It serves them right - all smoking bans must be overturned since secondhand smoke has now been proven to be harmless.

First of all who deserves it? Scottish Film Industry? English Film Industry? The filmmakers? Who?

I'd love to see the scientific facts behind that claim. Imagine that, breathing in all those chemicals doesn't hurt you as long as someone else breathes it in first.

The entire population of Scotland deserves it for allowing the fascist government to pass a law banning any legal activity, let alone smoking. As a result, their economy will be hurt when restaurants start closing and they begin to lose business like this film.

For proof on the NOT harmful effects of SHS, check out my site at smokinglobby.com. Also read the WHO (World Health Org) study which shows no correlation between second hand smoke and any illness.

The entire population of Scotland deserves it for allowing the fascist government to pass a law banning any legal activity, let alone smoking. As a result, their economy will be hurt when restaurants start closing and they begin to lose business like this film.

For proof on the NOT harmful effects of SHS, check out my site at smokinglobby.com. Also read the WHO (World Health Org) study which shows no correlation between second hand smoke and any illness.

Can you provide a link to the WHO report as well then?

The entire population of Scotland does not deserve it, and quite frankly they won't be that harmed by one film moving out.

I'm a non-smoker and I love the fact that I can go out and not end up coming home stinking of second hand smoke, never mind the equally proven health risks.

Oh and we've had the smoking ban here in Scotland for a year now, when exactly are business going to start closing because of it?

I guess this explains why major cities in the States that have carried a similar ban much, much longer have no pubs, clubs, restaurants...oh wait a minute, they have loads.

While the smoking ban in restaurants, bars and clubs was balked at first it really hasn't hurt business in the least. Here in So Cal all those places (even the dives) are still packed with people each weekend. Most places have a smoking patio, which has proven to work as a fine compromise. As a non-smoker I appreciate not having smoke blown in my face while sitting in a bar.

As for the film moving it's location because of the smoking ban it does seem a tad extreme; however if the director feels it is that important then perhaps there is some justification.

2 things...

1) Specifically thinking of a Sherlock Holmes film - if he happened to be Scottish, it would be hard to make the movie without him smoking a pipe. Maybe the same goes for the character in this film. It's too bad that a fascist rule of no smoking has to either A) make the writer of the film change the character to fit in with a bullshit law and thus changing his "vision" or his art or whatever; or B) the entire production has to move to another country. To me, this is just stupid and a waste of time and money.

2) I too am a non-smoker and I too REALLY appreciate the smoking ban in my city for the reasons you said. However, I also oppose the law and think that a business should decide for itself what can and can't go on inside it's walls - as long as it's legal. Second hand alcohol kills FAR MORE people per year than does smoking. Should we ban alcohol in public too?

And for the record, plenty of smaller bars in our area were forced to close their doors after only 8 months of the smoking ban going into effect because they lost a lot of patronage. Especially the ones on the fringes. You can just drive an extra few miles into another county and smoke away. This is where everyone went.

Oh yeah, and though I can't back it up, I did hear over the weekend about this study Bill mentions. Haven't read it myself, but I know it exists.

HAhahaha. Hey BILL!!

I just went to your site and all your Google ads are ads for the exact OPPOSITE of what you're site advocates (or doesn't advocate). Pretty funny.

I guess it'll be like that study that says sun cream doesn't protect you, or that old one that margarine was bad for you, and so on.

Are you saying though that a Sherlock Holmes film wouldn't work if he wasn't smoking? I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference.

Well, it wouldn't be the biggest deal in the world, but yeah...

When you think Holmes, you think cap and pipe. It would be like Superman without his red cape. Even the Sesame Street character, Sherlock Hemlock, has a pipe and cap and that's a kids show!

Never seen someone wearing a Sherlock Holmes costume without a pipe. If they did, it would be wrong.

Looks like they won't post my comments anymore.

To answer Andrew;
We laugh at the non-smoker adverts on the page, because it means anti-smokers are paying for our site.

In Ireland, 1 pub closes every day now:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6625687.stm

Bill I think your smoking has affected your ability to read. When the message pops up saying that your comment has been held for approval, it means just that, so when I come back to my computer I find multiple messages for approval for you repeatedly sending the same commment again and again.

Unfortunately it's not a conspiracy of non-smokers against you Bill, it's a way of protecting from Spam. Although a recent report suggests that most spam is actually good for you.

The comment you first tried to publish has been removed because of your final insulting comments against all of Scotland. If you would like to resubmit without that in I'll approve it when I get back to my PC next.

I realize the time delay - I was referring to the post YOU censored because YOU thought it offensive. I disagree, I didn't say anything that the people of Scotland would take offense with, but now noone will know. Perhaps you should read more, and stop censoring everyone with such a heavy hand.

Here in America, we have free speech on our internet forumns. Too bad you are ban-happy and don't practice free speech.

Bill you had no idea I had removed any comment until I told you so there, previously they were being held pending approval as the comment page says.

You did say something offensive against Scottish people, I am one and I found it offensive. Plus it is my film related site so I get to choose what I put up.

As for censorship, I cannot edit a comment and then post it for as soon as I do I become a publisher, not a common carrier - this is a law in your country, the US - when I become a publisher I am immediately legally responsible for the full text of that comment, so you see editing them is a very dubious thing.

Anyway, this isn't really the question. The comment you refer to was pending my approval along with all the other comments so until I pointed out I hadn't accepted that one there was no way to tell if I'd removed it or it was still pending.

It's not a heavy hand, it's keep the conversations on film related topics, away from insulting others for no valid reason, and stopping spam.

No, I knew you removed it because this post:
"Looks like they won't post my comments anymore" was posted AFTER it and my previous posts were not put up.

Anyway, it's a moot point now, and off the film topic at hand.

I'm sorry...did someone seriously say second-hand smoke is harmless? I'm sure my eyes going bloodshot and my lungs filling with fluid within a matter of minutes of being around smoke is just my imagination, right?

As to the topic at hand, do they really have to use tobacco for the on-screen smoking? I thought there was some sort of fake substitute you could use. Or, maybe this is why CGI was invented...smoke effects improve every year... :)

SHS is harmless to most. I assume by saying your lungs fill up with liquid means you have some sort of respoatory disorder. If not, then why isn;t everyone dead? Well forget that. How about you show me a study that proves that SHS is Harmful, instead of insulting people when you arguments have gone nowhere... WIth regards to the film idustry, I am sure this is just another way to censor "innapropriate" behavoir. Or behavoir modification. But sex, drugs and violence is ok. They are pushing to make all movies depeciting smoking in the US have an R rating. You antis just know no end...

Bill I have to correct you, at that moment when you posted your comment "Looks like they won't post my comments anymore" all the comments were pending, I hadn't even seen them.

When I came back to my computer you had a string of repeated comments pending approval and that one comment outstanding, nothing had been censored.

They were all pending approval because of the links included. So you were wrong, it was after that moment that I reviewed the comments.

Jord, if you'd taken the time to read the story you would have seen that the production has moved to England in order to include the smoking of the character in the film. Hence there's no censorship going on in the film industry, indeed the film industry is trying to retain the smoking in the film.

What is happening is that the Scottish law banning smoking in enclosed, public places does not exempt itself for working actors on set as part of a role.

In a way I guess that is fair enough because even on a film set the rest of the crew is exposed to second hand smoke regardless of their choice.

I find Bill, like most of the smoking lobby to be one of these people who is both supremely arrogant and loves to cherry pick facts to support his arguements. Add to the fact that he was just plain offensive to our country in general rather xenophobic. I bet he lives in a southern state.

Personally, living in Scotland with a smoking ban now, I love it. Like Richard the best feeling in the world is coming home from a nightclub with;

a) Clothes that don't smell like a coalminers ashtray.

b) No cigarette burns in my shirts and t-shirts from idiots carelessly wagging their fags about while yapping in a closed environment.

But all that's beside the point.

What I find hilarious and ridiculous about the whole thing is... we can create realistic CGI dinosaurs... we can make men fly... but we can't fake someone smoking....????

Right then...

Freedom is not just the freedom to do the smart or healthy thing. That kind of freedom is NO freedom at all.

Logical extention, we should be free to murder because it's not the smart or healthy thing to do, but to be denied the right to murder impinges on our freedom.

Freedom is great as a concept, sadly freedom can only extend so far practically before it starts invading that other great bastion of freedom, the other guy's RIGHT not to be harmed by you expressing your freedoms.

Smoking harms the other guy. End of.

Jord: I insulted nobody, and yes, I do have a respiratory disorder. The first statement made about SHS by Bill was a blanket statement to which I responded with a contradiction. I don't need a study to prove SHS is dangerous for me personally, and as Stuart's excellent comment points out, this is one of those tricky parts about freedom.

In my own personal opinion, there should be no bans in private, commercial spaces on smoking. Companies should merely be required to post whether their space is smoking or non-smoking. I can make my own decision as to where I go, and others can make their own decision about whether or not they want to work there.

Hap, great point about "fake" tobacco. Can't the movie studio just put some dry ice in a pipe or something? I'm sure it's been done before.

And Stuart, comparing murder to a guy having a smoke is a little off the wall don't you think? Smoking is legal right? It's not pot or crack. You can go down to the loval 7/11 or Circle K and buy a pack and smoke away. So it seems to me, that if I OWN my own bar, I should be able to allow Richard to come into my bar and smoke a cigarette if he wants to. Likewise, I should be able to tell Richard that he cannot smoke in my bar. If you don't like the fact that Richard is smoking and don't want smokey clothes or liquid filed lungs, you don't have to come in my bar. The freedom to choose is what is great about democracy and capitalism. The government should keep their big noses out of MY business.

Also, I bet you don't want to ban alcohol. But alcohol kills far more innocent people than does SHS.

Oh, by the way I don't smoke, never have.

I have no problem with people smoking as long as they don't blow the smoke on my clothes and in my lungs.

It's like an old poster my Dad used to have at work.

"Your pleasure is smoking, the result of your pleasure is smoke. It gets in my hair, my clothes and my lungs.

My pleasure is drinking and the result of that pleasure is I need to urinate.

Would you mind if I stood on a chair and pissed all over you?"

I found that amusing!

Everything was legal before a law was passed to make it illegal Andrew. Your pot/crack analogy holds no water. Except I guess that nicotine is also an addictive drug.

And no, alcohol does not kill "innocent" people. People under the influence more often than not kill innocent people. People who had a choice. Drive or do not drive. Get in a fight or walk away. Drink to excess or drink in moderation. Address your problem or die because of it. People who drink themselves to death are not innocent, they either face up to their responsibility to themselves or face the consequences. Innocence would require ignorance. Nobody who drinks is ignorant to it's effects. They may be in denial but it's not the same thing. Smokers aren't ignorant to the effects of smoke. They are just in denial.

It's like accusing video games of making kids violent and killing. The games don't cause that, they may act as a trigger for someone with existing problems that need addressed. It's not the game's fault but rather the issues with the person at hand.

I've played violent games since 1984. And the only time I've been in a fight was in junior high when some bullies took me on and lost.

I have consumed alcohol since 1994. I don't drink excessively to the detriment to my health. I've never had the urge or stupidity to have driven drunk. I've never been in a drunken brawl. I've lost a few brain-cells along the way but I can safely say that aside from the inconvenience of someone I know having to support me on the way home on a rare occasion, my alcohol consumption has never impinged on someone else's freedom or health or hygiene the way smoking does.

What choice do non-smokers have? Go out and breathe cancer-causing shit and come home stinking like a hobo or stay at home and be a hermit because of a selfish few with an addiction who justify it as a recreational activity.

Smokers as evidenced here choose not to accept their responsibility to the health of others while pursuing their own selfish ends.

Alcohol doesn't drive the car drunk and kill a bystander. The person makes a selfish choice to endanger the bystander's life.

The cigarette doesn't choose to affect the non-smoker. The smoker makes a selfish choice to endanger the non-smoker's life.

Fascinating. You talk about choice. You have the choice not to go into a smokey bar. I believe a bar owner should have a choice as well as to what he does or allows in his own business.

I think you're missing my point on alcohol killing innocent people. I'm talking about my right to drive on the road at night without the fear of some drunk killing me and my family (which happens every day to someone). I NEED to drive home from work or to the grocery store. I don't NEED to go into a smokey restaurant. I think my analogy holds gallons of water. Think again.