (I think this has happened because some venues/companies are no longer sponsored by Healthway?)has meant I have had to pass up seeing shows I would have loved to have seen. I feel it is a health issue for audiences and cast.

This is just my opinion and has no base in anything but me and my misguided view of life.... BUT.... second hand smoke takes ages (generaly speaking. I'm sure the fella who was hauled out gagging would disagree)to kill someone. I work in a smoke free building and have to go outside for a smoko. Last year I rode the elevator with a lady that tends to bathe in scent and I had to be taken to hospital because of an alergy to perfume. But that is neither here nor there. I duno any play that revolves around the fact that people are smoking. Yes, smoking adds flavor (and it tastes OH so good)to a period piece and it adds to the picture but it doesnt HAVE to be there! But if you feel like ya gotta have a butt on stage- don't light it, just wave it around. You're actors- act like you are smoking. And lord child, leave the bidis alone- they taste bad, smell bad and make your tongue numb.... and we know where THAT leads! You never know what's comin' for you.

In Agnes the Psychiatrist must chain smoke in the first act and not smoke at all in the second. The play is about obsession and her obsession is shifted from smoking to Agnes. The problem is she says so, several times. Brilliant play, when was it last done? Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

The actual disease risks from sidestream smoke are extremely low, so low as to be almost negligible. However, there are some factors that make it wothwhile minimising exposure: 1 some people are allergic (as we have seen above); 2 some people dislike the smell intensely; 3 some people develop psychosomatic symptoms; and 4 very few develop actual illnesses. Most problems with smoking in buildings arise not from smoking per se, but from lack of adequate airflow in sealed surroundings (i.e. air conditioners don't push through enough air to prevent smoke accumulation nor to disperse human-borne bugs). Part of the problem is the attribution to cigarette smoke the problems caused by generally unhealthy air. Sometimes people forget history. There was a time when the audience smoked in cinemas and theatres, and chairs were provided with ashtrays. This (and smoking in planes, workplaces and other confined spaces) should have realised a huge number of smoking-related diseases . . . but there is no historical evidence for this. If smoking is intrinsic and important to the play, then it should be occur (either real, with substitutes, or simulated). I expect, though, that in many cases, it is not necessary for maintaining the integrity of the plot, and could safely be avoided. ut

What happened to the good old fashioned unsmokeable cigs you can buy from joke stores with the shiny red stuff on the end that were simply used as a prop? They did the trick, I thought. Let's face it, for anyone who's seen a stage show involving herbal cigarettes, the smell is much stronger than normal cigarettes, to the point of being unbearable; doubly nasty when you have more than one character onstage smoking at a time. It's just unnecessary when there are safer alternatives in the fake cigarette market.

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>-/====\---------

Just as a side note I did attempt to get these ordered in from over east for a show once and I was told they were not allowed to distribute to WA - I think it was just the company but it bugged me nonetheless. I have seen many shows use these types of cigarettes and unless you are hypersensitive they do NOT create enough smoke to have a effect on the audience. I sat front row in a show a few years ago where the character lit up almost constantly throughout the show, usually near our side of the stage and the smoke rose up and disappeared pretty quickly. It's an effect like anything else. Is it going to come to the stage where on posters etc you're going to have to put disclaimers and warnings that this show depicts smoking? Honeslty people. **WARNING: This show contains strobe lighting,and fake cigarette smoke.** Stupid, much? They are non toxic, they do not produce much smoke, just enough for an effect and if you are going to be portraying a character who would smoke and you feel as a performer it would help you or if it's mentioned in a script. Smoking only became unfashionable to "scary" to the general health system and the wider community not too long ago so why not light up if you feel it is required of the script/character etc? My ten cents worth anyway. Inside every adult is the child that was and inside every child is the adult that will be. (John Connolly)

Okay, so as a smoker, I'm really not all that sensitive to smoke and I don't have a problem with it personally. However, as a theatre practitioner, I'm always aware that without the audience, we've got no reason to perform. That being the case, I need to ensure that as many audience members as possible have a 'good experience' so that a) they tell their friends and family how good it was and b) they want to come back and see what we do another time. Keeping this in mind, I look at this question of smoking and I can't help but come to the conclusion that, as an actor, why would I need to actually light up on stage, which may cause offense to a number of audience members and take away from their 'good experience'? If I played the role of an axe weilding murderer, I wouldn't actually murder anyone - I would create a character and simulate murders, trusting in my ability and the audience's suspension of disbelief to create that action as real. I can't help but view smoking on stage the same way. Why should I need to actually smoke in order to convey the emotional/physical/psychological effects of doing that? Why don't I just act, using a prop. If I felt the need to actually smoke in order to achieve my desired characterisation I think I would start to question my ability as an actor. Approaching the same question as a director, that concept of ensuring my audience has a 'good experience' resonates even more strongly. The director is far more answerable to the company should a show alienate audiences or generate complaints from audience members. None of the companies I have worked with have felt so secure in their audience that they don't need to worry about alienating them. I come from the school of thought that "You're only as good as your last show" and if the punters have a bad experience, that can turn them away for more than just the one show. So, I respect the reasoning that many people have put forward about smoking being part of a character and therefore necessary to propel the story, but for the reasons I've already said, I personally disagree with that sentiment - but that's my opinion. What I don't respect is this notion that the smoke is non-offensive or there is not enough of it to make a difference etc. Like I said earlier, personally I don't give a rats, but this thread itself has proven that different people have different sensitivities. What doesn't affect one person at all can be truly offensive to someone else. Now whether you want to take that into account or not is up to you, and who am I to tell anyone what they should/should not do, but I think it's important to at least acknowledge that the smoke may affect some people in the audience and that that could lead to a negative experience. That's my two cents anyway :) "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams

Tari-Xalyr said: >"Smoking only became unfashionable to "scary" to the general health system and the wider community not too long ago... " Several people have made similar statements, but I'm afraid I can't accept this concept as a valid argument! It used to be recommended for snakebite that you suck the poison out. People used to drive cars not fitted with seatbelts. It was once standard medical practice to cut you and drain out blood if you had a headache, acne, asthma, pneumonia, or a nosebleed! Cocaine was once dropped into the eyes of firemen because it was considered it might help them see through the smoke! Everybody used to splash on the coconut oil and lie in the Australian sun til they damaged their skin pigments enough to make them change colour. And it was once fashionable to smoke. The time frame between when these false practices were deemed 'acceptable' and when new information made us realise they were harmful is actually not relevant. The point is, they have been established as harmful. Claiming 'we used to do it because we didn't know better' is not an admissible defense, and doesn't lend any credibility to your argument. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

I don't mind smoking being banned in theatres, restuarants, planes and so on. For some people it is an unpleasant experience, and I expect they would like to enjoy their entertainment, food and travel unbothered by someone else's habit. Nor do I object if any establishment seeks a smoke-free environment. I do object to a gtovernment making this ban, and to it being banned on the grounds of health, because I repeat my claim that this basis is unfounded. You mentioned an impressive number of chemicals which fails to impress me. That is because there are an equal number of such chemicals in everything we touch and ingest. The number alone has no meaning. What is more important is how dangerous particular chemicals are, in what does, and what the passive smoker's exposure is. Quite often people refer to the '40 carcinogenic compounds' secondary smoke supposedly contains. In reality only six of those have in fact been classified as 'known human carcinogens' (1989 Report of the Surgeon General. pgs. 86-87). The bulk of the other 40 compounds show insufficient evidence of being human carcinogens and many are commonly found in foods, coffee, and the general environment (Science, 258: 261-265 (1992). The exposure of nonsmokers to the six actual human carcinogens is usually so minute as to be almost imaginary in nature and is sometimes far less than other everyday environmental exposures. Arsenic is one of the carcinogens. However, you would have to sit in a room with a smoker smoking 165,000 cigarettes to be exposed to as much arsenic as you would get from a large glass of water. Of the other five carcinogens, four (naphthylamine, aminobi-phenyl, vinyl chloride and chromium) occur in amounts even less than arsenic at an average of about fifteen nanograms each. Benzene is the sixth carcinogen. The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 Report of the Surgeon General. p.130). Estimates of smoke exposure in a fairly average indoor space suggest that a non-smoker would be exposed to roughly three tenths of a microgram. Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages, and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year. The 'safe' exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours. Here is a list of chemicals and the number of cigarettes need to reach the Chemical Permissible Exposure Limit or Threshold Limit Value in a 'small tavern': Acetaldehyde 13,500 Acetone 1,256,470 Acetonitrile 140,000 Acrolein 473 Ammonia 3751 Aniline 814,286 Arsenic 375,000 Cyanide 8,380 Formaldehyde 1317 Toluene 322,286 This makes interesting reading: http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk/downloads/mainstream-and-environmental-tobacco-smoke-gio-gori-1991.pdf

Thanks Mike, for taking the time to present a supported counter-argument. And I'm glad you think it reasonable to have smoke-free venues if people want them. However...I'm not certain how you can continue to be unconvinced about health risks? 1) I noticed the PDF text you cited at the bottom of your post was supported by the Tobacco Institute. This makes me slightly wary of facts presented by someone with an agenda. (Mind you, I concede that any facts I am likely to present are probably from sources like the Quit Campaign or Healthway, who equally have an agenda.) 2) A good deal of the scientific research in that article you referenced has been amended, refuted, or superceded...it was written 17 years ago! Its most recent reference source being 1989! Could you not find anything more up to date? I'd prefer to trust this 2009 article: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp Most of its references are no older than 2005, with the bulk of it current this year. This is the current (2009) Surgeon-General's statement about secondhand smoke (my capitals): "The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is NO RISK-FREE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack. " You said: >Quite often people refer to the '40 carcinogenic compounds' secondary smoke >supposedly contains. In reality only six of those have in fact been classified as >'known human carcinogens' (1989 Report of the Surgeon General. pgs. 86-87). But in 1993, the EPA made a report which was backed by the US Surgeon General: "The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. " Feel free to browse these references that I have checked up on, all recent: www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 http://www.nasdonline.org/docs/d001001-d001100/d001030/d001030.html http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app3partb2005.pdf (The last one runs to 526 pages, so I only recommend reading the summary at the beginning.) . While we have approached this from the viewpoint of the audience (who are admittedly only going to receive minimal exposure from any one event), we have not yet considered the other cast and crew members who are obliged to be in the vicinity of the smoke night after night. There is an increased awareness and concern about the incidence of exposure to smoke in the workplace. It has already had major effect on the hospitality industry, but extends to all other occupations, including the professional theatre industry. Workers are within their rights to demand a safe working environment. Liability insurance will soon make it a huge economic concern. The amateur theatre world is likely to escape any immediate regulations, but probably not the insurance risks, or the ability of the individual to sue for health damages. While I haven't checked up on all of your facts, I get the feeling from your out-dated evidence that you are trying to blow smoke in my eyes... Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

I was just looking at Mike Raine's list at the end, and doing the sums in my head. According to his information, if I was in a small tavern of smokers (say 250 of them who have 2 cigarettes each) and shared the smoke from only 500 cigarettes, I will be 27 cigarettes over the Chemical Permissible Exposure Limit, and have too much of the toxin Acrolein, whatever that is. Surely all of his other statistics in the list are now irrelevant, as he has already defined me as unsafely poisoned! Plus I will have absorbed 'safe' levels of all those other poisons - which is supposed to make me feel better?

theatre practitioner!

Either it's too early in the morning for my brain to function or we've had a slight miscommunication here. NOTE: We are discussing the use of fake cigarettes. The prop ones you buy in costume stores that have a smoke stick in one end and once lit will smoke for a little while without any need for a person to inhale??? Because thats the notion I got. Anyway, in reponse to Craig. I'm not justifying using cigarette's in a show by denying the harm to does to peoples health. What I'm saying is if it si something that clearly bothers the wider community then put a warning notice in the flyers - like they do for strobe lighting and the likes. Also, it was once fashionable to smoke and I will stick to my belief that if you are portraying a character in a time period where smoking was acceptable and it is something you, as an actor, feel would help you get into character then why not? It's like playing Sherlock Holmes wihtout smoking a pipe. . .it could potentially feel strange. ~ Tari Inside every adult is the child that was and inside every child is the adult that will be. (John Connolly)

No, I don't think we've miscommunicated that much...unless you didn't mean some of the things you originally said? Most of the discussion has been about the lighting up of real tobacco or herbal cigarettes. The alternative of fake cigarettes that don't light, and just pretending, was put forward. You're the only one who has mentioned there might be fake cigarettes that give off a smoke effect, and that sounds like it MAY be a compromise... although it also sounds like they may perhaps be banned for sale in WA? You then seemed to scoff at the idea of putting warnings on flyers. You were still talking about your fake-smoke cigarettes, but in the overall context of this thread that was misleading, as everyone else was discussing that procedure in terms of real smoke. I notice you have restated that position in your post above, but previously you seemed against the notion, and I felt bound to oppose you. I took issue with your concluding sentence "Smoking only became unfashionable to "scary" to the general health system and the wider community not too long ago so why not light up if you feel it is required of the script/character etc?" because it was NOT obvious that you were continuing only to speak about your 'smoke effect' cigarettes, and it was a sentiment that others had used in this thread about real cigarettes so I felt it necessary to rebuke it and all statements like it. I don't deny that smoking was once fashionable. But you were WRONG to say it merely became 'unfashionable'. It didn't just go out of fashion, like platform shoes or leg-warmers! It became NECESSARY because of a serious health risk. There's a BIG difference. And I don't know whether your final example resolves the issue, which is - to light up or not to light up? Yes, if I were playing Sherlock Holmes it would potentially feel strange to not have a pipe. It would also positively feel stranger to have particles of smoke, tar and chemicals enter my lungs and bloodstream, causing significant harm to a good portion of my body cells. Sherlock Holmes did it, so I guess it would help me get into character...or on the other hand, I could ACT. I think we've accepted that holding a pipe or cigarette facsimile and pretending to smoke can be necessary to portray a character of a certain era or type. I still haven't heard any real convincing argument for lighting one up. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Clealry my brain is off in it's own little world. My bad. I take that. Inside every adult is the child that was and inside every child is the adult that will be. (John Connolly)

All this debate about smoking is very interesting. - I am not a smoker myself BUT I am in a play where the characters have to share a joint. We planned to use herbal cigarettes but smoking on stage is prohibited in the theatre we will be performing in. The smoking can't be written out - it would mean re-writing a t least a third of the script - and it is an integral part of what informs the behaviour of the characters (it can't be substituted for alcohol - because this is already in the mix. I am very interested int eh fake cigarettes people are mentioning - Where do I find them in Australia!!!!!

Which theatre has banned smoking?

I recently put a play on called 'Death of a Murderer' at the Blue Room. The play revolved around the death of Moors murderer Myra Hindley who was a renowned chain smoker. In fact it was due to that smoking that she eventually died of lung related diseases. The actor playing Myra (Helen Angell) was aware, when she accepted the role, that the part involved smoking and, even though she didn't smoke, she was in fact an ex smoker. She was supplied with the mildest possible cigarettes and puffed away happily on stage. We put signs in the foyer and at the door to the theatre and the audience was told before the show not to sit in the front row if they felt the smoke would effect them. I guess what I'm trying to say is if the situation is well managed, if everyone is well informed ie don't tell an actor after they've got the role that they'll have to smoke, and the venue is well ventilated, I don't see a problem including smoking on stage, if it is called for. We had no complaints and the Blue Room is a small intimate venue. When I'm performing magic on stage I often do a vanishing lit cigarette trick which would be nothing without the lit cigarette.

I personally love smoking on stage. If it's in the script then it should be in the performance. The most important thing that we're all forgetting is that smoking is cool. It's always been cool, ever since the likes of Bogart and Grant took to the screen it was cool. It's cool then and it's cool now, perhaps more so now that we know what we know. It might not be good for you but that may well be precisely why it's so freakin' cool. So to everyone who wants to bitch and moan about not liking smoking on stage I say Harden the **** up. Yours faithfully Targuus Targuus.

Yeah, it's so 'cool' to promote death, disease, not taking care of yourself (as in, not caring about one's health), and generally a lack of critical thinking in what other people consider to be 'cool' or correct behaviour, or any sort of critical thinking about friends or others who promote such activities. Yep, you're so right: next time, I say stuff the future generations and let them all die from lung cancer. I say all those people who do get sick and/or die should just harden the *** up. It's so much better to be cool than to be healthy. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

Na, I couldn't agree more with you. The future generation would just stuff it up for their future generation anyway. Taking care of yourself is for squares. Go and eat your vegetables and watch knowledge programs you squares. I'll be happy being cool and hanging out with other cool people who are cool and doing cool things like smoking. But seriously though... smoking is cool, it's just the way it is and all the anti smoking campaigns do is fuel that in a way. People will just be attracted to the danger of it if nothing else and by the time they realise that the danger is real it will be all too late. Your's Faithfully, Targuus Taargus