Smokin'

Found this story:

Central Norwegian county declares smoking to be a
basic human right

Wed Apr 14,12:20 PM ET


OSLO, Norway (AP) - A central Norwegian county has declared smoking
to be a basic human right in a dispute over a ban imposed on one town's
workers.

Levanger, a township of about 18,000 people, banned all smoking by
municipal employees during working hours on or off city property at the
beginning of the year. The ruling, which made national news
Wednesday, came after three opponents of the rule, all local council
members from the right-wing Party of Progress, asked the county
governor's office to assess the ban's legality.

In a letter to the city dated Tuesday, the county declared the ban invalid
because it violates the European Human Rights Convention.

It said the city can ban smoking on its property, but not, for example, if a
worker was driving his or her own car or was on private property.

The county cited a section of the convention that protects citizens'
private lives.

The letter said "a total ban on smoking during working hours is a
measure that is not reasonable in relation to the goal of the ban."

Birger Meinhardt and Steinar Holten, two of the politicians who lodged
the complaint, celebrated the ruling on the steps of the Levanger town
hall by lighting up the biggest cigars they could find.

"Just like before Jan. 1, 2004," Holten told the Troender-Avisa newspaper
as he puffed on the cigar.

Originally posted by V_D
Found this story:

Central Norwegian county declares smoking to be a
basic human right

Yeeeeeeessssss.

Found this from the UK "FOREST" (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco) site, http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page1.asp

link to, http://www.theintendedband.com/ and I quote:
"Another song worth downloading (for free) is 'The Smoke Police' by The Intended, a Canadian band based in Toronto."



R.

[Keith Webb]

Perhaps someone should find an antidote to the emoticon: " " to even things up before the Grim Reaper does it for you!
I have a couple of words to add to the debate... Coffin nails and Cancer sticks.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

When it's your time, it's your time. My brother in law died of cancer at 31, never having smoked a cigarette in his life, nor taken a drink too many. I shant argue the semantics of smoking with you, simply indicate that what we believe is that individuals should be allowed the freedom of choice.

Cheers,

G.

[Keith Webb]

Good pun, eh?
My post was to see who'd bite forst

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

We don't actually BITE them, we just suck on the muffler end (can't vouch for McStolly) periodically, and usually AFTER they're lit. Works better that way.

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Perhaps someone should find an antidote to the emoticon: " " to even things up before the Grim Reaper does it for you!
I have a couple of words to add to the debate... Coffin nails and Cancer sticks.

to you too you Old Sour Grapes Keefy! And didn't you mean "Cancer sticks THEN Coffin nails"? I know, I nit-pick! Timing depends on the persons constitution I mean some can chain smoke 3 packs a day for 70 years and die of something else, whil e someone else can smoke for a year and die of lung cancer. So there, eeh? It's a roll of the dice?

... I'll that cigarette until I've been nailed, thank you very much! Wanna come to my funeral and "Flick-A-Bic" in my Memory? That'd be My ghost will start singin' "You Light Up My Life ... and with a Flick-of-My-Bic I can tell you're a NON-SMOKER!

flick flick flick

[dougiebarder]

I'm with Keith.My personal opinion is that Smoking should be banned. There bad for me (passive smoking), they stink up my clothes and get up my nose (Selfish eh). Never mind the fact that you pay £4-5 a pack to kill yourselves, your breath often stinks and your homes are yellow.

Guess who's anti smoking

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Perhaps someone should find an antidote to the emoticon: " " to even things up before the Grim Reaper does it for you!

Bring him on! No worse than the EU, and we can "melvin" Mr. Death anyway.

I have a couple of words to add to the debate... Coffin nails and Cancer sticks.

At just under 41p to the Oz$ we'll take all you've got, send 'em over.

R.

Originally posted by dougiebarder
I'm with Keith.My personal opinion is that Smoking should be banned. There bad for me (passive smoking), they stink up my clothes and get up my nose (Selfish eh). Never mind the fact that you pay £4-5 a pack to kill yourselves, your breath often stinks and your homes are yellow.

Guess who's anti smoking

My teeth go great with my walls! Color-Co-ordinated except when I bleach my teeth in a glass of javex. (HEY can vegemite clean teeth?) ... and my breath keeps my Ex and anyone new away so I don't have to fear relationship problems since I don't have one because I smoke and most people I meet don't smoke?

BTW ... Don't exhaust fumes cause cancer too? Etc ... where do we draw the lines on noxious toxic fumes?

On a serious note, i also beleive non-smokers have as much right to NOT be around smoke and smokers have a right to smoke ... all we can do is work it out without killing each other by smoke or by fist. Frustrating all round...

espcially for ME

Smokin' Yappy

[DaveCox]

Common sense rules in Norway!
It's all about the rights of the individual - if a non-smoker visits my house, I'll probably smoke by an open window or something so that he's not overwhelmed by it, but he has to accept that I smoke. If I go to his house I don't smoke at all.
Respect each others views, and accept that we all have the free will to choose.

Most of us are ex-servicemen, or interested in the services or we wouldn't be on this forum; and after all, isn't freedom of choice one of the things that our fathers/uncles etc fought for...

Originally posted by DaveCox
Common sense rules in Norway!
It's all about the rights of the individual - if a non-smoker visits my house, I'll probably smoke by an open window or something so that he's not overwhelmed by it, but he has to accept that I smoke. If I go to his house I don't smoke at all.
Respect each others views, and accept that we all have the free will to choose.

Most of us are ex-servicemen, or interested in the services or we wouldn't be on this forum; and after all, isn't freedom of choice one of the things that our fathers/uncles etc fought for...

I'll to that !

I agree with freedom of choice ... its just pretty dicey when two or more share a home, some smoke, some don't, both/all live there ... it seems like the best answer is a smoking room away from the common areas with good ventilation and a closable door so the bill paying smoker can be comfy and smoke in his/her OWN home ... but for many, thats not an option because of money or some other reason. It tough, and in that case, a real potential breeding ground for conflict.

Smoker living with Non-Smoker means its gotta be worked out with BOTH PEOPLE RESPECTED AND CONSIDERED. Everyone counts. Sometimes theres lots to consider hey? YIKES

Meanwhile... I AM considerate of, and even empathize with non-smokers, and respect their rules at their homes/cars etc. I smoke in my place but "considerately" when company calls

Yes... smoking is not healthy. Neither is a lot of other things but they aren't issues. Is it possible to live and let live without hurting each other?

Time for a ciggy then a sleepy

Originally posted by V_D

On a serious note, i also beleive non-smokers have as much right to NOT be around smoke and smokers have a right to smoke ... all we can do is work it out without killing each other by smoke or by fist. Frustrating all round...

Hear, hear. Our Venerable Dame of Manitoba encapsulates it precisely.

I can't be bothered to extract the recorded scientific word but here's a compendium of the passive smoking mistakes:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp
The case is not proven or even existant.

England and the western world is being FRIGHTENED to death with health scares, such serious public warnings of imminent health risk by so-called "professionals" include but are not limited to:
wine, musical instruments, obesity, breast milk, HRT, mobile phone masts, soft drinks, television, junk food, slimming pills, budget airlines, farmed salmon, & public transport to name a few.

When you have finished with the innocuous smokers lets consider the drunken mobs at UK football matches directly harming others, the public, the police and causing millions in property damage on these common Saturday rampages.

Hey, lets ban booze and football.

What about the people who willingly force themselves into small holes in the ground and risk many others in saving them, best ban potholing perhaps.

Fell walking? Ban it. Rock climbing? Ban it. People in private aircraft/microlites/gliders (see the AAIB reports), ban that.

What about all the people being hurt and killed falling off their horses, getting kicked and trodden on; the dust being made by the use of hay and straw, the nitrate pollution of waste heaps, the dangerous piles of ordure left on the public highway currently an offence for any other vehicle and especially to two wheeled transport.

Let me see now; horses have mandatory road insurance? Nope.
Horses have roadworthiness check? Nope.
Horses have pollution check? Nope.
Horses have two separate braking systems? Nope.
Horses have engine stop facility? Nope.
Horses have road tax disc. Nope.
Horse drivers have horse driving licence? Nope.
Horses comply with accepted traffic flow and speed? Nope.

Best ban these too then.

Try listening to CH67 (Solent Coastguard) here, we have to have two helicopters and a heap of lifeboats to save those on jet-skis, dinghys, yachts, inflatables, plus sport divers, swimmers, sail boarders.

We can ban all those. Think of the savings in lives and money.

Just wait until the Eurocrats tire of the anti-smoking attacks, probably when the revenue reduction becomes apparent. This is how it works, some minion has a bright idea, oh people have old army trucks, let's have a look at that.

Appoint a commissioner (un-elected), commissioner appoints a body of _his_ chosen people (un-elected); after huge expenditure of EU cash mountain a fork lift truck of paper is presented and they find:
Vehicles do not conform to EU standards.
Do not pay taxes generally.
Currently exempt annual inspection.
Grossly inefficient.
Highly polluting.
No E marked parts.
Involve commercially controlled procedures done privately.
May be armoured and so un-stoppable by police.
etc.

It is required that commission findings are then encapsulated in law. Result, ban them.

DouggieB, why have the French banned private, ex-mil, armoured vehicles? Has one ever been used in a crime? Has one ever been involved in any illegal incident or even a road accident? What is the threat, percieved or real?
Honestly, I really don't know and have failed to find out.

Perhaps best to leave the focus on the minority smokers before other easy to eliminate minorities fall into the spotlight.

R.

[dougiebarder]

"Hey, lets ban booze and football."
Mcstolly-I think your mad about the booze, but I'm right behind you on the football

It's only smoking that get's up my nose. As VD said most smokers are considerate when you go into their homes (unfortunatly some are not-I went into a house recently that had a fug as if there was a bush fire burning in the corner,and the chap wasn't even smoking whilst I was there).

It's smoking in public that is the real problem. All non smokers know what it's like to go out for an evening and get home to find everything your wearing stinks of smoke. I know some people say that vehicles pump out as much pollution, but unless it is a rather sick diesel you don't choke on it ,or reek of it untill your clothes are washed.
I'd like to see cigarette hoses -my own invention(similar to the exhaust hoses used in garages) fitted in pub's and eating establishments.
So to sum up:-
=good
=bad

[dougiebarder]

In answer to the French government banning MV's in private hand's question-It's because there idiot's!

And the trouble is,if Tony has his way the French (and Germans) will be trying to set our law's as well.

Originally posted by dougiebarder


It's smoking in public that is the real problem.
I'd like to see cigarette hoses -my own invention(similar to the exhaust hoses used in garages) fitted in pub's and eating establishments.
So to sum up:-
=good
=bad

You should live in Canada then Dougie my friend. Us smokers aren't allowed to light up in much of Canada's restaurants, pubs, public areas,even some bans of smoking within certain specific distance OUTSIDE of eestablishments/buildings now.

BC went completely nonsmoking in ALL establishments across the board. That didn't last long in bars and bingo halls etc .... businesses were dieing/died because the smokers stopped going to these places. They went back to allowing "smoking sections/areas" which in most cases is ridiculous because the smoke "wafts" to the non-smoking areas anyways. Some NON-smoking sections are "upstairs in balcony areas" in a two level room ... well, smoke rises and gets the non-smokers. aaaargh

Drag that the only answer for the non-smoker is "all or nothing" same for the smoker. Either way seems to be no real WIN/WIN solution.

Regards "how did smoking become a public issue anyways?" Someones, probably non-smokers, made a bigger stink about smoke than smokers made with their cigs. The ban-smoking folks have the power of INFLUENCE and MONEY ... somebody up there with lotsa power raised a stink and got others in an uproar, as is the way of life. Who ever is the strongest and pushiest, bullyist, wins the fight.

I'm sympathetic to many "realistic fears/concerns and reasons put forth to ban smoking", but whether I'm a smoker or not, I perceive "all or nothing" as WIN/LOSE either way.

As things stand ... smokers and non-smokers are at a STAND-OFF. Can WW3 AND WW4 be far behind?

I live alone sono war in MY house! GRIN or will as soon as I find an apartment in Winnipeg where the toxic mosquito spraying, and the exhaust fumes of traffic and chimneys and house and building fires, wafts of toxic chemicals from peoples perfumes, colognes and toxic cleaning solutions in public buildings, in new clothes in stores, peoplein public with colds, flus, and worse... toxic chemicals in our preserved foods yessssssss... I could go on and on, as we all can, both sides of the issue, with trying to justify for-or-agin. Some people really DO have severe allergies/respiratory problems to blahblahblah

Health-Risks ... whatever holds the attention by, and is made into a public issue by, someone or groups with noise and clout ..... the pressure and harrassment begins ... sigh

Leave me alone, eh?:

One ISSUE for ME as a SMOKER .... IS the harrassment I sometimes receive from NON-SMOKERS. Verbal abuse, put-downs, shame, bullies. I becomea scapegoat for bully-ing for smoking PERIOD, even when I smoke away from others where they can't be effected etc. The issue isn't me SMOKING, the issue for them is that I'm a smoker at all.

THIS BITES!

Ah well ... I when and where its allowed and doesn't cloud the air around non-smokers.

blahblahblah

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by V_D
One ISSUE for ME as a SMOKER .... IS the harrassment I sometimes receive from NON-SMOKERS. Verbal abuse, put-downs, shame, bullies. I becomea scapegoat for bully-ing for smoking PERIOD, even when I smoke away from others where they can't be effected etc. The issue isn't me SMOKING, the issue for them is that I'm a smoker at all.

I get the same, VD, as do others I know. Tis a shame some can't leave others to their own lives (I'm reminded of the fur thing a few years back and more recently, the PETA folks).

FYI, I don't even smoke in my OWN house (pain in the ass) because no one else here smokes anymore. For me it's the garage or my back porch. That's OK, though, keeps the peace. neither do I smoke in the houses of non-smoking friends or relatives... if I want one, I got outside (yes, even in winter).

Interestingly, I lunch probably three times a week with a chap I've known for several years, a successful insurance salesman working close-by; he has never smoked in his life, but prefers the atmosphere and company of our [smoking] bar. He's become quite a good friend.

No, I would not smoke in his house; but he has no objections to my habit while sitting beside me in the bar and trading stories three times a week. It's well-ventilated and he believes thesubject is a matter of personal choice. And he's there by choice.

Before him there was a woman I used to hang out with with the same attitude (she didn't smoke either, but quit her job to move out of Toronto).

Not all non-smokers are zealots, nor are all smokers. Until tobacco is banned (unlikely, considering the taxes our bloated governments earn from it), some middle ground has to be established. I believe in tolerance, on BOTH sides of the issue.

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball
Not all non-smokers are zealots, nor are all smokers. Until tobacco is banned (unlikely, considering the taxes our bloated governments earn from it), some middle ground has to be established. I believe in tolerance, on BOTH sides of the issue.

Tolerance ... yesssss ... easy to say but so hard for some to do hey? Everyones lines are so different, so often, and beliefs so strong.

Another kind of ciggy that even "I" can't be around is that wackystuff ... if I smell it I often get an immediate bad headache. Must be allergic to it. Its amazing how many people will actually pull one out and light up not caring who is around them. I get outraged because of inconsiderateness, the headache, taste, and even sometimes a wierd contact high just from breathing that in.

I don't say "don't smoke that crap" I say... not around me or at least warn me so I can leave. YUK!

Maybe I won't have that issue arise now that I've left the Laid-Back Left Coast laizes faire (spelling?) types there!

NO darlings, Yappy is NOT, nor was I ever, a pothead or even occassionally in spite of being a Left-Coaster since 1965!

need my ciggies today!

Yap cough yap cough

Finally was able to load this thread to see the smoking smiley Now I'll try find a coffee drinking one!!!!

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by V_D
need my ciggies today!

Yap cough yap cough

That's about the size of it..........................

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by Mark W. Tonner
That's about the size of it..........................:

You pro-smoking lobby people are GROSS!

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
You pro-smoking lobby people are GROSS!

What can I say......

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by Mark W. Tonner
What can I say......

Gross I tell you!

Am I the only non-smoker here????



Smoking makes me ill...

... til I can view the tailend of this page dammit! LOAD YOU B U G G E R!

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Gross I tell you!

Am I the only non-smoker here????



Smoking makes me ill...

Looks like the morning after the night before.....

[DaveCox]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Gross I tell you!

Am I the only non-smoker here????



Smoking makes me ill...

Looks more like too much Chunder-Valley plonk Keith.

Originally posted by DaveCox
Looks more like too much Chunder-Valley plonk Keith.

And the bucket of prawns. . . . . . . . . . . .

R.

Originally posted by Keith Webb
You pro-smoking lobby people are GROSS!

Hmmmm, I think there may well be more than 144 of us.

R.

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by FV623
And the bucket of prawns. . . . . . . . . . . .

R.

In the immortal words of Bazza McKenzie:
"I'll get full as a catholic school and spew all over the lot of yers!"

No doubt a lot of Aussies my vintage will remember "The Adventures of Barry McKenzie"
Which was followed by the sequel "Bazza holds his own"

A wonderful creation of our own "Dame Edna", Barry Humphries.


From the Screensound website
"The Adventures of Barry McKenzie (1972)
A new 35mm print of this feature and trailer are now available on request.
Courtesy of Phillip Adams, Kodak (Australasia) and Atlab Australia

ScreenSound Australia National Collection
Title Number 159

Classification: R rating





Synopsis
Humphries presented a loosely connected series of comic situations deriving from the culture clash between the Australian Innocent, 'Bazza' McKenzie, and the English – from a taxi driver who takes Barry from Heathrow to Earls Court by way of Stonehenge, to the decadent upper classes with their public school fetishes, the swinging scene of pop music promoters and Jesus freaks, and eventually the hallowed halls of BBC television.



Background
Shooting began in London in January 1972. Late in February the unit returned to Australia to complete the few remaining scenes and encountered problems with unions because of the presence of British technicians in the crew. A compromise was reached, with the employment of shadow Australian technicians, and shooting was completed in March. The film was funded entirely by the Australian Film Development Corporation and made with a budget of $250,000. The film's immediate commercial success, enabled the production company to repay most of the government investment within three months of release. It also did very well commercially in London, where it established a record for any Australian film released there.




Director
Bruce Beresford

Year of Production: 1972
Duration: 114 mins
Format: 35mm, (1:1,85) Colour
Optical soundtrack: Mono, remastered to Dolby® Digital"