and now that i think about it, i feel the same way about this bitch as i would were someone to scream "turn that down!" at a rock show because it was bad for her hearing.

Good analogy though it doesn't translate 100%. Loud rock shows are a bit more common than plays with smoke(rs) in them.


If that were true, no character in any play or movie would have smoked ever.


No, actors are actually doing things using props. There's no difference between "acting like sitting" and sitting.


So can a lit cigarette. It's a drastically more effective prop when the script calls for the character to smoke or light up.


It's necessary if it adds to the story, and if it didn't add to the story it wouldn't have been written.

I like it somewhat, except whofa isn't a word. Otherwise it would be more effective. I'm also drunk.

Amen.



I was already an asshole, now I just know which way the wind is blowing, and in this thread it's blowing straight out of your ass.

The king of Whofa would argue otherwise.

The King of Whofa probably smokes, because he's cool.

[img][650:649]http://plissken.free.fr/Covers/C/Columbo%20frt.jpg[/img]

Except that loud music at rock concerts ISN'T ILLEGAL.

Law is on my side, bitches.

Besides, don't give me crap about integrity. If they could write out the smoking from THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLAY in 15 MINUTES, it CANNOT have been all that important.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had Mexican for lunch.

Never gets old.

That certainly would have been an adequate compromise.

But speaking of slippery slopes, doesn't that indicate the beginning of the segregation of society into at least two groups: groups that smoke and go to plays/concerts/whatever else at which smoking is usually allowed, and groups that do neither? I know my attendance at concerts has certainly gone down in recent years due to health reasons (skipped LCD Soundsystem/Juan Mclean tonight). It's just like all-ages shows -- do you remember how many shows were not all-ages when you were underage? It was stupid! I know I hated it when a show I wanted to go to wasn't all ages...

Doesn't anyone care about the effects of second-hand smoke in a crowded theater?

For God's sake people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Actually, concerts that are too loud and/or too late are illegal in some places. I've heard stories in Denver of bands playing ampitheaters and getting the plug pulled in the middle of a song due to local noise ordinaces.


Then call the cops, and let them do their job.


One could remove a climactic scene in a professional production in less than 1 minute (directions to cast and crew to jump from scene X directly to scene Z), and it will have drastic effect on the show. The fact remains that everything in the script was important enough to be written.


That assumes every non-smoker is intolerant of smoke, which is false. A better grouping would be "smokers and non-smokers who don't mind smoke" (which is probably what you meant). While the segregation you're pointing at may be in place, I would argue it started much earlier with the first designated smoking/non-smoking section.

Also, it assumes that every play has smoking in it. That is also false. I think the nudity analogy is an appropriate one because of laws that are in place and that it's not ever-present in theatre. You display a warning, and people have the choice to attend said production or not. For smokin, venues can also use ventilation and/or special non-smoking seating sections (if they're big enough) where one cigarette over five minutes in a two-hour production will have minimal impact.

Shoulda gone all Nick Cave on they asses.

Sorry to bring it all back to the general smoking ban question, but I think this is exactly what should have happened, which is why I think that Billzebub, ostensibly a libertarian, is letting his personal feelings about smoke cloud his philosophical bent. Of course it's true that the legislature has the power to effectuate the will of the people, and in many places the majority will has been to ban smoking in bars. But a libertarian should also be concerned that the law not step in unless market incentives are inadequate. If the majority people in a city dislike smoking, then there is clearly a market for non-smoking bars.

You might say "but people wouldn't go because they have smoker friends," but that really shouldn't be an issue - first because non-smokers are in the majority and second because (as many have been quick to point out), it's not a huge inconvenience for the smoker friends at non-smoker bars to step outside. You might more credibly say "well it's clear the market was broken here, because a majority wanted non-smoking bars, but it didn't happen." Fine, I agree, but there are many solutions between total deregulation and total ban. As with nightclubs who stay open late, you could charge clubs that would like to remain open a (substantially) higher licensing fee. For many bars, it would no longer be worth it to allow smoking, and they would switch. On the other hand, some smokers would be willing to pay more for beer in a place they can light up. Surely you, Dusty, would not want to hang out with this class anyway, because you think they're assholes.

To this, someone would undoubtedly say, "but why go to the trouble? It's not that big of an inconvenience, and it really REALLY lines up with MY preferences?" Because of the three options, the compromise allows the greatest amount of liberty to the greatest number of people, and THAT is what legislation should achieve.

Punk rock.

... But as it goes - does anyone think that the complainant is actually a smoking advocate (or, at least, against the interior air law) and was using this (incidental) hyperbole to demonstrate the folly of the (entire) legislation?

Nice metaphor, but Billz' only comment in this thread was about Ubu Roi, which speaks more to my script integrity position. I'm not too familiar with that production, but the one script of it I just read online had nothing about defecating on stage.


That's pretty right on, as is...

I know, but he was supporting the legislation in the other thread, and I never responded to that. I figured it was better to be slightly OT in this thread than split my rant between both.

I disagree with this. I still go to concerts that are important to me, and it is a big inconvenience (there's not supposed to be smoking at said concerts, but no-one enforces it). And I doubt I'm the only one. Only about 10% of the crowd smokes (if that).

And do you really want me to call the cops on you just because you're smoking, Sketch? I agree in your re-categorization of my original segregation...and yet, it's not that black and white. I think there are various levels of tolerance, as I've stated above.

Can't wait 'til smoking is out-and-out outlawed. Some day, in the not-too-distant future, we're going to look back on these times and say, "you inhaled pollution into your lungs, on purpose?"

Why didn't you just inject it directly in your veins, like we do now?

I don't think you understand what I mean. I mean that you absolutely should enforce it, but that licensing is more appropriate than an outright ban. So when you go to shows at clubs that choose not to pay the licensing fee, there is actually no smoke, but you steer clear of the ones which consider the fee worth it. It still serves to stigmatize smoking and generally discourage its public presence, but does not go so far as prohibition, which I consider repugnant to the idea of individual agency and has about the worst record of any legislative strategy.

You apparently think there's an obvious bright line around smoking, as compared to fast food, or coffee, or other things which people chose to do which arguably are not beneficial, or at least which have negative consequences that far outweight the benefits. But if you think the slippery slope toward segregating smokers from non- is dangerous, you have to recognize that making peoples' choices about their health for them has some consequences for personal liberties. I'm not saying people should always be able to smoke everywhere, but I also think you do not have an absolute right to insulation from smoke at every establishment that holds itself open to the public.

This is part of the problem. What are good are any of these laws if they're not enforced properly?


Not in the middle of my performance, no. You're more than welcome to leave immediately or wait until the intermission/conclusion, report the theater to the authorities, and see what happens. If I'm a theater manager/producer/director, I'm more likely to change policy due to a citation or warning from official law enforcement than one customer complaint. For the record, I don't smoke; I'm simply defending the theater's intention (and right, in my opinion) to honor a work as closely as possible.


I agree, but segregation normally has a history of black-and-white definition (pun not originally intended but appropriate). I still think licensing/customer-warnings are the best compromise here.

Actually, in DC, I thought it was completely illegal. I could be wrong.

But the clubs I go to have nothing to do with whether or not one can smoke at them -- they have to do with who's playing there that night.No, as I've stated before -- I could care less what you do to yourself -- smoke, drink, take crack, commit suicide, grow fat, get tats that say EARTH CRISIS right on the middle of your face, hack off your genitals...my only complaint about smoking is that I didn't volunteer to inhale the active smokers' "exhaust".

I do use it sometimes as an argument (hence my "in the future" comment), but that is not why I would choose to legislate it. That's more intended to make smokers realize that what they're doing is bad for their health (I know, I know -- they already know -- but some things just bear repeating).

So, again, I'm saying that the legislation is bad - not that clubs DO have a choice whether smoking is allowed, but that they SHOULD have more choice in the matter. Giving them some choice, but not unlimited license, strikes a compromise - on the one hand, smokers can't smoke everywhere, and on the other, non-smokers don't necessarily get to see every single show they want smoke-free. If you think compromises like this are inappropriate, you probably do not believe in democracy.

fair enough, you shouldn't have to deal with negative health effects from my smoking. but what sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that those negative health effects did not exist in this case. show me the science that says one cigarette in a big theater can cause any audience member harm. in my experience, theaters tend to have relatively high ceilings, and tend to be relatively large spaces. this is the same problem i have with the outdoor smoking bans--as far as i know, it hasn't been established anywhere that outdoor second hand smoke leads to cancer. without the proof of those negative health effects, these laws are some bullshit--you have a right not to be harmed, but you don't have a right not to smell anything that you don't deem pleasant. if there was some kind of reasonable proof, i'd be lining up to support these laws. i do think there's a big problem with having such a low bar for banning behavior that some people don't like. the "smokers are a minority" argument isn't enough--this is america, baby! the majority doesn't have an unlimited ability to infringe the rights of the minority.

Acutally, it happened in Italy. Also, I've been to fringe shows in London that are done in an area slightly larger than my living room, where one lit cigarette could definitely have an impact. We can't assume the theatre layout in this case as we don't know the enough specifics of the show. Generally, you're on the mark, though, Druu.

good point, i shouldn't make that assumption, i've been to some shows in pretty small areas myself.
on another note, i've been to italy, and i seriously wonder if nonsmokers are in the majority over there...