One of the more famous scenes of a young actress smoking is Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon:
An article quoted her as saying:
"Peter [Bogdanovich, the director] wanted me to smoke in the movie… the cigarettes were filled with lettuce, not tabacco. "
There’s a lot of stuff people use for screen cigarettes and weed that is not tobacco or weed. You won’t get a nicotine buzz or a THC high but as is being discussed, burning almost anything and inhaling it is still is bad for your lungs, starting with the particulate matter of the paper it’s wrapped in.
Not really. They could just use a prop cigarette with a battery that makes it glow when air moves through it.
There are plays with heroin addicted characters, too, but we don’t expect the actor to inject something into their arms.
If there’s no visible smoke being exhaled by the actor, then it’s not a very convincing imitation.
Not even if they’re method actors?!
There are many dozens of things in the average theater production that aren’t remotely convincing, but are accepted by the audience as part of the suspension of disbelief.
As a single example, sometimes plays, which are performed indoors, have scenes taking place outdoors. This setting is often conveyed by changing the color of artificial lights (which everyone in the audience can see by looking up) and placing wooden panels or fabric screens painted with landscapes behind the actors. I’m sure you can think of other things equally unconvincing on their face.
It seems silly to require that this one thing require the actual ignition of some material and exhalation of the combustion products in the name of verisimilitude.
Salmon?
Hey…first of all apologies, second of all…when did you become the wearer of the Hat?
I see what you did there.
Surely you mean methodone actors!
(I know it’s spelt wrong)
Salmon.
Pork butts.
Obviously, the simple answer is that no particulate can be taken into your lungs without having some at least negligible adverse effect on the organ.
The definition of “smoke” implies that there is particulate present, which the lungs have a certain tolerance for, and can clean themselves and eject or neutralize those which are chemically benign, up to a certain limit. Some other materials, when burned, emit chemical gases, which are certainly harmful, because the lungs process the gases into the bloodstream, altering the body’s blood chemistry, which is never a good thing, except in the case of medical intervention to remedy a blood chemistry deficiency.
Respired materials then correspond to any other drug, in that it has a negative effect on the natural healthy body, unless specifically formulated for some beneficial effect, and even those invariably are a tradeoff of the good against some harmful side effects.
Sure, you’d come up with that. I keep seeing the thread title and thinking, I’ve done turkey, chicken, pork bellies, shoulder, ribs and hams, beef brisket, ribs, and chuck, leg and rack of lamb with good results, but I’ve never been happy with my salmon. I use aspen wood, but I have trouble getting the Weber Smokey Mountain to run cool enough. I’m thinking about using a hot plate instead of charcoal for the heat source with a cast iron skillet filled with wood chips for the smoke.