Nanarina

Dancers Who Smoke

242 posts in this topic

This thread also begins to separate people by class and to ostracize certain groups, in a very polite way of course, and to stigmatize dancers – whom Ballet Alert professes support.

I disagree and I think that feeling is at the heart of some misunderstandings here. To criticize people is not necessarily to stigmatize, and at most it is a couple of very narrow behaviors - smoking in public and smoking in public despite being a role model - that has been criticized here, not the individuals in a larger sense. To criticize is not to reject. Everyone, after all, is open to criticism. Everyone can be criticized on some fronts.

Share this post


Link to post

Lynn Seymour taught me to inhale.

Share this post


Link to post
I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

I explained my distinction between smoking and noise ordinances earlier. I'm sorry that the end of your nose is annoyed by smokers -- so is mine, on occasion, but I don't see that as a reason for depriving smokers to light up in public spaces as long as they are minding their own business.

Share this post


Link to post

I explained my distinction between smoking and noise ordinances earlier. I'm sorry that the end of your nose is annoyed by smokers -- so is mine, on occasion, but I don't see that as a reason for depriving smokers to light up in public spaces as long as they are minding their own business.

But what if they're a role model?

Share this post


Link to post
I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

That all sounds very neat. Except that legal liberty is enforceable by law and a part of statute, practical liberty doesn't actually exist and is personal to the individual's moral code and sensibilities and hold no water in terms of the real world, unless of course they become an illegal act.

And just as a smokers freedom ends at the point of your nose, so does yours at the point of the smokers as he exhales.

Share this post


Link to post
I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

That all sounds very neat. Except that legal liberty is enforceable by law and a part of statute, practical liberty doesn't actually exist and is personal to the individual's moral code and sensibilities and hold no water in terms of the real world, unless of course they become an illegal act.

I’m not sure I understand all of what you’re saying, but it's intriguing. What do you mean when you say that what I've described as practical liberty doesn't exist? I’m talking about whether smokers are free to smoke in certain public places or non-smokers are free to enjoy them as they wish to, without breathing smoke. Both freedoms, both liberties, can’t exist at the same time. The law decides between conflicts like this all the time. There are noise ordinances, upkeep of property ordinances, and ordinances that restrict panhandling and picketing to certain areas. There are eminent domain seizures. There are laws against various types of behavior on the grounds that they cause harm, and as has been pointed out, smoking bans are based on what is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be harm. Do you oppose all these philosophically, is that what you’re saying?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm talking about whether smokers are free to smoke in certain public places or non-smokers are free to enjoy them as they wish to, without breathing smoke. Both freedoms, both liberties, can't exist at the same time. The law decides between conflicts like this all the time. There are noise ordinances, upkeep of property ordinances, and ordinances that restrict panhandling and picketing to certain areas. There are eminent domain seizures. There are laws against various types of behavior on the grounds that they cause harm, and as has been pointed out, smoking bans are based on what is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be harm.
kffw, you express this very well. We have been personalizing this a bit too much, it seems to me. In discussions like this, it helps to know precisely what the law can and cannot do under our constitutional system. Your examples make this clear..

Anti-smoking laws have almost without exception been sustained by the courts, which have taken the position that the people, through their government, have a legitimate public interest in this matter. This public interest in this case trumps most smokers' claims of personal choice.

Of course, an individual may choose to smoke or not. However, this particular choice does not have constitutional protection.

You don't have to like these laws or court decisions. But they are constitutional. The proper course of action for those who disagree is to to use the political system to change or repeal them. Another option -- and it sounds like Simon might be sympathetic with this -- might be to organize civil disobedience, rather like the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. during the 50s and 60s. In other words: break the law as a tactic for changing the law.

Share this post


Link to post
I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

That all sounds very neat. Except that legal liberty is enforceable by law and a part of statute, practical liberty doesn't actually exist and is personal to the individual's moral code and sensibilities and hold no water in terms of the real world, unless of course they become an illegal act.

I’m not sure I understand all of what you’re saying, but it's intriguing. What do you mean when you say that what I've described as practical liberty doesn't exist? I’m talking about whether smokers are free to smoke in certain public places or non-smokers are free to enjoy them as they wish to, without breathing smoke. Both freedoms, both liberties, can’t exist at the same time. The law decides between conflicts like this all the time. There are noise ordinances, upkeep of property ordinances, and ordinances that restrict panhandling and picketing to certain areas. There are eminent domain seizures. There are laws against various types of behavior on the grounds that they cause harm, and as has been pointed out, smoking bans are based on what is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be harm. Do you oppose all these philosophically, is that what you’re saying?

Kfw,

I don't know what more to say, as I think this argument reached an impasse or rather several, several pages ago and if my posts have become silly or specious at times it's due to frustration if nothing else.

For the record, I support bans on smoking in enclosed spaces, work spaces and places where smokers & non smokers mix whilst inside. I do think the abolution of smoking rooms for smokers in workplaces or enclosed places where smokers can specifically go unneccessary, but that's the way it rolls both here and Stateside. In which case open air areas for smokers are only fair, and yes, it's only fair that people who choose to smoke can have a designated area where they can do so - and non smokers have to either accept the momentary unpleasentness of passing by or through, or avoid those areas. And if you feel it's a curtailment of your civil liberties, sorry, tough. Smokers have to accept that their civil liberties to go where they choose are curtailed whilst engaged in the act of smoking. That's my view it's differenet to yours, we'll have to let that be.

I do think that banning smoking in parks is somewhat overkill and rather precious, it's not so in the UK, but I have to say I find many laws in the US rather extreme or indeed unneccessary and in some cases, such as Don't Ask Don't Tell, plain wrong and borderline malicious. Gays & lesbians have been completely legal within the the UK armed forces for over a decade now and it's rather strange that the US would rather someone who's mentally ill or a convicted criminal seeking to escape jail time be allowed to fight over a sound, fit healthy man or woman who just happens to be gay and wants that knowledge to be public.

The arguments that several people have put here that whilst out walking it upsets them greatly to have even a stray whiff of smoke pass their way - well, okay you have every right to not like it. BUT it won't kill you, it's not harmful that diluted, especially with all the other junk in city air, it's a transient moment and it will be over very very quickly.

I'm not getting into another argument over perceived civil liberties, I've made my feelings quite clear on that we'll have to agree to disagree.

The "yoof" question, well, I don't have such a poor view of the very young to think them so facile that they'll smoke because a pop star does (and when was the last time anyone did anything because a ballet dancer did.) Young people smoke as rite of passage often, most don't stick with it. I'd be far more interested to look at societal causes of why people smoke than blame it on Adele, Amy Winehouse or Jay Z. Lack of money, opportunities, education, career options, boredom, frustration - I feel are far more condusive to enticing young people to smoke. Smoking wastes time, it relieves frustration, there's a peer element to it. Smoking is also more prevalent amongst the poor than the middle to upper classes.

Someone also spoke here about dancers smoking, specifically one dancer who smoked as she became anorexic. Well in weight control cases, especially extreme ones for which the ballet world is famous, I think blaming cigarettes is like blaming the symptom for the disease. Smoking suppresses appetite, it also gives you something to do orally when you should be eating - the culture of thinness is what's the issue here, smoking is just a means to achieve this.

And the issue of role models I've spoken at at length, I have a more lenient approach to how people choose to represent both themselves and their actions and the demands that society should place on them. I do think that Nanarina's original post should have been treated far more censoriously, with a quick swift "none of your business".

Share this post


Link to post

Health considerations aside, the odor from the smoke lingers after the cigarette has gone. If you get on an elevator after someone who's come back inside from a smoke break sometimes you've got to cover your nose. If two or three smokers are returning after a joint smoke break at work (I realize the social and mental health benefits of the activity) I've learned to wait for the next elevator. It stinks.

Share this post


Link to post

Simon, I understand and probably obviously have shared your frustration with this thread sometimes. But surprise, surprise, I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. I’ll only make a few comments.

For the record, I support bans on smoking in enclosed spaces, work spaces and places where smokers & non smokers mix whilst inside. I do think the abolution of smoking rooms for smokers in workplaces or enclosed places where smokers can specifically go unneccessary, but that's the way it rolls both here and Stateside. In which case open air areas for smokers are only fair, and yes, it's only fair that people who choose to smoke can have a designated area where they can do so - and non smokers have to either accept the momentary unpleasentness of passing by or through, or avoid those areas.

I think this is quite reasonable. The goal is to share space, not stamp out smoking or drive out smokers.

The "yoof" question, well, I don't have such a poor view of the very young to think them so facile that they'll smoke because a pop star does (and when was the last time anyone did anything because a ballet dancer did.)

Well, we can hope, right? Seriously, I don’t simply blame celebrities for teen smoking, as if there’s a one-to-one correlation and no other factors. I do think they play a role, whether intentionally or not. Youths model adults. Dance students surely model admired dancers, in my opinion. That's not expressing a low opinion of them, it's just observing human nature.

And the issue of role models I've spoken at at length, I have a more lenient approach to how people choose to represent both themselves and their actions and the demands that society should place on them.

I think that ideally society has high standards and we all welcome its demands, at least intellectually, because we recognize their wisdom and justice. But we’re not living in those times, and it’s not fair to hold people to standards no longer shared.

I also think that bart’s post was right on.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know what more to say, as I think this argument reached an impasse or rather several, several pages ago and if my posts have become silly or specious at times it's due to frustration if nothing else.

BUT it won't kill you, it's not harmful that diluted, especially with all the other junk in city air, it's a transient moment and it will be over very very quickly.

I'm not getting into another argument over perceived civil liberties, I've made my feelings quite clear on that we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do think that Nanarina's original post should have been treated far more censoriously, with a quick swift "none of your business".

I tend to agree with the need for sensible compromise on this issue, but I do want to correct one impression that may have been created by the discussion--that for non-smokers who catch a whiff of smoke outside, the discomfort passes"very, very quickly." If I catch a whiff outside, I likely get a migraine -- extreme pain and nausea that passes in 3-4 hours if I'm lucky, 24 hours if I'm not so lucky -- and in either case involves a lot of heavy duty medication that it's better not to take. I happen to be migraine prone and in much the minority and I do NOT think public policy should be dictated by my peculiar constitution. I also think smokers should be allowed to smoke outside, but it does bother me a bit when people assume that the "irritation" to non-smokers is just a few minutes unpleasantness. If we non-smokers are not always sufficiently conscious of becoming "moralistic" and "judgmental" etc., then I think it can fairly be added that smokers (and their advocates) sometimes are not always sufficiently conscious of the levels of discomfort involved for passers by.

As for Nanarina's original post--she was not commenting on something she saw the dancers do in private but something she saw on film, a film they knew was being made. I think it likely that as you (Simon) commented earlier, they did not give a second thought to lighting up, but anything one does in front of a film-documentary crew is something that may reasonably be commented on and reflected on by the public who sees the film (and from all different perspectives as this thread attests). Censoriousness about smoking is not the only kind of censoriousness that can get out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
I’m not sure I understand all of what you’re saying, but it's intriguing. What do you mean when you say that what I've described as practical liberty doesn't exist? I’m talking about whether smokers are free to smoke in certain public places or non-smokers are free to enjoy them as they wish to, without breathing smoke. Both freedoms, both liberties, can’t exist at the same time. The law decides between conflicts like this all the time. There are noise ordinances, upkeep of property ordinances, and ordinances that restrict panhandling and picketing to certain areas. There are eminent domain seizures. There are laws against various types of behavior on the grounds that they cause harm, and as has been pointed out, smoking bans are based on what is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be harm. Do you oppose all these philosophically, is that what you’re saying?

You've mixed together a lot of apples and oranges in your list IMO. Some of those ordinances are just as debatable as the ones we're discussing here. As mentioned earlier it's not a balanced playing field when smokers and non-smokers are concerned when it comes to these restrictions.

I think this is quite reasonable. The goal is to share space, not stamp out smoking or drive out smokers

I also think Simon's view is reasonable. But I'm also sure that underlying the ever increasing restrictions is the intent by some of stamping out smoking and drive out smokers. Often proponents are pretty open about this. If all smoking ended tomorrow I would be delighted, but as mentioned I'm not in favor of what I view as the more excessive bans and means that we've seen in recent years (and that dancers only need to dance well for us).

Anti-smoking laws have almost without exception been sustained by the courts, which have taken the position that the people, through their government, have a legitimate public interest in this matter. This public interest in this case trumps most smokers' claims of personal choice.

That is one view of the matter, bart, but not everyone agrees with all parts of that statement, hence this thread. :)

Censoriousness about smoking is not the only kind of censoriousness that can get out of hand.

Very true, Drew.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a smoker, I've never been a smoker and I've never even wanted to try! One of my closest friends friends died of lung cancer last year - she had never smoked in her life, although I have subsequently heard that her Mum was a chain smoker.

What I find most offensive is the amount of smoking casually shown in British television dramas of the soap variety. Some of them make non-smokers seem in the minority!

Thia ia the fastest growing thread I have ever seen on Ballet Alert!

Share this post


Link to post
Anti-smoking laws have almost without exception been sustained by the courts, which have taken the position that the people, through their government, have a legitimate public interest in this matter. This public interest in this case trumps most smokers' claims of personal choice.

That is one view of the matter, bart, but not everyone agrees with all parts of that statement, hence this thread. :)

The more opinions the merrier. But my feeling is that discussions of opinion are most valuable when they take place when there is an understanding of, and agreement about, the most important facts, specifically the legal context.

My post was an attempt to summarize briefly and as objectively as possible the current position of U.S. anti-smoking law, as I understand it.

I suppose this does constitute my "view," but I was actually trying to avoid bringing in my own thoughts about the rights and wrongs of public smoking by focusing on what what can be verified objectively. Court decisions, whether you personally agree with them or not, are objective and verifiable. They are a matter of public record. In the matter of smoking, they are remarkably unanimous.

Share this post


Link to post

You've mixed together a lot of apples and oranges in your list IMO. Some of those ordinances are just as debatable as the ones we're discussing here. As mentioned earlier it's not a balanced playing field when smokers and non-smokers are concerned when it comes to these restrictions.

Yes, I think they’re all debatable. My point is that there is precedent for legal adjudication in cases of practical liberty, to balance the playing field.

I'm also sure that underlying the ever increasing restrictions is the intent by some of stamping out smoking and drive out smokers
.

When I wrote “the goal is to share space,” I meant “the goal should be to share space,” i.e. to preserve as much practical liberty as possible while taking sides in the conflict. Sorry to be unclear. Probably some people have more drastic goals, but that shouldn't preclude restrictions predicated on good ones.

Anti-smoking laws have almost without exception been sustained by the courts, which have taken the position that the people, through their government, have a legitimate public interest in this matter. This public interest in this case trumps most smokers' claims of personal choice.

I think bart makes a good point here. To build on that point - not to presume to put words in bart's mouth - in a democracy there are winners and losers on particular issues, and if the democracy is functioning as such, despite the routine complaints from groups and parties out of power, to lose is not by definition to have been treated unfairly.

Share this post


Link to post

One interesting aspect of this situation is the fact that laws intended to change behavior are not always permanent. Just because smokers are having a tough time now, that doesn't mean that things cannot be reversed. Remember Prohibition?

A trivial example: Just a few years ago Florida was one of a majority of U.S. states with a law requiring motorcycle drivers and passengers to wear safety helmets. A few years ago, a large, well-organized demonstration of several thousand bikers (many of them doctors and attorneys, the kind who ride expensive BMW's and Harleys) descended on the state capital and persuaded the legislature to repeal the helmet law.

The coalition supporting repeal included libertarians, on the grounds that this is a matter of personal choice, and many who worry about the nanny state and anything they deem to be "politically correct."

Thanks to the repeal, it is now once again common to see bikers speeding bareheaded down the Interstate. Because it gets hot down here, it is also quite common to see them wearing shorts, tee shirts, and flipflops. A female companion, similarly clad, often clings to the rider's back.

The Florida Legislature acknowledged that this kind of personal freedom does have its risks. No one wanted an injured motorcyclist, or his victim, to become a financial burden on the state. So, the revised law requires motorcyclists to carry insurance. The amount? $10,000. Alas, even in Florida, this will not get you very far if you require brain surgery or end up on long-term life support.

The moral of this story: Things you don't like can always be changed. For better or for worse. Depending on your point of view. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Anti-smoking laws have almost without exception been sustained by the courts, which have taken the position that the people, through their government, have a legitimate public interest in this matter. This public interest in this case trumps most smokers' claims of personal choice.

That is one view of the matter, bart, but not everyone agrees with all parts of that statement, hence this thread. :)

The more opinions the merrier. But my feeling is that discussions of opinion are most valuable when they take place when there is an understanding of, and agreement about, the most important facts, specifically the legal context.

My post was an attempt to summarize briefly and as objectively as possible the current position of U.S. anti-smoking law, as I understand it.

I suppose this does constitute my "view," but I was actually trying to avoid bringing in my own thoughts about the rights and wrongs of public smoking by focusing on what what can be verified objectively. Court decisions, whether you personally agree with them or not, are objective and verifiable. They are a matter of public record. In the matter of smoking, they are remarkably unanimous.

Leaving aside the "objectively" part, bart, as I said much earlier in this thread: Smoking, or the smoking debate, is a lot of things. The legal aspect of the debate is only one aspect and consideration. Some of the others have been discussed in this very long thread.

to lose is not by definition to have been treated unfairly

Not by definition, no. In individual instances it happens all the time.

I would hope we would be able to agree to disagree at this point, but I can carry on if need be.....

Share this post


Link to post
I would hope we would be able to agree to disagree at this point,

Sure. I can't think of what else could need to be said by now. I started to argue a larger point a few posts back, but then I thought maybe everyone would rather take a break. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Facetious answer: so that they have an excuse to carry around that beautiful van Cleef & Arpels Swan Lake cigarette case on display at the Cooper Hewitt?

But honestly I wish no one smoked.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing not mentioned so far is the fact that smokers actually work fewer hours on a pro rata basis than non-smokers – all those fag breaks really stack up.

Also conspicuously avoided so far is the post-coital light-up, surely I can’t be the only non-smoker to have endured that?

Here in Britain we don’t actually ban much at all and apart from smoking I can only think of the fox hunting ban, though I’ve a feeling the latter will be reversed before long. Back on the UK smoking ban front, plans are in motion to ban smoking in cars, something I’ve a lot of sympathy with because as a child I was regularly sick every time I got into a car with smoking adults. I was told I was a bad traveller and I never set foot on either a ship or a plane until my mid 20’s when I was very surprised that I experienced not a twinge of nausea, indeed I once crossed the Channel in a force 11 gale and from the state of the corridors when I disembarked, I think I was the only passenger that hadn’t thrown up. Children need to be safe from the ill effects of smoke so I hope this extension of the ban really happens.

The only down side of the UK smoking ban that I can think of is the rapid closure of traditional pubs, though to be fair the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets probably plays a big part in the closures and the reason the pub nearest to where I live has closed I think has a lot to do with the rapidly changing demographics of the area, for example I bet the burkha-clad woman four doors down from me never set foot in that pub.

The smoking issue is one that I have very ambivalent feelings about, but I’ve never bought into that role model scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Also conspicuously avoided so far is the post-coital light-up, surely I can’t be the only non-smoker to have endured that?

Surely it's better than "mid"?

But seriously, folks, I agree the smell can be pretty repellent. Even when I did smoke I found smoking rooms unbearable, the stench from a day old ash tray was vile and I'm more aware now of the stink from clothes. But there are times when I catch a whiff of smoke and am instantly taken back to nostalgie de la boue.

Can I also just clarify, yes I agree that Nanarina had every right to express her concern and distaste for Gillot and Dupont, where it and the conversation became a bit odd and why I took umbrage was the notion of role models, the intense criticism that was being levied at the two.

Anti smoking animosity has really reached new heights or lows in the past several years as the blanket wide smoking bans have been set in the big cities of the West and I think that perhaps the dissenting voices can get a tad hysterical.

I'm not making a case for smoking as a benefit for health, I never would, but you know what it is rather enjoyable sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post

I would just like to chip in with the observation that in many places of work the ancient tradition of the 'fag break' is really the only time employees can really get to know each other, swap work gossip, bond, share cigarettes (I know it's a dirty habit but it's still sharing!) ..... and obviously have a 10 minute break as well!

This may seem trivial but when you add up those 15-20 minutes a day, 5 days a week ... it actually adds up to an awful lot of valued getting-to-know-each-other time. This can be especially valuable if your job does not allow for much interaction among employees during actual work time (such as call centres for example). And such brief daily interaction can really 'make or break' a job which is in all other respects suicidally depressing/ demoralizing work!

And typically fag break gossip is as much work related as it is personal, and as such it can provides extremely valuable information especially to low paid employees with, for example, short term contracts in companies where staff are fired and hired on a constant basis.

We already live in a age where it is apparently acceptable to 'tag' warehouse staff with RFID chips so that their every movement can be tracked to the nearest metre (including going to the bathroom) and monitored for any slight 'drop in efficiency' as if they are merely moving parts in a machine. And this is in the western world.

I am certainly not advocating smoking, just recognizing the fact that a society that rids itself of smokers also rids itself of the 'smoking break' which I assume for millions of people will mean means losing up to an hour a week of contact with fellow workers, where they can talk frankly and share company news and gossip as well as just get to know each other - and welcome new employees etc.

I am sure one group who are welcoming the steady eradication of smoking and 'smoking culture' are employers who's only interest is profit margins and efficiency and who care very little for their workers.

Like I said, I'm really not advocating smoking per se, but I do think the inevitable loss of the traditional twice daily 'smoke breaks' at work is worth pointing out. Maybe such smoke breaks is just a UK phenomenon - I don't know .... I'm just throwing it out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I would just like to chip in with the observation that in many places of work the ancient tradition of the 'fag break' is really the only time employees can really get to know each other, swap work gossip, bond, share cigarettes (I know it's a dirty habit but it's still sharing!) ..... and obviously have a 10 minute break as well!

Where I used to work we spent hours in meetings to bash out solutions and agreements, but we all knew that minutes after the smokers finished convening that we'd get the email with the final decision or approval.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing not mentioned so far is the fact that smokers actually work fewer hours on a pro rata basis than non-smokers – all those fag breaks really stack up.

Also conspicuously avoided so far is the post-coital light-up, surely I can’t be the only non-smoker to have endured that?

Here in Britain we don’t actually ban much at all and apart from smoking I can only think of the fox hunting ban, though I’ve a feeling the latter will be reversed before long. Back on the UK smoking ban front, plans are in motion to ban smoking in cars, something I’ve a lot of sympathy with because as a child I was regularly sick every time I got into a car with smoking adults. I was told I was a bad traveller and I never set foot on either a ship or a plane until my mid 20’s when I was very surprised that I experienced not a twinge of nausea, indeed I once crossed the Channel in a force 11 gale and from the state of the corridors when I disembarked, I think I was the only passenger that hadn’t thrown up. Children need to be safe from the ill effects of smoke so I hope this extension of the ban really happens.

The only down side of the UK smoking ban that I can think of is the rapid closure of traditional pubs, though to be fair the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets probably plays a big part in the closures and the reason the pub nearest to where I live has closed I think has a lot to do with the rapidly changing demographics of the area, for example I bet the burkha-clad woman four doors down from me never set foot in that pub.

The smoking issue is one that I have very ambivalent feelings about, but I’ve never bought into that role model scenario.

I agree about lost work time by smokers due to "fag breaks" (something I still see at my work) and of course the consequent illnesses resulting from smoking generally. And though, as another poster said, I am sure those smoke-breaks are also a means of meet/greet/gossip between employees, there are other means to do that--eg. plain old "coffee breaks?" Or "water-cooler" talk? Though my experience is that email & instant messaging/texting have taken over much of that.

Anyways, your post brought back a lot of memories...I, too, would get sick in a car with smoker(s) and have to crack the window and lean out like a dog just to breathe. (I use to detest the carpool with the mother of one of my fellow dancers because she chain-smoked the entire 1.5hr trip up and back, while I was dying in the back seat wondering how I was going to take class without vomiting when we arrived.)

I also avoided pubs when I was at school in the UK, or clubs when home in the US because of my physical inability to tolerate smoke. (I was almost a teetotaler anyways, so didn't miss that aspect as much--but the comraderie of fellow students/new acquaintances was curtailed because of it.)

I also spent a ferry Channel crossing on the deck during a storm because the smoking inside the cabin was making me more sick to my stomach than any waves/wind/spray outside. (We had some big waves, lots of white-caps, and a very strong wind, but do not think it was a Force 11--you were very brave.)

Share this post


Link to post
I also spent a ferry Channel crossing on the deck during a storm

Travelling between Greek islands over rough seas the best place to be was on deck where you could keep your eye on the horizon and feel the spray on your face. Downstairs all the passengers were lying on the floor next to their backpacks while the crew were carrying plates of the richest food and gleefully eating it up.

Share this post


Link to post