The ShadowMusic Web Community

I was reading the "Smoking Discussion" thread previously and remembered a point that had been made in another thread where the subject of smoking had been touched on, and thought this, too, deserved its own thread.

In years gone by, before the banning of smoking in the workplace, large numbers of people smoked at worked and elsewhere, such as shops, restaurants, pubs, and obviously at gigs and concerts. Indeed at one time a majority of people smoked. Now the situation is reversed; the majority do not smoke, and agree with recent measures that have been taken.

Recently a photo was posted on the forum in which someone was smoking, an a forum member removed the offending weed and reposted it. Also, I have seen the famous photo of Robert Johnson with the ciggy Photoshopped out, and the equally famous 'zebra crossing' Beatles pic with Macca's fag similarly exorcised. But are these expurgations are a good idea?

It seems to me, that this is an example of rewriting history. Perhaps most of us these days do disapprove of the dreaded coffin nails, but is this the thin end of the wedge? And if so, where will it all end? After all, if we don't truthfully represent the past as it was, people will never know how much progress has been made.

Quite agree, Steve.

In my view we should not "rewrite history" in that way. Only by being able to see what actually happened will we be able to learn from it, not least because it shows the context in which other things happened - and other decisions made that may to the current younger generation look baffling - even wicked - without appreciating the context.

jimuc wrote:I'd love to see the PC brigade trying to edit the fag out of this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgbcyfJgfQ

No Jim, they'd just get it banned. The PC Brigade are like that.
BTW - if PC means Politically Correct I want to know WHICH Politician says so and why their word / interpretation is THE one!!! Grrr!!
Ian

Politicians can say what they like - and do - but you don't have to take any notice. The only way they can make us do things is by passing an Act of Parliament.

I agree so WHY do we pay so much attention to this PC (spelled 'miseries') brigade? Beats me.
Ian

Stratpicker wrote:I agree so WHY do we pay so much attention to this PC (spelled 'miseries') brigade? Beats me.
Ian

Ah, that old grumble!
It's not 'polically correct' to object to smoking. Smoking affects other people in a way that say, drinking beer, does not.

If you drink a pint of beer in company, it goes inside you. After an interval you pee it away down a toilet. You don't spray over other people then leave the last few drops as a puddle in the street.
Yet the smoker does the equivalent. Their smoke goes over other people and, only too often, they simply dump the fag-end at their feet.

There may be other things that are 'politically correct' but smoking isn't one of them. Smoking is dangerous and anti-social.

Drunken people did more often bother me than smokers.

You are quite right Ray. The current legislation has nothing to do with PC or making people stop smoking. What people do in their own time and space has nothing to do with anyone but themselves. However, when it endangers people around them, that's a different matter. Second hand smoke is a significant risk to health and third hand smoke (the particulates deposited on skin, hair clothing and soft furnishings - which are present long after a cigarette has been extinguished) is particularly toxic to young children.

We didn't understand the full extent of the dangers all those years ago mentioned above but can you imagine, with today's knowledge, trying to introduce a new product on to the consumer market today which contains 4000 chemicals, at least 69 of which are carcinogenic, and if used as the manufacturers would like you to, has a 50% chance of killing you?