tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321981775136876837.post7413500271599059278..comments2024-03-28T03:33:46.560-04:00Comments on I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere: The Adventure of the Non-Smoking Sherlock HolmesScott Montyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17710406470860389078noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321981775136876837.post-49815639320562537072007-05-14T14:47:00.001-04:002007-05-14T14:47:00.001-04:00Perhaps, he could have saved John Openshaw if he e...Perhaps, he could have saved John Openshaw if he eschewed tobacco for a three-pip problem.<br><br>As for his Persian slipper, why not Beluga or perhaps smoked salmon or a kipper?<br><br>And I avoid disputatious circumstances.<br><br>Harold StackhurstAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321981775136876837.post-17727337759255967732007-05-14T14:47:00.000-04:002007-05-14T14:47:00.000-04:00Seems to me just one more example of the 'do-w...Seems to me just one more example of the 'do-what-we-tell-you-is-good-for-you' lobby making fools of themselves.<br><br>I make no bones about the fact that I smoke. Have done for more years than I care to remember. I don't have a problem with smoking bans in restaurants - where even as a smoker, I find smoke offensive. I do have a problem with such bans being extended to public bars, which, traditionally, have been an enjoyable place to relax with a smoke and a pint of foaming ale, or suchlike. I also have a problem with smoking bans in what now seems to be every other public place. As a smoker, I do what I can not to share my smoke with anyone nearby who isn't smoking; and I frankly don't see what's wrong with smoking in the open air: there are far more pollutants around than a few cigarettes.<br><br>But if we smokers are intended to be made the pariahs we seem to be classed as, governments should put their money where their mouths are. Let's have a total ban on tobacco. Will they do that? Of course not, because the minority that wants to smoke lines government coffers with billions of tax dollars each year - tax dollars which they wouldn't have a clue how to replace without levying additional penalties on every earner. Imagine the outcry then!<br><br>But I digress. Holmes without his pipe, his plugs and dottles, is unimaginable and totally unnecessary. Why, a tobacco ban in Holmes's time would have robbed the world on that most important of monographs: 'Upon the Distinction of the Ashes of Various Tobaccos'. And, of course, it would have robbed the Baker Street rooms of some of their furniture: what need would there be for the coal scuttle if Holmes had no cigars to keep in it? And the thought of Watson's tobacconist, Bradleys, having to close their doors because of having no merchandise to sell? Unthinkable!<br><br>Get real, film-makers, and do-gooders. This is 1895, you know. Welcome to the real world.<br><br>ChristopherChristopher Rodenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05356388887693173295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321981775136876837.post-15497459710613789812007-05-14T09:58:00.000-04:002007-05-14T09:58:00.000-04:00Well this certainly is a 3-something-or-other prob...Well this certainly is a 3-something-or-other problem. You are right that Holmes needs to smoke and that is historically if not politically correct.<br><br>How about allowing Holmes to smoke while a subtitle proclaims:<br>"This is a professional actor on a closed set. Don't try this at home." or maybe Holmes could make a sour face after each puff and exclaim something like: "My tobacco addiction is killing me. You shouldn't smoke."<br><br>I am a non-smoker and have no objections to public smoking bans, but changing history and cleansing literature go beyond protecting the public health.<br><br>Bobby the BikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com