Bay Area's Take On MN Issue

I've written previously about the smoking ban, but I forgot to write an entry about how certain Minnesotan businesses are circumventing the smoking ban in a very tricky manner. If I wasn't so anti-smoking in public venues, I'd be impressed that they found a loophole. Don't know what I'm talking about? Under their Weird News section the SFGate has an AP article describing the bar owners wiley ways:

All the world's a stage at some of Minnesota's bars.

A new state ban on smoking in restaurants and other nightspots contains an exception for performers in theatrical productions. So some bars are getting around the ban by printing up playbills, encouraging customers to come in costume, and pronouncing them "actors."

The customers are playing right along, merrily puffing away - and sometimes speaking in funny accents and doing a little improvisation, too.

The state Health Department is threatening to bring the curtain down on these sham productions. But for now, it's on with the show.

The article itself is interesting, but what I really found funny/interesting were the comments from the readers in response to the law/article:

jmd3606:Kevgoins, gee why don't we just have our gov't switch over to a dictatorship that way they can all tell us what we can and can't do because somethings are just too dangerous. How about stairs maybe we should outlaw those...someone could trip and fall. Cars are bad too...too many accidents. Excuse me, but adults should be able to make those kinds of decisions themselves. If I want to have a trans-fat laden dinner and follow it up with a cigarette I should be able to. And if you don't want to be around the smoke then you don't have to go to places where the smoke is.

ninety9 wrote: I'm a guy about 60. When I was a kid the harm done by smoking was regarded as a bunch of hooey put about by uptight adults - along the lines of say, sex [hey, even consorting with 5-fingered Mary] was bad. But In the 60's and 70's it really did come out that smoking was overwhelmingly harmful. And there was a big shift away from it by hipper somewhat arty types for that reason. Its so depressing to see that same crew in the majority of those smoking outside music bars these days. Where the hell did "healthy is hip" get lost?

BenderRodriguez wrote: I'd like to see some actors playing characters with lung cancer ... or speaking through a hole in their necks ...

calrhody wrote: As much as I dig the anti-smoking laws (less laundry and less painful hangovers!), this is pretty funny. I'm sure the collective town of Berkeley is pissed they didn't come up with this one. Maybe they can dress up like actors and rip a few bingers in the Marine recruiting station. They should probably learn to swim pretty soon.

jpk1 wrote: It is perfectly legal to inhale secondhand smoke in Minnesota, just as it is in California. If it makes you happy, you breathe in all the secondhand smoke you want! What is not legal is forcing others to breathe in secondhand smoke on the job. Why: because it's toxic. Secondhand smoke kills. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung disease, and cancer. That's why you're protected from having to breathe it in at your workplace. And bars are a workplace. That's the point. And this "play" misses that point completely. Secondhand smoke is no different from radon or carbon monoxide or PCBs or methyl mercury: it is an airborne toxin and carcinogen, and it is a heart and lung pathogen. Secondhand smoke kills. Any workplace that forces you to inhale it, is an unsafe workplace.

Smoking Ban Does Its Job

My daily readings include several newspapers. To be honest I enjoy the free indie publications more than Star Tribune or the Pioneer Press. I'm usually frustrated more often than not when I finish the Strib. I was happy to hear the state-wide smoking ban that went into effect that more Minnesotans were trying to quit. I grew up in a household where both of my parents smoked. It wasn't until my late teens that my mother quit. Growing up in that environment can lead to two things: an early start on smoking or being repulsed by the smell of cigarettes.

My clothes reeked of cigarettes and I've never once smoked one. Just thinking about it now is frustrating. I always joke that no one smokes in California. That's far from true. But California's laws sure do make it difficult on smokers. They have for years and because of that along with other factors, it feels like most Californians do not smoke. I didn't make it out of Minneapolis for three months, right in the heart of the winter. I didn't venture far, only across the river to St. Paul, but it felt like I walked into an episode of the Twilight Zone. Where in Minneapolis my lungs were clear of tobacco, in St. Paul I couldn't breathe. The yellow tobacco grime covered the walls. My winter clothes, after only a few hours, needed to be washed. Asthma of years gone by showed signs again. I was miserable and told myself I'd never go back. Weeks later on a trip up to Moorhead/Fargo, I came across that same experience. It was a struggle for me to keep my breath, the constant threat of hyperventilation was present. I just couldn't "get it." The health of everyone was being directly challenged by the few. Since that weekend I've been lucky enough to stay out of too many smoking environments.

The laws have since changed and I'm thrilled to hear along with that the culture is changing. I've since been back to St. Paul, one the law changed last year, but now that I know the rest of the state has opened its mind to the smoking ban, I can safely open my lungs to many more cities.