Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House GOP candidates in tough spot
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* An ordinance has been introduced in the city council to remedy this situation…
The Chicago production of “Jersey Boys” has excised all smoking from the show so that the production complies with Chicago’s indoor smoking ban, a spokesman for Broadway in Chicago confirmed Tuesday.
The city’s ban does not offer any exemption for smoking as part of a theatrical performance.
It also does not allow herbal cigarettes to substitute for tobacco, as has been common practice in the theater.
The city sent a “notice of complaint” to Broadway in Chicago after a complaint by a patron about smoking in “Jersey Boys,” said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the Department of Public Health. […]
Seven scenes have been changed.
Expect a proposal next week to provide a statewide solution as well. The idea would be to allow theaters to petition with the local or state boards of health for temporary exemptions from the statewide smoking ban.
* The question: Should the city and state smoking bans be altered so that performers can smoke on stage? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House GOP candidates in tough spot
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes,we shouldn’t be changing the content plays over the whims of Alderman Smith.
Comment by Steve Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:23 am
NO! That will start the ‘me-too’ slide into making it irrelevant. The smoking ban, while not perfect, is about the only positive thing to come out of Springfield in many years. As a smoker, I was skeptical at first but I believe now it is a good thing for all of Illinois. No exceptions!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:23 am
No.
There are several stories relating to efforts in Minnesota for bars to institute “Plays”, and utilize patrons as “actors” to skirt the smoking ban laws.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s
tory/story.php?storyId=88031230
If the law is the law, then it shouldn’t be changed to suit small groups. Get over it. Smoking stinks, and I for one am glad it is gone in public areas.
Smoke at home, in your car, but not around others that don’t want to “enjoy” your smoke.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:25 am
Yes.
The “danger” from second-hand smoke to patrons is nil from the stage with any kind of ventilation system.
I’m a great supporter of staying as true to the author’s original vision as much as possible. However, I think the ban on real daggers for the works of Shakespeare should remain.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:28 am
The idea is to get rid of tobacco. The portayal of smoking is indeed smoking. Whether it is some herbal thing is irrelevant. I haven’t seen the play so I don’t know the context for the smoking - to show cool kids smoking or to show the devastation of someone in a iron lung. Allowing it in a play seems to me to be glorifying smoking.
Comment by Smokeless Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:31 am
Of course, and it might be good to remind legislators and local government of the concept of unintended consequences
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:31 am
What a sorry load of crap. It’s one thing to ban smoking in public places, but to alter creative content over it, seems to be, if not illegal, then certainly a misplaced priority. I think that Chicago has priorities much more pressing to deal with then whether people smoke as part of acting in a play.
Comment by iPhone Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:32 am
I’m a huge supporter of the smoking ban, too, but I am surprised that no allowance is given to herbal or other “costume” cigarettes for theatre companies. I would not want theatres to be allowed to use real cigarettes, but I don’t see the harm in permitting fake ones.
Comment by South Side Mike Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:33 am
===Allowing it in a play seems to me to be glorifying smoking.===
I want you to rethink what you just wrote. Are you really ready to give the government the blanket authority to “allow” things in plays?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:34 am
It’s artistic integrity, exempt ‘em out. The percentage of scripts overall that call for real cigarettes is very small. It’s not like they’re saying patrons can smoke in the theater. Get over it. And as for “glorifying smoking,” should we have the government prohibit it in TV and movies as well? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Blackjack Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:38 am
Isn’t that exactly what is happening here? Somebody wants it in a play. They stuff is banned. No allowances for plays.
Comment by Smokeless Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:40 am
No. The problem with well intended exceptions is that they create loopholes for unwell intended avoidance.
For artistic purposes there already exist fake cigarettes that puff smoke (at spencer gifst and other fine gag retailers) I am sure the entertainment industry can imporve on this. After all, how many real guns shooting bullets, real swords etc are used in a play? The whole process is one of using props to simulate the real thing. Just use simulated cigarettes with simulated smoke.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:40 am
I should say - the stuff is banned in public settings.
Comment by Smokeless Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:42 am
===to show cool kids smoking===
OMG. WHat do you want to do? Reverse history? Destroy all old movies? All old reference to billboards and advertising? Smoking WAS cool back in the day. Not that it was right, but it was part of history.
Parents, teachers, etc…teach the kids what we know today. But don’t pull the blanket over their heads when it comes to viewing history. It’s called using your brain.
And, yes, let the theater use smoking. I was just in a comedy where the use of a cigarette was SO relevant to the joke but we couldn’t use it. Ruined the moment. It all goes back to the issue…go ahead and let people know ahead of time there will be the use of smiking in a production. People can make the CHOICE to attend the production…or not.
This is America, where you can make your own decisions, right?
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:43 am
If you want to start changing artistic content because it “glorifies” something, see Amendment One.
Scary.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:44 am
== to show cool kids smoking or to show the devastation of someone in a iron lung. Allowing it in a play seems to me to be glorifying smoking. ==
Wow, to think we have gotten so uptight that this is even an issue is amazing to me. To ban the use of cigarettes in Jersey Boys is ridiculous.
Lets bann the viewing of Casablanca while we are at it. Perhaps the governor should appoint a commission to go over all movies that are going to be shown in Illinois before they are allowed in theatres.
Any movies that portray smoking by people who are not on thier death bed should not be allowed. Lets get a dose of common sense please, no one is getting cancer sitting in the audience watching Jersey Boys.
Comment by Speaking at Will Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:46 am
I’m the biggest anti-smoker here, but a genuine attempt at art is different. Although I hestitate to bring the issue of “is this art, or just some people on a stage smoking?” before a court, I’m pretty confident a court could make that determination.
For the most part, the smoking issue is simply an employee-safety issue. When it comes to theater though, it becomes a first amendment issue.
For what its worth, and consistent with what I’ve written on the topic in the past — I also think that for the actors, performances should also get OSHA waivers. If a performance wants to have somebody working at height without fall protection to make some artistic point, then let them.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:46 am
Word, no problem with protraying smoking, but no reason they can’t use fake cigarrettes that simulate smoking.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:48 am
Better rework that “Oedipus Rex,” too. Don’t want to glorify that sort of thing.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:49 am
Do the words “NANNY STATE” mean anything to anyone?? Let’s ban drinking on stage because it’s offensive to reformed AA’ers. Let’s just control everything that everyone does because someone “might” be offended!!
Comment by TimB Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:50 am
If you want cigarettes in a play, use a prop. Some people, many already ignoring the smoking ban comnpletely in small bars, clubs and taverns, will abuse ANY opportunity/loophole given. The theater is full of creative people and special effects….use your brains if you need to portray the habit! After all, 50 million Americans can’t be wrong!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:51 am
Ghost-
That’s just it, fake is fake. And anybody who goes to theater sees stuff like that and goes, “look at that fake cigarette.”
No one is getting hurt from the use of cigarettes in theater, although I would love to see a study done…NOT.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:52 am
Yes, there should be an exception for artistic performances. In fact, if the issue were pushed, it wouldn’t surprise me if a federal court found that the statute/ordinance violates the First Amendment without the exception.
The reasonable thing is to allow an exception for simulated smoking, whether it’s herbal smokes or some sort of stunt cigarettes. There is a minor health issue in allowing real tobacco (second-hand smoke), but there shouldn’t be an issue over allowing a portrayal of smoking.
Not even Big Brother would stoop so low.
(For the record: ex-smoker, don’t mind if people smoke, but I support the smoking ban in restaurants and bars.)
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:52 am
So cigarette smoking is protected by the First Amendment?
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:53 am
For what it worth, and to be consistent –
If a work of artistic merit wanted an actor to use marijuana or heroin on stage, I would also be in favor of allowing that. It is art afterall, and I believe in the First Amendment.
I’m not sure people like TimB (who, from his last post, may have started his weekend consumption a bit early) would agree though.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:53 am
Bandcamp, the thetaer is built upon fake looking props. I have been on staged and used fake cigarettes and the folks we talked to did not notice. Setting aside the fact that the audience is far away from the actors 9very very far depending on your seats) and that cigarettes are tiny. If the performance is so bad you are focuse on the cigarette prop in the actrs hands its not the lack of a real smoke effecting the play, its the bad acting.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:57 am
Illinois Public Act 095-0017==…United States Surgeon General’s 2006 report has determined that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke…Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation…the only means of eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure is to eliminate all smoking activity indoors==
No exceptions!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:58 am
…This is America, where you can make your own decisions, right?…
This is Illinois and here you do not have the right to make that decision regarding the public use of tobacco. I didn’t write the law, I didn’t pass it and I didn’t sign it.
Comment by I Wish He Did Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:04 am
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 10:53 am:
“So cigarette smoking is protected by the First Amendment?”
When done in the context of a performance, I think it is.
Of course, I’m one of those people who find “penumbras” in the Constitution [such as “free speech also includes some action related to that speech, when done to make a point”], so the right wingers here who hate the liberal courts should probably ignore what I have to say on the topic.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:05 am
VC, try to limit your comments. You tend to try to overwhelm us on QOTD’s and it’s a bit much. This is not a criticism, nor an order, just a suggestion.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:06 am
This is ridiculous !
Have we really become this much of a nation of whinners ?
It’s a play or performance.
Some folks really do need to have more to do in their life than worry ’bout this sort of thing.
Comment by shermans ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:06 am
If you grew up in the 60’s, you probably remember those candy cigarettes that were packaged to look like the real thing. It would be a hilarious prop for Jersey Boys, like the “Stonehenge” in Spinal Tap.
And Skeeter, my artistic muse is tingling. Guess I’ll do a blunt under my 1A rights.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:10 am
Give me a break. I agree with Shermans’ ghost. We’re talking about smoking for minutes during a performance, where the closest patron is at least 15 feet away.
Laws should be written and enforced with some semblance of common sense….seems the public and especially our government has lost that lately.
And, since we are trying to bolster our state’s film industry, how will a strict interpretation of this law have on that endeavor. I say not so good.
People are idiots….
Comment by DuPage Moderate Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:11 am
is this really that big of deal if an actor/musician lights up on stage, wether its part of a script or not? I think were getting a little ridiculous here.
Comment by Pickles!! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:17 am
Oh, GOODY! Then the legislature will have accomplished TWO things this spring: allowing smoking on stage and making it easier to get Miley Cyrus tickets. I am SO impressed…
Comment by BehindTheScenes Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:25 am
Skeeter, I don’t consume alchohol, I assume that’s what you’re referring to. I used to smoke, a lot. Quit 10 years ago for my health and the health of my wife and grandkids.
The Trib story says “after a complaint by a patron about smoking”. So one person can make one complaint and dictate what is shown in a play to hundred/thousands of others????
Here’s an idea, if you don’t want to see/smell people smoking, then do go there. If you miss a play, watch it when it comes out on DVD!!!!
AB
Comment by TimB Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:25 am
TimB, I don’t have the time to constantly watch your language, so I’m asking that you do it yourself.
Grow up.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:28 am
I find smoking more than annoying, yet allowing smoking in a legitimate play seems reasonable. I love the general smoking ban. Now I can out for a drink and come home smelling only of cheap booze and cheaper women.
Now if bars are going to start staging ‘fake’ plays to get around the ban that will need to be addressed. Something about having a “regular” cast might have to be written into the law. By “regular” I mean not constantly new people in the play.
Comment by irishpirate Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:29 am
Can’t the state simply fine the theater $100 per show/violation? It would generate a tiny bit of revenue and let the show go on. It’s not like the Jersey Boys production company can’t afford the fine.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:29 am
Vote Quimby asks:
So cigarette smoking is protected by the First Amendment?
I don’t think the issue here is whether smoking is protected by the First Amendment. It’s whether the portrayal of smoking in a performance such as a play is protected speech.
I think there’s a long line of legal precedent that says similar portrayals cannot be banned. And in “Jersey Boys” the smoking is a key part of recreating the atmosphere of the times. People smoked back then, especially in nightclubs and restaurants.
The QOTD is not about the smoking ban; it’s about banning the portrayal of smoking. There’s a big difference between the two.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:34 am
Yes. There is absolutely no danger from that dubious second hand smoke threat. Theaters are not gas chambers. If one is so freaked out about an actor lighting up go see Cinderella and leave us along. Where would have been the late Bette Davis and Dean Martin (among many others) to be barred from smoking on or off stage. Get a life. An ex-smoker.
Comment by The Fox Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:35 am
The fact that we are having this conversation and that the City COuncil has to deal with something like this is beyond moronic.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:36 am
Rich, Didn’t realize that any of my language was considered cursing or swearing.
Sorry.
Comment by TimB Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 11:36 am
Suggestion noted. I need to cut back on my caffeine…
Comment by Vote Cuimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:17 pm
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:18 pm
You can pretend to smoke a cigarette without having a lit cigarette. Actors are capable of portraiting a lot of things, smoking can be one of them.
Keep the ban.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:29 pm
Nope, do not alter it creating special rights for theaters. Make the silly law apply to all equally.
Tim B, some people make a habit of watching things just to complain and ruin it for the rest of us. I say overturn the law and let patrons decide where to spend their money and employees decide where they want to work
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:29 pm
Wumpus,
Not to digress from the topic, but do you advocate getting rid of all employee safety laws? Should we dump OSHA and mine safety?
Or is your argument simply that you believe that smoking is not a real danger?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:41 pm
Skeeter, you’ll breathe far worse stuff standing on the street after the play waiting for a taxi than you will when somebody lights an herbal cigarette on stage.
Just sayin.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:43 pm
Rich,
That’s possible, but that’s not my point. Moreover, if there was a simple, cost efficient, and effective way to get rid of taxi exhaust then I think we all would be jumping to get that solution.
But back to my my point: My point is that people like safety rules, except when it makes things inconvenient for them.
As I noted — if people want to abolish OSHA, tnen abolishing the smoking ban makes sense. It is a consistent position. A wrong position, that will turn the U.S. into a third world country, but at least consistent.
The people who like safety regs but not the smoking ban are more problematic, for reasons noted above.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:48 pm
we need a death penalty for smoking–this needless bickering over a cigarette smoked on stage would be silenced-and now that guns are not verboten why not let the fellow citizens of good intent get in some target practice
Comment by outside the box Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:51 pm
Skeeter, you’ve created a red herring because, as you most certainly well know, there are plenty of exemptions to OSHA rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:52 pm
Absolutely not, how are we going to retain our title as the most restrictive place to live if we start repealing nanny laws. These laws need to be expanded, for example, if someone swears or makes off color jokes they should be arrested for disorderly conduct, ect.
By the way, the cameras on street sweepers is a nice touch.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:54 pm
Rich,
Not really. Six foot tie off means six foot tie off. Many contractors have rules that are more strict than OSHA, but if you go though any high rise project you might find some non-compliance but you are not going to find many exceptions or many waivers.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:59 pm
“outside the box - Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 12:51 pm:
we need a death penalty for smoking”
At risk of sounding melodramatic, I thought we already had one.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:01 pm
Hey Skeeter, I think that there are many more dangers much worse than smoking a cigarette (real/herbal) on stage. There’s no slippery slope here. Turning this QOTD into a national OSHA issue is silly. Like the comment earlier, “who cares?” Does a “Jersey Boy” lighting up a cigarette 7 times during a performance really wrinkle you up that much? And it isn’t a matter of “it’s the law” because there are exceptions to any law.
Just a side note, in Grease, when Sandi grabs that cigarette out of Danny’s mouth and puts it out with her high heels…great moment in the use of a cigarette in theater moment.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:02 pm
OSHA exempts small employers, plus has other loopholes.
The point is, an exemption for herbal cigarettes for a play in Chicago isn’t equal to abolishing OSHA. The argument you made is goofy.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:05 pm
And, Mr. Miller, you are also being a bit rigid in your arguements. OSHA, DNR, EPA may have excetions on the books, but the overwhelming affect of these agencies has had a positve impact on our working environments.
For those that advocate “Market Freedom” and the like need to look no further than the early late 19th/early 20th century business practices.
I wonder how many really long for the days when corporations were allowed to simply dump waste into waterways, there were no limits on discharge from smokestacks, and if an employee died on the job…well that was a risk they ran.
Without Govt oversite, and restrictions compaines do what is cheap, not necessarly good for employees, or the environment. We went without regulation for years. And without them, we wouldn’t be able to use many resources that were either close to destruction (Lake Erie), or were destroyed (Clear cutting of forests west of the Mississippi). Contrary to what many profess, market forces were either not adequate, or able to prevent corporate greed/indifference from having a bad impact on society.
For those that gripe about the Govt over-reaching on the smoking ban…get a grip. If you want to smoke at home…do it. Smoke it up in your car. But don’t pretend that it isn’t harmful to others, just so you (smokers in general) can light up where you want.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:06 pm
IMO, there shouldn’t be a smoking ban anyway. I’d rather let the venue make that determination whether or not they want to ban smoking.
Comment by Levois Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:08 pm
Another goofy argument. The question isn’t about abolishing all government oversight and returning to the 19th Century. The question is about opening up a tiny loophole in a very new state law.
That happens a lot, by the way, when legislators discover unintended consequences.
Yours is the same type of argument (albeit upside-down) used, by the way, against things like OSHA and Social Security and unemployment insurance and child labor laws. A tiny change in that direction will lead to full-blown Communism!!!
It’s a completely illogical argument that a small change automatically and without a doubt leads to a huge change.
Now, back to the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:09 pm
Rich,
Read my comments. I advocated an exception, but for First Amendment reasons. I would create the exception, but based on my view of the first amendment I would take it much farther and extend it to things like tie off rules. If for some reason a play called for a person to be at 6 feet without being tied off, I don’t have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is your idea that somehow an exception is proper simply because you don’t like the ban (which does seem to be your argument). If smoking causes cancer (it does), then the smoking ban is a legitimate employee protection law.
Your argument can only be:
1. Smoking doesn’t cause cancer;
2. It is OK for certain people to get cancer if the result of the labor makes some people happy; or
3. Employee protection laws are bad.
Unless, of course, you accept my 1st Amendment justification.
And now, taking the lead of Vote Quimby, I’m off the topic for a while. “How Ironic” summed up my position pretty well, so I don’t think I have anything more on the topic.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:16 pm
I think the fear here is that if this “loophole” is allowed, there will be a mad rush to write and produce smoker friendly productions. And this will lead to audience participation, and the new BYOB exception. Next thing you know, all the theaters will be night clubs.
You know, this is such a small issue. And yet there is all this rigid opposition. Since smoking still a LEGAL right in the good ol US of A, a small exemption is not asking so much. This exemption isn’t about a health issue. It’s about allowing a production to be true to the playwright.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:18 pm
Skeeter, I wouldn’t read too much into my comments. I’m just trying to police the excessive and ridiculous hyperbole here, including in your latest comments.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:19 pm
My original post was buried already by subsequent posters.
Once a theater gets an “exception” many bars/tavers will simply become “theaters”. If you don’t belive it check out this fox news story about the Minnesota Smoking Ban:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335771,00.html
This is NOT where Illinois needs to go.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:25 pm
Again with the slippery slope.
MN, from what I gather, didn’t require temporary exemptions from the boards of health. So, your example is, once again, hyperbolic.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:27 pm
It’s not a slippery slope. It is a documented, direct skirting of the law. If it wasn’t a direct attempt at circumvention of the law, why bother with the “theatrics” (hahaha)?
The point is that if there are expceptions to the rule, people will attempt to exploit it. It’s human nature.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:34 pm
How-
I laughed during the entire article. It seems that the bars who are enjoying the theater nights are having grand success! Once again proving the whole, “if you don’t want to go, don’t go” argument with establishments that what to allow smoking.
Properly written, there wouldn’t be blantant smoking for smoking’s sake. You apply for a permit/exemption, submitting a script, not just some bogus made-up crap, and you have to be a real theater. Define theater in the exemption requirements. I mean, really…MN just did a crappy job. You live, learn, and fix it and end up with the intended exemption.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:43 pm
We have high standards for limiting First Amendment rights for a reason.
Commercial speech has less protection than artistic speech, political speech, or freedom of the press.
But in order to limit artistic or political speech or the press, you have to provide evidence of overwhelming public interest.
Although i support the indoor clean air act, I don’t think the state or the city has met that threshold, and I don’t think they ever will.
As for the idea that an actor puffing on an unlit cigarette is indistinguishable from a lit cigarette, that’s absolutely ludicrous.
So too, as Rich pointed out, is the notion that we can’t create a narrowly crafted exception that avoids the pitfalls in Minnesota.
Fritchey and Reilly are smart guys who support the smoking ban, and before we poo-poo their efforts out of hand, we should atleast look at the language.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:45 pm
Capt Fax:
I am thinking of mounting a revival of my play “Cigars” at Bob’s Butternut Hut in SPI. It works a bit like the “Do It Yourself Messiah” where everyone is in the show. Can we count on InsiderZ buying the naming rights?
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 1:49 pm
Relax, everybody. The smoking ban isn’t like the Volstead Act. Public support for it is overwhelming and, I suspect, permanent. The casinos got dismissed out of hand, and that’s real money in play. There’s no slope to slip on.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:05 pm
What a joke. Bertolt Brecht actually thought that audiences SHOULD smoke because it put them in a thoughtful mood (there is actually some scientific basis to this believe, or rather some research to support this belief). Of course smoking is unhealthful for all and unpleasant for many. This is just another form of bowdlerization. It is easier to understand Wilmetter requiring “Ragtime” to move indoors because of the uncontrolled broadcasting of the “N” word in the production’s former outdoor venue. LET COMMON SENSE PREVAIL.
Comment by Ahem Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:08 pm
Talk about PC to the hilt. I am not a smoker and like having no smoke bars/restaurants. However I could care less about smoking in a play. Thought it was part of the artistic license. So what happens next? Ban/recut smoking scenes in movies, TV, and radio because it “glorifies” smoking? If the play calls for smoking, the actors know it. If you do not like it, stay away and let others go. What nonsense. Let em smoke in the play.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:17 pm
===It also does not allow herbal cigarettes to substitute for tobacco, as has been common practice in the theater===
So if you don’t mind, let me narrow this QOTD down to eliminate all the tobacco issues:
-Herbal cigarettes are cigarettes that do not contain any tobacco or nicotine-
So what is wrong with having that language in the exemption? Forget even smoking a real cigarette. Someone give me a strong argument for not allowing herbal cigarettes on the stage of a traditional theater.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:25 pm
The “slippery slope” we need to worry about is the one we are creating by allowing government to censor what we can or cannot see in a play. I would hazard a guess that a majority of patrons of this play are adults. I think it is a pretty safe bet that they will not RUN out and take up smoking after seeing this play. As to the second hand smoke issue, you probably would be in more danger riding the CTA during rush hour crammed in next to a smoker who’s clothes are filled with it. If we let the government censor in this way, the next step will be that any play, book, movie etc that was written before this current facist PC generation and found to be offensive to its sensitive nature will have to be censored. Remember the PC flap over Mark Twain’s verbage and how certain school boards and the like wanted ALL of his books removed because of it. We as a state, no we as a country are in grave danger of allowing our freedom of expression to be stolen by a minority of PC’ers. Take a stand to save your rights.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:26 pm
Before they create this loophole lets not forget what Bill had to say on the topic: “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.”
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:27 pm
“Someone give me a strong argument for not allowing herbal cigarettes on the stage of a traditional theater.”
Because if we bar them, smokers will get even more riled up about the issue. Given their tobacco-weakened hearts and lungs, we may be able to use this method to thin the herd.
Just tossing ideas out there.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:32 pm
A simple solution would be to have smoking and non smoking performances. Those who wish to avoid the smoke could attend a smoke free performance.
Of course, the smoke free performances would be matinee’s and those attending would also be given lolly pops when they leave, but only if they don’t cry.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:36 pm
Phin,
That doesn’t solve the problen at all.
Tbe ban is as much or more about the employees (actors) as about the patrons.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:42 pm
Skeeter,
aaahhh, my head is exploding. But you have a point.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:45 pm
PJW - Love the comment and the name. Maybe we could use your 3D BB for the matinee performances??
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:47 pm
Skeeter - if the employees don’t object and accept it as a characteristic of the part they are playing why should/would anyone get antsy over the smoking? From what I have read, this play does not take place in an opium den nor a room filled with dense smoke. It’s just some guys smoking. I don’t smoke and I don’t see myself driven to it by seeing a play. Lord, if y’all get upset about a few cigs in a play, I cannot imagine just how agitated you would become after watching “REEFER MADNESS”
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 2:56 pm
SPP,
If a miner does not object to going into a mine without proper breathing apparatus, should we just send him in?
Or should we stand up snd say that in the U.S., in 2008, we don’t permit that sort of thing?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:02 pm
I rank this right up there with the ban of Foie Gras in Chicago. All this broughaha(SP?) is hogwash. As the New Hampshire motto says - Live Free or Die.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:03 pm
Skeeter: apples, oranges. Miners and Sure Death, Herbal Smokes and Theater. Doesn’t add up.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:07 pm
They don’t use real bullets.
They don’t use real knives.
They don’t snort real cocaine
They don’t drink real alcohol.
They just…what’s that word again?…oh right…they “act”.
Act like you are smoking, use a prop. No need to make an exception to a good law for a stupid reason.
Comment by MGSquared Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:08 pm
Skeeter, as the wife of a former coal miner, I can honestly say that you are very naive about what happens underground. The guys do CARRY self rescuers on their belts but do not wear them as they work. They are to be used when precautionary measures are called for. If a mine is sooooo… toxic that you would have to wear a mask all the time, OSHA would never let you go underground.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:10 pm
MSG:
What’s the prop for a lit cigarette that emits smoke?
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:10 pm
It’s fairly easy to simulate drinking on stage, by drinking colored water or apple juice. Nudity can be simulated with the use of flesh-colored tights. And I presume stage and screen and TV directors simulate sexual activity all the time without actually, um, doing it, of course. So why not simulate smoking with herbal cigarettes or incense sticks or something that doesn’t give off real smoke, and make an exemption for it?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:10 pm
Bandcamp, it is called a puff puff, a fake cigarrette. They sell them in gag stores and from prop stores. Have been around for years
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:12 pm
You can buy one at Spencer’s in you local mall.
And if that’s not good enough. I’m sure those handy prop guys that create fake knives, fake guns, fake blood and fake wounds could come up with something pretty easy.
I’ve been to lots of performances where “smoke” billows in from the wings, creating fog.
Pretty sure they didn’t set a fire to make that happen.
Comment by MGSquared Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:13 pm
Skeeter, the miner thing again?
We’re talking here about a temporary exemption for 1st Amendment reasons to allow a couple of actors to smoke herbal cigarettes, not tobacco, on stage.
Please, from now on argue the merits of the proposal at hand, not your oh so scary analogies.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:14 pm
They also use dry ice and talc powder in other scenerios on stage to emulate smoke as well.
In fact they use everything but real smoke when they need smoke on a stage. If only we had a society with creative people who could come up with prop to simulate something. I wonder where the first props came from….. Oh yeah, there was a need so somone created the necessary item
BTW if you ever buy an HO engine or go to a japanese grill you can watch them make smoke from burning oil.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:14 pm
===So why not simulate smoking with herbal cigarettes or incense sticks===
There is no exemption for herbal cigs, which is what this is all about.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:15 pm
Never seen one, but if they work, and I’ve never tried one out, then what the heck! Not that I am not still for an exemption, cause I am based on the fact that it’s not a big deal and isn’t harmful to anyone but you nay-sayers. But if those things work, then…BRAVO!
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:18 pm
I just did a very quick internet search and found fake cigarettes - perfect for play props.
http://www.sevendeals.com/p-305-fake-cigarettes.aspx
Comment by lady in red Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:21 pm
Rich, on Monday could you post a less controversial topic as the quesiton of the day? Something like “Should we allow late term abortions in Church Vestibules during the week since they are unused most weekdays?”
That would be great. Thanks.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:27 pm
I want to go back to my inquiry: the herbal exemption. No one has provided a good argument as to why this is a problem. and:
===Because if we bar them, smokers will get even more riled up about the issue. Given their tobacco-weakened hearts and lungs, we may be able to use this method to thin the herd==
…is not a very good argument Skeeter.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:27 pm
Rich,
Per my comments, I did accept the First Amendment justification.
However, many of your commenters are not basing their opposition on the 1A, and when that’s the case, then my scary analogies are right on point.
If you get rid of the 1A, then this does become nothing more than an employee safety issue.
On employee safety issues, the rule is that if you have a simple way to reduce risk, you do it.
Here, you have something that obviously does cause cancer, and a way to prevent it.
My analogy holds. For reasons that escape me, people seem to think that waitresses, bartenders and others are entitled to a safe workplace.
If you get rid of the 1A justification, then you are either saying:
1. Smoke is not a real safety threat; or
2. This class of people is not entitled to workplace protections.
If I’m wrong on the justification absent the 1A, then please point out where, since the issue seems pretty clear.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:27 pm
And Band Camp:
Stop being so PC. Why can’t smokers take a joke?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:30 pm
Skeeter, you made me laugh. I don’t smoke. Quit over a decade ago and love it. I was trying to get a real good explanation why herbal substitutes are so bad as an exemption, because I don’t think there is a solid argument against it.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:34 pm
===Here, you have something that obviously does cause cancer, and a way to prevent it===
So minimal use of herbal smokes causes cancer in actors?
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:35 pm
BC,
Maybe I was not clear on your prior point.
Are you conceding that the State should not allow tobacco use on stage?
I thought you were contesting that point.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:43 pm
I absolutely conceed that if bonafide theater groups/theater houses can use herbal cigarettes in the place of tobacco on stage, then the use of the aforementioned tobacco should not be allowed. Correct.
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:50 pm
Skeeter: Your comments make it seem like bartenders, wait staff etc don’t know the working conditions until the day they start. In fact your comments indicate that you hold the belief that people in these positions are so feeble minded that they need the NANNY state to protect them as they incapable of doing so themselves. Bottom line, if you don’t want to suck up a lung full of smoke, don’t take a job in a place known for its smoky environment.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 3:55 pm
Allow real cigarettes and real bullets. Ban Jersey Boys!
Comment by Justice Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:04 pm
Skeet, yes and ged rid of child labor laws to boot…and make fires safe sicne firemen/women/frepeople have to fight them, make criminals stop carrying guns since it makes the job of police more risky.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:10 pm
Sweet,
And you seem to think that ALL service-oriented workers can just switch jobs at a moments notice. Stop pretending that these folks are having the time of their lives inhaling your toxic discharges.
I work in a professional environment. Prior to the ban, there would be occasions where others in the office felt the need to light up. Would you suggest I just quit my job because some bonehead wants to kill himself around me?
Just because these folks are on the lower spectrum of earnings is irrelevant to the argument.
Remember,
1. Smoking is haz to your health, and those around.
2. Smokers are in the minority. Majority has ruled, and said no more smoking in public.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:16 pm
Wumpus - AMEN!
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:16 pm
Amazing what big brother will do when when we keep giving him a bigger stick!
Comment by Ultra50k Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:20 pm
People, stick to the question, please. It’s Friday, it’s almost over, so try to relax a bit.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:21 pm
You picked the topic Mr. Miller. Perhaps something involving puppies, and babies would have been better.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:24 pm
SPP,
Thank you for your comments. How enlightened and compassionate.
Sure bartenders do know the risks. Do you believe that we should force bartenders to take that risk?
How about your husband: He knew the risks. If a mining company wanted to send him into a mine without his self-rescuer, he could have made that decision, right? We don’t need a government to enforce mine safety laws?
How about construction workers: They know the risk. Let’s get rid of mandatory fall protection. The ironworkers know the risk. They can decide whether to take the job.
Right?
There is a 1st amendment justification to not applying the ban to a play.
However, when it comes to the general attacks on the smoking ban, they boil down to nothing more than “We don’t care about the safety of bartenders and waitreses.”
But I’ve made the point above.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:24 pm
Touchy subject, I guess.
Would the smoking exemption apply to junior high and high school productions as well?
/snark
Comment by Vote Cuimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:25 pm
.
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:31 pm
Vote:
Most school districts are on a no-smoking campus rule. Students are not allowed to have tobacco on the grounds at any time.
And, unless you are in some sort of hold-back school, it is unlikely that Jr. High students are over 18yrs of age.
Maybe we could just let them burn tires on stage.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:32 pm
What’s ironic, or paradoxical, or incongruous (one of those things–I get them confused) is that odds are that the actor is not a regular smoker.
SAVE HER! HER ART IS KILLING HER!
Comment by Lefty Lefty Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:39 pm
Rich, how bout something from an old Dylan concert to launch us into the weekend? Lord knows we need something!
Comment by Justice Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 4:51 pm
How Ironic:
I would oppose both the burning of puppies and babies on stage.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 5:03 pm
Just make sure there’s no video of Dylan glorifying smoking tobacco. I suspect he can find a suitable herbal prop.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 5:31 pm
I’m sure that the person who complained is very pleased with him/herself that seven scenes were changed, and is now being hailed not only as a hero within the community for saving so many lives but for his/her creativity in rewriting the play without really lifting a finger.
The only thing that could be more fun than reading this thread would be hearing that that person is now suing for rights to the play based on the idea for the rewrites which lead to a more “wholesome” play that all Americans can now enjoy, which would in turn cause the production company to sue the City because of the ban that lead to the re-writes in the place.
Even if that DOESN’T happen, I’d still think twice before bringing a play to Chicago now.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 11, 08 @ 6:08 pm