Happy 4th of July!
The Haight Street Underworld
Giants Clobber The Astros, 13-0
SFist Tonight
Although we're only occasional smokers (read: when we're drunk or feeling awkward at a party), we sympathize with the need to have a cigarette. And while the smoking ban at bars and everywhere else has kept everyone relatively secondhand smoke free, the constant browbeating smokers receive from non-smokers is enough to make the anarchists in us want to light up in front of all the naysayers.
That's when this article on bars working around the smoking ban in Minnesota caught our eye. According to the article, "Dozens of bars are expected to stage 'theater nights' this weekend in which patrons are dubbed actors. The law, which went into effect in October, permits performers to smoke during a theatrical production." Thus, by staging this barside cigarette hotboxing, both the childhood dream of becoming an actor and smoking with drink in hand can come true.
Although the article is from the Minneapolis area, BoingBoing points out that California law is similar and allows actors to smoke onstage as well. The two big questions on our mind are these: what bar is going to be the first to pick up this idea and run with it, and who is going to be the spoilsport to get "theater night" shut down?
Photo of Meg White from Coffee and Cigarettes.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
The truth is that some bars already circumvent the law in San Francisco.
Whether they're doing so through a legal loophole, I'm not sure.
See, I've heard that the law was designed to protect people who work in bars, rather than patrons. Therefore, if all the people who work at a given bar are partial owners (which could mean owning a measely-small percentage of the establishment) and said owners sign off that it's okay with them that smoking goes on, well then it's supposedly legal.
The above loophole may be a rumor. In any event, the law was not designed to protect patrons (since patrons can choose a different, smoke-free bar). So the idea that someone would accuse a bar of allowing smoking... and involve the law... well quite frankly I find that rather revolting and inherently un-san francisco. Then again, things aren't what they used to be.
Alembic much?
Damn --I meant Amber!
In the off chance that one smoker reads this and decides that I might have a point...
Quit throwing your goddam butts all over the city (and the world). I smoked, sometimes heavily, for the better part of two decades and managed to 'almost' never litter, and when I did I surely felt guilty about it.
Think about a light smoker (say, 5 a day) flicking his/her butts and then imagine that they are all immediately redirected to your doorstep. How long would it take for that heinous ashtray smell to make you vomit, perhaps with the help of a healthy morning hangover? How long would it take for you to not be able to step over the pile? In a year, one light smoker would deposit around 2000 butts on your doorstep.
I'm sure nobody is going to argue that littering is okay. If I'm not mistaken, it is still illegal, so maybe the thrill of breaking the law is why so many asshats think it's acceptable. Just for the record, I don't. I apologize for being somewhat off topic.
Who the fuck cares if smokers are brow-beaten? They should be.
I really hope someone tries this stupid "theatre night" shit here. I'll be the first one to help quash it.
The anti-smoking laws were the best thing that has ever happened in the past 15 years.
Smokers should be shunned and relegated to some spot far away from everyone else, and not right in front of every damn door in the city.
Disgusting.
you're so tense, mdw0526. Come on, have a light. You'll be sooooo coool.
And yeah, I was explained that loophole by the fine folks at Whiskey Thieves. I recommend you all go there and let them help you select a hearty scotch to go with your cigarettes. Don't worry mdw0526, it's in the tenderloin, so our fumes won't sully any part of the city you dandies frequent.
Sorry but I'm all for the anti-smoking laws. If you need to smoke, go outside or something. It's not my problem. This isn't a moral or lifestyle issue we're talking about. I couldn't care less about what you choose to do, as long as it doesn't have external costs for the rest of society.
It's the same sort of external cost associated with factories, power plants, etc. that pollute the atmosphere. Why should I be punished for your benefit?
In fact -- here's an idea. You can smoke in bars if you come by my apt. the next day and do my laundry for me. And if you pick up the slack on the increased health care costs associated with smoking. Deal?
While on a (smoky) ferry in Croatia, my wife and I overheard some Brits harping on we Californians - not all Americans, just Californians - over how uptight we are about smoking. Imagine a bratty 20-ish girl with a self-important tone and I'll quote verbatim, "...I mean, they look at you as if you're POLLUTING THEIR AIR!"
Priceless.
how does santa cruz get around the laws? seriously, every bar i went into down there had no-smoking signs posted, but everyone smoked in them! and, as a recent quitter, i found it disgusting. i'm very glad we have the law in california and i avoid bars that, one way or another, allow smoking.
My prior email was a little harsh and hysterical, as was pointed out by a later commenter.
However, as mmalone pointed out, my issue with smoking is that there is never a way for a smoker to not intrude on me and my personal space with his/her habit.
I hate walking down the street behind a smoker, and having to deal with dodging and weaving to keep from being doused with cigarette smoke.
As soon as they figure out how to keep one's exhalations within a small 1 meter boundary around the smoker, then I'll be all for looser laws.
I'm not sure exactly what the deal is, but yes, there is a smoking loophole that has to do with bar owners...
Not sure which bar would actually try out "theater night" (the ones who I think would be tempted to do so are also the least likely to use the word "theater" to drum up business), but my money would be on MAP as the first one to complain.
I have to agree with mdw0526 on both her posts. I didn't find them harsh OR hysterical.
Nothing sucks worse than having to walk to work behind some inconsiderate asshole blowing smoke into my face. Just because they want to smell filthy doesn't mean I do.
And don't get me started on my upstairs neighbor and how polluted she makes MY apartment with her incessant smoking.
I used to cocktail waitress and had to give it up (and the mad cash that went with it) when the second hand smoke literally put me in the hospital. I could bitch about this disgusting, inconsiderate habit for days.
"Nothing sucks worse than having to walk to work behind some inconsiderate asshole blowing smoke into my face. Just because they want to smell filthy doesn't mean I do."
If ever there was a red herring argument: nothing beats people that complain about outdoor cigarette smoke.
Uh, cars.
Now STFU.
Theater night sounds awesome, some bars will do it, some won't. If you don't want to smell like smoke, then, don't. Go. There. Is it that hard to avoid something you want to avoid?
mdw0526 and bluecanary:
I get the anti-smoking laws in bars, and I support them. I don't want my smoking constantly making other people's clothes smell like hell. Plus, none of my clothes smell like smoke since I have to smoke outside, which is nice (might not be true if I smoked a lot, but I'm a VERY light smoker).
But I can't smoke outside because you don't like the smell of it while you walk your dog or walk to work? So, should smoking be banned all together? I'm all for trying to make accomodations for non-smokers, but I think there needs to be a compromise.
Damn! I love smoking and am mad I got to this post so late.
In response to Freelivin's loophole question, he's correct: if all the employees have a partial share of ownership in a bar, then smoking is allowed. (Examples include Whiskey Thieves (note: AWESOME BAR), as well as the Intermission. (Oops, OrangeDrink beat me to it.)
I do agree with baldguy: I'm embarassed by the number of butts I see on the sidewalk as well. Hell, there are two ashtrays outside my office building, and people are too lazy to walk a few feet and put their butts out.
Hey, I agree with you guys. I hate inconsiderate smokers too. But I get angry and a little bit hurt ( when you lump all of us together. I'm very careful to not blow smoke when someone's walking behind me, and I always just stop smoking my cigarette when I'm walking past kids.
But it's real damn easy to avoid those bars that you can smoke in, too, just like I know some frat boys who know how to avoid gay bars. I'm all for the segregation - if you don't want to smoke, there are the vast majority of bars for you. Just don't squelch the bars that we can smoke at.
Theater night? OH YEAH. I can't wait to simultaneously smoke AND deliver my bravura take on "American Buffalo" in my favorite bar.
It's not just an embarrassing amount of cigbutt-trash, it's kinda horrifying. Cigbutts are the most littered item in the world. The California Coastal Commission's annual beach clean up picked up almost 250,000 cigarette butts off the beaches in a single day. Over 4.5 trillion cigarettes are littered worldwide each year. Cigbutts contain plastic, not cotton, and a boatload of toxic chemicals, so that just one hour after rain or a street sweeper has washed one "away", toxic chemicals leaching from that single cigbutt creates a biohazard contaminating 2.5 gallons of water. 4.5 trillion butts have the potential to contaminate 40 trillion liters of water every year, year after year. That's awful. And it's completely 100% caused by smokers.
That's an impressive screed, reaching from a cigarette butt in the gutter to a biohazard in just a few sentences.
I do agree with the poster above however, I don't think anybody should have to smell like car exhaust when they get to the office. Who's in with me for the ban movement? Let's ban cars within city limits. We can do it! Fired up! Ready to go!
I'm honestly surprised that there has been much in the way of requiring bars and other non-smoking establishments to have an ashtray, can or other such receptacle outside for use by their smoking patrons.
Of all cities, I assumed SF could/would do it. It's ok though, I've been thinking of making it my a thesis/side project... so maybe, just maybe, look for a law for a non-profit that provides butt containers to bars and restaurants and the like.
No one go stealing my idea now!
@periqueblend
The cars argument is stupid. First of all, cars actually serve a useful purpose. Second, people are aware of the issue with vehicle exhaust, and a lot is being done about it. I'd rather sit behind a modern, well maintained vehicle than a cigarette smoker. And tons of resources are being devoted to eliminating the need for cars altogether.
So your argument is that cigarette smoke should be treated more like vehicle exhaust? Well, in that case I think there's not enough being done. If people could stop driving and immediately save money, improve their health, and stop screwing up the environment without any downside, I'd sure as hell do it. If that was the case, the fact that driving is "fun" or "cool" or "makes me feel good" wouldn't be a good enough reason for me to continue driving.
jlantsberger: should we ban cigarettes altogether? Um, yes.
Manys: ban cars in the city? Um, yes.
And anyone who equates the scent of a car driving past to actually walking behind a person blowing smoke directly into your path is beyond clueless.
Smoking in bars I can avoid. Smoke being blown into my face as I try to go to work is pretty much unavoidable.
jlanstberger,
Ban cars AND cigarettes? What else should we ban to make it more inviting for bike hippies to live in SF? We have too damn many already. Cities have cars; people smoke cigarettes; these are facts of urban living. There's plenty of tracts of land in the sticks to live where there are no cars or cigarettes, if you choose.
Sorry, directed to bluecanary. Them cigs are rotting my brain.
The more expensive cigarettes get, and the more vociferous the anti-smoking crowd, the more I am going to pollute the world with my butts and blow smoke in the faces of the self righteous. The taxes I pay are more than enough to have someone clean up after me and to treat your emphysema.
Jesus, this post has brought out some really stupid arguments. Does not smoking make you an idiot? A quick poll here seems to say yes. Smoking outdoors? Get the fuck over it, you're surrounded by pollutants a million times more dangerous. Cigarette butts threatening our coastline? Listen children the number one ocean polluter by weight is plastic, and an incidious threat are the tiny plastic beads you find in exfloiants. So chickies, think about that next time you scrub your acne-ridden face with some $20 cream you bought from rite aid. Listen, no one smokes anymore, you do not have a problem. The biggest problem with smoking are those amateur fucks who have a few drinks then decide they want a smoke. Listen dickwead, if you're going to smoke, buy your own pack and develop the addiction like everyone else. You can't have it both ways.
@fizzandpop, honestly it's less about the polluting/health affects and more about it being annoying as fuck to me and most other non-smokers. Think of the most annoying fucking song you can... now imagine you're walking to work and some douchebag is carrying a stereo and blasting it right in front of you. You'd be pretty annoyed, wouldn't you? Now imagine this happening to you almost every day on your way to work. Maybe you wouldn't say anything to him... maybe you'd acknowledge his right to be an annoying douche... but you'd still be annoyed, and rightfully so. Just because people have a right to be inconsiderate doesn't mean they should be.
mmalone. How about being considerate to me and the other addicts who have been duped by big tobacco and become hooked on their insidious weed. It's not our fault. Show some empathy.
bluecanary: Alright, fine. If your stance is that we should ban smoking altogether, then we have a fundamental disagreement personal rights (right to smoke v. right to never have to be exposed to cigarette smoke), neither will change the other's mind, and I don't see any reason to argue further.
A related thought: Were we to ban cigarettes, what would happen to all those fun health initiatives that the continuous tobacco tax increases are supposed to help fund? Politicians keep trying to introduce more of these, too. I wonder if it's possible that the tax could increase to the point where smokers significantly cut their smoking back/start to quit and the whole thing implodes, or if we're all so addicted that we'll just keep paying whatever price.
mmalone, thanks for so thoughtfully engaging.
The cars argument is unfortunately not stupid though. "I'd rather sit behind a modern, well maintained vehicle than a cigarette smoker." Okay, let's do that in a garage.
The fact is that we have "save the air days". In LA, they have days that are too polluted for kids to play in, forcing them to have recess inside. And California has the toughest emission standards in the entire country, maybe the world. The difference between cigarette smoke and car exhaust is the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting one.
As to people who say we should ban smoking because of its societal issues, where do we stop? Extremism is not an attractive costume. Not all personal choices should be legislated.
mmalone, thanks for so thoughtfully engaging.
The cars argument is unfortunately not stupid though. "I'd rather sit behind a modern, well maintained vehicle than a cigarette smoker." Okay, let's do that in a garage.
The fact is that we have "save the air days". In LA, they have days that are too polluted for kids to play in, forcing them to have recess inside. And California has the toughest emission standards in the entire country, maybe the world. The difference between cigarette smoke and car exhaust is the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting one.
As to people who say we should ban smoking because of its societal issues, where do we stop? Extremism is not an attractive costume. Not all personal choices should be legislated.
@mmalone, you're full of it, really. Where do you live, Paris? There are no smokers on the street these days. Try standing on a corner without a light waiting for a fellow smoker to come past and give you one. It takes forever. Besides smelling other people's tobacco smoke is a priviledge. You should thank them for sharing. You should grow a thicker skin and stop being such a whiney.
It's hopeless. They probably don't even like whiskey.
While we're banning cars and cigarettes, can we do something about the people at Trader Joe's who just leave their cart in the middle of everything while they get a thimble full of soup? I think these people are a greater threat to civilized humanity than cigs and cars, for sure.