At Last!!Smoking to GO
sonparc
Posts: 33 Forum Member
✭
The news that TV program makers will not be able to show their characters smoking is great.So many times I am enjoying watching the box when for no reason a character starts lighting up and makes me feel sick.Especially if the next thing is a snog ,how do they do it!
0
Comments
This could also limit any storylines about lung cancer though, and its better to have a programme cover the bad sides of smoking than nothing at all.
doctors say sh*t if only youd smoked we coulda done something to help you-its you people dieing from nothing that are screwed!
cigarettes contain carbon monoxide???-well, so does my car and it still f*cking runs!!!!!!
observations on being a smoker from the late great bill hicks.
I dont smoke but it dosnt bother me seeing ppl light up on screen.
Dot Cotton without a **** ! :eek:
Eastenders really is over !
If it's justified where the consequences are depicted, I don't see why smoking would not be shown on TV.
Anyone influenced by it to go out and smoke will see the consequences in the form of the warning labels that cover a lot of the packface.
Because it's a place of work and what if the other actors in the shot or the cameramen, lighting/sound engineer etc dont want to be stood there doing only shoots over and over and over in a small smokey room.
Is that the reason cited for the ban? And what if shooting takes place outside, or in a fully ventilated space?
Of course they didn't cite the concerns of Eastenders producers in the legislation.
But even outside on a studio set it's STILL a place of work and if your stood right next to or opposite a smoker being outside often makes little difference.
Its important to remember though that smoking outside is still permitted though.
Seeing smoking onscreen encourages it in real life. If people aren't affected by what they see onscreen, why do advertisers bother spending millions? Why to product placers pay to have products featured in movies?
It may be realistic to show people smoking, but it would also be realistic to show people crapping onscreen, but we don't bother showing that!
Watching Fred Elliot smoking on Coronation Street is going to make all the kids want to take up smoking fo sho.
People should be responsible for themselves. They know the facts, they can't use tv as an excuse.
Hmm...
Where did I say that?
You're saying, (I think) that watching people smoke on screen is in no way going to encourage people to smoke? If that is so (as I posted before), then why do companies encourage films to feature people using their products (including, historically, tobacco).
If I take a drink, you don't smell of it, if someone besides you smokes, you do. I'd have to throw up over you to have the same effect or throw my drink over you (and thats not likely). You wouldn't want that, would you. Imagine smoke being like sickness going over you, your attitude would change.
A bus can pass you in the high street, no problem. Someone smoking walks past you or is in front of you, you move out the way, splutter, or both.
Almost everytime someone says 'I have the right' you are taking someone else's away. You may say you can smoke where you like, but where does it say you have the right to fill someone elses lungs, mouth, hair whatever with something that has been deep inside you, your mouth twice, and back again into the aptmoshere.
Spitting in someones mouth is generally less hazardous to the recipient than spending time in a smoke filled room. Germs don't live long outside a body, smoke hangs around for others.
Part of the contents of cigarettes are used in the production of floor cleaners and nappies (ammonia). That pong from wet disposable nappies is partly caused by ammonia. And you want to smoke that!
I don't need 10 drinks or more a day, I don't need one with food or inbetween, or have to stop work every so often for a drink. Drink driving kills less road victims every year, less than 1000. Twice as many non smoking Scot's die from smoking related illness's each year than die in the entire UK from drink drivers. Killing someone whilst drunk is violent and quick, whereas smoke does it long drawn out and very painfully.
Attitude will shut more pubs, if any at all, than not being able to smoke in them. Dublin and Australia are proof that non smoking pubs don't really suffer. There are people who don't go to pubs because of smoke, now they can. People will buy an extra couple of drinks instead of cigarettes from a machine. If non smokers can drink without a cigarette, why can't everyone else.
The list is endless, almost