Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsThursday, March 6, 2008 10:23 PM CST
Comments Comments (51) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Bars beat smoking ban in theatrical manner
By Gregg Aamot
Associated Press
Advertisement

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. -- 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.

At The Rock, a hard-rock and heavy-metal bar in suburban St. Paul, the "actors" during "theater night" do little more than sit around, drink, smoke and listen to the earsplitting music.

"They're playing themselves before Oct. 1. You know, before there was a smoking ban," owner Brian Bauman explained. Shaping the words in the air with his hands, like a producer envisioning the marquee, he said: "We call the production, `Before the Ban!'"

The smoking ban, passed by the Legislature last year, allows actors to light up in character during theatrical performances as long as patrons are notified in advance.

About 30 bars in Minnesota have been exploiting the loophole by staging the faux theater productions and pronouncing cigarettes props, according to an anti-smoking group.

"It's too bad they didn't put as much effort into protecting their employees from smoking," grumbled Jeanne Weigum, executive director of the Association for Nonsmokers.

The Health Department this week vowed to begin cracking down on theater nights with fines of as much as $10,000.

"The law was enacted to protect Minnesotans from the serious health effects of secondhand smoke," Minnesota Health Commissioner Sanne Magnan said. "It is time for the curtain to fall on these theatrics."

At The Rock earlier this week, a black stage curtain covered part of the entrance, and a sign next to it with an arrow read, "Stage Entrance." Along the opposite wall, below a sign saying "Props Dept.," was a stack of the only props needed: black ashtrays.

At the door was a printed playbill for that night's program, with a list of names of the people portraying bartenders and security guards. Playing the owner: "Brian."

Courtney Conk paid $1 for a button that said "Act Now" and pinned it to her shirt. That made her an actor for the night, entitling her to smoke. She turned in an understated, minimalist performance, sitting with cigarette in hand and talking to a bass player with the band.

"I thought it was funny that they found a loophole," Conk said. "I'm more of an activist-actor tonight, you could say. I think it's kind of this way of saying what we think about the ban."

While The Rock asks nothing of its actors by way of creativity, a few other bars have been a little more theatrical.

At Barnacles Resort and Campground along Lake Mille Lacs, a "traveling tobacco troupe" dressed in medieval costume on the first theater night. Mark Benjamin, a lawyer who pushed bars to exploit the loophole, wore tights, a feathered cap and black boots.

"Hey, I'm a child of the '60s. I can do a little improv," he said. His improv amounted to speaking in medieval character to other patrons.

In Hill City, Mike's Uptown owner Lisa Anderson has been offering theater night once a week. The bar had a Mardi Gras theme last Saturday, attracting about 30 patrons, most of them in costume.

"I was dressed in a Victorian dress with the old fluffy thing that weighs 500 pounds," she said. "We had some fairies and some pirates and a group of girls - I'm not sure what they were, but they had big boas and flashy makeup."

Though there were no skits, Anderson said some people "start talking with different accents." She added: "It's turned into the funnest thing I can imagine."

One bar on northern Minnesota's Iron Range, the Queen City Sports Place, calls its nightly smokefest "The Tobacco Monologues."

Proving anew there's no business like show business, Anderson said her theater-night receipts have averaged $2,000 - up from $500 right after the ban kicked in. Similarly, Bauman said revenue at The Rock dropped off 30 percent after the ban took effect, then shot back up to normal once the bar began allowing smoking again.

He and other bar owners said they plan to continue putting on theater nights.

"There's no question we were struggling," he said. "And we are extremely nervous that this is going to go away, and we will be back to the way it was."

Take a look
An "Act Now" button (purchased for $1) identifies Courtney Conk as an "improvisational actress", allowing her to light up a cigarette at the Rock Nightclub on "theater night" in Maplewood, Minn., Wed, March 5, 2008. Because a new smoking ban in Minnesota's bars contains an exception for theatrical productions, some bars are getting around the law by printing up playbills, issuing costumes to their customers, and pronouncing them "actors." (AP Photo/Janet Hostetter)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 51 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:51 AM:

" TO: Ldylck7

Because certain productions call for the main character (or supporting characters) to smoke. "

ldylck7 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Why is it ok for Theatrical people to smoke but no one else in public places? Why are these people so special? "

coach wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:53 PM:

" jeez I didn't realize that alcohol wasn,t an addiction just smoking but I guess you can just go drink the water and recycle your drugs and drink in "clean air" If you don't like smoke in a bar drink at home!!! "

Geez! wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:57 PM:

" Mizzlin is right - anything for their addiction, regardless of who it hurts or how it hurts them. Their parents must be so very proud of them! They are giving themselves and others cancer and they couldn't be happier! Maybe if they were given semi-automatic weapons, they could kill themselves faster and in a less painful way. Would that make them happy? "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:48 AM:

" TO: Poorjimmy. I agree, this fight is far from over. I have been intentionally trying to get a smoking ticket so I can take this to the supremem court. As was stated in a prev article, there is no due process in place for this ban. An officer shows up, someone points to you and says it was you smoking (even if it wasn't) you get a ticket. There is no appeals process. I haven't gone so far as to smoke in a building (as I can't be sure if it was the owners choice to go non-smoking or not) but I sure don't stand 15 ft from the doors and I even try to waive down officers as they pass, but they don't seem to care. Guess I'll have to find another way to get this to court. "

PoorJimmy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:06 AM:

" I heard one bar received a ticket which they framed, hung up in the bar and planned on fighting in court. Hard to say this is over. I vacation in the Brainerd area every year and several bars were saying they will ignore the ban. Interesting to see if they are doing so. I would guess Minnesota is like Illinois upside down, the further north you go, rather than south in IL, the more bars blatantly ignore the law. "

Gov't Depressed Mule wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:24 PM:

" The show is over. The bars were threatened with the loss of their liquor licenses and they stopped the shows. The are now smoke-free again. It was cute, but pointless. Smokefree is the future. Encore Encore. "

mizzlin wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:29 AM:

" I just saw this article, and I can't believe what length's these addict's will go to, to get their fix. What a bunch of looney toons...It just goes to show that profit's are more important to some ppl, than health concerns...pitiful...... "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:01 AM:

" This was just reported by the AP, yet my cigarettes is what's causing the world's cancer. Right. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:00 AM:

" Not sure if anybody else read this but "A vast array of pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows…the presence of so many prescription drugs - and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen - in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health. In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas - from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky." "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:03 AM:

" To: Jipsi

Thank you for the step in and rest assured your defense didn't go to my head :-) I appreciate the fact that you do disagree with me on topics. My stance may seem a little "Harsh" or "bullheaded" but they are that way to encourage people to think. I greatly enjoy actual intelligent debates, which is the reason I got on here in the first place. If you only talk with people who agree with you, you will only be surrounded by yes men and you'll never get any new input. So in short thanks again and I look forward to disagreeing with you sometime. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:45 PM:

" to JD: "The others are too smart"??? Riiight. They wanted to conserve the precious "super" brain cells when it came to choosing user-names, too, I suppose. Obviously, Gov't Oppressed Mule IS the original one. And more thoughtful and intelligent than the childish antics of the sardonic posers combined. I might've (which is short for "might HAVE", NOT "might of", BTW) had respect for them (or, he, as in singular, hmm?) on topics they chose to comment in had they NOT chosen to pick names to simply confuse and irritate others. That's NOT a hallmark of 'freedom'; it's ANARCHY. If you have things to say, at least be REAL, be original! ... To Government Oppressed Mule: Don't let my support go to your head, now. There ARE some things we do disagree on! But I HAD to step in and say something here about the 'name game' that's been going on... "

JD wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:19 PM:

" I don't know if I'm depressed or oppressed or abreviated, but I'm definitely confused. Who is who? Will the real mule please stand up? Based on the incoherent comments I say the original is the real one. The others are too smart. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:38 PM:

" TO: GOM
No need to be confused you and Gov't depressed Mule have attempted to thwart my arguements on the sole basis of causing confusion, great tactic. What's wrong can't take on any arguements head on? "

Country Boy wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:20 PM:

" hey GDM , all vehicles emit carbon monoxide too, so what are you driving? Sam, change the playbill to include Marlboro Lights and I am there! "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Hey Sam! When you do this show, let me know. I'll volunteer my lungs to bring your art to life :-) "

GOM wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:58 PM:

" How do we know which mule is the right one? Are they the same? I'm confused. "

isualumni wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:38 PM:

" to GOM, just as I expected, ask people to look at the facts that go against their opinion and all one hears is screaming and insults. Now if someone could show me a valid study that refutably proves the danger of SHS I will concede, just tell me where to find it. either way, even if SHS is dangerous, its the employees decision and choice to work in that place of business, they dont have to if they dont want too. "

Sam Wainwright wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Great, now I'll have someplace to debut my new three-act play "A Cancerous Tumor Named Desire". It's a very thrilling romance set in Winston-Salem, NC., and each of the main characters smokes an entire carton of Lucky Strikes in the first half. Ah, the theater.... "

mizzlin wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:12 PM:

" to DK61727
Wow, what a neat thing, to have a relative that lived to the age of 112. That should make you feel good to know that such strong genes are in your bloodline. This might be wrong, because I'm not a specialist in any medical field, but I have often wondered if family genes, some being stronger than others, might have an affect upon the way certain things affect some ppl. I think that we can all agree, smoker or not, that the habit is not the healthiest thing one could do to oneself. But could it be true, that some families bloodlines are stronger in the way of immunities? If so, maybe some ppl are fortunate enough to be able to be unaffected by the affects of nicotine. I'd just like to know though, how long the smokers that exposed your aunt to the SHS lived to be? "

Anchor wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:04 PM:

" ....Hey! Looks like those people are exercising freedom over there! Some one better go stomp it out before it catches on!!!! Before long EVERYONE will want some. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:50 AM:

" To: Gov't Depressed Mule.
I don't need your post to tell me that people that make statements as facts then back them up with comments like "I don't need any studies" just goes to prove their intelligence level, but then again you couldn't even come up with your own name so what did I expect? "

Gov't Depressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:13 AM:

" I don't need any studies to tell me that SHS is harmful. It contains carbon monoxide. Keep thinning the herd. "

isualumni wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:39 AM:

" First I am a recently new non smoker, been clean for a month. Besides that, I still believe this is a private property issue and that the whole SHS issue is mostly hype. Its amazing how anyone who might question this issue is considered 'brain addled' and stupid. Lets remember that OSHA which handles the issue of health in the workplace, has never found any credible evidence that SHS is harmful to others in the work environment. Studies on SHS either show no statistically significant correlation between SHS and health effects, or have significant statistical errors within their analysis. Infact a Pro non-smoking judge who rules against tabacco companies even through out the main SHS study for statistical inaccuracies. Now its no longer the nicotine talking, and Im pretty sure i have taken more math and statistics courses than nearly all of you folks in this post, so what are you going to blame this time. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Ok, it seems the meaning of my post was lost on several people. So I will try to explain a different way. I was not talking about bar owners not enforcing the ban. I was talking about people using their brains (or facsimile there of) and choice and working in an environment that they enjoy. If my business started making all employees were pink tutu's to work I would quit and find a job that I enjoyed. Not sit on an internet website and post venomous posts to people who wore tutu's and petition our congressman to pass laws banning the wearing of tutu's. But I'm the bad guy because I can use choice and others can't? "

DK61727 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:06 AM:

" My great aunt recently passed away. Immediately before her death, she was the 23d oldest living person in the world. She didn't smoke, but she lived in a household of smokers for the most part of her nearly 112 years. Obviously, the second-hand smoke finally got her. I had warned her, but she wouldn't listen. "

Gov't Depressed Mule wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:07 AM:

" Be careful M. Looks like someone is threatening to stalk you. What the poster doesn't acknowledge is that smoking harms more than just the smoker. He will deny it, but people with more brains than him say otherwise. And while we have his attention. Why the 2 monikers? "

jipsi wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:03 AM:

" (finally, cont 4 of 4) Too many people are sweating the small stuff, and THAT'S got a better chance of putting someone in the grave early than putting up with an hour or two of "secondhand smoke" that one night or two a month you and a like-minded non-smoking friend went to a CROWDED, LIVELY bar. ... Wouldn't it have been easier to GIVE UP that urge to "go to the bar" that one night or so a month, and leave it to the smokers and the bar owners who spent 5 nights out of 7 there for many, many years? I guess I just want someone to tell me, and prove, that the smoking ban was GOOD for business, and the people it chased out... The ban is a lot of "little" that's hurting a TON of good people who depend on those personal and public freedoms we've enjoyed for hundreds of years. In the next decade, I expect that irony will come home to the non-smokers, and other ban enthusiasts, in a big way. There. That's my take on the subject. Again. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:03 AM:

" (cont. 3 of 3) A bar was one of the few places smokers could go, a place that kept them in one place for the night, with their friends (and fellow smokers), and out of the way of the health nuts/anti-smokers, crusaders, whatever. No, I am not a smoker. But I've been around secondhand smoke over thirty years, and have absolutely zero problems. I've also lost friends over the years, and my Mother, and the fact that they were NON-SMOKERS who still managed to contract cancer is a sad irony not lost on me. All the banning and fussing and parading won't change how, or why or when we're all destined to die. All we can do is LIVE and LET LIVE and try to enjoy ourselves while watching that we don't impinge on others' freedoms and "pursuits of happiness" (however it may disgust anyone). (cont 3 of 4) (ALMOST there...) "

jipsi wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:02 AM:

" (cont. 2 of 3) Non-smokers tend to be more health and family/work oriented and typically leave after a drink or two anyway. The bread-and-butter of the business were the smokers who spent the whole evening there (games, pizzas, pitchers, last call, anyone?) - the smokers were the clientele that brought clubs and taverns their SERIOUS revenue. What I'm trying to say is: there ARE exceptions to every rule. Would you try to make a theatre BAN POPCORN because it's "bad" for people's health (not to mention because of complaints of the folks who get ill just getting a whiff of that buttery snack, or the ones irritated by the "loud smacking" of those enjoying a bucket during the show)? Of course not. Bars and smoke and beer are like that. They simply "went together". They supported each other.(cont. 2 of 4)

"

jipsi wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:02 AM:

" to A Friend: What if all of the employees are smokers, too? Having spent quite a few years in the nightclub business (both behind the bar, waitressing and as a manager for a few bands/musicians, not to mention quite a few years clubbing every other night with friends after work), I can attest with great conviction that 99.9% of the staff were smokers, and if they weren't, they didn't care (And I'm NOT talking decades ago, either.)! Friends I've talked to, still in the biz in B-N, will vouch that they can count on one hand the "happy non-smokers" at their place. The majority patrons are the long time regulars that continue to visit, but not for as long (Having to go out to their car everytime they want to have a smoke is a nuisance (I expect the cracks about THAT, don't really care because I'm talking about a bigger issue here), and then most just don't go back in once they've had to finish their drink and are already outside); this means the owners' revenue decreased drastically. (cont, 1 of 4) "

Waffle of Justice wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:02 PM:

" To: Just Walk Out wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:24 PM: So you are impressed with being a child and milking a free meal while advocating drinking and driving? Wow you really might want to put you morals in check before pointing the finger. I send a kudos to these people, yes I may not agree with their decision, but you have to give them creativity points. MN law can go ahead and fine them, but in my eyes until this "loophole" is closed their actions are perfectly legal, but my eyes do not share the same views as the state who are run by special interest groups. "

The original JD wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:35 PM:

" To: M. Maybe these people smoke because they want too? Just because something is considered harmful to a person, does not mean they do not enjoy it. Just like all the chemicals and preservatives in your food could be considered harmful. How about eating a Big Mac? Maybe the fatty french fries? The point is that it is not your responsibility to judge why anyone is doing anything legal. You attempt to call into question the intelligence of smokers, but I am willing to wager a years salary that if I was to follow you around for 1 week, I could list off 10 things you do that are just as harmful. "

gwreck wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:54 PM:

" News flash for the smoke nazis, where there is a will, there will be smoke. Like it or not you non smoking cry babies, we will prevail and find places to smoke despite your socialist efforts to keep it from us. I am just amazed at all the local places where we can still light up, because the smoke nazis are too busy telling others how to live that they are not patronizing local businesses they promised to take up the slack when the smoking ban passed. To all you smoke facists remember this; we are AMERICANS and we adapt and endure to achieve the prize. In this case the prize very well could be a Marlboro red. "

Santo Fan wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:45 PM:

" Hey GOM: Before I respond to your post, let me just say that I am not 100% in agreement that SHS causes physical harm. I think the jury is still out. That being said, if there is a law on the books (re: the smokking ban) that serves, among others, the purpose of protecting the health of workers, you can bet that the employer will be held to a high standard of providing a safe/smoke free work environment. If the bar owner decides to ignore the law and allows smoking in his or her establishment then the employee can seak a legal resolution that would end up requiring the business owner comply with the law. So, if this Minnesota law is ammended and the loop hole is eliminated, the bar owner will have to comply....and an employee could force the bar owner to do so. "

Gov't Depressed Mule wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:49 PM:

" Brother have you got it wrong. At will has nothing to due with health regulations. The smoking ban is a health regulation. Just like not allowing mice feces in the corn flakes. Mama is going to be mad. "

RichieGB wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:12 PM:

" Patriots. All of them. "

M wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:52 PM:

" to just a thought...what comments of JD's are disturbing? I am not sure you can argue that cigarettes and nicotine do kill people. People who smoke ARE addicted, why else would someone smoke? Pinky Tuscadero isn't around any longer to make it look cool. Second hand smoke does harm those who are forced to breathe it in. "

real american wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Funny how people have to always go around the law to protect their right of free choice. Hey pro choice advocates, KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY. "

just a thought wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:40 PM:

" To JD: You're comments are quite disturbing. Almost theatrical in nature. The article sorta reminds me of the Boston Tea Party, and it's about the same ideals whether it be taxation, banning a customer or business owner a common right to use a legal product or FORCING people to use loopholes (prohibition didn't work remember) Shameful, but God bless America. Go Minnesotans! "

Life is Good wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Stupid is, as stupid does. Some people will go to any length to feed their addiction.....senseless. "

cats55ire wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:07 PM:

" I agree with JD - all you smokers, keep it up! Keep smoking (filling your precious lungs with all that nasty smoke) and let us know how well you're able to breath in about a year or two (if you're still around). "

Gov't Oppressed Mule wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Hey A FRIEND, have you ever heard the term "At will employment"? This means that you are under no contractual obligation with your employer. If you don't like the fact that your employer (you know the person signing your paycheck?) allows smoking, our wonderful gov't has coined the term "at will" meaning you can walk out and refuse to work for somebody who doesn't have the same ideas as you. We have abolished slavery you CHOOSE to continue working in these establishments just goes to show that it is YOU (not your employer) who cares nothing for your health. Personal responsability, it's part of being a grown up. "

Just Walk Out wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Can't wait until they start getting ticketed and fined 10K.

Well tonight is Thursday and that is the night we go out and have a free dinner compliments of McLean county smokers. We're bringing 2 other couples and we going to have some pizza, some ribs and a couple of pitchers. We got the heads up on a place where folks still light up with the owners permission. Thank you rubes.

Bon appetite.
"

JD wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:09 PM:

" It is amazing that people smart enough to circumvent the spirit of the law are stupid enough to use a product that will kill themselves and harm innocent people around them. It is a testament to how addicted these people are. Nicotine controls their lives. How sad it is that they do not have the moral turpitude to repect others. "

who cares wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:07 PM:

" i think it's clever idea but it won't last. "

vzbb wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:02 PM:

" That's awesome! And I like how the article pointed out the decrease in revenue after the ban and the increase now after the loophole! Too bad Illinois won't do exemptions that could help out bar owners. "

O'l Bear wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:01 PM:

" All I can say is,where there is a will,there is a way!!!!!!!!! More power to them. "

A Friend wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:52 PM:

" It will just be a matter of time before this is corrected. This tactic shows contempt for the employess of these establishments. Thankfully, it will not work in Illinois. "

gabriel wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Ha ha, that's hilarious... :) "

Country Boy wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:41 PM:

" now thats called beating the system. any loopholes like that in the Illinois law? "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy