Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Smoking ban hits Tom 'n' Jerry

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 August 2006
Tom and Jerry cartoons have been censored following a single complaint Animation showing smoking on the Boomerang channel is to be cut Media watchdog Ofcom investigated the complaint
Key quote "To me it's political correctness gone mad. If you're really going to be concerned about children taking something up perhaps Ofcom could look at Tom dropping an anvil on Jerry's head or putting Jerry in an egg slicer. " - Adrian Monck, media analyst
Story in full TOM and Jerry can flatten each other with anvils and batter themselves senseless with mallets, but censors have drawn a line when it comes to watching the cartoon cat and mouse enjoy a cigarette.

Following a single complaint to the media watchdog Ofcom, scenes showing characters smoking in the classic cartoons are being cut.

Similar scenes in other cartoons including The Flintstones and Scooby Doo are also destined for the cutting room floor.

The censorship, which was described by one media commentator as "patronising", was prompted after a viewer contacted Ofcom to complain about cartoons broadcast on the children's channel Boomerang, saying they were not appropriate for young viewers.

In one Oscar-winning episode, Texas Tom, Tom is seen rolling a cigarette, lighting it and smoking it in a bid to impress a female cat. In Tennis Champs, Tom's opponent in a tennis match was seen smoking a large cigar.

Ofcom investigated the complaint and the channel agreed to cut scenes in future which glamorise or condone smoking.

Ofcom said: "We recognise that these are historic cartoons, most of them having been produced in the 40s, 50s, 60s, at a time when smoking was more generally accepted.

"We note that, in Tom and Jerry, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned.

"However, while we appreciate the historic integrity of the animation, the level of editorial justification required for the inclusion of smoking in such cartoons is necessarily high."

Boomerang, part of Turner Broadcasting, has an audience made up predominantly of children - 56 per cent of viewers are aged four to 14.

The Turner company has agreed to review its archive material and edit scenes or references where smoking is glamorised or might encourage imitation. Smoking scenes which do not appear to condone the habit may be left uncut.

The company is also planning to edit out smoking scenes from classic Hanna Barbera cartoons including Scooby Doo, The Jetsons and The Flintstones.

Last night, media analyst Adrian Monck said: "To me it's political correctness gone mad. If you're really going to be concerned about children taking something up perhaps Ofcom could look at Tom dropping an anvil on Jerry's head or putting Jerry in an egg slicer. It's actually very patronising. Children are well able to discern that there is not anything cool about a cartoon cat doing something. It's mad to think they would even think of imitating what they see. If that was the case the streets of Scotland would be full of children acting out scenes from the cartoons.

"Of course parents are right to be concerned about what children see on television. Violence impacts negatively but it's just plain silly to think children will be running around copying what they see on screen."

Neil Rafferty, of Forest, the smokers' rights group, said Ofcom's decision set a dangerous precedent.

"Yes, smoking is bad for you and the issue needs to be addressed. But the more you make something like smoking illicit and taboo, the greater the likelihood of youngsters taking it up as a way of rebelling.

"Ofcom may not have noticed but Tom and Jerry is insanely violent. But instead of mentioning this, they are picking on cigarettes. If we start censoring old cartoons because they have a cat smoking in them it will merely create an completely unrealistic world for children."

Fiona Hyslop, SNP education spokeswoman and mother of three young children, said: "My brother's called Tom and when we were young we played at Tom and Jerry. I was always Jerry because he was the smart one.

"Any five-year-old could tell you Tom will always get his comeuppance. If my children saw Tom smoking in a cartoon they'd just think he was a stupid cat. Anyone who knows the cartoon knows Tom is the one who does daft things and would not want to identify with him."

Tom and Jerry, created, written and directed by animators William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, was first censored in 1965 when it appeared on CBS Saturday morning television.

Mammy Two-Shoes, the black housekeeper, was rotoscoped out and replaced with a thin white woman. Scenes of extreme violence were also removed.

The full article contains 769 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

az,

22/08/2006 02:32:40

Quite simply the more you try and tell people not to do something the more likely they are to want to do it = look at don't walk on the grass or don't touch wet paint - everybody either walks on it or touches it as have been told not to - if there was a more open and less dictating attitude to certain situations there would not be the problems there are - point in fact that in Europe many children are given a taste of wine when young which they don't particularly like but it takes the unknown factor out and reduces the need to drink etc

2

az,

22/08/2006 02:36:01

As usual you must all conform to the norm and this has been proved by numerous behavioural studies will not apply if there is a constant taboo placed on the event / action so to be liberal in the general sense would remove the eagerness to venture into certain situations

3

Clarence,

Hereford, Texas, USA 22/08/2006 03:32:03

Next they will say that Washington and Jefferson did not grow tobacco or own slaves and that Grant and Roosevelt (both of them) did not smoke it.

4

Abel Magwitch,

22/08/2006 03:43:52

Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990) was one of the first television personalities and he served as editor of Punch, a long-established humorous magazine, in the 1950s. He used to complain that it was hard to find anything to publish that was funnier than the real-life actions and statements of politicians and officials as reported in the media. That is obviously still the case. Muggeridge eventually turned to religion, and Punch is no longer in existence.

5

Joe Bloggs,

Spain 22/08/2006 05:25:49

Why not go even further, at times when kids can be watching TV (Which is only 2 hours a day right?) then cars driving in a dangerous looking manner should also be banned, eating fattening food is a health hazard so that should be out too, now what else.......

6

Factchecker,

22/08/2006 07:03:18

So it's ok for Tom and Jerry to slam frying pans into each others' face, but not to have a smoke...

7

Aileen,

Greece 22/08/2006 07:17:48

One person did this, what about everyone who smokes around children and everywhere in the world. I'm not a smoker but if a kid wants to smoke they will smoke no matter what they see or hear or not in this case. Rediculous.

8

Aileen,

Greece 22/08/2006 07:19:26

Oh yeh, I forgot to mention I grew up with Tom and Jerry and it did not want to make me smoke or smash someone's face in with a frying pan or any other kind of violence or drinking or anything.

9

paulr,

22/08/2006 07:24:32

this is supposedly a democracy but yet again we pander to the view of a minority of 'one'.
If this person does not like chips are fish and chip shops going to be banned?

10

neil,

lochwinnoch 22/08/2006 07:55:38

I'm afraid this minority of one is going to have to get a life.

11

Colinmac,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 07:57:47

I have completely had it with these twisted politically correct roundheads. They take he germ of a good idea - like not allowing workers to breath second hand smoke - and then turn the resulting legislation into a mockery.

One miserable complaint ? Someone at ofcom should be sacked !

12

Dod fae Aiberdeen,

Aberdeen 22/08/2006 08:00:39

It's true !!!

The world has gone mad.

13

G.,

South Queensferry 22/08/2006 08:05:57

And about time too. I totally blame Tom and Jerry for starting me smoking. They are also responsible for me regularly trapping peoples tongues in mice traps, beating people over the head with frying pans, anvils and other assorted heavy items. Now who can be blamed for all the drinking problems? Homer Simpson and Barney Gumble? Yeah, lets ban the Simpsons!!!

14

John,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 08:10:33

I was wondering, who should we refer our complaints to about Ofcom. Perhaps if one person complains it will be cut and we can try and get some sanity back, perhaps.

15

Henry Gray,

Scottish Borders 22/08/2006 08:16:44

This country has gone MAD.

Smoking KILLS
Cars KILL
Alcohol KILLS
Food KILLS
Blair & Bush KILL

BAN THE LOT

PS. Drugs are good for you but the NHS can't afford them.

16

not allowed my name anymore,

22/08/2006 08:19:35

aaaaah! so its pepe la pews fault that i painted the cat to see it get raped by a skunk.

makes sense now.

17

Doreen,

Glasgow 22/08/2006 08:22:33

What's the big hoo ha, its a filthy dangerous habit that kills people. Its not cool or gives you street cred, only cancer, bronchitis or emphesema. I say take it out the cartoons where its portrayed as sophisticated behaviour for the benefit of children. If you smoke you are a drug addict no?

18

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 08:25:14

It highlights perfectly the extreme obsessions of the anti-smoking hate groups. Never mind about the violence and murder on our streets, never mind about real health issues, never mind about the people dying of starvation, never mind about industrial and vehicle pollution, never mind about their encouragment of daily health scare junk studies........ just as long as they don't have to look at a cartoon with a cigarette their world will be perfect.

19

I just want to watch good rugby,

Livingston 22/08/2006 08:37:16

A single complaint brings about this kind of action? How does that represent the view of the thousands of parents who had no issue with it at all - who saw it for what it was, just an old fashioned, but funny, cartoon. My gravest concern is that, once again, the action of a tiny minority alter the definition of what is acceptable in OUR society. WRONG! If you don't like what your kids see on telly, TURN IT OFF!

20

John,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 08:42:50

Doreen, are the the one who complained? Or, is that two people who think that it is wrong for Tom to smoke?

21

Anna,

Cambridgeshire 22/08/2006 08:47:57

Unbelievable - one person complains and the nanny state over reacts as usual. The best Tom & Jerry cartoons are the old ones - a lot of them were made in the 40s and 50s - when loads of people smoked. What is the big deal? Tom survives all kinds of horrific things in the cartoons - perhaps the poor guy needs a fag occasionally, to cope with the stress given to him by that annoying little mouse!

The other one that gets me is when will poor old Coyote, with all his elaborate traps, catch that infernal Road Runner? I bet he could do with a fag sometimes too!! As someone else has said if you don't want your children to watch - there is an off switch.

22

BabyMonoxide,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 08:53:52

I guess poor Scooby Doo won't be allowed to eat his great big sandwiches any more either, cuz he's encouraging kids to be obese...

23

Larsen1952,

Seattle, Wa. U.S.A. 22/08/2006 08:58:26

I have seen so much of this mindless nit-picking.
I think the best thing to do is to make Monty Pytons Life of Bryon a required subject for all K - 6th graders. Then everyone can say, "IT'S A SIGN!"

24

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 09:01:31

LOL John (20), nice one.

I wonder if Doreen is campaigning to ban all the other 'dangerous activities that kill people' such as rock climbing or parachuting or driving a car.

As for 'cool' and 'street cred'. These attributes for the youth are about rebelling against lecturing virtuous nannies. Can you see the 'cool' 16 year olds on the streets saying "Nooooo, we mustn't try that, they banned it in cartoons."?

25

ecofriendly,

Glasgow 22/08/2006 09:07:05

I can't believe that I am reading this story! Checked the calendar just in case I had slept through to April 1st!

I sympathise with the person who complained - if (s)he cannot spot the difference betoween cartoon and reality, then (s)he really should not be allowed to have anything as dangerous as a television in the house. I hope that they don't accidentally wander onto a news report at any time - I mean can see some really awful things there. AND THEY ARE REAL! Maybe we should ask OFCOM to ban the news also.

I am a non-smoker, and hope that my children all remain so also. But I really don't think for a minute that they are going to turn into 40 a day men just because a cat once had a cigar on TV. Even the youngest (7) has known for several years that cartoons ARE NOT REAL and things that happen in them are pretend. I mean does the complainant have a cat that stands around rolling ciggies for goodness sake.

I cannot believe that all this time and money is to be spent mutilating classic cartoons to appease some over-sensitive dowally. One complaint - get a grip.

Thousands of people complain about more serious matters (NHS postcode lottery, unjustifiable bank charges, ...... the list goes on) and nothing happens. One person - yes that is right ONE PERSON - complains about a cartoon and the whole animation archive is to be trawled and cut apart. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

26

WJohn,

West Lothian 22/08/2006 09:15:30

How does Mickey Mouse get away with it? He is obviously a pale mouse blacked up in order to make fun of a section of the community which was unfairly oppressed at the time of film production. Ban him!
The same can be said for the “ lawdy lawdy” accent of Tom’s housemaid. So even more Tom 'n' Jerry films should be banned.

27

SW,

Blairgowrie 22/08/2006 09:24:13

Another example of wishy washy, mamby pamby, loony lefty, political correcty tosh. Scrap Ofcom and spend the money on cancer drugs!!!

28

Helen,

Midlothian 22/08/2006 09:29:27

I'd like to see smoking and other unhealthy habits taken out of all kids programmes. It's not about political correctness gone mad, it's about letting kids know what's acceptable in society. It's totally unacceptable to smoke, use violence or drink to excess, so why should television aimed at younger people portray these things.

29

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 09:31:44

I seem to remember Tom smoking a great big cigar which turned his face green and sickly. Surely this was a good anti-smoking message.

The wrinkled stockings of the black housekeeper was more of a problem for me, especially at the difficult adolescent age.

30

mr chips,

glasgow 22/08/2006 09:33:10

Does this mean i will have the get rid of my popeye
video,s?.SHOOT THE PC BRIGADE,SAVE POPEYE.

31

mr chips,

glasgow 22/08/2006 09:36:43

17 DOREEN/read post 15, and join the real world.

32

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 09:43:59

Helen (28)

How exactly do you think that keeping kids wrapped up in a nice pretend world where nothing bad happens helps them or prepares them for the real world?

33

Colinmac,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 09:47:08

I'm relieved to note that the vast majority of comments reflect my own view that the world is going to hell in a handcart.

But to the minority - vis Doreen and Helen - I suggest they campaign to move shows like these to a time after the watershed and replace them with My Little Pony cartoons where the whole world is pink and fluffy. But don't allow your children to leave the house . . .

34

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 09:55:39

Colin (33)

Don't give them ideas. If they campaign to have the world covered in pink fluffy material they will be able to ban smoking outdoors on the grounds of a fire hazard !!

35

chrisdonia,

22/08/2006 09:55:47

This means of course that soon all images of smoking in the media will be banned/edited out.

I read a book years ago set in the mid 2000s and they had digitally altered old films to remove cigarettes and smoke because it was seen as inappropriate. Never thought it might actually happen.

36

James.D,

22/08/2006 09:59:05

Helen 28, I smoke, does that mean I am totally unacceptable in your opinion.
Funny, I thought we still lived in a democracy, with things like freedom of choice etc, maybe you can enlighten me

37

Carl,

France 22/08/2006 10:08:27

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\A good move would probably leave both the sad comlainant and ofcom together on the cutting room floor. Pathetic cases both of them.

38

Crewedaddy,

Crewe 22/08/2006 10:12:01

I'm not sure banning something and making it taboo increases the desire to take it up amongst children. We could try though: ban all depictions of healthy eating and exercise and see what happens. It won't work. Why? Because it wasn't the fact that it was necessarily glamorous to be seen smoking or drinking, it was perceived as being "grown-up". I hate bowdlerisation of any form - children are the first to ridicule anything hateful, let them be encouraged to do it with this.

39

redfergus,

london 22/08/2006 10:21:28

Campaigning against nicotine addition is one thing, but altering cultural history is something else. Once a cartoon is made, only its editor can legitimately change it. The final version is an historic fact.

If you change a cartoon, then you change cinematic history. Can't be done. There is no moral justification for it. It comes under 'book burning' in my dictionary, and we know what that leads to.

One thing I learned from Tom & Jerry and similar cartoons was to be careful using the sidewalk next to tall buildings, unless I wanted an anvil, a grand piano or a safe to fall on my head. In T&J most smoking events end in tragedy: the smoker bursts into flame, or coughs his lungs out, or his face explodes.

Would those cautionary episodes, which send out the RIGHT message to children, be okay with Doreen and Helen? Please let us know, ladies.

40

rita,

leicester 22/08/2006 10:44:38

By changin the cartoons history is being chamged, after al these years and a few complaints watchdog has decided that these are violent and effect childrens behaviour. Thhe cartoons should not change as it is part of history for adults and children. The cartoons will not be the same, society is to blame not cartoons. The best bit about the cartoons is tom and jerry being violent together and the children are aware that this is not real if the parents could explain this to children. From day one the producers new the contents and for the fact the campaign in smoking theit are more effective ways of making this aware to kids and cartoons is not one of them

suggestion

talks in schools
parents talk to children
adverts that children understand

By deleting the smoking scenes or any other especially scooby doo the cartoons will never be the same and also for adult fans who enjoy them as well

41

rita,

leicester 22/08/2006 10:47:26

By changin the cartoons history is being changed, after all these years and a few complaints watchdog has decided that these are violent and effect childrens behaviour. Thhe cartoons should not change as it is part of history for adults and children. The cartoons will not be the same, society is to blame not cartoons. The best bit about the cartoons is tom and jerry being violent together and the children are aware that this is not real if the parents could explain this to children. From day one the producers new the contents and for the fact the campaign in smoking theit are more effective ways of making this aware to kids and cartoons is not one of them

suggestion

talks in schools
parents talk to children
adverts that children understand

By deleting the smoking scenes or any other especially scooby doo the cartoons will never be the same and also for adult fans who enjoy them as well

42

rita,

leicester 22/08/2006 10:48:02

By changin the cartoons history is being changed, after all these years and a few complaints watchdog has decided that these are violent and effect childrens behaviBy deleting the smoking scenes or any other especially scooby doo the cartoons will never be the same and also for adult fans who enjoy them as well

43

rita,

leicester 22/08/2006 10:48:59

By changing the cartoons history is being changed, after all these years and a few complaints watchdog has decided that these are violent and effect childrens behaviour by deleting the smoking scenes or any other especially scooby doo the cartoons will never be the same

44

rita,

leicester 22/08/2006 10:49:26

By changing the cartoons history is being changed, after all these years and a few complaints watchdog has decided that these are violent and effect childrens behaviour by deleting the smoking scenes or any other especially scooby doo the cartoons will never be the same

45

RAVIS,

in the borders... 22/08/2006 11:06:05

what a load of rubbish! what i find unacceptable is the fact that one person complained. smoking's one of those things you make a choice about yourself. if you smoke, you know the risks. if you don't you don't. and don't get me started on passive smoking, because that has to be nonsense. if passive smoke kills, how come smokers live so long? how come smokers aren't dead after the fifteenth cigarette?

46

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 11:13:33

If Tom and Jerry are under threat, what chance has Bugs Bunny got. BB used to crossdress to look like a Southern Belle on occasion and also make fun of other characters with speech impediments. Donald Duck is another who must be under threat, as his grumpy muttering will cause offence to some.

So going by the Tom and Jerry precedent, I see a bleak future for our favourite cartoon characters.

47

Mick,

Aberdeenshire 22/08/2006 11:21:30

I can't believe this.
Its a cartoon with a smoking (only occassionally) cat - and yes its insanely violent but its insanely funny.
I was reading the other day that a council down south has scrapped the presentation of Long Service Awards to their employee's - because they do not want to be accused of age discrimination.

I am open to any idea's as to how we can halt and reverse the insane "politically correct" acceptance that seems to have infiltrated our society. I have no doubt it is as a result of actions of an absurdly low number of people like the case in question - one complaint!

Are there action groups that represent conventional opinion and which tackle this issue?

48

John,

california 22/08/2006 11:25:48

I think the people "in charge" have been smoking something else,...it's way too early in the morning for this nonsense!!!

Careful AJ #47 don't give them any ideas!

As most of us grew up watching these 'toons', our prognosis must not be good!!!

49

DAVID,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 11:41:57

Colin and Steve:

spot on!

50

Unknown Masses,

Aberdeen 22/08/2006 11:53:55

I guess the complainant didnt see Itchy and Scratchy on the Simpsons.

There was once a simpsons episode where marge complained about the violence in the cartoon and forced them to change it.

I wonder how many of these complainers have six foot blue hair.

51

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 12:02:10

I've decided to be offended by the Whacky Races. It encourages speeding on our roads, coupled with the lack of seat belts, this is a terrible example to set. Also the cigar smokin' Ant Hill mob fire tommy guns at other drivers, although this apparently mirrors life in Chicago!

I'll be writing to whoever to stop this OUTRAGE!!

52

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 12:04:58

Melanie,
Are you shopping for a Haggis today?

53

Rod the Mod,

22/08/2006 12:34:31

The cat next door to us smokes 40 a day - and it's never done him any harm. It does somehow lend him an air of sophistication especially when he dresses up for a night on the tiles. Mind you one night when he was on the tiles, he accidentally started a small fire in the attic. Must've dropped a lit one I suppose, so maybe it's not so safe after all.

54

Vancouver,

22/08/2006 12:41:09

Henry No.15

You forgotten to add

Muslims Kill

55

SW,

Blairgowrie 22/08/2006 12:41:35

AJ. Good point. I seem to remember Penelope Pit Stop applying make-up while driving. A note to the HSE is on the cards. What kind of example is this?

56

Crewedaddy,

Crewe 22/08/2006 12:49:49

Carman @ 46. Where do you get the idea smokers live for a long time and that passive smoke is harmless? I'm intrigued by this new found intelligence. Smoke's smoke, regardless. I suppose nuclear fallout isn't dangerous, either. Like any poison it takes time to work and will work faster on some than others. And it affects in many different ways. My partner should have died from it at 42. Not because of cancer but because it caused a blood clot that starved her guts of oxygen and her intestines died. I have a hiatus hernia almost certainly exacerbated by a 20 a day habit until 3 years ago.

I'm currently writing a book about a jazz musician and I'm amazed at the number of his contemporaries from the 40s and early 50s who were dead by the time they were 60 because of cancer or emphysema. Of course there will always be one in every family who smoked like a bonfire until they were 90 but how many of those do you know against those who didn't get to see their grandchildren marry?

I'm all for banning smoking but re-writing history is a no no.

57

Donnie D,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 12:54:03

...and what about my opinion? Either everything is ok and its the responsibility of the parent to steer the child, or nothing harmful can be shown. This is insanity, changing history to fit the present? 1984 anyone? When will people start to realise that these sorts of decisions are slowly eating away at our freedoms and turning this country into a Nanny State? And why do parents rely on Television to guide their children? And why does it take only one person to ruin a classic cartoon? Either Uncensor it all or censor everything. I am sick fed up of this utter nonsense.

58

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 12:58:39

Mick (48) asked;

"Are there action groups that represent conventional opinion and which tackle this issue?"

Yes, there is a pro choice group fighting against erosions of personal freedom in the quest for healthism over at thebigdebate dot org.

You may also like to take a look at the work of Lord Stoddart, probably the only person left in british politics with integrity. He fights endlessly against the erosions of freedom.

59

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 13:09:53

Richard (57)

I don't think anyone is suggesting smoking is good for you; overdosing on anything is bad for health and certainly isn't limited to smoking.

You must however be one of the few people left (outside the anti-smoking hate groups) that believe that passive smoking is harmful. 150 junk studies, asking patients if they smoke or not couldn't come up with a statistically significant risk and a real scientific research by Oak Ridge laboratory, which measured real particles in a real environment found that cooking on a grill produces more harmful pollution than tobacco smoke. They also found no difference in the air quality between a non-smoking restaurant and a ventilated smoking pub.

Now if you are in favour of banning smoking to protect people against themselves that is fair enough, but are you also therefore in favour of banning hang gliding?

60

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 13:10:30

Steve,
Great point about Penelope Pit Stop and her make-up. A remake would surely have her using a mobile phone too.

Also the caveman showed recognisable symptoms of road rage in his pursuit of glory.

With analysis, the Wacky Races is a far more dangerous and influential cartoon than Tom and Jerry, and therefore must surely be banned. They could just cut out the race sequences as a compromise.

61

Glenn,

UK 22/08/2006 13:16:26

Birth kills, it is the most common cause of death! We are born, then we begin to die instantly.
Clocks measure time till death,
Clocks tick,
ticks are noise,
noise is sound waves, not unlike the wind,
speaking, movement and breathing make wind,
sunshine makes wind,
politicians make wind,
the big bang caused wind,
space causes death,
nuclear warheads cause death...
Need I keep whinging???
Cigarrettes my (insert profanities here)!

I used to smoke 100 cigarrettes a day, not because of Tom n Jerry, I did it because I was an idiot. I don't do it now, because I woke up, I also hate the stench of smoke.

If that mum does not want her kids watching smokers on tele, then hey, here's a radical idea...DON'T WATCH THE SHOW! Next she will try to stop Robin Hood movies because people get hurt by Robins arrows.

If you REALLY wanna ban smoking, how about progressively upping the legal age of smoking or making it a prescription drug...it IS after all more addictive than heroin.

Anyway, enough whinging.

www.terroristsrus.co.uk

http://terroristsrus.proboards103.com/index.cgi

62

John,

california 22/08/2006 13:27:06

Hi AJ #53, no, I'm off to work today; I'm afraid that will have to wait till later! :)

so, gents, what do you think about a lady lighting up with a cigar now and then, a petite one, course! ;)

63

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 13:32:27

Whatever makes you happy Melanie;

remember, a drink before and a smoke afterwards are the three best things in life. :)

64

Glenn,

UK 22/08/2006 13:39:25

Sound's yummy to me!!! :)

Oooops! Almost forgot, women are not allowed to be depicted as sexy and feminine, it's politically incorrect to see a woman as anything except the boss at the office.

But wait half a mo...I'm not a politician, so why should I be politically correct? Ever seen a politician who is correct? Sure they exist, but they ARE rare and tend not to be listened to by the crooked majority of politicians.

So Mel, yep, a cigar and a woman will do it for me, no problems...just as much as many women love a hunky and muscle-bound fireman or cop strippers all oiled up. Can't beat nature. :)

65

John,

california 22/08/2006 13:39:35

Hi Steve #64 I shall make no other comment, other than, I agree!! ;)

66

mr chips,

22/08/2006 13:44:37

Does this mean we will have a minister for cartoons?.

67

mr chips,

22/08/2006 13:47:55

richard57/The comments in your post are well known govmt lies.

68

Steve here,

22/08/2006 14:04:39

I keep asking my self the question, "Can a cartoon drawing really smoke?" I get the same answer every time, NO! Can a cat smoke? NO! It's not real folks! You got to be really daft to think cartoons are turning kids into smokers or cats. Hi, AJ and Melanie, I did work on deep fried cigars and cigarretts, it was a complete failure, the cat just could not stomach the taste.

69

Steve here,

22/08/2006 14:11:58

OHH, I should not have posted #70 the cartoon PETA police will be tracking me now!

70

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 14:14:58

Steve,
In Korea you get deep fried cats, so maybe a franchise selling them could be the way ahead!

71

Steve here,

22/08/2006 14:21:53

AJ, I think you found me a career. MacCatties deep fried felines with pesto. I can't miss. Well, I'm off to Asia.

72

Spicey,

Fife 22/08/2006 14:29:04

First Gerald #55- no need and off the point.

They should ban the rest of Tom and Jerry on health & safety grounds. I'm sure he didn't keep his back straight and lift from the legs when he picked up that anvil.

So they are editing all past cartoons so they dont offend todays public. Does that mean that they are going to erase all mentions of Magaret Thatcher from history because nobody now likes her. Come to mention it, the second world war was a bad time, lets get rid of that. And the great depression - cant encourage ppl to jump out windows now can we. Trench digging is also very dangerous so there goes the first world war. Cant talk about slavery so there goes the civil rights movement and the american civil war. Today ppl dont like the Britsh Empire, so all books mentioning that should be burned..... Just as well they're were wanting to get rid of history as a subject isn't it, got nothing left to teach.

73

mr chips,

glasgow 22/08/2006 14:46:41

The single person that sent in a complaint most probably works for THE SCOTTISH TABOCCO CONTROL DIVISION as they have plenty of time on their hands doing nothing,as the publicans and sad snoopers are being used to enforce the nanny state smoking ban.

74

mr chips,

glasgow 22/08/2006 14:48:25

ps will they now be staking out the cinema,s.

75

David ties to Kilmarnock,

Ontario, Canada 22/08/2006 14:51:42

A word from PETA
We strongly endorse the use of tobacco products by cartoon cats, it gives them that 'kippered' flavour.
Signed:
People Eating Tasty Animals

Here in Canada tobaco products carry disgusting images of open sores, fouled teeth and gums, and even scarier, a caution that smoking causes male impotence.
I quit smoking twenty years ago without the use of visual aids or censored cartoons.

76

Big-Joe,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 14:57:02

What a load of nonsense my dad smoked 60 fags a day drank a bottle of whisky a day and had so many girlfriends it was not real, mind you he died at 21 years old, this is how we should look at all this garbish laugh at them then carry on with our lives,

77

tom, HR6,

22/08/2006 14:59:58

At last - I now know where my pet cat, Billy, gets his 20-a-day Marlboro habit from... However, his bottle of whisky - I don't know where that comes from.

78

Michelle,

22/08/2006 15:05:19

It is absolutely fantastic to see so many comments and people getting excited about something.

But if you are going to get mad - why not take the time to address your comments regarding the inherent right of self-determination (meaning the right to accept or rejects risks based on what you want out of your life, including the right to choose to smoke and drink and over-eat) and the right to private property (while it is certainly in the government's role to establish indoor air quality standards - it is up to the property owner to decide how those standards will be met - either by banning smoking, increasing ventilation or installing modern designated smoking rooms).

If more of you had expressed your opinion on these very important principals when a smoking ban was being considered - would we be worrying about history being re-written and cartoon characters right now?

Michelle

79

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 15:06:10

David (77)

Oh no, not open soars, fouled teeth and smokers droop; that'll teach them for smoking outside the chernobyl factory.

Maybe we should put a picture of guts, brains and bones sprawled across the ground on the back of parachutes;

or how about a picture of puke and wet trousers on cans of lager;

or how about real photo's from crash scenes on the sides of aeroplanes?

80

Crewedaddy,

Crewe 22/08/2006 15:06:29

Is smoke harmful? Yes. Ergo, whatever the source, the smoke is still harmful. If anyone believes those reports they are sadly deluded.

Being passive doesn't remove its harmfulness. One might as well say it loses its smell because it's passive. If smoke from the lit end of a cigarette is less harmful than that coming from the end in one's mouth, why not just turn the thing round and hey, it's a miracle!!!!Everyone's safe!

81

Anna,

Cambridgeshire 22/08/2006 15:07:21

AJ - how true about Wacky Races - that should definitely be banned on H & S grounds as a road safety hazard. We don't want to encourage any children to think that its OK to drive around the country in that fashion.

The other cartoon concern I have is the spin off from Wacky Races - Catch The Pigeon - children might think it's perfectly all right to fly towering old crates all over the sky whilst trying to catch an elusive postie pigeon. What if they start copying that one - the danger to public health doesn't bear thinking about and the current security crisis at our airports will pale into insignificance - if those airborne deathtraps are allowed to take to the skies. I'm sure one of the characters in that used to smoke as well - which makes the whole thing even more of a terrifying prospect - Ban it immediately!!!

82

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 15:19:39

Richard (82)

Everything in life carries risk even drinking water, this is what the hate groups work on to try and make you believe something is terrible.

What they don't tell you is that there are over 400 known indoor carinogens and if they wanted to improve the quality of indoor air to the point where smoking should be banned they would have to ban cooking first. Thats why governments around the world won't back an indoor air quality bill; if they did they wouldn't be able to ban smoking.

83

SW,

Blairgowrie 22/08/2006 15:22:11

Really, its not Wackey Races that concerns me. Its the Telly Tubbies. All Obese with severer skin problems (perhaps too many deep fried cats). They should be put on diets. Mind you 20 fags a day may help the weight loss.

84

Steve here,

22/08/2006 15:31:27

Now, Steve#85, Don't start bashing deep fried cats. You could ruin my MacCatties deep fried felines franchise before I even get started. I wonder if I really could get a Telly Tubby endorsement...in Korean no less.

85

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 15:37:28

Gordon (86)

ASH is now widely acknowledged as Anti-Smoking-Hate group; they have never done anything intentionally towards health promotion, they have bragged in the national press about how they tricked the public and government over passive smoke and worker protection, they have apologised for spreading false data and results and what makes it worse the government funds them in this quest to persecute 12 million people.

They continue pumping tax money and cancer and heart charity donations into more junk studies in an attempt to prove what they told us they had already proved five years ago.

There only goal is the eradication of smokers from the face of the planet. Now if this isn't a biased organisation what is?

86

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 22/08/2006 15:48:48

Anna,
You've taken it too far, I think even my wee girl(15mnths) would scoff at the idea of replicating Catch the Pigeon. She could be influenced by the Wacky Racers as she already shows recklessness on her pushalong trike. But, Anna, really, Catch the Pigeon?

87

Steve here,

22/08/2006 15:49:38

Rab#30, I don't want to smoke, I don't even like Tom and Jerry. But I, like you, am very worried about what this could mean for Popeye. What that sailor can do with a pipe is in the realm of super hero. Is spinach still good for you? Was that in the pipe?....it could be a loophole

88

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 16:04:13

Gordon,

I like it......

"An investigation into the effects of passive scaremongering from the chattering classes"

Your survey should go well. Don't forget to use the tactics of the anti-smokers; only ask non-scaremongers the question, bin any data that doesn't give the result you want, don't ask too many people, reduce the confidence interval to suit and don't take into account any other causes of scaremongering.

Then if you can get half a million from the government you can do some TV ads that say. "A person dies every five minutes from real causes due to passive scaremongering"

89

George,

San Francisco, California 22/08/2006 16:34:55

When I read this story, at first I thought it was happening right here in fruitcake capital of the world--San Francisco. But imagine my suprise when I read that the UK is banning Tom & Jerry's unacceptable behavior! I sure hope your TV doesn't forget to censor out all those images of Churchill with a cigar!!!!

90

Alec,

York UK 22/08/2006 16:55:22

Hang on a minute; surely this isn't about children getting hooked on tobacco because they've seen a cartoon character smoking, isn't the message here that one should not allow one's cat or canary to watch Tom and Jerry in case they take up smoking?

And has a ban been enforced to prevent the Road Runner cartoons been exported to Afghanistan in case they are used in al-Qaeda training camps?

PS. Who was the miserable *********** who complained to Ofcom?

91

Crewedaddy,

Crewe 22/08/2006 17:14:24

OK, I tell you what, any non-smoker here want to have somebody's second hand smoke pumped directly into their lungs? It's OK because it's passive.

I don't have an agenda, I'm not an ex-smoker, I'm a smoker of 30 years vintage who's not had one since June 11th 2003.

Gordon, the vast majority of you were consulted. There are less than 25% of the population who smoke, what did you think the result of any consultation exercise would be? The tobacco lobby is powerful but they couldn't mobilise against the weight of public opinion. Builders are happy about it though. Look at all the extra work they're getting constructing covered smoking balconies outside pubs and bars.

Quite honestly, I don't believe any WHO study, I prefer to judge the effects it has on myself and my friends and family. You lot give the impression you'd believe falling off a building would be safe if a survey told you. Somebody please tell me what the difference between smoke from different ends of a fag is?

92

mr chips,

22/08/2006 17:16:29

steve 92 / It was probably smokeless skunk in a tin can.

93

mr chips,

glasgow 22/08/2006 17:27:32

richard 96/
A poll by the scottish mickey mouse executive resulted in 78% of smokers and non smokers not wanting a total ban ,as usual the majority were ignored by the nanny state brigade.

94

Anna,

Cambridgeshire 22/08/2006 17:38:42

AJ @ 90 - you let your daughter out on a push along trike - good gracious what kind of a parent are you? I hope she is wearing full protective body armour and helmet at all times and is never exposed to the sight of a person or a cat smoking in her visual vicinity.
You're probably right about Catch the Pigeon that might have been a cartoon analogy too far but you must agree that if there were any vulnerable children who were tempted to knock up an old flying crate with wings and get it off the ground they could be a serious risk to their own and other people's health.
I'm sure I've seen a cartoon of the Pink Panther smoking as well - he had a long cigarette holder in the days before those sort of things were only available on the black market or in museums.
Seriously, though kids tend to like to rebel against their elders and if we make smoking too much of a taboo subject then a lot of kids will try it just for the hell of it. I'm not saying that they should be encouraged by positive images of adults smoking or anything like that but banning a cartoon cat from smoking a cartoon cigar in one episode is a bit silly, especially within a cartoon which is incredibly violent. I'm sure most children know the difference between a cartoon world and real life!!

95

DannyL,

22/08/2006 17:38:52

Whit's this? Secret 'Catch the Pigeon' sessions behind the bike-sheds? Confiscate their portable DVD players and run a propanga film like the one with the G-men smashing up gaming machines, that's what I say.

When the Beatles' Abbey Road album was issued on CD for the first time in the states Mr. Litigious McCartney and Capitol Records fell out because they airbrushed the ciggie out of his hand on the cover-art. That would be the same Capitol Records who had the VERY PC late great Mel Blanc under contract for 40+ years. Time for resistance movement I think. I'd like to blame Bliar as usual for this one, but I fear this time he is far from alone...

Nonetheless it is another case of being told what and when to think. It stinks.

I've been reflecting on why I stopped smoking 20 years ago. It was not goverment adverts or education education education. It was sheer bloody-mindedness on my part. In other words, pretty much the same reason I started in the first place.

Next, the Pink Panther. Not suitable for fundamentailsts because after he is turned to stone for his connotations of homosexuality he his provided with divine redemption in the form of reincarnation.

And we called the Taleban extreme when they blew away the Bhuddas

96

DannyL,

22/08/2006 17:40:24

Oh Anna dear you just pipped me at the post again. Question is, which one of us is working under cover?

97

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 17:41:26

Richard (96)

You don't have to have someone else's tobacco pumped into your lungs. There is no such thing as this invented human right to entertainment so you have the choice to take up non-smoking pastimes.

Over 75% of people were in favour of a partial ban, a solution for all. I'm a builder, I don't need rubbish jobs erecting canopies and the pubs my staff frequent are more like 90% smoking.

The difference between each end of the fag as you put it is dosage. It is not exposure that causes harm it is dosage, or more precisely overdose.

Is there a risk from one glass of vodka? how about one bottle? how about 5 bottles?

See? dose, not exposure.

98

Doreen,

Glasgow 22/08/2006 17:43:44

Mega bucks are gleaned out of this drug addiction and people are having limbs amputated or lungs removed. Its the bigger picture folks. Its still socially acceptable to a degree ,however in the years to come when I have long shuffled off the planet I bet people will look at old films or tv programmes(if they can access them uncensored) and say "its amazing how they allowed that back then"!

And if you think I am over-reacting I dont give a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut, thats all folks!!

99

David ties to Kilmarnock,

Ontario,Canada 22/08/2006 17:56:48

Doreen @ 104
Accch! You silver tongued devil!
Should you ever choose to take flight and annoint the rolling doughnut (donut in Canada) please make sure you are wearing all the protective gear essential for such a daunting task. Keep in mind, all previous partners of the doughnut increase your risk factors. And no smoking afterwards.

100

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 18:32:27

Doreen (104)

I disagree, I think that in 100 years they will look back and examine the corrupt cycle that lead to the persecution of so many. Fanatics funding Junk-studies that built careers in the public sector, pharmaceutical companies funding more junk studies to produce health scares and sell more products.

A multi billion pound circle where everyone wins except of course for the public who are scared to death of sunshine, eggs, beer, milk, cheese, smoke, dust and doughnuts!!

101

A,

Portland, OR 22/08/2006 19:09:22

It is so funny how we are leaving it up to the television to teach our children about what is right and wrong. Are parents so mixed up now that they will take time to censor mindless cartoons instead of taking time to teach their children about right/wrong behavior? I grew up watching Tom and Jerry, amongst other cartoons, and never started a smoking habit because of it! My parents explained the dangers of smoking to me. What about later in life when their peers are lighting up? What about NOW when they are out in public and see adults having a cigarette? If you don't want your children to be exposed to smoking and other things that you view as "wrong" then keep them home with the shades drawn- and whatever you do, don't turn on retro cartoons!!!

102

Russell,

22/08/2006 19:15:16

Sex ,What about Sex? AH! THATS GOOD FOR YOU

103

CourtGolf,

Atlanta, GA 22/08/2006 19:20:24

I realize that this is a little late in the running and probably too far down for anyone to read - BUT let's give it a try...

A few on here have posted that Scotland (and the US) are "democracies". Thankfully, we do not live in a democracy. The definition of a democracy boils down to "one man - one vote" - in other words - Mob rule - or "2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what's for dinner."

The reason we do NOT live in a democracy is to protect minorities from being run down by an out of control block of voters.

You might think that this is a good system in a situation like this cartoon nonsense, but you have to stop and think about things you enjoy doing that the majority might not. All they would need is a vote and your pleasures are gone.

Words have meanings - if we allow liberals, the media and government to redefine terms like democracy and liberty, we only add lubricants to the slippery slope we are on where doing what is politically correct overrides what is right.

sorry to be so long winded.

104

Russell,

22/08/2006 19:20:50

The intolerance of the anti smoking lobby and the politicians is getting right up my nose.ban something .BAN THEM.

105

Russell,

22/08/2006 19:28:08

Actually this subject matter is not worth the effort or for that matter the time of the reporter or the newsprint and paper space.We are in another era of "thou shalt not" well , we bloody well will, despite them all

106

Russell,

22/08/2006 19:35:44

Gordon truelly spoken . Problem is there is no lobby pro smoking ,however there is always civil rights ,whatever they do, Take a look at what prohibition did in theUS

107

Russell,

22/08/2006 19:38:03

Gordon never a truer word was spoken . Problem is there is no lobby pro smoking ,however there is always civil rights ,whatever they do, Take a look at what prohibition did in theUS

108

rasputin,

22/08/2006 22:10:21

Can some one tell me who you complain to about people who complain? Perhaps we need a complaints Czar..Or would some of you erudite people out there think about setting somthing up..I,m sure a grant could be obtained to start it. I love smoking and I,m having a fag even as I write mmmmmm

109

Fiona,

Argyll, scotland 22/08/2006 22:13:45

Why oh why is the minority changing what the majority find acceptable, half of those who protect their children from all things bad allow them to watch the soaps which depict far worse scenes than a cartoon figure smoking!! It's part of history, and I think it's pathetic that there are people out there (that one person!!) who decided, 'nope, today instead of writing to points of view, I think I'll turn my attention to cartoons!!' What will that child be able to watch, nearly everything (if studied hard enough) could be found to be offensive!!! Lets not get carried away with making the country a nanny state, because once it's changed, it's hard to turn back the clock! Ps, I'm not a smoker, but I grew up watching cartoons where smoking was part of the culture. What next do we ban the learning of medieval history because it's too violent, or do we accept that children will always (at the end of the day) make up their own minds about what's acceptable and what's not!

110

rasputin,

22/08/2006 22:22:46

I think masturbation should be taxed

111

Larry,

Edinburgh 22/08/2006 22:42:47

I passively smoke traffic fumes everyday.
Should I complain and get traffic baned.

112

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2006 22:53:01

Larry,

You're not far from the truth;

Since the war vehicle emissions, industrial pollution, cancer and heart disease have all be steadily rising.

Since the war smoking has dropped by 75%.

hmmmmmm? Do you get the impression somebody's not being completely honest with us ?

113

Michelle,

22/08/2006 22:58:35

Of course there are pro-smoking lobby groups. There is a link to Forest right beside this article.

Forest can show you how to start your own group in Scotland

I did it in Ontario Canada last year - its dead easy and there are an awful lot of people who want to join.

The only difference between us and them is they are funded by tax dollars while we have none but even without money - its easy to start letter writing campaigns, do research, think about whats appropriate for your area in terms of tobacco regulation and what is not and most of all - talk to your elected people and tell them what you want.

With the internet a small determined group of 10 people can take over the world - how do you think the pro-smoking lobby got started.


Michelle

114

mandyv,

cambridgeshire 22/08/2006 23:07:41

Airbrushing pipes, cigars, cigarettes,
From cartoons and History books, what will come next,
Will they airbrush the violence or the horrors of war,
Do they not learn this hatred has been here before.

And hatred it is, it is not about health,
Whilst the Antis spout lies, with donations of wealth,
And for those misreporting, with personal views,
Scaremongering the nation, is UNhealthy news.

Well I have a voice now with Freedom to Choose,
Stick that in your pipe ofcom along with your views

115

DannyL,

22/08/2006 23:13:18

Nice one Mandy, from the heart. Speaking of which, have you had it checked recently? I have arranged for Anna to collect you in the staff car tomorrow morning.

116

adboughton,

Sydney 22/08/2006 23:41:53

Angus (117),

I can't see why your brilliant idea has been completely ignored by subsequent commentators.

Karl Marx, who gave life to what we now call 'Political Correctness', is responsible for all these people firing all these blanks.

Andrew

117

adboughton,

Sydney 22/08/2006 23:51:08

... though we should just limit it to mental masturbation. The Throught Police would be turning on themselves.

118

Bob,

Wolverhampton 23/08/2006 00:43:03

One of the funniest and most fondly remembered scenes in Tom and Jerry, one that has stayed with anti-smoker me since childhood with no harm done to my lungs or soul, is the one in Texas Tom, where a silly “cowboy” posturing cat tries to impress a female by rolling a cigarette, lighting it and smoking it with one hand. The style and hyperbole of the scene are hilarious: he swaggers up, Stetson bobbing, chaps flapping and spurs jingling, rolls and lights the thing with impossible dexterity and actually incinerates the length of the cigarette in one inhale; then, on the exhale, produces smoke-writing that says “Howdy” to the lid-batting feline femme before dispersing. It’s wonderful! But “a viewer complained” – just the one humourless busybody, then – and the rest of us are deprived of the graphic majesty of the scene for all time. How about a little democracy here; if enough other viewers complain of artistic desecration and laughter-deprivation – two should be enough, by all the rules of fair play that I know – then this joyless excision should be reinstated, shouldn’t it?

119

ChrisW,

Edinburgh 23/08/2006 03:28:22

My dear old grandfather always told me that do-gooders" were always full of apparently worthy, but actually rather worthless, ideas. This article and the 100+ comments largely seem to confirm that that view isn't entirely restricted to him.
Can I raise a totally P-inCorrect matter and, noting that the two most vociferous Ofcom supporters above are female, speculate that the original objector was perhaps a female do-gooder too?
Perhaps there's a PhD for someone somewhere examining the link between a comfortable existence and the growth of the "ban brigade", "do-gooders", "chattering classes", "socially aware" and the like. I'm afraid I find it totally incomprehensible that supposedly intelligent, but clearly somewhat wanting, people can rationalise vandalising 50 year old cartoons that are generally seen as classics. But then again these same people seem somehow to rationalise letting little Johnny run around with a toy gun shooting his friends while at the same time disapproving of shooting in any shape or form. Do we live in a mighty weird society or just a hypocritical one?

120

sheri,

23/08/2006 05:29:23

are they going to censor the scenes where there is drinking alcoholic beverages also?

121

Hhahahhaa,

23/08/2006 06:13:23

Doesn't this interfere with copyright in some way? Does the broadcaster have a right to edit someone else' work? I'm sure there was a case recently where some company was editing movies it had DVD distribution rights to, in order that they fit into some Christian Fundementalist Agenda, but the Hollywood Studios successfully sued them for damages, and made them stop.

122

John,

california 23/08/2006 07:04:00

Hello all, well, I guess I missed out on some fun chatting; I'm just getting in from work....

Hi Glenn #66, sorry missed your post till just tonight, Yes, thank you, anything but politically correct, although that attitude does tend to get me in trouble!
And, forget the ladies business suit, it's more like jeans, flannel shirt and cowboy boots...nothing like a beer and petite cigar after a long hard ride...in the saddle on a horse, of course! ;)

123

Doreen,

Glasgow 23/08/2006 08:10:10

Christopher 127, you are a bright laddie, yes I am female as for the original complainer...who knows? and who cares? whats your point?

124

Corbett Hunckers,

Fife 23/08/2006 08:24:29

Anna,
Thanks for the parenting advice, but I reckon I,ve got the plan sorted for stopping my daughter from smoking. When she reaches the age of eight I'll buy her extra super duper strong Benson and Hedges and make her smoke a couple - that should put her off for life!

Still to run the strategy past my wife.

125

redfergus,

london 23/08/2006 10:40:49

Richard #96:

Let us examine your posting, for it reveals an intellectual dishonesty that I believe is even more dangerous to society than the desecration of art (which is what this Tom & Jerry nonsense amounts to):

“Any non-smoker here want to have somebody’s second hand smoke pumped directly into their lungs?” The absurd hyperbole of this presumably rhetorical question typifies the polemic approach of the anti-smoking lobby, and indeed of the anti-anything lobby. It is in itself anti-debate, anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-evidence and anti-sanity.

However, if I were to see a genuine video depiction of non-smokers being tied down and having used cigarette smoke forced into their lungs via some kind of pump, I might be prepared to consider the matter, forensically speaking.

“I don’t have an agenda, I’m not an ex-smoker . . .” I think that you do and you are, Richard, on your own admission. By using a lie to justify your stance, and by disarmingly pretending that you are other than you are in order to disguise the lie, you make yourself look foolish.

“The vast majority of you were consulted . . .” Another obvious untruth. Consulted about what? Censoring classic cartoons? Bowdlerising old movies? Burning books? In that respect, on this thread you seem to be in an unvast minority of about three.

Banning smoking in public places? I don’t remember getting any referendum forms through my letter box. What does ‘consulted’ mean? Being ‘not consulted’ but assumed to share the government’s view because it has already made up its mind?

I smoke quite a lot, and in retrospect I don’t mind not smoking in restaurants or offices, because I understand that the smell of fag smoke can be intrusive– but that is the only reason I don’t mind. And I deeply resent having people like you tell me that I was consulted, and that my views are taken into account.

“Builders are happy about it though. Look at all the extra work they’re getting c

126

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 10:50:43

Steve, yes of course it's dosage. How stupid of me. I never thought that while I was smoking I could light as many fags as possible at the same time and not smoke them, just leave them burning from the "harmless" end. As long as I don't put them in my mouth and breathe the smoke in, it's OK because the WHO says so.

The studies are implying that because the smoke has been inhaled and exhaled it has been partially cleaned of carcinogens and particulates by the smoker. I can go along with that; one look at a dead smoker's lungs will confirm that crap does indeed get filtered out. BUT where's the common sense? A cigarette lasts around five minutes. You'll take between 10 and 15 drags on it totalling around a minute, leaving four minutes worth of unfiltered (by filter or lung) smoke polluting the room. Is anyone here seriously suggesting that there is no harm in the roughly 80% of a cigarette smoke that's still regarded as "passive" but hasn't actually been filtered by anything? Around 80% of the fug in a room full of smokers is still virgin and potentially dangerous smoke or is there some black magic going on I'm unaware of? If you're that convinced by the harmlessness of passive smoke, with all the knowledge we have of the dangers of smoking, would you be 100% happy for your new-born to be regularly left in room full of smokers for several hours?

127

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2006 11:32:57

Richard,

Did you read anything I said?

The dosage in a ventilated smoking pub is over 1000 times below recognised safe levels for all it's parts. If you want to reduce that safe level mark you would eliminate cooking before you get to passive smoke.

A dead smokers lungs??? You have watched too much TV. A coronor can't even say for definite whether a person was a smoker or not by examination of the lungs. Please stop repeating these silly anti-smoking myths; and for the record, a smokers arteries look nothing like porridge either.

Dead smokers lungs and new born babies are favourite anti-smoking rubbish. Here's an idea; don't take your new born baby to the pub!!

That 'dangerous smoke' you refer to is made up of particles that are in all organic material. Cigarettes don't have 'magic particles' . Those particles are around you all the time; they are below safe levels and in the case of cigarettes 1000 times below.

Now if you think smoke particle dosage is dangerous why don't you sit in a locked garage with your car running and I'll sit in a locked garage full of smokers; let's see who comes out after an hour.

128

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 11:35:56

Damn. Found out. I of course know nothing whatsoever about passive smoking. I live in England, passive smoking is still allowed in public places and the less I'm exposed to smoke in everyday life, the more I actually feel it every time I go into a pub or a club. I know quite a few ex-smokers who feel they've

Redfergus: Don't let your undoubted verbosity and intelligence get in the way of common sense. You WERE consulted. Norway, Ireland, bits of the US all publicised their plans to ban smoking well in advance of day the bans became effective. Everyone has the chance to lobby but only a few vested interests will. Not my fault if you didn't use that avenue instead of sitting on your backside waiting for something that was never promised. All a "consultation process" means is that soundings of public opinion are taken from a myriad of sources, including sites like this. Did they mention individual letters would be sent out to 5 million Scots and that a decision would only be taken when all had been returned? God help us if we have to have referenda each time a decision needs to be made by government. People are lazy, or haven't you noticed? Or rather they're lazy until they realise they were too late to have taken part in the democratic process and then ythey bleat on about a nanny state making decisions for them.

Remember also the noise of a lobbyist isn't indicative of the strength of feeling FOR a proposal. The antis will always make more emotive noises than the pros, doesn't mean they're in the majority. I'm only in a minority of three ON THIS BOARD. On this board comprised of people who can be bothered to debate and who have the time and resources to do this via the internet. It's not representative of anything at all. This board is about as representative as one of those YES/NO phone polls in the Sun.

129

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 12:02:42

It's official then, passive smoking is good for because this board says so.

130

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2006 12:08:25

Richard,

I live in Nottingham. I'm not a 'pro-smoker', (whatever that is, I haven't seen anyone trying to force all the non-smokers out of a pub) and I'm not having a go at you for your views. You have pointed out lot's of anti-smoking myths and all I have done is point them out as exactly that...myths.

Please don't take my word for it, look into yourself. As for this consultation stuff... yes a section of Scotland was consulted and they voted over 75% against a total ban.

You are correct, this board may not be representative but I don't find many people anywhere anymore who are fooled by daily health scare junk studies and a nanny government.

And no-one on here has suggested passive smoking is good for you; just that the dosage's we are talking about are way below levels where they might cause harm.

Wouldn't you be more in favour of a solution that suited everyone?

131

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 12:08:35

Apologies for the missing paragraph at 136

I know quite a few ex-smokers who feel they've had a few fags when they've been in a smoky atmoshpere all evening, myself included. We are aware of what it feels like, you know.

132

Adelaide,

Adelaide, Australia 23/08/2006 13:47:13

Why do Tom and Jerry have to smoke? What is the point? In Australia we are cutting smoking out of everything and I am sure it is not doing us any harm. After watching my mum die from smoking related lung cancer I am definitely not a fan of smoking even if it is only by cartoon characters!

133

redfergus,

london 23/08/2006 14:19:47

Richard #136:

Publicising a piece of impending legislation isn’t the same thing as ‘consulting’, Richard. Nor is lobbying the same thing as having your views listened to. In this matter, nobody asked me. But it’s another red herring, because the government was determined, whatever evidence may have been introduced to as a contra-indication of its justification, to go ahead with the ban.

There was an enormous amount of lobbying against it, but the lobbying FOR it was more powerful; and that is because the health & safety wonks, obsessed by what some call ‘political corrcctness’, have disproportionate influence these days – spearheaded by the discredited ASH and bolstered by the insane mindset that we all need to be nervous and afraid, in every moment of our lives, of everything around us. Even of Tom & Jerry cartoons.

You say that people are lazy. Yes, they are: often because, like me, they can’t see any point in expressing their concerns to a government that isn’t going to listen. The trouble is that evidence is a thing of the past: it’s been discredited and replaced by prejudice and assumption. So the assumption is made, to the sound of axes being ground, that 'passive smoking' is a killer – in spite of much evidence to the contrary, which is discounted without question by a government with a history of drawing up ill-founded and ill-supported legislation.

“The antis will always make more emotive noises that the pros,” you say, “doesn’t mean they’re in the majority.” In this particular instance, the emotive appeal to the nation’s bleeding hearts came from the anti-smoking lobby: the absurdly over-the-top advertising campaigns, the pronouncements about dying babies, the disregard of evidence in favour of massaged or flawed statistics, the willy-nilly acceptance of dubious medical research, and the image of bar staff coughing their lungs up Roy Castle-style because they were forced against their will to work in smoky atmospheres.

134

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 14:40:33

Steve, I'm not sure what these anti-smoking myths are that I've pointed out. That smoking's bad for you? The study that appears to have caused the controversy is one carried out in California between 1960 and 1998 and published in 2003 where the main axis concerned some 35000 "never smokers" with spouses who smoked. And yes, I would imagine that in California the results would have been negligible. I'm just guessing that in a place that has air conditioning as almost standard, living rooms the same size as an average back to back here and probably a climate more conducive to outdoor living, the results would be substantially different to one of the same scale carried out over the same period in say, the Greater Manchester area. I really do take the results of surveys, any survey, with a large dose of salt (bad for you).

Everyone is free to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, or even a private club where the staff understand the risks they're being exposed to. If you can call pointing out these risks to certain people to try and prevent their families going through what I've been through over the past 3 years (and will always have to endure as long as my partner can tolerate the total parenteral nutrition she lives off before her liver gives out and she crumples through osteoporosis) an agenda then go ahead. Next time I see a child running into the road after a ball, I won't grab him, for fear of "having an agenda" about road safety.

I DO have a big chip on my shoulder about smoking and I hate to see people killing themselves voluntarily. My partners specialists told her it wasn't the smoke as such, it was the nicotine delivered by the smoke that exacerbated her problem, as it stimulated her arteries into sclerosis with every drag. The tar didn't do for her, redfergus, so don't always assume that it's the bloody obvious. Nicotine is delivered from the first drag, from the burning tobacco, or haven't you ever exp

135

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 14:41:59

Yes I do. I used bowdlerised before you did.

136

John,

california 23/08/2006 14:44:43

good morning all; again, I missed out on some fun chat...best go get my coffee, before I attempt to write!

137

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 14:54:57

"But would a responsible government so off-handedly condemn a large number of people to death or disability?"

Er...yes.

138

Bill,

US 23/08/2006 15:11:20

Perhaps OFCOM should cease broadcasting NOW....if policy is to react dramatically to the whinings of any single individual....hmm - perhaps if this could be done globally at all levels of programming - people would actually have no TV and then READ and THINK for themselves...then again maybe OFCOM should just put away the MJ they are smoking and start thinking more clearly....

139

John,

california 23/08/2006 15:46:00

Hi Richard #145 Yes, education about health risks needs to be taken seriously, but responsibly. I'm so tired of hearing....you're at risk for heart attack if you drink coffee', but the next day, 'coffee reduces cancer risk'. I'm not discounting the 2nd hand smoke issue, nor the fact that the Tobacco Co. alters the cigarettes to promote use/addictive use. I've also heard that they include ever so small particles of glass in their smokeless tobacco, which causes small lacerations on the gum, thereby allowing for the 'nicotine rush'. Scandalous!

But, I think the so-called 'nanny state' here, and in the UK (or anywhere!) is getting out of control with their nonsense. My friend's son came home from school crying one day, asking his mom why she was a 'drug-dealer'. The school was doing an anti-alcohol education day....his mother owns a winery!

140

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2006 16:26:48

Richard,

For the second time. No-one here is saying that smoking isn't bad for you but you seem unwilling to comprehend the scientific dose-response relationship that distinguishes it from passive smoke.

The anti-smoking myths that you have been repeating are there for you to read again but here are a few...

Myth 1. message 82 "Being passive doesn't remove its harmfulness."

To which I pointed out that passive smoke in a ventilated pub is more than 1000 times below recognised safe levels for any of it's parts.

Myth 2. message 134 "one look at a dead smoker's lungs will confirm that crap does indeed get filtered out."

To which I pointed out that a coroner can't even tell if someone was a smoker or not from inspection of the lungs.

Myth 3. message 134, Around 80% of the fug in a room full of smokers is still virgin and potentially dangerous smoke.

See the answer to myth 1.

You say that you don't mind people smoking in their own homes. Pub's are the homes of the people who own them, the landlords; and you need to realise that your human right to entertainment in a pub is completely invented. If that landlord says only people with green jumpers can come in, then that's his/her choice. You have no rights as to what legal activities take place on someone else's property.

The California study is not what caused the controversy, the 150 other studies on passive smoke that even though they were flawed and biased still failed to show a statistically significant risk is what caused it.

I understand that you hate to see people killing themselves but that is their choice and not yours; unless of course you want to ban all dangerous activities.

I understand your examples of what smoking can do and don't disagree but you can't win an argument on passive smoke based on direct smoke, because the dosages are not even close.

To go back to my earlier example; if someone dies because they

141

DannyL,

23/08/2006 16:36:35

Linda #140. Please don't take this personally as I have no intention of intruding on or belittling your entirely justified and proper grief and anger in any way.

There is a bigger prize to be had here than public health. It is reasonable that no more T+J cartoons, or pink panthers, or whatever should be made with smoking because PC or not that depicts what we laughingly call the 'moral climate'. Airbushing old cartoons that reflected the social norms of THEIR time (remember it once was chic to smoke whether we like it or not) is not so much desecrating art - although that comes into it - as saying the past never happened.

There is a logical absurdity at play here. The government that legislated against holocaust denial would have us refuse to accept that anybody ever smoked.

Think about it....

142

redfergus,

lloonnddoonn 23/08/2006 17:01:08

"I used bowdlerised before you did . . ."

Well na na na-naa na to you too. Are you the managing director of the word? I failed to note your first post here; sorry about that.

Nevertheless, you use a patronising tone, don't you sonny? Questioning my bona fides as a long-term student of inhalation and associated nicotine-based substances does you no credit at all.

Moving on, you suggest that in the big air-conditioned rooms of California the problem of second-hand smoke might be 'negligible.' I think you could be right, although there's no evidence that that piece of research was done solely in rich people's houses, in a state where poverty and city overcrowding are rife. If you ARE right, then 'big' and 'air-conditioned' adds up to a good description of my local pub. If the smoke problem is neglible, why is it necessary to ban smoking in that place?

You, like Blair and his supporters of the original Bill, seem to believe that smoking should be permissible in private clubs because everyone should be free to do so "where the staff understand the risks they're being exposed to." Whaaat? Then it's only a matter of recruitment and training, isn't it?

You don't seem to care if certain staff, in certain places, die of cancer or arterial sclerosis, so long as they are pre-warned that they might. But I thought this ban was about protecting people? For it to be valid, should it not also protect them and others from their own stupidity or thoughtlessness? That, surely, was its justification. And logically it must apply to all, or to no-one.

I never implied earlier the things that you suggest I implied. If you want to argue convincingly, never assume anything. Read and judge, but don't jump to conclusions. If you want to pick me up on points, quote what I say but not what you would wish me to have said. Etc etc etc. Being patronising, as you can see, is almost as bad as being wrong.

143

redfergus,

london 23/08/2006 17:11:21

To get round this irritating private club/public house dichotomy, why not simply ask bar staff to sign a waiver?

Something along the lines of "I don't mind dying from secondary smoke inhalation so long as it keeps my customers happy. I understand the risks involved. Signed, yours truly etc."

That would meet your criterion, wouldn't it, Richard?

144

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/08/2006 19:26:01

Steve, is there a constant level of passive smoke in any kind of venue/location where smoking is permitted? No. So the dosage argument is rather redundant. Not all pubs/bars are well ventilated and I am well aware of what a public house is. There are laws that govern what I can do in my own house, too. As for the alcohol allegory, vodka being drunk in a glass ten feet away from me isn't affecting me directly. It's not making my clothes stink or my eyes smart or affecting my liver. Providing I don't drink it, I will be safe to drive.There is no such thing as passive drinking. There are repercussions though from the effects of alcohol abuse, just as in tobacco abuse.

Fergus, I certainly do care. You though want the right to smoke in public, there will almost certainly be people happy to serve you should you wish to do so and the law allow. We live in an increasingly litigous world so it would seem expedient for the staff working in establishments where smoking was permitted (if that is ever a scenario) to accept any risk involved. If it were up to me, I'd ban it outright, I'm trying to accommodate your need to want to smoke in enclosed premises, away from those who don't wish to. Of course, you could always staff your premises yourselves. Advertising for smokers only would probably fall foul of equal opportunity legislation.

I'm rather unhappy at being called patronising. I have an opinion borne out of experience and am willing to defend it and also the right to clean air. And for old cartoons, whatever they contain, to remain unsullied.

145

,

23/08/2006 20:57:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 38902, Article id was mapped to record!
146

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2006 21:05:17

Richard,

For the last time... if you are scared of passive smoke so much, don't go into someone else's property and expect them to change for you.

The vodka analogy was an explanation of dosage so don't twist my words by introducing passive drinking.

If you want to reduce your argument now to smelly clothes I take it we have got to your real reason for supporting a total ban. You can venture anywhere you like without the need to wash your clothes the next day.

147

Longbranchlady,

Southern Illinois USA 24/08/2006 00:30:02

Damnation, I have NEVER in my life wanted to light a cigarette and smoke it until NOW just out of defiance to the pee brained, adle pated, idiot that actually placed a call to this whatever it was and complained. Of course I think of that Rosy the Riveter cartoon where the kid she had dropped off at I think it was Bugs Bunny's house so he could babysit smoked and drank, had a tattoo, and a bunch of naked baby pictures in his pram and the woman gave Bugs a psychology book to use on the kid. He kept reading and reading and trying the be nice to the baby garbage and getting socked every time until the woman came home and explained that the way she used the book was a firm hand to a firm behind. That whole cartoon will just have to never be seen ever, ever again. And it's a pity too, it was a great one as most of the WWII ones were. V for victory guys...

148

Longbranchlady,

Southern Illinois USA 24/08/2006 00:36:56

However this does add credence to my theory that I have about children... stuff them in a closet sensory deprived until they are 20 and that'd be great with me. They can't possibly be anymore screwed up than when they find out that after years of being told life was grand and Santa Claus really did exist that then one fateful day some older brother or sister or bully breaks the fateful news... Santa's a crock, life's a b*tch, and childhood doesn't last forever. Get a job ya bum...

On a more sane note, I love old movies and cartoons, television shows, etc... I don't smoke and never have because I personally myself, without any help from family or friends, religious entities or ad campaigns realized it was STUPID and would waste a lot of money on something that's gonna go up in smoke. Strangely enough, I also do not drink and I don't take drugs. Hmm, I guess if you have a brain capable of independent thought processes and no 'need' to belong to some groups in society, you too can live your own life and still dwell with all aspects of the vices without succumbing to their allure.

149

Longbranchlady,

Southern Illinois USA 24/08/2006 00:42:26

Let's see, what else won't children EVER be able to see... hmm... well I know that Keeping Up Appearances reruns will be greatly shortened because all scenes with Daisy and Onslow and his cigs will be deleted. Black Books will simply disappear from the face of the Earth, and well, the Marlboro Man has to get a new job as a street cleaner like Boy George. Of course this means all museums with portraits of real and true historic characters that might somewhere have a cigarette in the painting will now no longer be acceptable to children. Saves money for all those school trips doesn't it?

150

MARK,

Canada 24/08/2006 02:11:23

Although this might be a bit of overreacting,
it is true that cigarettes do kill, as I just lost
my wife to them. In Canada, we are banning
smoking in nearly all Public places..which is good.

151

redfergus,

london 24/08/2006 09:55:48

Richard #152

Oh dear me. Once again you make false assumptions. I made it quite clear in an earlier post that I was perfectly happy NOT to smoke in public places such a restaurants, pubs &c, as I perceived that the smell of the smoke made some other people unhappy. Now you say I "want the right to smoke in public [places]." What is WRONG with you?

What I do want is for the arguments AGAINST smoking in such places to be proper ones. This ban is going to happen next year, by Act of Parliament based on a lie or a series of lies. That is what offends me. In a civilised country, legislation should not be based on lies, or even on errors of fact.

Unfortunately we have a government (not the first) that is less interested in reality than in political posturing for electoral gain. I have my doubts that public enthusiasm for this proscription of smoking in public places is nearly as hearty as they think it is.

Have New Labour analysed the demographics? They might find that smokers, a cynical lot in my experience, make up a high proportion of the the 'don't knows' who swing elections. Wouldn't that be a nice irony?

What troubles me more than all this is the Tom & Jerry bowdlerisation (if I have your permission to use the term). I like Humphrey Bogart films, you see. And if someone managed to desecrate this oeuvre by removing all signs of smoking, then there would be no scenes left at all.

History is very precious, and unchangeable no matter how much some might try. Tom & Jerry is an iconic symbol of its time, and the precious halfwits who vandalise the cartoons are betraying all of us – including our wartime heroes, who smoked like chimneys as they fought to make the world a freer, more decent place, and who revered the cartoon cat and mouse who cheered them up through those ghastly years.

Since you appear to agree with me on this at least, Richard, keep on truckin'.

152

Dan,

BC Canada 24/08/2006 19:43:59

The issue here isnt about smoking, its about censuring history, which is what dictators do to keep thier populations ignorant.
These shows happened and they are fact PERIOD, people know they happened and they will not forget that.
This is no different than judging what happened in the past and saying it was wrong like 'the US shouldnt have dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki' it happened and it was right at the time.
History must not be tampered with, because thats how we learn as humans. We are allowed to make mistakes, and correct them in the future.

153

redfergus,

london 25/08/2006 09:59:19

Dedra Kaye . . .

I think I love you (your style, anyway). "I guess if you have a brain capable of independent thought . . . you can live your own life and still dwell with all aspects of the vices without succumbing to their allure."

Wise words, and we've lived like that for thousands of years – until some of us became infected by trepidation, or life-phobia. That such people are often, at one level or another, in positions of power or authority from which they can spread the disease is one of our modern tragedies.

These people assume, quite arbitrarily, that we, the public, DON'T have brains capable of independent thought. So they try to do our thinking for us, although they don't have the intellectual capacity for it and are blind to the harm they are doing to our most precious commodity as human beings – the ability to reason.

They are also, in my experience, almost completely devoid of wit or humour. Perhaps that is the real explanation for the cartoon clerk's peculiar mindset: she just doesn't GET Tom & Jerry.

I'm going up to the Wallace Collection this afternoon for another peek at my favourite Dutch masters: a lot of them feature rich old men smoking pipes.

Or do they? Have our protectors been there too with their touch-up brushes?

154

John,

26/08/2006 18:09:21

Hi red fergus/163, yes, and while there at it, the pc protectors might start running around airbrushing clothes on some of the women, not to mention putting a loin-cloth on David!
Hi Dedra 155/156/157 wow, independent thought, common sense, responsibility to your children to 'teach into' a behavior rather than over-shelter/avoid/pretend it doesn't exist. ;)
...well, have to go, it's Sat. morning cartoons, and my little ones are asking me to join in for a bit....and ironically, it is Tom and Jerry that's on!!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.