tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post2324954728651460081..comments2023-08-27T13:04:51.898+01:00Comments on Freedom-2-Choose (Scotland): Welsh Government proposes smoking ban amendmentBelindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16284836559314332001noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-14776816139209955752012-02-15T00:43:07.736+01:002012-02-15T00:43:07.736+01:00And then we get to the fourth exemption, requiring...And then we get to the fourth exemption, requiring that: "there are no children present in the part of the premises where the performer would be smoking." I guess there are two reasons for this requirement: First, the deadly viewing of smoking as cautioned against by the requirements for exemption #3; and Second, the possibility of death and injury to a child if someone was smoking "in the part of the premises" where they would be at. <br /><br />If my general knowledge of such film and television "premises" from the States is also applicable to the technologies and general practice employed in the UK, the ventilation rates under the hot theatrical lights tend to be rather high ... say about ten times the rates normally experienced by children in homes where their parents might smoke. I would like to ask the "Tobacco Policy Branch" to produce even a single scientific study showing ANY degree of real harm to children by passing exposures to such levels of smoke. <br /><br />NOTE: I am not asking for "statements" by "responsible authorities," nor am I asking for generalized "Reports" offering impressions of such studies, nor am I requesting "Fact Sheets" or "opinion pieces" or "web sites" from advocacy groups. I am asking for something quite simple actually: just one, or, most preferably, a few, actual, published, publicly accessible scientific studies showing real harms to children from the concentrations and durations of exposure that would normally be experienced in such theatrical production facilities if a few actors were allowed to smoke "in the part of the premises" where "artististic integrity" has happened to demand and allow such smoking to take place.<br /><br />The exemptions are sound, and should, if anything, be expanded. The restrictive requirements for them are not. <br /><br />I do not know your general rules regarding such things over there, but, if such a request is reasonable, I would like a proper response to this input, including a citation of studies that the proper body would be willing to defend in showing the necessity for the restrictive requirements proposed.<br /><br />Michael J. McFadden<br />Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"<br />BOD of TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition)<br />BOD of FORCES (Fight Ordinance and Restrictions to Control or Eliminate Smoking) .org<br />Mid-Atlantic Regional Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance<br />Director PASAN, Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network<br />Active member of other Free Choice groups. No compensation involved for any such memberships or officer activity.Michael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-53291507550085925812012-02-15T00:41:57.117+01:002012-02-15T00:41:57.117+01:00(Belinda, if this is too long to be appropriate he...(Belinda, if this is too long to be appropriate here, feel free to delete it! It's my "answer" to the consultation.}<br /><br />===<br /><br />Dear Sirs and Madams,<br /><br />I would like to comment on the generous exemptions being proposed to "Smoke Free Premises etc.(Wales) (Amendment)"<br /><br />The requirement for the first exemption is reasonable within the theatrical context, although its spirit should be expanded far beyond that context.<br /><br />The requirement for the second exemption opens a problem: Who is going to decide on the "artistic integrity" standard? An antismoking advocacy group? If a director decides that a sultry female spy should use a long cigarette holder and blow thoughtful smoke rings into the air while pursuing her craft, will that be allowed or will the artist be sent somewhere for re-education until his/her artistic visions conform to the "proper" level of integrity? Will Churchill be allowed his cigar? Or Sherlock Holmes his pipe? Who will be the deciding body and what set of artistic standards standards will be codified and used?<br /><br />The third exemption becomes even more problematic: "there are no members of the public viewing the making of the television programme or film." What conceivable justification can there be for concerns about a member of the public "viewing" someone smoking in the course of "the making of" a theatrical production? Are members of the public generally "protected" from "viewing" people smoking on the streets of Britain nowadays? Are there plans in the works to so protect them? One option might be to insist that smokers stand in a strip by the side of the roads when they smoke while the nonsmoking members of the public be constrained to walk down the center portions while looking straight ahead and wearing government-approved blinders. Reflectors could be fitted on the sides of the blinders so that CCTV cameras could catch the glint off them produced by any wayward sideways glances that pedestrians might try to sneak of the evil smoking and the pedestrians then fined appropriately. I must say, you Brits are certainly leading the way in behavioral control creativity, so I wouldn't be surprised.<br /><br />{Continued...}Michael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-18298965825297631822012-02-14T00:42:02.401+01:002012-02-14T00:42:02.401+01:00and what about anthony mcdermoot who was persecute...and what about anthony mcdermoot who was persecuted bullied and abused by his workmates at mettler-toledo safeline salford because he was a smoker and commited suicide by hanging who is accountableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-24955293412541750222012-02-08T13:52:57.019+01:002012-02-08T13:52:57.019+01:00this is not just up to me, but to all interested r...this is not just up to me, but to all interested readers to keep an eye on the issue, write to the Welsh papers, answer the consultation, be vigilant.Belindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284836559314332001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-2873895204958517702012-02-08T13:49:47.327+01:002012-02-08T13:49:47.327+01:00This is very interesting. Passive smoking is eithe...This is very interesting. Passive smoking is either very harmful or it is not. If camera crews and actors can choose to put up with it, then why not the (smoking)staff of private smoking clubs? They really have got themselves in a mess. Don't let up on this.Jonathan Bagleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331501151709216753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260937491645277092.post-77982891411135465572012-02-08T02:06:36.299+01:002012-02-08T02:06:36.299+01:00So allowing a few dozen poxy actors to smoke could...So allowing a few dozen poxy actors to smoke could benefit the Welsh economy, but allowing millions of people to once again socialise together and spend money on food, drink, taxis etc, wouldn't?<br /><br />Idiots.<br /><br />Let's try repealing the ban for one year and seeing what benefits happen. Of course they won't do that because it would just highlight how much economic damage the ban has caused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com