May contain adult scenes....

[davem]

Looks like Liverpool City Council may ban under 18's from seeing films showing smoking, So if you live there you may have to travel to see any (3D??) re-releases of LotR, or the Hobbit movies if they include the old pipeweed....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-smoking.html

[Lush]

How about: "Kids can't watch sci fi movies, because some of them might actually be tempted to make a rocket in their backyard for the purposes of blasting off to hang out with Vulcans."

I'm just glad that the Liverpool council is looking out for everyone's well-being, because everyone knows that young adults simply mindlessly replicate whatever it is they see on a large enough screen.

[Inziladun]

Utterly ridiculous. There are perfectly valid reasons to avoid PJ's movies without resorting to rubbish like this.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

There are perfectly valid reasons to avoid PJ's movies without resorting to rubbish like this

Of course, Ian McKellan may be behind this move.
Remember, he wanted Gandalf to be chewing some sort of candy
because he'd given up smoking.

[Elmo]

I'm surprised they included any smoking in the films in the first place to be fair.

[wilwarin538]

Originally Posted by Elmo

I'm surprised they included any smoking in the films in the first place to be fair.

Why? It's talked about pretty frequently in the books. Though, so was Bombadil and he lacked an appearance. (yes, I am still sour about that one)

I don't think it's that big deal, cause it's a pipe, it isn't like the hobbits are there with a modern day cigarette or a joint or something. I have a hard time picturing teenagers going to get themselves a pipe because Gandalf did it. Not really that cool...

[Rumil]

Hmm,

pipe-smoking obviously dangerous to depict on film, but beheadings and mutilation are apparently fine.

The Scouser councillors would do better spending their time down in Toxteth stopping kids illegally buying fags and drugs and booze I reckon.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Boy am I ever relieved that this thread is merely about smoking...


Here's an idea. How about parents, who actually know their kids' temperaments and tastes, decide what's okay for their individual children to watch and talk over any issues that arise from that with said kids? I know, asking mom and dad to take an active role in the upbringing of their own offspring is kind of a stretch...but really, now, surely the human race is ready for this step.

Kids/teens/young adults are smarter and stronger than their parents' generations give them credit for being. Sheltering isn't necessary. Trust, understanding, and open channels of conversation are. But what do I know? I'm just some college kid.

I think that the merits of TH and LOTR far outweigh the smoking nonsense. There are lessons there about friendship, bravery, respect, pity, perseverance, hope, the potential of everyone, no matter how small/ordinary, etc. that are far more beneficial than a few scenes of Gandalf and some Hobbits and Dwarves smoking are harmful.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

I think that the merits of TH and LOTR far outweigh the smoking nonsense. There are lessons there about friendship, bravery, respect, pity, perseverance, hope, the potential of everyone, no matter how small/ordinary, etc. that are far more beneficial than a few scenes of Gandalf and some Hobbits and Dwarves smoking are harmful.

But don't you know the hypocrits are having a problem in here....?

And anyway; if it is okay that the females are just butterflies on the wall while men are the action heroes, why wouldn't smoking a pipeful be as fine as well? Those are both remnants of the old culture anyway... So why are we discussing this?

PS: okay, I see davem's point in making a ridicule of that Liverpool -decision... but even more so: what's the problem with our time? Smoking a pipe is bad and should not be shown while in the world bad things actually happen...

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And anyway; if it is okay that the females are just butterflies on the wall while men are the action heroes, why wouldn't smoking a pipeful be as fine as well? Those are both remnants of the old culture anyway... So why are we discussing this? :rolleyes

I don't see the females that way in Tolkien. Luthien, Galadriel, and Eowyn all had very important and prominent roles. So, what if they weren't renowned sword-swingers?

I don't see Tolkien as having to contrive some kind of "Tomb Raider" character just to appeal to future generations who think an Angelina Jolie really could slay men by the dozens.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lush

How about: "Kids can't watch sci fi movies, because some of them might actually be tempted to make a rocket in their backyard for the purposes of blasting off to hang out with Vulcans."

I'm just glad that the Liverpool council is looking out for everyone's well-being, because everyone knows that young adults simply mindlessly replicate whatever it is they see on a large enough screen.

Ah, yes, the Nanny State: total bliss is always just one more regulation away.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

Boy am I ever relieved that this thread is merely about smoking...


Here's an idea. How about parents, who actually know their kids' temperaments and tastes, decide what's okay for their individual children to watch and talk over any issues that arise from that with said kids? I know, asking mom and dad to take an active role in the upbringing of their own offspring is kind of a stretch...but really, now, surely the human race is ready for this step.
ul.

but the government knows what's good for us better than we do!... hence the mess here in the U.S. too much intervention seriously government go away.

Seriously Violence is Ok but Smoking is bannable?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Seriously Violence is Ok but Smoking is bannable?

I think the classic comparison is that there is no problem in showing violence to kids, but sex or erotical content, nearness, love, touching other people gently? No that's bad influence unlike violence...

But yes, smoking is a good opponent as well.

[Morsul the Dark]

Of course... the creation of life is dirty... the destruction of it is OK...


Lillylivers in Liverpool

[davem]

Its clearly a much bigger issue than may at first appear, & I think GK Chesterton (a great influence on Tolkien) has a good point:

Incidentally, I must say I can bear witness to this queer taboo about tobacco. Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars; a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure. But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking. I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon; there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it) was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened suddenly and silently and declined in a very cold voice. He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable. The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly; then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile: `Well, Mr. Chesterton, I'm afraid I have the habit.'

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had no `standard of abstract right or wrong'; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. http://ja-jp.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=104341909445

[Morthoron]

"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Rudyard Kipling

Ah, puritanical revisionism, the innate need for certain folk to impress their missionary zeal on the public! Amusingly, they do not mention prohibiting teens from watching beheadings with swords or gun-toting maniacs spraying crowds with bullets. Even more interstingly, I did not notice a cultural phenomenon such as masses of teens smoking tobacco in pipes after the release of the LotR movies. Perhaps it is because the tobacco companies did not market clay pipes, churchwardens, calabashes or Meerschaums to the teen demographic. They obviously missed out on a product tie-in bonanza.

I still have a churchwarden with a twelve-inch stem I bought in my teens (during the era when pipes were used to smoke anything but tobacco in). I haven't used it for decades, but it looks good on the mantle.

Ummm...what were we talking about again?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Of course... the creation of life is dirty... the destruction of it is OK...

I'm convinced, and have been for a while, that people who equate violence to sex are comparing apples to oranges.

Violence is much easier to explain to children and for them to understand, especially when one views it in terms of self-defense. That's one of the reasons we take children to martial arts class, isn't it? I have four children, and I tell them all of the time that "It's wrong to start a fight, but you're nobody's punching bag, either."

Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So it's an idea being considered. Who would have thought that Daily Mail readers need their daily fix of teeth-gnashing,

Children are highly restricted in most aspects of life anyway; what matter if they're denied a couple of extra films? They'll still have many things to complain about.

[davem]

There's anoher article about the controversy here - which adds nothing new but is worth linking to because of the author's name http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDisci...smoking-films/

[Lush]

Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature.

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I have four children, ...

You too? I didn't think that such insanity was that common.

Anyway, I have yet another reason to ban the viewing of Peter Jackson's LotR (besides the obvious murder of Gandalf's character in RotK...). This would extend to the books as well, but who reads anymore?

But what about mushrooms? Tolkien clearly does not warn readers that most mushrooms found in the wild, regardless of what they are served with, if eaten are deadly.

How irresponsible of Jackson and Tolkien.

Then, regarding the films, besides 'smoke' there are fireworks. Do you know how many children lose fingers or experience serious burns due to these devices which Jackson treats as nothing more than plot devices (actually, I don't know, and was hoping someone could do the leg work on that)?

Anyway, seriously, it's my job as my children's parent to keep them safe. If I screw that up, it's obviously going to weed my genes out of the pool. My kids know that smoking is bad, and yet they've watched all three movies. My kids know that their grandfather died due to too much smoke. No Wizard or Hobbit is going to change their minds on that one.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Anyway, seriously, it's my job as my children's parent to keep them safe. If I screw that up, it's obviously going to weed my genes out of the pool. My kids know that smoking is bad, and yet they've watched all three movies. My kids know that their grandfather died due to too much smoke. No Wizard or Hobbit is going to change their minds on that one.

I'm reminded of CS Lewis words

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

These councillors are exactly that - moral busybodies (though as yet not quite omnipotent). Smoking is harmful, but, as Chesterton pointed out, it is not immoral, & certainly not illegal for adults. Therefore banning children from seeing adults smoking in a film seems just wrong. As others have pointed out, the kids (though actually we're talking about anyone under the age of 18 here!) will be able to see many other things in films which are far more dangerous. And it seems to me therefore that the councillors are actually indulging in a moral crusade against tobacco - otherwise they would ban under 18's from seeing anything that was in any way potentially dangerous. I think Chesterton got it right - Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. - nasty, smelly, dirty, dangerous & expensive yes, but morally wrong - no. What would worry me, though- if I lived in the city - is what would they target next if they get away with this one? 'unacceptable' images tend to go first, then 'unacceptable' ideas tend to follow. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions .....

[Hakon]

I am surprised that what I am about to say has yet to be mentioned yet. Weather this happens or not the kids will still see people smoking. These kids could have parents who smoke or they could just see someone on the street who is smoking. Preventing them from seeing it in movies is not preventing them from seeing it at all.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

I still disagree to an extent. Now that I'm 40, I realize that when I was 18 I knew only two things about life, and one of them was jack.

Even at 18, those who know what love really is are so few as to be practically negligible. And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

In any event, I still say that violence and sex are apples and oranges.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hakon

Preventing them from seeing it in movies is not preventing them from seeing it at all.

No - but the point is that the councillors seem to believe they have a right (actually, no, its worse than that, an obligation) to control what people see, & probably also what they experience. Actually, they are elected to make sure the bins get emptied & the street lighting works, not to be the 'moral guardians' of the whole city.

Can't help thinking about the episode in Lorien between Sam & Galdriel: "I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights... You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work."

"I would," Galadriel tells Sam. "That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!"

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

Less harm than violence whether justified or not. And loving, committed sexual content less harmful still. More embarrassing to explain but very young children are probably just going to say eww!

I was amazed at how many very young children were taken to see the LOTR films in the cinema. Personally I though it was irresponsible but I wasn't going to be the one coping with the nightmares.

Yes care should be taken about what children are exposed to especially in films/ on tv - books are to an extent "safer" because a child is less likely to have the capacity to read something that is much too old for it. The decision on what should not be based on parental prudishness - kids who live in the country are going to work it out soon enough - even if you throw the TV away. Eventually they will work out that those bullocks are not playing piggy back.

Noone is going to suggest swapping the telly tubbies for Antichrist but it seems bizarre to me that very mild sex scenes or nudity even in a non sexual context is seen as more damaging than violence. A lot of violence and sex in films is gratuitous and forgets that what is suggested is often more scary or erotic than that which is shown but if they are "apples and oranges" then the violence is worse. If you take a film such as Peter Weir's Witness where scenes of sex and violence are used in a way that is essential to the plot, is it really the tender. beautifully and discreetly shot love scenes that are going to be hard to explain and potentially damaging, or the murder and shoot out?

[Lush]

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

As someone who's done it enough times without any love whatsoever, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you there. I'd like to teach my brother (and any future children) that it's certainly a good thing to be in love, but that it doesn't always happen that way and that there isn't anything inherently wrong about that, as long as you're not being a total idiot. Such is life. In fact, sometimes love hurts us way more than any casual relationship. So better get into it with eyes wide open.

On the other hand, as someone who's also experienced very serious violence, I think that it was way more damaging than any casual fling. That's why I find violence in movies - while stylistically gorgeous at times - a way more complicated issue than sex, for a kid in particular. Not that I think they mindlessly replicate that stuff either.

I think that something like smoking, on the other hand, while harmful to the body, is much more of a conscious issue, you know? It's not nearly as primal as any of this other stuff (am not saying that sex and violence are totally primal, of course). That's why I don't fret if my brother watches a scene with smoking. I fret way more when it's one of his friends smoking on the balcony and encouraging him to join in.

[Andsigil]

Mith and Lush,

I haven't been comparing the damage of sex and the damage of violence with each other. That is your own construct.

My original intent was to point out that violence is easier to explain to the young than sex. I've been involved in occupations based on force and violence for a long part of my life, and I also find that, outside of purely malevolent circles, violence can be somewhat self-policing because, on a personal level, it hurts and it's scary. Bedding someone is much easier because it involves physical pleasure.

In any event, while violence is prevalent in the media, sex is positively ubiquitous. One doesn't have to focus on love scenes in films, tasteful or not, with things like MTV being broadcasted 24/7.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

[Lush]

Mm. Bedding. Have always liked that expression.

My original intent was to point out that violence is easier to explain to the young than sex.

I've had the opposite experience, I must say.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

And it seems to me therefore that the councillors are actually indulging in a moral crusade against tobacco - otherwise they would ban under 18's from seeing anything that was in any way potentially dangerous. I think Chesterton got it right - Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. - nasty, smelly, dirty, dangerous & expensive yes, but morally wrong - no. What would worry me, though- if I lived in the city - is what would they target next if they get away with this one? 'unacceptable' images tend to go first, then 'unacceptable' ideas tend to follow. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions .....

I think political decisions like this one is best understood in term of economics, although morality also is a factor. The reasoning is that kids who watch cool people smoke on a big screen associate smoking with being cool, and then pick up the habit to be like their role-model. If more kids start smoking, more of them also carry on with the habit as grown ups and more go on to develop life-threatening smoking-related diseases statistically. And this consists of a loss for the state/city council, both in a pure monetary sense and in terms of political achievement, as saving lives (statistically) is a good thing from the perspective of the democratically elected government. Therefore the state/city council will want to implement regulations they think will stop young kids from smoking (or adults from doing all the things they are dying to do but is deemed harmful).

Whereas Johnny Depp might get kids into smoking fags, Gandalf probably won't, but bureaucratic regulations can't distinguish between such subtleties.

Still, we live in democratic societies, and if the voting public thinks that these regulations are a threat to their personal freedom rather than a good way of saving lives they would not vote for the political party who wants to implement them. Here we can talk about morality. Watching violence for entertainment in movies is okay but smoking (or sex) is not. But the moral judgement comes from the voting public I believe, and not from the politicians (although they can try to influence the former). The question is: do you want to make your own decisions, or do you prefer to relinquish this responsibility to the state/city council? Many people these days seem to prefer the latter and that is why more and more details in ours lives are being monitored, regulated and controlled.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The reasoning is that kids who watch cool people smoke on a big screen associate smoking with being cool, and then pick up the habit to be like their role-model. If more kids start smoking, more of them also carry on with the habit as grown ups and more go on to develop life-threatening smoking-related diseases statistically. And this consists of a loss for the state/city council, both in a pure monetary sense and in terms of political achievement, as saving lives (statistically) is a good thing from the perspective of the democratically elected government. Whereas Johnny Depp might get kids into smoking fags, Gandalf probably won't, but bureaucratic regulations can't distinguish between such subtleties.

The lifelong cynic in me is generally unwilling to grant those wishing to exercise such authority any altruistic motivations when it come to things like this. They may say that's where they're coming from in order to justify it, but do statistics really indicate children learn to smoke by watching people do it in movies?
From my own experience it seems teenagers mostly pick up the habit because their friends do it, and the friends usually had parents who smoked. It doesn't appear to me watching a movie character smoke during the film has much of an influence. It never did for me, at any rate, and the war on smoking was not even in full force when I was a child. I remember buying candy cigarettes from the store. I had a friend or two that smoked cigarettes in my teenage years, but most of my exposure to it was at home. I had a grandfather who smoked cigarettes, and my father has been a pipe smoker as long as I can remember. Had I chosen to pick up the habit, I believe pipe smoking is what it would have been.
My wife was a smoker when we met, though she later quit. She says her associates were the most influential factor in her starting.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The lifelong cynic in me is generally unwilling to grant those wishing to exercise such authority any altruistic motivations when it come to things like this.

Agreed. That's why I said the issue is better understood in terms of economics (self-interest basically) than in terms of morality.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

They may say that's where they're coming from in order to justify it, but do statistics really indicate children learn to smoke by watching people do it in movies?

Personally I'm convinced they do, to a degree. Now I don't smoke (much) but when I started in my teens the main reason was social I think, trying to build a self-image I was happy with. Images from movies, music videos etc. probably played a major part influencing me. Friends, parents, idols did so too.

But if that justifies censorship is an altogether different question. I certainly don't think so. If we can't make our own life decisions, life's quite pointless.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I still have a churchwarden with a twelve-inch stem I bought in my teens (during the era when pipes were used to smoke anything but tobacco in). I haven't used it for decades, but it looks good on the mantle.

Ummm...what were we talking about again?

Decades, eh?

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I think political decisions like this one is best understood in term of economics, .

That equation doesn't work for me, as smoking is very heavily taxed. Given that most smokers don't die until they are past 70 - if you smoked a pack a day for 50 years then the govt would have picked up at least 50,000 pounds in tax. Not all smokers actually die of smoking related diseases anyway.

Driving can be bad for you too ... lots of people die on the roads every year - and children aren't allowed to drive anyway, so clearly (using the same logic) all movies showing people driving should be banned to stop children from being influenced to drive.

The fact that one standard is applied to the depiction of smoking ... and a different standard applied to the depiction of other harmful activities. This just shows that this is a "moral" issue as far as the do-gooders are considered. They clearly think that smoking is not only potentially life-shortening but that it is an "evil" that should be stamped out.

However, a double standard applies. Smoking will never be banned as long as the government can reap enormous taxes from the sale of tobacco. Yes, the same government that tells us how perfectly dreadful smoking is.

If it's really that bad (and I'm not saying that it isn't) - then just ban it. All of the moral handwringing about a legal activity is just .... repellent. Screwtape would be proud.

[skip spence]

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly. I might have erred with the terminology as well. Unless I'm mistaken, all economic theory is based on the supposition that all players act in what they deem as their own best interest. What I mean by economic terms as opposed to moralistic terms, is therefore not only the money-factor but also that the politicians who decide on smoking policies make a more or less rational assessment based on which action they think serves their party, and more importantly themselves, best.

Oh man, I have to run, will explain later...

[alatar]

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine. Most smokers are respectful of my air space. My only gripe is the disposal of the cigarette butts, which, for some reason, unlike any other piece of trash/rubbish, can, and seemingly MUST! be thrown on the ground/in the gutter.

Please be a little more responsible...You smokers do realize that your DNA is easily recovered from the spent cigarette, don't you? Welcome to your country's DNA database.

Anyway, I'm not sure why this product is singled out so in movies, especially in a movie trilogy like LotR, where it's all fantasy. Not sure if my kids, when they watched Bilbo and Gandalf puffing away, understood that pipeweed exists in their world as well as in Middle Earth. The characters in ME have and use weapons, drink ale and wine, overeat, suggest cannibalism, murder (even children), pillage, don't practice oral hygiene, etc - a multitude of sins, poor choices, unhealthy habits and bad behaviour.

And some smoke!

What I find annoying is, like many have said, why, if the product is so bad for health, it remains legal. Actually, the real question is how anyone can say with a straight face why it is so bad and yet so legal.

What a deal! Heavily tax a physically addictive substance, pretend to ban the advertising of it (thereby making it more exclusive), subsidize its production, and cry over its cost to the health system. When you're having this much fun, you know that government is involved...

Why not allow people to make their own choices, and also be responsible for their own actions? A life insurance company, knowing that tobacco users have better odds of 'cashing in,' increase premiums for users. If you want to smoke - fine - but it may cost you more, but that's your thing.

An aside: The other night we're driving home on a larger four lane highway. We're driving with traffic, and so traveling at about 50 mph (80 kph). It's getting darker. There's a motorcyclist in front of me, and the guy isn't wearing a helmet, but that's his choice.

Anyway, he slowed a bit, and pulled somewhat to the side of his lane, yet maintained speed and continued along. Me, wanting to get away from this organ donor in training, passed him on his left. When we came level with him, his odd behaviour was now explained.

He was using his left hand to text on his cell phone!

Gandalf and Bilbo smoked, but they also showed wisdom.

If only we could ban stupidity...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I've no time for a lengthy reply now but firstly, I think you misunderstood me slightly.

Perhaps, but only slightly. Even so, it doesn't matter how the ill-effects of smoking are evaluated ... the fact remains that smoking is still legally permitted and yet morally disapproved - by the same authorities who permit it.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can understand people's anger, for and against, tobacco use. I personally don't use, and will avoid another's smoke as much as possible, but, that said, couldn't care less if people smoke. It's their issue, not mine.

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish - they are often expected to smoke outside in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

I don't smoke either, nor have I ever taken up the habit. I agree that smokers could dispose of their rubbish better - but the same is true of those who drink Coca Cola or eat at McDonalds etc.

I disagree. I don't have a scientific study to back up what I write, so you'll just have to believe me.

My one point of evidence is my neighbor who throws his cigarette butts in his own yard. I've seen him with other non-edible consumables, but not *one* of these other items has ever hit the grass. Every evening, though, there's one more butt on the lawn.

He lives upwind, and it smolders...

In some cases it must be noted that smokers do not always have a place to dispose of their rubbish

I hard trouble reading this through my tears...can't we have some kind of fundraiser?

...they are often expected to smoke outside

I use this to teach my kids what addiction means:

"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away.

That's addiction."

in a designated area that has no rubbish disposal because some bureaucrat has decided that "smokers bins" would be unsightly, undesirable or immoral. The excuse used would be such bins would "encourage smoking". Naturally, not providing bins further stigmatises smokers and their "dirty habit".

I could upload a picture of all of the butts outside of the bins. And we would need to install them on the doors of cars as well.

As I said ... I don't smoke ... but I don't like busy-bodies either. I see no problem in designating that most places be "smoke-free" but on the other hand I don't understand why no places can be "smoke-friendly", as seems to be the trend in most countries.

Agreed. Smoke'em if you got em, or not if you rather not. But don't blame Gandalf for it.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by alatar

I use this to teach my kids what addiction means:

"See those people standing over there by the doorway. It's forty below (an easy temp for both ºF and ºC fans), and yet they're out there, puffing away.

That's addiction."

My husband has been saying the same thing for years. He calls them "smoking exiles." He also counts the number of cars with a single occupant while he's on the bus for the morning commute, and about 70 percent of them have drivers who are smoking. As I'm allergic to tobacco smoke (and haven't been able to stand the smell of smoke since I was a little kid), I'm going to be quite happy in about a year when our state's ban on all public smoking goes into effect. The guy who was hanging his butt out his car's window and flicking his ashes into ours yesterday evening just made me that much more eager for the ban to start.

That said, I've known a lot of smokers in my life (in my mother's family, it was apparently a required practice of the family religion, drinking. I was considered a freak for wanting to do neither). I don't really care if people want to smoke, but I do want them to keep their smoke to themselves, which they can't do. Therein lies the rub. My friends who smoked were very polite about it, long before it was fashionable (or required). But I did notice one thing among them: most of the people who were exclusively pipe smokers could take it or leave it. They smoked only occasionally, and when some needed to quit because of their health, they had no trouble doing so. Not so for cigarette smokers. Now, maybe I just happen to know a remarkable bunch of people, but I've long wondered if there's a manufacturing difference between the two. Wouldn't surprise me.

I disliked smoking even before I read LotR, but it had no influence on my liking of the book or the characters (Gandalf has always been my favorite). The book was not only written during a time when smoking was socially acceptable, it was a fantasy set in another time and place. It certainly did not influence my attitudes about smoking, any more than it made me believe I could go out and learn magic spells or develop hairy feet. I think kids of today are as capable of separating fantasy from reality, if adults will let them. Screenwriters can downplay a thing without totally eliminating it, if it is necessary to the plot or character. If it isn't, it can simply be left out, but it shouldn't be replaced by something silly, like candy (which is just as big a no-no in today's world).

[davem]

Well, as someone who has smoked pipe, cigarettes & cigars in the past (stopping when my little boy made his appearance) I have to say the worst of them were the ciggies & the nicest the pipe. I have never driven a car, preferring either bus, train or 'Shank's pony'. Hence, I like to think I can take the role of disinterested party on this subject. Other people's smoke is bad, & they should keep it to themselves. But they should also keep their music (particularly the horrid little 'tss- tss' of their Ipods), their BO, & their exhaust fumes (which are much more dangerous than second hand tobacco smoke - would you prefer to be locked in a sealed room with a running car or with a smoker puffing away?). Point is, there are lots of things people do which impinge on others, & which are to some degree unpleasant, but we are human beings, flawed, fallen & mostly bloody annoying even (or ironically, especially) when we're trying our best not to be. Smoking, it seems to me, is kept legal by the government 'cos they make lots 'n' lots of money out of it, & gives non-smokers a group they can look down on, & complain about.

As to the 'addicts' standing outside in the rain & snow puffing away, I'm fairly sure that if you restricted TV watching, candy eating or complaining about smoking to the sidewalk you'd see a large-ish number of non-smokers gathered in the same kind of groups, in the same kind of weather conditions indulging their own particular 'vice'. Smoking is one of many dirty, unhealthy & annoying habits human beings indulge in & the real puzzle for me is why its become seen as a 'moral' issue. I honestly don't see how anyone who drives a car regularly can complain about smokers producing smells, carcinogenic fumes, or being a danger to themselves & others - & if we're talking about damage to the environment I don't think the smokers are the ones posing the risk. That said, of course, there are those who indulge in both pastimes so I'm sure my argument collapses in some way right there. I note that Tolkien gave up his car but kept his pipe, & personally I think he was right.

Nope, this is a moral crusade against a smelly habit, which is no worse than many other human follies & foibles, & merely confirms to me only that the human race has lost its wits as well as its moral compass.