Should Actors Be Smoking At The Stagedoor ? — Page 3

GavestonPS said: "Robbie2 said: "IMO it is wrong...Rude and disrespectful in that close environment to the non smokers.



"

Outside? I know Manhattan is over-built, but I had no idea outdoor spaces were "close environments".

Smoking is illegal in NYC-parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas like Times Square



"

Re-read Dishrag--if you can, 'cause you sure can't type. Did you confuse the word 'lashed' with your word 'yelled' ?

Why don't you type in your original alien language-obviously from a place that ends in idurghekjnSTAN, and let autocue change it to readable English?

R.E.S.P.E.C.T was NOT aimed at you [waste of space] but to the younger generation in general.

I'm not only SweetLips but a SweetPotato as well--thanks for the new handle--Love it !

Updated On: 2/22/17 at 09:59 PM

SweetLips said: "Re-read Dishrag--if you can, 'cause you sure can't type. Did you confuse the word 'lashed' with your word 'yelled' ?

Why don't you type in your original alien language-obviously from a place that ends in idurghekjnSTAN, and let autocue change it to readable English?

R.E.S.P.E.C.T was NOT aimed at you [waste of space] but to the younger generation in general. I'm not only SweetLips but a SweetPotato as well--thanks for the new handle--Love it !


Oh sure, Magda too dumb for your crisp command of the English. Would believe you went to school till age ten, at least!


You are racist old queen and will be dead soon enough. You will lash out at the Jesus when he send your old dried up mantwat to hell. You are still old lady who got the vapors because of friendly greeting from restaurant host.

Robbie2 said: "GavestonPS said: "Robbie2 said: "IMO it is wrong...Rude and disrespectful in that close environment to the non smokers.



"

Outside? I know Manhattan is over-built, but I had no idea outdoor spaces were "close environments".

Smoking is illegal in NYC-parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas like Times Square



"





"

Smokers are a minority of the population and hold very little political clout, particularly since the majority can always console itself with the knowledge that smoking is bad for the smoker. So, sure, smoking is illegal in many parks and beaches.

That does NOT make them confined spaces. Though no longer a smoker, I personally don't see why anyone demands a right to NEVER smell cigarette smoke. Let's not sweat the small stuff, shall we?

Otherwise I'd like a law forbidding people to eat garlic or onions outside the confines of their own home.

GavestonPS said: "Robbie2 said: "IMO it is wrong...Rude and disrespectful in that close environment to the non smokers.



"

Outside? I know Manhattan is over-built, but I had no idea outdoor spaces were "close environments".

FTR, I know opera singers who smoke. Always astonishes me.



"

GavestonPS--I worked for a major opera company for close to a decade, and was (and still am) astonished by how many opera singers smoke. Of course, many of the smokers I saw were European, where smoking is a much more accepted part of the culture than it is here. But you'd think people who earn their living by their voice would be more careful.

That said, to give one just example: Rene Pape is a ridiculously heavy smoker, and his voice sounds as good, if not better, today than it did twenty years ago.

GavestonPS said: "Robbie2 said: "GavestonPS said: "Robbie2 said: "IMO it is wrong...Rude and disrespectful in that close environment to the non smokers.



"

Outside? I know Manhattan is over-built, but I had no idea outdoor spaces were "close environments".

Smoking is illegal in NYC-parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas like Times Square



"





"

Smokers are a minority of the population and hold very little political clout, particularly since the majority can always console itself with the knowledge that smoking is bad for the smoker. So, sure, smoking is illegal in many parks and beaches.

That does NOT make them confined spaces. Though no longer a smoker, I personally don't see why anyone demands a right to NEVER smell cigarette smoke. Let's not sweat the small stuff, shall we?

Otherwise I'd like a law forbidding people to eat garlic or onions outside the confines of their own home.



"

Second hand smoke has been proven to be not just as bad, but worse, than first hand smoke. Studies have shown that airborne contact with second hand smoke instantly thickens the blood and makes you more vulnerable to heart attack and stroke. And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

That doesn't sound like "small stuff" to me.

OP you do realise now that any time you see this 'smoking actor' on stage again, all you will think about through their whole performance is--THEY SMOKE !

Michael Kras said: "Second hand smoke has been proven to be not just as bad, but worse, than first hand smoke. Studies have shown that airborne contact with second hand smoke instantly thickens the blood and makes you more vulnerable to heart attack and stroke. And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

That doesn't sound like "small stuff" to me."



This is so true. I personally know of someone who was exposed to second hand smoke for just a few seconds and died the following week. Of course, the person was 93 at the time.

Here's an easy fix. If you see an actor smoking, don't hassle them for autographs and photos. Immediately walk away. They'll have one less person to sign for and you'll avoid putting your health in jeopardy. See how easy this was to solve?

Michael Kras said: "


Second hand smoke has been proven to be not just as bad, but worse, than first hand smoke. Studies have shown that airborne contact with second hand smoke instantly thickens the blood and makes you more vulnerable to heart attack and stroke. And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

That doesn't sound like "small stuff" to me.



"

Do we really need to discuss this here? The scientists I know find those studies laughable. For one thing, how many of them were conducted OUTSIDE, which is what we were discussing above. (Probable answer: none.) For another, there is no grant money for studies showing second-hand smoke does NOT harm others. I'm not anti-science or pro-smoking, but neither am I naive as to how many scientists earn their living--and it does not involve science for science's sake.

If first- and second-hand smoke were as bad as you want to imply, ALL our grandparents and parents would have been dead of lung cancer by the age of 40. (Seen any old movies lately?) But regardless of studies or whether we believe them, the space outside a theater is not a "closed in space". If you don't like the second-hand smoke, walk away.

LarryD2 said: "GavestonPS--I worked for a major opera company for close to a decade, and was (and still am) astonished by how many opera singers smoke....

"

The opera singer I know best is still working in her late 60s. I think she quit smoking when she was pregnant with her daughter several decades ago, but before that she was quite the chimney.

(Yes, everyone, I realize this exception does not disprove the rule.)

On the other hand, in musical theater, there are voices like Elaine Stritch's that would be far less interesting were it not for decades of cigarettes and alcohol.

KJisgroovy said: ""For another, there is no grant money for studies showing second-hand smoke does NOT harm others. "



Um. You really don't think tobacco companies haven't spent millions of dollars on studies like this? I agree with your main point that this is ridiculous. You're outside in Manhattan. There's a lot more troubling your lungs than one rogue cigarette... but... Yes. There have been lots of grants for this very reason which does make me think you're at least a little misguided as to how scientists earn their living.



"

I'm only going by what scientists have told me. And science is only 1/3 of the equation; the results are then interpreted by p.r. people and that's a whole other area of manipulation. Finally, we get the results reported to us by journalists who lack either the training or the gumption to look at studies closely.

I'm sure every scientist would like to devote his/her life to "pure" research. But like the rest of us they have to pay their bills. I'm not saying they literally "cook" the results (though that happens on occasion, of course). I'm saying Joe Scientist knows that if he doesn't find ill effects from second-hand smoke, he won't be getting any more grants from the State of California; so there's a temptation to set up experiments to get certain desired results. (And, yes, tobacco companies got the results they wanted from numerous studies until governments began funding competing research. Of course, they hid the results they didn't like until those stats were pried away through litigation.)

If I'm to believe something as counter-intuitive as the claim that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand smoke OUTSIDE, I'm going to have to see the original study for myself.

And just to be clear (groovy knows this): I'm not arguing we should return to the day when everybody smoked at his or her office desk. Or when guests to one's home expected to be invited to smoke around the children. This thread has been about the HORROR!!! of somebody smoking out-of-doors.

Great post mangenie, huh, Sweet Lips nailed it. If you're a whacka at the stage door ........