Don't get me confused with the people on here taking a moral stance on this. I haven't expressed one.

What I am saying is that smoking does affect you physically, and does not improve your ability to sing. To what degree this happens will clearly vary according to individual, however it still happens.

You have expressed the opposite view, and yes you are obviously entitled to whatever opinion you want on that. My point is simply that what you are saying flies in the face of all medical research. I'd therefore be very interested to read any evidence you have to back up your assertions.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's a thing to do to demonstrate how stressed you are.

Jodie Kidd used to smoke but quit 2 years ago, saying it was like having an elephant on her chest.

Famous smokers who were singers: Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole (died at 45 from lung cancer).

A famous singer and dancer who was a smoker: Sammy Davis Jr (died at 64 from throat cancer).

This is cheery in this thread.

Who's the guilt trip for?

i know..
IMO i think this tread should end now.
getting a bit to far.

All I can say is "fool you" for spending your money on cigarettes, and "thank you" for keeping my taxation lower.

On reflection, doubling the rate of taxation might actually cause people to give up, and might reduce to £10bn, meaning that non-smokers will have to make up the difference.

...and I am very well aware of the argument, expressed beautifully in a classic "Yes Minister" episode in the 1980s.

The best law this government has introduced is banning smoking in public places like pubs. I can now go out for a drink or a meal without having to suffer the stench.

Exactly. Except that raising the tax for cigarette is unlikely to make some people giving up smoking, which means even more tax revenue for the governent.

Smokers get a raw deal, though. Paying so much for something which harms them, then having to go outside in the wind and rain and cold just to have a fag. Why do they bother ? It must be the addiction.

No need for thanks. I choose to get my tobacco products from abroad so I don't have to pay the extortionate tax rates set by this government. Like I said, theyre immoral.

Its the publicans I feel sorry for; not being given an option to provide smoking and non-smoking rooms has killed the pub industry.

My local pub used to be packed to capacity during the weekends and even during the week business was good enough to get entertainment in most nights. A few fridays ago my flatmate decided to cut his night short as there were a total of 5 customers in the place. The landlord employed 2 full-time and 6 part-time members of staff up until the smoking ban; he has had to let them all go.

Its fine for people like PS to say "I can now go out for a drink or a meal without having to suffer the stench" but non-smokers are not making up the numbers lost by the smoking ban. I wish they were. The revenue lost from alcohol sales, income tax on wages and business profits is devasting to this industry.

Back on topic - Jill Halfpenny's character in Waterloo Road smoked if that counts

Just checked on Celebrity Smoking List and Jill Halfpenny has one entry only for smoking in "Waterloo Road" with no instances of her smoking in real life, so it seems likely ( but not 100% certain) that she is not/was not a smoker in real life but only smoked (pretended to smoke) for the role.

I'm a smoker, I know it isn't good for me, I try and limit the amount of fags I have.

BUT, it is no one elses business, I don't try and hawk packs of twenty from my living room and quite frankly feel as though I am being studied like an insect when daring to smoke outside. It is legal. Morals are nothing to do with it.

Good bloomin grief. Its an addiction, and one that I know is of my own making, but also damn hard to quit.

People with an issue over it, do us a favour, ask the government to ban smoking. Or even better-ask them why they don't.

It is actually wrong to blame the smoker. The tobacco companies and the government are the real villains of the piece. Why are tobacco companies allowed to put ammonia into cigarette tobacco specifically to make the brain absorb more nicotine to make cigarettes MORE addictive than natural tobacco ?

Also, why are tobacco companies allowed to use cheap phosphate fertiliser to grow tobacco, saturating cigarettes with radioactive Polonium, which is thought to be responsible for 90 % of all cancers caused by smoking; when the government could ban the cheap phosphate fertiliser and require that all tobacco is grown by organic methods ?

Smokers have less choice than any other consumer group as far as the product is concerned. All they can choose is if their cigarettes are low, middle or high tar. They cannot choose to have cigarettes without additives, or organic cigarettes unless they make a lot of effort to find safer tobacco.

If a smoker goes to their local shop, their only choice is over the brand. Also, smokers get no info about the radioactive yield of the cigarette they are about to smoke. They only get info about tar and nicotine. (BTW, the filters do nothing to cut down the exposure to radioactive Polonium, they only cut down on the tar inhaled.)

So, basically, the average smoker gets a lousy deal, forced to use a product that is not as safe as it could be made to be, to pay a lot in tax, and then to be derided.

It's true that quite a few dancers - professional and amateur - smoke, although of course with the current laws in place, they cannot do so in any dance studio.

I've nothing against people smoking - if that's what they want to do, that's their business. But not when it interferes with other people.

We were at a particular competition where number of smokers - mainly among supporters - was exceptionally high.

Unfortunately, air conditioning was non-existent; dancers use a lot of oxygen when dancing competitively, and, unlike Strictly with just one couple on the floor at a time, there can be upwards of a dozen couples at the same time, so 'air' quickly gets used up.

On this occasion the fact so many people were smoking compounded the problem - 7 dancers collapsed with asthma attacks - 2 being taken to hospital. [Smoking was subsequently banned at this comp].

Oh, well, if people are getting drunk and attacking NHS staff then nothing else matters

I think the excess medical cost is untrue. Maybe whilst they are alive, smokers cost more to care for, but the money is eventually recouped (and more) because they die so many years earlier. That said, Alistair Cooke smoked like a chimney and lived to age 95, but still, the average smoker's lifespan is shorter, and the shorter lifespans save the NHS money.

More on topic -- I wish I could remember where I read this but I know I did because it shocked me -- some blogger said they saw Gethin Jones once and he was smoking! I thought to myself -- Aha! He's got a wild side! Who would have thunk it? I imagine being on Blue Peter made him take extra pains to hide it.

Loads of dancers smoke - maybe most of them?, even ballet dancers, which really shocks me because that's such a brutally demanding form of dance. I think when you're young it doesn't hurt your athletic performance much. But it pollutes the earth's atmosphere, so I do think it's immoral, but then I think bonfires and fireplaces are too (unless you're so poor you can't afford a cleaner source of heat), so I guess I'm a bit extreme on the subject.

Not quite as wild as Richard Bacon though eh?

I hope none of your electricity comes from a coal fired power station then...