Well, during the Fringe Festival, 2 actors were both fined £50 for smoking on stage. This was in Scotland but will also happen in England next year. So I guess it really is finally the end for cigarette manipulation.

I'm sorry Mr Calvert, but that's £50 per cigerette, which takes us up to the grand total of £5000.

Anyone want to buy some cigarette droppers?
Paul

NOt sure if this is correct, but I saw a play where there was smoking (here in the colonies) and the program said "The cigarettes used in the production were props and did not contain tobacco."

Perhaps, that would be a way around the law. Of course, you would have to check first and be able to prove what you are using does not contain tobacco.

A lot of theaters have been using fake cigarettes for quite some time now, both to comply with non-smoking regulations and because a lot of actors nowadays don't smoke and would rather not. The fake cigs are readily available and some actually look quite real (they even blow smoke).

Cigarette manipulation became popular back in the late 20's - early 30's when smoking was considered a "sophisticated" thing to do and it was almost expected in some circles. So, in reality, the performers were just doing manipulation with what the audience perceived as "common everyday objects," and could relate to the... impracticality (?)... of handling and hiding lit cigarettes.

IMHO, cigarette manipulation is just a carry-over from another time period and mentality, and I think it's time to move on to something else.

Like crack pipes and heroin needles and the marijuana roach?

Dang it JOSH!!

You just made me spew my bourbon and coke all over my computer screen!

Do you KNOW how sticky Jim Beam is??????

Thanks for the laugh!

Prof. Piper
(Terry)

There have always been fire regulations which restricted any kind of smoking or flame.
I don't think anything has changed in that respect, except that these days smoking is no longer regarded as exceptable, fire risk or not.

We have to find something to replace cigarettes ! But I don't know what with.

I'm going to mention this just as a sidebar, something I saw years ago and which I thought was, well, interesting.

There was a piece in Toastmasters Magazine in which a member was talking about this bit he did to make a point in a speech. He would take out a dollar bill, light it on fire, let it burn down to almost nothing, and then drop it in an ashtray.

In the next issue there was a letter to the editor from a member who said he was a fire marshall. He said, and I'll never forget this, he was "deeply disturbed" that this other member was "advocating" setting fire to an object in a room. From the tone of his letter, I thought he was having an apoplectic fit even as he was writing it. He ended the letter by saying, and I quote, "IT'S ILLEGAL."

Of course, Toastmasters had to print it, if only to cover themselves legally. But what I thought was interesting was that, although the guy did have a valid point, he totally focused (obsessed?) on the fire instead of just explaining the problem and suggesting the original writer tear up the bill instead, or something similar. In other words, rather than taking the opportunity to "educate" the readership to a real fire safety issue -- which is what I would have thought a fire marshall would do -- he chose instead to throw a tantrum on paper.

They're out there.

Knowing what he lit and the fact that there was an ashtray nearby didn't sound so bad. But when you think about it, he did create a fire in a room with people in it! It's a bottom line for a Fire Marshall.

With the recent "Great White" band tragedy (I still can't believe flash pots were going off that close to the audience) we've seen the restrictions tightened.

I don't think Fire Marshalls are even comfortable or thrilled with a performer lighting a few candles eventhough they are small flames and extinguished rather quickly.

It's all fire to a Fire Marshall and I'm sure they're tired of risking their lives to enter buildings on fire to save lives.

You're catching on! LMAO!!!

John Calvert wouldn't get fined doing his cigarette act - he doesn't light them at all. It's still a great act!

Well, like I said, the guy who wrote the letter did have a valid point, but, as we all know, it's not so much what you say as how you say it. I've worked with a few fire department people over the years, and so far they've all been more than helpful when it comes to educating the public.

Is flash paper considered a threat? Lighting a match??

[quote]On 2006-09-15 02:03, dxsare wrote:
Is flash paper considered a threat? Lighting a match??
[/quote

As goofy as it sounds, there are places in the USA that REQUIRE a pior-Lic. For flash paper! Welcome the the 21st century!

Yes, I know that my fingers messed up the abbreviation for piro (Yes I am from the generation of being responsible for my own actions and mistucks)

I would like to see a really good smokeless cig. on the market...someting that blows real smoke. I would like to get into cig manip. but cant because of asthma...plus smoking is nasty...well to me neways.. :o)

PYRO is the correct spelling.

If you read the appropriate laws, I'm sure you'll find that a pyro licence is required in ALL states to use flash paper. Nitro-cellulose is an explosive. Therefore will require a licence. Luckly most people don't understand what's happening when they see flash paper being used and so don't realise this. Hence you can get away with using flash paper without a licence. Until, that is, the fire marshall sees you.

Sometimes I'm glad I work in Australia

Thanks for the help on spelling Piro, Mr. Byro! No strike that - now reverse it. Thanks for the help on spelling Pyro, Mr. Biro!

Biro is my Pen Name.